Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Various Amendments, 2021): SOR/2022-246

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 156, Number 25

Registration
SOR/2022-246 November 25, 2022

AERONAUTICS ACT

P.C. 2022-1245 November 25, 2022

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Various Amendments, 2021) under section 4.9footnote a of the Aeronautics Act footnote b.

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Various Amendments, 2021)

Amendments

1 Subpart 6 of Part IV of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Canadian Aviation Regulations footnote 1 is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 406.36(1)”:

Column I

Designated provision

Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
Individual Corporation
Subsection 406.36(6) 5,000 25,000
2 Part VII of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 700.09(3)”:

Column I

Designated provision

Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
Individual Corporation
Subsection 700.09(4) 5,000 25,000
3 Subpart 6 of Part VII of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 706.03(1)”:

Column I

Designated provision

Column II

Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
Individual Corporation
Subsection 706.03(8) 5,000 25,000

4 Paragraphs 201.01(4)(a) and (b) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

5 The portion of subsection 302.206(3) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(3) The operator of an airport shall have in their possession and review and update annually, if necessary, an airport grid map that includes a minimum of

6 Subsections 302.305(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(1) The operator of an airport shall establish and maintain an airport wildlife management plan in accordance with section 322.305 of the Airport Standards — Airport Wildlife Planning and Management.

(2) The operator of the airport shall submit the plan to the Minister in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection 322.305(2) of the Airport Standards — Airport Wildlife Planning and Management.

7 Paragraph 305.10(2)(b) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

8 Paragraph 406.05(1)(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

9 (1) Paragraph 406.19(1)(c) of the Regulations is repealed.

(2) Subsection 406.19(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by repealing paragraph (f).

(3) Subsections 406.19(2) and (3) of the Regulations are repealed.

10 (1) The portion of subsection 406.36(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:

(2) The person responsible for the maintenance control system may assign the management functions for the entire quality assurance program established under section 406.47, including the authority to remove aircraft from operation under subsection (6), to another person if

(2) Subsection 406.36(3) of the Regulations is amended by replacing “paragraph 406.19(1)(f)” with “subsection (6)”.

(3) Section 406.36 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):

(6) The person responsible for the maintenance control system shall remove aircraft from operation if the removal is justified because of non-compliance with the requirements of these Regulations or because of a risk to aviation safety or the safety of the public.

11 Subparagraphs 521.357(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the French version of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

12 (1) Subsection 561.04(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (a), by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraph (c).

(2) Subsections 561.04(2) to (4) of the Regulations are repealed.

13 (1) Paragraph 573.03(1)(d) of the Regulations is repealed.

(2) Subsections 573.03(2) and (3) of the Regulations are repealed.

14 Paragraph 573.04(4)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

15 Paragraph 604.04(1)(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

16 (1) Paragraph 700.09(1)(g) of the Regulations is repealed.

(2) Subsection 700.09(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) The maintenance manager appointed under paragraph (1)(a) shall remove aircraft from operation if the removal is justified because of non-compliance with the requirements of these Regulations or because of a risk to aviation safety or the safety of the public.

(4) The holder of an air operator certificate issued under section 705.07 shall ensure that the person managing the safety management system referred to in section 705.153 performs the duties set out in that section.

17 Subsection 700.29(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) An air operator who has assigned to a flight crew member a flight duty period that will result in the member’s number of hours of work exceeding those referred to in paragraph (1)(c) shall ensure that the member has 120 consecutive hours free from duty, including 5 consecutive local nights’ rest, before assigning a flight duty period that will result in the member’s number of hours of work exceeding those referred to in that paragraph.

18 Subsection 700.70(9) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(9) If the reserve availability period begins between 02:00 and 05:59 at the location where the flight crew member is acclimatized and the member is not contacted by the air operator during that period, the air operator may extend the reserve duty period by two hours or 50% of the reserve availability period that falls between 02:00 and 05:59, whichever is shorter.

