Canada Gazette

These proposed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, VI and VII) with their accompanying standards are intended to address a need for provisions in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) that will enhance the ability of air operators, private operators and their employees to deal with the growing problem of aviation passengers who are unruly and disruptive. This proposal targets the increasingly prevalent problem of "air rage" rather than potential acts of terrorism. It refers to those passengers who indicate by their words or actions that they may behave in a manner which can create an unpremeditated hazard rather than to those individuals who board an aircraft or attempt to board an aircraft with the deliberate goal of destruction.

This proposal is the result of government and industry deliberations predating the events of September 11, 2001. Despite changes in the aviation operating environment since then, "air rage" is still perceived as a significant problem, and action to limit the frequency and effects of such occurrences is deemed necessary.

The proposed addition of new section 602.46 Refusal to Transport to Part VI General Operating and Flight Rules of the CARs is intended to correct the current situation where there is no specific provision in the CARs which an air operator or a private operator may use to support a refusal to transport an unruly passenger if the passenger challenges that decision.

The remaining five proposed new sections with their associated standards will apply only to air operators under Part VII Commercial Air Services, Subpart 5 Airline Operations (Subpart 705). These air operators generally provide commercial air transportation of passengers and cargo using aircraft certificated to carry 20 or more passengers. Smaller aircraft may also be authorized to operate under the provisions of this subpart. These five proposed new sections will require air operators to establish procedures to assist their employees in dealing with occurrences of unruly behaviour on the part of passengers and to ensure that occurrences of such behaviour are reported to the air operator.

Incidents of unruly and disruptive behaviour by passengers on board aircraft appear to be increasing in frequency and severity on flights operated by both Canadian air operators and foreign air carriers. A survey conducted by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to which 62 airlines, representing approximately 23% of the IATA member airlines worldwide, responded, revealed 1 132 reported cases of unruly passengers in 1994, 2 036 cases in 1995, 3 512 cases in 1996 and 5 416 cases in 1997. (see footnote 1) These incidents were not restricted to a particular airline, country, customer, class of service or length or type of flight. They included assault on the members of the crew or passengers, fights among intoxicated passengers, child molestation, sexual assault and harassment, illegal consumption of drugs on board, refusal to stop smoking or consuming alcohol, ransacking and sometimes vandalizing of airline seats and cabin interior, unauthorized use of electronic devices, destruction of safety equipment on board and other disorderly or riotous conduct. Such occurrences have the potential, which at times has been realized, to result in interference with safe aircraft operations. As well, they are highly unpleasant and stressful for flight crew and cabin crew who are primarily the target of the behaviour and for those passengers who are unwilling witnesses.

Proposed amendments to the schedule of administrative monetary penalties for contravention of designated provisions in Subpart 103 Administration and Compliance are included. These additions to this schedule will establish the monetary penalties which may be assessed for non-compliance with the proposed new sections of the CARs outlined above.

Part VI of the CARs deals with the general operating and flight rules which apply to all aircraft operations, both commercial and private.

The proposed addition of new section 602.46 Refusal to Transport to Part VI General Operating and Flight Rules will specifically forbid an air operator or a private operator from transporting a person, when the person's actions or statements, at the time of check-in or at boarding, indicate that the person may present a risk to the safety of the aircraft, persons or property.

There are, at present, no specific provisions in the CARs which can be cited in support of the refusal of an air operator or a private operator to transport a passenger on the grounds of the potential risk to aviation safety which that passenger's behaviour may pose. Despite this lack, since the carriage of passengers by an airline is a commercial transaction, airlines may refuse to board or to transport any passengers. However, the lack of a specific provision addressed to unruly behaviour is perceived by air operators, by private operators and by their employees as leaving them with little or no legal defence if a passenger who has been refused transportation on such grounds chooses to challenge that refusal in court. The proposed introduction of section 602.46 is intended to provide legal grounds for an air operator or a private operator to refuse to board a passenger who has exhibited disruptive behaviour which is potentially dangerous to aircraft operations or for an air operator or a private operator to defend against any proceedings to recover damages which may be initiated by such a passenger after she or he has been refused transport.

