Vol. 137, No. 13 — June 18, 2003

Registration
SOR/2003-213 5 June, 2003

AERONAUTICS ACT

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part V)

P.C. 2003-870 5 June, 2003

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, pursuant to section 4.9 (see footnote a)  of the Aeronautics Act, hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part V).

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PART V)

AMENDMENTS

1. The definition "applicant" in section 511.01 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (see footnote 1)  is replaced by the following:

"applicant" means an individual or organization, or a representative of an individual or organization, that makes an application for a type certificate or a change to a type certificate in respect of an aeronautical product; (demandeur)

2. (1) The portion of subsection 511.06(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

511.06 (1) Unless the applicant demonstrates, at the time of submitting an application for a type certificate or a change to a type certificate in respect of an aeronautical product, that the aeronautical product requires a longer period for design, development and testing — and for that reason the Minister approves a longer period — the application is effective during one of the following periods, starting on the date of application:

(2) The portion of subsection 511.06(2) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) If a type certificate will not be issued or a change to a type certificate will not be approved within the period established in accordance with subsection (1), the applicant may

3. (1) Subparagraph 511.07(1)(a)(ii) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• • (ii) if the effective period of an application for a type certificate is extended under paragraph 511.06(2)(b), then the date of application under subparagraph (i) is — for the purposes of determining the standards in force — deferred for the same period of time.

(2) Paragraph 511.07(1)(c) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (c) except for aircraft in respect of which certification is requested in the restricted category for agricultural or fire-fighting operations, the aircraft emissions standards specified in Subpart 16.

4. Section 511.10 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

511.10 An applicant shall give the Minister access to the aeronautical product that is the subject of an application made under section 511.05 in order to make any inspection and engineering assessment or conduct any flight or ground test that is necessary to determine compliance with the standards specified in sections 511.07 and 511.13.

5. (1) Subsection 511.12(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a), by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

• (c) in the case of an aircraft, demonstrates that no feature or characteristic makes it unsafe, taking into account the category in which certification is requested.

(2) Section 511.12 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) If the type design of an aeronautical product does not meet all of the applicable standards specified in section 511.13, the Minister shall, subject to section 6.71 of the Act, approve a change to the type design in respect of the aeronautical product if the applicant demonstrates that

• (a) the unmet standards are compensated for by factors that provide an equivalent level of safety; or
  (b) the consequences of the standards not being met are negligible with respect to the level of safety, given the experience accumulated or the tests carried out.

(5) The Minister shall approve a change to the type design in respect of an aircraft in the restricted category for special purpose operations within the meaning of section 511.05 of the Airworthiness Manual if the applicant demonstrates that

• (a) no feature or characteristic of the aircraft makes it unsafe when it is operated within the limitations specified for its intended use; and
  (b) the aircraft meets the applicable standards of airworthiness specified in section 511.13 of the Regulations, except for those standards that are inappropriate for the special purpose operation.

6. Section 511.13 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

511.13 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (10), the holder of a type certificate who proposes to change the type design of an aeronautical product shall show that the changed aeronautical product meets

• (a) the standards of airworthiness that are in force on the date of the application for the proposed change; and
  (b) the standards specified in Subpart 16 that are in force on a date as determined there.

(2) The applicable standards of airworthiness for an aircraft appliance are those recorded in the type certificate data sheets and any special conditions prescribed under subsection (7).

(3) The changed aeronautical product may comply with an earlier amendment of a standard required under subsection (1) if the Minister determines that the proposed change is not significant in the context of all previous relevant design changes and the related amendments of the applicable standards recorded in the type certificate data sheets. A change is significant if

• (a) the general configuration or principles of construction are not retained; or
  (b) the assumptions used in obtaining the type certificate for the aeronautical product do not remain valid.

(4) The changed aeronautical product may comply with an earlier amendment of a standard required under subsection (1) in respect of an area, system, component, equipment or appliance if the Minister determines that the area, system, component, equipment or appliance

• (a) is not affected by the change; or
  (b) is affected by the change, but compliance with a standard required under subsection (1) would not contribute materially to the level of safety or would not be practical.

(5) A standard referred to in subsection (3) or (4) may not precede a standard that is recorded in the type certificate data sheets or an applicable standard set out in section 523.2, 525.2, 527.2 or 529.2 of the Airworthiness Manual.

(6) The applicable standards of airworthiness for a change to the type design of an aircraft, other than a rotorcraft, of a maximum weight of 2 720 kg (6,000 pounds) or less or of a non-turbine rotorcraft of a maximum weight of 1 360 kg (3,000 pounds) or less are those recorded in the type certificate data sheets, unless the Minister determines that

• (a) the change is significant and compliance is required with an amendment of the standards recorded in the type certificate data sheets that apply to the change and with any standards that are directly related; and
  (b) the compliance with the amendment of the standards referred to in paragraph (a) would contribute materially to the level of safety and would be practical.

(7) An applicant for a change to the type design of an aeronautical product shall comply with any special conditions or amendments of those conditions that are necessary to ensure that the changed aeronautical product will provide a level of safety equal to that established by the applicable standards referred to in subsections (1) to (6), (8) and (9) if

• (a) the changed aeronautical product has novel or unusual design features; or
  (b) there are no applicable standards of airworthiness for the changed aeronautical product.

(8) If a change is made to the type design of an aircraft certified under subsection 511.11(5), the changed aeronautical product must meet

• (a) the standards of airworthiness applicable to that category of aeronautical product in force on the date of the application for the proposed change, except for those standards that are inappropriate for the special purpose operation; or
  (b) the standards of airworthiness recorded in the type certificate data sheets — or an earlier amendment of a standard referred to in paragraph (a) — if they will provide a level of safety appropriate for the special purpose operation.

(9) The holder of a type certificate may, with the approval of the Minister, elect to comply with an amendment of a standard of airworthiness that is made after the date of the application for the proposed change to the type design if any related amendments are also included.

(10) If the effective period of an application for a change to the type certificate is extended under paragraph 511.06(2)(b), then the date of application for the change proposed under subsection (1) is — for the purposes of determining the standards in force — deferred for the same period of time.

7. Section 511.14 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

511.14 The holder of a type certificate who proposes to change the type design of an aeronautical product shall assign a new designation to the aeronautical product and submit an application for a new type certificate if the Minister determines that the scope and nature of the proposed change in design, configuration, power, power limitations (engines) or weight are so extensive that a substantially complete investigation is necessary to determine compliance with the applicable standards of airworthiness.

8. Section 511.20 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

511.20 The applicable standards of airworthiness for the issuance of a type certificate or approval of a change to the type certificate in respect of a foreign aeronautical product are those specified in this Part that were in force on the later of

• (a) the date on which an application for the type certificate or change to the type certificate, or an equivalent document, was submitted to the airworthiness authority having jurisdiction in the state of design; and
  (b) the date that precedes, by the effective period applicable to the product as specified in subsection 511.06(1), the date of issuance of the type certificate or approval of the change to the type certificate by the airworthiness authority having jurisdiction in the state of design.

9. The reference "[513.03 and 513.04 reserved]" after section 513.02 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

[513.03 reserved]

10. The headings before section 513.05 and sections 513.05 to 513.10 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

DIVISION II — CHANGES TO A TYPE DESIGN

Application for the Issuance of a Certificate

513.04 (1) Subject to section 513.14, an applicant shall submit an application for the issuance of a certificate to the Minister in the form and manner specified in Chapter 513 of the Airworthiness Manual.

(2) A supplemental type certificate, a limited supplemental type certificate or a repair design certificate applied for in accordance with subsection (1) shall be issued in the name of the individual or organization that has responsibility for the change to the type design of the aeronautical product and in whose name the application was made.

Obligations of an Applicant

513.05 An applicant shall comply with the applicable standards specified in sections 513.07 and 513.08 and provide the Minister with the technical design data and other documents relating to the aeronautical product in accordance with Chapter 513 of the Airworthiness Manual.

Effective Period of an Application

513.06 (1) Unless the applicant demonstrates, at the time of submitting an application for a supplemental type certificate, a limited supplemental type certificate or a change to those certificates in respect of an aeronautical product, that the aeronautical product requires a longer period for design, development and testing — and for that reason the Minister approves a longer period — the application is effective during one of the following periods, starting on the date of application:

• (a) five years for a transport category aeroplane certified under Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual or a transport category rotorcraft certified under Chapter 529 of the Airworthiness Manual;
  (b) three years for an aircraft other than an aircraft referred to in paragraph (a);
  (c) three years for an aircraft engine, an aircraft propeller or a turbine-powered APU; or
  (d) two years for an aircraft appliance other than a turbine-powered APU.

(2) If a supplemental type certificate or limited supplemental type certificate will not be issued or a change to those certificates will not be approved within the period established in accordance with subsection (1), the applicant may

• (a) submit a new application; or
  (b) apply for an extension of the effective period of the original application.

Applicable Standards

513.07 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (11), an applicant for a supplemental type certificate, a limited supplemental type certificate or a change to these certificates shall show that the changed aeronautical product meets

• (a) the standards of airworthiness that are in force on the date of application for the proposed change; and
  (b) the standards specified in Subpart 16 that are in force on a date as determined there.

(2) The applicable standards of airworthiness for the issuance of a repair design certificate in respect of an aeronautical product or a change to an aircraft appliance are those recorded in the type certificate data sheets and any special conditions prescribed under subsection (7).

(3) The changed aeronautical product may comply with an earlier amendment of a standard required under subsection (1) if the Minister determines that the proposed change is not significant in the context of all previous relevant design changes and the related amendments of the applicable standards recorded in the type certificate data sheets. A change is significant if

• (a) the general configuration or principles of construction are not retained; or
  (b) the assumptions used in obtaining the type certificate for the aeronautical product do not remain valid.

(4) The changed aeronautical product may comply with an earlier amendment of a standard required under subsection (1) in respect of an area, system, component, equipment or appliance if the Minister determines that the area, system, component, equipment or appliance

• (a) is not affected by the change; or
  (b) is affected by the change, but compliance with a standard required under subsection (1) would not contribute materially to the level of safety or would not be practical.

(5) A standard referred to in subsection (3) or (4) may not precede a standard that is recorded in the type certificate data sheets or an applicable standard set out in section 523.2, 525.2, 527.2 or 529.2 of the Airworthiness Manual.

(6) The applicable standards of airworthiness for a change to the type design of an aircraft, other than a rotorcraft, of a maximum weight of 2 720 kg (6,000 pounds) or less or of a non-turbine rotorcraft of a maximum weight of 1 360 kg (3,000 pounds) or less are those recorded in the type certificate data sheets, unless the Minister determines that

• (a) the change is significant and compliance is required with an amendment of the standards recorded in the type certificate data sheets that apply to the change and with any standards that are directly related; and
  (b) the compliance with the amendment of the standards referred to in paragraph (a) would contribute materially to the level of safety and would be practical.

(7) An applicant for a supplemental type certificate, a limited supplemental type certificate, repair design certificate or a change to those certificates shall comply with any special conditions or amendments of those conditions that are necessary to ensure that a modification or repair will provide a level of safety equal to that established by the applicable standards specified in subsections (1) to (6), (8) and (9) if

• (a) the modification or repair has novel or unusual design features; or
  (b) there are no applicable standards of airworthiness for the modification or repair.

(8) If a change is made to the type design of an aircraft certified under subsection 511.11(5), the changed aeronautical product must meet

• (a) the standards of airworthiness applicable to that category of aeronautical product in force on the date of the application for the proposed change, except for those standards that are inappropriate for the special purpose operation; or
  (b) the standards of airworthiness recorded in the type certificate data sheets — or an earlier amendment of a standard referred to in paragraph (a) — if they will provide a level of safety appropriate for the special purpose operation.

(9) An applicant for a supplemental type certificate, a limited supplemental type certificate, a repair design certificate or a change to these certificates, may, with the approval of the Minister, elect to

• (a) comply with an amendment of a standard of airworthiness that is made after the date of application for the proposed change to the type design, if any related amendments are also included; or
  (b) use standards of airworthiness that will provide a level of safety equivalent to the level provided by the standards specified in subsection (1).

(10) If the effective period of an application for a supplemental type certificate or a limited supplemental type certificate or a change to those certificates is extended under paragraph 513.06(2)(b), then the date of application for the change proposed under subsection (1) is — for the purposes of determining the standards in force — deferred for the same period of time.

(11) The applicable standards of airworthiness for the issuance of a supplemental type certificate, a limited supplemental type certificate or a repair design certificate in respect of a Canadian aircraft operated under a special certificate of airworthiness — limited are those specified for that purpose in subsection 513.07(2) of the Airworthiness Manual.

Reclassification of Aircraft to Restricted Category

513.08 If a design change to an aircraft will result in the aircraft being reclassified as an aircraft in the restricted category for special purpose operations within the meaning of section 511.05 of the Airworthiness Manual, the applicable standards of airworthiness for the type design as changed are those specified in subsection 513.07(8).

[513.09 reserved]

Involvement of the Minister

513.10 An applicant shall give the Minister access to the aeronautical product that is the subject of an application made under section 513.04 in order to make any inspection and engineering assessment or to conduct any flight or ground test that is necessary to determine compliance with the standards specified in section 513.07.

11. Paragraph 513.11(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the applicant meets the requirements of sections 513.04 to 513.06;

12. The reference "[513.13 to 513.19 reserved]" after section 513.12 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

[513.13 reserved]

Changes to a Type Design Requiring a New Type Certificate

513.14 An applicant who proposes to change the type design of an aeronautical product shall submit an application for a new type certificate under Subpart 11 if the Minister determines that the scope and nature of the proposed change in design, configuration, power, power limitations (engines) or weight are so extensive that a substantially complete investigation is necessary to determine compliance with the applicable standards of airworthiness.

[513.15 to 513.19 reserved]

13. Paragraph 513.22(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) the type design of the aeronautical product with the design change incorporated meets the applicable standards of airworthiness specified in section 513.07 or 513.08; and

COMING INTO FORCE

14. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Description

General

These Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part V) contain revisions to Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Part V (Airworthiness) Subpart 11 (Approval of the Type Design of an Aeronautical Product) and Subpart 13 (Approval of Modification and Repair Designs). Revisions necessary to incorporate the regulatory policy changes in the relevant Chapters of the Airworthiness Manual (AWM) are also being made. With certain exceptions (which are discussed later in this document), the revisions introduce procedures to require applicants for approval of proposed design changes to aeronautical products to incorporate in the redesigned products the most current design standards, to the greatest extent practicable. The design standards themselves will not be affected by this regulatory change but rather the process by which it is determined which design standards an aeronautical product, to which a change in design is proposed, must satisfy. The intent of these revisions is to reinforce the existing high level of Canadian aviation safety and to support the further enhancement of that level of safety by ensuring changes to Canadian aeronautical products are subject to scrutiny to ensure their design will provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the most recent design standards.

These amendments will apply to applications for changes to all existing design approvals for airframes, engines or propellers. Compliance with an earlier version of a design standard may be permitted by the regulatory authority if:

• (1) the applicant can demonstrate to the Minister that the change is not significant;
  (2) for each area, system, component, equipment or appliance, the applicant can demonstrate to the Minister that it will not be affected by the change;
  (3) the applicant can demonstrate to the Minister that compliance with the most recent standard would not contribute materially to the level of safety of the changed product; or

(4) the applicant can demonstrate to the Minister that imposing the most recent standard on the aeronautical product as a result of the change would be impractical (the financial costs would outweigh the expected safety benefits).

For proposals to change the design of an aircraft (other than a rotorcraft) with a maximum weight of 2 720 kg (6,000 lb.) or less or of a non-turbine rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 1 360 kg (3,000 lb.) or less, the Minister will remain responsible for demonstrating the need to comply with later design standards than those incorporated in the current pre-change design.

The Minister's authority and responsibility for the final decision as to which design standard must be met by the final version of the product will remain unchanged from that in place prior to these amendments.

These amendments are required to address the trend toward fewer aeronautical products that are of completely new design and more products with multiple changes to previously approved designs for existing aeronautical products. In common with those of other major regulatory regimes, Canadian airworthiness regulations have permitted an individual or organization that had responsibility for the type design or a change to the type design of an aeronautical product to change aspects of the design of the aeronautical product without updating the design of the entire product to the design standards current at the time of the application for the change to the type design. The result could be, and often was, a series of changes to a design, over time, no one of which constituted an extensive change from the immediately preceding design. The cumulative effect of the series of changes, however, could result in a very different version of the aeronautical product from that version to which the original type certificate which approved the original design referred. As a result, many changed aeronautical products have not been required to demonstrate compliance with all the recent airworthiness design standards. The changes to Canadian regulations form part of an international agreement with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) to harmonize procedures for aeronautical product design and certification to prevent the continuation of this situation.

These amendments were pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 1, 2003. No comments were received. However, one change has been made to the amendments as originally pre-published. The provision formerly in paragraph 513.07(2)(b) was unintentionally removed from section 513.07 (Applicable Standards). This removal was not part of the changes as consulted during the development of these amendments but was the inadvertent result of the redrafting of section 513.07. The paragraph contained a provision that allowed an approval for a modification or repair design to be issued by the Department using the airworthiness standards of a foreign airworthiness authority if those standards were found to provide a level of safety equivalent to the level provided by Canadian standards. This process has been in place for many years and has been shown to be straightforward, efficient and safe. The removal of the provision would necessitate a more involved, slower method of granting such approvals. The slower process would entail hardship for industry applicants without generating any safety benefits. The provision formerly in paragraph 513.07(2)(b) has been replaced in paragraph 513.07(9)(b).

Specific

Subpart 11 (Approval of the Type Design of an Aeronautical Product) of Part V of the CARs sets forth the regulatory requirements which an applicant for a type certificate or for a change to a type certificate which records the approval of the type design of an aeronautical product must meet before the application is approved and the type certificate is issued by the Minister. Subpart 13 (Approval of Modification and Repair Designs) of Part V sets forth the regulatory requirements which an applicant for a document or for a change to a document which provides for supplementary modifications or repairs, not covered by the existing type certificate, to an aeronautical product must meet before the application is approved and the document is issued by the Minister.

An aeronautical product is defined in section 511.01 (Interpretation) as "an aircraft, aircraft engine, aircraft propeller or aircraft appliance". A new aeronautical product must be designed in accordance with predetermined design standards of airworthiness (which may be found in the relevant regulations and associated standards). When these standards of airworthiness have been met, the regulatory authority will issue a type certificate which specifies the approved design in accordance with which all individual units of the particular model or series of models of the aeronautical product must be built. (Each individual aircraft will have a Certificate of Airworthiness — or similar flight authority document — which certifies that that individual meets the airworthiness standard which applies to all aircraft of that type, as specified in the relevant type certificate.) If changes to the design are desired during the service life of the product, the original design criteria must be amended, either by the issue of a new type certificate or by the issue of a supplemental type certificate (STC), a limited supplemental type certificate (LSTC) or a repair design certificate (RDC). These additional documents are considered to form part of the type certification of the model(s) of the aeronautical product which they jointly cover.

Changes to the design of appliances and applications for repair design certificates are excluded from the application of these amendments. An appliance is not part of the airframe, engine or propeller of the aircraft in which it is being used. The level of safety of the appliance is not meaningful until the appliance is installed on an airframe, engine or propeller. There are many interfaces and redundant systems in any aircraft and, because of these systemic complexities an increase in the safety of an appliance may not always translate into an increase in the overall safety of the aircraft (although a change in an appliance design will never be allowed to decrease the overall safety of the aircraft). Neither the FAA nor the JAA issue type certificates for appliances. To require the existing design of an airframe, engine or propeller to be reexamined because of a proposed change to design of an appliance would impose an unnecessary burden on the industry.

Since a repair is intended to return the aeronautical product being repaired to the safety envisaged by its original design standards and not to improve upon those standards, an application for a repair design certificate will also be excluded from the effects of these amendments.

Subpart 11 (Approval of the Type Design of an Aeronautical Product)

This Subpart of the CARs deals with the approval of a type design for an aeronautical product (an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller or aircraft appliance). The regulations in this Subpart and the associated standard, Airworthiness Manual (AWM) Chapter 511 (Approval of the Type Design of An Aeronautical Product Standards), contain the process which must be followed and establish the criteria which must be met for the issue of a new type certificate or for a change to an existing type certificate to be approved.

When an application is made for a type certificate for a new aeronautical product, unless specifically requested and justified by the applicant, the application will be effective for a period of between two and five years depending on the type of product proposed. The airworthiness standards for the issue of the type certificate will be those in force on the date of the application for the type certificate.

If the design, development and testing process cannot be completed within the effective period, the applicant may apply for an extension of the original application. If a postponement of the date at which the original effective period ended becomes necessary, the applicant may choose to meet a different set of airworthiness standards but those standards may precede the issue of the type certificate by a period which is no longer than the length of original effective period.

That is, in the case of an application for a new type certificate, the airworthiness standards for the design will be those in effect two to five years preceding the date at which the certificate is issued. There are exceptions to this general statement but they support the overall goal that the standards of airworthiness which must be met for the issue of a type certificate will provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided by those standards in force no less than two to five years prior to the issue of the type certificate.

The changes in the amendments to Subpart 11 are intended to implement this goal with relation to requests for a change to an existing type design which will not require the issue of a new type certificate. The standards of airworthiness which the type design of the aeronautical product will be required to meet after the incorporation of the requested change will be those which will ensure the provision of a level of safety equivalent to that of the airworthiness standards in effect two to five years prior to the issue of the document approving the change.

Previous and Amended Processes for Changes to an Existing Type Design

Previous Process

If an applicant requested a change to a type certificate under Subpart 11 because of a proposal to make changes to the type design that affected the airworthiness of the aeronautical product or a proposal for an acoustical change to, or a change in the emissions specified in, an aircraft or aircraft engine type design, the applicable standards which had to be continued to be satisfied by the design, after incorporation of the changes, were those recorded in the type certificate data sheets, before the design change (i.e., the original standards plus any subsequent changes). With relatively infrequent specific exceptions, additional standards, necessary to ensure that the changed design provided a level of safety equivalent to that level that applied before the incorporation of the change, had to be met. The effect of these conditions was that an updating of the airworthiness standards for the entire aeronautical product, when relatively minor design changes were initiated, was not required. A new type certificate would not need to be issued. The existing type certificate would be amended to incorporate the approved change. Thus, the original standards which formed the basis for the type certification would continue to be applicable to aspects of the design which were unaffected by the change.

However, CARs section 511.14 (Changes to a Type Design Requiring a New Type Certificate) required an application for a new type certificate, if "the scope and nature of the proposed change in design, configuration, power, power limitations (engines) or weight are so extensive that a substantial investigation is necessary to determine compliance with the applicable standards" (see footnote 2) . Certain proposed changes to powerplants, principles of propulsion or to propellers or their principles of operation might have also required an application for a new type certificate. Thus, there was a provision, when a change to an existing type design had been requested, for the Minister to require an application for a new type certificate. The Minister had to determine that the proposed change was such as to require a "substantial investigation" to determine compliance and that the proposed change, therefore, justified the requirement for an application for a new type certificate. If there were novel or unusual design features proposed or if there were no applicable standards for the proposed modification or repair, special conditions would be specified by the Minister to ensure that a level of safety equivalent to that engendered by the standards provided by the type certificate data sheets or by an accepted equivalent document was achieved.

Under the pre-amended regulations, the regulatory authority was, therefore, responsible for determining whether the proposed change was such as to justify requiring an application for a new type certificate which would entail updating the design of the aeronautical product as a whole. The default position, absent the intervention of the regulatory authority, was the application of the certification standards, which governed the type design prior to the change, to ensure the changed design provided a level of safety equivalent to that which applied before the change was incorporated.

Amended Process

Changes throughout Subpart 11 incorporate the intent to place applications for changes to an existing type design on the same basis as for the issue of a new type certificate. Section 511.06 is revised to state that the period during which a request for a change to a type design is valid will be the same as that for a request for the issue of an original type certificate. The same provisions as are applied when issuing a new type certificate will be applied to a change for an existing type design if a postponement of the date at which the original effective period of the request ended should be necessary.

An amendment to existing section 511.10 (Involvement of the Minister) clarifies that an applicant is required to give the Minister access to any aeronautical product that is the subject of an application under this Subpart for an inspection and engineering assessment or for a flight or ground test. The previous wording required access only to an aircraft for such an assessment or test.

Subject to certain exceptions, as stated in the amended regulation, an amendment to section 511.13 (Applicable Standards for Changes to a Type Design) will require the holder of a type certificate who proposes a change to the type design of an aeronautical product to show that the changed product complies with the standards of airworthiness, applicable to the category of product, in effect on the date of the application for the change. As well, after the change the product must continue to meet the standards for noise emissions, engine emissions and fuel venting as provided in Subpart 16 (Aircraft Emissions).

The intended effect of this amendment will be to require an applicant for approval of a change to a type design to comply with the applicable standards of airworthiness in effect on the date of the application for the approval rather than with those recorded in the type certification of the product before the incorporation of the design change. This amendment is expected to ensure that airframes, engines or propellers being changed in a significant manner meet the latest airworthiness standards wherever practicable.

An applicant will be allowed to comply with an earlier airworthiness standard providing:

• (a) that the applicant shows the changed product satisfies conditions specified in section 511.13(3); or
  (b) for non-turbine rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 1 360 kg (3,000 lb.) or less or for other aircraft with a maximum weight of 2 720 kg (6,000 lb.) or less, the applicant may show that the changed product complies with the standards recorded in the type certificate. (That is, the current status of these small aircraft will remain unchanged. It will continue to be the responsibility of the regulatory authority to identify and demonstrate the need for compliance with updated design standards for significant changes.)

The exceptions which will allow the use of an earlier airworthiness standard include:

•  a change that the regulatory authority finds is not significant when considered in context with all previous relevant design changes and all related revisions to the applicable standards in the product's type certificate;

•  an area, system, component, equipment or appliance that the regulatory authority finds is not affected by the change; or

•  an area, system, component, equipment or appliance that is affected by the change but for which the regulatory authority accepts that updating the design in line with current standards would not materially improve the level of safety or would not be practical.

Proposed changes will be considered significant if the general configuration or the principles of construction of the aeronautical product prior to the change are not retained or if the assumptions used for certification of the product prior to the change do not remain valid.

To summarize, for approval of a proposed change to a type design (except for smaller aircraft), the responsibility is shifted to the applicant to justify not complying with the most recent airworthiness standards, rather than resting, as previously, with the regulatory authority to justify requiring compliance with the most recent airworthiness standards. There are no essential changes to existing procedures for the issue of a new type certificate. The current airworthiness design standards become the default position for changes to existing type designs rather than those design standards which applied preceding the proposed design change.

Subpart 13 (Approval of Modification and Repair Designs)

This Subpart deals with the process for the approval of modifications and repair designs for aeronautical products. It provides the conditions which must be met by an applicant for the issue of a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), a Limited Supplemental Type Certificate (LSTC) or a Repair Design Certificate (RDC) or for a revision to any of these certificates. These documents are a means of approving data (as required by CAR Subpart 71 Aircraft Maintenance Requirements) for modifications or repairs to aeronautical products where other forms of approved data are not available. The issue of an STC, LSTC or RDC signifies that the technical design data, upon which a modification or repair is based, has been approved by the regulatory authority.

The revisions in the amendment to Subpart 13 will apply only to applications for an STC or an LSTC. The STC or LSTC forms part of the aeronautical product type design, when the subject design change is incorporated. That is, it has the same effect as the original type certificate in controlling the design features of the aeronautical product. (An STC applies to the aeronautical products to which the original type certificate applies. An LSTC applies to a limited number of those aeronautical products. The products to which an LSTC applies are identified by their individual serial numbers.)

Previous and Amended Processes for Approval of Modifications

Previous Process

Previously, the applicable standards upon which the issue of an STC or LSTC had to be based were those recorded in the type certificate data sheets for the aeronautical product or in an accepted equivalent document. If there were novel or unusual design features proposed or if there were no applicable standards for the proposed modification, special conditions would be specified by the Minister to ensure that a level of safety equivalent to that engendered by the standards provided by the type certificate data sheets or by an accepted equivalent document was achieved. If the basis of certification for the aeronautical product consisted of standards no longer accepted in Canada for new types or if it was impractical for the applicant to obtain copies of such standards (e.g., for very old standards), the applicant was allowed to use airworthiness standards which would provide an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the type certificate data sheets or by an accepted equivalent document. This provision did not require conformity to standards of a more recent date than those of the original type certificate data sheets or their equivalent. There were certain exceptions to the above for aeronautical products with a Special Certificate of Airworthiness — Limited and for the substitution of powerplant types.

There was no provision under Subpart 13 by which the Minister could require the use of airworthiness standards later than those which were recorded in the existing certification documentation for the aeronautical product. The applicant could, however, with the approval of the Minister, have chosen to include changes to the airworthiness standards which postdated those upon which the type certificate for the aeronautical product was issued, on the condition that related changes were also included.

Amended Process

In accordance with the principles applied in developing the changes to Subpart 11, the amendments to Subpart 13 and its associated standard (Airworthiness Manual Chapter 513 Approval of Modification and Repair Designs Standards) are intended to assure the provision of a level of safety, for the design of modifications for aeronautical products, which is equivalent to that provided by the application of the most current airworthiness standards.

A new section 513.06 (Effective Period of an Application) is introduced to this Subpart which establishes the period during which an application for the issue of an STC or an LSTC is valid. These provisions are the same as those in force for applications for the issue of a new type certificate or for a type design change to an existing type certificate under section 511.06 (Effective Period of an Application).

Changes to existing section 513.07 (Applicable Standards) require an applicant for an STC or an LSTC to show that the changed product will comply with the standards of airworthiness, applicable to the category of the product, in effect on the date of the application for the change. As well, after the change the product must continue to meet the standards for noise emissions, engine emissions and fuel venting as provided in Subpart 16 (Aircraft Emissions). The same provisions that apply to applications for new STCs or LSTCs apply to applications for changes to existing documents. This amendment puts in place the same requirements for applicants for STCs and LSTCs, or for changes to existing documents, to conform with the most current standards of airworthiness in effect on the date of the application, as are being introduced for applicants for changes to existing type designs. Again, it will be the applicant's responsibility to justify, to the regulatory authority, not complying with this requirement.

The same exceptions and conditions apply to the applications under Subpart 13 as under Subpart 11.

An amendment to section 513.10 (Involvement of the Minister) clarifies that an applicant is required to give the Minister access to any aeronautical product that is the subject of an application under this Subpart for an inspection and engineering assessment or for a flight or ground test. The previous wording required access only to an aircraft for such an assessment or test.

A new section, 513.14 (Changes to a Type Design Requiring a New Type Certificate), establishes the conditions under which the regulatory authority may find that an application for a new type certificate is required for the proposed changes to the type design. This section is intended to ensure that extensive changes are subjected to the requirements of Subpart 11. If the proposed change is such that a substantially complete investigation is necessary to determine compliance with the applicable standards the regulatory authority will require an application for a new type certificate.

An applicant for a certificate based on an equivalent document which was issued by a foreign airworthiness authority will be required to satisfy the same provisions as will applicants for certificates based on Canadian-issued documents.

To summarize, the amendments to Subpart 13 place applicants for approval of modifications under the same requirements with respect to the design standards which must be met by the changed product as are applicants for a change to a type design under Subpart 11. With both amendments, except where a smaller aircraft is the subject of a proposal, the applicant will bear the responsibility for providing, to the regulatory authority, justification for not meeting design standards in effect on the date of application for the change rather than those standards which may be set forth in the original type certification data sheets or their equivalent.

The associated standards for both Subpart 11 (Airworthiness Manual Chapter 511) and Subpart 13 (Airworthiness Manual Chapter 513) are revised to ensure consistency with the changed requirements for the relevant regulations. These changes entail renumbering of sections, title revisions, correction of references, introduction of new references, deletions where provisions previously in a standard have been moved to a regulation and general editorial clarification.

Alternatives

No alternative to regulatory action is available which will achieve the benefits of these amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations and avoid the harm which could result to the international position of the Canadian aerospace industry if they were not promulgated.

These amendments were developed from the deliberations of an ad hoc committee, the International Certification Procedures Task Force (ICPTF), which was sponsored by the Aerospace Industries Association of America. This Task Force included representatives of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), Transport Canada (TC) and industry associations such as the Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA), the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada (AIAC), the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Association of Aerospace Industries (AECMA), the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

Based on the type certification principles for changes to aeronautical products which came out of the international Task Force, the Federal Aviation Administration, the European Joint Aviation Authorities and Transport Canada have collaborated on developing proposed regulatory changes suitable to their respective aviation environments. The FAA presented, in the U.S. Federal Register of Wednesday June 7, 2000 (see footnote 3) , their Final Rule for type certification procedures for changed products which will become mandatory on June 10, 2003. The JAA Committee adopted their corresponding rule in May 1999 and will implement it with the same mandatory date as the FAA Final Rule. Both jurisdictions intend to apply their revised type certification procedures to imported products.

The possibility of limiting the amendments to Subpart 11 and its associated standards was considered by the Canadian authorities. Such a choice would have relieved applicants for STCs or LSTCs or for changes to such documents from the provisions contained in these amendments. However, such a choice would perpetuate the existing situation whereby it is possible for a series of changes to create a substantially modified product from that to which the original type certificate with accompanying amendments applied. That modified product would not, in total, have been evaluated against current airworthiness design standards. These amendments will ensure that proposed design changes to Canadian aeronautical products are treated consistently in terms of the design standards which they must satisfy regardless of the type of approval document under which those proposed changes are evaluated by the regulatory authority. The alternative of limiting the amendments to Subpart 11 and its associated standards was, therefore, rejected for these reasons.

Historically, countries who are major exporters of aeronautical products have coordinated their certification standards for those products to facilitate the flow of trade. Canada has abided by this practice and has been a significant beneficiary of its results. Before a Canadian produced or modified aeronautical product is accepted within another jurisdiction, the regulatory authority in that jurisdiction requires proof that the product meets their certification standards (as we do when importing foreign aeronautical products). If Canadian standards are not obviously equivalent, the foreign authority will require re-certification to their own standards. The absence of a legislative requirement for certification standards which are equivalent to those of our major trading partners, the United States of America and those countries of the European Union which are also members of the JAA (see footnote 4) , would place a significant obstacle in the path of exporters of Canadian aeronautical products. These amendments will establish that legislative requirement and will ensure that Canadian design standards for changes to aeronautical products continue to be accepted as equivalent to those of the FAA and the JAA.

Benefits and Costs

Throughout the development of the aviation regulations and standards Transport Canada applies risk management concepts. Where there are risk implications the analysis of these Regulations has concluded that the imputed risk is acceptable in light of the expected benefits.

Although differences in the respective aviation and regulatory environments between the U.S. and Canada will lead to somewhat different regulatory details and to differing impact magnitudes, where applicable, the FAA analysis which accompanied the notice of the Final Rule (see footnote 5)  has been drawn upon in developing the following benefit-cost analysis for the amendments to Canadian regulations.

For smaller aircraft (non-turbine rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 1 360 kg (3,000 lb.) or less or aircraft other than rotorcraft with a maximum weight of 2 720 kg (6,000 lb.) or less) the regulatory process with respect to proposed design changes will remain essentially unchanged. Under both Subparts 11 and 13, for smaller aircraft, the responsibility for justifying an upgrade to the design standards will rest with the Minister rather than, as for larger aircraft, the applicant having the responsibility to justify non-compliance with current design standards.

Benefits

The main sources of benefits which may result from the changes are: enhanced safety; the prevention of damage to international trading relationships involving the affected products; and the protection of Canada's reputation among members of the international community of aviation regulatory authorities.

Enhanced Safety

As discussed in the analysis regarding their new procedures for changed products, published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration in the Federal Register (see footnote 6) , the directly attributable benefit of these amendments will be the augmented safety that will result from those cases where future changed products will be required to comply with later, more stringent airworthiness standards than those standards that would be required in the absence of the promulgation of these modified requirements. The new U.S. procedures are identical to those included in the amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations discussed in this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement although the form and language of the actual regulations differ. The same benefits from enhanced safety can be expected to accrue in the Canadian environment.

A trend has developed toward having a series of changes, over a period of time, to the design of an aeronautical product where each change, by itself, causes the product to differ little from that product immediately prior to the change but where the cumulative effect of the series creates a product substantially different from the original. The result of this trend is an aviation industry in which aircraft and equipment designed in accordance with the most stringent current standards are operated in the same roles and subject to the same operating rules as are products which have been designed, in large part, in accordance with much earlier design standards. The roles and operating rules have kept pace with changes in technology while the gap between that technology, with its accompanying operational practices, and the design of aeronautical products which are certificated to earlier standards has been widening.

As yet, no aviation accident or incident has been identified in which the use of an aeronautical product which was not certificated to an updated standard was considered a contributing factor. However, allowing the situation to continue would be an unacceptable deviation from the policy, which the Canadian federal government shares with other international authorities, that the traveling public is entitled to expect that the highest possible degree of safety commensurate with cost considerations should be achieved by those aeronautical products or modifications to such products which are being certificated at any given time.

International Trading Relationships

Canada is a small open economy. Barriers to trade matter more to our industry than to our U.S. or European counterparts who have access to much larger domestic markets. While tariffs, quotas and import duties constitute the commonly thought of barriers to trade, differing standards of design and production for regulated products can also be effective impediments to the free flow of goods between countries.

Exporters of regulated products are required, by the authorities of the countries to which they are exporting their products, to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory system in place under the jurisdiction in which they propose to market their products. This requirement imposes a cost of recertification upon the exporters whose products were initially certificated by the regulatory authority in the country in which they are resident when the certification standards of the two jurisdictions are different. This cost is not faced by domestic manufacturers (with whom they are competing) whose products were originally certificated in the domestic jurisdiction in which the exporters propose to sell their products. The cost differential will create a marketing disadvantage, i.e., a barrier to trade, for foreign producers which will impair their ability to compete in the domestic market, all other things being equal. The Canadian market for aeronautical products is a comparatively small component of the total (international) market for such products. Canadian producers are likely to suffer disproportionately vis-à-vis their U.S. or European competitors from such trade impediments.

The Aerospace Industry Association of Canada (AIAC) reports that Canada's aerospace industry is the fourth largest in the world (see footnote 7) . This performance is largely attributable to strong export sales. In 2000, aerospace sector sales were $20 billion. Nearly 80% were export sales. While this impressive result is based on the Canadian integration of advanced North American technology in aerospace design and production and on a well-deserved international recognition of Canadian workmanship and reliability, ready access to international markets has been essential to this achievement. For Canadian producers of aeronautical products this access has been eased by a historical policy of coordinating Canadian certification systems for aeronautical products with those in place among our international trading partners.

The current amendments will ensure that the certification standards for aeronautical products produced in Canada for export will be accepted by the regulatory jurisdictions in the most significant markets for Canadian exporters. No differential cost will be imposed on Canadian exporters as a consequence of design standards which differ from the country of the importer.

For smaller Canadian manufacturers who do not compete directly in the international market for aeronautical products but who are primarily engaged in the production of modifications of existing products for Canadian air operators, the harmonization of Canadian standards for changes to aeronautical product design with those accepted internationally will be imposed either directly, by our own legislative changes, or indirectly, by the requirements of their clientele. Canadian commercial air operators of aircraft certificated in the transport category function within an international network of leases, alliances and aircraft interchanges which require their aircraft to conform to internationally accepted airworthiness design standards. Operators of smaller aircraft would find opportunities to sell or modify their aircraft abroad severely curtailed if Canadian airworthiness design standards were to impose a different standard from those of the rest of the world. Thus, the majority of projects undertaken by the domestic modification segment of the industry are likely to be required, by the customers of this segment, to satisfy the higher design standard, whether or not Canadian regulations themselves impose such a standard.

International Reputation

As described, Canada was a full participant in the International Certification Procedures Task Force which developed the principles upon which these procedures for the certification of changed products are based. In addition, Canadian representatives took part in the International Certification Procedures Working Group which was, subsequently to the Task Force, established under the auspices of the Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to provide recommendations from the Committee to the FAA. Canadian views were respected in both groups and influenced the final recommendations.

The ARAC recommendations for procedures for type certification of changed products are reflected in the Final Rule as published June 7, 2000 (see footnote 8) . The European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), who also participated in both the Task Force and the Working Group, have adopted closely similar changes to their type certification procedures. Canada's participation in this international rulemaking process created an expectation among our international partners that we will harmonize our procedures for the treatment of proposed design changes to aeronautical products with theirs.

The present era is one of globalization of exchange of goods, services and information. To enjoy the full benefits of international exchange, it is necessary for a country to be accepted among the international trading community as an equal partner. Since the early days of manned flight, aviation has been notable for the participation in international fora of the countries at the forefront of its development. Canada has been among these countries from the first. For Canada to remain a respected participant in the international community of aviation regulatory authorities, we may not withdraw from our implicit commitment to enact these changes without demonstrating that there would be a serious disadvantage to the Canadian industry if we were to implement them.

Thus, the benefits to be expected from the amendments with respect to the certification process for changed aeronautical products will stem from:

•  ensuring the highest possible degree of safety to the traveling public consonant with responsible consideration of cost outcomes;

•  keeping barriers to trade at their historic levels to maintain the access of the Canadian aerospace industry to international markets; and

•  honouring Canada's international undertakings to harmonize these procedures with those instituted by our regulatory peers.

Costs

Costs of these amendments will be of two types. There will be costs incurred from incorporating in a redesigned product the most current design standards. If an applicant decides to request an exception from the requirement to incorporate the most current design standards, there will be a cost for the preparation of the request. Some projects can be expected to incur both types of costs while others will incur only one of the two types.

Costs of Design Upgrades

The modified regulations contain provisions (in addition to other grounds for exception) to ensure that, if the applicant for approval of a change to an aeronautical product can demonstrate that, for those aeronautical products affected by the change, compliance with the most current applicable standards "would not contribute materially to the level of safety or would not be practical," (see footnote 9)  and the regulatory authority agrees, such compliance will not be required. That is, if the benefits expected from compliance do not, at least, equal the costs, the applicant may be relieved of the necessity to comply. In other words, a requirement to upgrade the product design to the most current airworthiness standards for any specific project may be expected to satisfy a benefit-cost test.

Costs of Applications for Exceptions from the Requirements to Upgrade Product Design

For applications for design changes involving larger aircraft, engines or propellers, under either Subpart 11 or Subpart 13, these amendments will shift the responsibility for justifying non-compliance with the most recent airworthiness design standards to the applicant rather than leaving the responsibility with the regulatory authority to justify requiring compliance with those standards. From the standpoint of the economy, this change in responsibility represents a transfer of costs rather than an imposition of a new cost. This transfer can be expected to be essentially neutral in impact for the economy in total. The responsibility to justify a requirement to comply with the current airworthiness standards will remain the responsibility of Transport Canada for those applications relating to smaller aircraft. The impact upon the Canadian economy will not depend on the allocation of responsibility for preparing the argument for an exception.

Data Indicating Magnitude of Cost Impact

In response to a request from industry stakeholders for a cost analysis of this amendment, especially as it pertains to modifications, a survey requesting cost data was sent to the members of the Aircraft Certification Technical Committee of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC). Four responses were received. A summary of these responses was presented to the Technical Committee. The members agreed that a comprehensive estimate of costs could not be developed from those responses. The costs provided in the responses ranged from a low of $5,232 per project per year with nine projects per year expected, for one firm, to a high of $281,887 per project per year with two projects per year expected, for another firm.

Although the estimated number of projects for the industry as a whole was not available, the following information supplies a context within which the extent to which the Canadian industry may be affected by these amendments can be evaluated.

As of February 2001, the Canadian civil fleet included 21,238 aircraft of those types (including balloons and gliders) which would be subject to these amendments. Of this total, only 4,016 fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft were the larger aircraft for which the applicant for approval of a modification would be responsible to provide justification for not revising the design of the subject aircraft to satisfy current design standards as part of a proposed change. That is, only 19% of the affected aircraft would be subject to the full breadth of these amendments. For the remaining 17,222 aircraft, the regulatory authority would bear the responsibility to justify such an upgrade.

Departmental officials have done an evaluation of applications for STCs and LSTCs issued over the four years 1997 to 2000 for aircraft meeting the small aircraft criteria. They have determined hardly any of these would likely be assessed as being significant under these amendments. Therefore, very few would have required the incorporation of the most current design standards in the redesigned product. Assuming the same proportion of all applications for STCs and LSTCs would be assessed as requiring incorporation of the most current design standards as were so assessed for small aircraft, very few STCs and LSTCs would result in a requirement to upgrade the design of the subject aircraft to current design standards.

While the data is neither complete nor precise enough to permit quantification of an estimate of the total economic impact of these amendments upon the modification industry, it serves to indicate that the relative magnitude of the overall cost impact of the amendments is not likely to be significant.

Summary of Benefits and Costs

As discussed above, for Canadian manufacturers who are currently successfully competing in the international market for aeronautical products, the maintenance of comparable design standards with foreign manufacturers against whom they compete and into whose national markets they export their goods, is a necessary component of continuing international marketing success. For this very important group of manufacturers, additional costs from complying with the new certification standards for changes would be incurred upon their attempted product entry into foreign markets even without the Canadian implementation of these amendments. Indeed, they would be placed at a competitive disadvantage if the Canadian amendments were not to be implemented.

As also discussed, for the smaller Canadian manufacturers who are primarily engaged in the production of modifications of existing products for Canadian air operators, the harmonization of Canadian standards for changes to aeronautical product design will be imposed by market forces. Whether or not Canadian regulatory requirements include these amendments, this segment of the industry will be required by the majority of their customers to satisfy the international design standard.

An applicant for an amendment to an existing type certificate or for the issue of a new STC or LSTC or the amendment of an existing STC or LSTC may always choose to demonstrate that the benefits of revising the design of the product concerned to conform to the design standards in effect at the time of application for the change are less than the costs of the required revisions and, therefore, the proposed changed product should not have to comply with the most recent design standards. This provision will ensure that principles of benefit-cost analysis may always be applied to each new project. If the cost of conforming to the most recent standards will outweigh the benefits of such requirements, they will not be imposed. Therefore, each project can be expected to be individually justifiable.

The available data indicates that only a small proportion of aircraft in the Canadian fleet will be subject to the full impact of the changes to procedures for approval of intended modifications. As well, only a small proportion of STCs and LSTCs issued are likely to require recertification of the subject product so that the changed product satisfies current design standards.

In conclusion, although non-quantifiable, in aggregate the benefits are expected to justify the costs of these amendments.

Consultation

These amendments were pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 1, 2003. No comments were received. However, one change has been made to the amendments as originally pre-published. The provision formerly in paragraph 513.07(2)(b) was unintentionally removed from section 513.07 (Applicable Standards). This removal was not part of the changes as consulted during the development of these amendments but was the inadvertent result of the redrafting of section 513.07. The paragraph contained a provision that allowed an approval for a modification or repair design to be issued by the Department using the airworthiness standards of a foreign airworthiness authority if those standards were found to provide a level of safety equivalent to the level provided by Canadian standards. This process has been in place for many years and been shown to be straightforward, efficient and safe. The removal of the provision would necessitate a more involved, slower method of granting such approvals. The slower process would entail hardship for industry applicants without generating any safety benefits. The provision formerly in paragraph 513.07(2)(b) has been replaced in paragraph 513.07(9)(b).

Extensive consultation has taken place with members of both the Aircraft Certification Technical Committee and the Maintenance and Manufacturing Technical Committee of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Committee (CARAC) on this initiative to harmonize Canadian procedures for proposed design changes to aeronautical products with those procedures being introduced in other jurisdictions.

The actively participating members of the Aircraft Certification Technical Committee of CARAC include the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, AeroVations Inc., Air Canada, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the American Owners and Pilots Association — Canada, the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens inc., Avionics Design Services, Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, Bombardier Aerospace, Canadair Inc., Canadian Aero Manufacturing, the Canadian Business Aircraft Association, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, Deca Aviation, the Department of Justice, the Department of National Defence, de Havilland Inc., the Experimental Aircraft Association — Canadian Council, Field Aviation Co. Inc., First Air, Found Aircraft, Helicopter Association of Canada, IMP Group Ltd., Innotech Aviation, Kelowna Flightcraft Ltd., and Pratt & Whitney Canada.

The actively participating members of the Aircraft Maintenance and Manufacturing Technical Committee of CARAC include the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, Air B.C., Air Canada, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the American Owners and Pilots Association—Canada, the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens inc., Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, Bombardier Aerospace, Canadair Inc., Canadian Airlines International Ltd., the Canadian Business Aircraft Association, Canadian Federation of AME Associations, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, Canadian Sports Aviation Council, the Department of Justice, the Department of National Defence, de Havilland Inc., the Experimental Aircraft Association — Canadian Council, Field Aviation Co. Inc., Innotech Aviation, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Ontario AME Association, Pratt & Whitney Canada, Recreational Aircraft Association, and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

In September 1999, officials from the Transport Canada Aircraft Certification Branch briefed the members of the Aircraft Certification Technical Committee on the intention to harmonize Canadian certification rules and practices for proposed changes to aeronautical products with those of the FAA and JAA. Following this meeting, in October 1999, an information package including the FAA and JAA proposals was sent to members of both the Aircraft Certification and the Maintenance and Manufacturing Technical Committees. Draft copies of the Advisory Circulars presented to their respective industries by the FAA and the JAA as guidance in the intended application of their proposed regulations were provided to the members of both Committees in September 2000.

A two-part meeting of the Aircraft Certification Technical Committee, to which members of the Maintenance and Manufacturing Technical Committee were invited, was held in the fall of 2000 to consider these amendments to the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Although concern with respect to the impact of these amendments upon the segment of the Canadian industry which is primarily involved in providing modifications was expressed, no dissents from the amendments were received. In November 2000, at the second part of the meeting, the members of the Technical Committee endorsed the amendments with an accompanying request for certain provisions regarding training guidelines and material, and the delegation of certification authority to industry representatives. Transport Canada was very receptive to the industry position and is taking action to satisfy industry expectations on these issues.

These amendments were presented to the Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee (CARC), which is composed of senior managers in the Civil Aviation Directorate in the Department of Transport, on March 26, 2001. The members of CARC approved these amendments.

The Canadian industry was invited to designate representatives as members of the following five international ad hoc Working Groups: Small Aeroplanes, Rotorcraft, Engines and Propellers, Special Class and Restricted Category Aircraft, and Avionics. These Working Groups were tasked with developing guidance on the implementation of the changes as they will be applied to each category of aeronautical products. The Working Groups were comprised of members from the Canadian, European and U.S. industries and regulatory authorities.

Subsequent to the consultation process outlined above, concerns expressed by industry and the authorities in Canada, the U.S. and the countries of the JAA, in which the regulatory authorities had planned to promulgate corresponding requirements for changed products simultaneously, led to their implementation being delayed in all the jurisdictions. A common concern was the treatment of design changes regarded as being "not significant", and the possibility of imposing extraordinary administrative and technical burdens on manufacturers as a result of such design changes. With input from the five Working Groups discussed above and further consultation between the three regulatory authorities and the affected industries, these issues have been addressed. All three jurisdictions propose to introduce the new requirements in June 2003.

In addition to the above, consultations with their own constituencies have been carried out by the participants in the International Certification Procedures Task Force (ICPTF), by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and by the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). Members of the Canadian industry have been privy to some of these consultations by virtue of their participation in international markets. Transport Canada and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada (AIAC) were contributing participants in the development of recommendations for both the ICPTF and the Working Group established by ARAC.

Compliance and Enforcement

Issue of a Canadian certification document for an aeronautical product or for a change to an aeronautical product will be subject to compliance with these Regulations in accordance with section 4.9 of the Aeronautics Act.

Contact

• Chief
  Regulatory Affairs, AARBH
  Safety and Security
  Transport Canada
  Place de Ville, Tower C
  Ottawa, Ontario
  K1A 0N8
  Telephone: (613) 993-7284 or 1-800-305-2059
  FAX: (613) 990-1198
  Internet Address: www.tc.gc.ca

Footnote a 

S.C. 1992, c. 4, s. 7

Footnote 1 

SOR/96-433

Footnote 2 

The terminology in quotation marks is from Canadian Aviation Regulations, Part V Airworthiness, section 511.14 Changes to a Type Design Requiring a New Type Design Requiring a New Type Certificate, July 8, 2000

Footnote 3 

United States of America, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Ad-ministration, "14 CFR Part 11 et al, Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products; Final Rule", Federal Register (Wednesday, June 7, 2000) Vol. 65, No. 110, p. 36244

Footnote 4 

Full member Authorities of the JAA include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain,

Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom

Footnote 5 

United States of America, "14 CFR Part 11 et al, Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products; Final Rule", Federal Register (Wednesday, June 7, 2000), p. 36244

Footnote 6 

Ibid

Footnote 7 

AIAC Website, <www.aiac.ca>, July 30, 2002

Footnote 8 

United States of America, "14 CFR Part 11 et al, Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products; Final Rule", Federal Register (Wednesday, June 7, 2000), p. 36244

Footnote 9 

See accompanying Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Part V), section 511.13 and section 513.07

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).