Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 153, Number 22: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, V and VI — ELT)

June 1, 2019

Statutory authority

Aeronautics Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Background

An ELT is a radio transmitter device installed in an aircraft, which, when activated, broadcasts a distinctive distress signal in either analogue (121.5 MHz) or digital (406 MHz) frequencies. Unlike 121.5 MHz ELTs, 406 MHz ELTs transmit digital information which

• provides more accurate location information, improving the chances of saving injured passengers and flight crew members and reducing unnecessary SAR activities; and
• allows rescue agencies to identify the aircraft owner to more quickly establish if an emergency exists or if the signal is a false alarm.

Global monitoring of ELTs by COSPAS-SARSAT

COSPAS-SARSAT is best known as the system that detects and locates emergency beacons activated by aircraft, ships, and backcountry hikers in distress. It continuously monitors for distress signals, including those emitted by ELTs installed on aircraft.

Once a distress signal emitted by an ELT is received by COSPAS-SARSAT satellites, it is communicated to the appropriate State’s SAR authorities who investigate and execute a SAR operation, if appropriate.

SAR system in Canada

In Canada, the SAR system is a shared responsibility among federal, provincial, territorial and municipal organizations, as well as air, ground and maritime volunteer SAR organizations. The Canadian SAR area of responsibility extends over 18 000 000 km^{footnote 2} of land and sea. Due to its vast size and the range of environments, Canada relies on a diverse group of government, military, volunteer, academic and industry partners to provide overall SAR services to the Canadian public.

The Department of National Defence (DND) is the principal SAR asset provider in both personnel and aircraft; however, it does rely on other agencies such as the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association (CASARA), a volunteer-based organization that is funded by DND and provides assistance during aviation SAR operations. When a 406 MHz distress signal originating within a Canadian area of operation is received by COSPAS-SARSAT, the information is sent to a Canadian SAR Coordination Centre at which point an attempt is made to contact the owner or the emergency contacts of the ELT to ascertain if the situation is an emergency or a false alarm. If a false alarm cannot be confirmed, SAR assets are deployed. Between 2011 and 2015, there were on average 992 ^{footnote 2} SAR searches each year. Out of these, 66 were deemed searches due to false alarms. ^{footnote 3}

Canadian Aviation Regulations and ELTs

In March 1999, ICAO adopted new standards that required, after January 1, 2005, all ELTs to operate on 121.5 MHz and 406 MHz simultaneously. Furthermore, ICAO recommended that all aeroplanes for which the individual certificate of airworthiness was first issued after July 1, 2008, be equipped with at least one 406 MHz ELT.

In response to guidance from ICAO, COSPAS-SARSAT decided it would cease to monitor the 121.5 MHz frequency and only monitor the digital 406 MHz frequency; this change came into effect in 2009. As a result, detection of 121.5 MHz distress signals is only possible if the distress signal is detected by a non-satellite receiver, for example, an overflying aircraft.

The CARs currently mandate that all Canadian aircraft, with the exception of gliders, balloons, airships, ultra-light aeroplanes and gyroplanes, be equipped with an ELT that transmits on the 121.5 MHz frequency.

Canadian aircraft equipped with 406 MHz ELTs

Under the current CARs, there are approximately 25 830 Canadian-registered aircraft currently required to be equipped with an ELT. ^{footnote 4} Approximately 11 520 (44.6%) are equipped with at least one active 406 MHz ELT registered through the Canadian Beacon Registry. A forecast using historical data of 406 MHz ELTs registered with the Canadian Beacon Registry showed that the rate of growth is expected to decrease while the adoption of 406 MHz ELT will continue to grow.

In recognition of the forecasted lower adoption rate of the 406 MHz ELTs by Canadian-registered aircraft in the future, and the burden the continued use of the 121.5 MHz ELT imposes on SAR resources, the Auditor General, in the spring of 2013, recommended that Transport Canada look at the issue of digital ELTs.

Issues

Since 2009, the COSPAS-SARSAT system has tracked only the more precise digital 406 MHz frequency. Although many Canadian-registered aircraft have been equipped with 406 MHz ELTs, the CARs currently only require that aircraft be equipped with 121.5 MHz ELTs.

In October 2017, approximately 55.4% of aircraft currently required to carry an ELT continued to operate with only a 121.5 MHz ELT. The 121.5 MHz ELT is undetectable by COSPAS-SARSAT and does not provide accurate location information. As a result, there are unnecessary risks to human life and health and unnecessary strain being placed on Canada’s SAR resources. In addition, false alarm rates from 121.5 MHz ELTs, that prompt an unnecessary launch of SAR operations, are higher due to the inability to contact the registered operator to ascertain if the situation is an emergency or a false alarm.

Without any change to the CARs to mandate 406 MHz ELTs, it is projected that by the year 2032, at least ^{footnote 5} 44.5% of aircraft that are currently required to carry an ELT will still only be equipped with 121.5 MHz ELTs.

Objectives

The objectives of the proposed amendments are to

• improve public safety by increasing the likelihood that an aircraft distress signal will be received;
• improve the efficiency of the SAR assets, as they will not have to conduct a lengthy search because they will have an accurate position of the downed aircraft; and
• reduce the time and resource costs associated with false alarms.

Description

The proposed amendments would mandate that Canadian aircraft, with the exception of gliders, balloons, airships, ultra-light aeroplanes and gyroplanes, be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT on board, including aircraft operated by

• air operators (Subpart 705 — Airline Operations, Subpart 704 — Commuter Operations, Subpart 703 — Air Taxi Operations, Subpart 702 — Aerial Work);
• private operators who are subject to Subpart 604;
• recreational operators (i.e. the person that has possession of an aircraft as owner, lessee or otherwise, for recreational purposes); and
• foreign aircraft operating in Canada (Subpart 701 —Foreign Air Operators).

Implementation dates

The implementation period for the proposed amendments would be

• for air operators, including private operators who are subject to Subpart 604, one year from the date the amendments are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette;
• for recreational operators, five years from the date the amendments are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette; and
• for foreign aircraft operating in Canada, one year after the publication of the amendments in Part II of the Canada Gazette. They would be required to be equipped with a serviceable emergency beacon that transmits on a 406 MHz frequency that is approved by COSPAS-SARSAT and registered with the appropriate authority of the country identified in the digitally coded message transmitted by the emergency beacon.

