Canada Gazette
www.gazette.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Vol. 134, No. 28 — July 8, 2000
Regulations Respecting Anti-Competitive Acts of Persons Operating a Domestic Service
Statutory Authority
Competition Act
Sponsoring Departments
Department of Industry and Department of Transport
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
Description
These proposed Regulations (hereinafter "the Regulations") would be made pursuant to amendments to the Competition Act which provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations:
1. specifying acts or conduct of a person operating a domestic air service which may be considered anti-competitive acts for the purpose of paragraph 78(1)(j) and section 79 of the Competition Act which deal with abuse of a dominant market position; and
2. specifying facilities or services that are essential to the operation in a market of an air service for the purpose of paragraph 78(1)(k) which provides that denial of access or refusal to supply essential facilities or services on reasonable commercial terms constitutes an anti-competitive act for the purpose of section 79.
The Government's response to the restructuring of the Canadian airline industry brought about by the acquisition of Canadian Airlines International by Air Canada includes amendments to the Competition Act which provide the Commissioner of Competition and the Competition Tribunal with additional enforcement powers to deal with potential abuse of the current dominant carrier, Air Canada, of its market position. The Regulations respond to concern that Air Canada may act in an anti-competitive manner to preserve its dominant market position to eliminate competitors or to deter entry by new competitors in the airline industry. The Regulations, however, are not specific to Air Canada and, where there are grounds to do so, could be applied to any other dominant carrier.
The legislation adding these amendments to the Competition Act stipulates that the Governor in Council may make these Regulations on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Transport.
These Regulations supplement the general provisions of the Competition Act relating to abuse of a dominant market position by defining what would constitute anti-competitive conduct on the part of a dominant air carrier. Market dominance arises where a firm has a high share of a market in which there are high barriers to entry. In other words, the firm does not face effective competition and has sufficient market power to maintain prices which are higher or quality or service levels which are lower than would otherwise exist in a competitive market. The abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act seek to prohibit conduct which would preserve, entrench or enhance a firm's market power by eliminating or disciplining a competitor or by deterring entry into the industry.
The specified anti-competitive acts capture predatory conduct, including predatory or below cost selling to eliminate competitors or to deter entering into a market, or adding capacity or using a low-cost, so-called fighting brand carrier to achieve the same anti-competitive effect. The Regulations also address conduct intended to foreclose competitors such as pre-empting airport services or facilities required by competing carriers or refusing to supply essential services or access to facilities on reasonable commercial terms in circumstances where competitors have no viable alternatives. Finally, the Regulations address the strategic use of frequent flyer programs or other marketing practices for the purpose of eliminating or disciplining competitors or deterring entry into the industry.
Alternatives
The Government chose the alternative of relying on a strengthened Competition Act as opposed to a full industry regulatory regime to address the potential concerns about the potential for Air Canada to abuse its dominant market position. This approach maintains the Government's policy on relying on competition and market forces to protect the interests of consumers. These Regulations provide clarity to industry participants by identifying anti-competitive acts which would be reviewable by the Bureau. In light of Air Canada's overwhelmingly dominant position in the industry (accounting for 90 percent of domestic passenger revenues) and the ease with which a dominant airline can deploy its fleet of aircrafts to target competitors with predatory prices or engage in other anti-competitive practices, the existing provisions of the Competition Act would not be fully adequate to address potential concerns. In this regard, a related amendment to the Competition Act provides the Commissioner of Competition the authority to make temporary cease and desist orders which will permit the Bureau to intervene very quickly in the airline industry to prevent injury or irreparable harm to competition.
Benefits and Costs
These Regulations extend the existing abuse of dominance provisions of the Competition Act and could be viewed as a code of conduct by Air Canada inasmuch as they specify the type of behaviour which is likely to be challenged by the Competition Bureau. The Regulations under the Competition Act do not impose any direct cost on Air Canada, or require it to seek prior approval to implement marketing or other business plans. This approach is much less intrusive and less costly to both Air Canada and the Government than a full industry specific regulatory regime.
Consultation
On April 12, 2000, the Commissioner of Competition tabled, for discussion purposes, a draft of the Regulations before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport. The Commissioner invited interested parties to make their views known to the Bureau and, at the same time, the draft Regulations were posted on the Bureau's Web site. These draft Regulations were the subject of discussion during the hearings on Bill C-26 held by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport and concerns were raised by a number of market participants that they may not be adequate to deal with all identified potential problems, particularly refusal to deal situations. In response to these concerns, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport proposed the adoption of further amendments to section 78 of the Competition Act. These amendments deal specifically with issues raised by industry stakeholders, including access to and supply of essential facilities and services by competitors. On June 6, 2000, the Competition Bureau tabled a revised draft of the Regulations before the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Air Canada has stated publicly that it believes that the existing general provisions of the Competition Act are adequate to deal with competition concerns in the Canadian airline industry, a view also expressed by the Canadian Bar. However, Air Canada has not expressed any concerns with respect to the Regulations as drafted. The company indicated in the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications hearings on June 12 that it views the Regulations as a code of responsible conduct. Competitors to Air Canada, including WestJet, have voiced support for strong competition law enforcement in the Canadian airline industry. On June 20, consultation letters and a draft of the proposed Regulations were sent by the Competition Bureau to major market participants inviting written comments. As part of the pre-publication process, all stakeholders have an additional opportunity for providing comments to the Bureau.
Compliance and Enforcement
The Competition Bureau and the Competition Tribunal will be responsible for the enforcement and administration of these Regulations. Where the Commissioner of Competition believes that Air Canada has engaged in conduct which is contrary to the Regulations, the Bureau can carry out a formal inquiry and, where grounds warrant, file an application for an order of the Tribunal prohibiting the conduct or imposing other sanctions necessary to overcome the impacts on competition.
In most instances, the Commissioner will be acting on a complaint. The Competition Act provides formal powers of investigation, including search and seizure and subpoena powers to obtain written and oral evidence.
To succeed in an application under the abuse of dominance provisions, the Bureau must satisfy the Tribunal that (a) the firm in question is, by virtue of a high market share and barriers to entry into the industry, dominant to a degree that it can influence prices in a relevant market, (b) this firm has engaged in a "practice of anti-competitive acts" and (c) the result is "substantial prevention or lessening of competition." The proposed Regulations relate directly to part (b) above by defining the type of conduct which would constitute a "practice of anti-competitive acts" in the context of the airline industry. However, the Regulations do not alter the test of market dominance or a substantial impact on competition which the Tribunal must find before it can make an order.
Contact
André Lafond, Deputy Commissioner, Civil Matters Branch, Competition Bureau, 50 Victoria Street, Hull, Quebec K1A 0C9, (819) 997-1209.
PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT
Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council proposes, pursuant to subsection 78(2)(see footnote a) of the Competition Act(see footnote b), to make the annexed Regulations Respecting Anti-Competitive Acts of Persons Operating a Domestic Service.
A copy of the proposed Regulations is available on the Internet at the following address: http://competition.ic.gc.ca.
Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations within 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to: Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau, Civil Matters Branch, Industry Canada, Place du Portage, Phase I, 15th Floor, 50 Victoria Street, Hull, Quebec, K1A 0C9.
Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.
Ottawa, June 30, 2000
MARC O'SULLIVAN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
REGULATIONS RESPECTING ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTS OF PERSONS OPERATING A DOMESTIC SERVICE
ANTI-COMPETITIVE ACTS
1. For the purposes of paragraph 78(1)(j) of the Competition Act, the following acts or conduct of a person operating a domestic service, as defined in subsection 55(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, are anti-competitive acts:
(a) operating capacity on a route or routes at fares that do not cover the avoidable cost of providing the service;
(b) increasing capacity on a route or routes at fares that do not cover the avoidable cost of providing the service;
(c) using a low-cost second-brand carrier in a manner that is described in paragraph (a) or (b);
(d) pre-empting airport facilities or services that are required by another air carrier for the operation of its business;
(e) pre-empting take-off or landing slots that are required by another air carrier for the operation of its business;
(f) using commission overrides or other inducements to sell or purchase its flights for the purpose of disciplining or eliminating a competitor or impeding or preventing a competitor's entry into, or expansion in, a market;
(g) using the offer of more than the usual awards in a loyalty marketing program for the purpose of disciplining or eliminating a competitor or impeding or preventing a competitor's entry into, or expansion in, a market; and
(h) altering its schedules, networks, or infrastructure for the purpose of and with the effect of disciplining or eliminating a competitor or impeding or preventing a competitor's entry into, or expansion in, a market.
ESSENTIAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES
2. (1) For the purposes of paragraph 78(1)(k) of the Competition Act, facilities and services that are essential to the operation in a market of an air service, as defined in subsection 55(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, are those
(a) that are required in order to provide a competitive air service;
(b) that cannot reasonably or practicably be purchased, acquired, provided or replicated by another air carrier on its own behalf;
(c) that are effectively controlled by the air carrier who denies access to them or refuses supply of them; and
(d) that can be feasibly provided to another air carrier, having regard to operational or safety considerations, or legitimate business justifications of the air carrier referred to in paragraph (c).
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), facilities and services may include, but are not limited to, take-off and landing slots, interline arrangements, airport gates, loading bridges, counters and related airport facilities, maintenance services, and baggage handling services, infrastructure and equipment.
COMING INTO FORCE
3. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
[28-1-o]
Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part III)
Statutory Authority
Aeronautics Act
Sponsoring Department
Department of Transport
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
Description
General
The proposed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part III) [Aerodromes and Airports] will introduce a new subpart 308 (Aircraft Emergency Intervention at Airports) with its associated Standard 328 (Aircraft Emergency Intervention at Airports Standard) into the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs). This proposal will establish regulatory requirements for an aircraft emergency intervention service (AEIS) for land airports which do not satisfy the passenger traffic criteria used to identify the 28 designated airports which are required under subpart 303 (Aircraft Fire Fighting at Airports and Aerodromes) to provide on-site aircraft fire fighting services. The AEIS is intended to increase the survivability of persons on board an aircraft in the event of an aircraft emergency.
Proposed amendments to subpart 303 (Aircraft Fire Fighting at Airports and Aerodromes) and to subpart 300 (Interpretation) are necessary to move the definition of "aircraft emergency" from subpart 303, where it applies only to those airports subject to that subpart and relocate it to subpart 300, where it will apply to the proposed subpart 308 as well. There will be no change to the current definition.
The proposed Regulations in subpart 308 will require that an AEIS be provided at airports where there is a commercial passenger-carrying aircraft service, of which the airport operator has had at least 30 days advance notice, which meets the criteria prescribed within subpart 308 for traffic frequency and size and type of aircraft. Although the 30-day advance notice criterion will not be reiterated throughout this description, it is important to remember that it is a key component in initiating the requirement for an aircraft emergency intervention service at an airport. Any reference to a number of movements which calls forth a requirement for an AEIS implies the necessity of the prior 30-day notification. An AEIS is defined in the proposal as "a public or private body that provides aircraft emergency intervention services, located at an airport or elsewhere and equipped to provide service." An aircraft emergency intervention for the purposes of subpart 308 will mean "an intervention taken that may increase the survivability of persons on board an aircraft in the event of an aircraft emergency."
The proposed Regulations will allow the service to be either single-phase (all components are based on-site i.e. within the perimeter of the airport grounds) or two-phase (the initial response is based on-site with additional capability based off-site) to facilitate participation by the emergency services located in neighbouring communities. In either case, for airports required by these proposed regulations to provide an AEIS, there must be a person, trained on the on-site equipment, within the airport perimeter, during a time period covering 90 percent of the movements, for which the airport operator has received the required notice, of the commercially operated passenger-carrying aircraft for which the proposal will require the provision of an AEIS. As well, during any movements of a commercially operated passenger-carrying aircraft in respect of which a type certificate has been issued authorizing the transport of 20 or more passengers, if the aircrafts are operated under subpart 705 (Airline Operations) or under subpart 701 (Foreign Air Operations), the proposed Regulations will require on-site AEIS coverage.
Since 1996, Transport Canada has been negotiating the transfer of individual airports, which Transport Canada had owned and operated, to local airport authorities, community airport authorities or to other local interests. The transfer of managerial and operational control over these entities has brought about the need for Transport Canada to put in place policies, regulations and standards necessary to fulfill the Minister's safety and security obligations under the Aeronautics Act, in a similar manner to that by which comparable obligations are fulfilled with respect to air operators and aircraft manufacturers. In particular, both because of the airport transfers and to fulfill the Department's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden, aircraft fire-fighting on airports and aerodromes was identified as a high priority item that needed immediate attention. The proposal to introduce subpart 308 and its associated standard stems from the Department's decision, following upon the introduction of the regulations and standards for aircraft fire fighting services applicable to the largest and busiest airports in subpart 303, to continue with the development of regulations and standards, specifying minimum requirements to aid in saving lives, reducing personal injuries and reducing damage to property resulting from aircraft accidents and incidents, at those airports to which subpart 303 does not apply. In the overall context of Canadian civil aviation, this proposal fits among many others which share the goals of continuing to improve the existing high level of aviation safety in Canada and of maintaining and strengthening the high level of public confidence in our civil aviation program.
Specific
There will be two categories of AEIS established with these proposed Regulations. Either category may consist of a two-phase service in which the initial response is provided by an on-site intervention with an off-site capability providing the second phase. Alternatively, the requirements of either category may be satisfied by a single-phase service, all components of which are based on the airport grounds.
For the on-site components of the service, there must be a response time of three minutes from the mobilization of the on-site equipment to the midpoint of the farthest runway. For the off-site portion of a two-phase service, a response time of 20 minutes, from the time of the sounding of the alarm to the time the equipment prescribed in section 308.12 (Extinguishing Agents and Equipment) reaches the midpoint of the farthest runway will have to be met.
The category of AEIS which the airport operator must provide will be determined by the frequency of air transport traffic for which the operator receives at least 30 days advance notice and by the size and type of aircraft comprising that traffic. An AEIS will be required only for passenger-carrying commercial aircraft operated under subpart 704 (Commuter Operations) or subpart 705 (Airline Operations) or for passenger-carrying foreign commercial aircraft of the same types which are being operated under subpart 701 (Foreign Air Operations). In general terms, aircraft operated under subpart 704 are multi-engine aircraft with a seating configuration of 10 to 19 passengers or turbo-jet aeroplanes certificated to transport not more than 19 passengers while aircraft operated under subpart 705 are type certificated for 20 or more passengers.
The following Table I summarizes the determinants of the category of AEIS required. For fewer than 700 scheduled passenger-carrying movements (determined by counting the annual number of scheduled passenger-carrying movements and dividing by four), of the type of aircraft operated under subpart 704, whether they are operated by Canadian (subpart 704) or foreign (subpart 701) operators, there is no regulatory requirement for provision of an AEIS. For 700 or more passenger-carrying movements, of only subpart 704 type aircraft, the airport operator must provide a Category A service (either single-phase or two-phase).
As soon as there is even one passenger-carrying movement annually of a subpart 705 type of aircraft, an AEIS must be provided. The category of AEIS which must be provided for subpart 705 or similar operations will be based upon the size of the aircraft used and the frequency of movements of these aircraft. If there are fewer than 700 passenger-carrying movements of only smaller (less than 24 metres in length) subpart 705 type of aircraft, a Category A service will be required. If there are 700 or more passenger-carrying movements of only smaller subpart 705 type of aircraft, a Category B service will be required. If there are any passenger-carrying movements of subpart 705 type of aircraft, 24 metres or more in length, a Category B service must be provided. When the category of AEIS to be provided has been determined, that information must be published in the Canada Flight Supplement and, until publication in the Canada Flight Supplement, a NOTAM must be issued.
Table I
| Air Transport Service | Passenger-Carrying Movements | |
|---|---|---|
| CAR Subpart Operation | Fewer Than 700 | 700 or More |
| 704/701 only | AEIS not required | Category A required |
| 705/701 with aircraft less than 24 m in length only | Category A required | Category B required |
| 705/701 with aircraft 24 m or longer | Category B required | Category B required |
An AEIS will not be required for aircraft using the airport for positioning flights, ferry flights or cargo-only operations.
Although most flights proceed without incident from origin to planned destination, occasionally an emergency situation develops during the en route segment of a planned flight which precludes the continuance of that flight to its intended destination. If such an emergency occurs, the aircraft will be diverted from the planned destination to another airport. There are, also, infrequent occasions when an aircraft may not be able to land at the planned destination, for example, in the case of unforecast poor weather. At these times the aircraft will proceed to an alternate destination for landing. The use of an airport for a diversion or as an alternate will not entail a requirement for the presence of the AEIS.
