Canada Gazette

These proposed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and III) will introduce proposed regulations and accompanying standards to provide the criteria necessary for the consistent management, based on the wildlife risk, the level of traffic and the type of aircraft using the airport, of wildlife hazards at Canadian airports.

The number and frequency of commercial passenger-carrying flights is forecast to increase. The populations of some hazardous wildlife species are growing at near exponential rates. The combination of these two changes will result in an increased risk of collisions between wildlife and passenger-carrying flights. The proposed regulations and standards will provide the criteria necessary for the management of wildlife hazards based on the wildlife risk, the level of traffic and the type of aircraft.

There is no current requirement in the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) for airport wildlife management and planning programmes. As a result, there is a lack of consistency in the application of wildlife management techniques and equipment throughout the Canadian airport system. Provisions will be introduced with the proposed regulations and standards to ensure that a consistent approach is taken to wildlife management and planning at Canadian airports.

The provisions which are proposed to be mandated by these regulations are those which have been recommended for many years in Sharing the Skies: An Aviation Industry Guide to the Management of Wildlife Hazards (Sharing the Skies). (see footnote 1) The operators of most of the largest airports and of the airports most vulnerable to wildlife hazards have voluntarily instituted airport wildlife management plans which meet and sometimes surpass the requirements of these proposed amendments. (see footnote 2) In addition to Sharing the Skies, Transport Canada has available many publications that provide guidance on how to achieve the most effective wildlife management programme at individual sites. These publications acknowledge that each site has wildlife hazards unique to its situation. They also recognize the need of the airport operator to minimize costs while achieving the best result.

Part I contains definitions affecting more than one Part of the CARs and administrative provisions applicable to all parts of the CARs.

Proposed changes to the Schedule Designated Provisions which is attached to Subpart 103 (Administration and Compliance) will introduce maximum monetary penalties which may be assessed for non-compliance with new sections proposed in this amendment to the CARs.

Part III Aerodromes and Airports of the CARs comprises rules governing the operation of civilian aerodromes and airports in Canada. Subpart 2 Airports of Part III (Subpart 302) delineates which Canadian aerodromes must be certified as airports and the conditions that operators of certified airports must satisfy.

This proposal will introduce a new division, Division III Airport Wildlife Planning and Management, into Subpart 302. With the exception of a record keeping requirement in respect of wildlife strikes at all airports, to be introduced in section 302.302 (Application), the new division will apply to airports

(a) that, within the last calendar year, had 2 800 movements of commercial passenger-carrying aircraft operating under Subpart 4 (Commuter Operations) or Subpart 5 (Airline Operations) of Part VII (Commercial Air Services);

(d) that had an incident where a turbine-powered aircraft collided with wildlife other than a bird and suffered damage, collided with more than one bird or ingested a bird through its engine; or

(e) where the presence of wildlife hazards, including those referred to in section 322.302 of the Airport Standards—Wildlife Planning and Management, has been observed in an airport flight pattern or movement area.

The criteria specified in (c), (d) and (e) above are intended to ensure that airports located near areas attractive to wildlife will have an airport wildlife management plan irrespective of the numbers and type of aircraft using the airport.

The proposed new division will include the definitions of "waste disposal facility" as "a landfill site, garbage dump, waste transfer and sorting facility, recycling and composting facility or commercial fish processing plant" and of "wildlife strike" as "a collision between an aircraft and wildlife."

In section 302.303 (Wildlife Strikes), these proposed new regulations will introduce a requirement which will apply to all operators of certified airports for an airport operator to keep records of all wildlife strikes at the airport, including those reports from aircraft maintenance personnel when they identify damage to an aircraft as having been caused by a wildlife strike, from pilots, and from personnel on the ground. Wildlife remains found within 200 feet of a runway or an airside pavement area will be presumed to be the result of a wildlife strike unless another cause of death is identified. The airport operator will be required to provide the Minister with a written and dated report for each wildlife strike within 30 days of its occurrence or, before March 1 of each year, for all the wildlife strikes that occurred in the previous calendar year.