This proposed section will allow the risk to safety to be assessed at the time of check-in or during boarding. An air operator will not be able to use the proposed section to justify a continuing refusal to transport a passenger because of one instance of unruly behaviour when that passenger has subsequently stopped behaving in a disruptive manner.

Part VII of the CARs encompasses the operating and flight rules which apply specifically to commercial aircraft operations.

A proposed new Division XI — Interference with a Crew Member will contain five sections dealing with procedures to be included in the air operator's company operations manual and flight attendant manual, the contents of required training programmes for operational personnel, and requirements for reporting incidents in which a crew member has been distracted or prevented from performing assigned safety duties. At present, there is no mandatory requirement to report such occurrences to any regulatory authority, although many air operators have internal voluntary reporting systems. The proposed new sections in Division XI will define what constitutes interference with a crew member and who is included in the term "operational personnel"; require procedures to prevent and manage incidents of interference with a crew member to be established and specified in the air operator's company operations manual and the flight attendant manual; require the air operator to provide initial and annual training to all operational personnel; identify which types of incident it is mandatory to report and which types may be voluntarily reported; and set forth the information to be included in each report and establish the requirement to regularly provide summary reports to the Minister.

Proposed new section 705.171 Interpretation will introduce a definition of "interference with a crew member" which applies only to the sections comprising Division XI. This phrase will be interpreted as "any action or statement set out in the levels listed in section 705.175 by a person on board or about to board an aircraft that distracts or prevents a crew member from the performance of their assigned safety responsibilities."

A definition of "operational personnel" as "an air operator's employees whose duties require that they interact directly with a person on board or about to board an aircraft, and includes crew members, gate and check-in staff and their direct supervisors" is also proposed in section 705.171.

Section 705.172 Preventing and Managing Incidents of Interference with a Crew Member

Proposed section 705.172 will require an air operator to establish procedures to prevent and manage incidents of interference with a crew member that contain the topics set out in section 725.172 of the Commercial Air Services Standards (CASS). The topics in the proposed standard include

• the air operator's policy on interference with crew members and unruly passengers;

• means of identifying and, where feasible, eliminating the factors which may contribute to unruly passenger behaviour;

• the means by which operational personnel can detect early indications of unruly passenger behaviour which may lead to interference with a crew member;

• means of identifying the ways in which unruly passenger behaviour can constitute interference with crew members;

• criteria to be used in determining the acceptance or refusal to transport a person on board or about to board an aircraft;

• the need for and the means by which operational personnel will be informed when an incident of interference has occurred;

• the methods available to prevent or defuse volatile situations or aggressive behaviour;

• when and how to determine if overriding safety of flight considerations exist and who is responsible for making this determination;

• the methods of restraining passengers, including maintaining the safety of the restrained passenger;

• which authorities must be notified when an incident occurs and the procedures for notification;

• the procedures for debriefing following an incident, including the personnel that should be debriefed; and

The procedures required by section 705.172 are to be specified in the air operator's company operations manual and flight attendant manual.

Proposed new section 705.173 will require an air operator to provide initial and annual training as set forth in the associated standard to all operational personnel in the recognition, prevention and management of behaviour that could lead to a reasonable expectation of an incident of interference with a crew member; the recognition, prevention and management of incidents of interference with a crew member; and related post-flight procedures.

Proposed section 705.174 Reporting Incidents of Interference with a Crew Member will require air operators to establish reporting procedures to ensure the mandatory reporting of certain levels of instances of interference with crew members as set forth in proposed section 705.175 Levels of Interference with a Crew Member and to allow for the voluntary reporting of other types of incidents of interference with crew members; to ensure that these procedures are specified in the company operations manual and the flight attendant manual; to ensure that the required reports of incidents of interference contain the information specified in section 725.174 of the Commercial Air Services Standards (CASS); to retain such reports for a minimum period of three years; and to make them available to the Minister upon request and, every six months, to provide to the Minister statistics collected from such reports.