Flexible option for 406 MHz ELT installation

Pursuant to section 571.04 of the CARs, an ELT system (except for an ELT system installed in conformity with CAN-TSO-C91/C91a) is considered avionics equipment that requires specialized maintenance, meaning that only an approved maintenance organization (AMO) could install this equipment, which would typically make the installation costs much higher. In order to ease the burden for aircraft owners and operators, on April 30, 2014, Transport Canada issued a global exemption to this requirement, pursuant to subsection 5.9(2) of the Aeronautics Act, to enable ELT installation to be classified as non- specialized work, which allows the installation of an ELT to be certified by an appropriately rated aircraft maintenance engineer on private aircraft. The proposed amendments address this issue so that the exemption will no longer be necessary.

Administrative monetary penalties

The proposed amendments would introduce administrative monetary penalties to aircraft owners who do not register each 406 MHz ELT with the Canadian Beacon Registry, or with the appropriate State authority, and to those who activate their ELTs intentionally in non-emergency situations. These offences were not previously designated due to an oversight when the provisions were introduced in the CARs.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

In 2009, an amendment to the CARs was proposed that would have made it mandatory for Canadian aircraft to be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT on board. Ultimately, amending regulations were not made due to several factors, including the higher purchase and installation costs of 406 MHz ELTs at that time. With the lower costs and the greater international use of 406 MHz ELTs, Transport Canada considered the three options below, in order to address the public policy issue pertaining to the continuing use of 121.5 MHz ELTs in Canada.

OPTION 1: Status quo approach

If the CARs are not amended, there would be no mandate for Canadian aircraft to be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT. Although some aircraft have been voluntarily outfitted with 406 MHz ELTs, as of October 2017, roughly 44.6% of all registered aircraft in Canada required to carry an ELT were equipped with a 406 MHz ELT. Therefore, 55.4% of these aircraft were operating without an ELT that could be detected by COSPAS-SARSAT. In the absence of the proposed amendments, it is projected that in 2032, 44.5% of Canadian-registered aircraft required to carry an ELT would still be operating without a 406 MHz ELT, including a significant number of aircraft operating in remote regions of Canada with the legacy 121.5 MHz ELTs that cannot be detected by satellite. The possibility of not being found, or found in a timely manner, would continue to be a significant risk to those involved in an aircraft crash. There is also an additional cost in search time when accurate positional information is not available. In addition, it is expected that a significant number of SAR operations would be unnecessarily launched for a false alarm, when there was no emergency.

In conclusion, a status quo approach was deemed to be an unacceptable option for two reasons:

• (1) COSPAS-SARSAT ceased to monitor the 121.5 MHz frequency in 2009, which would fail to address the risk of downed aircraft carrying only a 121.5 MHz ELT on board not being detected; and
• (2) the aviation industry is not voluntarily moving toward full use of 406 MHz ELTs, which, if mandated, would reduce the time required for SAR operations to locate downed aircraft and the number of false alarms, which would reduce the number of unnecessary deployments of SAR resources.

OPTION 2: Regulatory approach — Same implementation period for all

This regulatory approach was given consideration to ensure that all aircraft have ELTs that can be detected by COSPAS-SARSAT, allowing for efficient and effective SAR operations, while also increasing public safety. However, this approach does not provide any flexibility to those cost-sensitive operators such as the small recreational aircraft operator/owner. This regulatory approach was not considered as an acceptable option for that reason.

OPTION 3: Regulatory approach — Two different implementation periods

Given the international community’s move to 406 MHz ELTs, which led to a lack of satellite monitoring for 121.5 MHz systems, Transport Canada is proposing to mandate the requirement for Canadian aircraft to be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT on board, which has also become more affordable. In order to provide flexibility for cost-sensitive operators, the proposed amendments would include a one-year implementation period for commercial aircraft and for private aircraft operated pursuant to Subpart 604 of the CARs. Transport Canada is proposing a five-year implementation period for aircraft engaged in recreational operations.

Benefits and costs

Having Canadian aircraft equipped with a 406 MHz ELT on board would improve the chances of saving lives, and would reduce the time required to locate downed aircraft and the number of false alarms resulting in the deployment of SAR resources. It is expected that the proposed amendment would impose costs on operators, who would be required to acquire, register and install 406 MHz ELTs.

Analytical framework

The approach to cost-benefit analysis (CBA) identifies, assesses, quantifies and monetizes, where possible, the incremental costs and benefits of the proposed amendments.

For the purpose of this analysis, benefits and costs have been assessed for the 2018–2032 period. Since the proposed amendments would only directly affect existing aircraft, the time frame for the analysis would depend on the Canadian aircraft residual fleet age, even if an ELT can last for an unlimited period of time. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has estimated the average aircraft retirement age in Canada to be 27.6 years. ^{footnote 6} As Air Canada’s fleet represents a significant portion of Canadian aircraft, its average fleet age of 14.3 years is used as a proxy for the analysis. ^{footnote 7} Therefore, the Canadian aircraft residual fleet age is approximately 13.3 years. The time frame considered for the analysis of this proposal is 15 years.

Dollar figures are presented in 2017 Canadian dollars (2017 CAN$) and are discounted using a discount rate of 7%.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

The modelling of the benefits as well as the costs requires the estimation and projection of different variables, including the future population of Canadian aircraft equipped with 406 MHz ELTs, the number of persons rescued and lives saved in case of aircraft accidents, the search time for downed aircraft, as well as the flying time associated with false alarms.

Since the CBA evaluates the incremental change due to the proposal, the variables have been examined in both the baseline and regulatory scenarios. The baseline scenario represents the status quo, while the regulatory scenario assumes that the proposed amendments are implemented.

Incremental benefits

As indicated above, the expected benefits include improving the chances of saving passengers and flight crew members, reducing SAR services, and decreasing the number of false alarms, which would reduce the number of unnecessary deployments of SAR resources.

Future population of Canadian aircraft equipped with 406 MHz ELTs

The estimation of the current and the projected population of Canadian aircraft equipped with 406 MHz ELTs was calculated using data collected from the following two sources: the Canadian Beacon Registry and the Canadian Civil Aircraft Register.

Annual data collected from the Canadian Beacon Registry shows that since 2010, the population of Canadian aircraft equipped with 406 MHz ELTs has increased over time. The analysis of this data revealed that the number of Canadian aircraft equipped with 406 MHZ ELTs, although growing, has a decreasing growth rate.