The following Table II outlines the equipment, personnel training, and alerting and communication system requirements for each category of service and, within each category, for the single-phase and two-phase variations.
Table II
| Summary of Equipment, Training, and Alerting and Communication System Requirements by AEIS Category | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Category of AEIS | Equipment Requirements1 |
Training of Personnel |
Alerting and Communication System |
| Category A | |||
| Single-Phase (On-site) |
|
|
|
| Two-Phase | First (on-site) Intervenor
|
First (on-site) Intervenor
|
same as for Single-Phase Category A service |
| Category B | |||
| Single-Phase (On-Site) |
|
|
same as for Single-Phase Category A service |
| Two-Phase | First (On-Site) Intervenor
|
First (on-site) Intervenor
|
same as for Single-Phase Category A service |
———
1 The quantities of either water for foam production or dry chemicals specified will be the minimum quantities required. The providers of the AEIS are at liberty to have available more than the minimum specified quantities.2 In all cases the live fire training shall simulate a realistic fire-fighting situation and the fire shall be of sufficient size and intensity to provide a challenge to the intervenor in relation to the equipment used .
Recurrent training for all intervenors will be completed within every three-year period.
The foam extinguishing agent, for both categories, is required to be suitable for the type of equipment to be used and to meet the relevant specifications of CAN/ULC S560 or CAN/ULC S563. Foam concentrates of different types or from different manufacturers may not be mixed unless it has been established that they are completely interchangeable and compatible. The quantity of foam concentrates provided on vehicles for foam production must be in proportion to the quantity of water provided and the foam concentrate selected.
The dry chemical extinguishing agent used in either category must be a powder suitable for the type of equipment to be used and compatible with the selected principal extinguishing agent. The dry chemical extinguishing agent must comply with the appropriate specifications of CAN/ULC-S514-M88.
The operator of an airport where an aircraft emergency intervention service would, otherwise, be required may apply to the Minister to be allowed to operate without providing the category of AEIS to be required by subpart 308. For such an application to be approved, the airport must receive fewer than 700 movements, collectively, per year of aircraft operating in an air transport service and air transportation must be the only reliable year-round mode of transportation available to the community the airport serves to move the majority of travellers or cargo to or from the community.
Proposed section 308.13 of the CARs (Temporary Exemption) will allow for relief from the extinguishing agents and equipment requirements, as stipulated in section 308.12 of the CARs (Extinguishing Agents and Equipment), if personnel shortage or unserviceable equipment, as a result of unforeseen circumstances which were beyond the control of the airport operator, have caused the shortfall, or if personnel and equipment are in the course of responding to a different emergency. If the personnel shortage or unserviceable equipment continues for seven or more days, the operator must establish a plan specifying the corrective actions to be taken, submit the plan to the Minister and implement the plan by the date specified. This plan must be established no later than seven days after the onset of the shortfall. It must include the dates by which the corrective actions must be taken and those dates must be as early as practicable given the circumstances.
The Minister may allow the airport operator to reduce the category of AEIS if the operator is able to demonstrate that the category assigned was the result of movements by unusually large aircraft or an unusually high number of aircraft operating an air transport service and that neither situation is likely to be repeated within the following year. A reduction in category of AEIS may also be allowed if the airport operator can demonstrate that the number of aircraft movements or the size of aircraft by using the airport for air transport services is likely to change and that change would result in a lower category being required. If a reduction in category is authorized for either circumstance, the operator of the airport must publish a notification of the reduced category and the period during which it will be reduced in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM where the NOTAM is published earlier. Also, the airport operator must establish procedures to restore the previous higher category of AEIS if the reduction in number of movements or size of aircraft is temporary and must set out the procedures both to reduce and to reestablish the AEIS category in the airport operations manual.
If an increase in the number of movements or in the size of aircraft used for air transport services at an airport results in the requirement for a higher AEIS than previously, the operator of the airport will be required to meet these requirements within one year after the date at which the need for the higher category has been established.
Included within proposed subpart 308 is a requirement for the airport operator to compile monthly statistics of the number of movements by the type of air transport services for which an AEIS may be necessary. The airport operator must review the movement statistics, for the preceding twelve months, every six months to ensure the appropriate category of AEIS is being provided at the airport. These statistics must be retained for five years after the date of each review and they must be provided to the Minister upon request.
The proposal will allow one year from the coming into force of these proposed regulations for the collection of statistics from which it will be determined which airports will be required to provide AEIS and which category will be necessary at each AEIS. A second year, after the coming into force date, will be allowed for equipment acquisition and for hiring and training intervenors before any airport operator is required to meet the conditions proposed in subpart 308.
Alternatives
The alternatives considered were the status quo, implementation of the proposals from a stakeholder/government working group and regulatory action.
Under the status quo there are no specific regulatory requirements for any airports or aerodromes, other than the 28 which are regulated under subpart 303, to provide aircraft fire fighting services. However, as part of the process by which Transport Canada determines that an aerodrome meets airport certification safety standards, airports with scheduled commercial passenger-carrying traffic are required, by regulation, to have an approved Airport Operations Manual (AOM). To be approved by Transport Canada, the Airport Operations Manual must contain a plan for an Emergency Response Service (ERS). This approved ERS plan will outline the provisions at the airport for response, in the event of an aircraft accident or fire at the airport, to provide a fire-free escape route for the safe evacuation or rescue of passengers and crew. Secondarily, the ERS plan will attempt to preserve the property involved by containing or extinguishing, where practicable, any fire resulting from an aircraft accident or incident. With the devolution of airports to non-federal operators, many airports receiving commercial passenger traffic no longer have an on-site fire response, relying instead on the capability of mutual aid agencies in the community.
The status quo was assessed as unsatisfactory since it does not provide passengers arriving and departing at airports not regulated under subpart 303 with a reliable level of emergency response as is provided at the major airports. Also, it does not fulfill Transport Canada's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden. Nor does it meet the strategic objectives of improving the existing high level of aviation safety in all areas and of maintaining and strengthening the current high level of public confidence in Canadian civil aviation.
A second alternative was offered by the recommendations of a stakeholder/government Working Group. This Working Group was established within the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) structure under the auspices of the CARAC Aerodromes and Airports Technical Committee to consider Aircraft Fire Protection at Non-Designated Airports (those airports not provided for under subpart 303). The recommendations of this Working Group were that:
... the Minister of Transport initiate a program to enhance the preparation and implementation of Airport Fire fighting response in the Emergency Response Service plans for non-designated airports by:
2. Requiring airports to include any Aircraft Fire Fighting response capability/availability in their Emergency Response Service plans.
3. The Minister to establish an ongoing program for the purpose of assisting with the provision of Airport Fire Fighting at non-designated airports through financial assistance for:
(b) equipment purchase/adaptation.
Such a program and the criteria for application to be developed in consultation with stakeholders.
The Working Group recommendations were non-regulatory in nature. Effectively, they recommended voluntary enhancement of Emergency Response Service plans and funding for training and equipment at affected airports. The existing regulations would have remained unchanged with implementation of the Working Group's recommendations.
The alternative represented by the Working Group recommendations was considered not to address either the perception of passengers arriving and departing at airports not regulated under subpart 303 as to the discrepancies between aircraft emergency intervention services at the two groups of airports or the Department's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden. However, the ideas presented in the proposed CAR 308/328 had their genesis during the discussions which took place among the participants in the Working Group although they were not part of the Working Group recommendations.
Regulatory action was deemed the only available alternative which would reassure commercial air travellers that regulatory safety oversight was in place, with rare exceptions, for all Canadian land airports with commercial passenger service, which would improve existing high levels of safety and which would meet the Department's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden. During the consultation process, many versions of a proposed regulation were considered. They varied with respect to the criteria to be used to determine the requirement for an airport operator to provide aircraft emergency intervention service and the details of what such a service would entail. The current proposal is the result of this consultation process. In the judgment of departmental officials, it provides the most appropriate balance between the recognized need for the provision of AEIS at the less busy airports and the costs to be imposed, by the requirement for such a service, upon the operators of the less busy airports who do not have access to the revenue generating possibilities enjoyed by the 28 airports covered under subpart 303.