19 Subsection 700.119(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

700.119 (1) An air operator shall provide each flight crew member with one of the following periods of time free from duty:

20 Paragraph 701.08(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

21 Paragraph 701.09(c) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

22 Paragraph 702.08(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

23 Subparagraph 702.09(i)(i) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

24 Paragraph 703.08(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

25 Subparagraph 703.09(i)(i) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

26 Paragraph 704.08(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

27 Subparagraph 704.09(i)(i) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

28 Paragraph 705.08(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

29 Subparagraph 705.09(i)(i) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

30 Subparagraphs 705.175(a)(i) and (ii) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

31 (1) Paragraph 706.03(1)(c) of the Regulations is repealed.

(2) Subsection 706.03(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by repealing paragraph (f).

(3) Subsections 706.03(2) and (3) of the Regulations are repealed.

(4) Section 706.03 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (7):

(8) The person responsible for the maintenance control system of the holder of an air operator certificate shall remove aircraft from operation if the removal is justified because of non-compliance with the requirements of these Regulations or because of a risk to aviation safety or the safety of the public.

32 Paragraph 706.08(2)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

33 Paragraph 801.06(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

34 Paragraph 903.02(a) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Coming into Force

35 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR) has raised concerns with various elements of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs), as follows:

In addition to addressing these concerns raised by the SJCSR, this low-impact regulatory package will codify two exemptions and address editorial concerns:

Aircraft are identified by the information etched on the aircraft identification plate — the aircraft manufacturer name, the aircraft model, and the serial number. Aircraft manufacturers sometimes go through name changes or corporate mergers; this has caused industry confusion over which manufacturer name is the accurate name for the identification plate. Exemption NCR-002-2012 was developed to clarify the language in subsection 201.01(4) related to requirements for Aircraft Identification Plates and should be codified in the CARs.

Background

Grid maps

Volume I of Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, produced by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), indicates that an airport emergency plan should include grid maps of the aerodrome and immediate vicinity. These maps show the airport and immediate area with a grid overlay and indicate areas relevant to the airport emergency plan.

The requirements of Subpart 302 (paragraph 302.203(2)(b) and subsection 302.206(3)) of the CARs include developing and maintaining an airport grid map, which must be included in the airport’s emergency plan. At present, some airports develop their own grid maps, some work with their municipality to create them, and other airports have grid maps that have been developed by contractors.

In July of 2011, the SJCSR wrote TC to ask how long airport operators have to comply with the requirement of preparing an airport grid map. The current requirement is for the airport operator to develop an airport grid map (without any specified timeline) and, if necessary, review and update it annually. Since several airports already have a grid map, the SJCSR stated that the requirement should not be to develop (especially since they may not be the sole developer of the map — airport operators sometimes partner with other members of industry to develop accurate grid maps), but rather to possess or hold a grid map.

Airport wildlife management plans

The requirements of section 302.305 of the CARs include the establishment and maintenance of an airport wildlife management plan. Specifically, subsection 302.302(1) of the CARs describes the conditions that would require an airport to have an airport wildlife management plan (location, number of aircraft movements per year, etc.). Subsection 302.305(1) indicates that the plan must be established and maintained in accordance with Standard 322. The requirement to submit the initial airport wildlife management plan in the form of a manual to the Minister is contained in subsection 322.305(2) of Standard 322.

In April 2011, the SJCSR pointed out what they believed to be an inconsistency regarding the requirements for submission of the plan to the Minister. Subsection 302.305(2) might be interpreted as requiring the initial plan to be submitted to the Minister only upon request. In contrast, subsection 302.305(6) clearly requires submission of an amended plan to the Minister within 30 days of the amendment.

The SJCSR argued that it is not logical to require an amended plan to be provided to the Minister within a specific time frame when providing the initial plan is not also a clear requirement.

