FEDERAL REG

SOR/2016-39: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012 (Enhanced Access Controls)

REGISTRATION OF FEDERAL REGULATION - VIA OIC DATABASE, PRIOR TO PART II OF THE GAZETTE

Registered
March 11, 2016


REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT (This statement is not part of the Regulations.) Executive summary Issues: In order to mitigate vulnerabilities that could be intentionally exploited, existing access control systems at certain Class 3 airports, based on an assessment of threat and risk, need enhancement. Description: The amendments will require certain Class 3 airports to enhance their access... (Click for more)


House

1st Reading 2nd Reading 3rd Reading

Senate

1st Reading 2nd Reading 3rd Reading

Published on March 11, 2016

Bill Summary

SOR/2016-39: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012 (Enhanced Access Controls)

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT (This statement is not part of the Regulations.) Executive summary Issues: In order to mitigate vulnerabilities that could be intentionally exploited, existing access control systems at certain Class 3 airports, based on an assessment of threat and risk, need enhancement. Description: The amendments will require certain Class 3 airports to enhance their access control systems, similar to those already in place at Class 1 and Class 2 airports. This enhancement will require airport workers at the affected airports to use a biometric identity card to access the restricted areas of the airport. Operators of the affected airports will be required to add the biometric identity verification aspect to their existing access control system and to manage it. Cost-benefit statement: The amendments could result in up to $12.94 million in costs to airports, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) and Transport Canada over a 10-year period, with an annualized cost of $1.8 million. The highest of these costs would be incurred by CATSA. This additional layer of security is being implemented to reduce the risk of an aviation security incident, to strengthen Canada’s aviation transportation system in compliance with an international standard. “One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The “One-for-One” Rule applies to these amendments as they will result in an administrative burden of $2,869 in annualized costs for the affected airports and the workers at those airports. Background All 89 of Canada’s airports listed in Schedules 1 to 3 of the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012 (the Regulations) are required to have access control systems in place to prevent unauthorized access to airport restricted areas. Canada’s 29 larger airports, identified as Class 1 and Class 2 airports, are required to have a biometric Restricted Area Identity Card (RAIC) so that non-passengers’ (e.g. airport workers) identity be verified using biometrics (fingerprint or iris-scan) when accessing the restricted area through a restricted area access point equipped with a RAIC reader. RAIC requirements for Class 1 and Class 2 airports were added to the Regulations in 2006 after consultation with airport operators, airport workers and the Privacy Commissioner. (see footnote 2) RAIC readers, that form part of the identity verification system, are located at restricted area access points leading into the restricted areas. The RAIC readers automatically verify that the RAIC holder is the person to whom the RAIC was issued and confirm that the RAIC is valid. CATSA is responsible for implementing and maintaining the identity verification system and airports are responsible for managing the RAIC program and controlling access to the restricted areas. A transportation security clearance is a prerequisite to obtain a RAIC. Background checks are conducted by Transport Canada in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Transport Canada conducts an evaluation upon receipt of all the information collected. The recommendation on whether or not to grant a transportation security clearance is based on an evaluation of the information obtained from the applicant and from the background checks, as to whether the applicant poses a risk to aviation security. Canada’s 60 smaller airports, known as Class 3 airports, are required to have an access control system, but not the biometric access component mandated at larger airports. Instead, these airports use alternate access controls, such as restricted area passes, proximity card readers, and keypad or keyed doors to control access to the restricted areas. CATSA has been responsible for the implementation of the non-passenger screening program in place at Canadian airports since 2004, which is supported by the RAIC program to validate a non-passenger’s identity. In July 2013, a more stringent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard for screening non-passengers came into effect. The standard requires countries to ensure that non-passengers and the items they carry are subject to screening and security controls, prior to entering restricted areas of airports serving international civil aviation operations. When the standard came into effect, CATSA immediately increased its non-passenger screening operations as a result of the new standard. In July 2014, to further conform to the international standard, the Regulations were amended to allow non-passengers to only enter restricted areas through access points where CATSA is present and