Benefits and Costs
Costs
Departmental officials have estimated the costs of the proposed regulation using assumptions, with respect to traffic frequency and to size and type of aircraft serving individual airports, which tentatively identified 107 airports as possible locations which may be required to provide an AEIS. Of these airports, 70 would be required to provide a Category A service and 37 would be required to provide a Category B service.
A set of generic estimates were developed for each of the cost items generated by the proposed requirements. These generic estimates were used to calculate cost estimates for each of the 107 airports. Total estimated costs were then calculated from these individual airport estimates. Underlying the individual per airport estimates from which the total estimated costs have been derived is the assumption that, in all instances, the least cost option available to the airport operator would be the one chosen. For example, if a regional school is available for training, the employees from the airport will attend that school rather than a more expensive remote school which may also be available.
The following estimated cost items include: initial capital costs, initial operating and maintenance costs, net costs of replacing equipment at the end of its useful life and annual on-going costs. Present values for future expenditures have been calculated over a 20-year period using a 10 percent rate of discount.
The estimates of initial capital costs cover the acquisition of basic equipment which is capable of meeting the requirements of the category of AEIS identified as that appropriate to the assumed traffic and services for each individual airport. They do not include such tools as hydraulic extrication tools, axes, pry bars, etc. since these would not be required for those duties for which the intervenor would be trained. Total initial capital cost for the 107 airports is estimated at $14,888,000.
Because of difficulties in verifying location and status of existing equipment at affected airports, the capital cost estimates have been derived without allowance for any current equipment which may be at these airports. They, therefore, represent a conservative view of such costs. Upon implementation of the proposed regulation, actual capital costs can be expected to be less than the capital cost estimates by the value of equipment which may be currently available at affected airports.
For the initial operating and maintenance costs (comprised of initial training, equipment storage and maintenance, first year salaries, initial purchase of protective clothing, and initial provision and testing of fire fighting agents), the total is estimated to be $3,518,944. Thus, first year costs for 107 airports for the proposed regulation are estimated to be the sum of initial capital costs of $14,888,000 and initial operating and maintenance costs of $3,518,944 which equals $18,406,944.
Net equipment replacement costs have been calculated based on industry practice of equipment replacement after 15 years. These net replacement cost calculations assume all new equipment is purchased at the start of the 20-year period and take into account the residual value for the remaining 5 years after replacement at the 15th year. Using a discount rate of 10 percent, present value of net equipment replacement costs is estimated as $2,048,867.
In calculating annual on-going costs, on-going training was estimated as 50 percent of the initial training cost. Although each intervenor must receive training every three years to maintain basic proficiency, an additional training allowance was incorporated to compensate for staff turnover and training enhancements. In addition to on-going training costs, annual operating and maintenance costs include salaries for the intervenors, vehicle maintenance, fuel, insurance and storage costs, and an allowance for the maintenance of the protective clothing. Annual on-going operating and maintenance costs (including on-going training) are estimated at $2,291,312. The present value, at 10 percent, of these annual costs will be $19,166,367 over the period.
The following table summarizes the cost estimates discussed above.
Table III
Type of Cost Estimate |
Amount of Cost Estimate ('000's) |
|---|---|
| Initial Capital | $14,888,000 |
| Initial (Start Up) Operating and Maintenance | $3,518,944 |
| Present Value of Net Equipment Replacement Costs after 15 Years at 10% | $2,048,867 |
| Annual On-going Operating and Maintenance | $2,291,312 |
| Present Value of On-going Operating and Maintenance at 10% | $19,166,367 |
| Present Value of Total Costs over 20 Years at 10% |
$39,622,178 |
With first year implementation costs (including capital cost and operating and maintenance cost) estimated as summing to $18,406,944, the present value of the net costs of equipment replacement after 15 years as $2,048,867 and annual on-going costs as $2,291,312, the present value of these costs, in total, over the 20-year period have been estimated at $39.6 million by using a discount rate of 10 percent.
Although the above estimates have been based on the 107 tentatively identified airports, departmental officials anticipate requests from eligible airports for exemptions from the proposed regulation. Of the 107 identified airports, 8 are expected to request and be granted exemptions. Thus, actual costs would be less than those estimated in this analysis as a result of these exemptions.
Benefits
For aircraft fire fighting services at an airport to generate quantifiable benefits, an aviation accident must occur; it must occur close enough to the airport to be accessible to the emergency vehicles based on the airport, and the accident must be of a nature where emergency assistance can be usefully rendered(see footnote 1). (The accident severity must lie between that of a minor accident, with no danger of fire where any necessary assistance can be offered by bystanders, and an accident so severe that all aircraft occupants are killed on impact.)
Quantifiable benefits provided by airport emergency services fall into 4 categories(see footnote 2) — reduction in number of fatalities, decrease in number or severity of major injuries, increase in hull salvage values and reduction in the disruption of airport operations. In 1988, Sypher:Mueller International Inc. were commissioned by the Inspector General of Transportation Safety to conduct a comprehensive study of crash, fire-fighting and rescue services at Canadian airports.(see footnote 3) This study included an analysis of risks, costs and benefits. The authors of the study concluded(see footnote 4) that, over the 20-year period studied, the value of benefits from a decrease in the number or severity of major injuries, from an increase in hull salvage values and from a reduction in the disruption of airport operations was minor. "The overwhelming benefit of CFR is its ability to preserve human life in the event of a serious aviation accident."(see footnote 5)
After extensive examination of accident data for 1966-1985(see footnote 6), Sypher:Mueller calculated that the probability of an accident occurring where aircraft emergency service assistance could be effective in reducing fatalities equated to a potential for a maximum of 2.93 lives saved per 10 000 000 enplaned/deplaned passengers(see footnote 7),(see footnote 8). Their model allowed for an additional 7 percent of reported enplaned/deplaned passenger statistics to account for the aircraft crew.
The most recent year for which complete enplaned/deplaned passenger statistics is available is 1998. For 1998, enplaned/ deplaned passengers at the 28 airports which are required to have aircraft fire fighting services under subpart 303 totaled 77 347 286. Total enplaned/deplaned passengers in Canada were 82 664 577. Thus, enplaned/deplaned passengers at airports not, at present, required by regulation to provide aircraft fire fighting services were 5 317 291. When the Sypher:Mueller model is applied to this number of enplaned/deplaned passengers (with the additional 7 percent allowance for crew) the statistical potential for saving lives with the provision of aircraft emergency intervention services, in 1998, would have been 1.67 lives.
The potential for saving lives which can be attributed to subpart 308 may be somewhat less than the above estimate since not all airports not, at present, required to provide aircraft fire fighting under subpart 303 will be covered with the implementation of the proposed subpart 308. However, on the other hand, any increase in passenger traffic or in level of air transport service at the affected airports will increase the potential for benefits from this proposal.
Until the first year of statistical data gathering by the airport operators has been completed, a final determination of which airports will be required to provide AEIS and of the category of AEIS which each airport will be required to provide cannot be made. However, it is reasonable to assume at least the busiest airports in terms of passenger statistics will be included among those providing AEIS. Therefore, the assumption has been made that the majority of the over 5 million passengers, not, at present, benefiting from the aircraft fire fighting service required of the 28 airports designated under subpart 303, will benefit from the proposed aircraft emergency intervention service which would be introduced with implementation of subpart 308.
A concentrated public write-in campaign indicated a high level of public interest and a perception that insufficient care might be being taken to protect passenger safety at the airports which did not have a level of aviation traffic to bring them under the purview of subpart 303 with respect to aircraft fire fighting services. Although total estimated costs for the present initiative to extend the coverage of airports required to provide emergency intervention services may be greater than quantifiable benefits, the level of public interest indicates the extent of the non-quantifiable gains which the public perceives as resulting from additional emergency intervention services on land airports. These benefits will accrue to the Canadian economy as a collective entity.
Benefit-Cost Summary
The evaluation of the benefit-cost analysis of this proposal depends heavily upon the value ascribed to a human life. An annual on-going estimated cost of somewhat over $2.2 million annually appears to be a modest amount to invest for the number of lives the application of the Sypher: Mueller model indicates may potentially be saved on average by the provision of aircraft emergency intervention service (AEIS) at these airports.