The proposed associated standard, section 725.174 Reporting Incidents of Interference with a Crew Member, will contain the requirements for the specific information which must be included in each incident report to the air operator and for the summary statistics which the air operator must supply to the Minister every six months with respect to these incident reports.

While the reporting of all incidents which will be identified in proposed section 705.175 as either level 2 (moderate nature), level 3 (serious safety concerns) or level 4 (security threats) to the air operator will be mandatory, the reporting of level 1 (minor nature) incidents will be voluntary.

Level 1 incidents will be defined as minor incidents that either have required no action beyond heightened awareness on the part of a crew member or have been effectively and quickly resolved by a crew member. They may include

Level 2 incidents will be defined as incidents of a moderate nature that have been resolved by a crew member only after some difficulty. Examples of level 2 incidents include

• the continuation of a level 1 situation if the passenger continued with the behaviour after being warned by a crew member;

• the repeated failure of a passenger to comply with a crew member's safety instructions; and

Level 3 incidents will be defined as incidents where there are serious safety concerns for passengers or crew members. Such incidents may include

• threatening someone on board or about to board the aircraft or making threats in an attempt to board the aircraft;

• deliberate damage to any part of the aircraft or to any property on board the aircraft;

• violent, argumentative, threatening, intimidating or disorderly behaviour, including harassment and assault.

Level 4 incidents will be defined as any incident that constitutes a security threat. They will include

• a credible threat of death or serious bodily injury in an attempt to gain control over the aircraft;

• the sabotage of or the attempt to sabotage an aircraft that renders it incapable of flight or is likely to endanger its safety in flight;

• any other incident that is required to be reported by section 64 of the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations.

The absence of provisions in the CARs with respect to the identified areas of concern, which are addressed by these proposed Regulations, cannot be satisfactorily dealt with by means other than regulatory action.

Voluntary interim measures to address the specific problem of unruly passengers were put in place by means of a Commercial and Business Aviation Advisory Circular (see footnote 2) (CBAAC). CBAAC Managing Disruptive and Unruly Passenger Behaviour was intended to provide guidance to air operators in developing a program for dealing with potential incidents of disruptive and unruly passenger behaviour and for effectively managing such incidents when they do occur. Although the industry is willing and eager to proceed with addressing the issue of unruly and disruptive passengers, the suggested voluntary measures have not met with uniform responses from air operators.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in June 2002 adopted a resolution urging all Contracting States (of which Canada is one) to enact as soon as possible national law and regulations to deal effectively with the problem of unruly or disruptive passengers. This proposed amendment will be consistent with that resolution and with the international response to the growing problem of disruptive passengers.

These proposed new regulations and their associated standards are the result of the deliberations of an industry and government Working Group on Prohibition Against Interference with Crew Members which was established within the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) structure. (see footnote 3) The proposed amendments discussed in this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) are based on those recommendations of the Working Group which entailed changes to the CARs.

In addition to the proposed changes to the CARs, a public awareness campaign to inform the traveling public regarding the dangers of interference with crew members, which has been in place since June 1999, will be continued. The campaign was developed in consultation with the Working Group and is supported by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Air Canada Pilots Association, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Air Transport Association of Canada, among others.

In response to the terrorist act of September 11, 2001, the Public Safety Act, 2002 was introduced in the House of Commons. This Act contains amendments to the Aeronautics Act to facilitate action against unruly passengers. The amendments to the Aeronautics Act would discourage unruly passengers by making it an offence to engage in any behaviour that endangers the safety or security of a flight or persons on board by interfering with crew members or persons following crew members' instructions. As part of the overall strategy to reduce interference with crew members in response to the events of September 11, 2001, provisions requiring the installation of doors designed to resist forcible intrusion onto the flight deck have been introduced into Part VII. These provisions set forth the requirements for such doors to be locked and the circumstances under which individuals with legitimate requirements may be admitted to the flight deck.

The provisions contained in these proposed amendments will provide essential components of the overall regulatory structure being developed to address the problems presented to the aviation industry by the increasing prevalence of passenger behaviour which is unruly and disruptive.

