# EUR-Lex - 52011PC0828 - EN

*|*

# 52011PC0828

**Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council /* COM/2011/0828 final - 2011/0398 (COD) */**

			*

			*

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.
Context of the proposal

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 || 2006 || 2016 || 2026 || 2036

> 55 DNL || 2.63 || 3.47 || 4.48 || 5.79

> 60 DNL || 0.799 || 1.14 || 1.53 || 2.12

> 65 DNL || 0.23 || 0.32 || 0.43 || 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 (4)
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[4], 52
noise limits, 51 restrictions targeted aircraft of the noise standard 'Chapter
3', 38 noise quotas and 7 noise budgets.

Figure 1: Overview of current European
(EU and non-EU) airport noise-related restrictions

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.

2.
Consultation of interested parties and impact
assessment

·
Consultation of interested parties

Consultation methods, main sectors
targeted and general profile of respondents

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.

Summary of responses

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

Scientific/expertise domains
concerned

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'.

Methodology
used

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.

Summary of advice received and used

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.

Means used to make the expert advice
publicly available

27.
The full report of the study has been published
on DG MOVE's website.

3.
Legal elements of the proposal

·
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.

4.
Budgetary implication

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.

5.
Additional information

·
European Economic Area

37.
The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and
should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.

2011/0398 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the establishment of rules and
procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating
restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing
Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

The European Parliament and the
Council

Having regard to the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular
Article 100(2) thereof,

Having regard to the
proposal from the Commission[9],

Having regard to the
opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee[10],

Having regard to the
opinion of the Committee of the Regions[11],

Acting in accordance
with the ordinary legislative procedure[12],

Whereas:

(1)
A key objective of the common transport policy
is sustainable development. This requires an integrated approach aimed at
ensuring both the effective functioning of Union transport systems and
protection of the environment.

(2)
Sustainable development of air transport
necessitates the introduction of measures aimed at reducing the noise nuisance
from aircraft at airports with particular noise problems. A large number of EU
citizens are exposed to high noise levels which may lead to negative health
effects.

(3)
Following the removal of the noisiest aircraft pursuant to Directive 2002/30/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the
establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of
noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports[13] and Directive 2006/93/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the
regulation of the operation of aircraft covered by Part II, Chapter 3, Volume 1
of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, second
edition (1988)[14],
an update of new measures is required to enable authorities to deal with the
noisiest aircraft to improve the noise climate around airports in the Union
within the international framework of the Balanced Approach on Noise
Management.

(4)
Resolution A33/7 of the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO) introduces the concept of a “Balanced Approach” to
noise management and establishes a coherent method to address aircraft noise.
The ICAO 'Balanced Approach' should remain the foundation of noise regulation
for aviation, as a global industry. The Balanced Approach recognises the value
of, and does not prejudge, relevant legal
obligations, existing agreements, current laws and established policies. Incorporating
the international rules of the Balanced Approach in this Regulation should substantially
lessen the risks of international disputes in case third country carriers may
be affected by noise-related operating restrictions.

(5)
The Report from the Commission to the Council
and the European Parliament on noise operating restrictions at EU
Airports [15]
pointed to the need to clarify in the text of the Directive the allocation of
responsibilities and the precise obligations and rights of interested parties during
the noise assessment process so as to guarantee that cost-effective measures
are taken to achieve the noise abatement objectives.

(6)
The introduction of operating restrictions by
Member States at Union airports on a case-by-case basis, whilst limiting
capacity, can contribute to improving the noise climate around airports.
However, there is a possibility of introducing distortions of competition or
hampering the overall efficiency of the Union aviation network through the
inefficient use of existing capacity. Since the objectives cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be more
effectively achieved by the Union by means of harmonised rules on the
introduction of operating restrictions as part of the noise management process,
the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity
as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that
Article,this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those
objectives. Such harmonised method does not impose noise quality objectives,
which continue to derive from Directive 2002/49/EC or other European, national
or local rules, and does not prejudge the concrete selection of measures.

(7)
While noise assessments should take place on a
regular basis, such assessments should only lead to additional noise abatement
measures if the current combination of noise mitigating measures does not
achieve the noise abatement objectives.

(8)
While a cost-benefit analysis provides an
indication of the total economic welfare effects by comparing all costs and
benefits, a cost-effectiveness assessment focuses on achieving a given
objective in the most cost-effective way, requiring a comparison of only the
costs.