Knowledge interviews (Subparts 406, 561, 573, and 706 of the CARs)

The CARs specify that holders of air operator certificates, approved maintenance organization certificates,footnote 8 and flight training unit operator certificatesfootnote 9 must have an employee who is responsible for overseeing maintenance operations. Depending on the type of air operation (what the operation does, for example: transport passengers commercially or manufacture aircraft parts), this role is described within Part IV, Part V, or Part VII of the CARs (see additional information hereafter), and is referred to as either the maintenance manager, the person responsible for maintenance, the person responsible for manufacturing activities, or the person responsible for the maintenance control system. All of these titles refer to the maintenance head, or in other words, the individual who is accountable for maintenance within the organization.

The hiring of the individual responsible for maintenance for air operators, flight training units and approved maintenance organizations is the responsibility of the certificate holder, and the individual will go through the hiring process of that organization. The CARs clearly indicate the roles and knowledge required for these positions, and the obligation is on the certificate holder to ensure that they are hiring a qualified person.

The knowledge interview was an additional requirement whereby a Civil Aviation Safety Inspector (on behalf of the Minister) performed an interview with newly hired individuals responsible for maintenance to assess their level of knowledge relative to the essential functions of the position. The intent of this interview was for TC to determine whether the individual hired was knowledgeable enough in the required areas to meet the needs of the position. Each interview was typically performed by one or two TC inspectors and took a few hours to complete.

Authority to remove aircraft from operation (Subparts 406, 700 and 706 of the CARs)

The CARs contain provisions that require air operator certificate holders to authorize the maintenance manager, person responsible for maintenance and person responsible for the maintenance control system to remove an aircraft from operation where the removal is justified because of non-compliance with CARs requirements, or because of a risk to aviation safety or the safety of the public.

In February 2009, the SJCSR noted that the responsibility for removing an aircraft from operation (because it is not compliant or poses a risk) should be included directly in the list of responsibilities of the person responsible for the maintenance control system. Requiring the certificate holder to assign this authority comes with the risk that “in some cases, through omission or otherwise, the person responsible will not receive authorization to remove an aircraft, at least for a certain period of time.”

First level of interference with a crew member (Subpart 705 of the CARs)

Section 705.175 of the CARs describes four levels of interference with crew members. The first level refers to incidents that are minor in nature, and each level is progressively more serious and more disturbing. The second level refers to incidents that are moderately serious, the third level incidents that are seriously threatening and the fourth level incidents that are serious security threats. In August 2011, the SJCSR noted that the use of the expressions “unacceptable language” and “unacceptable behaviour” in the definition of a level 1 incident is too vague.

The SJCSR asserts that different interpretations of what constitutes “unacceptable language” or “unacceptable behaviour” in a level 1 incident are possible. The SJCSR’s concern is that the same language or behaviour could be considered acceptable to one crew member but unacceptable to another, resulting in an inconsistent application of the CARs. The SJCSR has also noted that use of the term “unacceptable” sometimes makes the classification of an incident between level 1 and level 2 ambiguous.

Legal name terminology (Subparts 305, 406, 521, 604, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, and 903 of the CARs)

In August 2011, the SJCSR flagged the discrepancy between the English and French versions of the CARs with respect to the use of the term “legal name” in the English version and “dénomination sociale” in the French version. TC and the SJCSR agreed that the term “legal name” in the English version is used in the context of both individuals and corporations, whereas the use of “dénomination sociale” in the French version represents corporations only. The SJCSR based their interpretation on various federal statutes that use the term “corporate name,” rather than “legal name,” as the equivalent to “dénomination sociale.”

TC determined that, in several provisions, the concept could be better expressed in the French version with revised language. In some instances, changes are not required, as the concept is already adequately expressed in both languages.

Flight and Duty Time Regulations (Subpart 700 of the CARs)

Shortly after the publication of the Flight and Duty Time Regulations on December 12, 2018, two errors were identified.