New aircraft (manufactured after 2008)

Since 2009, the COSPAS-SARSAT system has only tracked the 406 MHz frequency. Therefore, it is assumed that all new designed aircraft or aircraft manufactured after the cessation of 121.5 MHz monitoring have or will have a 406 MHz ELT included or installed. For the purpose of this analysis, new aircraft manufactured in or after 2009 would not directly be affected by the proposed amendments. ^{footnote 8}

Existing aircraft (manufactured up to the end of 2008)

Of all existing aircraft, there are 24 033 aircraft currently required to carry an ELT. Table 1 below sets out the population of aircraft that would be equipped with 406 MHz ELTs under the baseline and the regulatory scenarios.

Table 1: Population of existing aircraft equipped with 406 MHz ELTs under the baseline and the regulatory scenarios

Year	Baseline Scenario footnote 9		Regulatory Scenario
	Annual Increase	Cumulative	Annual Increase	Cumulative
2018	510	10 232	510	10 232
2019	406	10 639	931	11 163
2020	299	10 938	86	11 249
2021	189	11 127	54	11 303
2022	77	11 204	12 730	24 033
2023+	—	11 204	—	24 033

If the proposed amendments were not made into regulations, it is anticipated that there would be approximately 10 639 aircraft equipped with a 406 MHz ELT in 2019. Under the proposed amendments, all eligible commercial and private aircraft would need to be compliant in 2019, therefore increasing the total 406-equipped aircraft by 524 to 11 163.

In the following years, the baseline scenario uses the adoption rate for both commercial/private and recreational aircraft, increasing the equipped fleet by 299 in 2020, 189 in 2021, and 77 in 2022. Conversely, in the regulatory scenario, after the 2019 implementation date for commercial/private aircraft, only the recreational aircraft continue to adopt the technology voluntarily (86 more in 2020, 54 more in 2021).

In the year 2022, approximately 11 204 aircraft would be equipped with 406 MHz ELTs in the baseline scenario. In the regulatory scenario, all recreational aircraft would be required to comply with the proposal in 2022, bringing the number of existing aircraft equipped with 406 MHz ELTs to 24 033.

Safety benefits

The proposed amendments would increase public safety by substantially increasing the likelihood that distress signals are received and processed by COSPAS-SARSAT and that relevant information is shared with a Canadian SAR operator, therefore increasing the chances of a successful rescue in the case of a downed aircraft.

Expected persons rescued

Using 2015 international data from COSPAS-SARSAT, there were 2 185 persons rescued with a population of 1 513 000 registered 406 MHz ELTs, which translates to 1.44 persons rescued per 1 000 registered 406 MHz ELTs.

Using the projected population of Canadian aircraft equipped with 406 MHz ELTs mentioned above and the rescue rate per 1 000 406 MHz ELTs, the number of persons expected to be rescued in a timely manner under the baseline scenario and the regulatory scenario would be 29.38 and 234.63 respectively, over the 15-year period. The proposed amendments would therefore result in a more timely rescue of 205 individuals.

Expected lives saved

Although the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ^{footnote 10} has reported that 406 MHz ELTs decrease the time required to reach distressed persons and result in a higher accident survivability success rate, no studies were found that would have estimated the incremental probability of survival for distressed persons due to 406 MHz ELTs as compared to 121.5 MHz ELTs. Due to this uncertainty, the monetized safety value was not included in the total monetized benefits.

Savings from avoided search time

Between 2011 and 2015, there were on average 992 SAR searches for aircraft each year. Out of these, 66 were false alarms. Using the proportion of aircraft subject to the proposal, it is estimated that about 644 searches were related to aircraft currently required to be equipped with an ELT.

Annual search time

When examining the impact of emergency distress beacons on Canadian SAR flying times, a study led by DND found that the average flying time per airplane accident, required by SAR to search for and rescue injured persons, is 8.1 hours. ^{footnote 11} Assuming that approximately the same amount of travel time is spent to reach and return from the accident, the average flying time required to conduct the search is 4.05 hours.

The annual search time, which is the number of searches per year multiplied by the average flying time, is roughly 2 608 hours (4.05 hours × 644).

Annual avoided search time

A study from Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) ^{footnote 12} revealed that the initial search area is about 13 km^{footnote 2} for 406 MHz ELTs, and 1 260 km^{footnote 2} for 121.5 MHz ELTs. Assuming the area searched until an aircraft is found follows a uniform distribution, the search area for a SAR mission, when the downed aircraft is equipped with a 406 MHz ELT, is expected to be reduced by 92.71%.

Annual avoided search time is calculated by multiplying the annual search time by 92.71%. Depending on the weight of the population of 406 MHz ELTs to be installed in the baseline and regulatory scenarios, the incremental avoided search time due to the proposed amendments is projected over the course of 2018 to 2032.

Cost per hour

According to DND, the hourly flying cost for SAR operations ranges from $3,400 to $21,150 depending on the type of aircraft used. ^{footnote 13} These figures do not take into account the aircraft flying hours. Based on the study led by DND; however, an aircraft SAR weighted average hourly flying cost is roughly estimated at $3,259 for the year 2000 in Canadian dollars, which translates to $4,386 in 2017 Canadian dollars.

The savings from avoided search time is determined by multiplying the annual avoided search time by the hourly flying cost. Thus, over the analysis time frame, the incremental savings from avoided searching is approximately $49.73 million in present value.

Savings from avoided false alarms

Unlike 121.5 MHz ELTs, 406 MHz ELTs are known to have a higher false alarm indication rate; however, 406 MHz ELTs also have a significantly lower rate where an actual SAR response is required. This is due to the near perfect satellite detection performance of the 406 MHz ELTs. Almost every time a 406 MHz ELT transmits, even momentarily, it will be detected by COSPAS/SARSAT. This means that every single non-intentional transmission will be automatically reported as such. Typical reasons for such transmissions include flight crew preflight testing the equipment, accidental activation during maintenance, passenger interference, or a switch being bumped by aircraft unloading. Despite the higher false alarm indication rate, these causes are easily determined; they therefore very rarely result in a SAR response.

By comparison, the legacy 121.5 MHz ELTs cause fewer false alarm indications because, although they are exposed to the same rate of accidental activation, these are usually not detected or reported.

With the average population of 17 566 121.5 MHz ELTs, SAR received on average 103.17 false alarm distress signals per year between 2010 and 2015. During the same period, SAR authorities received on average 472.17 false alarm distress signals from 7 350 ^{footnote 14} 406 MHz ELTs per year. Using past data on false alarms in Canada, it is estimated that the average false alarm rates per 1 000 aircraft with 121.5 MHz ELTs and per 1 000 aircraft with 406 MHz ELTs are 5.87 and 64.24, respectively. Table 2 below sets out the false alarm rate for each type of ELT.

