WRITTEN QUESTION E-1914/99 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Implementation of Regulation on the registration and operation of certain types of subsonic jet aeroplanes.
Date: 1999-10-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Civil Aviation Organisation, United States, air transport, anti-pollution device, environmental standard, interinstitutional relations (EU), international negotiations, noise pollution

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/45

The recipients under Leader II programmes are for the most part rural SMEs, agricultural enterprises, local
communities (notably communes) and the LAGs themselves as promoters of the innovation with which
Leader II is concerned.

It will be possible to provide the Honourable member with very detailed information on the full range of
assistance granted once Leader II has come to an end.

(1) OJ C 180, 1.7.1994.

(2000/C 219 E/052)

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

Is there any truth in the report in the Financial Times of 10 September 1999 on the state of

1.
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!

Is the Commission aware how much is being spent in the Member States on acoustic barriers and
the

4.
insulation around national and regional airports (remedial action) and how strong an interest
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 implemen-
ted, or to secure their postponement.

Can an undertaking be given that the European Regulation (which is directly applicable) will enter

6.
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(cid:146)s assessment of the discussions with the United
to the other Community institutions of
States. This is set out

in its communication (1)

in detail

C 219 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

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(cid:146)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.

(2000/C 219 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1921/99

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Endocrine-disrupting chemicals

What measures does the Commission intend to take in response to the recommendations made by
Parliament in October 1998 in the presentation contained in its report A4-0281/98 (1)?

(1) OJ C 341, 9.11.1998, p. 37.