A preliminary scan of this initiative has been done in accordance with the criteria of Transport Canada's Strategic Environmental Assessment Policy Statement — March 2001. It is concluded from the preliminary scan that a detailed analysis is not necessary. Further assessments or studies regarding environmental effects of this initiative are not likely to yield a different determination.

Throughout the development of the aviation regulations and standards, Transport Canada has applied risk management concepts. Where there are risk implications, the analysis of these proposed Regulations has led to the conclusion that the imputed risk is acceptable in light of the expected benefits.

The benefits from these proposals will derive from the sense of personal security engendered by the provision (for passengers and crew members on board Canadian operated aircraft) of an environment protected from threat and from the unpleasantness of witnessing or experiencing disruptive and potentially violent behaviour. The apparent increase in the frequency with which incidents of unruly and disruptive passenger behaviour are occurring may be slowed, if not reversed, and their potential for endangering the aircraft and all on board will be limited.

Information collected at the request of the Department for Transport (DfT) of the United Kingdom (UK) and analyzed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the United Kingdom for the year April 2003 to March 2004 is the only source of non-anecdotal data currently available to estimate the magnitude of the risk presented by the behaviour of unruly and disruptive passengers on board aircraft. Over this period, the reporting airlines operated approximately 1.1 million passenger flights on which 110 million passengers were carried. (see footnote 4) There were 696 incidents reported, of which 668 were considered significant and an additional 28 were classified as serious. The CAA classified the incidents according to their potential or actual threat to the safety of individuals or to the safety of the flight and all on board. Based on the above data, the chance of an individual passenger boarding a flight on which a significant or serious incident takes place is 1 in 1 600, and only 1 in 158 000 passengers is likely to cause a significant or a serious incident.

In 2003, Canadian air operators transported over 39 million passengers. (see footnote 5) Assuming the UK experience is representative of Canadian operations, we would expect 247 occurrences of significant or serious disruptive incidents on Canadian aircraft annually.

No accident has been reported as the result of disruptive behaviour by an unruly passenger. Serious disruptive events have occurred rarely. However, the frequency of these events appears to be increasing and the potential for interference with safe flight operations is certainly present during each occurrence. In the post-September 11, 2001 environment, the psychological stress faced by passengers who may be exposed to such events has escalated. As well, the risk faced by crew members is significantly greater than that of any individual passenger. Cabin crew particularly are exposed to becoming the object of threatening, intimidating or abusive behaviour. As identifiable representatives of the air operator, with the responsibility for seeing that safety precautions such as fastening seat belts and respecting restrictions on smoking are obeyed, they are in the front line as targets for disruptive passengers. This prominence, along with the frequency of their flights, significantly increases their risk from disruptive behaviour by unruly passengers.

The following analysis will consider the expected contribution of the proposed amendments in each part of the CARs to the overall benefits described above. Potential costs will be developed in the context of the proposed amendments to each part.

Proposed new section 602.46 Refusal to Transport will prohibit the transport of anyone whose words or actions indicate that they may become a risk to the safety of the aircraft, persons or property. This proposed new section is intended to reduce the risk, increasingly faced by crew and passengers on board aircraft, of a passenger's disruptive behaviour escalating to irrational interference with the crew's performance of safety-related duties. Refusing transportation to individuals who have displayed a potential willingness, at the time of check-in or at boarding, to engage in irresponsible behaviour on board an aircraft is expected to reduce the opportunity of such passengers to exhibit such behaviour during the flight. The frequency of occurrences of disruptive behaviour in flight will be reduced and, hence, the risk represented by such occurrences will decrease.

Currently, an air operator may refuse to board or to transport any passenger. The contract between the air operator and the potential passenger is a commercial transaction in which the Minister of Transport may intervene only to ensure that safety is not at risk. This proposed amendment will serve to strengthen an air operator's obligation to exercise the responsibility to protect the safety of all passengers by refusing to board those who may represent a potential threat to that safety.