Table 2: ELT false alarms (2010 to 2015 average)

	121.5 MHz ELTs	406 MHz ELTs
Population of aircraft using ELTs (#)	17 566	7 350
False alarms received (#)	103.17	472.17
Rate of false alarm (per 1 000 aircraft)	5.87	64.24
False alarms with SAR resources launched (#)	50.5	15.67
SAR false alarm launch rate (per 1 000 aircraft)	2.87	2.13

Annual false alarms with SAR resources launched

Although they have a higher false alarm rate, 406 MHz ELTs are more efficient than 121.5 MHz ELTs, as most of the false alarms are resolved prior to SAR resources being launched. From the average 103.17 false alarm distress signals from 121.5 MHz ELTs received each year, SAR authorities had to deploy resources to investigate on average 50.5 of them (49%). Conversely, SAR authorities only had to launch resources for on average 15.67 of the 472.17 406 MHz ELTs false alarms received (3.3%), due to being able to contact the registered operator to confirm the false alarm.

The launch rate of false alarms (requiring a deployment of SAR resources) is calculated by dividing the number of false alarms by the total number of aircraft with at least one ELT installed. The launch rate was calculated for both types of ELTs. Annually, it corresponds to 2.87 per 1 000 aircraft with 121.5 MHz ELTs and 2.13 per 1 000 aircraft with 406 MHz ELTs.

The expected annual number of false alarms with SAR resources launched is determined by multiplying the launch rate of false alarms by the corresponding population of aircraft with each type of ELT each year.

Cost per false alarm with SAR resources launched

Based on the data received from DND, the cost per false alarm where SAR resources are launched is approximately $90,482 for those with 121.5 MHz ELTs and $36,666 for those with 406 MHz ELTs.

By multiplying the expected annual number of false alarms with SAR resources launched with the cost per false alarm where SAR resources are launched, Transport Canada estimates the false alarm costs. Beyond 2022, once the proposed amendments come into effect for recreational operators, it is expected that the cost for false alarms, where resources are launched, would be reduced by approximately 76% annually. The incremental total savings from avoided false alarms are estimated at $21.06 million in present value over 15 years, using a 7% discount rate.

Incremental costs

The incremental costs are mainly due to the procurement, registration and installation of 406 MHz ELTs by commercial air operators and private operators, as well as recreational operators. The Government of Canada is not expected to incur any additional costs due to the proposed amendments. The values are discounted to present value using a 7% discount rate.

Procurement costs

There is a large selection of 406 MHz ELTs available for purchase, ranging in complexity and price from $719 to $3,813. For the purpose of this analysis, an average purchase price of $1,579 per unit was used to estimate the procurement costs. ^{footnote 15} It should be noted the proposed amendments would not require that any air operator acquire the most complex, expensive unit.

The price forecast was then applied to the projected quantities of 406 MHz ELTs to be installed every year. The incremental procurement costs would be $15.55 million in present value over the time frame of the analysis and using a 7% discount rate.

Registration costs

The proposed amendments would require that each 406 MHz ELT be registered with the Canadian Beacon Registry, which maintains a database containing essential information such as owner contact information, emergency contact information, and aircraft identifying characteristics.

To determine the one-time registration costs, Transport Canada assumes that a maximum of 60 minutes would be needed to perform this task. This would result in a total incremental registration cost of $0.32 million for all the stakeholders over the 15-year period, at a 7% discount rate. ^{footnote 16}

Installation costs

To determine the average length of time for installation, the information received from air operators in June 2016 shows that the number of hours required to install a 406 MHz ELT varies greatly depending on the type of aircraft and the complexity of the ELT. For less complex aircraft, the time needed for ELT installation is valued at 11 hours on average, while for more complex aircraft, the time required for a 406 MHz ELT installation is estimated at 46 hours. For the purpose of this analysis, Transport Canada assumes that the individual installation time for commercial and private aircraft will be 46 hours, and 11 hours for recreational aircraft.

Based on the same June 2016 data, Transport Canada established an hourly wage rate of $97.50 to perform the installation by an AMO. For cost calculation purposes, this rate was applied consistently across the industry, whether the work would be performed on commercial, private or recreational aircraft, despite the fact that there are instances where the installation would be offered at a lower hourly wage rate. In the cases where the ELT system is not interfaced with any other system, the installation of the 406 MHz ELT will not be deemed to be specialized maintenance. Therefore, in these cases, an AMO will not have to do the work. This will offer more options and reduced costs to operators.

Using the estimated time per ELT installation, the estimated hourly wage, and the projected installed quantities of 406 MHz ELTs, the proposed amendments would cost industry approximately $11.08 million in present value over the period from 2018 to 2032, at a 7% discount rate.

Other costs: downtime costs

Transport Canada assumes that air operators would aim to save time and reduce costs by installing an ELT while the aircraft is already grounded for other scheduled maintenance, such as annual maintenance. Coupled with the fact that air operators have been granted at least a one-year implementation period, the incremental downtime cost due to the proposed amendments is expected to be negligible.

Net benefits, Sensitivity and Distributional analyses

Net benefits

The proposed amendments are expected to result in benefits to Canadians and to the Government of Canada, while increasing costs to industry and to Canadians. Overall, over the analysis time frame, the proposed amendments would lead to a net monetized benefit of approximately $43.84 million in present value, with a monetized benefit-cost ratio of 2.63:1.

Canadians (and recreational operators)

By increasing the chances of the successful rescue of downed aircraft, the proposed amendments are expected to improve public safety. The analysis shows that the proposed amendments would result in 205 persons rescued in a timely manner during the 2018 to 2032 time frame, which is expected to result in possible lives saved.

Government of Canada

Over the period from 2018 to 2032, adopting 406 MHz ELTs would benefit DND by reducing time and resource costs associated with SAR services and false alarms. The total benefits resulting from the changes to the CARs to the Government of Canada are estimated at $70.79 million in present value, including $49.73 million in savings from avoided searching and $21.06 million in savings from avoided false alarms.

Industry (commercial air operators and private operators)

While benefiting Canadians and the Government of Canada, the proposed amendments, in addition to the compliance cost to recreational operators, would impose costs on commercial air operators and private operators. The present value of the total costs to commercial air operators and private operators associated with these proposed amendments is approximately $0.92 million over 15 years. Estimated monetized and non-monetized benefits and costs are summarized in Table 3.

Administrative monetary penalties

The proposed designation of offences that could be enforced via an administrative monetary penalty would have no impact on law abiding regulated parties, would promote compliance, and would reduce the burden on the judicial system.