carrying out screening operations. (see footnote 3) In general, the Regulations contain requirements applicable to air carriers, airport operators, CATSA and persons, and are designed to prevent acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation. The Minister of Transport is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics under section 4.2 of the Aeronautics Act. The Governor in Council has the authority to make Regulations under sections 4.71 and 4.9 of the Aeronautics Act. Issues In order to mitigate vulnerabilities that could be intentionally exploited, existing access control systems at certain Class 3 airports need to be enhanced. The absence of a biometrically-enhanced access control system is inconsistent with the results of the risk assessment, in which case the resulting gap could enable unauthorized access to an airport restricted area using a lost, stolen or duplicated key or pass. The amendments to the Regulations will also require airport workers at Class 3 airports who need a RAIC to also possess a transportation security clearance. The affected airports, which will be identified in confidential security measures, will be required to implement and manage a RAIC program. Expanding the RAIC program to some Class 3 airports reinforces Canada’s commitment to securing aviation and meeting international non-passenger screening standards, using risk based approaches. If not implemented, the risks identified in Transport Canada’s assessment for the affected airports would remain unmitigated and inconsistent with the government’s security activities. Objectives These Regulations will reinforce Canada’s compliance with the ICAO standard and improve the security of Canada’s aviation system. The objective of these Regulations is to align the security activities with the risk identified at certain Class 3 airports. Transport Canada drew upon risk assessment results, international benchmarking and industry consultations to identify the enhancements necessary. Description The affected Class 3 airports will be required to have enhanced access control systems similar to those already in place at Class 1 and Class 2 airports. Airport workers who are granted a transportation security clearance will have a RAIC that must be biometrically validated when accessing the restricted area through a restricted area access point equipped with a RAIC reader. RAIC holders at doors providing access to the restricted areas will scan either their fingerprint or iris using a biometric RAIC reader. This system performs three tasks. Firstly, it confirms a cardholder’s identity by matching the biometrics on the card with the cardholder’s fingerprint or iris that is being scanned. Secondly, it confirms that a transportation security clearance issued by Transport Canada is valid for the holder of the card. Thirdly, it determines if the airport operator has granted access to the cardholder at a particular restricted area access point. Since airport access control remains an airport responsibility, the airport must ask CATSA to immediately deactivate a RAIC if it is reported as lost or stolen or if the cardholder’s transportation security clearance has been suspended or cancelled. The cards may be confiscated if they have been deactivated or if the confiscation is required for an aviation security reason. Key aspects of the amendments to the Regulations to expand a RAIC program to some Class 3 airports include the following: information to be displayed on the RAIC; issuance criteria for the RAIC; the collection, protection, handling and destruction of personal information; the activation, deactivation and retrieval of the RAIC; record keeping; keys, combination codes and personal identification codes business continuity plans; the use of the RAIC and any access control features integrated into the RAIC; restricted area access control process; RAIC conditions of use; the presentation and surrender of the RAIC; loss or theft of the RAIC; and escort and surveillance. In addition, the definition of “restricted area identity card” is amended to remove the reference to aerodromes listed in Schedule 1 or 2 and instead will refer to a pass that can be verified by an identity verification system. Other requirements that would compromise aviation security if made public in regulations will not appear in the Regulations. These additional requirements will be contained in aviation security measures made under the Aeronautics Act and made available to persons with a need and right to have the information. Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered Option 1: Status quo Although maintaining the status quo would minimize operational costs, failure to enhance the security at the affected Class 3 airports would result in the enhanced security not targeting the identified risk, create vulnerability, and create a surplus by not using funding provided specifically for RAIC enhancements. Therefore, this was not the preferred option. Option 2: Voluntary program A voluntary program was considered unfeasible, as the program would be based on contractual law which would limit the government’s involvement, it would be unenforceable, and would not provide the necessary assurances that privacy rights would be respected, or provide the legal framework to grant, revoke or suspend clearances, if information suggested that a person seeking a RAIC would pose a risk to aviation security. As the objectives to align the security activities with the risk identified