The on-going annual benefits will not be generated without the initial capital and operating and maintenance costs which summed to approximately $18 million nor without the net cost of equipment replacement after 15 years which has an estimated present value of $2 million. The public interest expressed in the communications with the Department during the development of the proposed requirements for AEIS indicates the extent of the non-quantifiable gains perceived as resulting from additional emergency intervention services on land airports. When the non-quantifiable benefits are taken into consideration, the proposed regulation is expected to show an acceptable benefit-cost impact for the Canadian economy.
Consultation
Dissents to the Working Group recommendations discussed above were received from the Union of Canadian Transport Employees (UCTE) and the Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Both dissents reflected the view that the recommendation would not go far enough to ensure the safety of passengers at the smaller airports. Departmental officials agreed with the dissenting opinions that the Working Group proposals, although endorsed and forwarded by the Technical Committee on Aerodromes and Airports, did not fully satisfy the need for regulatory provisions at the less busy airports with commercial passenger-carrying traffic. Consequently, an internal Departmental Task Force was assigned the responsibility of developing regulations and standards, specifying minimum requirements to aid in saving lives, reducing personal injuries and reducing damage to property resulting from aircraft accidents and incidents, at the airports not addressed under subpart 303. The proposed subpart 308 and Standard 328 are the results of that internal Task Force's deliberations.
The members of the Aerodromes and Airports (A&A) Technical Committee have been consulted with respect to these proposed amendments to the regulations at four meetings held in 1999. The actively participating members of the Aerodromes and Airports Technical Committee include the Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation, Aero Club of Canada, Aéroports de Montréal, Aerodevco Consultants Ltd., AirBC, Air Canada, Air Canada Pilots Association, Air Line Pilots Association, Airport Management Conference of Ontario, Air Transport Association of Canada, Alberta Aviation Council, Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Arctic Airports (Government of the Northwest Terri tories), Association des gens de l'air du Québec, Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens inc., British Columbia Aviation Council, B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, Campbell River Airport, Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Business Aircraft Association, Canadian Forces Fire Marshall - 2 (Department of National Defence), Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, Canadian Regional Airlines Ltd., Central Air Carrier Association, Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, Corp Air Inc., Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Department of Community and Transportation Services, Department of Works (Newfoundland), Edmonton Regional Airports Authority, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Jack Henderson, Highways and Transportation (Manitoba), Imperial Oil, International Association of Fire Fighters, Kelowna Airport, Liberty Airlines Limited, Ministry of Employment and Investment (British Columbia), Ministry of Transportation (Quebec), Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Ministry of Transportation (New Brunswick), Miramichi Airport Commission (1993) Inc., Niagara District (St. Catharines) Airport, Northern Air Transport Association, Nova Scotia Department of Transportation, Paragon Engineering Ltd., Saskatchewan Highway & Transportation, Sydney Airport Authority, Teamsters Local 31, The Calgary Airport Authority, Union of Canadian Transport Employees and the Vancouver International Airport Authority. Over 250 interested parties, including local authorities responsible for potentially affected airports and the above, active members of the Technical Committee, have also been consulted with respect to the proposed new regulations and standards by means of extensive documentation which has been mailed to them by the CARAC Secretariat.
During the November 1999 meeting of the Aerodromes and Airports Technical Committee, the discussion reached an impasse over the question of assurances of federal funding for the affected airports. The meeting was adjourned without reaching consensus with respect to the proposed regulations. Nonetheless, subsequent to the adjournment of the November meeting, the significant information which had been gathered from the consultation process permitted the development of a revised draft of the proposed regulations and standards. This draft was circulated by mail for comments from the interested parties.
Nineteen written comments regarding the proposal were received in response to the mailed draft. Of the nineteen, the majority criticized the proposal with respect to the costs to be imposed on the affected airports in the absence of the presentation of a risk analysis justifying its implementation on the grounds of significant safety benefits. Many of the authors of these criticisms referred to a commitment from the Department, at the time of their agreement to become responsible for the management of these airports, that additional regulations with significant cost implications would not be imposed on them. A few comments were based on the response times required by the regulation which were felt to be inadequate. Insofar as possible, all comments have been taken into account in the development of the present proposal. However, the views of the interested parties remain in sufficient conflict that a resolution satisfactory to all could not be reached.
Additional comments regarding the conduct of the consultation process with respect to this proposal were included with several of the dissents summarized above. The force of these comments was recognized. However, senior levels within the Department decided that emergency intervention at airports which do not satisfy the passenger traffic criteria of subpart 303 (Aircraft Fire Fighting at Airports and Aerodromes), should be subjected to regulation. Given this determination, the consultation process has been used to collect information as to the specifics of such a regulation. The final outcome of the proposed regulation, as discussed in this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, was significantly influenced by the information gathered during consultation.
The Department customarily provides copies of the information published in Canada Gazette, Part I, to the members of the relevant Technical Committee. In the case of these proposed regulations such copies will be provided to all identified recipients of information with respect to subpart 308. As well, additional information in the form of a summary of the disposition of the comments regarding the circulated draft and other related documentation will be included with this mailing.
Compliance and Enforcement
These regulations will generally be enforced through the assessment of monetary penalties imposed under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act or through suspension or cancellation of a Canadian aviation document.
Contact
The Chief, Regulatory Affairs, AARBH, Transport Canada, Safety and Security, Place de Ville, Tower C, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8, (613) 993-7284 or 1-800-305-2059 (Telephone, general inquiries), (613) 990-1198 (Facsimile), www.tc.gc.ca (Internet).
PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT
Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 4.9(see footnote c) of the Aeronautics Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part III).
Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport within 45 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice. Each representation must be in writing and be sent to the Chief, Regulatory Affairs (AARBH), Civil Aviation, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Spark Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8. (General inquiries - tel.: (613) 993-7284 or 1-800-305-2059; fax: (613) 990-1198; Internet address: http://www.tc.gc.ca)
Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.
Ottawa, June 21, 2000
MARC O'SULLIVAN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART III)
AMENDMENTS
1. Section 300.01 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations(see footnote 9) is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
"aircraft emergency" means a situation that could result in damage to an aircraft at an airport or aerodrome or injury to the persons on board the aircraft; (aéronef en état d'urgence)
2. The definition "aircraft emergency"(see footnote 10) in section 303.01 of the Regulations is repealed.
3. Part III of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after Subpart 3:
SUBPART 4 — [RESERVED]
SUBPART 5 — [RESERVED]
SUBPART 6 — [RESERVED]
SUBPART 7 — [RESERVED]
SUBPART 8 — AIRCRAFT EMERGENCY INTERVENTION AT AIRPORTS
DIVISION I — GENERAL
Interpretation
308.01 In this Subpart,
"aircraft emergency intervention" means an intervention that may increase the survivability of persons on board an aircraft in the event of an aircraft emergency; (intervention pour aéronefs en état d'urgence)
"aircraft emergency intervention service" means a public or private body that provides aircraft emergency intervention services, located at an airport or elsewhere and equipped to provide services; (service d'intervention pour aéronefs en état d'urgence)
"aircraft emergency intervention standards" means the Aerodrome and Airport Standards respecting Aircraft Emergency Intervention at Airports published under the authority of the Minister; (normes d'intervention pour aéronefs en état d'urgence)
"first intervenor" means an intervenor located at a non-designated airport and assigned to duties of the first phase of a two-phase aircraft emergency intervention service; (premier intervenant)
"intervenor" means a person trained as an intervenor and assigned to duties of an aircraft emergency intervention service; (intervenant)
"non-designated airport" means a land airport that is not a designated airport or participating airport within the meaning of section 303.01; (aéroport non désigné)
"second intervenor" means an intervenor located elsewhere than at a non-designated airport and assigned to duties of the second phase of a two-phase aircraft emergency intervention service; (deuxième intervenant)
"single-phase aircraft emergency intervention service" means an aircraft emergency intervention service that meets the requirements of subsection 308.08(1); (service d'intervention pour aéronefs en état d'urgence à phase unique)
"two-phase aircraft emergency intervention service" means an aircraft emergency intervention service that meets the requirements of subsection 308.08(2). (service d'intervention pour aéronefs en état d'urgence à deux phases)
Application
308.02 (1) Subject to section 308.03, this Subpart applies in respect of a non-designated airport that is used by aircraft
(a) whose schedule is available to the airport operator at least 30 days in advance; and
(b) that are operated in an air transport service under Subpart 1, 4 or 5 of Part VII.