Proposed section 302.304 (Risk Analysis) will introduce a requirement for an operator of an airport to which this proposed division will apply to collect information in respect of the requirements set out in section 322.304 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management and to conduct a risk analysis that evaluates the collected information. The risk analysis must be conducted after consultation with a representative sample of the operators in respect of an aircraft, air operators and private operators that use the airport. It will have to include an analysis of the risks associated with the wildlife hazards, including those that that are referred to in section 322.302 of the Airport Standards— Wildlife Planning and Management. It will also have to include the measures that are necessary to manage or remove the hazards or manage or mitigate the risks. When a request is made by the Minister, the risk analysis must be made available for inspection by the operator of the airport.

Proposed section 302.305 (Airport Wildlife Management Plan General) will establish that the operator of an airport to which this division will apply shall submit an airport wildlife management plan and any subsequent amendment to the Minister for approval prior to its implementation. The approved plan must be implemented. It must be reviewed every two years.

The approved plan must be amended and the amended plan submitted to the Minister within 30 days if

• there has been an incident where a turbine-powered aircraft collided with wildlife other than a bird and suffered damage, collided with more than one bird or ingested a bird through its engine;

• a variation in the presence of the wildlife hazards including those referred to in section 322.302 of the Airport Standards—Wildlife Planning and Management has been observed in an airport flight pattern or movement area; and

(i) in the wildlife management procedures or methods that are used to manage or mitigate wildlife hazards,

(ii) in the types of aircraft at the airport, or

(iii) in the types of aircraft operations at the airport.

If the plan or its amendments meet the requirements of the CARs and of the standards, the Minister shall approve them.

Proposed section 302.306 (Airport Wildlife Management Plan Content) will set forth specific requirements for the airport wildlife management plan. The risks associated with all wildlife hazards at or near the airport that might affect the safe operation of aircraft, including the proximity of any waste disposal facility and migration route affecting wildlife populations near the airport, must be identified and described. The following must be set out in the plan:

• the particular measures that are used by the operator of the airport to manage or mitigate the risks;

• identification and description of the actions that are used by the operator to meet the requirements specified in the Airport Standards—Wildlife Planning and Management in respect of firearm certificates and permits, wildlife control permits, wildlife strikes, wildlife management logs, and evaluations of habitats, land uses and food sources located at or near the airport;

• a policy for the management of airport habitats that might be attractive to wildlife;

• a policy that prohibits the feeding of wildlife and the exposure of food wastes; and

• a procedure to ensure that all endangered or protected wildlife at the airport are inventoried.

As well, the role of the personnel and agencies involved in wildlife management issues, the contact numbers for each, and the details of any wildlife hazard awareness programme must be provided in the plan.

A training programme for airport wildlife management is proposed in section 302.307 (Training). The airport operator will be required to ensure that any person who has duties respecting the airport wildlife management plan has received training in respect of his or her assigned duties and of the matters set out in the Airport Standards—Wildlife Planning and Management at least once every five years and has any required firearm permit. As set forth in section 322.307 of the Airport Standards—Wildlife Planning and Management, the training curriculum must include the following subjects:

• the applicable regulations, standards and guidance material related to airport wildlife management programmes;

• rare and endangered species of concern, including related regulations and policies;

The airport operator will be required to maintain a record of each person's training for five years and to provide the Minister with a copy of any record if requested.

Proposed section 302.308 (Communication and Alerting Procedures) will require that the airport operator establish a communications procedure for wildlife management personnel to alert pilots as soon as possible of the wildlife hazards at the airport and of the risks associated with those hazards. As set forth in section 322.308 of the Airport Standards—Wildlife Planning and Management, the communications procedure may include air traffic services; bilateral radio communications or broadcast of airport advisories; direct radio contact, if an immediate alert is required, through such means as a community airport radio station (CARS) or universal communications (UNICOM); (see footnote 4) or a NOTAM. (see footnote 5)

One alternative to introducing provisions in the Canadian Aviation Regulations for the management of wildlife hazards at Canadian airports would be to continue to allow voluntary action to be undertaken by each airport operator. While this has worked very well in the past, with the increased number and frequency of commercial passenger-carrying flights and the growth in the population of hazardous wildlife species, an unsatisfactory level of risk would be imposed upon the travelling public if no regulatory action were taken.

