Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 154, Number 10: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, III and VI — RESA)

March 7, 2020

Statutory authority
Aeronautics Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Background

The Aeronautics Act provides the Minister of Transport with the authority to develop regulations to ensure safety and security in the aviation sector and for the travelling public. The Canadian Aviation Regulations (the Regulations or CARs) apply to all aspects of aeronautics, including aircraft, aerodromes and airports, licensing, training, airworthiness, flight rules, and air navigation services. Canadian airports and their respective runways are certified based on the requirements set out in the Regulations and the Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312), which are incorporated by reference into the Regulations.

A runway excursion refers to an incident that happens when an aircraft is taking off or landing and ends its course outside of the runway when completing the take-off or landing procedure. There are three types of excursions:

• 1. An undershoot occurs when an aircraft touches the ground prior to the runway when landing.
• 2. An overrun occurs when an aircraft ends its course beyond the end of the runway, either when aborting take-off or when landing.
• 3. A veer-off occurs when an aircraft exits the runway along the side.

The proposed amendments cover excursions that happen prior to and beyond the runway, namely undershoots and overruns.

There are a variety of risks associated with the likelihood of runway excursions. They include, but are not limited to, the runway surface condition, the type of approach used and the fatigue level of the crew. An excursion is rarely the result of a single risk factor; rather, it is the result of a combination of various risk factors.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) has investigated several accidents involving runway excursions and has recommended that Transport Canada require a number of airports in Canada to implement runway end safety areas (RESAs) or a means that provides an equivalent level of safety. Runway overruns are one of the three issues currently listed on the TSB Watchlist ^{footnote 1} with respect to the air transportation system and have been cited several times as a critical safety issue posing a great risk to Canadians. The proposed amendments would address in part the recommendations made by the TSB on runway excursions.

The following runway overruns were brought to public attention through media coverage:

• On September 4, 2011, at the Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport, during heavy rain, an Embraer EMB-145LR operated by Trans States Airlines LLC as United Express Flight 3363 landed on Runway 32. The aircraft went off the end of the runway with 3 crew members and 44 passengers on board. The costs associated with this accident are estimated at 2.8 million dollars, due to legal costs, flight delays, runway closures, and the damage done to both the aircraft and the runway.
• On August 2, 2005, at the Toronto Lester B. Pearson International Airport, during heavy rain, an Airbus A340-313 operated by Air France as Flight 358 landed on Runway 24L. Unable to stop, the aircraft overran the runway and crashed into a ravine. The aircraft subsequently caught fire with 297 passengers and 12 crew members on board. All passengers and crew members were able to evacuate. However, a total of 12 individuals (2 crew members and 10 passengers) were seriously injured during the crash and the ensuing evacuation. Given the fact that it occurred in a highly trafficked airport, the excursion created a major national disruption to air travel.

Mitigation measures for runway excursions

In order to help prevent excursions from happening, Transport Canada has published guidance material ^{footnote 2} on a variety of elements ^{footnote 3} that were identified as contributing factors of past excursions. When followed by the industry, this guidance material contributes to lowering the likelihood of runway excursions.

Although the likelihood of excursions can be decreased, it cannot be totally eliminated. This is where the proposed amendments come into play: they mandate that measures be put in place to minimize the consequences of an excursion, which vary according to the type of terrain that is found at the ends of a runway. For instance, compared to a flat area, an irregular area (e.g. a ravine) is more likely to cause serious damage to an aircraft and injury to passengers, while inhibiting the ability of emergency responders to perform their duties.

Two types of safety areas are located at the ends of runways: runway safety areas and RESAs. These are compact, level and obstacle-free areas intended to minimize the severity of injuries, to avoid fatalities, to minimize damages to the aircraft and to facilitate the intervention of emergency services in the event of undershoots and overruns.

The runway safety area comprises an area along the sides and ends of the runway, and includes the first 60 m beyond each end of a runway. This safety area is an international standard and is mandatory for all runways in Canada. Although it provides extra space for an aircraft to stop safely, the 60 m distance covered by the runway safety area minimizes the consequences of only 53% of runway excursions.

RESAs act as an extension of the already regulated runway safety area. They require the addition of 90 m of prepared terrain to the current runway safety area, for a total safety area of 150 m at the ends of a runway. Based on Canadian data, this 150 m provides enough distance to contain 90% of runway excursions.

As a comparison, runway safety areas and RESAs are to aircraft what an airbag is to cars: they will not prevent the accident from happening. However, by providing an additional distance for aircraft to safely stop, they minimize the severity of damage and likelihood of injuries and casualties resulting from the accident.

In an effort to move Canadian requirements towards the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard related to RESAs, the Government of Canada turned its RESA recommendation into a standard in 2015. This standard can be found in section 3.2 of the Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312). However, the standard only applies to runways built or substantially modified after the standard came into effect. As a result, most runways do not have RESAs.

International standards and recommended practices relating to RESAs

International Civil Aviation Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) are set by ICAO, a specialized agency of the United Nations, established by Member States in 1944. ICAO’s mandate is to manage the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention).

SARPs require the provision of a RESA to minimize the risk of damage to aircraft during an overrun or undershoot of a runway. In 1999, the ICAO requirement of a 90 m RESA was introduced in addition to the required 60 m beyond the runway end, bringing the total required safety area beyond the runway end to 150 m. In addition to this standard, ICAO recommends extending the RESA from 90 m to up to 240 m — where possible — to bring the total safety area to 300 m. ^{footnote 4} The following table details the current ICAO standards and recommendations. The ICAO standard is of 90 m for all runways (as applicable), while the recommendations vary based on the runway length and type. A standard is mandatory while a recommendation is voluntary.

International RESA Standards and Recommendations

Runway Code	Runway Length	Runway Type	International RESA Standardfootnote 5	International RESA Recommendationfootnote 6
Code 1	Less than 800 m	Instrument	90 m	120 m
		Non-instrument	—	30 m
Code 2	800 m up to but not including 1 200 m	Instrument	90 m	120 m
		Non-instrument	—	30 m
Code 3	1 200 m up to but not including 1 800 m	Instrument	90 m	240 m
		Non-instrument
Code 4	1 800 m and over	Instrument	90 m	240 m
		Non-instrument

Canada is a signatory to the Chicago Convention and, as such, is expected to comply with ICAO’s standards, or to notify ICAO of its divergence from these standards.

Other countries, including the United States and the members of the European Union, are taking active measures to meet SARPs for RESAs.

• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States mandates runway safety areas — including RESAs — for all certified runways, with the exception of Alaska, which only requires RESAs for runways serving aircraft with seating configurations greater than 30 passengers. The FAA program to improve all RESAs at commercial service airports was initiated in 2000. ^{footnote 7} As of 2015, 96% of U.S. runways had reached compliance to the extent practicable. In 2014, the FAA established the Runway Safety Focus Airport Program to address hazards specific to individual airports.
• The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published the European Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Excursions (2013) ^{footnote 8} that contains practical recommendations and guidance materials, and local runway safety teams have been established at hundreds of airports across Europe. This concept was embedded as an essential requirement to the European Union “EASA Basic Regulation,” a key element in raising the safety level for runway operations at European airports.

In Canada, the overall number of runways where RESAs are provided is low, as the introduction of the RESA standard is relatively recent (2015). Canadian airports are required to comply with the aerodrome standards and recommended practices in effect on the date on which the airport certificate was issued, unless an existing runway is substantially modified (e.g. extended) or a new runway is built. As a result, the vast majority of airports are not required to implement RESAs.

Recognizing the extent to which RESAs improve the safety of runways, some Canadian airports have voluntarily implemented the international standard of 90 m for a total safety area of 150 m (e.g. Toronto Pearson International Airport), while other Canadian airports have implemented longer RESAs, for up to 240 m for a total safety area of 300 m, to meet the ICAO recommended practice (e.g. Ottawa MacDonald-Cartier International Airport).

Issues

While some runway excursions result in minor or no consequences, other excursions do result in fatalities, serious injuries, substantial material damage, and air traffic disruptions.

Canadian airports are experiencing consistent growth in the volume of air travellers, which translates into additional annual flights. The likelihood of an excursion is present at every take-off and landing of an aircraft. As air traffic increases, it is expected that the exposure for runway undershoots and overruns will increase proportionately. More excursions would likely result in more injuries, fatalities, material damages, and air traffic disruptions.

The proposed amendments would require the provision of RESAs at runways serving commercial scheduled passenger-carrying flights that are located at the busiest Canadian airports. If an excursion occurs on a runway with a RESA, adverse consequences would be minimized. As a result, fatalities could be avoided and the number of injured passengers would be minimized, as could the severity of injuries. Furthermore, damages to the aircraft and airport installations would be minimized, the intervention of emergency services would be facilitated, and the activities of the runway and air traffic would resume more quickly.

As the consequences of excursions tend to be more severe where RESAs are not provided, the consequence of not mandating RESAs would translate into a safety risk for air travellers and crews. This may result in loss of confidence in the Canadian aviation industry and in the Government of Canada by the Canadian public and Canada’s aviation partners.

Objectives

The objectives of the proposed amendments are to improve safety of air travel by reducing the adverse consequences of runway undershoots and overruns. These consequences include the following:

• the severity of injuries and fatalities;
• the severity of damage to aircraft and airport installations;
• delays associated with the intervention of emergency services; and
• disruption of airport operations and air travel while the runway is closed due to an excursion.

In addition, the proposed amendments aim at aligning the requirements of the Regulations with the ICAO standard, while addressing the intent of the recommendation made by TSB.

Description

Airports and runway

These proposed amendments would amend parts I, III and VI of the Regulations. The proposed requirements would apply to aerodromes operating under an airport certificate (airports) that meet or exceed the minimum passenger threshold. Only runways serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights would be subject to the proposed amendments.

Airports reaching a minimum passenger threshold

Under the current airport certification requirements, RESAs are implemented based on the length of the runway, type of approach, and number of passenger seats on the aircraft using the runway. The proposed amendments would replace these criteria with new criteria based on a minimal airport annual passenger threshold of 325 000. Military airports would not be subject to these proposed amendments.

There would be a two-year implementation period for airports to comply with the proposed Regulations. For airports that have already reached the threshold, the implementation period would start at the time of the publication of the amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part II. For other airports, the implementation period would start after three consecutive calendar years of meeting the threshold.

Conversely, an airport operator would no longer be subject to RESA requirements after three consecutive calendar years of a passenger threshold below 325 000. In such a case, the airport operator would no longer be required to comply with the RESA requirements.

Runways serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights

The proposed amendments would become mandatory for existing and new runways of all lengths serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights. Runways that are not serving this particular type of flight — such as runways exclusively serving cargo flights, pilot training flights and/or private flights — would not be subject to these proposed amendments.

Runway end safety areas

RESA compliance can be achieved through different ways, at the discretion of the airport operator. Available options are increasing the size of the safety area outside the runway, as per the required minimal length; adjusting the runway’s declared distances; installing an arresting system or using a combination of increasing the runway safety area outside the runway and adjusting the runway’s declared distances.

Increasing the size of the safety area outside the runway

Preparing an additional piece of terrain beyond existing levelled surfaces would increase the regulated safety area from 60 m to 150 m prior to and beyond the runway. ^{footnote 9} This option would be adopted where there is sufficient land available at the ends of a runway.

Should this option be chosen, the piece of land located prior to and after the runway would need to meet the RESA requirements as stated in TP 312. This may require land filling, ground compacting and/or ground levelling. Obstacles present in the area would need to be removed. No modifications would be required to the runway itself.

Adjusting the declared distances of the runway

Reducing the declared distances ^{footnote 10} available and suitable for meeting take-off and landing distance performance requirements for runways would be a different option. Under this scenario, the runway declared maximum distances available would be reduced by a maximum of 90 m per runway end (which would add up to 150 m with the runway safety area). This option may be adopted where a reduction of the declared distances does not impact, or only slightly impacts, the use of critical aircraft, e.g. on runways that exceed the length requirement with respect to the use of critical aircraft. The critical aircraft are the aircraft identified as having the most demanding operational requirements with respect to the determination of movement area dimensions, and other aerodrome physical characteristics at the aerodrome or part thereof.

If this option is chosen, the only action required on the part of the operator would be an amendment to the airport operations manual (AOM) and submission of the updated AOM to the Minister of Transport for approval. Should the runway declared distances be reduced by the maximum RESA length (90 m at each end of the runway), the total available distance for take-off and landing would be reduced by a maximum of 180 m in total (90 m per runway end). Once the declared distances are modified, pilots would adjust their calculations with regard to the distances required for take-off and landing (the distance needed varies depending on a variety of factors, including the type of aircraft and its weight, the weather [e.g. presence of rain or snow] and the atmospheric conditions [e.g. barometric pressure]). In certain cases, the reduction of available distance may result in an adjustment of the aircraft weight, which is achieved through the reduction of either the number of passengers or the cargo load. In no circumstances would the reduction in available distance prevent an aircraft from using the runway.

