COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the Common Position of the Council on the adoption of a European Parliament and Council Directive on the assessment and management of environmental noise

1. procedure

The Proposal COM(2000)468 final of July 2000 [1] was forwarded to the Council on 26 July 2000 in accordance with the co-decision procedure pursuant to Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty.

[1] OJ C 337, 28.11.2000.

The Economic and Social Committee gave its opinion on 29 November 2000.

The Committee of the Regions gave its opinion on 14 February 2001.

The European Parliament gave its opinion at the first reading in session on 14 December 2000. The European Parliament confirmed as its first reading under the co-decision procedure its vote of 14 December 2000.

Following the opinion of the European Parliament and pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Council reached political agreement on a Common Position on 18 December 2000. The Council adopted the Common Position formally on 7 June 2001.

2. purpose of the directive

The proposed Directive will contribute to the protection of human health and the environment as required by Articles 174 and 152 of the Treaty.

It seeks to monitor the environmental problem caused by noise, require noise action plans to be produced, inform and consult the public about noise pollution and measures being taken to deal with it, and develop a long-term EU noise strategy with a view to reducing the number of people being affected. The key objectives therefore are to:

- move to common noise indicators within and between the Member States in order to produce a comparable assessment of the annoyance and sleep disturbance being caused by noise across the Community;

- produce and publish strategic noise maps of major agglomerations, roads, railways and airports;

- require the competent authorities for those major agglomerations, roads, railways and airports to produce and publish noise action plans in consultation with the public, with the particular involvement of those living locally;

- review the measures already being taken at Community level to reduce the number of people being affected by noise (e.g. through market access legislation on noise from various products), and consider whether these need to be strengthened and/or added to with new legislation. In particular, the review will consider the merits of setting EU noise limit values.

3. commission comments

3.1. General comments

The Commission accepted totally, in part or in principle twenty-two of the thirty-seven amendments proposed by the European Parliament in the first reading. Sixteen of these amendments have been incorporated in the common position totally, in part or in principle.

The Commission accepted all amendments which allowed transitional arrangements for noise assessment, and which reduced the burden of information required from Member States. It also accepted in principle the amendments strengthening arrangements for public consultation; many of the amendments which offered small extensions to the remit of the proposal, as well as those which usefully clarified the definitions. The Council followed the Commission's lead in most of these respects.

The Commission did not accept the amendments proposing daughter directives on new limit values on noise emissions from source, because it believes it would be premature to set limit values in this proposal.

The Commission considers that the Common Position does not alter the basic approach and aims of the Proposal and that it clarifies many aspects. In other aspects, the proposal has been weakened, and the timetable delayed. Consequently the Commission can broadly support the Common Position, but will be flexible in its approach to second reading.

3.2. Detailed comments

3.2.1. Parliamentary amendments accepted by the Commission and incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 2 deletes the final sentence of Recital 5. This text has been deleted from what is now Recital 6. (A new Recital 5 has been added to the Common Position, and the subsequent recitals renumbered.)

Amendment 3 adds text to Recital 6 explaining that there is currently no common definition of "environmental noise" and suggests that where Member States' own limit values exist these should be defined taking into account "the principle of prevention". These points are now reflected in Recital 7 (as renumbered) of the common position.

Amendment 4 inserts a new Recital 7a referring to a new noise indicator for sleep disturbance which defines a maximum level. This is not necessary as the indicator proposed in the directive - Lnight - has been agreed to be the most appropriate to measure sleep disturbance, and because a supplementary indicator based on a maximum level has been explicitly added to Annex I.3 by the Council. Thus the amendment has been taken on board in principle but elsewhere in the text.

Amendment 6 inserts a new Recital 9a, proposing Member States' methods for measuring and representing noise should remain in force during a transitional period. The principle behind this amendment was accepted, and is reflected in Article 5 of the Common Position.

Amendment 13 inserts the words "in particular" to the scope of the directive. These words have been added, though some of the surrounding text has been altered to reflect amendment 42 below.

Amendment 42 deletes the words "perceived by humans", "relatively quiet areas in an agglomeration", "in the case of pupils" and "in the case of patients" from the scope of the directive. The Common Position incorporates three out of four of these deletions; "quiet areas in an agglomeration" remains.

Amendment 44 to Article 3 removes the examples given to illustrate harmful health effects. These have now been removed.