An unruly passenger may be subjected to the inconvenience of having to wait for a later flight after he or she has calmed down. However, the wording of the proposed section will not allow the airline to justify a continuing refusal to board, on a later flight, a passenger who had previously been unruly, as long as no further demonstration of unruly behaviour occurs. Immediate redress for delay or inconvenience to the passenger who has been refused boarding will be dependent on the airline's administrative procedures. Longer-term avenues for redress, through the courts and other channels, will remain as at present. Since the carriage of passengers is part of a commercial transaction, the Minister of Transport cannot create responsibilities in the CARs that will deal with immediate redress for unruly passengers who have been refused boarding.

This provision will be essentially costless except to those passengers who, by their own behaviour, forfeit the right to board a Canadian operated aircraft while the possibility of their resuming the unacceptable behaviour which they have demonstrated is present. The benefit-cost impact of this proposal for society is expected to be positive.

The requirements for procedures to prevent and to manage incidents of interference with a crew member to be specified in an air operator's company operations manual and flight attendant manual and for training in these procedures to be provided to operational personnel will support the introduction of section 602.46 Refusal to Transport. These requirements will enable the consistent and coordinated application of company procedures to protect passengers and personnel from the unpredictability and consequent potential risk of inconsistent application of company policies based on individual interpretations. There will be a minor cost associated with adding the procedures to existing manuals and training courses.

The proposed requirement for the mandatory reporting of instances of interference with crew members and the establishment of criteria for classifying such occurrences will improve the ability of the regulatory authority and industry stakeholders to assess the severity of the problem of unruly and disruptive passengers and to take action to reduce the frequency and potential consequences of such behaviour. The lack of statistically useable information with respect to the frequency and type of occurrences of disruptive passenger behaviour on board aircraft has hampered the development of appropriate responses to this behaviour. Although there is much anecdotal evidence, the absence of a mandatory reporting requirement for such occurrences and of criteria for their classification has limited the use which can be made of this information.

At present, reporting systems are in place with some but not with all air operators. Not all employees report, not all companies collect the same information when their employees do report, and the information is not stored in a way that makes it compatible for comparison among companies. The difficulty in reliably comparing information from different reporting and retention systems prevents the identification of system-wide trends and causal relationships. The definitions proposed in new sections 705.171 Interpretation and 705.175 Levels of Interference with a Crew Member and the requirement proposed in new section 705.174 Reporting Incidents of Interference with a Crew Member and its associated Standard to report such occurrences is a first step in the establishment of a database of consistent information of known quality which may be used to identify the causes of the problem of disruptive and unruly passengers and to develop future approaches for dealing effectively with specific aspects of this problem.

Increased knowledge regarding the frequency and characteristics of disruptive behaviour will generate benefits by allowing the regulatory authority and industry stakeholders to direct resources more efficiently toward the control of this problem.

The expansion of existing procedures and systems to incorporate the mandatory reporting of occurrences of unruly and disruptive passengers is not expected to impose a major capital cost. Modern technology allows the development of database systems which are flexible enough to permit additional information requirements without requiring extensive system or equipment redesign. Air operators and their employees are currently required to report accidents and reportable incidents that take place. To fulfill this obligation there are in existence systems and procedures for reporting this information. Many air operators have internal arrangements for collecting and analyzing accident or incident information for their own use in safely managing their operations. Also, many air operators have voluntarily established internal systems and requirements for their employees to report to them occurrences of unruly or disruptive passenger behaviour. Although there will be costs associated with the initial introduction and ongoing support of the proposed reporting requirement, the current existence of systems by which safety-related occurrences are reported and recorded is expected to result in minimal additional cost to air operators for the proposed new requirement to report occurrences of disruptive passenger behaviour. Because of the variation in the extent and sophistication of report collection and retention methodology among air operators, an estimate of this additional cost has not been attempted.

The benefits from improved efficiency in the use of resources to control the problem of disruptive passenger behaviour on board aircraft are expected to be greater than the costs entailed for the necessary data collection and dissemination.