Installing an arresting system

Another option would be to install an arresting system, ^{footnote 11}which is a system designed to decelerate an aeroplane that is overrunning the runway. This installation, located outside the runway, covers the ground and is composed of energy-absorbing materials of selected strength (usually cement), which reliably and predictably crush under the weight of the aircraft. When an aircraft rolls into an arresting system, the aircraft’s tires sink into the bed and the aircraft is decelerated by having to roll through the materials. Arresting systems are built where land is available at the end of the runway. They are designed to stop an aircraft without causing major structural damage or resulting in major injuries to passengers. The length of these systems is not standardized; it varies based on different criteria. An arresting system can be costly to implement and must be repaired after an overrun. Until the repairs are completed, the associated runway would continue to be operated. In such a case, the airport operator would either temporarily adjust the runway’s declared distances or apply for a temporary exemption ^{footnote 12} from the regulatory requirements.

The arresting system would need to meet the RESA requirements as stated in TP 312. This may require land filling, ground compacting and/or ground levelling, and would require the installation of crushable materials on the ground. As the arresting system is only required to be as wide as the runway, a piece of terrain would have to be prepared as a RESA on each side of the arresting system to ensure that the total area covered fully meets the RESA requirements (twice the width of the runway). No modifications would be required to the runway itself.

Combination of increasing the size of the safety area outside the runway and adjusting the runway’s declared distances

One last option would be a combination of the first two options described above. Under this option, should there be less than 90 m of land available at the end of a runway, a portion of the RESA would be defined by preparing terrain outside the runway and the remainder of the 90 m RESA would be obtained by reducing the runway declared distances with the missing length. For instance, at one end of the runway, a terrain of 50 m could be prepared post runway safety area while the remaining 40 m could be obtained by reducing the runway declared distances. The 60 m runway safety area at the end of the runway could be included in the RESA.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

The options considered to address this issue include a voluntary approach and three regulatory approaches using different means to mandate RESA compliance.

Voluntary approach

This approach allows airports to decide whether or not to implement RESAs at their runways. There is no mandatory standard or regulation, only a recommendation and guidance material available for the airport operators that decide to implement RESAs.

The cost associated with a voluntary approach would be less than that of a regulatory approach, and would require limited intervention from the Government of Canada. The benefits of this approach would also be less than those of the regulatory approach, and the safety levels would either remain unchanged or would increase slightly.

Although a few Canadian airport operators have voluntarily implemented RESAs, the overall adoption rate could be improved. The voluntary approach is unlikely to result in a sufficient number of airport operators implementing RESAs, and thus, Canada would not achieve the same level of safety in comparison with its international counterparts.

First regulatory approach: Mandating RESAs as per TSB recommendation

In order to comply with the TSB recommendation, every runway with a length of at least 1 800 m that is located at a Canadian airport would need to have RESAs of 300 m. This rule would encompass runways conducting all types of operations. This approach would be limited to runways of at least 1 800 m in length. It would apply to 82 airports.

The RESA dimensions recommended by the TSB are longer than the current Canadian and ICAO standards (300 m instead of 150 m). This approach would generate significant construction costs due to the much larger land requirements while the marginal benefits would be low as most runway excursions are contained within 150 m. ^{footnote 13}

Second regulatory approach: Mandating RESAs as per international standard

If Canada were to adopt the ICAO standard, 150 m RESAs would become mandatory for all runways of at least 1 200 m and for some runways that are shorter than 1 200 m at every aerodrome open to public use. In 2010–2011, when this option was initially considered, it would have applied to 218 airports across Canada. Given the number of affected airports, the risk to safety would have been greatly lowered. However, shorter runways would not have been covered, even if serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights. The projected costs would be very high under this approach, while providing only a minimal incremental safety benefit due to low levels of passenger traffic at many of the captured airports. Although desirable for safety reasons, the costs associated with the ICAO approach would disadvantage small airports located in remote and northern areas.

Third regulatory approach: Adoption of RESA requirements based on passenger volumes (preferred approach)

The preferred approach is to mandate the provision of 150 m RESAs at Canada’s busiest airports. This approach would address the safety risk at the busiest commercial passenger airports and would enhance compliance with international standards. This option is consistent with the findings of the Runway End Safety Area, Risk Assessment at Canadian airports (2015). ^{footnote 14} Given that the analysis did not reveal any key criteria to account for runway excursions (including the runway length and type of approach), the study recommended implementing a risk- and exposure-based approach focusing on passenger threshold.

Based on 2017 air passenger data, roughly 75% of passenger traffic in Canada occurred on runways that are fully compliant or met the physical characteristics for RESA. The proposed requirement would apply to the 28 busiest airports (that is with at least 325 000 annual passengers) in Canada. Over the next 20 years, another 9 airports could potentially reach the passenger threshold, thus bringing to 37 the total number of airports implementing RESAs at runways used for the transportation of scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights. Overall, this option would see passenger coverage increased by 20% (that is from 75% to 95%) by 2038.

The option of limiting RESA investments to runways that serve scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights focuses on providing safety benefits to the vast majority of travellers and crew members without imposing excessive costs on the industry. This approach would bring Canada closer to international standards and to those of the United States.

Benefits and costs

Benefit

The benefits of the proposed amendments would include safety benefits (reduced severity of damages to aircraft, reduced severity of injuries, avoided casualties, reduced levels of stress experienced by passengers and crew members during an accident, reduced severity of potential long-lasting impacts after the event) and efficiency benefits (reduced delays to passengers and to air operators; easier access for emergency services intervention; and avoided legal fees to airports, government, and air operators).

To estimate these benefits, historical excursions were analyzed. Between 2005 and 2016, a total of 79 runway undershoot and overrun accidents have been reported at the 37 relevant airports, on runways captured by the proposed amendments. Overall, the reported excursions did not result in any fatalities and only caused minor injuries. There was only one excursion that caused substantial damage to an aircraft, while all other excursions resulted in minor damage or no damage at all.

The excursions analyzed were not limited to excursions that occurred within 60 m to 150 m from the start of the runway for undershoots or within 60 m to 150 m beyond the end of the runway for overruns. In order to assess the incremental benefits that would result from the proposed amendments, the number of excursions that occurred on runways serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights was reduced to represent only the excursions estimated to have stopped between 60 m and 150 m from the end of the runway using fractions from the previously referenced document entitled Runway End Safety Area, Risk Assessment at Canadian airports. ^{footnote 15} It is projected that between the years 2019 and 2038, the proposed amendments would reduce the severity of about 10 ^{footnote 16} undershoots and overruns.

Safety benefits

By providing a longer area that is free of obstacles and accessible to emergency services at both ends of runways serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights, the proposed amendments would reduce the adverse consequences of aircraft undershoots and overruns. This would translate into the following safety benefits:

• minimized severity of damage to aircraft and to airport installations;
• minimized risk of loss of life and/or injuries for passengers and crews; and
• minimized levels of stress experienced by passengers and crew members during an incident, and reduced severity of potential long-lasting impacts after the event (post-traumatic effects).

Due to data scarcity, only some of the avoided damages to aircraft and avoided casualties are monetized. Over 20 years, using a 7% discount rate, the avoided aircraft damages are estimated at $6,349,798, the expected avoided injuries have an estimated value of $6,301, while the expected avoided fatalities are nil.