Based on an editorial error, subsection 700.119(1) required that, in the case of medical evacuation flights, air operators provide flight crew members with time free from duty “(a) at least 36 consecutive hours in 7 days; and (b) at least 3 consecutive days in 17 days.” These two elements were meant to be exclusive, i.e. the CARs were supposed to require either (a) or (b), but not both. Left uncorrected, this error would have required operators to provide flight crew members both time free from duty options presented in section 700.119, rather than just one. In addition, subsection 700.119(1) did not include another time free from duty option (at least 4 consecutive days within each 19 consecutive days) permitted under exemption NCR-036-2007, which applies to all Subpart 704 and 705 non-helicopter operations (which have daily operations from a sub-base in Canada). In response to the error and the oversight, exemption NCR-135-2020 was developed to ensure that Subpart 705 medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) operators would have the same options as other Subpart 704 and 705 non-helicopter operations, and to clarify that the three options for time free from duty are exclusive to one another, i.e. that only one must be met. As a result of NCR-135-2020, MEDEVAC operators did not assume any costs associated with the error or the oversight.

Exemption NCR-036-2007 will continue to remain in effect until December 2022, when the requirements for Subpart 704 MEDEVAC operations that were introduced in 2018 come into force, at which point the validity of NCR-036-2007 will be nullified.

Additional minor editorial issues that require corrections also came to TC’s attention after the Flight and Duty Time Regulations were published in 2018. Amendments are needed to correct a reference in subsection 700.29(2) from paragraph (1)(d) to paragraph (1)(c), and to make a minor amendment in the English version of subsection 700.70(9) to better correspond with the French wording of the same subsection.

Codification of NCR-002-2012 (Subpart 201 of the CARs)

Both the English and French versions of subsection 201.01(4) need to be amended to address a long-standing issue (since 2004) related to aircraft identification plates.

Subsection 201.01(4) identifies the information required to be etched on an aircraft identification plate, which includes the name of the aircraft manufacturer. Aircraft manufacturers may change their name over time, but it is important to TC (for accurate aircraft identification and maintenance) that the aircraft identification plate indicate the name of the manufacturer at the time the aircraft was manufactured. Since 2004, exemptionsfootnote 10 have been in place to ensure that the CARs do not require the update of aircraft ID plates when manufacturers change names.

Objective

The objective of the amendments is to ensure the clarity, certainty, and consistency of various requirements in the CARs in response to issues identified by the SJCSR and by TC.

Description

Grid maps and airport wildlife management plans (Subpart 302 of the CARs)

Grid maps: The language in subsection 302.206(3) is amended to indicate that the airport operator must possess an airport grid map that meets the requirements set out in this subsection.

Airport wildlife management plans: Given that Standard 322 requires the submission of the plan, the amendments remove “on request by the Minister” from subsection 302.305(2) to clarify the regulatory requirements and better reflect the current practice of submitting all initial plans at certification and bringing the requirement in line with amended plans. This will have no impact on existing airports.

Subsection 302.305(2) of the CARs is amended to clarify that the initial submission (to the Minister) of an airport wildlife management plan is required (as per section 322.305 of Standard 322footnote 11) and must meet the requirements of Standard 322 related to the submission of amended plans.

Knowledge interviews (Subparts 406, 561, 573, and 706 of the CARs)

The requirement for the Minister to interview the individual responsible for maintenance in various types of organizations is removed from the CARs. There will no longer be a requirement for the Minister to interview an individual newly hired as a maintenance manager in relation to Subparts 702, 703, 704, and 705; a person responsible for maintenance in relation to Subpart 573; a person responsible for the maintenance control system in relation to Subparts 406 and 706; or a person responsible for manufacturing activities in relation to Subpart 561.