(9)
Suspension of noise mitigating measures is
important to avoid unwanted consequences on aviation safety, airport capacity
and competition. Whilst an appeal procedure against noise-related operating
restrictions may relate to noise abatement objectives, assessment methods and
selection of cost-effective measures, the appeal may not suspend their
implementation. Therefore, the
Commission should well before implementation of the measures be able to use the
right of scrutiny and to suspend measures deemed to produce unwanted or
irreversible consequences. It is recognised that
the suspension should be for a limited period.

(10)
Noise assessments should build on existing
information available and ensure that such information is reliable and
accessible to competent authorities and stakeholders. Competent authorities
should put in place the necessary monitoring and enforcement tools.

(11)
It is recognised that Member States have decided
on noise-related operating restrictions in accordance with national legislation
based on nationally acknowledged noise methods, which may not (yet) be fully
consistent with the method as described in the authoritative European Civil
Aviation Conference Report Doc 29 on 'Standard Method of Computing Noise
Contours around Civil Airports' nor use the internationally recognised aircraft
noise performance information. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of an
operating restriction, together with the efficiency and effectiveness of the
relevant action plan of which the restriction is a part, should be assessed in
accordance with methods prescribed in ECAC Doc 29 and the ICAO Balanced
Approach. Accordingly, Member States should adapt their assessments of
operating restrictions in national legislation towards full compliance with
ECAC Doc 29.

(12)
Centralisation of information on noise would
substantially reduce the administrative burden for aircraft and airport
operators alike. Such information is currently provided and managed at the
individual aiport level. These data need to be put at their disposal for
operational purposes. It is important to use the data bank of the European
Aviation Safety Agency (the Agency) concerning noise performance certification as
a validation tool with the European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation (Eurocontrol) data on individual flights. Such data are currently
already systematically requested for central flow management purposes, but need
to be specified for the purpose of this Regulation and for performance
regulation of air traffic management. Good access to validated modelling data should
improve the quality of mapping of noise contours of individual airports and
strategic mapping to support policy decisions.

(13)
In order to reflect the continuous technological
progress in engine and airframe technologies and the methods used to map noise
contours, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the
Commission with respect to regularly updating the noise standards for aircraft
referred to in this Regulation and the reference to the associated certification
methods; amending the definitions of marginally compliant aircraft and of civil
aircraft accordingly, and updating the reference to the method to computing
noise contours. It is particularly important that the Commission carry out
appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert
level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing-up
delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate
transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and
Council.

(14)
In order to ensure uniform conditions for the
implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on
the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation
(EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February
2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for
control by the Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing
powers.[16]

(15)
The advisory procedure should be used for the adoption
of implementing decisions with respect to whether the Member States that are
planning to introduce operating restrictions may proceed with their
introduction in the event that the Commission has suspended the operating
restrictions given that those decisions are only of a limited scope.

(16)
Consdidering the need for the consistent
application of the noise assessment method within the EU aviation market, this
Regulation sets out common rules in the field of noise operating restrictions.
Directive 2002/30/EC should therefore be repealed,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Subject-matter, objectives and
scope

1.           This Regulation lays down
rules on the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions in a
consistent manner on an airport-by-airport basis so as to help improve the
noise climate and to limit or reduce the number of people significantly
affected by the harmful effects of aircraft noise, in accordance with the
Balanced Approach.

2.           The objectives of this
Regulation are

(a)
to facilitate the achievement of specific environmental
noise abatement objectives, as laid down in Union, national and local rules,
and to assess their interdependence with other environmental objectives, at the
level of individual airports;

(b)
to enable selection of the most cost-effective
noise mitigation measures in accordance with the Balanced Approach so as to
achieve the sustainable development of the airport and air traffic management
network capacity from a gate-to-gate perspective.

3.           This Regulation shall
apply to aircraft engaged in civil aviation.

It shall not apply to aircraft engaged
in military, customs, police, or similar services.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purpose of this Regulation, the
following definitions shall apply:

(1)
‘Airport’ means an airport which has more than
50 000 civil aircraft movements per calendar year (a movement being a
take-off or landing), taking into consideration the average number of movements
of the last three calendar years before the noise assessment;

(2)
‘Balanced Approach’ means the method under which
the range of available measures, namely reduction of aircraft noise at source,
land-use planning and management, noise abatement operational procedures and
operating restrictions, is considered in a consistent way with the view to addressing
the noise problem in the most cost-effective way on an airport by airport
basis.