Efficiency benefits

The proposed amendments would also yield the following efficiency benefits when an overrun or undershoot event occurs:

• reduced delays to passengers and to air operators;
• easier access for emergency services intervention; and
• avoided legal fees to airports, Government, and air operators.

Transport Canada estimates the avoided delays due to a runway overrun or undershoot at $1,002,455 (including $884,075 to air passengers and $118,381 to air operators) over 20 years, discounted at 7%. The benefits related to easier access for emergency services intervention and the avoided legal fees to airports, Government, and air operators were not quantified or monetized.

Costs

The costs that an airport would assume to implement RESAs at the ends of a runway serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights would fall into three categories: construction costs, maintenance costs, and administrative costs. The Government of Canada would also bear administrative and enforcement costs to ensure compliance with the proposed amendments.

Construction costs to industry

Construction cost inputs were collected through consultations with airport operators. The first phase of consultation involved a presentation to stakeholders, a meeting with stakeholders and numerous telephone calls. Based on these preliminary consultations, it was not expected that airports would adopt an arresting system due to the significant procurement, installation, maintenance and replacement costs it represents.

The ensuing 2017–2018 consultations focused mainly on gathering costing inputs as well as physical characteristics for RESAs at all of the airports that would be directly captured by the proposed amendments. The following information was collected:

• the number of runways serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights at each airport;
• the availability of an additional 90 m for a potential extension of the safety area on both ends;
• the existence of obstacles on either end of the runway;
• the current ground cover (gravel, grass, asphalt, etc.) in the 90 m; and
• the slope of the ground.

Based on the responses of these 2017–2018 consultations, 23 of the 37 airports captured by the proposal were either deemed compliant or met the physical characteristics for RESAs, and had zero or negligible construction costs to become compliant. Nonetheless, the proposed amendments would impose an estimated $31,901,605 (in present value using a 7% discount rate over 20 years) in construction costs to the remaining airports captured by the Regulations. Of the total construction costs, a single airport with unique characteristics would bear roughly $26,203,162 or 82% of the overall construction costs. Its physical characteristics place limitations on the extension of the safety area as well as the activities at this airport, including the use of sharper angles for take-off and landing and the inability to take off with a full load of passengers and/or cargo load when the runway is wet or contaminated.

Maintenance costs to industry

The maintenance costs include the costs for plowing snow and/or cutting grass, as well as periodic sealant and top coat costs in the case of airports installing an arresting system. Since the vast majority of the airports are subject to Chapter 4 of TP 312 (Obstacle management), the incremental RESA costs for plowing snow at the ends of the runway strips and cutting grass are expected to be negligible.

To obtain estimates of sealant and top coat costs, Transport Canada consulted a manufacturer and installer of arresting systems. The data inputs provided helped in estimating the sealant costs ($244,414) as well as the top coat costs ($53,407) over 20 years using 7% discount rate.

Administrative costs to industry

The AOM would require adjustment within the two-year period that is provided for RESA implementation. This manual specifies the standards that are met and the services that are provided by the airport. It is expected that each airport would spend two hours updating its AOM, and 30 minutes to review and send it to Transport Canada for approval. These tasks would be performed once per airport by airport operator management staff. The total administrative cost over a 20-year period would be $4,558 using a 7% discount rate.

Administrative and enforcement costs to Government

Compliance with the proposed amendments would also result in administrative costs and enforcement costs for the Government of Canada.

Transport Canada would be responsible for reviewing and approving the AOM. The estimated incremental time spent reviewing and approving the AOM is expected to be minimal. Therefore, the proposed amendments would result in negligible administrative costs to Government.

Enforcement costs would be borne by the regional operational staff who are responsible for oversight in areas where the subject airports are located. Since the Minister would be authorized to make an order requiring the operator of an airport to adjust the declared distances in the cases that it fails to comply with the proposed amendments, full compliance is anticipated. No additional inspections to support this proposed regulatory amendments are expected. Overall, the expected costs to be incurred by the Government of Canada to ensure the regulatory compliance of the proposed amendments would be negligible.

Benefits and costs summary

The proposed amendments would minimize the consequences of runway undershoots and overruns by reducing the severity of 10 events over 20 years. The benefits of these reductions are valued at approximately $7,358,555 over 20 years.

Compliance would have to be achieved through one of the following options: extend the existing safety area outside the runway, reduce the runway’s declared distances, install an arresting system, or use a combined approach. Over 20 years, the implementation of the proposed amendments would cost airport operators and the Government of Canada an estimated $32,203,985, costs mainly borne by one airport with unique physical characteristics.

In summary, the proposed amendments are expected to yield a net cost of $24,845,430 with a benefit-cost ratio of 0.23. The results of the analysis are reported in Table 1. Even if the analysis demonstrates that costs outweigh benefits, the total benefit might not necessarily be captured. Non-quantifiable safety benefits, such as the reduction of stress experienced by passengers and crew during an undershoot or overrun event and the reduced severity of potential long-lasting impacts after the event (e.g. post-traumatic effects), would be realized by imposing a 90 m increase of the safety area beyond the ends of runways. There are also associated non-quantifiable efficiency benefits as a result of the RESA requirements, including the improved access for intervention for emergency services, the avoided legal fees to airports, Government, and air operators and the reduced damage to the airport.

Table 1 — Benefits and costs results, discounted at 7% (in Canadian dollars)

Benefits and Costs	2019	2021 table a2 note *	2028	2038	Total
Monetized benefits
Benefits to Canadians	0	59,478	52,251	37,848	890,376
Avoided injuries	0	511	369	215	6,301
Avoided delays to passengers	0	58,967	51,883	37,632	884,075
Benefits to industry	0	526,607	378,965	220,754	6,468,179
Avoided damage to aircraft	0	518,053	371,980	216,159	6,349,798
Avoided delays to air operators	0	8,553	6,985	4,595	118,381
Total monetized benefits	0	586,085	431,216	258,602	7,358,555
Monetized costs
Costs to airport operators	0	31,625,899	150,701	0	32,203,984
Construction costs	0	31,621,976	0	0	31,901,605
Maintenance costs	0	0	150,617	0	297,821
Administrative costs	0	3,923	84	0	4,558
Total monetized costs	0	31,625,899	150,701	0	32,203,984
Net monetized benefits	0	(31,039,815)	280,515	258,602	(24,845,430)
Table a2 note(s) Table a2 note * First implementation date Return to table a2 note * referrer

Qualitative and non-monetized benefits and costs

Sensitivity analyses

Runway undershoots and overruns

The probability of runway overruns or undershoots and their projected numbers are based on the number of historical runway excursions at Canadian airports reaching the threshold or expected to reach the threshold over the next 20 years. Some of these accidents were identified as runway excursions without any certainty as to whether aircraft exited the runway at the end or veered off the side. To exclude veer-offs (out of scope), the main analysis assumes that 50% of these uncertain runway excursions were veer-offs. To explore whether this assumption would impact the conclusion, a sensitivity analysis was performed, treating 25% and 75% of the uncertain runway excursions as veer-offs.