Amendment 15 inserts a new definition for LAmax, an indicator for maximum permitted noise level. This was accepted in principle, because although Lden and Lnight have been agreed to be two most appropriate noise indicators for the purposes of the directive. Member States are still at liberty to use additional noise indicators, such as LAmax, for their own purposes (see Annex I. 3.). However, it is not appropriate or necessary to define LAmax or any other additional indicator in the directive.

Amendment 21 is similar to amendment 6 above, proposing that Member States' noise indicators should continue to be used during a transitional period. This has been reflected in Article 5.1 of the common position.

Similarly, amendment 22 supports Member States' continued use of their own noise assessment methods. Under Article 6 of the common position, a transitional arrangement has now been included.

Amendment 46 requires action plans to be revised "when a major development occurs" as well as every 5 years. This text has been incorporated,.

Amendments 28 and 29 insert further clarification on public information, and these have also been accepted in part in the Common Position, through the new definition of the public in Article 3, but also through the Council's changes to Articles 8 and 9.

Amendment 30 inserts new text on public information, which has been inserted verbatim, except the reference to the new paragraphs 1 and 3 which are now covered by the definition of the public in Article 3.

Amendment 32 deletes the whole of article 12, which allows the annexes of the directive to be adapted by comitology. This has been partially accepted in the common position, in that the comitology procedure has been restricted to Annex I subparagraph 3 (supplementary noise indicators), Annex II (assessment methods) and Annex III (assessment methods for health effects). The other annexes continue to be adapted through full co-decision procedure.

Amendments 34 and 35 delete the requirements for Member States to provide data about noise exposure of school pupils and hospital patients. This has been accepted.

3.2.2. Parliamentary amendments accepted by the Commission but not incorporated in the common position

Amendment 1 alters the title to read "setting up a Community framework" for the assessment and management of environmental noise. This wording was acceptable to the Commission, on the understanding that it does not necessarily entail consequential framework directives.

Amendment 39 inserts reference to four general principles. This was unacceptable to the Council, in part because it does not reflect the broad overarching principles contained in Treaty provisions, but would be acceptable to the Commission, provided the principles referred to are prefaced by "inter alia".

Amendment 45 deletes text from the definition of quiet areas in the open country. This was acceptable to the Commission but the Council could not agree to its deletion.

3.2.3. Parliamentary amendments rejected by the Commission and the Council and not incorporated in the common position

Amendment 5 adds new text to Recital 9 suggesting limits on noise levels should be improved for road and rail vehicles, and tyres. This is not proportionate, as other sources also contribute to environmental noise; and premature, as we need to assess the overall noise situation before we make further assumptions about sources.

Amendment 41 deletes the final clause of Recital 10. The reference to an "affordable cost envelope" was retained in order to safeguard proportionality, and because during consultation with the European Parliament and other stakeholders on the future noise policy green paper in 1996, particular emphasis was put on cost-benefit implications.

Amendment 8 inserts a new Recital 10a making the case for EU noise limit values, particularly around airports. Subsequent amendments 38, 10 and 11 also propose setting limit values, with or without requiring daughter directives. This approach is considered too premature on the basis of scientific evidence at the European level. We do not currently have enough harmonised information about the noise situation to be able to set limit values for Europe. Also, daughter directives for this purpose are unnecessary as for many sources, if the Commission were to decide to propose new limit values, this might be done through existing legislation without requiring new directives. The Directive does however require Member States to submit comparable noise maps and action plans for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations so that in the future, as part of the Article 11 review and reporting clause, the Commission could consider proposing to set limit values as one of the measures available in noise reduction scenarios.

Amendment 14 extends the scope of the directive to include noise emitted by "all types of machinery" from industrial sites or buildings. This specification was rejected because equipment used outdoors is already covered by directive 2000/14/EC and emissions inside industrial buildings are covered by health and safety legislation.

Amendment 16 deletes the word "civil" from the definition of "major airport". This was rejected so that purely military airports could continue to be excluded.

Amendment 17 inserts a new clause requiring Member States to declare "measures to reduce the causes of exceeding of limit values". This formulation was rejected on the advice of the Council Legal Service.

Amendment 18 inserts new text broadening the definition of action plans, to include "activities designed to reduce noise at places (...) where the limit value is in danger of being exceeded". This was rejected on the grounds that it was covered by the phrase "designed to manage noise issues and effects".

Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the competent authorities responsible for noise maps and action plans should be independent. The designation of the competent authorities is a matter for Member States and so the amendment has been rejected.

Amendment 20 requires Member States to use additional noise indicators for special cases. Under the common position text Member States are in effect free to use any indicators they wish for purposes other than strategic noise mapping. It is not for the European Community to prescribe these.

Amendments 23 and 25 require noise maps and action plans respectively to be produced in case of serious complaints from the public. These were rejected because of the difficulty in defining a "serious complaint".

Amendment 24 seeks a transitional arrangement during which existing national noise maps can be used. This was rejected because the strategic noise maps we want to produce under this directive are something completely new, and quite different from maps member states have produced in the past.

Amendment 26 requires industrial action plans. These are not necessary because noise from industry inside agglomerations will be mapped and covered in the action plans for those agglomerations. Outside agglomerations, quiet areas in the open country are also protected under the terms of the directive.

Amendment 33 deletes the whole of Article 13 which defines that the Committee which will develop the directive should be that provided for in Directive 2000/14/EC on noise from equipment used outdoors. This was rejected because a noise Committee is required in order to adapt the technical annexes to scientific progress, and it is logical that to minimise expense and bureaucracy, Commission services have insisted that there should be only one standing committee on noise. The Committee established under 2000/14/EC will have the competence to deal with technical noise issues.

3.2.4. Changes made by the Council to the Proposal

Recitals

Minor clarifying amendments were made to Recitals 3 and 4. At the end of Recital 4, a new sentence states that the directive should provide a basis for developing existing Community measures on noise emission from source, and for developing additional measures in the short, medium and long term. This text replaces Recital 10, which is deleted.

A new Recital 5 was added to clarify the categories of noise excluded from the Directive.

Recital 6 (formerly 5) was amended in order better to relate the proposal to Treaty objectives and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and also to reflect amendment 2, as accepted.

Recital 7 (formerly 6) was amended to clarify that it is for Member States to determine the level of any noise limit values they set.

Recital 8 (formerly 7) was lengthened to show the rationale behind the selection of indicators Lden and Lnight, to reflect amendment 6, and to clarify that it is open to Member States to use supplementary indicators in special cases.

Recitals 9 and 10 replace the former Recital 8 in order better to reflect the text of the Articles, without duplication.

New Recital 11 deals with public information.

In Recital 12 (formerly 9) the word "citizens" was replaced with "public"

Recitals 14 and 15 are renumbered versions of the previous Recitals 11 and 12, slightly reworked to reflect standard legal text.

Article 1

Objectives

The aim is now "to combat on a prioritised basis the effects of exposure to environmental noise". This is weaker than the original proposal, which referred to avoiding, preventing or reducing the harmful effects on human health of exposure to noise.

More explicit reference is now made to noise mapping and action plans. A new paragraph 2 states that the directive shall provide a basis for developing Community measures to reduce noise from sources.

Article 2

Scope

In paragraph 1, "noise perceived by humans in and near their home" has been replaced by "noise to which humans are exposed in built-up areas". The original proposal had sought to move the focus of noise policy towards measuring people's perception of noise where they live, and the consequent health effects and away from the traditional approach of measuring emissions out of doors (which after all does not reflect individuals' sensitivity to noise).

Later in paragraph 1, "relatively quiet areas" are now simply "quiet areas". There is no longer reference to pupils and patients. In paragraph 2, there is a new exemption for noise "due to military activities in military areas".

Article 3

Definitions

There have been a number of mostly minor changes to the definitions. Among the more significant changes, the Commission is satisfied with the following:

* Deletion of the definition of "human health" (formerly 3(b)) and "noise zone" (formerly 3(m)).

* In the definition of "quiet areas in the open country", the deletion of the phrase "where natural quiet can be experienced".

* In the definition of "major airport", the addition of an exclusion of aircraft movements purely for training purposes on light aircraft.

* Addition of a definition of "the public" (3 (x))

* Deletion of the definitions of "special insulation against noise" and "a relatively quiet façade"; it was agreed it was preferable to define these in the Annex concerned (now Annex VI).

Less satisfactory is the inclusion of two new definitions for Lday and Levening noise indicators (3f and g) and the consequent change to the definition of "limit value", giving Member States the option to determine such values in terms of Lday and Levening. The original proposal intended that Lden and Lnight should be the only indicators for the purposes of the directive.