On the other hand, the proposal could have been extended to require all certified airports to implement a wildlife management programme. However, it was determined that the risk at the less busy airports would not justify the additional cost. The proposed alternative of requiring record collection and reporting with a risk analysis when there are indications of heightened risk was felt to provide sufficient protection without imposing unnecessary costs upon the less busy airports.

These proposed regulations and standards have been tailored during consultations with stakeholders (see the section entitled Consultation in this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement) to realize an acceptable reduction in risk while minimizing additional burdens for the aviation industry. No alternative to regulatory action will achieve this goal.

This proposal will draw the need for wildlife management measures to the attention of more sites than, at present, address this issue in depth and, thus, indirectly will have an environmental impact. Wildlife and aircraft traffic are incompatible occupants of the same airspace. The intent of wildlife management programmes at airports is to encourage all wildlife to find food, water and shelter away from the airport and its vicinity in order to reduce hazards to aviation. Insofar as these programmes are successful they will affect the existing biosystem around the airport. However, environmental effects can and will be minimized by the responsible approach which will be encouraged by the incorporation of training requirements for knowledge of rare and endangered species and any applicable regulations, policies and species of concern in this proposal. In making a choice between the preservation of human life and of wildlife habitats some impact upon the environment is inevitable although the intent is to minimize this as much as is possible.

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

The expected benefits from this proposal will stem from the reduction of the hazards to the movement of aircraft created by the presence of wildlife (both birds and mammals) during aircraft departures and arrivals at Canadian airports.

Bird and mammal strikes are a continuing safety issue at airports for many reasons.

• Urban encroachment on their natural habitats forces birds to use the relatively safe airport environment and its associated arrival and departure paths as one of the few remaining open spaces.

• Detecting airborne birds in time to avoid a collision is often not feasible.

The risk that a multiple bird strike will result in the crash of a large airliner, while statistically low, is slowly rising. (see footnote 6)

A multiple bird strike resulting in the crash of a large airliner could entail high financial costs as well as catastrophic loss of life. In 1996, there were over 1 000 aircraft in operation or on order, valued at over US$100 million each. A new Boeing 747-400 is valued at more than US$250 million. It is commonly accepted within the industry that indirect costs of wildlife strikes exceed direct costs by a factor of four. (see footnote 7) Aviation wildlife management experts believe that, if all costs associated with wildlife damage are included, a conservative estimate of the annual cost to the North American aviation industry exceeds US$500 million. (see footnote 8) Canadian wildlife management specialists have stated that a similar estimate of all costs associated with wildlife damage to the Canadian aviation industry could be as high as C$100 million (or US$71 million) annually.

About 90 percent of all bird and mammal strikes occur at or near airports. (see footnote 9) The benefits to be expected from this proposal will come from reducing the potential for collisions to occur between wildlife and aircraft, thus, reducing the risk of loss of human life and of aircraft damage of the financial magnitude indicated above.

The costs which may be incurred by airport operators as a result of these proposed amendments come from two sources: developing a risk analysis and a wildlife management programme; and implementing the programme once developed. The two main areas of cost for implementation are fence installation and staffing. Cost estimates have been supplied by departmental staff experienced in the handling of wildlife hazards on airports.

There are over 600 certified airports in Canada. For the purpose of estimating the costs to the Canadian aviation industry of the wildlife management programme, they have been separated into three groups based on type and frequency of aircraft traffic.

In the first group are the 28 major airports which receive the bulk of the scheduled passenger-carrying traffic. These airports have fully functional wildlife management programmes in place which will satisfy the requirements of this proposal. They are expected to incur no significant additional net costs.