at certain Class 3 airports could not be met using a voluntary approach, it was not the preferred option. Option 3: Implementation of the RAIC program In keeping with international requirements and practices, Canada’s civil aviation program is based on regulation, where other options are deemed insufficient. This provides for the highest possible assurances of compliance, consistency, transparency, and fairness. Implementing a RAIC program at certain Class 3 airports will mitigate the associated risks identified through the assessment process in order to support the department’s mandate to provide a secure air transportation system. In addition, as the funding for this program has already been committed, there would be little financial impact to government or industry. The disadvantages of this option are that airport operators will incur some costs, but the impacts are not expected to be significant, and the benefits will outweigh the costs. As a result, this is the preferred option. Benefits and costs — all 60 Class 3 airports Although only some of the Class 3 airports will be required to comply with the Regulations, the costs that could be borne by CATSA, Transport Canada and airports were calculated as if these amendments applied to all 60 Class 3 airports. For all 60 airports, the Present Value of the costs could be up to $12.94 million with annualized costs of $1.8 million. These costs would be distributed as in the following table. This table presents the cost-benefit statement for all 60 Class 3 airports. A. Quantified Impacts (in Can$, 2015/constant dollars) A. Quantified Impacts (in Can$, 2015/constant dollars) Base Year (2016) 2017 Final Year (2025) Total (Present Value) Annualized Average Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Canadian Air Transportation Security Authority (CATSA) Canadian Air Transportation Security Authority (CATSA) $8,481,924 $103,304 $653,960 $11,450,669 $1,630,318 Transport Canada Transport Canada $371,233 $82,353 $82,353 $1,013,021 $144,231 Class 3 Airports Class 3 Airports $98,824 $55,366 $55,366 $478,871 $68,180 Total Total $8,951,981 $241,023 $791,679 $12,942,561 $1,842,730 B. Qualitative Impacts B. Qualitative Impacts B. Qualitative Impacts B. Qualitative Impacts B. Qualitative Impacts B. Qualitative Impacts B. Qualitative Impacts Canadians and the Canadian Economy Fewer aviation security breaches (potential lives saved and injuries avoided). Fewer aviation security breaches (potential lives saved and injuries avoided). Fewer aviation security breaches (potential lives saved and injuries avoided). Fewer aviation security breaches (potential lives saved and injuries avoided). Fewer aviation security breaches (potential lives saved and injuries avoided). Fewer aviation security breaches (potential lives saved and injuries avoided). Canadians and the Canadian Economy Reduce the risk of acts or attempted acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation that disrupt air travel. Reduce the risk of acts or attempted acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation that disrupt air travel. Reduce the risk of acts or attempted acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation that disrupt air travel. Reduce the risk of acts or attempted acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation that disrupt air travel. Reduce the risk of acts or attempted acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation that disrupt air travel. Reduce the risk of acts or attempted acts of unlawful interference with civil aviation that disrupt air travel. Canadians and the Canadian Economy Ensure the continued access to the international aviation system by recognizing international standards. Ensure the continued access to the international aviation system by recognizing international standards. Ensure the continued access to the international aviation system by recognizing international standards. Ensure the continued access to the international aviation system by recognizing international standards. Ensure the continued access to the international aviation system by recognizing international standards. Ensure the continued access to the international aviation system by recognizing international standards. Canadian Government Maintain reputation in international civil aviation. Maintain reputation in international civil aviation. Maintain reputation in international civil aviation. Maintain reputation in international civil aviation. Maintain reputation in international civil aviation. Maintain reputation in international civil aviation. Airports and their partners Increased airport security and security of business operations. Increased airport security and security of business operations. Increased airport security and security of business operations. Increased airport security and security of business operations. Increased airport security and security of business operations. Increased airport security and security of business operations. Airports and their partners Improved business continuity. Improved business continuity. Improved business continuity. Improved business continuity. Improved business continuity. Improved business continuity. While the benefits of the amendments are difficult to quantify or monetize, the additional layers of security (enhanced security controls, RAIC program and transportation security clearances) are expected to reduce the risk of an aviation security incident and will strengthen Canada’s aviation transportation