Article 4

Implementation and responsibilities

Paragraph 2 - which asked Member States to ensure the accuracy of assessment methods - has been deleted. The Commission accepted this, but was less content with the first of many changes to the directive's timetable made in paragraph 3. In the original proposal, all the deadlines were given as specific dates. In this article, where previously the deadline for designating the competent authorities was 30 June 2003, the Common Position text reads 3 years after entry into force. Given that the directive is unlikely to enter into force until the end of 2001 at the earliest, these changes represent a delay of at least 18 months. This now applies to almost all of the provisions in the proposal.

Article 5

Noise indicators and their application

In paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article in the common position, the use of the noise indicators Lden and Lnight has been restricted to the preparation and revision of strategic noise mapping. These common indicators are no longer required for acoustical planning and noise zoning.

A new paragraph 1 (a) has been added, which allows Member States to continue to use existing national noise indicators and related data until the use of common assessment methods for the determination of Lden and Lnight is made obligatory. Since it will be some time before the common assessment methods are finalised, this approach is likely to delay seriously the use of common indicators, and consequently delay the production of meaningful and comparable noise maps.

In paragraph 4, Member States are given the option to determine limit values in terms of Lday and Levening. The original proposal intended that Lden and Lnight should be the only indicators for the purposes of the directive.

Article 6

Assessment methods

In paragraph 1, "computation or measurement" is replaced by the more general "assessment". The Commission welcomes this.

A new paragraph 2 has been added, under which Member States are permitted to use their own noise assessment methods (with some provisos) until the common assessment methods have been agreed through Comitology. The Commission has grave doubts about this approach, because no Member State has experience of the type of noise assessment and strategic mapping that the proposal envisages.

In paragraph 3, the text has been weakened so that harmful effects "may" (no longer "shall") be assessed by means of the dose-effect relations referred to in Annex III. The original proposal had sought to use the directive to develop a comparable assessment of the harmful effects of noise throughout the Community.

Article 7

Strategic Noise Mapping

The title of this article has been changed to reflect the distinction being made between strategic (i.e. EU level) noise mapping and the more local, small scale noise maps which will continue to be produced within Member States.

Once again, the deadlines in this article have been delayed by changing from 31 December 2004, 30 June 2003, 31 December 2009 and 31 December 2008 to no later than five / three / ten / eight years respectively after the entry into force of the directive.

In paragraphs 1 and 2, the two-stage process for noise mapping adopted for agglomerations - whereby in the first stage only agglomerations with over 250,000 inhabitants would be mapped, and in a second stage the maps would extend to those with over 100,000 - has now also been adopted for major roads and major railways. In the first stage, only roads and railways having more than 6 million vehicle passages and 60,000 train passages per annum respectively are covered; extending to include those over 3 million and 30,000 in the second stage. This is a logical approach.

Paragraph 5 has been changed so that strategic noise maps shall be reviewed and revised if necessary, at least every five years. These changes give more flexibility to Member States.

Article 8

Action Plans

As before, the deadlines in this article have been delayed by changing from specific dates to years after entry into force.

The same two-stage process for major roads and railways has been adopted as described above for the noise mapping. Again, this is logical.

New text has been added to paragraph 1 (a), clarifying that the measures in the action plans are at the discretion of Member States. Paragraph 5 has been changed, so that action plans shall be reviewed and revised if necessary, at least every five years, and when a major development occurs affecting the existing noise situation. These changes give more flexibility to Member States, and reflect the EP amendment 46.

A new paragraph 6 has been added, requiring neighbouring Member States to co-operate on the action plans for border regions. A new paragraph 7 has also been added, strengthening the text on public participation in the action planning process.

Article 9

Information to the public

This has been revised in light of the fact that text on public participation on action plans has been moved to Article 8. The Council has included a reference to Directive 90/313/EEC, on the understanding that this will be automatically amended to refer to the new draft directive on access to environmental information once this has been adopted. This approach lacks some transparency, as it would be preferable to state more clearly the requirements for public information rather than cross-refer to other Directives.

Article 10

Collection and publication of data by Member States and the Commission

The former paragraph 1 has been deleted as it was felt to be superfluous. In the new paragraph 1 (former paragraph 2), the timetable has been changed to allow Member States six instead of three months to send information from strategic noise maps and summaries to the Commission. This further delay to the timetable in effect reduces the time the Commission will have to produce its report on the data. Paragraph 2 (former paragraph 3) has been lengthened to give more explanation of what the Commission will do with the data provided by Member States. Paragraph 3 has been amended to clarify the deadline for the Commission's first summary report.