Effectiveness rate

Uncertainty was also associated with the effectiveness rate of the proposed amendments. The effectiveness rate represents the magnitude at which the requirements contained in the proposal would mitigate damages from a runway undershoot or overrun. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness rate used in the main analysis (50%) with the lower (25%) and upper (75%) effectiveness rates.

Runway end safety area options at an airport with unique characteristics

There are different ways to reach RESA compliance: extending the existing safety area outside the runway, adjusting the runway’s declared distances, a combination of extending the safety area outside the runway and adjusting the declared distances, or installing an arresting system. For this analysis, the airport discussed as having unique physical characteristics is assumed to be installing an arresting system. A sensitivity analysis was done to account for the scenario in which this airport undergoes a land extension instead to add the prescribed length.

Analytical time frame

It is acknowledged that the majority of the costs associated with these proposed Regulations are carried in the initial years of the analytical time frame, whereas the benefits are more evenly distributed over the analytical time frame. While Transport Canada believes that the 20-year period most accurately reflects the costs and benefits of this proposal due to the long lifespan of the implemented RESA, a sensitivity analysis was performed using a shorter 10-year time frame for comparison purposes.

Discount rate

The sensitivity analysis also includes a 3% discount rate instead of the 7% recommended by the Treasury Board Secretariat. The results are presented in Table 2 below:

Table 2 — Sensitivity analysis results

Parameter Changes	Net Benefit ($)	Benefit-Cost Ratio
Number of past excursions
Benefits estimated using 25% of unknown events	(25,820,443)	0.20
Benefits estimated using 75% of unknown events	(23,870,416)	0.26
Effectiveness rate
Proposed amendments would mitigate the damage of an undershoot or overrun by 25%	(28,524,707)	0.11
Proposed amendments would mitigate the damage of an undershoot or overrun by 75%	(21,166,153)	0.34
Runway end safety area options at an airport with unique characteristics
Adding prescribed length	(59,485,158)	0.11
Analytical time frame
10 years (2019–2028)	(24,962,372)	0.22
Discount rate
3%	(24,325,111)	0.30

Distributional analyses

The costs imposed by the proposed amendments would not be uniformly distributed among stakeholders such as airport operators, air operators and passengers.

Impact on affected airports

Roughly 82% of the total costs would be borne by a single airport, while the expected monetized benefits would remain low. However, given the unique physical characteristics at this airport, a runway excursion could have serious consequences. Impacts such as injuries and/or death to crew members and passengers, property damage, legal fees, and reputational damage could occur. Table 3 shows a breakdown of the expected costs and benefits to the airport in question and all other affected airports.

Table 3 — Airport with unique physical characteristics compared with all other affected airports

Airport	Total Cost ($)	Total Benefit ($)	Net Benefit ($)	Benefit-Cost Ratio
Airport with unique physical characteristics	26,501,118	640,759	(25,860,359)	0.02
All other affected airports	5,702,866	6,717,796	(24,845,430)	1.18

Impact on air operators or passengers

The compliance costs imposed by the proposed amendments could be passed on to air operators and/or passengers. The maximum cost per movement, which represents the maximum amount an air operator would have to pay per take-off or landing in order to cover total RESA costs over the 20-year time frame (if airports made air operators or passengers cover 100% of RESA costs), is estimated at $0.61. Alternatively, if passengers were to cover 100% of RESA costs, the cost per affected passenger (which represents the maximum amount a passenger would have to pay per take-off or landing) over the 20-year time frame would be roughly $0.01.

“One-for-One” Rule

Under these proposed amendments, airport operators would be required to update the AOM and send it to Transport Canada for approval. It is projected that this would result in a net increase in annualized average administrative burden costs of around $263, or $7 per affected airport operator. Therefore, the “One-for-One” Rule would apply to the proposed amendments, as outlined in the Red Tape Reduction Act, and the increase would then have to be offset.

Small business lens

Using publicly available financial reports and Transport Canada expert opinion, it is clear that all airports subject to the proposed amendments have an annual gross revenue exceeding $5 million. Therefore, they are considered as medium or large businesses under the lens. Since no small business would be affected by the proposed amendments, the small business lens would not apply.

Consultation

Transport Canada initiated consultations on RESAs with stakeholders in 2010. The purposes of these consultations were to inform stakeholders of Transport Canada’s intention to propose regulatory amendments related to RESAs and to solicit input, which is invaluable for policy design. Transport Canada also consulted airports on assumptions related to the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as well as on the cost estimates.

Policy design–related consultations

The initial approach (2010)

Transport Canada’s initial intent was to fully align with the international standards, as established by ICAO. This approach would have required a 150 m RESA at both ends of the following types of runways at land airports serving public transportation (which may include the runway safety area):

• code 2 runways (between 800 and 1 200 m), if instrument landing systems are used (this system enables pilots to conduct an instrument approach to landing when visibility is low); and
• all code 3 and 4 runways (1 200 m and more) regardless of the type of approach used.

A Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) was first presented during a three-day technical committee meeting of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) held from November 15 to 17, 2010, in Ottawa. On November 23, 2010, the NPA was officially sent to the CARAC members, who were provided with 30 days to comment. Twenty-one submissions were received during this first consultation, including but not limited to territorial governments, provincial governments, airport authorities, airlines and various associations.

The major concern expressed by stakeholders pertained to the proposal to extend the application of RESAs to northern and remote airports. Concerns expressed included the burden and logistics associated with RESA implementation, as well as the related costs and their expected adverse impact on airports operating within limited budgets.

Transport Canada considered the specific case of northern and remote airports by looking at how other federal regulations and funding programs accommodate northern and remote communities. In light of the findings, Transport Canada decided to exclude airports located north of the 60th parallel that only serve air carrier operations using small aircraft. The removal of the northern and remote airports excluded many airports from the initial proposal, all of them located in Quebec, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and Yukon.

Given that the inclusion of northern airports in the NPA had an important impact on all comments expressed as part of this consultation, including on the timelines and costs related to remote and northern airports, Transport Canada issued a revised NPA that excluded airports north of the 60th parallel.

A revised approach (2011)

A revised NPA was published on September 23, 2011, through the CARAC process. Stakeholders were provided 30 days to comment. The proposed requirements in this revised NPA were still in alignment with international standards, with the exception that airports located north of the 60th parallel and serving only commercial air services using small aircraft would not be subject to the proposed RESA regulations.