system, using a risk-based approach, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach. A major aviation security incident could result in damage or the destruction of property and injuries or loss of life and would have negative rippling consequences on the broader aviation transportation system. Failure to adequately address risk identified through assessments at the affected Class 3 airports could negatively affect international relations, restrict or complicate access to international markets, result in other countries imposing additional screening measures and ultimately decrease passenger confidence and reduce the associated economic benefits for Canada. A full cost-benefit analysis report is available upon request. “One-for-One” Rule The “One-for-One” Rule applies to these amendments, as they will result in an administrative burden increase of $2,869 in annualized costs for the affected airports and the workers at those airports. The administrative burden calculations contain security sensitive information and are therefore contained in a confidential document not available to the public. Small business lens While the estimated incremental cost to the affected airports may not be significant, the small business lens would nevertheless apply since the annual nation-wide costs of the regulatory change would exceed $1 million if it applied to all 60 Class 3 airports. A small business is defined as any business with fewer than 100 employees or between $30,000 and $5 million in annual gross revenues. That said, 55 of the 60 Class 3 airports would fall under this definition. While small businesses could be affected by this proposal, the affected airports and any related requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. As such, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. A small business checklist has been completed according to the requirements of the small business lens. Transport Canada has been working closely with CATSA and the affected airports to minimize the compliance and operational costs associated with meeting the more stringent ICAO standard. Consultation In 2011, Transport Canada began consulting stakeholders including CATSA, airports and air carriers on enhancements to the non-passenger screening program. In 2013 and 2014, it conducted several consultative meetings with the Canadian Airports Council and CATSA to discuss the enhancements of the program and their implementation. The Class 3 airports that will be affected by these RAIC-related amendments to the Regulations were informed in writing in August 2014 and were consulted individually in early 2015. All support the requirements to enhance their existing access control systems. Rationale The RAIC has been in use for almost 10 years and uses biometric technology as the basis of a secure credential card for airport workers who require access to restricted areas of Class 1 and Class 2 airports. It uses smart card technology to store two kinds of biometric data: fingerprint and iris templates. The existing Regulations require CATSA to destroy biometric templates disclosed to CATSA in connection with an application for a RAIC as soon as feasible in accordance with the Access to Information Act, the Library and Archives of Canada Act and the Privacy Act. In addition, CATSA cannot collect, use, disclose or retain the identity of a RAIC holder. To allow for the program to work despite this prohibition, an algorithm is used to create biometric templates from the biometric images provided during the enrollment process. A biometric template is a mathematically generated number extracted from key points within a biometric image. The template cannot be used to recreate an image of an iris or fingerprint, and cannot be used to identify an individual other than for the purposes of the RAIC program. During the enrollment process, an airport worker’s biometric templates are stored on the card and in the central CATSA identification databank along with a unique RAIC information number. Only iris and fingerprint templates are stored on the card, not images. Once the templates are stored on the card and the card has been issued, the biometric images supplied during the enrollment process are purged from the airport database. No information that can be traced to a RAIC holder is disclosed to CATSA by an airport. An airport may, however, provide information to Transport Canada about a RAIC holder or an applicant for a RAIC for transportation security clearance purposes. The amendments will require some Class 3 airports to implement a RAIC program, which will support and enhance the existing non-passenger screening program. These programs will add another layer of security and will further secure Canada’s aviation transportation system. CATSA and the affected airports fully support the amendments and are preparing to implement the RAIC program. CATSA has received funding to add the infrastructure necessary for the RAIC program at the affected airports. Implementation, enforcement and service standards The regulatory amendments come into force on April 1, 2016. Communications efforts have been ongoing with the affected airports and CATSA since mid 2014. Consultations with affected airports will be undertaken to ensure that additional enhancements are implemented effectively and efficiently. The proposal includes amending the designated provisions of the Regulations in order to provide for the imposition of monetary penalties as a means to enforce