The second group is comprised of moderate-sized airports with some commercial passenger-carrying aircraft operating under Subpart 704 or Subpart 705 of the CAR. There are approximately 125 of these mid-level airports. The status of their wildlife management procedures ranges from ad hoc responses with little or no preplanned attention to wildlife hazards to fully functional plans which will effectively satisfy the proposed requirements. To allow for the different cost impact among these 125 airports, the simplifying assumption has been made that 50 percent of them will incur the full cost with the remainder incurring no significant costs. The reality is likely to be a range of costs with each airport having different requirements and different costs.

The cost of preparation of a risk analysis and a wildlife management programme for a mid-size airport has been estimated at $25,000. (All cost estimates are in Canadian dollars.) Therefore, taking into account the range of existing responses to wildlife hazards among these airports, the total net cost of risk analyses and wildlife management programmes for the entire group would be $1,562,500.

The one-time cost of fence installation for an airport in this group has been estimated as ranging from $200,000 to $300,000. Based on the higher estimate and allowing for the current range of existing wildlife procedures, the total cost of fence installation for these 125 airports would be $18,750,000.

On-going cost for staffing a wildlife patrol at a mid-size airport currently without one has been estimated as $100,000 annually. Therefore, total annual staff costs for these 125 airports, assuming that half of these airports do not, at present, have staff primarily assigned to wildlife hazard duties, would be estimated as $6,250,000.

The remainder of the certified airports which do not fall into one of the two groups considered above receive passenger-carrying flights operating under Subparts 704 or 705 of the CAR infrequently. Their wildlife risk is relatively low. They can typically use in-house resources to assess the wildlife hazard and to establish a programme to deal with that hazard. Such a programme may address wildlife management with measures focused on the specific flights arriving and departing from their airports. These airports are unlikely to be required to incur additional costs for staffing and fence installation.

The estimated net additional costs for undertaking a risk analysis and developing and implementing a wildlife management plan for certified airports in Canada are expected to be initial costs of $20,312,500 for risk analysis, development of the programme and fence installation and on-going annual costs of $6,250,000.

Benefits from this proposal will result from reducing the wildlife hazard to aircraft arriving and departing at Canadian airports. Financial damage from wildlife at Canadian airports has been estimated as potentially of the magnitude of $100 million annually. In addition, lives are at risk. The costs to Canadian certified airports have been estimated as an initial cost of $20,312,500 with on-going annual costs of $6,250,000. The benefits of this proposal are expected to outweigh the costs.

The members of the Aerodromes and Airports (A&A;) Technical Committee were consulted with respect to these proposed amendments to Subpart 2 of Part III of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The actively participating members of the Aerodromes and Airports Technical Committee include the Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation, Aero Club of Canada, Aéroports de Montréal, Aerodevco Consultants Ltd., AirBC, Air Canada, Air Canada Pilots Association, Air Line Pilots Association, Airport Management Conference of Ontario, Air Passenger Safety Group, Air Transport Association of Canada, Alberta Aviation Council, Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Arctic Airports (Government of the Northwest Territories), Association des gens de l'air du Québec, Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens inc., British Columbia Aviation Council, B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, Calgary Airport Authority, Campbell River Airport, Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, Canadian Airports Council, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Business Aircraft Association, Canadian Forces Fire Marshall — 2 (Department of National Defence), Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, Central Air Carrier Association, Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, Corp Air Inc., Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Department of Community and Transportation Services, Department of Works (Newfoundland and Labrador), Edmonton Regional Airports Authority, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Jack Henderson, Highways and Transportation (Manitoba), Imperial Oil, International Association of Fire Fighters, Kelowna Airport, Liberty Airlines Limited, Ministry of Employment and Investment (British Columbia), Ministry of Transportation (Quebec), Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Ministry of Transportation (New Brunswick), Miramichi Airport Commission (1993) Inc., NAV CANADA, Niagara District (St. Catherines) Airport, Northern Air Transport Association, Nova Scotia Department of Transportation, Paragon Engineering Ltd., Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation, Sydney Airport Authority, Teamsters Local 31, Union of Canadian Transport Employees and Vancouver International Airport Authority. During the Technical Committee meeting held in April 2001, after lengthy discussion and some revisions to the original wording, the proposed amendments were accepted by the members of the Technical Committee.