(2) This Subpart does not apply in respect of a non-designated airport that is used by aircraft
(a) for the purpose of a positioning flight;
(b) for the purpose of a ferry flight;
(c) for the purpose of a cargo-only operation;
(d) for the diversion of a flight; or
(e) as an alternate aerodrome.
Authorization
308.03 The Minister shall, on application by the operator of a non-designated airport, authorize the operator, in writing, to operate without providing the category of aircraft emergency intervention required by this Subpart if
(a) the number of movements at the airport by aircraft operated in an air transport service is less than a total of 700 movements per year; and
(b) the community the airport serves uses air transportation as the only reliable year-round mode of transportation to move the majority of persons and most of its goods in and out.
General Requirements
308.04 (1) The operator of a non-designated airport shall provide the category of aircraft emergency intervention for the airport determined in accordance with section 308.07.
(2) The operator of a non-designated airport shall provide the aircraft emergency intervention equipment and the intervenors required under this Subpart to respond to an aircraft emergency at the airport.
Hours of Operation of an Aircraft Emergency Intervention Service
308.05 (1) The operator of a non-designated airport shall, at the beginning of each month and after consultation with the operator of each air transport service that uses the airport, establish the hours of operation of an aircraft emergency intervention service for the month and ensure that the hours coincide with at least 90% of the movements during the month at the airport by aircraft operated in an air transport service of which the operator receives notice at least 30 days in advance.
(2) The operator of a non-designated airport shall provide an aircraft emergency intervention service for the operation at the airport of aircraft operated under Subpart 1 or 5 of Part VII, in respect of which a type certificate has been issued authorizing the transport of 20 or more passengers, and of which the operator receives notice at least 30 days in advance.
Aircraft Movement Statistics
308.06 The operator of a non-designated airport shall
(a) compile monthly statistics setting out the total number of movements by aircraft operated in the air transport services referred to in section 308.02;
(b) review, at least once every six months, the statistics for the twelve months preceding the date of the review and determine the category of aircraft emergency intervention for the airport;
(c) retain the statistics for five years after the date of the review; and
(d) at the request of the Minister, provide the statistics to the Minister.
Category of Aircraft Emergency Intervention
308.07 (1) The operator of a non-designated airport shall determine a category of aircraft emergency intervention for the airport in accordance with the table to this section by counting the number of movements by aircraft operated in the air transport services referred to in section 308.02 over the period of a year and dividing that number by four.
(2) Aircraft operating as combination cargo and passenger-carrying aircraft shall be included in the category that corresponds to the number of passengers authorized in the type certificate issued in respect of the aircraft.
(3) If a non-designated airport is used for the number of movements set out in column I of an item of the table to this section by aircraft operated by air transport services set out in column II of the item and the aircraft have an overall length set out in column III of that item, the category of aircraft emergency intervention to be provided at the airport is that set out in column IV of that item.
TABLE
Item |
Column I No. of Annual Movements Divided by Four |
Column II Air Transport Service |
Column III Aircraft Overall Length |
Column IV Category of Aircraft Emergency Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 700 or more | Commuter Operations (VII/4) and Foreign Air Operations (VII/1 Commuter) | any | Category A |
| 2. | fewer than 700 | Airline Operations (VII/5) and Foreign Air Operations (VII/1 Airline) |
less than 24 m | Category A |
| 3. | 700 or more | Airline Operations (VII/5) and Foreign Air Operations (VII/1 Airline) |
less than 24 m | Category B |
| 4. | more than 0 | Airline Operations (VII/5) and Foreign Air Operations (VII/1 Airline) |
24 m or more | Category B |
Requirements for Categories A and B
308.08 (1) A single-phase aircraft emergency intervention service, Category A or B, at a non-designated airport, shall
(a) have an intervenor at the airport during the period prescribed in section 308.05;
(b) have at the airport the extinguishing agents and equipment prescribed in section 308.12; and
(c) after an alarm is sounded, be able to achieve a response time of three minutes from the mobilization of the equipment prescribed in section 308.12 to the equipment's reaching the midpoint of the farthest runway.
(2) A two-phase aircraft emergency intervention service, Category A or B, at a non-designated airport, shall
(a) have a first intervenor at the airport during the period prescribed in section 308.05;
(b) have a second intervenor;
(c) have the extinguishing agents and equipment prescribed in section 308.12 for use by both the first and second intervenors; and
(d) after an alarm is sounded, be able,
(ii) in the case of a second intervenor, to achieve a response time of twenty minutes from the time of the sounding of the alarm to the time the equipment prescribed in section 308.12 reaches the midpoint of the farthest runway.
(3) All aircraft emergency intervention services shall have the communication and alerting system prescribed by section 308.20.
Publication of Category
308.09 The operator of a non-designated airport shall ensure that the category of aircraft emergency intervention for the airport is published in the Canada Flight Supplement and in a NOTAM, if the NOTAM is published earlier.
Agreement in Respect of Aircraft Emergency Intervention Service
308.10 In the case of a two-phase aircraft emergency intervention service, the operator of a non-designated airport shall set out the details of the agreement between the operator and the second intervenor in the airport operations manual.
[308.11 reserved]
DIVISION II — EXTINGUISHING AGENTS AND EQUIPMENT FOR AIRCRAFT EMERGENCY INTERVENTION
Extinguishing Agents and Equipment
308.12 (1) The operator of a non-designated airport shall ensure that the equipment for aircraft emergency intervention is serviceable and readily available.
(2) The operator of a non-designated airport shall ensure that the aircraft emergency intervention service has the extinguishing agents and equipment set out in the aircraft emergency intervention standards for the category of aircraft emergency intervention for the airport.
Temporary Exemption
308.13 (1) The operator of a non-designated airport does not have to meet the requirements of section 308.12 if those requirements cannot be met because
(a) a personnel shortage or unserviceable equipment at the airport caused by circumstances beyond the control of its operator exists and a notification of the condition has been given to the appropriate air traffic control unit or flight service station for publication in a NOTAM; or
(b) the intervenors and equipment are already responding to an emergency.
(2) When a condition described in paragraph (1)(a) continues for seven days or more, the operator shall, no later than seven days after the onset of the condition,
(a) establish a plan specifying the corrective measures that are necessary to meet the requirements of section 308.12 and the dates by which those measures shall be taken, which dates shall be as early as practicable given the circumstances;
(b) submit the plan to the Minister; and
(c) implement the plan by the date specified in it.
Authorizations Respecting Reduced Requirements
308.14 (1) The Minister may, on application by the operator of a non-designated airport, authorize the operator, in writing, to meet the requirements prescribed in section 308.08 for a lower category of aircraft emergency intervention than that established for the airport, if that operator demonstrates that
(a) the category for aircraft emergency intervention that was established was the result of movements by unusually large aircraft operated in air transport services or an unusually high number of movements of aircraft operated in air transport services at the airport and either of these situations is unlikely to be repeated within the next year; or
(b) the number of movements by, or the size of, aircraft operated in air transport services at the airport is expected to be altered in a manner that would result in a lower category of aircraft emergency intervention.
(2) If a written authorization has been issued under subsection (1), the operator of the non-designated airport shall meet the requirements prescribed in section 308.08 for the lower category of aircraft emergency intervention specified in the authorization and shall ensure that
(a) notification of the lower category of aircraft emergency intervention and the period during which the category is reduced is given to the appropriate air traffic control unit or flight service station for publication in the Canada Flight Supplement and in a NOTAM, if the NOTAM is published earlier;
(b) procedures are established to restore the category of aircraft emergency intervention to the previous higher category if the reduction in the number of movements by, or in the size of, aircraft operated in air transport services at the airport is temporary; and
(c) the procedures for a reduction in the category of aircraft emergency intervention and the procedures referred to in paragraph (b) are set out in the airport operations manual.
Adjustment to Higher Requirements
308.15 If an increase in the number of movements by, or in the size of, aircraft operated in air transport services at a non-designated airport results in the establishment for the airport of a higher category of aircraft emergency intervention than the previous category, the operator of the airport shall meet the requirements for the higher category within one year after the date of its establishment.
DIVISION III — PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Personnel
308.16 The operator of a non-designated airport shall ensure that an intervenor is at the airport during the hours of operation of the aircraft emergency intervention service to operate the equipment prescribed in section 308.12.
Training of Personnel
308.17 The operator of a non-designated airport shall ensure that all intervenors are trained in accordance with the aircraft emergency intervention standards.