Benefits from these proposals relate to the reduction or limitation of a risk, the current extent of which is uncertain because of the poor quality of available data which can be used to quantify that risk. The psychological aspects of the benefits which can be expected from the provision of a secure environment free from threat and from unpleasant behaviour for passengers and crew members are essentially unquantifiable. Many of the costs associated with these proposals are also difficult to quantify, although they are not expected to be significant in total. Despite the absence of an extensive quantitative evaluation, on balance, the available evidence indicates the benefit from these proposals can be expected to justify the costs which may be incurred.

With the exception of the definition and reporting requirement for level 4 occurrences (the introduction of and consultation for which is discussed at the end of this section), these proposed new Regulations and their associated standards are the result of the deliberations of an industry/government Working Group on Prohibition Against Interference with Crew Members which was established within the CARAC structure under the auspices of the CARAC's Commercial Air Service Operations (CASO) Technical Committee. This Working Group was established in response to representations by the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC) and by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) that agreed that current Canadian aviation legislation and Criminal Code of Canada provisions did not provide adequate regulatory support for crew members confronted with unruly and abusive passengers.

After extensive deliberations, the Working Group presented their Final Report, which included 11 recommendations for further action, to the Technical Committee. The majority of those recommendations did not involve amendments to the CARs. The proposed amendments discussed in this RIAS are based on those recommendations of the Working Group which entailed changes to the CARs.

The members of the CASO Technical Committee of CARAC have been consulted with respect to these proposed amendments to the CARs. Active members of the CASO Technical Committee include the Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, Air B.C., Air Canada, Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA), Canadian Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), ATAC, Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens inc., Canadian Air Line Dispatchers' Association, Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Business Aviation Association, Canadian Labour Congress, CUPE, Helicopter Association of Canada, Parks Canada, and Teamsters Canada.

The CASO Technical Committee reviewed the proposed amendments at a meeting in June 2001. One dissent was received from CUPE stating that proposed new section 602.46 Refusal to Transport did not ensure coordination among individual employees of an air operator in the decision to deny boarding to a potentially disruptive passenger. This dissent had previously been expressed with respect to the recommendation of the CASO Working Group upon which the proposal is based. CUPE expressed concern over the possibility of conflict between employees where one individual who felt a passenger should not be boarded could be overruled by another employee and the passenger would then board. The non-dissenting members of the Technical Committee approved the proposed introduction of section 602.46 and recommended its passage. All members of the Technical Committee approved the remaining proposed amendments and recommended their passage.

The proposed amendments were presented to the members of the General Operating and Flight Rules (GOFR) Technical Committee of CARAC for their consideration at a meeting on June 26, 2001. The actively participating members of the GOFR Technical Committee include the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, Air Canada, ACPA, ALPA, Aircraft Operations Group Association, ATAC, Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens inc., Canadian Airlines International Ltd., Canadian Association of Professional Radio Operators, Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Balloon Association, Canadian Business Aviation Association, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, CUPE, Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association, Experimental Aircraft Association - Canadian Council, Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada, International Council of Air Shows, Recreational Aircraft Association of Canada, Soaring Association of Canada, and Teamsters Canada. The members of the GOFR Technical Committee endorsed the decision of the CASO Technical Committee (subject to the dissent following the Working Group recommendations and the CASO Technical Committee meeting which is discussed above) approving the proposal and recommending its passage.

The proposed amendments which had been presented to the technical committees were submitted at a special meeting of the Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee (CARC), which is composed of senior managers in the Civil Aviation Directorate of the Department of Transport, on August 22, 2001. The dissent to section 602.46 Refusal to Transport was considered by the members of CARC and was declined on the grounds that further proposed amendments would be introduced to alleviate these concerns. The members of CARC approved the proposed amendments at the special meeting.

The concerns expressed by the dissenter to section 602.46 will, in part, be addressed by the proposed amendments to require air operators to establish procedures in the company operations manual for denying transportation of persons whose actions or statements indicate they may pose a risk to safety and to provide training on such procedures. These proposed amendments were presented at the February 2003 CASO Technical Committee meeting, at which meeting the members of the Technical Committee recommended their adoption subject to verbal dissents by ACPA, ALPA and CUPE.