Table 3: Results of the CBA of the proposed amendments (using a 7% discount rate)

Benefits and Costs	2018	2026	2032	Total (over 15 years)	Annualized Value
Quantitative benefits/costs Non-monetized Benefits
Benefits to Canadians (increased public safety)	Timely rescue of an estimated 205 persons Possible lives saved
Monetized Benefits
Benefits to Government (avoided searching and avoided false alarms)	$0	$6,398,848	$4,263,823	$70,792,610	$7,772,648
Total monetized benefits	$0	$6,398,848	$4,263,823	$70,792,610	$7,772,648
Monetized Costs
Costs to Canadians (procurement, registration, and installation costs to recreational operators)	$0	$0	$0	$26,027,650	$2,857,696
Costs to Industry (procurement, registration, and installation costs to commercial/private operators)	$0	$0	$0	$922,190	$101,252
Total monetized costs	$0	$0	$0	$26,949,840	$2,958,948
Net monetized benefits	$0	$6,398,848	$4,263,823	$43,842,770	$4,813,700
Qualitative Benefits/Costs
Improved enforceability and compliance via availability of administrative monetary penalties as an enforcement tool For Government, there would be increased calls associated with false alarms received from 406 MHz ELTs; however, less time would be spent on the phone to respond to each call. Transport Canada anticipates that to some degree these impacts would be offsetting, but the overall net result is unclear.

Sensitivity analysis

Several parameters used in this CBA are subject to uncertainty. A sensitivity analysis was performed to measure the impact of any change in these parameters on the CBA results, assuming all other variables remained constant.

ELT purchase price

A range of 406 MHz ELTs are available, with a range of complexities and suitable aircraft and operations. There is a corresponding range in ELT prices, from $719 to $3,813.

Initial search area covered

When the downed aircraft is equipped with a 406 MHz ELT, the size of the area required to be searched is smaller to that for a 121.5 MHz ELT. According to DRDC, as indicated in section 6.3, the initial search area is approximately 13 km^{footnote 2} for 406 MHz ELTs, and 1 260 km^{footnote 2} for 121.5 MHz ELTs. By contrast, a comparison made by the NOAA indicates that the initial search area is roughly 65 km^{footnote 2} for 406 MHz ELTs, while the search area is approximately 800 km^{footnote 2} on average for 121.5 MHz ELTs.

Discount rate

Given the potential that the proposed amendments would result in significant social benefits for Canadians, Transport Canada conducted a sensitivity analysis using a 3% discount rate.

Time frame

The time frame considered for the analysis of this proposal was 15 years. That estimation is based on Air Canada’s average fleet age. Other air operators may possess fleets with different average ages.

The sensitivity analysis results are reported in Table 4. The results indicate that the proposed amendments would still yield a positive net benefit regardless of the uncertainties associated with the parameters used in the CBA.

Table 4: Results of the sensitivity analysis

Parameter Changes	Net Benefit	Benefit-Cost Ratio
ELT price
Lowest price: $719	$52,315,161	3.83
Highest price: $3,813	$21,850,199	1.45
Initial search area covered
NOAA-SARSAT (wider 406 MHz search area and smaller 121.5 MHz search area than assumed in main CBA scenario)footnote 17	$24,696,509	1.92
Discount rate
3%	$65,690,389	3.11
Time frame
10 years	$19,322,638	1.72
20 years	$61,325,285	3.28

Distributional analysis

It is anticipated that the proposed amendments would cost $2.96 million annually, while resulting in $7.77 million in annualized benefits. The costs as well as the benefits would vary by operator. It appears that 96.58% of the costs would be borne by the recreational operators compared to 3.42% for the commercial air operators and private operators. The benefits from the recreational air operators would represent 88.78% of the total benefits. The proportion of the costs imposed to each operator group and their contribution to the total benefits are reported in Table 5.

Table 5: Contribution of each operator group to the costs and to the benefits

Operators	Proportion of the Costs Borne (%)	Contribution to the Benefits (%)
Commercial	1.71	9.41
Private	1.71	1.82
Recreational	96.58	88.78

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule would apply to the proposed amendments, as there is an increase in administrative burden on businesses, including both commercial air operators and private operators (recreational operators are not considered businesses). Therefore, the proposal is considered to be an “IN” under the “One-for-One” Rule.

The increased administrative burden would result from the requirement to register each 406 MHz ELT. The number of 406 MHz ELTs^{footnote 18} registered by the commercial air operators and private operators that would be subject to the proposal is estimated to be 524. About an hour would be needed to register any newly installed 406 MHz ELT, with annualized administrative costs of $1,370 or $2 per business.^{footnote 19} These values are calculated using a 10-year time frame, discounted at 7% in 2012 CAD$.

Small business lens

The proposed amendments would directly affect a total of 818 businesses, which include Subpart 705 air operators (40), Subpart 704 air operators (71), Subparts 703 and 702 air operators (494), and Subpart 604 private operators (213).^{footnote 20} Since most of the 703 and 702 air operators have fewer than 100 employees, they are considered to meet the definition of small business. Therefore, the proposed amendments would trigger the small business lens.

In order to reduce the costs of the proposed amendments for all air operators, including small businesses, Transport Canada would allow commercial air operators and private operators one year from the date the amendments are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette to implement the requirements. During the consultation, some of the small business operators recommended there be no requirement to install the most complex and expensive units of 406 MHz ELTs. Transport Canada took this recommendation into consideration and instead proposed that any unit that meets the international standard would be acceptable. This flexibility would enable access to more affordable 406 MHz ELTs. Table 6 compares the flexible and the initial options.

Table 6: Regulatory flexibility analysis statement

	Flexible Option		Initiale Option
Short description	Implementation date: one year after the coming into force 406 MHz unit price (in 2012 Can$) = $673.60		Implementation date: coming into force date 406 MHz unit price (in 2012 Can$) = $1,479.73
Number of small businesses impacted	494		494
	Annualized Average (2012 Can$)	Present Value (2012 Can$)	Annualized (2012 Can$)	Present Value (2012 Can$)
Compliance costs	$129,381	$908,719	$179,347	$1,259,659
Administrative costs	$1,065	$7,484	$1,220	$8,568
Total costs	$130,447	$916,202	$180,567	$1,268,227
Average cost per small business	$264	$1,855	$366	$2,567

In comparison to the initial option, the flexible option recommended by Transport Canada would be less costly for Subparts 703 and 702 air operators by roughly 27.76%. Overall, the flexible option would result in costs for Canadian small businesses that are approximately $352,025 (or $712 per small business) less than the initial option, in present value over 10 years using a 7% discount rate.

