Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Directive 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 Community airports" (COM(2001) 695 final — 2001/0282 (COD))
Date: 2002-03-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aircraft, airport, marketing restriction, noise, noise protection, regulation (EU)

C 125/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

make a major contribution to the objectives of the trans-
European networks, and it hopes that the goals set are thus
achieved more quickly.

3.2.
In an own-initiative opinion the Committee is urging
that Community financial involvement in projects to improve
and extend the inland waterway network be stepped

up (1). Community support for the elimination of bottlenecks
is also to be doubled (from 10 % to 20 %). Such an increase
should on no account be allowed to affect the increase in
Community grants for the TENs.

(1) OJ C 80 of 3.4.2002, ‘The future of the trans-European inland
waterway network’ is currently being drawn up by the ESC.

Brussels, 20 March 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive 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 Community airports’

(COM(2001) 695 final — 2001/0282 (COD))

(2002/C 125/05)

On 29 January 2002 the Council of the European Union decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Union, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 26 February 2002. The
rapporteur was Mr Green.

At its 389th Plenary Session of 20 and 21 March 2002 (meeting of 20 March 2002), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 74 votes in favour with one abstention.

1. Background

1.1.
At the Council meeting in Luxembourg on 16 October
2001 the Transport Ministers noted that the resolution on
environmental protection adopted by the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO)’s 33rd assembly (25 September
— 5 October 2001) opens up a prospect of replacing the
‘Hushkits’ Regulation in the near future.

1.3.
In March 2000 the United States lodged a complaint
in the ICAO Council against the fifteen EU Member States on
the grounds that this Regulation was an infringement of the
Chicago Convention and Annex 16 thereto.

1.4.
The 1999 regulation was challenged by the United
States, which claimed that it breached international agreements
on aircraft noise and would disrupt the market for used
aircraft.

1.2.
To combat aircraft noise around airports, the EU
proposed a Regulation in 1999, which would ban aircraft
equipped with noise reduction devices (‘Hushkits’) from EU
airports from 1 April 2002. Only hushkitted aircrafts registered
outside the EU but operating there before 1 April 1999, would
be allowed to continue.

The Council’s conclusions also took note of

1.5.
the
Commission’s intention of presenting as speedily as possible a
proposal which, in compliance with ICAO conditions, can
establish a framework for operational restrictions in the
Community, making full use of the flexibility provided by the
ICAO, and which protects people living around airports.

27.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 125/15

1.6.
The Council’s conclusions presupposed that this matter
was given sufficient priority to allow the adoption of a
proposal by April 2002, when the existing Hushkit Regu-
lation’s provisions on halting operations take effect.

2.3.
The proposed directive also covers ‘city airports’, in the
centre of large conurbations. An airport can only be defined
as a ‘city airport’ if there is an alternative airport also serving
that city.

For many years the EU has urged the ICAO to update

1.7.
the Chapter 3 noise certification standard adopted in 1977.

1.8.
In June 2001 the ICAO Council adopted a new noise
certification standard, to become chapter 4 in Annex 16
volume 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

The market-induced introduction of Chapter 4 requires
1.9.
accompanying measures which will allow for harmonized
application of operating restrictions,
including withdrawal
from operation of those aeroplanes that only marginally
comply with Chapter 3 limits.

1.10.
At the 33rd ICAO assembly a world-wide agreement
was reached through the above Resolution A33/7 on how to
frame such accompanying measures/operating restrictions
within the concept of a balanced approach to noise manage-
ment. This will allow EU Member States to progressively
withdraw marginally compliant aeroplanes at noise sensitive
EU airports.

1.11. With a view to reducing noise in the most cost
effective manner, a balanced strategy generally consists of
action on four fronts:

1.

Reduction of noise at source;

2.

Spatial use and management (land-use planning) ;

3. Noise abatement operational procedures;

4.

Restrictions on air traffic operations.

1.12.
concentrated on a relatively small number of airports.