The proposed amendments to Part III were presented along with several dissents at the Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee (CARC), which is composed of senior managers within the Civil Aviation Directorate of Transport Canada, in October 2001. After consideration of the dissents, the members of CARC approved the proposed amendments.

The following four dissents to various aspects of the proposed amendments were presented to CARC for consideration along with the proposed amendments.

The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) expressed concerns regarding the costs linked to the applicability of this new regulation. Some of these concerns have been addressed by revision of the applicability section. Guidance material is to be developed to answer industry concerns regarding costs. The dissent was declined.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) had expressed a dissent to the possibility that the Minister's approval would not be required for the manuals called for under this proposal. A similar dissent had been expressed by CUPE with respect to the Minister's approval for manuals called for under the proposed amendments introducing the Airport Emergency Planning requirements. The question raised by both dissents was addressed at the meeting of CARC on May 28, 2001. At that time CARC had decided that while certain administrative matters (such as contact telephone numbers, etc.) could be amended by the airport operator without Ministerial approval, substantial amendments would require the Minister's approval. Thus, CUPE's dissent had been accepted at the May 2001 meeting.

The Canadian Airports Council (CAC) and the Atlantic Canada Airports Association each submitted a dissent regarding the use of the expression "in the vicinity of the airport" in the Airport Standards—Wildlife Planning and Management. Both dissenters felt the expression was too vague and would place an undue burden upon operators to be responsible for activities outside the airport grounds over which they had no control. The position of the Aerodrome Safety Branch was that the environment around the airport will have an effect on the wildlife hazard on the airport and the airport operator needs to be aware of that environment and its effects. The following revised wording was suggested: "identify wildlife hazards on the airport and those outside the airport boundaries that may adversely affect airport operations." This wording was accepted by CARC as both reflecting Aerodrome Safety's position and addressing the industry concern. These two dissents were partially upheld.

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

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

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

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 such representations must be in writing and 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 0N8 (general inquiries – tel.: (613) 993-7284 or 1-800-305-2059; fax: (613) 990-1198; Internet address: http://www.tc.gc.ca).

Persons making representations should identify any of those representations the disclosure of which should be refused under the Access to Information Act, in particular under sections 19 and 20 of that Act, and should indicate the reasons why and the period during which the representations should not be disclosed. They should also identify any representations for which there is consent to disclosure for the purposes of that Act.

1. Part III of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (see footnote 10) is amended by adding the following after the reference "Section 302.09":

2. Subpart 2 of Part III of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the heading "SUBPART 2 — AIRPORTS":

3. The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 302.11:

"waste disposal facility" means a landfill site, garbage dump, waste transfer and sorting facility, recycling and composting facility or commercial fish processing plant; (installation d'élimination des déchets)

"wildlife strike" means a collision between an aircraft and wildlife. (impact faunique)

(a) that, within the preceding calendar year, had 2 800 movements of commercial passenger-carrying aircraft operating under Subpart 4 or 5 of Part VII;

(d) that had an incident where a turbine-powered aircraft collided with wildlife other than a bird and suffered damage, collided with more than one bird or ingested a bird through an engine; or

(e) where the presence of wildlife hazards, including those referred to in section 322.302 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management, has been observed in an airport flight pattern or movement area.

302.303 (1) The operator of an airport shall keep records of all wildlife strikes at the airport, including those reported by

(2) Wildlife remains that are found within 200 feet of a runway or an airside pavement area are presumed to be a wildlife strike unless another cause of death is identified.

(3) The operator of the airport shall submit a written and dated report to the Minister

(b) for all wildlife strikes that occur in a calendar year, before March 1 of the following calendar year.

302.304 (1) The operator of an airport shall collect information in respect of the requirements set out in section 322.304 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management.

(2) The operator of the airport shall, after consultation with a representative sample of the operators in respect of an aircraft, air operators and private operators that use the airport, conduct a risk analysis that evaluates the collected information.

