Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)828 - Rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)828 - Rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2011)828  |
| date | 01-12-2011 |
1. Noise from aircraft at or around airports is a nuisance for a growing number of European citizens, especially at night, as indicated in Table 1 below. An active noise management strategy is therefore necessary to mitigate the undesired effects. Such noise strategy must, however, carefully balance the interests of the affected citizens with other interests and take due account of the knock-on effects on the capacity of the whole aviation network.
Table 1: Forecasts from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) of number of people affected by noise (in millions) in Europe – without substantial operational and technological improvements[1]
Noise level/Year| 2036
> 55 DNL| 2.| 3.| 4.| 5.79
> 60 DNL| 0.| 1.| 1.| 2.12
> 65 DNL| 0.| 0.| 0.| 0.66
2. The introduction of operating restrictions, may have a substantial impact on business and operations, as it restricts access to an airport. Hence, the process leading to a decision on noise-related operating restrictions should be consistent, evidence-based and robust to be acceptable for all stakeholders.
3. In an effort to ensure a consistent approach to the application of noise abatement measures at air ports, the ICAO adopted a set of principles and guidance constituting the so-called 'Balanced Approach' on noise managment, which encourages ICAO Contracting States:
· to mitigate aviation noise through selection of the optimum local combination from a range of measures (1) reducing noise at source (from use of quieter aircraft), (2) making best use of land (plan and manage the land surrounding airports; (3) introducing operational noise abatement procedures (by using specific runways, routes or procedures); and i imposing noise-related operating restrictions (such as a night ban or phasing out of noisier aircraft).
· to select the most cost-effective range of measures.
· not to introduce noise-related operating restrictions, unless the authority is in a position, on basis of studies and consultations, to determine whether a noise problem exists and having determined that an operating restriction is a cost-effective way of dealing with the problem.
4. This regulation aims to apply noise-related operating restrictions of the Balanced Approach in the EU in a consistent manner which should greatly reduce the risk of international disputes in the event that third country carriers are impacted by noise abatement measures at air ports in the Union. In addition, competent authorities will be in a better position to phase-out the noisiest aircraft in the fleet. The proposed regulation will repeal Directive 2002/30/EC which was instrumental in bringing an international dispute to an end and set the first steps in the harmonization of noise management policies, including tackling the noisiest aircraft of that time. However, the instrument needs to be adapted to the current requirements of the aviation system and the growing noise problem.
5. This regulation will ensure that the noise assessment process will become more robust. All steps in the assessment process will be clarified in order to ensure a more consistent application of the balanced approach across the Union. This proposal does not, however, stipulate noise quality objectives which continue to derive from the existing national and local rules. Instead, it aims at a system facilitating the achievement of these noise quality goals in the most cost-effective way.
6. At ICAO level the EU actively supports the development of new noise standards for aircraft and invests in new technologies through Framework Programmes and the Clean Sky project[2]. But land use planning, together with the associated insulation and compensation programmes, is a national or local competence.
7. Operational noise abatement procedures are used at all airports in different forms: noise preferential routes (where aircraft fly e.g. over least populated areas), thrust management (the more thrust, the more noise is generated but the steeper the aircraft may climb) or specific measures on the ground (e.g. use of specific taxi or runways). The EU contributes through its Single European Sky legislation, which aims at setting performance targets for air navigation service providers in the environmental field, and through the associated research programmes SESAR and Clean Sky.
8. As shown in Figure 1, the measures primarily applied at European airports are noise abatement procedures. However, in addition, operating restrictions are frequently used. The following restrictions have been introduced at the 224 EU airports assessed[3] for this report: 116 curfews i, 52 noise limits, 51 restrictions targeted aircraft of the noise standard Chapter 3, 38 noise quotas and 7 noise budgets.
Source: Boeing Database Note: APU: regulated use of auxiliary power unit (to start engines); NAP: noise action plan; Stg3-Ch3: phase-out of noisiest aircraft which only satisfy the old ICAO noise standard, as described in Chapter 3 of the relevant ICAO Annex.
· European provisions on operating restrictions noise management
9. This proposal aims to strengthen the basic logic of the ICAO Balanced Approach by making a stronger link between its pillars and by clarifying the different steps of the decision-making process when considering operating restrictions.