Authority to remove aircraft from operation (Subparts 406, 700 and 706 of the CARs)

The amendments add the responsibility of removing an aircraft from operation directly to the list of responsibilities in Subparts 406, 700 and 706 for the maintenance manager, the person responsible for maintenance, and the person responsible for the maintenance control system. In addition, the amendments repeal the obligation for the certificate holder to authorize the maintenance manager, the person responsible for maintenance, and the person responsible for the maintenance control system to remove an aircraft from operation.

First level of interference with a crew member (Subpart 705 of the CARs)

The amendments replace the wording “unacceptable language” and “unacceptable behaviour” in paragraph 705.175(a), which pertains to level 1 incidents,footnote 7 with the wording “insulting or obscene language” and “the causing of a disturbance, including verbal abuse or obscene gestures towards a crew member.”

Legal name terminology (Subparts 305, 406, 521, 604, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, and 903 of the CARs)

The amendments replace instances of “dénomination sociale” in the French version of the CARs (subparts listed in heading) with language to specify that both individuals and entities must provide their legal name.

In some cases, the use of “dénomination sociale” in the French version adequately captures the intent of the CARs, which is to require the legal name of a corporation. In certain contexts, slightly revised language better expresses the requirement to give the legal name of an individual or a corporation. For example, the French version of subparagraph 521.357(1)a)(ii), “il lui fournit la dénomination sociale, l’adresse et le numéro de téléphone du cessionnaire,” becomes “il lui fournit le nom ou la dénomination sociale du cessionnaire, selon le cas, ainsi que ses adresse et numéro de téléphone.”

Flight and Duty Time Regulations (Subpart 700 of the CARs)

The amendments codify exemption NCR-135-2020, which was issued on December 12, 2020. This exemption permits air operators conducting medical evacuation flights within Canada, under Subpart 705 of the CARs, to provide each flight crew member with time free from duty of one period of at least 4 consecutive calendar days within each period of 19 consecutive days, in addition to the current options contained in paragraphs 700.119(1)(a) and (b) of the CARs, which allow one period of at least 36 consecutive hours within each 7 consecutive days or one period of at least 3 consecutive calendar days within each 17 consecutive days, respectively. In addition to codifying NCR-135-2020, the amendments also correct an editorial error — all three options for time free from duty should be presented as exclusive to one another (i.e. the “and” at the end of the paragraph is replaced with “or”). Changing the “and” at the end of the list to an “or” signifies that any of the options are permitted as time free from duty; the three options do not represent a cumulative obligation. In addition, subsection 700.29(2) is amended to correct a reference to paragraph (1)(d) (it should refer to paragraph (1)(c)), and the English version of subsection 700.70(9) is amended to better correspond with the French wording.

Codification of NCR-002-2012 (Subpart 201 of the CARs)

Paragraph 201.01(4)(a) of the CARs is amended to require that the manufacturer name, as it was when the aircraft was manufactured, is the name that must be etched on the aircraft ID plate.

Rationale

Grid maps and airport wildlife management plans (Subpart 302 of the CARs)

These amendments provide the necessary clarification to address the SJCSR concerns.

Knowledge interviews (Subparts 406, 561, 573, and 706 of the CARs)

In reviewing the concerns raised by the SJCSR, TC looked at measures to continue performing the ministerial interview to confirm the maintenance manager’s (or person responsible for maintenance’s, or person responsible for the maintenance control system’s) knowledge. One option considered was to amend the CARs to add additional recourse for TC. This option was not chosen for several reasons:

In addition, the CARs already provide knowledge requirements for these positions, for example:

In light of existing knowledge requirements that already apply to specific positions, it was determined that the requirement for an interview was not necessary and, therefore, should be removed. While a formal interview is no longer part of the CARs, inspectors will continue to ensure that certificate holders and maintenance heads are meeting their requirements by interviewing people as part of regular inspection and audit activities. Should a knowledge gap be identified, inspectors may require corrective actions to be taken.