The proposed amendments adding the requirements for procedures to be established in the air operator's company operations manual and for training on such procedures were presented at CARC on February 24, 2004. The dissents were considered by the members of CARC.

ACPA, ALPA and CUPE expressed verbal dissents to proposed section 705.172 Preventing and Managing Incidents of Interference with a Crew Member. All three organizations dissented on the basis that the proposal does not include a "zero tolerance policy." In addition, CUPE also dissented on the basis that proposed provisions located in the accompanying standard should be placed in a regulation. CUPE proposed a new text, which was distributed to CASO members. ALPA reserved the right to consult with their security committee on CUPE's proposal.

CARC declined the dissents of ACPA, ALPA and CUPE with respect to section 705.172. Zero tolerance is part of the public awareness campaign, as described in the section Alternatives in this RIAS. Also, the implementation of new regulations and standards which include training and procedures for operational personnel, locking of flight deck doors and a reporting requirement support the zero tolerance policy. The exact wording of proposed new provisions and their location within the CARs is the responsibility of departmental personnel and of the Department of Justice.

With respect to proposed standard 725.172 Preventing and Managing Incidents of Interference with a Crew Member, CUPE's dissent was based upon their concerns with the requirement for the air operator's procedures to prevent and manage incidents of interference with crew members to identify the responsibilities of the operational personnel when an incident occurs. CUPE had concerns with that paragraph and with how to deny passenger boarding. It also dissented because it found that the way in which the CARs and the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations fit together was unclear. CARC was advised that departmental officials are continuing to improve and streamline the different requirements in both sets of regulations. With respect to the concerns that the Security Regulations and the CARs may conflict, the information dealing with unruly passengers has been coordinated with those officials responsible for the Security Regulations and is contained within the guidance material available to the aviation industry. The members of CARC declined the dissent by CUPE.

The definition and reporting requirements for level 4 occurrences were added to this proposal to harmonize Canadian regulations with those recently introduced by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). They have not followed the usual consultation procedure for proposed regulatory action in the CARs because of the need to move the entire proposed package with minimum delay both in order to provide the protection for crew and passengers which it will engender and in the interest of harmonization. The CASO Technical Committee was briefed on this proposal for level 4 occurrences at its meeting in February 2003.

The proposed amendment to the Regulations will be enforced through the assessment of monetary penalties imposed under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act, through suspension or cancellation of a Canadian aviation document or through judicial action introduced by way of summary conviction as per section 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act.

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
Email: www.tc.gc.ca.

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to sections 4.71 (see footnote a) and 4.9 (see footnote b) and subsection 7.6(1) (see footnote c) of the Aeronautics Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, VI and VII).

Interested persons may make written representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities 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 sent to the Chief, Regulatory Affairs (AARBH), Civil Aviation, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport, Place de Ville, Tower C, 330 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (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.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS (PARTS I, VI AND VII)

1. Subpart 2 of Part VI of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (see footnote 6) is amended by adding the following after the reference "Section 602.43":

2. Subpart 5 of Part VII of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference "Subsection 705.139(5)":

3. The reference "[602.46 to 602.56 reserved]" after section 602.45 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

602.46 No air operator or private operator shall transport a person if at the time of check-in or at boarding the actions or statements of the person indicate that the person may present a risk to the safety of the aircraft, persons or property.

4. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 705.154:

"interference with a crew member" means any action or statement set out in the levels listed in section 705.175 by a person on board or about to board an aircraft that distracts or prevents a crew member from the performance of their assigned safety responsibilities; (entrave au travail d'un membre d'équipage)

"operational personnel" means an air operator's employees whose duties require that they interact directly with persons on board or about to board an aircraft, and includes crew members, gate and check-in staff and their immediate supervisors. (personnel d'exploitation)

705.172 (1) An air operator shall establish procedures to prevent and manage incidents of interference with a crew member covering the topics set out in section 725.172 of Standard 725 — Airline Operations — Aeroplanes of the Commercial Air Service Standards.