10. Consistent application of the approach should identify the most cost-effective solutions, tailor made to the specific airport situation. The assessment method will also take due account of the network-wide effects of noise mitigating measures.
11. The current rules cover about 70 European airports with more than 50 000 movements of civil subsonic jet aircraft per calendar year.
· Consistency with the civil aviation policy and other objectives of the Union
12. This initiative is consistent with other parts of European aviation policy and wider environmental policies.
13. The European aviation industry should grow in a sustainable way where economic, social and environmental aspects are appropriately balanced. Noise mitigating measures may substantially impact the capacity of the aviation network on the ground and in the air. The proposals will ensure more consistency between the noise-related actions, airport capacity and flight efficiency requirements under Single European Sky, and the implementation of performance regulation on air traffic management. The proposals follow the logic of the gate-to-gate approach.
14. The proposal will contribute to delivering the National Action Plans on air traffic noise which Member States are obliged to adopt on basis of Directive 2002/49/EC.
· Consultation of interested parties
15. The most affected stakeholders as regards noise and aviation are the citizens living around airports represented in local community groups, airports, aircraft operators (with air cargo as specific niche), aircraft manufacturers, local authorities (including planning authorities which also represent the wider economic interests) and independent noise councils. These stakeholders were intensely consulted:
· in 2007 the external consultant collected responses to questionnaires, and conducted interviews with a range of stakeholders on the implementation of Directive 2002/30/EC;
· in 2008 the Commission organised an open consultation on the ways forward to amend the Directive;
· in 2010, all stakeholders that had previously contributed to the consultationprocess were contacted and the range of stakeholders was widened.
16. The Member States stressed the need to preserve flexibility in the assessment of noise problems and the necessity to provide for transitional arrangements, to avoid duplication of efforts (e.g. environmental assessments to be re-used) and fine-tune the relation between the two Directives 2002/30/EC and 2002/49/EC, so that the same assessments can satisfy both of them; and consider the international context, with regard to the use of methods and measures.
17. The representatives of local community groups, namely the Aviation Environment Federation representing noise and environmental action groups from the UK, France and Germany, stressed the need to properly regulate (i.e. not just rely on guidelines) on the basis of a noise protection threshold; the key role of operating restrictions to improve the noise nuisance situation and incentives to replace the noisiest aircraft; and to widen the definition of marginally compliant aircraft to have a real impact.
18. Operators[5], namely the Association of European Airlines, representing the legacy airlines, and the European Express Association argued that the principles of ICAO's Balanced Approach should be correctly applied (on an airport-by-airport basis); that operational restrictions should be used to mitigate identified noise problems and as a last resort; that the method should deliver the most cost-effective measures; and that land use planning would become integrated in decisions on operating restrictions. The operators also requested a further clarification of the Directive, and reiterated the need to consider amending the definition of marginally compliant aircraft on the basis of international regulation to avoid market distortions. If regulatory action was deemed necessary, operators preferred a regulation to a directive.
19. The airports[6], represented by ACI, stressed that the full range of Balanced Approach measures should be exploited and that there is scope to widen the definition of marginally compliant aircraft.
20. The French independent noise council (ACNUSA)[7] argued for a widening of the definition of marginally compliant aircraft, the use of parameters which genuinely capture the affected population's feelings, improved modelling of airport noise and a more systematic use of noise-friendly operating procedures, such as continuous descent approaches.
21. The aeronautical industry is especially involved in the development of new noise standards within the ICAO technical working groups and focuses on the need to consider interdependencies between possibly conflicting objectives like noise and CO2 reduction and the longer-term view of standard development, where the rhythm of standard setting must keep pace with technological feasibility, and the value of the fleet over the lifetime of aircraft and should be competition neutral.
22. Finally, the local authorities of the Airports Regions Conference, who are mainly in charge of land use, highlighted their approach from an environmental capacity perspective of a region, which includes land use planning, use of appropriate indicators, a mediation process, and a need to better integrate the requirements under the environmental noise directive with the airport noise directive (2002/30/EC).