Authority to remove aircraft from operation (Subparts 406, 700 and 706 of the CARs)

The amendments give authority directly to the responsible individual without the intermediate step of the certificate holder assigning the authority. In practice, the duty is assigned to the person responsible for the maintenance control system upon hiring. Assigning the duty directly in the CARs eliminates the potential risk of the duty assignment being delayed or omitted. The original intent of the CARs remains, which is that the duty be assigned to the person responsible for the maintenance control system.

First level of interference with a crew member (Subpart 705 of the CARs)

In order to address the SJCSR’s concerns about ambiguity in from the phrases “unacceptable language” and “unacceptable behaviour,” the CARS are updated to specify “the use of insulting or obscene language” and “the causing of a disturbance, including verbal abuse or obscene gestures.” TC met with the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), to ensure that the proposed wording would be supported. CUPE, which represents a vast number of Canadian flight attendants, was supportive of the proposed wording but commented that with a diverse workforce, different individuals may have very different opinions about what is offensive. Language that is too restrictive would not meet the needs of the industry.

TC believes that the amended wording provides clarity and strikes a reasonable balance between addressing the SJCSR’s concerns relating to inconsistent interpretation and accepting the reality of a diverse workforce (with different religious, cultural, and personal references). The updated wording is also similar to wording found in the Criminal Code around disorderly conduct and causing a disturbance (“insulting or obscene language”).

An Advisory Circular, which provides interpretation guidance to industry, is also in place to provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of what could constitute interference with a crew member.

Legal name terminology (Subparts 305, 406, 521, 604, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 801, and 903 of the CARs)

These amendments are expected to resolve the SJCSR’s concerns with regards to the accuracy of language and coherence between the English and French versions of the CARs.

The change to paragraph 201.01(4)(a) of the CARs, which clarifies the requirement for ID plates, eliminates the need for exemption NCR-002-2012.

Regulatory development

Consultation

TC has consulted industry stakeholders on these amendments (with the exception of codifying exemption NCR-135-2020) through a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA 2020-019). The NPA was distributed to stakeholders through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) process in January 2021 and was open for comment for 56 days.

Only one submission was received during the consultation period. CUPE submitted comments relating to proposed wording related to the levels of interference with a crew member. The submission was generally supportive of the change and suggested slightly revised wording. The revised wording, which incorporated elements of CUPE’s suggested wording, was prepared and discussed with CUPE representatives on April 27, 2021. CUPE was supportive of TC’s revised proposal and these changes were incorporated. CUPE was pleased to be a part of the process. They represent Canadian flight crew members, and gaining their support indicates that this amendment will be well received by the industry.

On April 7, 2022, TC presented the slightly revised wording at the Canadian Aviation Safety Collaboration Forum to 125 stakeholders (including operators, industry association members, and representatives from the Transportation Safety Board). This wording was well received and supported by industry.

No consultation was done on the minor amendments to the Flight and Duty Time Regulations, as they are codifying an existing exemption requested by the industry to correct an error that could cause misinterpretations if left unchanged.

There were no further comments from stakeholders on any of the topics contained within the NPA.

Exemption from prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The amendments included in this regulatory package are administrative or technical in nature and are not expected to have any negative impacts or impose any costs on stakeholders. Stakeholders have been consulted in detail about the amendments and have not raised any concerns. Therefore, the amendments were not prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation, an analysis was undertaken to determine whether the amendments are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations. This assessment examined the geographic scope and subject matter of the proposal in relation to modern treaties in effect, and after examination, no implications or impacts on modern treaties were identified.

Instrument choice

Amendments are required to address the SJCSR’s concerns and ensure that the requirements are clear, consistent, and accurate. TC reviewed the SJCSR’s concerns and agreed that the issues outlined should be addressed through regulatory changes. As the issues raised by the SJCSR and identified by TC are technical and administrative issues affecting existing requirements in the CARs, they must be dealt with through regulatory amendments. There are no non-regulatory options available to address the issues.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

The cost-benefit analysis looks at a 10-year analytical time frame from 2022 to 2031. All figures presented within this section, unless otherwise noted, are in 2022 dollars expressed in present value using a 7% discount rate and a 2022 base year.

