[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 14.3.2006

COM(2006) 128 final

2000/0069 (COD)

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 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) n° 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (EU-OPS)

2000/0069 (COD)

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 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) n° 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (EU-OPS)

Background

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council (document COM(2000)[121] final – [2000]/[0069]COD) | [24 March 2000] |

Date of the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee: | [19 October 2000] |

Date of the first opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: | [18 January 2001] |

Date of transmission of the amended proposal to the EP and the Council (document COM(2002)[30] final – [2000]/[0069]COD) | [04 February 2002] |

Date of the second opinion of the European Parliament, first reading | [03 September 2002] |

Date of transmission of the revised amended proposal to the EP and the Council (document COM(2004)[73] final – [2000]/[0069]COD) | [12 February 2004] |

Date of partial political agreement by Council(qualified majority) | [10 December 2004] |

Date of adoption of the common position | [9 March 2006] |

1. OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL

1.1. When preparing the second aviation liberalisation package in 1989, the Council and the Commission agreed that Community air transport policy should also address the harmonisation of the regulatory framework applicable to civil aviation in order to maintain a high level of aviation safety and guarantee fair competition between air carriers . In that context, the Community adopted Regulation 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation with the aim of establishing and keeping up to date harmonised rules for the design, manufacture, operation and maintenance of aircraft, and for personnel and organisations involved in these tasks.

1.2. In March 2000, the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal to amend that Regulation in order to include operational rules designed to guarantee the operation of aircraft under satisfactory safety conditions[1]. These rules, applicable to air carriers, were based on rules already drawn up by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA).[2]

1.3. As this first proposal to amend Regulation 3922/91 was held up in the Council, in February 2004 the Commission submitted an amended proposal to amend Regulation 3922/91 , in particular to take into account the comments made by the Council and Parliament when examining its initial proposal.

1.4. Accordingly, the new Commission proposal included minimum requirements [3] for cabin crew who must now be certified, as is already the case in the United States and was called for by the personnel concerned and part of the industry. These minimum requirements should help to improve aviation safety by raising personnel standards. In addition, they should facilitate their mobility within a completely liberalised aviation transport market

1.5. The new Commission proposal also included a flight time limitation (FTL) scheme for flight crew , as requested by the European Parliament which was concerned about national disparities in this connection. For a long time in fact, professional pilots’ associations and several air carriers have been very critical of these disparities which adversely affect safety and the normal operation of competition:

- Many aviation accident investigations have identified crew fatigue as one of the factors contributing to the accident.

- The national flight time regulations are in some cases lax and allow air carriers to get the personnel concerned to work excessively long hours, to the detriment of safety and of companies subject to stricter laws.

The flight time provisions contained in the Commission proposal were presented in the form of minimum requirements which the Member States would be at liberty to make more restrictive. In addition, they are sufficiently flexible to allow specific national situations to be taken into account.

2. COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION

2.1. In its Common Position, the Council observes that the amendment proposed by the Parliament has been entirely taken on board, subject to some minor refinements. The Commission agrees that with the inclusion of these minor adjustments, the text of the Council’s common position ensures that the aim sought by the amendment of Parliament is achieved.

2.2. In agreeing to the Council’s Common Position the Commission accepts the Council’s disposition to agree on the major tenets of the Commission proposal, whilst on some points deciding to modify the text citing the need for more clarity and simplification in order to facilitate the readability of the text.

2.3. In the content of the Articles per se:

- The Council made some changes to the flexibility provisions in Article 8, namely in paragraph 4, where the Council widened the prerogative for Member States to adopt or maintain provisions relating to a very limited number of OPS (technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation) until common rules based on scientific knowledge and best practices are established at a Community level. The Commission considers that this as an acceptable compromise in particular because the means of compliance in this area may vary without necessarily implying a threat to safety levels. Furthermore, the Commission has now submitted a new proposal[4] which will task inter alia European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to develop implementing rules in all of these domains.

- In Article 8a the Council offers that the provisions of Subpart Q (flight time limitation) and, as appropriate, Subpart O (cabin crew) of Annex III should be evaluated from a scientific and medical point of view within a period of three years following the entry into force of the Regulation. Additionally, the Council position places upon the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the responsibility to carry out this work as well as that of assisting the Commission in preparing proposals for the modification of the technical provisions of Subpart Q as applicable. This is acceptable to the Commission, furthermore since it tallies with its parallel initiative ( see above ) of extending the competences ascribed to the Agency.

- The Council states that given the time needed for adaptation to the new technical rules, Member States should apply Annex III with effect from 18 months after entry into force of this Regulation (and not with effect from 6 months, as proposed by the Commission). The Commission can accept this compromise.

- Within Annex III itself, the Council has made some modifications in order to align the text fully to JAR-OPS 1 Amendment 8 citing the intention to making the text clearer and more precise. This is also acceptable to the Commission.

2.4. The Commission agrees with the view expressed in the Council’s Common Position that in the context of advancing techniques and changing circumstances in the field of modern aviation, given the lengthy period of inter-institutional deliberation needed for the finalisation of the current text, Annex III could already be improved on certain points at this point in time. However, the lengthy work on this voluminous text has now been matured enough for finalisation as it currently stands.

2.5. In this respect, the Commission reiterates once again its commitment that its services would as soon as possible after entry into force of the Regulation start the work regarding further fine-tuning and updating of the text via the comitology procedure, whereby it would carefully consider the proactive suggestions for modification that have already been presented by some Member States.

Conclusions

The Commission notes that the Common Position adopted on 9 March 2006 largely follows the opinion of the European Parliament in first reading. The Commission also appreciates that the delicate and balanced compromise found in the Council text has been arrived at only after very long discussions. The Commission is therefore in a position to accept the Common Position.

COMMISSION DECLARATION

The Commission together with the Council made a declaration at the occasion of the adoption of the Common Position (see Annex I).

ANNEX

Statement by the Commission and the Council re Article 8a

The Commission has submitted a proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency to extend its scope to air operations and crew licensing. A decision on this proposal will enable EASA to carry out the evaluation referred to in Article 8a. The Council undertakes that it will examine such proposal with priority.

[1] These operational rules concern operator certification, aircraft operation and maintenance and crew training.

[2] The Joint Aviation Authorities is an association of the national aviation authorities of thirty-seven European countries, including the twenty-five EU Member States, created to establish harmonised aviation safety requirements.

[3] The minimum requirements may be supplemented by the Member States, which may adopt stricter requirements. In the case of cabin crew, the minimum requirements concern age, physical fitness and professional training.A minimum requirement may lay down, for example, a minimum content for training or a minimum age. However, the Member States may lay down stricter rules (require more training or increase the age limit). Similarly, a minimum requirement may lay down a minimum rest period for crew which can be increased but not reduced by Member States, or a maximum flight time. National rules allowing a longer maximum flight time would be incompatible while a national rule allowing a shorter maximum flying time would be compatible.

[4] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (document COM(2005)[579] final – [2005]/[0228]COD)