23. All in all, the proposals are generally close to the views expressed in the consultation round. The formal proposals will stress the interdependence of the different noise mitigating measures, whereby noise operating restrictions should not be considered first and foremost, but, if deemed necessary, should ne seen as an important and complementary contributor in a wider combination of cost-effective measures. The definition of marginally compliant aircraft is also made stricter, so that competent authorities again have an efficient noise mitigating instrument at their disposal.
· Collection and use of expertise
24. A general background study has been carried out to provide a quantitative as well as qualitative analysis of the impact of this revision. In addition, Eurocontrol has been providing more recent and detailed information on the number of flights performed by marginally compliant aircraft.
25. The consultant organised an intensive consultation, mainly in the form of interviews with different stakeholders, as well as desk research. In addition, Eurocontrol provided up-to-date information from the relevant data warehouses.
26. The main conclusions were that the Directive, whilst its value is recognized in bringing an international dispute to an end [8] and introducing EU competence on operating restrictions, was not as effective in harmonizing the decision-making process as had been hoped. There was a need to update the Directive to take account of the evolving composition of the fleet, to strengthen the link between the different elements of the Balanced Approach and to bring in new legal instruments on noise management, like the environmental noise directive (2002/49/EC), the development of new noise standards or the Single European Sky performance regulation.
27. The full report of the study has been published on DG MOVE's website.
Contents
- Legal elements of the proposal
- Budgetary implication
- Figure 1: Overview of current European (EU and non-EU) airport noise-related restrictions
- 2. Consultation of interested parties and impact assessment
- Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents
- Summary of responses
- Scientific/expertise domains concerned
- Methodology used
- Summary of advice received and used
- Means used to make the expert advice publicly available
- 5. Additional information
· Summary of the proposed action
28. The proposal introduces a new regulation to replace Directive 2002/30/EC. This regulation clarifies and completes the requirements of that directive.
1. Specification of objectives to stress link with other elements of the Balanced Approach and other instruments to manage air traffic noise.
2. Definition of allocation of responsibilities.
3. Listing of general requirements to manage noise.
4. Provision of more details on the noise assessment process.
5. Specification of stakeholders to be consulted.
6. Harmonisation of data and methods.
7. Specification of notification and introduction requirements.
8. Allowing comitology to adapt reference to noise standards to new technological progress.
9 Provision of support to competent authorites.
· Legal basis
The proposal is based on Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functionning of the European Union.
· Subsidiarity principle
29. The subsidiarity principle applies insofar as the proposal does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Union. The objectives of the proposal can not be sufficiently achieved by the Member States individually.
30. European action will better achieve the objectives of the proposal for the following reasons:
31. A harmonised approach to noise-related operating restrictions as part of the noise management process around European airports contributes towards improving the environmental performance of air transport operations and creates a more predictable operational environment for airline and airport operators. In addition, the harmonised assessment method should reduce the risk of bias in competition between airports or between airlines and of poor practice being implemented, which may impact not only the capacity of the airport concerned, but on overall aviation network efficiency.
32. Such an approach offers more cost-effective solutions to environmental problems around airports and avoids a patchwork of different noise requirements for operators who, by definition, operate an international network.
· Proportionality principle
33. The proposal complies with the proportionality principle. Whilst a regulation strictly harmonises the method to follow, it allows Member States to take into account airport-specific situations with a view to developing appropriate solutions to the noise problems on an airport-by-airport basis. The proposals do not prejudge the desired environmental objectives or the concrete measures taken.
· Choice of instruments
34. Proposed instrument: Regulation.
35. Other means would not be adequate for the following reasons.
· The subject of the regulation is a noise assessment method. Only a regulation guarantees full harmonisation of this method.
· The proposed assessment method is sufficiently flexible to deal with any specific airport situation and does not prejudge the desired level of protection which Member States want to guarantee their citizens, or the concrete selection of cost-effective measures.
36. The proposal has no additional implications for the European budget. The costs associated with the right of scrutiny do not entail additional costs compared to the current financial burden in monitoring the implementation of the existing legislation, including reimbursement for committee meetings. The data bases on noise certification information already exist. The proposal introduces a more formal reference to ensure the quality of the data and the guaranteed access of interested parties. Finally, this proposal forms an integral part of work on noise management –with the associated budgets - which is already undertaken in other areas, like ICAO noise stringency development, Single Sky or SESAR.
· European Economic Area
37. The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.