(3)
'Aircraft' means fixed-wing aircraft with a
maximum certificated take-off mass of 34 000 kg or more, or with a
certificated maximum internal accommodation for the aircraft type in question
consisting of more than 19 passenger seats, excluding any seats for crew
only;

(4)
‘Marginally compliant aircraft’ means civil aircaft
that meet the Chapter 3 certification limits laid down in Volume 1, Part II,
Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago
Convention) by a cumulative margin of less than 10EPNdB (Effective Perceived
Noise in decibels), whereby the cumulative margin is the figure expressed in
EPNdB obtained by adding the individual margins (i.e. the differences between the
certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise level) at each of the
three reference noise measurement points as defined in Volume 1, Part II,
Chapter 4 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention;

(5)
‘Noise-related action' means any measure that
impacts the noise climate around airports, for which the principles of the ICAO
Balanced Approach apply, including other non-operational actions that can
affect the number of people exposed to aircraft noise;

(6)
‘Operating restrictions’ means a noise-related
action that limits the access to or reduces the optimal capacity use of an
airport, including operating restrictions aimed at the withdrawal from
operations of marginally compliant aircraft at specific airports as well as
operating restrictions of a partial nature, affecting the operation of civil aircraft
according to time period.

Article 3

Competent
authorities

1.           Member States shall
designate competent authorities responsible for adopting measures on operating
restrictions, as well as an independent appeal body.

2.           The competent authorities and
the appeal body shall be independent of any organisation which could be
affected by noise-related action.

3.           The Member States shall
notify the Commission of the names and addresses of the designated competent
authorities and appeal body referred to in paragraph 1.

Article 4

General rules on aircraft noise
management

1.           Member States shall adopt
a Balanced Approach in regard to aircraft noise management. To this end, they
shall:

(a)          assess the noise situation
at an individual airport;

(b)          define the environmental
noise abatement objective;

(c)          identify measures
available to reduce the noise impact;

(d)          evaluate the likely
cost-effectiveness of the available measures;

(e)          select the measures;

(f)           consult the stakeholders in
a transparent way on the intended actions;

(g)          decide on the measures and
provide for sufficient notification;

(h)          implement the measures;
and

(i)           provide for dispute
resolution.

2.           Member States shall, when
taking noise-related action, consider the following combination of available
measures, with a view to determining the most cost-effective combination of
measures:

(a)          the foreseeable effect of
a reduction of aircraft noise at source;

(b)          land-use planning and
management;

(c)          noise abatement operational
procedures;

(d)          not as a first resort, operating
restrictions.

The available measures may include the
withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft, if so deemed necessary.

3.           Member States may, within
the Balanced Approach, differentiate noise mitigating measures according to aircraft
type, runway use and/or timeframe covered.

4.           Without prejudice to
paragraph 3, operating restrictions which take the form of a withdrawal of
marginally compliant aircraft from airport operations shall not affect civil
subsonic aircraft that comply, through either original certification or
recertification, with the noise standard in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 4
of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention.

5.           Measures or a combination
of measures taken in accordance with this Regulation for a given airport shall
not be more restrictive than necessary to achieve the environmental noise
abatement objectives set for that airport. Operating restrictions shall be
non-discriminatory, in particular on grounds of nationality, identity or activity
of aircraft operators.

6.           The measures taken in
accordance with this Regulation shall contribute to the 'National Action Plans'
relating to noise emitted by air traffic, as mentioned in Article 8 of
Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.[17]

Article 5

Rules on noise assessment

1.           The competent authorities
shall assess the noise situation at airports in their territory on a regular
basis, in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2002/49/EC and national
or local rules. The competent authorities may call on the support of the
Performance Review Body referred to in Article 3 of Commission Regulation
(EU) No 691/2010.[18]

2.           The competent authorities
shall use the method, indicators and information described in Annex I for
the assessment of the current and future noise situation.

3.           When the assessment of the
noise situation reveals that new measures are necessary to achieve or maintain
the level of noise abatement objectives, the competent authorities shall take
due account of the contribution of each type of measure under the Balanced
Approach, in accordance with Annex I.

4.           The competent authorities
shall ensure that, at the appropriate level, a forum for technical cooperation
is established between the airport operator, aircraft operator and air
navigation service provider, for actions which these operators are responsible for,
and taking due account of the interdependency between measures to mitigate
noise and to reduce emissions. The members of this forum for technical cooperation
shall regularly consult local residents or their represetntatives, and provide
technical information and advice on noise mitigating measures to the competent
authorities.