Transport Canada received 19 responses from stakeholders, including but not limited to airport authorities, provincial and territorial governments, air carriers, and associations such as the Air Canada Pilot Association (ACPA), the Northern Air Transport Association (NATA) and the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC). Of all the submissions received, only three (15%) indicated support of the proposed Regulations. The opposition expressed was largely related to the wide scope of application, the limited preliminary analysis performed by Transport Canada, and the anticipated implementation costs.

In order to better document the safety benefits associated with RESAs and understand the implementation challenges and impacts of RESAs raised by stakeholders, Transport Canada commissioned the Runway End Safety Area, Risk Assessment at Canadian airports. A survey questionnaire was distributed to Canadian airports across the country to gather accurate site-specific information about specific runway ends. Airport operators had five weeks to complete and submit the questionnaire. Responses were received from 150 out of 163 airports, yielding a response rate of 92%. In addition, subject matter expert (SME) workshops were held in 2014 in Halifax, Calgary, Montréal, and Ottawa to discuss the methodology for the RESA study. A total of 64 SMEs participated in the sessions. SMEs included representatives from airport operators, airlines, pilots, air traffic control and members of various aviation industry associations. SMEs discussed several concerns, including the expected effectiveness of RESAs, potential alternatives to RESAs and expected initial and ongoing costs, and concerns were expressed about a “one-size-fits-all” approach.

In accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of the Runway End Safety Area, Risk Assessment at Canadian airports, the general approach to RESAs was reviewed. As there was no particular risk pattern found with any of the risk factors analyzed (including the runway length), the criterion of the runway length was abandoned.

The final approach (2016)

On May 12, 2016, a revised NPA was published and sent to CARAC members, composed of 603 stakeholders at that time. A technical briefing was organized by Transport Canada with affected stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments, on May 11, 2016, one day prior to the release of the revised NPA.

As the Runway End Safety Area, Risk Assessment at Canadian airports found that there was no obvious approach to mitigating the risk of runway excursions, Transport Canada decided to replace its previous approach — based on runway length, types of approaches and aircraft passenger capacity — with an exposure-based approach. As a result, the 2016 NPA proposed that RESA requirements be mandated for airports above a certain passenger threshold. The passenger criterion was chosen to maximize passenger exposure. In other words, mandating RESAs at runways located at the busiest airports would provide a greater level of safety for a high proportion of the air travellers, should they experience a runway excursion.

Four options were submitted, with thresholds from 200 000 to 1 000 000 passengers annually, corresponding to commercial air traveller coverage from 91.2% to 96.8%. Each option was presented with a list of airports that would potentially be impacted (ranging from 16 to 36). Stakeholders were consulted on the options, the implementation period, and the financial implications. Although a 90-day consultation period was initially granted, this period was extended to accommodate stakeholders.

In response to the NPA, 26 submissions were received from stakeholders, including but not limited to individual airports, provincial governments, industry associations, pilot associations, and airlines. Transport Canada carefully considered each submission received. The main concerns and comments received can be summarized as follows:

• Application: Most airports favoured the option that excluded them. As a result, the option with the highest threshold (airports receiving more than a million passengers annually) ended up being the preferred option among these stakeholders. On the contrary, pilot associations preferred the option with the lowest threshold (airports receiving more than 200 000 passengers annually), since this option would apply to the largest number of airports.
• Implementation period: Positions on the proposed three-year implementation period were varied and showed no consensus. Counterproposals from stakeholders included a two-, three-, and five-year implementation period.

Cost-benefit analysis–related consultations

Preliminary estimate of costs and benefits (2010)

Transport Canada conducted a preliminary estimate of the potential costs and benefits of requiring some code 2 (between 800 m and 1 200 m) and all code 3 and 4 runways (1 200 m and over) in Canada to install 90 m RESAs. To do so, a questionnaire was sent to 211 airports across the country, which incorporated all provinces and territories. Transport Canada received an 80% response rate, which yielded data about 534 runway ends. Airport operators provided data on the presence of RESAs at their runway ends and on the expected costs of building RESAs where they did not already exist. This preliminary estimate provided a rough magnitude of the costs based on airport operators’ experience and their understanding of the RESA requirements at that time.

Sample outreach exercise (2016)

In an effort to refine the cost estimates provided by airport operators in 2010, Transport Canada contacted 36 airports to provide them with additional information. Transport Canada’s review of stakeholders’ cost estimates revealed that the proposed RESA specifications were not well understood, leading stakeholders to inadvertently inflate their estimated costs to implement RESAs. In truth, RESAs are not required to meet the same construction standards as runways (in other words, RESAs can be natural compacted open areas such as soil, grass, etc.).

Consultation on cost-benefit analysis–related assumptions and inputs (2017–2018)

Following the 2016 sample outreach exercise, Transport Canada conducted a further round of stakeholder consultations in 2017 and 2018. These consultations were limited to airports that were expected to meet the passenger threshold over the following 20 years. As a result, 37 airports received a renewed survey, which focused on cost inputs for a more uniform approach to calculating costs.

The July 2017 survey asked 36 stakeholders (one was asked in early 2018) to answer the following questions in relation to the proposed additional 90 m RESA for their respective runways: to confirm whether there were any obstacles within the area; to specify the current surface type (gravel, grass, asphalt or other); to indicate the slope of the ground; and to specify whether further work would be required to implement 90 m RESAs to their runway. The questionnaire sent to these airports is reproduced below in Table 4.

Table 4 — 2017–2018 Consultation template for the purposes of the CBA

Runway number … RWY 16

Is 90 m of land area available for a potential extension/development of runway end safety area on both ends? … Yes

Any obstacles currently in the 90 m beyond the runway strip? … No

Current surface type beyond the runway strip end? ^{footnote 17} (Gravel, grass, tarmac, etc.) … Grass

Is the ground slope beyond the runway strip end within 0 to 5%? … Yes

Indicate the ground-slope if it is more than 5%.

Does anything else have to be done to comply with RESAs? State nature of the work required.
Any other comments on the RESA potential extension. Explain. … This is a fictitious example

The data collected was validated by Transport Canada experts who investigated the responses using satellite imagery and further discussed with stakeholders when necessary.

For runways with 90 m of land available for an extension of the safety area beyond the runway ends, without existing obstacles, composed of an acceptable surface type, and a ground slope between 0 and 5%, the construction costs were estimated by Transport Canada aerodrome standards specialists at $0 since no construction would be required. In cases where RESAs would have to be constructed, the costs were calculated by using the length, width, and slope of the land that required processing to determine the volume of backfilling needed (m³) and the cost per unit (m³).

Rationale

Globally, runway excursions are recognized as a serious safety issue due to the potential severity of such incidents. In Canada, the TSB has cited runway excursions as a critical aviation safety issue.