the regulation. Under the Aeronautics Act, the maximum monetary penalty that can be assessed for the contravention of a regulation is $5,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations. Transport Canada’s philosophy on the enforcement of the Regulations stresses promoting compliance as the preferred means of achieving a secure aviation environment. However, the Aeronautics Act provides that enforcement actions could be taken in the form of administrative monetary penalties pursuant to sections 7.6 to 8.2, charges could be laid for the commission of an offence set out under subsection 7.3(3), or a Canadian aviation document could be suspended or cancelled in accordance with section 6.9. Contact Francine Massicotte Chief Regulatory Programs and Projects Aviation Security Regulatory Affairs Transport Canada 330 Sparks Street, 13th Floor, Tower C Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 Telephone: 613-949-4349 Fax: 613-949-9590 Email: [email protected] Small Business Lens Checklist 1. Name of the sponsoring regulatory organization: Transport Canada 2. Title of the regulatory proposal: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012 (Enhanced Access Controls) 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 This table presents the Small business regulatory design. I Communication and transparency Yes No N/A 1. Are the proposed Regulations or requirements easily understandable in everyday language? ☑ ☐ ☐ The same text is already in place in Division 8 of the Regulations for Class 1 and 2 airports and have been drafted to be as clear as possible. The same text is already in place in Division 8 of the Regulations for Class 1 and 2 airports and have been drafted to be as clear as possible. The same text is already in place in Division 8 of the Regulations for Class 1 and 2 airports and have been drafted to be as clear as possible. The same text is already in place in Division 8 of the Regulations for Class 1 and 2 airports and have been drafted to be as clear as possible. The same text is already in place in Division 8 of the Regulations for Class 1 and 2 airports and have been drafted to be as clear as possible. 2. Is there a clear connection between the requirements and the purpose (or intent) of the proposed Regulations? ☑ ☐ ☐ As described in the RIAS and communicated to the affected stakeholders, the purpose is to improve the existing access control systems at certain Class 3 airports. As described in the RIAS and communicated to the affected stakeholders, the purpose is to improve the existing access control systems at certain Class 3 airports. As described in the RIAS and communicated to the affected stakeholders, the purpose is to improve the existing access control systems at certain Class 3 airports. As described in the RIAS and communicated to the affected stakeholders, the purpose is to improve the existing access control systems at certain Class 3 airports. As described in the RIAS and communicated to the affected stakeholders, the purpose is to improve the existing access control systems at certain Class 3 airports. 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)? ☑ ☐ ☐ There are ongoing consultations with CATSA and the affected airports to ensure that the additional enhancements are implemented effectively and efficiently. There are ongoing consultations with CATSA and the affected airports to ensure that the additional enhancements are implemented effectively and efficiently. There are ongoing consultations with CATSA and the affected airports to ensure that the additional enhancements are implemented effectively and efficiently. There are ongoing consultations with CATSA and the affected airports to ensure that the additional enhancements are implemented effectively and efficiently. There are ongoing consultations with CATSA and the affected airports to ensure that the additional enhancements are implemented effectively and efficiently. 4. If new forms, reports or processes are introduced, are they consistent in appearance and format with other relevant government forms, reports or processes? ☑ ☐ ☐ The affected Class 3 airports will be required to keep updated records and a business continuity plan which is consistent with the processes/procedures already in place at all Class 1 and 2 airports. Airport workers at the affected airports will need to complete a transportation security clearance application form. Although this will be a new form for those airports, it is the same form that is already used by airport workers at the Class 1 and 2 airports. The affected Class 3 airports will be required to keep updated records and a business continuity plan which is consistent with the processes/procedures already in place at all Class 1 and 2 airports. Airport workers at the affected airports will need to complete a transportation security clearance application form. Although this will be a new form for those airports, it is the same form that is already used by airport workers at the Class 1 and 2 airports. The affected Class 3 airports will be required to keep updated records and a business continuity plan which is consistent with the processes/procedures already in place at all Class 1 and 2 airports. Airport workers at the affected airports will need to complete a transportation security clearance application form. Although this will be a new form for those airports, it is the same form that is already used by airport workers at the Class 1 and 2 airports. The affected Class 