Consultation

The Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) is the forum by which stakeholders are consulted regarding proposed regulations to the CARs. It is a joint undertaking of members who represent the aviation community, other interested parties and Transport Canada. Industry and labour organizations, representing operators and manufacturers, and professional associations are some of those included.

In June 2015, Transport Canada published a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) to consult stakeholders on the Department’s proposal to mandate the requirement for Canadian aircraft to be equipped with a 406 MHz ELTs on board. The NPA was sent to all CARAC stakeholders for a 90-day consultation period, which yielded a total of 26 comments from stakeholders representing various sectors of the industry (associations, other government departments and crown corporations as well as private citizens). Among the 26 comments received, 9 supported the NPA completely, 14 supported it partially and 3 opposed it.

The comments partially supporting the proposal were in agreement to enhance the safety and reliability of the SAR equipment on board the aircraft though there were differing opinions on the specifics of the policy. These differences included issues related to general aviation, more recent and more comprehensive data on the failure and false alarm rates of 406 MHz ELTs (post-2009), clarification on the implementation and enforcement of proposed penalties, and alternate means of compliance and/or performance-based requirements for post-crash location equipment and other procedure issues such as enforcement periods.

The comments opposing the proposed amendments focused on four elements: effectiveness and reliability, applicability, foreign aircraft, and other means of compliance.

1. Effectiveness and reliability: some stakeholders called into question the effectiveness and the reliability of the 406 MHz ELTs, arguing that there is no evidence to support the affirmation that this new technology is more reliable than the 121.5 MHz ELTs.

Transport Canada concedes that there is no study or analysis clearly demonstrating the superior reliability (i.e. crash survivability) of the 406 MHz ELTs over the second generation 121.5 MHz ELTs. The design standards establishing the performance minimums for the 406 MHz ELTs are equivalent to the second generation 121.5 MHz ELT design minimums in terms of environmental and robustness design. Therefore, the reliability of 406 MHz ELTs is expected to be maintained at least at a comparable level as a second generation 121.5 MHz ELTs. Nonetheless, the conversion to the new frequency would make ELTs significantly more effective, as the beacons would operate on a frequency that is monitored by COSPAS-SARSAT. Also, independent of the frequency, the installation standard for an ELT has continued to evolve and this is expected to result in improved crash survivability and therefore improved reliability.

2. Applicability: some opposed the inclusion of specific or all segments of general aviation (e.g. recreational aircraft).

Transport Canada rejected the proposal to exclude recreational aircraft. There are many aerodromes in Canada, even in densely populated areas such as southern Ontario, from which short flights take place over remote areas where SAR operations would be difficult without a 406 MHz ELT. An additional consideration is that smaller planes are often the most difficult to locate, especially given Canada’s rugged terrain and extensive tree coverage.

3. Foreign aircraft: some U.S. operators, including one association, oppose ELT requirements for foreign aircraft to operate in Canada because they are not currently required by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Transport Canada would not require foreign aircraft to be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT, but would require that they be equipped with an emergency beacon capable of transmitting on the 406 MHz frequency. This certified emergency equipment could be portable and handheld, and would not have to be integrated into the avionics equipment of the aircraft, as per the aircraft design standards that would apply to Canadian aircraft. This provides a much less expensive option and is a compromise solution to minimize the impact on visiting aircraft. This is similar to the allowance currently found in the CARs that does not require foreign aircraft to be equipped with an ELT as long as they have a radio transmitter that can transmit an emergency signal on the appropriate emergency frequencies. In addition, most of the foreign aircraft currently flying in Canada should already be equipped with such a device; therefore, the impact would be negligible.

4. Allowance of other means of compliance: some stakeholders requested that alternative means of compliance, such as personal locator beacons (PLBs), SPOT,^{footnote 21} and automatic dependent surveillance — broadcast (ADS-B) be allowed, claiming they were less expensive and at least as reliable (if not more) than 406 MHz ELTs.

Mobile applications, tracking devices and other emerging technologies (e.g. SPOT) do not yet have design standards establishing the performance minimums or even published and accepted industry standardization. Standardization is important because it protects passengers and flight crew from unreliable equipment and supports inspection and enforcement. Tracking systems can offer some advantages; however, there is no automatic activation and the systems require someone to be actively tracking the aircraft’s progress. There is also the potential for false alarms, as there are multiple reasons why tracking could cease. That being said, the proposed amendments would impose minimum requirements for emergency location capability, and the use of additional safety tools and technologies is always encouraged.

As for the automatic dependent surveillance — broadcast (ADS-B) proposal, this technology is used for air traffic control and while it has a tracking function, it currently works only via line of sight communication. Furthermore, it does not have an alerting function should the aircraft be in distress. Therefore, it is not feasible for the ADS-B system to replace an ELT. Finally, current SAR technology is not compatible with ADS-B, as it broadcasts on 1 090 MHz or 978 MHz frequencies and not the frequency monitored by COSPAS-SARSAT.

Regulatory cooperation

Some foreign authorities, such as the U.S. FAA, have evaluated the needs of their SAR system, as well as operations within their airspace, and have decided against a mandatory requirement that all aircraft carry 406 MHz ELTs. However, IATA and ICAO both require that commercial airlines operating transnationally use 406 MHz ELTs, and most commercial airplanes flying between Canada and the United States (or any other country) would therefore be equipped with a 406 MHz ELT. Small commercial operators in the United States are not IATA members and may not carry 406 MHz ELTs; however, they would be required to meet the foreign operator requirements under the proposed amendments when flying into Canada (the use of personal locator beacons or other certified 406 MHz ELTs). Although their Canadian counterparts would be required to carry 406 MHz ELTs, the impact on competitiveness is expected to be negligible, and the competitiveness impact on large transnational operators would be nil. For U.S. recreational aircraft, the impact is expected to be negligible, given the foreign operator requirements.

The Canadian SAR area of responsibility consists of vast expanses of unpopulated wilderness where air traffic control radar services are not available to low-flying aircraft. In these areas, it cannot be assumed that an aircraft in distress will be identified on radar, or that a transmitting ELT will be detected by an overflying aircraft. This is not the case in the contiguous United States, where there are far greater radar services and volume of overflying air traffic. The majority of the continental United States is also within low-flying radar coverage.

Regardless, the FAA is still going in the same direction, however, they are letting industry lead the switch to the 406 MHz ELT. The FAA cancelled Technical Standing Order (TSO) TSO-91a in 2012 and is no longer issuing approvals for 121.5 ELTs. Industry Canada followed suit in 2014 and updated Radio Standards Specifications (RSS) RSS-287 to provide that ELT equipment without 406 MHz frequency is no longer allowed to be certified.

Transport Canada is using a stronger, precautionary regulatory approach as Canada’s unique geography, climate, and remote regions make it a higher priority for aircraft flying in Canada. The proposed amendments would introduce specific Canadian requirements that would differ from the FAA; however, they would align Canada with ICAO requirements, and would not result in any impact on the competitiveness of Canadian operators.

Rationale

The current CARs mandate that Canadian aircraft be equipped with ELT technology that has become outdated, meaning that many aircraft distress signals cannot be detected by COSPAS-SARSAT, which presents risks to the flying public and often results in the wasteful use of SAR resources. The proposed amendments would ensure that all required aircraft have ELTs that transmit on a frequency that is monitored by COSPAS-SARSAT, which would allow for efficient and effective SAR operations, therefore increasing public safety, reducing costs to the Canadian government and aligning the Canadian regulatory framework with that of ICAO.

Although general aviation aircraft in the United States are not mandated to carry a 406 MHz ELT at this time, there are some significant differences in geography, population density and radar services between Canada and the United States. In Canada, there are many airports, even in southern Canada, where a short flight can have an aircraft in a remote area where a SAR response would be difficult without knowing a precise location. The risk would be increased for smaller private planes that are often the most difficult to locate.

The current mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces, on behalf of the Government of Canada, is to provide aeronautical SAR services for all downed aircraft in Canada. All Canadian aircraft owners and operators enjoy the benefits of a highly professional SAR organization, ready to respond on their behalf anywhere in Canada, and at no direct cost to them. Mandating the 406 MHz ELT would enable efficient use of this valuable resource. It is also important to note that efficient SAR operations do not just save money, they reduce the risk that SAR crews and specialists are exposed to by limiting the number of deployments of resources in response to false alarms. This would increase public safety, as the 406 MHz frequency is monitored by COSPAS-SARSAT, thus enhancing the probability of a distress signal being received and expediently processed, resulting in increased likelihood of flight crew members and passengers being rescued and their lives saved.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The proposed amendments would have a staggered implementation plan. The expansion of personnel authorized to install ELTs would come into force on the day the proposed amendments are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette. The regulatory changes applying to commercial air operators, private operators operating pursuant to Subpart 604 of the CARs, and foreign operators would come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which the amendments are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette. The regulatory changes applying to recreational operators would come into force on the fifth anniversary of the day on which the amendments are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette.

The amendments would be enforced through the assessment of monetary penalties imposed by designated provisions under sections 605.38 and 605.40 of the CARs, which carry a maximum fine of $3,000 for individuals and $15,000 for corporations, through suspension or cancellation of a Canadian aviation document, or as applicable, proceeding by way of a summary conviction, pursuant to section 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act.

Contact

Chief
Regulatory Affairs (AARBH)
Civil Aviation
Safety and Security Group
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613‑993‑7284 or 1‑800‑305‑2059
Fax: 613‑990‑1198
Email: carrac@tc.gc.ca
Website: www.tc.gc.ca

Appendix A: Small Business Lens Checklist

1. Name of the sponsoring regulatory organization:

2. Title of the regulatory proposal:

3. Is the checklist submitted with a RIAS for the Canada Gazette, Part I or Part II?

☑ Canada Gazette, Part I
☐ Canada Gazette, Part II

A. Small business regulatory design

I	Communication and transparency	Yes	No	N/A
1.	Are the proposed Regulations or requirements easily understandable in everyday language?	☑	☐	☐
2.	Is there a clear connection between the requirements and the purpose (or intent) of the proposed Regulations?	☑	☐	☐
3.	Will there be an implementation plan that includes communications and compliance promotion activities, that informs small business of a regulatory change and guides them on how to comply with it (e.g. information sessions, sample assessments, toolkits, Web sites)?	☑	☐	☐
4.	If new forms, reports or processes are introduced, are they consistent in appearance and format with other relevant government forms, reports or processes?	☐	☐	☑
There would be no forms, reports or processes introduced with the proposed Regulations.
II	Simplification and streamlining	Yes	No	N/A
1.	Will streamlined processes be put in place (e.g. through BizPaL, Canada Border Services Agency single window) to collect information from small businesses where possible?	☐	☐	☑
The proposed Regulations would not introduce any requirement to collect information from small businesses.
2.	Have opportunities to align with other obligations imposed on business by federal, provincial, municipal or international or multinational regulatory bodies been assessed?	☑	☐	☐
3.	Has the impact of the proposed Regulations on international or interprovincial trade been assessed?	☑	☐	☐
4.	If the data or information, other than personal information, required to comply with the proposed Regulations is already collected by another department or jurisdiction, will this information be obtained from that department or jurisdiction instead of requesting the same information from small businesses or other stakeholders? (The collection, retention, use, disclosure and disposal of personal information are all subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act. Any questions with respect to compliance with the Privacy Act should be referred to the department’s or agency’s ATIP office or legal services unit.)	☐	☐	☑
The proposed Regulations would not introduce requirements to collect data or information already collected by another department or jurisdiction.
5.	Will forms be pre-populated with information or data already available to the department to reduce the time and cost necessary to complete them? (Example: When a business completes an online application for a licence, upon entering an identifier or a name, the system pre-populates the application with the applicant’s personal particulars such as contact information, date, etc. when that information is already available to the department.)	☐	☐	☑
The proposed Regulations would not introduce requirements to populate forms for the Department.
6.	Will electronic reporting and data collection be used, including electronic validation and confirmation of receipt of reports where appropriate?	☐	☐	☑
The proposed Regulations would not require the use of electronic reporting and data collection.
7.	Will reporting, if required by the proposed Regulations, be aligned with generally used business processes or international standards if possible?	☐	☐	☑
The proposed Regulations would not require any reporting.
8.	If additional forms are required, can they be streamlined with existing forms that must be completed for other government information requirements?	☐	☐	☑
The proposed Regulations would not require additional forms.
III	Implementation, compliance and service standards	Yes	No	N/A
1.	Has consideration been given to small businesses in remote areas, with special consideration to those that do not have access to high-speed (broadband) Internet?	☑	☐	☐
2.	If regulatory authorizations (e.g. licences, permits or certifications) are introduced, will service standards addressing timeliness of decision making be developed that are inclusive of complaints about poor service?	☐	☐	☑
The proposed Regulations would not introduce regulatory authorizations.
3.	Is there a clearly identified contact point or help desk for small businesses and other stakeholders?	☑	☐	☐