5.           The competent authorities
shall assess the cost-effectiveness of the new measures, as referred ton in paragraph
3 in accordance with Annex II. A minor technical amendment to an existing
measure without substantive implications on capacity or operations is not
considered as a new operating restriction.

6.           The competent authorities
shall organise the consultation process with interested parties in a timely and
substantive manner, ensuring openness and
transparency as regards data and computation methodology. Interested
parties shall have at least three months prior to the adoption of the new
measures to provide comments. The interested parties shall at least include:

(a)
representatives from local residents living in
the surroundings of the airports affected by air traffic noise;

(b)
relevant airport operators;

(c)
representatives of aircraft operators which may
be affected by noise-related actions;

(d)
relevant air navigation service providers;

(e)
the Network Manager, as defined in Commission
Regulation No 677/2011.[19]

7.           The competent authorities
shall follow up and monitor the implementation of the noise mitigating measures
and take action as appropriate. They shall ensure that relevant information is
provided on a regular basis to the local residents living in the surroundings
of the airports.

Article 6

Noise performance information

1.           Decisions on noise-related
operating restrictions shall be based on the noise performance of the aircraft
as determined by the certification procedure conducted in accordance with
Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention, fifth edition of
July 2008.

2.           At the request of the
Commission, aircraft operators shall communicate the following noise
information in respect of their aircraft that use Union airports:

(a)
the tail number of the aircraft;

(b)
the noise performance certificate or
certificates of the aircraft used, together with the associated actual maximum
take-off weight;

(c)
any modification of the aircraft which
influences its noise performance;

(d)
aircraft noise and performance information of
the aircraft for noise modelling purposes.

For each flight making use of a Union airport,
aircraft operators shall communicate the noise performance certificate used and
the tail number.

The data shall be provided free of charge, in
electronic form and using the format specified, where applicable.

3.           The Agency shall verify
the aircraft noise and performance data for modelling purposes in accordance
with Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European
Parliament and the Council.[20]

4.           Data shall be stored in a
central database and made available to competent authorities, aircraft
operators, air navigation service providers and airport operators for
operational purposes.

Article 7

Rules on the introduction of
operating restrictions

1.           Before introducing an
operating restriction, the competent authorities shall give notice of six
months, ending at least two months prior to the determination of the slot coordination
parameters as defined in Article 2, point m) of Council Regulation
EEC N° 95/93 [21]
for the airport concerned for the relevant scheduling period, to the Member
States, the Commission and the relevant interested parties.

2.           Following the assessment
carried out in accordance with Article 5, the notification of the decision
shall be accompanied by a written report explaining the reasons for introducing
the operating restriction, the environmental objective established for the
airport, the measures that were considered to meet that objective, and the
evaluation of the likely cost-effectiveness of the various measures considered,
including, where relevant, their cross-border impact.

3.           Where the operating restriction concerns the withdrawal
of marginally compliant aircraft from an airport, no new services shall be
allowed with marginally compliant aircraft at that airport six months after the
notification. The competent authorities shall decide on the annual rate for removing
marginally compliant aircraft from the fleet of affected operators at that
airport, taking due account of the age of the aircraft and the composition of
the total fleet. Without prejudice to paragraph 3 of Article 4, this rate shall
not be more than 20% of that operator’s fleet of marginally compliant aircraft
serving that airport.

4.           Any appeal against
decisions on noise-related operating restrictions shall be organised in
accordance with national law.

Article 8

Developing nations

1.           The competent authorities
may exempt marginally compliant aircraft registered in developing nations from
noise operating restrictions provided that such aircraft:

(a)
are granted a noise certification to the
standards specified in Chapter 3, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Chicago
Convention.

(b)
were operated in the Union during the five-year
period preceeding the entry into force of this Regulation, were on the register
of the developing nation concerned and continue to be operated by a natural or
legal person established in that nation.

2.           Where a Member State
grants an exemption provided for in paragraph 1, it shall forthwith inform
the competent authorities of the other Member States and the Commission of the
exemptions it has granted.

Article 9

Exemptions
for aircraft operations of an exceptional nature

On a case by case basis,
the competent authorities may authorise individual operations of marginally
compliant aircraft which could not take place on the basis of the provisions of
this Regulation, at airports situated in their territory.

The exemption shall be
limited to:

(a)
aircraft whose individual operations are of such
an exceptional nature that it would be unreasonable to withhold a temporary
exemption;

(b)
aircraft on non-revenue flights for the purpose
of alterations, repair or maintenance.

Article 10

Right of scrutiny

1.           At the
request of a Member State or on its own initiative, and without prejudice to a
pending appeal procedure, the Commission may scrutinise the decision on an
operating restriction, prior to its implementation. Where the Commission finds
that the decision does not respect the requirements set out in this Regulation,
or is otherwise contrary to Union law, it may suspend the
decision.

2.           The competent authorities
shall provide the Commission with information demonstrating compliance with
this Regulation.

3.           The Commission shall decide in accordance with the advisory procedure
laid down in Article 13(2), in particular taking into account the criteria in Annex II, whether the competent authority concerned may proceed with the
introduction of the operating restriction. The Commission shall communicate its
decision to the Council and the Member State concerned.

4.           Where the Commission has
not adopted a decision within a period of six months after it has received the information referred to in paragraph 2, the
competent authority may apply the envisaged decision on an operating
restriction.

Article 11

Delegated acts

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt
delegated acts in accordance with Article 12 concerning:

(a)
amendments of the definitions of aircraft in
Article 2 point (3) and of marginally compliant aircraft in Article 2
point (4);

(b)
amendments and updates of the noise
certification standards provided for in Articles 4 and 8; and of the
certification procedure provided for in Article 6(1).

(c)
amendments to the method and technical report set
out in Annex I.

Article 12

Exercise of the delegation

1.           The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the
Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.           The
delegation of power referred to in Article 11 shall be conferred for an
indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this
Regulation.

3.           The
delegation of power referred to in Article 11 may be revoked by the
European Parliament or by the Council. The revocation shall put an end to the
delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect the
day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the
European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect
the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.           As
soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it
simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.           A delegated
act adopted pursuant to Article 11 shall enter into force only if no
objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council
within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European
Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the
European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they
will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative
of the European Parliament or the Council.

Article 13

Committee

1.           The Commission shall be assisted by the committee instituted by
Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and
of the Council.[22]

This committee is a committee within the meaning of
Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

2.           Where
reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU)
No 182/2011 shall apply.

3.           Where
the opinion of the committee is to be obtained by written procedure, that
procedure shall be terminated without result when, within the time limit for
delivery of the opinion, the chair of the committee so decides or a simple
majority of committee members so request.

Article 14

Information and revision

Member States shall
submit information on the application of this Regulation to the Commission upon
request.

No later than five years
after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall report to
the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this
Regulation.

The report shall be
accompanied, where necessary, by proposals for revision of this Regulation.

Article 15

Repeal

Directive 2002/30/EC is repealed with
effect as from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

Article 16

Entry into force

This Regulation shall
enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall
be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels,

For the
European Parliament                       For the Council

The President                                                 The
President

ANNEX I

Assessment
of the noise situation at an airport

Methodology:

1.           Competent authorities will use
noise assessment methods which have been developed in accordance with the ECAC
Report Doc 29 'Report on Standard Method of Computing Noise Contours
around Civil Airports', 3rd Edition.

Indicators:

1.           Air traffic noise impact will be
described, at least, in terms of noise indicators Lden and Lnight
which are defined and calculated in accordance with Annex I to Directive
2002/49/EC.

2.           Competent authorities may use
additional noise indicators which have a scientific basis to reflect the
annoyance of air traffic noise.

Noise management information:

1.           Current inventory

1.1         A description of the airport
including information about its size, location, surroundings, air traffic
volume and mix.

1.2         A description of the environmental
sustainability objectives for the airport and the national context. This will
include a description of the aircraft noise objectives for the airport.

1.3         Details of noise contours for the
current and previous years – including an assessment of the number of people
affected by aircraft noise.

1.4         A description of the existing and
planned measures to manage aircraft noise already implemented in the framework
of the Balanced Approach and their impact and contribution to the noise
situation, which will include:

1.4.1. For reduction at source:

-           Evolution of aircraft fleet and
technology improvements;

-           Specific fleet modernisation plans;

1.4.2. For land-use planning and management:

-           Planning instruments in place,
like comprehensive planning or noise zoning;

-           Mitigating measures in place,
like building codes, noise insulation programmes or measures to reduce areas of
sensitive land use;

-           Consultation process of the
land-use measures;

-           Follow-up of encroachment;

1.4.3. For noise abatement operational
measures, to the extent that these measures do not restrict capacity of an
airport:

-           Use of preferential runways;

-           Use of noise preferential
routes;

-           Use of noise abatement take-off
and approach procedures.