3 airports will be required to keep updated records and a business continuity plan which is consistent with the processes/procedures already in place at all Class 1 and 2 airports. Airport workers at the affected airports will need to complete a transportation security clearance application form. Although this will be a new form for those airports, it is the same form that is already used by airport workers at the Class 1 and 2 airports. The affected Class 3 airports will be required to keep updated records and a business continuity plan which is consistent with the processes/procedures already in place at all Class 1 and 2 airports. Airport workers at the affected airports will need to complete a transportation security clearance application form. Although this will be a new form for those airports, it is the same form that is already used by airport workers at the Class 1 and 2 airports. 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 amendments to the Regulations do not require the collection of information from small businesses. The amendments to the Regulations do not require the collection of information from small businesses. The amendments to the Regulations do not require the collection of information from small businesses. The amendments to the Regulations do not require the collection of information from small businesses. The amendments to the Regulations do not require the collection of 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? ☑ ☐ ☐ It was determined that the unique nature of federally regulated requirements on aviation security could not be aligned with any other obligations imposed by other regulatory bodies but would be consistent with ICAO standards. It was determined that the unique nature of federally regulated requirements on aviation security could not be aligned with any other obligations imposed by other regulatory bodies but would be consistent with ICAO standards. It was determined that the unique nature of federally regulated requirements on aviation security could not be aligned with any other obligations imposed by other regulatory bodies but would be consistent with ICAO standards. It was determined that the unique nature of federally regulated requirements on aviation security could not be aligned with any other obligations imposed by other regulatory bodies but would be consistent with ICAO standards. It was determined that the unique nature of federally regulated requirements on aviation security could not be aligned with any other obligations imposed by other regulatory bodies but would be consistent with ICAO standards. 3. Has the impact of the proposed Regulations on international or interprovincial trade been assessed? ☑ ☐ ☐ There is no expected impact on international or interprovincial trade as a result of the amendments to the Regulations. There is no expected impact on international or interprovincial trade as a result of the amendments to the Regulations. There is no expected impact on international or interprovincial trade as a result of the amendments to the Regulations. There is no expected impact on international or interprovincial trade as a result of the amendments to the Regulations. There is no expected impact on international or interprovincial trade as a result of the amendments to the Regulations. 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 information collected from airport workers before a RAIC is issued is personal information. The information collected from airport workers before a RAIC is issued is personal information. The information collected from airport workers before a RAIC is issued is personal information. The information collected from airport workers before a RAIC is issued is personal information. The information collected from airport workers before a RAIC is issued is personal information. 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.) ☐ ☑ ☐ Airport workers will be required to complete and submit a new application form every time their transportation security clearance needs to be renewed. Typically, this is every 5 years. Airport workers will be required to complete and submit a new application form every time their transportation security clearance needs to be renewed. Typically, this is every 5 years. Airport workers will be required to complete and submit a new application form every time their transportation security clearance needs to be renewed. Typically, this is every 5 years. Airport workers will be required to complete and submit a new application form every time their transportation security clearance needs to be renewed. Typically, this is every 5 years. Airport workers will be required to complete and submit a new application form every time their transportation security clearance needs to be renewed. Typically, this is every 5 years. 6. Will electronic reporting and data collection be used, including electronic validation and confirmation of receipt of reports where appropriate? ☑ ☐ ☐ Airport workers can apply for a transportation security clearance electronically through a secure Web site. Airport workers can apply for a transportation security clearance electronically through a secure Web site. Airport workers can apply for a transportation security clearance electronically through a secure Web site. Airport workers can apply for a transportation security clearance electronically through a secure Web site. Airport workers can apply for a transportation security clearance electronically through a secure Web site. 7. Will reporting, if required by the proposed Regulations, be aligned with generally used business processes or international standards if possible? ☐ ☐ ☑ The amendments to the Regulations do not have reporting requirements. The amendments to the Regulations do not have reporting requirements. The amendments to the Regulations do not have reporting requirements. The amendments to the Regulations do not have reporting requirements. The amendments to the Regulations do not have reporting requirements. 