(a) an analysis of the risks associated with the wildlife hazards, including those referred to in section 322.302 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management; and

(b) the measures that are necessary to manage or remove the hazards or to manage or mitigate the risks.

(4) The operator of the airport shall, at the request of the Minister, make the risk analysis available for inspection.

302.305 (1) The operator of an airport shall develop an airport wildlife management plan in accordance with section 322.305 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management.

(2) The operator of the airport shall submit the plan, in accordance with the requirements set out in subsection 322.305(2) of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management, to the Minister for approval prior to its implementation.

(3) If the plan and any amendments to the plan meet the requirements of these Regulations and the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management, the Minister shall approve them.

(6) The operator of the airport shall amend the plan and submit the amended plan to the Minister within 30 days of the amendment if

(a) the amendment is necessary as a result of the review conducted under subsection (5);

(b) an incident has occurred in which a turbine-powered aircraft collided with wildlife other than a bird and suffered damage, collided with more than one bird or ingested a bird through an engine;

(c) a variation in the presence of wildlife hazards, including those referred to in section 322.302 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management, has been observed in an airport flight pattern or movement area; or

(i) in the wildlife management procedures or in the methods used to manage or mitigate wildlife hazards,

(ii) in the types of aircraft at the airport, or

(iii) in the types of aircraft operations at the airport.

(a) identify and describe the risks associated with all wildlife hazards, including those referred to in section 322.302 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management, at or near the airport that might affect the safe operation of aircraft, including the proximity of any waste disposal facility or migration route affecting wildlife populations near the airport;

(b) specify the particular measures that are used by the operator of the airport to manage or mitigate the risks;

(c) identify and describe the actions that are used by the operator of the airport to satisfy the requirements set out in section 322.306 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management in respect of firearm certificates and permits, wildlife control permits, wildlife strikes, wildlife management logs, and evaluations of habitats, land uses and food sources at or near the airport;

(d) set out a policy for the management of airport habitats that might attract wildlife;

(e) set out a policy that prohibits the feeding of wildlife and the exposure of food wastes;

(f) set out a procedure to ensure that all endangered or protected wildlife at the airport are inventoried;

(g) identify the role of the personnel and agencies involved in wildlife management issues and provide the contact numbers for each; and

302.307 (1) The operator of an airport shall ensure that any person who has duties in respect of the airport wildlife management plan

(a) receives training at least once every five years in respect of their assigned duties and the matters set out in section 322.307 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management; and

(2) The operator of the airport shall maintain a record of each person's training for a period of five years and provide the Minister with a copy of any record, if requested.

302.308 The operator of an airport shall establish a communication and alerting procedure for wildlife management personnel in accordance with section 322.308 of the Airport Standards—Airport Wildlife Planning and Management to alert pilots as soon as possible of the wildlife hazards at the airport and the risks associated with those hazards.

4. The headings before sections 302.01 to 302.11 of the Regulations are converted from italics to roman type to conform with the format of the new division headings enacted by these Regulations.

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

Sharing the Skies: An Aviation Industry Guide to the Management of Wildlife Hazards; www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Aerodrome/WildlifeControl/tp13549/menu.htm

An example is Vancouver International which is located on a flat delta formation of alluvial sediment in an estuary where fresh water meets salt water and a rich environment for many wildlife species is provided. See Sharing the Skies, Annex to Chapter 8

These documents are listed in the proposed standard and include Wildlife Control Procedures Manual (TP11500), Sharing the Skies: An Aviation Industry Guide to the Management of Wildlife Hazards (TP13549), and applicable federal, municipal or provincial regulations dealing with rare and endangered species.

Universal Communications (UNICOM) is an air-to-ground communications facility operated by a private agency to provide Private Advisory Station (PAS) service at uncontrolled aerodromes.

A notice containing operationally significant information the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations. A NOTAM will be issued promptly whenever the information to be disseminated is of temporary nature and short duration or when changes of longer duration are made at short notice.

Sharing the Skies, www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAvation/Aerodrome/WildlifeControl/tp13549/menu.htm, Introduction, p. 2