Article 11

Review and Reporting

This article has seen significant changes. Firstly, the deadline in this article has again been delayed by changing from a specific date (31 December 2007) to no later than seven years after the entry into force of the directive.

In paragraph 2, the notion of Community quality objectives has been lost, and replaced with "Community actions for environmental noise". Litera (a) has been changed slightly to look at the number of persons "harmfully" affected by environmental noise, "taking particularly into account the different climates and different cultures". Litera (b) puts a new emphasis on noise reduction from specific sources.

A new and technically detailed paragraph 4 has been added, under which the Commission will reconsider the possibility for a 1.5m noise measurement height for 1-storey houses, and a possible lower limit for the estimated number of people exposed to different bands of noise. The Commission accepts this addition but reiterates that no Member State has undertaken strategic noise mapping, and that for such mapping computation, rather than measurement, is likely to be the primary noise assessment method.

Article 12

Adaptation

This has been changed to restrict the use of the Comitology procedure to Annex I point 3 (supplementary noise indicators), Annex II (assessment methods) and Annex III (assessment methods for health effects). This is acceptable to the Commission and reflects EP Amendment 32 at least in part.

Article 13

Committee

Paragraph 4 literas (a) and (b) have been deleted; reference to the drawing up of guidelines is now contained in the Annexes.

Article 14

Evaluation

This has been deleted and incorporated into Article 11.

Article 15

Transposition

In paragraph 1, the deadline for transposition has been altered to "no later than 24 months after the adoption of the Directive" instead of "not later than 30 June 2003".

Article 16

Entry into force

This has been amended so that entry into force is now on the day of publication in the Official Journal, and not twenty days afterwards.

ANNEXES

ANNEX I - Noise indicators

The Council has made some clarifications to the text of this Annex, including on the definition of an average year and of incident sound.

The definition of the noise indicator Lden has been significantly modified to allow Member States to shift up to two hours from the evening period to the day and/or the night period. The Commission considers that this modification might introduce differences in the data provided by the Member States without bringing any extra protection to people exposed to noise. It therefore considers that special attention should be given to this issue during the forthcoming legislative procedure.

In part 3 some new indicators, based on maximum noise levels, were added to the supplementary noise indicators that could be used by the Member States for special cases.

ANNEX II - Assessment methods for the noise indicators

The Council has modified the structure of this Annex in order to clarify its purpose. This is satisfactory to the Commission, although it considers that some provisions related to assessment methods laid down in some other parts of the directive (notably in article 5 for the use of existing data and in Annex I for the height of assessment) should be inserted in this Annex.

ANNEX III - Assessment methods for health effects

Annex III was formerly dedicated to "Minimum requirements for mapping software", but the Council moved this matter to section 8 of Annex IV.

It was agreed to create a new Annex III, which deals with "Assessment methods for health effects", as a development of the former part 4 of Annex II.

ANNEX IV - Minimum requirements for strategic noise mapping

The Council has modified several parts of this Annex in order to clarify its provisions. In particular, with regard to the changes introduced in article 7 on noise mapping, this annex is now limited to strategic (i.e. EU level) noise mapping. For other purposes, such as informing the citizens and developing action plans, only a few basic guidelines are given to the Member States.

ANNEX V - Minimum requirements for action plans

As action plans are within Members States' responsibilities, the Council has modified several parts of this Annex so that gives only basic guidelines for the content of action plans. In particular, these modifications are intended to distinguish the information requirements of the action plans from the measures within them, which are at the discretion of the responsible authorities.

ANNEX VI - Data to be sent to the Commission

The Council has modified this Annex with a view to reducing the amount of data to be sent by the Member States to the Commission. These modifications have weakened the provisions related to noise exposure evaluation in the Directive. In particular, the lower and higher values of Lden and Lnight, between which an estimation of the number of people exposed to noise must be carried out, have been changed. This reduces the range of evaluation of noise exposure. These changes will make it more difficult to get a good overview of the annoyance related to noise, and particularly the preservation of quiet zones.

4. conclusion

The changes introduced by the Council in general act to clarify the text of the proposed Directive. In other aspects, the proposal has been weakened, and the timetable delayed. The Commission therefore broadly supports the Common Position, but will be flexible in its approach to second reading.