In recognition of the severity of the outcomes associated with runway excursions, and given that RESAs contribute to a greater level of safety for the travelling public and crews, an international standard was developed and published by ICAO in 1999. Many countries have implemented RESAs through the years. For example, the United States has mandated its 539 certified airports to implement RESAs at all runways receiving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights.

The proposed amendments would modify the applicability criteria of the Canadian RESA standard. As a result, the protection offered by RESAs would be extended to runways that are not currently required to have RESAs at their ends as per the Canadian standard introduced in 2015. By using the criterion of runways serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights located at Canada’s busiest airports, the vast majority of air travellers and crews would benefit from a higher level of safety.

Airports and runways

Canadian airports and their respective runways are certified based on requirements set out in the Regulations and the Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312), which are incorporated by reference into the Regulations.

Currently, all Canadian runways are required to have a safety area of 60 m at their ends, but only few are also required to have RESAs. Based on Canadian historical data (1999–2010), the provision of an additional 90 m would provide enough distance to stop 90% of runway excursions, compared to only 53% being stopped within the already regulated 60 m runway safety area, resulting in an increase of 37%.

Canadian runways also have safety areas on their sides called graded areas. The proposed amendments focus on the ends of the runways, as the sides are already covered (which is why veer-offs are not included under the proposed amendments).

Airports reaching a minimum passenger threshold

In Canada, RESAs are currently mandated based on the length of runway, type of approach, and number of seats on the aircraft using the runway. The proposed amendments would replace these criteria with a minimal airport annual passenger threshold of 325 000.

This approach was chosen to maximize the benefits of RESAs. As a risk of excursion is present in every take-off and landing, installing RESAs on runways serving a high volume of flights would bring greater benefits in comparison to installing RESAs where the air traffic is low (it would cover more take-offs and landings).

Airports would be subject to the proposed amendments upon reaching the threshold at the time of the coming into force of the proposed Regulations or after meeting the threshold for three consecutive calendar years after the coming into force of these amendments. Airports would benefit from a two-year implementation period in order to comply with the proposed amendments. An airport operator would no longer be subject to RESA requirements after three consecutive calendar years of a passenger threshold below 325 000. In such a case, the airport operator would no longer be required to comply with the RESA requirements.

Runways serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights

The Canadian RESA standard currently applies to runways that were built after 2015. Pre-existing runways are not required to have RESAs and benefit from a grandfathering clause in the Regulations unless they were substantially modified after 2015. There is no criterion that links the provision of RESAs to the runway based on different types of activities (cargo flights, commercial passenger-carrying flights, private flights, etc.) that are served by the runway.

In order to maximize the benefits of RESAs for the vast majority of air travellers and crews, the proposed amendments would target runways that are serving scheduled commercial passenger-carrying flights. This approach would increase the safety of the travelling public and crews without imposing excessive costs to the industry.

Runway end safety area

The proposed amendments would not modify the characteristics of RESAs as currently identified in TP 312 and in guidance documents (localization, width, length, bearing strength, absence of obstacles, etc.).

The proposed amendments would also maintain the ways RESA standards can be met (that is, by increasing the size of the safety area outside the runway, by adjusting the declared distances of the runway, by installing an arresting system or by using a combination of increasing the size of the safety area outside the runway and adjusting the declared distances). However, airport operators would have to notify the Minister, at least 90 days prior to the end of the two-year implementation period, of their chosen way of meeting the proposed RESA requirements.

Strategic environmental assessment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, ^{footnote 18} the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process was followed for this proposal and a sustainable transportation assessment was completed. The assessment took into account potential effects to the environmental goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy (FSDS).

Implementation and enforcement

Implementation

For airports that already reach the threshold (those listed in the table to proposed subsection 302.601(1)), the two-year implementation period would start at the time of the publication of the amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part II. For airports that are under the annual passenger threshold at the time of the coming into force of the regulatory amendments, the implementation period of two years would start after three consecutive years of meeting the threshold for existing runways in operation. New runways that first come in operation after the threshold has been met for three consecutive years would be required to meet the RESA requirements on the day on which the runway is first in operation.

The passenger threshold would be determined based on the airport activity survey data that is conducted by Statistics Canada on a yearly basis. It would be calculated by adding the number of passengers who board a plane (emplaned passengers) and the number of passengers who exit a plane (deplaned passengers) at a given airport for a specific calendar year. If the statistics with respect to the number of passengers are not published or are incomplete, the statistics would be those provided by Statistics Canada to the Minister of Transport.

Industry compliance with RESA requirements would be supported by the following material:

• Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices (TP 312);
• Advisory Circular No. 302-015 on the bearing strength requirements of RESA; and
• Advisory Circular No. 300-007 on the design and installation of engineered materials arresting systems for aircraft overruns.

Enforcement

Transport Canada would ensure compliance with RESA requirements through a requirement for the airport operator to notify the Minister on how it intends to comply with the RESA requirements (through using one of the means of compliance described under the “Description” section above).

In cases where the airport operator fails to comply with the RESA requirements by the end of the implementation period, the Minister may make an order pursuant to section 302.604 of the Regulations to reduce the declared landing distances at an airport where RESA requirements are not met. The order would remain in effect until the airport operator implements RESAs.

These proposed amendments would be enforced through the assessment of administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of designated provisions under sections 7.6 to 8.2 of the Aeronautics Act, and which carry a maximum fine of $3,000 for individuals and $15,000 for corporations; or through suspension or cancellation of a Canadian aviation document, or as applicable, proceeding by way of summary conviction, pursuant to section 7.3 of the Aeronautics Act.

Contact

Steve Palisek
Chief
Regulatory Affairs (AARBH)
Civil Aviation
Safety and Security Group
Transport Canada
Place de Ville, Tower C
330 Sparks Street
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

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 4.3(2) ^{footnote a}, section 4.9 ^{footnote b} and paragraphs 7.6(1)(a) ^{footnote c} and (b) ^{footnote d} of the Aeronautics Act ^{footnote e}, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, III and VI — RESA).

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 addressed to 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).

Ottawa, February 27, 2020

Julie Adair
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I, III and VI — RESA)

Amendments

1 The definitions ASDA or accelerate-stop distance available and TODA or take-off distance available in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations ^{footnote 19} are replaced by the following:

• ASDA or accelerate-stop distance available means, in respect of a runway, the total of the take-off run available and, where a stopway is provided, the length of the stopway declared available by the operator of the aerodrome; (ASDA ou distance accélération-arrêt utilisable)
• TODA or take-off distance available means, in respect of a runway, the total of the take-off run available and, where a clearway is provided, the length of clearway declared available by the operator of the aerodrome; (TODA ou distance de décollage utilisable)

2 (1) Subpart 2 of Part III of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after the reference “Section 302.504”:

Column I Designated Provision	Column II Maximum Amount of Penalty ($)
	Individual	Corporation
Subsection 302.600(5)	3,000	15,000
Subsection 302.601(2)	3,000	15,000
Section 302.603	3,000	15,000

(2) Subpart 2 of Part III of Schedule II to Subpart 3 of Part I of the Regulations is amended by striking out the reference “Subsection 302.601(2)” in column I and the corresponding amounts in column II.