Equipment and Protective Clothing
308.18 The operator of a non-designated airport shall provide all intervenors with the equipment and protective clothing necessary to perform their duties.
Personnel Qualifications
308.19 (1) No operator of a non-designated airport shall assign a person to the duties of an intervenor unless the person has successfully completed the training specified in the aircraft emergency intervention standards.
(2) The operator of a non-designated airport shall
(a) maintain, for each intervenor, a training record containing the information specified in the aircraft emergency intervention standards;
(b) preserve the training record for three years after the intervenor leaves the service of the airport; and
(c) at the request of the Minister, provide the Minister with a copy of the training record.
DIVISION IV — ALERTING AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Requirement
308.20 The operator of a non-designated airport shall provide an alerting and communication system that meets the aircraft emergency intervention standards.
Transitional Provisions
308.21 The operator of a non-designated airport shall meet the requirements of
(a) paragraph 308.06(b) effective on a date that is one year after these Regulations come into force; and
(b) sections 308.04, 308.05, 308.08 to 308.10 and 308.12 to 308.20 effective on a date that is two years after these Regulations come into force.
COMING INTO FORCE
4. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(This table of contents is not part of the Regulations but is provided only for reference purposes.)
SUBPART 8 — AIRCRAFT EMERGENCY INTERVENTION AT AIRPORTS
DIVISION I — GENERAL
| sections | regulations |
|---|---|
| 308.01 | Interpretation |
| 308.02 | Application |
| 308.03 | Authorization |
| 308.04 | General Requirements |
| 308.05 | Hours of Operation of an Aircraft Emergency Intervention Service |
| 308.06 | Aircraft Movement Statistics |
| 308.07 | Category of Aircraft Emergency Intervention |
| 308.08 | Requirements for Categories A and B |
| 308.09 | Publication of Category |
| 308.10 | Agreement in Respect of Aircraft Emergency Intervention Service |
DIVISION II — EXTINGUISHING AGENTS AND EQUIPMENT FOR AIRCRAFT EMERGENCY INTERVENTION
| sections | regulations |
|---|---|
| 308.12 | Extinguishing Agents and Equipment |
| 308.13 | Temporary Exemption |
| 308.14 | Authorizations Respecting Reduced Requirements |
| 308.15 | Adjustment to Higher Requirements |
DIVISION III — PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
| sections | regulations |
|---|---|
| 308.16 | Minimum Personnel |
| 308.17 | Training of Personnel |
| 308.18 | Equipment and Protective Clothing |
| 308.19 | Personnel Qualifications |
DIVISION IV — COMMUNICATION AND ALERTING SYSTEM
| sections | regulations |
|---|---|
| 308.20 | Requirement |
| 308.21 | Transitional Provisions |
[28-1-o]
Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (School Bus Body Joint Strength)
Statutory Authority
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Sponsoring Department
Department of Transport
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
Description
This amendment proposes revisions to the Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, and the corresponding Test Method 221. It will ensure that children riding in small school buses, those having a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 4 536 kg or less, are provided equivalent levels of protection against joint separation as they would be provided while riding in a large school bus.
Currently, CMVSS 221 applies only to school buses with a GVWR greater than 4 536 kg. This amendment proposes to: extend the applicability of the standard to school buses with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less; exclude the driver's area from the passenger compartment; introduce a definition for maintenance access panels (MAPs) and narrow the exclusion for these panels; require a maximum fastener spacing of 100 mm; and revise the testing requirements. Excluded from these new requirements will be: body panel joints that lie forward of the vertical transverse plane located 762 mm in front of the seating reference point of the forwardmost passenger seat; MAPs that are located outside the passenger area and those located inside the passenger area that are smaller than 305 mm; joints which have only one discrete fastener or spot weld support; components, such as rub rails, located outside of the body panels; windows, doors, ventilation panels and engine access covers; and decorative parts that do not contribute to the bus body strength.
Background
CMVSS 221 requires school bus body panel joints to be sufficiently strong to prevent them from separating during a crash and becoming cutting edges that could cause serious injuries or allow passenger ejection through openings. This standard currently requires that each large school bus body panel joint be capable of holding the body panel to the member to which it is joined, when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel component. These requirements apply to most joints located in the "bus body" which is the portion of the school bus that encloses the occupant space, starting at the most forward point of the windshield. Excluded from these requirements are doors, windows, body panels designed for ventilation or other functional purposes, and maintenance access panels.
The United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Study, "Crashworthiness of Small Post Standard School Buses," October 11, 1989, reported that 6 out of 19 small school bus crashes resulted in body panel joint separation. In contrast, joint separations in large school buses occurred in MAPs and floor joints, while body panel joints maintained structural integrity very well, even in severe crash forces. These results indicate that the requirements of CMVSS 221 are very effective. Further, these results lead the Department to conclude that small school buses should at least be subject to the same joint strength requirements as large school buses. This will better ensure that all children are provided equivalent levels of protection against injuries from joint separation, regardless of the GVWR of the vehicle transporting them.
In addition to enhanced joint strength integrity, the Department anticipates that there will be an improvement in small bus safety since small buses will be allowed to be constructed on cut-away chassis over 4 536 kg. The present regulation requires the driver's area to meet joint strength requirements, whereas this proposed amendment will exclude this area. Due to the complexity of the joints on the cab portion of a cut-away chassis, they cannot be tested in accordance with the Test Method 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. The elimination of this 4 536 kg ceiling will result in improved bus safety due to their increased size and mass and it will allow bus manufacturers to make increases in the bus structural strength without sacrificing seating capacity. Previously, the small school bus seating capacity was limited by the mass of the unloaded bus.
In an effort to allow cut-away chassis over 4 536 kg to be sold in Canada, the Department completed an Interim Order which was published in the Canada Gazette on January 22, 2000. This Order allows manufacturers to comply with the school bus joint strength requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) FMVSS 221. This Interim Order is effective from January 15, 2000, until January 14, 2001. It is the Department's intention to complete this amendment prior to the end of the Interim Order.
This amendment will place new requirements on MAPs. A new definition, "maintenance access panel," will be incorporated describing it as a body panel "that must be moved or removed to provide access to serviceable components." This amendment will also define "serviceable component" as a part of the bus that is identified in the owners' or factory service manuals as requiring routine maintenance at least once each year. The new definition will further specify that "serviceable component" includes tubing, wires and harnesses only at their attachments. These new definitions will limit the number of panels that fall under the MAP exemption. In addition to limiting the number of maintenance access panels, the Department will also set criteria that a MAP must meet to be excluded from the requirement. More specifically, MAPs located within the passenger compartment which exceed 305 mm will have to meet the minimum 60 percent strength requirement and they will have to have a maximum fastener spacing of 100 mm.
This proposed amendment also clarifies body panel joints which will be exempted from these new requirements: body panel joints that are located forward of the vertical transverse plane 762 mm in front of the forwardmost passenger seating reference point; MAPs that are located outside the passenger area and those located inside the passenger area that are smaller than 305 mm; joints which have only one discrete fastener or spot weld support; components, such as rub rails, located outside of the body panels; windows, doors, ventilation panels and engine access covers; and decorative parts that do not contribute to the bus body strength.
Due to the difficulty in consistently testing small joints, the Department is proposing to add a new clause exempting from testing joints which have only one discrete fastener or spot weld support. A new clause will also be added specifying that body panels attached to each other shall have no unattached segment at the joint longer than 100 mm. This requirement will help to ensure the integrity of bus body joints in the event of a collision.
This amendment will make a number of revisions to Test Method 221, including: adopting a provision that support components must remain attached to the specimen during testing; adding the requirement that the cross sectional area of material removed to facilitate the installation of fasteners shall not be used in the determination of the material joint strength; adding a provision that the joint must be in stress for the strength test at 90 degrees plus or minus 3 degrees from the joint centerline; and revising the body joint test specimen "hourglass" dimensions. In addition, the referenced American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards will be updated allowing manufacturers to follow either the Imperial or Metric measurement specifications and the referenced sections will be revised noting the 1999 ASTM standards.
The Department is proposing to adopt the requirement that support components must remain attached to the specimen during testing as this is how it has completed its compliance testing. The Department believes that removing any support components may potentially weaken or substantially change the testing sample.