(2) An air operator shall specify in the air operator's company operations manual and the flight attendant manual the procedures established under subsection (1).

705.173 An air operator shall provide initial and annual training to all operational personnel that covers the topics set out in subsection 725.124(54) of Standard 725 — Airline Operations — Aeroplanes of the Commercial Air Service Standards for the purpose of enabling

(a) the recognition, prevention and management of behaviour that could reasonably be expected to lead to an incident of interference with a crew member;

(b) the recognition, prevention and management of incidents of interference with a crew member; and

705.174 (1) An air operator shall establish procedures to ensure that level 2, level 3 and level 4 incidents of interference with a crew member are reported to the air operator and to allow for the reporting of a level 1 incident.

(2) An air operator shall specify in the air operator's company operations manual and the flight attendant manual the procedures established under subsection (1).

(3) A report of an incident of interference with a crew member shall contain the information set out in section 725.174 of Standard 725 — Airline Operations — Aeroplanes of the Commercial Air Service Standards.

(4) An air operator shall ensure that reports are retained for a period of three years and are made available to the Minister on request.

(5) An air operator shall submit to the Minister statistics relating to incidents of interference with a crew member, the content of which is set out in section 725.174 of Standard 725 — Airline Operations — Aeroplanes of the Commercial Air Service Standards, every six months.

(a) a level 1 incident, which is an incident of a minor nature that either requires no action of the crew member beyond heightened awareness or is effectively and quickly resolved by a crew member and includes but is not limited to

(i) the use of unacceptable language towards a crew member,

(ii) unacceptable behaviour towards a crew member, and

(iii) a display of suspicious behaviour;

(b) a level 2 incident, which is an incident of a moderate nature that is resolved by a crew member only after some difficulty and includes but is not limited to

(i) the repetition of a level 1 incident,

(ii) the continuation of a level 1 incident by a passenger after being warned by a crew member,

(iii) the repeated failure of a passenger to comply with a crew member's safety instructions, and

(iv) belligerent, obscene or lewd behaviour towards a crew member;

(c) a level 3 incident, which is an incident where there are serious safety concerns for passengers or crew members and includes but is not limited to

(i) threatening a person on board or about to board the aircraft or making threats in an attempt to board the aircraft,

(ii) the continuation of a level 2 incident that was unresolved,

(iii) tampering with any emergency or safety equipment on board the aircraft,

(iv) deliberate damage of any part of the aircraft or any property on board the aircraft,

(v) injuring a person on board the aircraft, and

(vi) violent, argumentative, threatening, intimidating or disorderly behaviour, including harassment and assault; and

(d) a level 4 incident, which is an incident that constitutes a security threat and includes but is not limited to

(i) an attempted or unauthorized intrusion into the flight deck,

(ii) a credible threat of death or serious bodily injury in an attempt to gain control over the aircraft,

(iii) the display or use of a weapon,

(iv) the sabotage of, or the attempt to sabotage, an aircraft that renders it incapable of flight or is likely to endanger its safety in flight,

(v) any attempt to unlawfully seize control of the aircraft, and

(vi) an incident that is required to be reported under section 64 of the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations.

5. (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force 90 days after the day on which they are registered.

(2) Section 705.173 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, as enacted by section 4 of these Regulations, comes into force one year and 90 days after the day on which these Regulations are registered.

ICAO Working Paper A33-WP/35 LE/6, International Civil Aviation Organization, Montréal, Canada, Assembly – 33rd Session, Legal Commission, Agenda Item 34.

Managing Disruptive and Unruly Passenger Behaviour, No. 0166, January 10, 2000.

See Consultation section of this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for an account of the Working Group.

www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/ dft_index.hcst?n=5750&l;=2

Canadian Civil Aviation 2000 (Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, March 2005, Cat. No. 51-206-XIB), Table 2.1 Operating Statistics — Canadian Air Carriers, 2000. Updated to 2003 from Statistics Canada database, August 8, 2005.