Cost savings are anticipated for both the industry and government as a result of these amendments. Industry will realize minor cost savings due to the elimination of the ministerial interviews with a total present value of $148,294 over the analytical time frame. The Government will also realize present value cost savings of $794,799 due to the elimination of the ministerial interviews, as well as $4,125 due to no longer needing to reissue NCR-135-2020 exemptions. The total present value cost savings of these amendments over the analytical time frame is therefore $947,218.

As referenced, benefits in the form of cost savings for both Government and industry will be realized due to the elimination of the ministerial interviews of individuals providing maintenance, as laid out in the “Description” section. In the baseline scenario, in which these amendments are not in place, it is assumed based on historical data from 2018 to 2020, an average of 212 interviews would continue to occur on an annual basis. An annual average was used in this analysis as there was no significant trend observed within the three years of historical data. It is assumed that these interviews would be two hours in duration, with one individual being interviewed by two safety inspectors (TI-06 classification). An additional hour is assumed to be spent by the safety inspectors with a managing level safety inspector (TI-07 classification) reviewing the results. Based on publicly available information, it was assumed that the hourly rate of those being interviewed, including overhead, would be $46.54. The hourly rates for the two government job classifications are based on the most recent collective bargaining agreement, with an additional overhead applied, resulting in a TI-06 wage of $69.96 and a TI-07 wage of $79.08.

In this scenario, the businesses employing those individuals would have assumed total present value costs of $148,294 associated with the interviews and additional costs of $794,799 would have been assumed by TC to conduct and administer the interviews. Therefore, from the elimination of the ministerial interviews, the total cost savings will be $943,093 over the 10-year time frame.

The Government will also realize cost savings due to no longer needing to periodically reissue NCR-135-2020. In the baseline scenario, TC would need to reissue the exemption in 2025 and 2030, at an estimated resource cost of $2,950 per reissuing. By codifying this exemption, this effort will be avoided. The total present value of these cost savings over the 10-year analytical time frame is therefore estimated to be $4,125.

The other amendments are administrative in nature and involve either updates to better reflect current practices or to provide clarifications at the request of the SJCSR. Given this, no other incremental costs or benefits outside those described in the previous paragraphs are anticipated.

Small business lens

Some businesses will experience cost savings due to the elimination of the requirement for ministerial interviews of individuals providing maintenance. The cost savings to businesses over the 10-year analytical time frame is estimated to be $148,294, most of which will be realized by small businesses. It is estimated that small businesses make up roughly 80% of total affected businesses, which would correspond to estimated cost savings of $118,635 for small businesses.

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no incremental change in administrative burden on business and no regulatory titles are repealed or introduced.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

The amendments are not related to any commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental assessment is not required.

Gender-based analysis plus

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) assessment was conducted to determine if the regulatory amendments would have differential impacts on the basis of identity factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality. The assessment determined that, given their administrative nature, the amendments would not result in any disproportionate impacts on any group of persons based on identity factors.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

These regulatory amendments come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II. Exemption NCR-135-2020, which is codified by the regulatory amendments, will be cancelled on the day that the amendments come into force since it will no longer be required.

Amendments to the following standards are required to remove references to the requirement for the ministerial interview to confirm a person’s (e.g. a maintenance manager) knowledge:

The amended standards will be available to stakeholders on the day that the regulatory amendments come into force.

Compliance and enforcement

Compliance and enforcement will be conducted as part of TC’s regular oversight activities.

Contact

Steve Palisek
Acting Director
Regulatory Affairs
Civil Aviation
Safety and Security Group
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613‑993‑7284 or 1‑800‑305‑2059
Fax: 613‑990‑1198
Email: TC.CARConsultations-RACConsultations.TC@tc.gc.ca