The Department will include the statement that the total area of material removed for installation of fasteners is not to be used in calculating the tensile strength of each joined component. While this was the method used by the Department in calculating joint strength in the past, it was not precisely addressed in the Test Method. As this may not be the method that manufacturers have traditionally used to calculate joint strength, the Department is specifically requesting manufacturers to comment on this requirement.
To maintain harmony with the NHTSA FMVSS 221, the Department will revise the body joint test specimen "hourglass" dimensions and will include the requirement that the joint test specimen be in stress for the strength test at 90 degrees plus or minus 3 degrees from the joint centerline.
Effective Date
It is proposed that this amendment be effective January 15, 2001.
Alternatives
The Department of Transport believes that it is important to make the proposed changes. As the existing regulation prevents cut-away chassis over 4 536 kg from being sold in Canada, the only alternative would be the complete withdrawal of CMVSS 221. This alternative was not considered as it would have the potential to degrade school bus occupant protection.
Benefits and Costs
The Department estimates that the average consumer cost per vehicle affected by this amendment will be minimal. As large school buses already comply with the body panel joint strength requirements of CMVSS 221, the manufacturers will only have to bring the MAPs into compliance. In the case of small school buses having a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less, which have been excluded from the joint strength requirements of CMVSS 221, the manufacturers must bring their body panel joints and their MAPs into compliance. This is not expected to be a significant cost as many small bus manufacturers also construct large buses and have been employing the same structural joint techniques for both sizes of buses. The Department estimates that the costs, as a percentage of the total school bus manufacturing cost, will not increase significantly and thus, any impact on school bus sales will be negligible.
The Department expects this amendment to have several benefits, including ensuring that: children riding in small school buses are provided equivalent levels of protection against joint separation as they would be provided while riding in a large school bus; MAPs are securely attached thus preventing the potential for injury during a collision; and the 4 536 kg GVWR limit for cut-away type buses is removed.
CMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, is the only special school bus regulation that exempts buses with a GVWR under 4 536 kg. Other special school bus regulations apply to both large and small types of buses. The Department is of the opinion that occupants of small school buses deserve the equivalent level of joint separation protection as is afforded to occupants of large school buses.
The current Regulations do not define MAPs and do not have any joint strength requirements for them; thus, the manufacturers have been free to designate MAPs at their discretion. A Transport Canada study entitled "School Bus Collision Summary Canada 1989-1997" (TP13412), includes a case of joint separation of a MAP, noting that the MAP exemption should be reconsidered. This amendment will require manufacturers of all sizes of buses to secure all MAPs over 305 mm located in the passenger area, thus reducing the potential for injury in a collision.
This amendment will also improve school bus safety as it will redefine the passenger compartment resulting in the removal of the 4 536 kg limit for cut-away type buses. The Department has completed an investigation of a school bus collision which resulted in the rear emergency exit door opening. Further investigation of this collision indicated that the 4 536 kg limit resulted in manufacturers minimizing the school bus body mass to maximize the seating capacity. This amendment will eliminate the 4 536 kg ceiling, thus allowing small school buses to be constructed on a larger and heavier chassis, resulting in improved passenger safety and reduced transportation costs.
Consultation
In May 1999, the Department met with the manufacturers of cut-away chassis to explore testing alternatives for the cut-away chassis cab joints. These cab joints are substantially different from school bus body joints and therefore cannot be tested using the same test procedures. This meeting resulted in the Department completing an Interim Order which provides for the temporary harmonization of the requirements of CMVSS 221 with those of the NHTSA FMVSS 221. As the requirements of FMVSS 221 limit the size of the joints that require testing, it has provided temporary relief until January 14, 2001, allowing for the sale in Canada of cut-away chassis over 4 536 kg.
It is possible to comment on the content of this amendment during the consultation period that will follow its publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Also, comments may be made at any of the regular meetings that are held with industry representatives to discuss regulatory development matters. All responses will be taken into consideration in the development of the final amendment.
Compliance and Enforcement
Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. The Department of Transport monitors the self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. When a defect is found, the manufacturer or importer must issue a notice of defect to owners and to the Minister of Transport. If a vehicle does not comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer or importer is subject to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
Contact
Dan Davis, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, (613) 998-1962 (Telephone), (613) 990-2913 (Facsimile), DAVISDA@tc.gc.ca (Electronic mail).
For copies of Test Method 221, please contact: Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5, (613) 998-8616 or 1-800-333-0371 (Telephone), (613) 990-2913 (Facsimile).
PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act(see footnote d), that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 5 and subsection 11(1) of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (School Bus Body Joint Strength).
Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Dan Davis, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Department of Transport, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5.
Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular, under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.
Ottawa, June 21, 2000
MARC O'SULLIVAN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (SCHOOL BUS BODY JOINT STRENGTH)
AMENDMENT
1. Section 221(see footnote 11) of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations(see footnote 12) and the heading(see footnote 13) before it are replaced by the following:
School Bus Body Joint Strength (Standard 221)
221. (1) The definitions in this subsection apply in this section.
"body component" means a part of a bus body, including floor panels, made from a single piece of homogeneous material or from a single piece of composite material such as plywood or plastic. (élément de carrosserie)
"body panel" means a body component used on the exterior or interior surface of a bus to enclose the bus occupant space. (panneau de carrosserie)
"body panel joint" means the area of contact, attachment or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. (joint de panneau de carrosserie)
"bus body" means the portion of a bus that encloses the bus occupant space, including the floor and the body panel separating the engine compartment from the occupant space but excluding the bumpers and chassis frame. (carrosserie d'autobus)
"maintenance access panel" means a body panel that must be moved or removed to provide access to serviceable components. (panneau d'accès pour l'entretien)
"serviceable component" means any part of a bus, of either a mechanical or electrical nature, that is explicitly identified in the owner's manual or factory service manual as requiring routine maintenance actions at intervals of one year or less. Tubing, wires and harnesses are considered to be serviceable components only at their attachments. (élément nécessitant de l'entretien)
(2) This section applies to all school bus body panel joints that lie rearward of the vertical transverse plane located 762 mm in front of the forward-most passenger seating reference point, except those that contact or are attached to or in close proximity to
(a) support components such as rub rails that are entirely outside body panels;
(b) doors, windows, ventilation panels or engine access covers;
(c) trim or decorative parts that do not contribute to the strength of a body panel joint; or
(d) interior maintenance access panels that are 305 mm or less when measured across any two points on the diametrically opposite sides of the opening.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), when tested in accordance with Test Method 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (April 12, 2000), every body panel joint shall be capable of sustaining, without separation, a tensile force that is equal to 60% of the breaking tensile strength within the weakest body panel component attached by the joint.
(4) A body panel joint is not required to be tested if a test specimen cannot be obtained in accordance with Test Method 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (April 12, 2000) or it has only one discrete fastener or spot weld.
(5) Body panels attached to each other shall have no unattached segment at the joint longer than 100 mm.
COMING INTO FORCE
2. These Regulations come into force on January 15, 2001.
[28-1-o]
S.C. 2000, c. 15, s. 13(3)
R.S., c. 19 (2nd Supp.), s. 19
Crash Firefighting and Rescue Services in Canada, Volume II Analysis of Risks Costs and Benefits, Sypher:Mueller International Inc., December 1988, p. 30.
Ibid., p. 36.
Crash Firefighting and Rescue Services in Canada, Sypher:Mueller International Inc., December 1988.
Ibid., p. 67.
Ibid., p. 98.
Ibid., pp. 103 and 104.
Enplaned/deplaned passenger statistics are reported by major charter and regional/local carriers. They include passengers leaving or joining a flight at the airport reporting. They do not include passengers transiting through the airport on a flight from their origin to a further destination. An alternative statistic, arriving/departing passengers includes transiting passengers at each airport as well as those joining or leaving the flight at that location. However, arriving/departing passenger statistics are reported only by the major and charter carriers. For the system as a whole, in general, enplaned/deplaned passenger statistics show more passengers than do arriving/departing statistics. In particular for the smaller airports (such as those that will be affected by the proposed regulation), the absence of reporting by the regional/local carriers is likely to seriously understate the number of passengers potentially benefited by the proposal.
The model was predicated upon the frequency and characteristics of accidents rather than on the provision of specific aircraft fire fighting services.
S.C. 1992, c. 4, s. 7
SOR/96-433
SOR/97-518
S.C. 1993, c. 16
SOR/97-421
C.R.C., c. 1038
SOR/80-160
NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).