B. Regulatory flexibility analysis and reverse onus

IV	Regulatory flexibility analysis	Yes	No	N/A
1.	Does the RIAS identify at least one flexible option that has lower compliance or administrative costs for small businesses in the small business lens section? Examples of flexible options to minimize costs are as follows: Longer time periods to comply with the requirements, longer transition periods or temporary exemptions; Performance-based standards; Partial or complete exemptions from compliance, especially for firms that have good track records (legal advice should be sought when considering such an option); Reduced compliance costs; Reduced fees or other charges or penalties; Use of market incentives; A range of options to comply with requirements, including lower-cost options; Simplified and less frequent reporting obligations and inspections; and Licences granted on a permanent basis or renewed less frequently.	☑	☐	☐
2.	Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, quantified and monetized compliance and administrative costs for small businesses associated with the initial option assessed, as well as the flexible, lower-cost option?	☑	☐	☐
3.	Does the RIAS include, as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Statement, a consideration of the risks associated with the flexible option? (Minimizing administrative or compliance costs for small business cannot be at the expense of greater health, security or safety or create environmental risks for Canadians.)	☑	☐	☐
4.	Does the RIAS include a summary of feedback provided by small business during consultations?	☑	☐	☐
V	Reverse onus	Yes	No	N/A
1.	If the recommended option is not the lower-cost option for small business in terms of administrative or compliance costs, is a reasonable justification provided in the RIAS?	☐	☐	☑
The recommended option is the lower-cost option for small business.

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 4.9^{footnote a} and paragraphs 7.6(1)(a)^{footnote b} and (b)^{footnote c} of the Aeronautics Act^{footnote d}, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, V and VI — ELT ).

Interested persons may make representations with respect to the proposed Regulations to the Minister of Transport within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice and 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; email: carrac@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, May 17, 2019

Julie Adair
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, V and VI — ELT)

Amendments

1 Subpart 5 of Part VI of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Canadian Aviation Regulations^{footnote 22} is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 605.38(1)”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 605.38(4)	1,000	5,000

2 Subpart 5 of Part VI of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Subsection 605.38(4)”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 605.38.1(1)	3,000	15,000
Subsection 605.40(1)	1,000	5,000

3 The reference “Subsection 605.38.1(1)” in column I of Subpart 5 of Part VI of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations and the corresponding amounts in column II are repealed.

4 Paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule II to Subpart 71 of Part V of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) installation of ELT systems conforming to the CAN-TSO as set out in section 551.104 of chapter 551 — Aircraft Equipment and Installation of the Airworthiness Manual, if the ELT systems are not interfaced with any other systems;

5 (1) Subsection 605.38(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall operate an aircraft unless it is equipped with one or more ELTs, in accordance with subsection (2), that transmit on the 406 MHz frequency.

(2) The table to subsection 605.38(2) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

TABLE

ELT REQUIREMENTS

Item	Column 1 Aircraft	Column 2 Area of Operation	Column 3 Minimum Equipment
1	All aircraft	Over land	One ELT of Type AD, AF or AP, as referred to in section 551.104 of chapter 551 — Aircraft Equipment and Installation of the Airworthiness Manual
2	Large multi-engined turbo-jet aeroplanes engaged in an air transport service carrying passengers	Over water at a distance from land that requires the carriage of life rafts under section 602.63	Two ELTs of Type S, as referred to in section 551.104 of chapter 551 — Aircraft Equipment and Installation of the Airworthiness Manual
3	All aircraft that require an ELT other than those set out in item 2	Over water at a distance from land that requires the carriage of life rafts under section 602.63	One ELT of Type S, as referred to in section 551.104 of chapter 551 — Aircraft Equipment and Installation of the Airworthiness Manual

(3) Subsection 605.38(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) An aircraft may be operated without an ELT on board if the aircraft is

• (a) a glider, balloon, airship, ultra-light aeroplane or gyroplane;
• (b) registered under the laws of a contracting state or a state that is a party to an agreement entered into with Canada relating to interstate flying, is equipped with a serviceable emergency beacon that transmits on a 406 MHz frequency with a tested life of at least 24 hours and
  • (i) has a Class 1 or Class 2 Type Approval Certificate, issued by the international search and rescue Cospas-Sarsat system, and
  • (ii) is registered with the appropriate authority of the country identified in the coded message transmitted by the emergency beacon;
• (c) operated by the holder of a flight training unit operating certificate, engaged in flight training and operated within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure;
• (d) engaged in a flight test;
• (e) a new aircraft engaged in flight operations related to manufacture, preparation or delivery of the aircraft;
• (f) operated for the purpose of permitting a person to conduct a parachute descent within 25 nautical miles of the aerodrome of departure; or
• (g) operated in accordance with section 605.39.

(4) Subsection 605.38(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) If an aircraft is equipped with one or more ELTs that transmit on the frequency of 406 MHz, the owner shall register each ELT with

• (a) the Canadian Beacon Registry; or
• (b) the appropriate authority of the country identified in the coded message transmitted by the ELT.

6 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 605.38:

ELT — Frequencies

605.38.1 (1) No person shall operate an aircraft under a private operator registration document or in a commercial air service unless the aircraft is equipped with one or more ELTs that transmit on the 406 MHz frequency.

(2) A person may operate an aircraft, other than an aircraft referred to in subsection (1), if it is equipped with one or more ELTs that transmit on one or both of the following frequencies:

• (a) 121.5 MHz; and
• (b) 406 MHz.

7 Section 605.38.1 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

8 Subsections 605.40(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) A person may activate an ELT, in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, for the purpose of testing the ELT at the following times:

• (a) for a duration of not more than five seconds during the first five minutes of any hour UTC in the case of an ELT that transmits on the 121.5 MHz frequency or an ELT that transmits on both the 406 MHz and the 121.5 MHz frequencies; and
• (b) at any time in the case of an ELT that transmits only on a 406 MHz frequency.

(3) If an ELT has been inadvertently activated during flight, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall ensure, as soon as possible, that

• (a) the nearest air traffic control unit, flight service station or community aerodrome radio station is so informed; and
• (b) the ELT is deactivated.

Coming into Force

9 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), these Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(2) Section 2, subsections 5(2) and (3) and section 6 come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

(3) Section 3, subsection 5(1) and section 7 come into force on the fifth anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.