8. If additional forms are required, can they be streamlined with existing forms that must be completed for other government information requirements? ☐ ☑ ☐ The transportation security clearance application is unique to Transport Canada and, once completed, will contain personal information that is only used for the purpose of conducting the necessary background checks. The transportation security clearance application is unique to Transport Canada and, once completed, will contain personal information that is only used for the purpose of conducting the necessary background checks. The transportation security clearance application is unique to Transport Canada and, once completed, will contain personal information that is only used for the purpose of conducting the necessary background checks. The transportation security clearance application is unique to Transport Canada and, once completed, will contain personal information that is only used for the purpose of conducting the necessary background checks. The transportation security clearance application is unique to Transport Canada and, once completed, will contain personal information that is only used for the purpose of conducting the necessary background checks. 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? ☐ ☐ ☑ The amendments to the Regulations will not affect small businesses in remote areas. The amendments to the Regulations will not affect small businesses in remote areas. The amendments to the Regulations will not affect small businesses in remote areas. The amendments to the Regulations will not affect small businesses in remote areas. The amendments to the Regulations will not affect small businesses in remote areas. 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 amendments to the Regulations do not introduce regulatory authorizations. The amendments to the Regulations do not introduce regulatory authorizations. The amendments to the Regulations do not introduce regulatory authorizations. The amendments to the Regulations do not introduce regulatory authorizations. The amendments to the Regulations do not introduce regulatory authorizations. 3. Is there a clearly identified contact point or help desk for small businesses and other stakeholders? ☑ ☐ ☐ Airports and other stakeholders will continue to use their existing regional contacts. Airports and other stakeholders will continue to use their existing regional contacts. Airports and other stakeholders will continue to use their existing regional contacts. Airports and other stakeholders will continue to use their existing regional contacts. Airports and other stakeholders will continue to use their existing regional contacts. B. Regulatory flexibility analysis and reverse onus This table presents the 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. ☐ ☑ ☐ The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. 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? Use the Regulatory Cost Calculator to quantify and monetize administrative and compliance costs and include the completed calculator in your submission to TBS-RAS. ☐ ☑ ☐ The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. 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.) ☐ ☑ ☐ The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. The names of the airports that will be affected and any related security sensitive requirements will be contained in confidential security measures to ensure that public safety is duly protected. Therefore, the flexibility analysis is also confidential. 4. Does the RIAS include a summary of feedback provided by small business during consultations? ☑ ☐ ☐ The affected airports were consulted and support the amendments to the Regulations. The affected airports were consulted and support the amendments to the Regulations. The affected airports were consulted and support the amendments to the Regulations. The affected airports were consulted and support the amendments to the Regulations. The affected airports were consulted and support the amendments to the Regulations. 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 businesses. The recommended option is the lower-cost option for small businesses. The recommended option is the lower-cost option for small businesses. The recommended option is the lower-cost option for small businesses. The recommended option is the lower-cost option for small businesses. Footnote a S.C. 2004, c. 15, s. 5 Footnote b S.C. 2004, c. 15, s. 5 Footnote c S.C. 2004, c. 15, s. 5 Footnote d S.C. 2004, c. 15, s. 5 Footnote e R.S., c. A-2 Footnote 1 SOR/2011-318 Footnote 2 http://publications.gc.ca/gazette/archives/p2/2006/2006-12-27/pdf/g2-14026.pdf Footnote 3 http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2014/2014-07-02/html/sor-dors161-eng.php

This Bill does not amend any statutes.

Sign up for alerts on this Bill

Receive emails tracking this Bill's progress.

See all your alerts in a dashboard.

Set an alert with one click and you're done!