-           Indication of the extent to which
these measures are regulated under environment indicators, mentioned in Annex I
to Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010.

1.4.4.     For operating restrictions:

-           Use of global restrictions,
like cap rules on movements or noise quotas;

-           Financial instruments in place,
like noise-related airport charges;

-           Use of aircraft-specific
restrictions, like the withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft;

-           Use of partial restrictions,
making a distinction between measures at day and during the night.

2.           Forecast without new measures

2.1         Descriptions of airport
developments (if any) already approved and in the pipeline, for example,
increased capacity, runway and/or terminal expansion, and the projected future
traffic mix and estimated growth.

2.2         In the case of airport capacity
extension the benefits of making that additional capacity available within the
wider aviation network and the region.

2.3         A description of effect on noise
climate without further measures, and of those measures already planned to
ameliorate the noise impact over the same period.

2.4         Forecast noise contours –
including an assessment of the number of people likely to be affected by
aircraft noise – distinguish between established residential areas and newly
constructed residential areas.

2.5         Evaluation of the consequences and
possible costs of not taking action to reduce the impact of increased noise –
if it is expected to occur.

3.           Assessment of additional
measures

3.1         Outline of the additional measures
available and an indication of the main reasons for their selection.
Description of those measures chosen for further analysis and information on
the outcome of the cost-efficiency analysis, in particular the cost of
introducing these measures; the number of people expected to benefit and
timeframe; and a ranking of the overall effectiveness of particular measures.

3.2         An overview of the possible
environmental and competitive effects of the proposed measures on other
airports, operators and other interested parties.

3.3         Reasons for selection of the
preferred option.

3.4         A non-technical summary.

ANNEX II

Assessment
of the cost-effectiveness of noise-related operating restrictions

The cost-effectiveness of envisaged noise-related
operating restrictions will be assessed taking due account of following
elements, to the extent possible, in quantifiable terms:

1)         The anticipated noise benefit of
the envisaged measures, now and in the future;

2)         Safety of aviation operations,
including third party risk;

3)         Capacity of the airport;

4)         Effects on the Europan aviation
network.

In addition competent authorities may take
due account of following factors:

1)         Health and safety of local
residents living in the surroundings of the airport;

2)         Environmental sustainability, including
interdependencies between noise and emissions;

3)         Direct, indirect and catalytic
employment effects.

[1]               Source: CAEP/8 – Information Paper 8 – expressed in
Day-Night average noise levels (DNL) – baseline scenario, without substantial
technology or operational improvements – ICAO European regio

[2]               The Clean Sky JTI will be one of the largest European
research projects ever, with a budget estimated at €1.6 billion, equally
shared between the European Commission and industry, over the period 2008 -
2013.

[3]               The
Boeing database 'Airports with Noise Restrictions' is publicly available at: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/listcountry.html.
Although only 69 airports are currently covered by the Directive, more airports
will fall within its scope with increased traffic foreseen for the future. Therefore
an overview of all 224 airports is provided.

[4]               Curfews limit operations during a certain period of
time (noise-related restrictions on traffic).

[5]               While this is the AEA statement, its position should
represent all operators, namely ERA (regional), IACA (leisure) and ELFAA (low
cost), as they are affected in quite similar ways. Only IACA may have
relatively more night flights for their operations.

[6]               The Airports Council International ACI has a specific
working group on the issue.

[7]               ACNUSA (together with its Walloon sister
organisation) is a unique forum for tackling, in an advisory capacity, noise
nuisances independently from authorities and airports.

[8]               European States were threatened with an official
complaint procedure in ICAO.

[9]               OJ C , , p. .

[10]               OJ C , , p. .

[11]               OJ C , , p. .

[12]               OJ C , , p. .

[13]               OJ L85, 28.3.2002, p.40.

[14]               OJ L 374, 27.12.2006; p.1.

[15]               COM(2008)66

[16]               OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.

[17]               OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

[18]             OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 1.

[19]             OJ L 185 ,15.7.2011, p. 1.

[20]             OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1.

[21]             OJ L 14 22.01.1993.

[22]             OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3.