3 Section 300.01 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

• RESA or runway end safety area means an area, adjacent to or on a runway, intended to reduce the severity of damage to an aeroplane in the event that the aeroplane undershoots or overruns the runway; (RESA ou aire de sécurité d’extrémité de piste)

4 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 302.505:

[302.506 to 302.599 reserved]

Division VI — Runway End Safety Area (RESA)

RESA — Obligations of the Operator

302.600 (1) The operator of an airport shall ensure that a runway that is used for the take-off or landing of commercial aeroplanes engaged in a scheduled air service for the purpose of carrying passengers has a RESA that meets the requirements of section 302.602 if, according to the statistics referred to in subsection (2) or (3), the total of the annual number of passengers that are emplaned and the annual number of passengers that are deplaned at the airport is at least 325,000 during a period of three consecutive calendar years, the first period beginning the year in which this section comes into force.

(2) The statistics in respect of the number of passengers are as published by Statistics Canada in the Airport Activity Survey.

(3) If the statistics in respect of the number of passengers are not published or are incomplete, the statistics are those provided by Statistics Canada to the Minister.

(4) In the case referred to in subsection (3), if the threshold in respect of the number of passengers referred to in subsection (1) has been reached, the Minister shall notify the operator of the airport.

(5) The operator of the airport shall comply with the requirements of subsection (1)

• (a) within two years of the day on which the statistics referred to in subsection (2) are published in respect of the last year of a period referred to in subsection (1); or
• (b) within two years of the day on which the Minister notifies the operator of an airport under subsection (4).

(6) Despite subsection (5), if a new runway is first in operation after the threshold in respect of the number of passengers referred to in subsection (1) has been reached, the operator of the airport shall comply with the requirements of subsection (1) the day on which the runway is first in operation.

(7) The operator of an airport referred to in subsection (1) is no longer required to comply with the requirements of that subsection if the total of the annual number of passengers that are emplaned and the annual number of passengers that are deplaned at the airport falls below 325,000 during any period of three consecutive calendar years after the day on which this section comes into force.

RESA — Obligations of Operator of a Listed Airport

302.601 (1) Despite subsection 302.600(1), the operator of an airport referred to in the table to this section shall ensure that a runway that is used for the take-off or landing of commercial aeroplanes engaged in a scheduled air service for the purpose of carrying passengers has a RESA that meets the requirements of section 302.602.

(2) The operator of an airport shall comply with the requirements of subsection (1) within two years of the day that this section comes into force.

TABLE

Airport	ICAO Location Indicator
Abbotsford International	CYXX
Calgary International	CYYC
Charlottetown	CYYG
Deer Lake Regional	CYDF
Edmonton International	CYEG
Fort McMurray International	CYMM
Fredericton International	CYFC
Grande Prairie	CYQU
Greater Moncton (Roméo LeBlanc International)	CYQM
Halifax (Robert L. Stanfield International)	CYHZ
Kelowna International	CYLW
London International	CYXU
Montréal (Montréal — Pierre Elliott Trudeau International)	CYUL
Nanaimo	CYCD
Ottawa (Macdonald-Cartier International)	CYOW
Prince George	CYXS
Québec (Jean Lesage International)	CYQB
Regina International	CYQR
Saskatoon (John G. Diefenbaker International)	CYXE
St. John’s International	CYYT
Thunder Bay	CYQT
Toronto (Billy Bishop Toronto City)	CYTZ
Toronto (Lester B. Pearson International)	CYYZ
Vancouver International	CYVR
Victoria International	CYYJ
Whitehorse (Erik Nielsen International)	CYXY
Winnipeg (James Armstrong Richardson International)	CYWG
Yellowknife	CYZF

RESA — Requirements

302.602 (1) A RESA shall have a minimum length of 150 m and shall conform to the requirements respecting location, characteristics and objects in the runway end safety area set out in 3.2 of Chapter 3 of the document entitled Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices, TP 312E, published by the Department of Transport.

(2) The operator of an airport may reduce the length of the ASDA, LDA or TORA in order to obtain the minimum length referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The minimum length referred to in subsection (1) does not apply if the operator of an airport installs an arresting system designed to stop an aeroplane that overruns a runway that conforms to the requirements regarding the system set out in 3.2 of Chapter 3 of the document entitled Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices, TP 312E, published by the Department of Transport.

(4) A RESA is not required before the starting point of the LDA if

• (a) the runway is equipped with a serviceable precision approach path indicator (PAPI) or abbreviated precision approach path indicator (APAPI); or
• (b) an instrument approach procedure with approved vertical guidance that is not restricted by a special authorization or an operations specification is available in respect of the runway.

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), approved vertical guidance means glide scope deviation information provided to a pilot until the decision height is reached to assist in the carrying out of a three-dimensional instrument approach without a missed approach point, but in respect of a missed approach segment that begins at the decision height.

Notice to Minister

302.603 The operator of an airport shall notify the Minister, no later than 90 days before the end of the period referred to in paragraph 302.600(5)(a) or (b) or subsection 302.601(2), as applicable, how the operator will comply with the requirements of subsection 302.600(1) or 302.601(1).

Ministerial Order

302.604 The Minister is authorized to make an order requiring the operator of an airport to reduce the length of the ASDA, LDA or TORA by a specified amount in order to meet the minimum length requirement of a RESA, if the operator fails to comply with the requirements of subsection 302.600(1) or 302.601(1).

5 Section 302.601 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

6 Sections 302.603 and 302.604 of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

302.603 The operator of an airport shall notify the Minister, no later than 90 days before the end of the period referred to in paragraph 302.600(5)(a) or (b), as applicable, how the operator will comply with the requirements of subsection 302.600(1).

Ministerial Order

302.604 The Minister is authorized to make an order requiring the operator of an airport to reduce the length of the ASDA, LDA or TORA by a specified amount in order to meet the minimum length requirement of a RESA, if the operator fails to comply with the requirements of subsection 302.600(1).

7 Paragraph 601.23(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (a) it penetrates an airport obstacle limitation surface as calculated in accordance with Chapter 4 of the document entitled Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices, TP 312E, published by the Department of Transport;

8 Paragraph 602.96(3)(d) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

• (d) where the aerodrome is an airport, comply with any airport operating restrictions specified by the Minister in the Canada Flight Supplement or in a NOTAM;

Coming into Force

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

(2) Subsection 2(2) and sections 5 and 6 come into force on the third anniversary of the day on which these Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.