WRITTEN QUESTION E-1914/99

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Implementation of Regulation on the registration and operation of certain types of subsonic jet aeroplanes

1. Is there any truth in the report in the Financial Times of 10 September 1999 on the state of negotiations with the USA on authorising aircraft with hushkits?

2. Is the Commission aware that on 16 September 1998 the European Parliament adopted by a qualified majority a Regulation banning such modified American aircraft from European airports as from 1 April 2002 (Council Regulation 925/1999(1) of 29 April 1999)?

3. Why did this Regulation not enter into force on the agreed date, thereby creating additional opportunities to import these noisy American aircraft into Europe? What legal basis did the Commission have for doing this? The visit by Commissioner Kinnock to the Committee on the Environment in July 1999 certainly did not provide any legal basis for deferring or amending the Regulation!

4. Is the Commission aware how much is being spent in the Member States on acoustic barriers and insulation around national and regional airports (remedial action) and how strong an interest the authorities and the public therefore have in ensuring that aircraft are quiet (action at source)?

5. Why is the American aircraft-manufacturing industry being treated with kid gloves? Apparently, even the slightest protest from the United States is sufficient to prevent European rules from being implemented, or to secure their postponement.

6. Can an undertaking be given that the European Regulation (which is directly applicable) will enter into force without delay?

(1) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

1. The article in the Financial Times of 10 September 1999 reflects the position taken by the American Administration during a hearing on 9 September 1999 in a committee of the American Congress on the hushkits regulation and does not reflect the Commission's assessment of the discussions with the United States. This is set out in detail in its communication(1) to the other Community institutions of

29 September 1999 on progress made in the consultations with the United States on the development of a new generation noise standard for civil subsonic jet aeroplanes and phase-out measures for the noisiest categories of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes within Chapter 3.

2. The Commission is fully aware of the adoption on 16 September 1998 by the Parliament, on the basis of the report by Mr Valverde Lopez, of its opinion in first reading concerning the Commission proposal for a Council directive on the use and registration within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on international civil aviation, third edition(2).

3. Although the Commission has worked towards the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 on 29 April 1999(3) at the date provided for in its initial proposals, it did not object to the Council decision taken by unanimity, in this exceptional case and without creating a precedent, to postpone the date of application of the Regulation by one year. Under ex-Article 189c, it was for the Council to adopt the measures and thus, to ensure that its position on adoption did not conflict with that of the Parliament: it was not for the Commission to ensure Parliament's approval. The Commission has always been anxious about safeguarding the adoption and the entry into force of this Regulation with a view to preserving its environmental objectives.

4. The Commission is aware of the financial efforts of Member States as well as the air transport industry itself with a view to ensuring a better compatibility between air transport activities and the quality of life for people living around airports. That is the reason why it proposed to freeze the development of the use of the noisiest category of aircraft in order to support these efforts.

5. and 6. As the Commissioner responsible for Transport and Energy has explained at the recent meeting of the committee for regional policy, transport and tourism of 12 October 1999 the perspective of a positive outcome in 2001 of the ongoing ICAO activities offers the Community the possibility of making a strategic choice between the entry into force of the Regulation on 4 May 2000 with the ensuing risk of a conflict that might jeopardise the development of a new ICAO noise standard and the adoption at ICAO level of a noise standard with an increased environmental benefit compared to the Regulation. If the United States confirm their willingness to fully contribute to the successful completion of the ICAO activities on the development of a new noise standard and rules for phasing-out the noisiest Chapter 3 aircraft, the Commission could accept under certain conditions to propose a further suspension of the date of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999. This strategic choice is, however, dependent upon the guarantees that the United States will be able to give.

(1) COM(1999) 452 final.

(2) OJ C 118, 17.4.1998.

(3) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999.