Air traffic in the EU, as elsewhere in the world, is

2. The Commission proposal

2.1.
The Commission proposal contains a common set
of rules and principles relating to noise-related operational
restrictions as part of a balanced approach to noise manage-
ment.

2.4.
For the purposes of the proposed directive the environ-
mental performance of aeroplanes is assessed on the basis of
the Chapter 3 certification limits. Aeroplanes that have a
cumulative margin of no more than 5 decibels in relation to
the Chapter 3 certification limits are considered as being only
marginally compliant. Airports with a problematic noise
situation would be allowed to remove these aeroplanes
gradually from operation after an assessment has been carried
out. Other noise mitigation options remain available if the
withdrawal of these aeroplanes is not sufficient to meet the
directive’s objectives.

2.5.
Under certain specific conditions, aeroplanes from
‘developing nation’ companies may be exempted from the
directive’s provisions.

The entry into force of the directive will result in the

2.6.
repeal of the Hushkit Regulation.

3. General comments

The ESC broadly supports the Commission’s proposal
3.1.
for a directive which will assist in reducing aviation and
airport-related noise.

3.2.
The ESC points to the need for uniform legislation to
regulate noise from other sources, including other modes of
transport.

3.3.
The proposed short timespan for adoption of the
proposed directive, as soon as 1 April 2002, could result in
inadequate and ill-judged legislation.

3.4.
Correspondingly, adoption of the directive with effect
from 1 January 2003 would mean postponing the reduction
of aviation-related noise; the earlier regulation (EC) No 925/
1999 bans the operation of aeroplanes fitted with hushkits
within the EU from 1 April 2002 unless these aeroplanes were
operational on Community territory before 1 April 1999.
Adoption of the proposed directive will result in this regulation
being superseded.

Only airports with over 50 000 movements per year

2.2.
fall within the scope of the directive.

It should also be noted that the new draft directive will
3.5.
make it possible to phase out certain aeroplanes which would
have been authorized under the Hushkit Regulation.

C 125/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.5.2002

Transitional problems could arise prior to the introduc-

3.6.
tion of the requisite procedures provided for in the directive.

3.7.
Attention is drawn to the fact that the draft directive
primarily addresses operational restrictions for aviation, which
is only one facet of the balanced approach referred to in the
ICAO resolution of September 2001.

3.8.
The ESC stresses that the ‘interested parties’ must
include the population groups exposed to noise in the specific
case concerned.

4. Specific comments

Though a cost/benefit assessment is a major com-
4.1.
ponent of the balanced approach, the draft directive only
contains a general reference to this point (in annex 2).

The draft directive should preferably give a more precise
the methodology to be followed for this
description of
assessment so as to avoid discrepancies in the Member States’
implementation of the directive.

In the absence of an internationally agreed definition,
4.2.
the wording ‘light aircraft’ in Article 2 (a), should be deleted
from the directive in order to avoid any uncertainty about the
nature of this aircraft and due to the need to pass this
legislation swiftly.

Brussels, 20 March 2002.

4.3.
The developing countries’ participation should be
limited to a specific period; it should at the same time be made
clear that exemptions can only be made for flights covered by
Chapter 3 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

4.4.
On the definition of aeroplanes which only marginally
comply with the certification limits laid down in Chapter 3 of
Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,
by a margin of not more than 5 EPNdB (Effective Perceived
Noise in Decibels), the ESC advocates a more stringent limit of
8 EPNdB instead. For practical reasons, the ESC recommends
a certain transitional period.

4.5.
Article 13 should therefore be amplified as follows:
‘Unless proposed otherwise by the Commission, the cumulat-
ive margin of 5 EPNdB will be increased to 8 EPNdB no later
than 5 years after the entry into force of this directive’.

5. Conclusion

5.1.
The ESC wholeheartedly supports the Commission’s
proposal seeking to introduce noise-related operating restric-
tions at EU airports. Future growth in air travel, under growing
environmental constraints, will depend exclusively on a pro-
gressive and credible reduction in aircraft noise at source.

5.2.
The cumulative margin should be increased to 8 EPNdB
no later than 5 years after the entry into force of this directive.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS