COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: airport, noise level, noise pollution, noise protection

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 1.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1456 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a Regulation on rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of 
noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports 
which will repeal Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 26 March 2002 
Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2011) 828 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1455 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a Regulation on rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of 
noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports 
which will repeal Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 26 March 2002 
Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Within  the  regulatory  context  formed  by  ICAO  obligations1  and  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity and proportionality set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, 
Directive 2002/30/EC2 (hereinafter ‘the Directive’), going under the umbrella of the 
Environmental  Noise  Directive3,  is  part  of  the  ‘balanced  approach’  to  noise 
management at EU airports. 

The aim of the Directive is to facilitate the introduction of operating restrictions in a 
consistent  manner  at  airport  level  so  as  to  limit  or  reduce  the  number  of  people 
significantly affected by the harmful effects of noise. 

To this end, the Directive lays down a common framework of rules and procedures 
for the introduction of operating restrictions at EU airports, which should safeguard 
environmental protection around the airports in a way that is compatible with internal 
market  requirements  by  considering  similar  operating  restrictions  at  airports  with 
broadly comparable noise problems. 

4. 

The common framework includes: 

•  rules on how to carry out in general the noise assessment process, which has to be taken 
into  account  prior  to  the  introduction  of  noise-related  operating  restrictions.  Operating 

1 

2 

3 

In  2001,  the  International  Civil  Aviation  Organisation  (hereinafter  ICAO)  Assembly  endorsed  the 
concept of a ‘Balanced Approach’ to aircraft noise management. The ICAO Balanced Approach offers 
a policy framework for reducing noise at airports in a cost-effective manner and using restrictions on 
operations not as a first resort, but only after consideration of other possible measures, namely reduction 
at  source,  land-use  planning  and  management,  noise  abatement  operational  procedures  and  operating 
restrictions. . 
Directive  2002/30/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  March  2002  on  the 
establishment  of  rules  and  procedures  with  regard  to  the  introduction  of  noise-related  operating 
restrictions at Community airports (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 40–46. 
Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the 
assessment  and  management  of  environmental  noise  -  Declaration  by  the  Commission  in  the 
Conciliation Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment and management of environmental 
noise.  

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
restrictions are defined as noise-related actions that limit or reduce access of civil subsonic 
jet aeroplanes to an airport. 

•  specific  rules  on  the  introduction  of  operating  restrictions  aimed  at  the  withdrawal  of 
marginally  compliant  aircraft  (hereinafter  MCA),  which  are  the  noisiest  in  the  aircraft 
fleet. They are defined by the Directive as aeroplanes that have a cumulative margin of no 
more than 5 decibels in relation to Chapter 3 noise certification limits. 

•  a  procedure4  to  be  followed  by  the  relevant  authorities  on  the  introduction  of  any  new 

operating restriction. 

5. 

In light of the results of the stakeholder consultations, the Commission has come to 
the conclusion that, taking into account the intrinsic limitations to EU action set out 
above, the rules and procedures laid down by the Directive on the way EU airports 
introduce operating restrictions today are not applied in a consistent manner and their 
impact is limited. This is felt particularly on two levels: 

•  First,  the  specific  rules  on  the  introduction  of  operating  restrictions  aimed  at  the 
withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft are no longer effective. Indeed, over time, the 
number of MCA has become comparatively small due to their natural replacement through 
technological  development.  The  definition  of  the  MCA  has  become  obsolete  and  the 
associated phasing-out period inappropriate. 

•  Second,  stakeholders  have  reported  that,  in  the  current  legal  framework,  operating 
restrictions are considered differently at airports with broadly comparable noise problems, 
entailing  potential  distortions  of  competition.  This  situation  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
existing rules on how to carry out in general the noise assessment process are not clear and 
not sufficiently precise. Also, the existing procedure for introducing operating restrictions 
is considered to be too weak. 

2. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

4 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

The  Directive  contributes  to  the  proper  functioning  of  the  European  air  transport 
system.  It  responds  to  the  objectives  of  Articles  90  and  91  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

According  to  Article  4  of  the  TFEU,  EU  action  regarding  noise-related  operating 
restrictions,  as  part  of  the  common  air  transport  policy,  has  to  be  justified.  In  the 
present case, it is therefore necessary that the subsidiarity principle set out in Article 
5(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  is  respected.  This  involves  assessing  two 
aspects. 

Firstly,  assessment  of  whether  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  could  not  be 
achieved  sufficiently  by  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  their  national 
constitutional  system,  the  so-called  ‘necessity  test’.  In  the  present  case,  this 
justification centres on the need to ensure that international rules and procedures are 

This procedure covers areas such as consultation of stakeholders, prior information of the Commission 
and other Member States and right of appeal. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9. 

3. 

10. 

11. 

implemented by Member States in a uniform and efficient manner in order to provide 
EU and non-EU operators with a level playing field. 

Secondly,  it  has  to  be  considered  whether  and  how  the  objectives  could  be  better 
achieved  by  action  on  the  part  of  the  EU,  the  so-called  ‘test  of  European  added 
value’.  The  EU’s  added  value  in  terms  of  the  present  initiative  should  consist  in 
implementing  measures  that  take  into  account  the  situation  of  different  airports 
while,  at  the  same  time,  ensuring  that  noise-related  operating  restrictions  are 
implemented  in  a  cost-effective  way  at  locations  where  the  noise  situation  requires 
action  and  the  appropriate,  locally-tailored  balance  is  found  between  the  various 
transport  and  environmental  policy  objectives.  Any  individual  action  at  Member 
State  level  would  have  the  potential  to  prejudice  the  functioning  of  the  internal 
market. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE EU INITIATIVE 

In  the  specific  regulatory  framework  set  out  above,  the  general  policy  objective  of 
this  initiative  is  to  harmonise  and  strengthen  further  the  common  rules  and 
procedures concerning the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at EU 
airports as part of the noise management process. 

Thus revised, the common framework would promote the most cost-effective noise-
related solutions designed to achieve noise quality objectives as established by EU, 
national  or  local  rules.  It  should  also  contribute  to  the  overarching  noise  policy 
objective  of  avoiding,  preventing  or  reducing  on  a  prioritised  basis  the  harmful 
effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise.5 

12. 

In  light  of  the  root  causes  of  the  problems  that  have  been  identified,  the  general 
objective of the proposed initiative can be translated into more specific goals: 

(1)  Make  the  set  of  rules  on  MCA  effective  by  revising  the  definition  of  MCA 

and the associated phasing-out provision6; 

(2) 

Ensure  that  operating  restrictions  are  considered  at  airports  with  broadly 
comparable noise problems in a consistent manner by: 

• 

• 

clarifying how to carry out a noise assessment process; 

strengthening  the  procedural  framework  leading  to  the  introduction  of 
operating restrictions. 

13. 

In  order  to  evaluate  the  progress  made  towards  achieving  the  general  and  specific 
policy objectives, the following operational policy objectives are proposed: 

• 

The ratio of new curfews to total operating restrictions should be brought 
to  a  level  that  is  comparable  to  the  level  achieved  by  other  main 

5 
6 

See Article 1 of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC). 
This would involve the revision of Article 2 (d) and Article 6 on ‘Rules on the introduction of operating 
restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of MCA’.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

4. 

14. 

economic  powers  by  2020  whilst  reducing  or,  at  least,  containing  the 
levels of noise exposure of citizens; 

All new operating restrictions should include measures targeting MCA with the aim 
of maximising noise reduction. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The logic of constructing the Policy Options reflects the interaction between the two 
problems. Each Policy Option is composed of two main components which address 
one of the problems each. Moreover, each Policy Option is designed to maintain at 
least the same noise climate as under a business-as-usual scenario (Policy Option 1). 
What distinguishes the Policy Options is the intensity of intervention that, depending 
on the option, is higher on the first, and lower on the second problem. Tackling the 
issues related to MCA (Problem 1) will lead to fewer and/or better-focused operating 
restrictions  affecting  non-marginally  compliant  (less  noisy)  aircraft.  Hence  the 
significance  of  the  issues  related  to  correct  implementation  of  the  Balanced 
Approach (Problem 2) for the latter aircraft decreases. 

Table 1: Mapping problem, drivers and objectives 

Specific Objectives 

Policy options 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Make the specific rules on MCA 
effective by: 

revising the obsolete definition of 
MCA 

Change the definition of 
MCA to include aircraft 
below Chapter 3 -12 
EPNdB standard 

Change the definition 
of MCA to include 
aircraft below Chapter 
3 -10 EPNdB standard 

choosing an adequate associated 
phasing-out period 

Complete phase-out 
allowed within 4 years 

Complete phase-out 
allowed within 2 years 

Change the definition 
of MCA to include 
aircraft below 
Chapter 3 -8 EPNdB 
standard 

Complete phase-out 
allowed within 2 
years 

Ensure that similar operating 
restrictions are considered at 
airports with broadly comparable 
noise problems in a consistent 
manner by: 

strengthening the procedural 
framework leading to the 
introduction of operating 
restrictions 

Establishment of EU-
level support cell for 
implementation of the 
BA  

Establishment of EU-
level support cell for 
implementation of the 
BA  

Establishment of EU-
level support cell for 
implementation of the 
BA  

clarifying and specifying how to 
carry out a noise assessment 
process 

Additional rules on the 
scope of stakeholder 
consultation 

Additional rules on 
the scope of 
stakeholder 
consultation 

Additional rules on the 
scope of stakeholder 
consultation 

Higher legal certainty 
for infringement 

COM right of scrutiny 
with suspension 

Mandatory COM 
scrutiny and prior 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
procedures 

possible until revised 
assessment is found 
adequate 

authorisation 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

5. 

19. 

The European legislation on airport noise is currently in the form of a Directive. This 
choice of legal instrument has partly led to the wide variation in the way operating 
restrictions are introduced in Europe. 

In order to address the problems identified above, Policy Options 3 and 4 propose to 
give the Commission a right of scrutiny. This is justified by the fact that if the cost-
effectiveness  of  an  operating  restriction  is  not  demonstrated,  taking  into  account 
other  noise  management  instruments,  the  Commission  would  need  to  ensure  that 
such  a  measure  can  be  suspended  until  the  assessment  process  is  done  in  a  correct 
way.  Transparent,  EU-wide  applicable  and  interpreted  criteria  would  need  to  be 
established on the possibility of suspending an operating restriction. 

There is also the fact that the Policy Options include an update of the definition of 
MCA.  This  definition  would  need  to  apply  equally  in  all  Member  States,  being  a 
technical standard which is agreed by the same Member States in ICAO. Reflecting 
on the likely future need to amend this definition in order to keep up with scientific 
progress and the autonomous renewal of the aircraft fleet, all Policy Options provide 
for the possibility of updating the definition of MCA through a delegated act by the 
appropriate committee. 

On  the  basis  of  the  above  argumentation,  a  Regulation  would  probably  be  a  more 
appropriate tool for translating the policy changes into legislation. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

The  analysis  of  impacts  shows  that  the  three  Policy  Options  have  clear  economic, 
social and environmental impacts. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
–  From an economic point of view, Policy Option 2 seems to be overall preferable 
as it has the smallest increase in administrative costs. However this Policy Option 
can be regarded as challenging in terms of international relations. Policy Option 3 
would  avoid  this  negative  impact  on  external  relations,  but  would  pose  an 
additional  burden  on  the  EU  budget.  This  Policy  Option  would  keep  the 
administrative burden similar to Policy Option 1. 

–  Also from a social point of view, Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 have a similar impact. 
The  only  major  difference  in  the  effects  stems  from  the  extent  to  which 
operational  measures  affecting  the  safety  of  aircraft  are  scrutinised.  Policy 
Options 2 and 3 can be considered largely equivalent in this respect. 

–  With regard to the environment, Policy Option 4 can be clearly distinguished by 
the  relatively  high  potential  of  negative  impacts  related  to  trade-off  between 
operational  measures  addressing  noise  and  climate  change.  Again,  Policy 
Options 2  and  3  can  be  considered  by  and  large  comparable  in  relation  to  the 
environmental impacts. 

Table 2: Summary table of impacts compared to Policy Option 1 
Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 4 

Impact  on  the  implementation of  the  Balanced 
Approach 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Economic impacts 

Impact on: 

The efficient functioning of the European 
aviation network 

Low 

Low 

Airports 

Medium 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Aircraft operators 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Airframe and aircraft engine manufacturers 

Medium 

Medium 

Administrative costs 

Up to 

Up to 

Neutral 

Up to 

 1 800 000/year 

 3 000 000/year 

 4 200 000/year 

EU budget 

International relations 

Social impacts 

Impact on governance and participation 

Impact on employment level and conditions 

Impact on safety 

Environmental impacts 

Impact on noise 

Low 

High 

High 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Low 

High 

Medium 

High 

Low 

High 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

Impact on climate change 

Medium 

Medium 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Neutral 

Legend: 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
€
€
€
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Negative impacts are identified as dark orange in bold italics. 
‘HIGH’ refers to high likelihood of significant impacts. ‘MEDIUM’ and ‘LOW’ mean lower probabilities of a 
significant impact arising. The magnitude of impact will in all cases depend on the measures chosen through the 
discretion of local and national authorities and aircraft operators. 

6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Coherence 

20. 

As shown above, Policy Option 3 is the most coherent, carefully balancing action to 
achieve  the  specific  policy  objectives.  No  significant  negative  impact  is  foreseen 
under this Policy Option, which therefore represents the lowest trade-offs across the 
economic, social, and environmental domains. 

6.2. 

Effectiveness 

21. 

22. 

23. 

Table 3 gives a brief overview of the policy options’ effectiveness with regard to the 
specific  policy  objectives  defined  in  Section  3.  This  shows  that  in  terms  of 
effectiveness,  no  clear  priority  can  be  established.  Nevertheless,  Policy  Option  3 
appears to be the most balanced option because it offers the most appropriate palette 
of actions to meet the defined objectives. 

As  regards  the  objective  related  to  the  rules  on  MCA,  the  effectiveness  of  the 
envisaged Policy Options is dependent upon their level of ambition in relation to the 
noise  performance  of  aircraft.  In  this  respect,  Policy  Option  2  is  expected  to  score 
best  because  the  revised  definition  of  MCA  is  the  strictest,  in  that  the  MCA  will 
encompass aircraft whose noise performance is below Chapter 3 -12EPNdB standard 
and  therefore  close  to  Chapter  4  aircraft.  Accordingly,  Policy  Option  4  offers  the 
lowest  effectiveness,  being  the  least  ambitious  in  terms  of  noise  performance  of 
aircraft, whereas Policy Option 2 scores better than Policy Option 3. 

As  regards  the  objective  related  to  the  consistent  introduction  of  operating 
restrictions  at  EU  airports,  the  effectiveness  of  the  envisaged  Policy  Options  is 
dependent upon the degree of the quality control performed. Policy Option 4 offers 
the best possibilities in this respect. The option benefits from its much stronger focus 
on the procedural framework, especially with the prominent role of the Commission 
in controlling the quality of the assessment process. The Commission will indeed be 
in charge of mandatory scrutiny and prior authorisation of any envisaged  operating 
restrictions  at  EU  airports.  Compared  to  Policy  Option  4,  Policy  Option  3  is  less 
effective because the quality control will not be systematic. However, it will enable 
the  Commission  to  focus  its  quality  control  on  the  most  problematic  operating 
restrictions.  Policy  Option  2  is  expected  to  be  by  far  the  least  effective  because 
scrutiny of the quality of the assessment process will be performed ex post through 
infringement procedures. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Table 3: Effectiveness of envisaged Policy Options in light of specific policy objectives 

Specific policy objectives 

Policy 
Option 1 

Policy 
Option 2 

Policy 
Option 3 

Policy 
Option 4 

Make the specific rules on MCA effective by: 

neutral 

high 

medium 

low 

revising obsolete definition of MCA 

choosing an adequate associated phasing-out period  

Ensure that similar operating restrictions are considered at 
airports  with  broadly  comparable  noise  problems  in  a 
consistent manner by: 

neutral 

low 

medium - 
high 

high 

clarifying  and  specifying  how  to  carry  out  a  noise 
assessment process  

strengthening  the  procedural  framework  leading  to  the 
introduction of operating restrictions 

6.3. 

Efficiency 

24. 

25. 

Given  that  the  proposed  initiative  is  of  a  procedural  nature,  the  total  cost  of  the 
envisaged Policy Options covers administrative costs and cost to the EU budget. 

In  light  of  the  estimations  detailed  above,  Policy  Option 2  appears  to  be  the  most 
efficient  as  it  would  bring  about  the  smallest  increase  in  administrative  costs. 
However,  this  assessment  does  not  take  account  of  the  potential  costs  of  an 
international  dispute  in  the  highly  globalised  aviation  market,  possibly  negatively 
affecting EU aircraft operators. 

6.4. 

Conclusion 

26. 

7. 

27. 

In light of the above, preference is given to Policy Option 3. Policy Option 3 appears, 
in particular with respect to coherence, the most suitable Policy Option for achieving 
the objectives identified in Section 3. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The Commission will properly evaluate and review the Regulation five years after its 
adoption. On top of the evidence produced in the framework of a scrutiny or appeal 
procedure on particular cases, the Commission will constantly monitor a set of core 
indicators which will be updated to trace the effectiveness of the Regulation. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Table 4: Monitoring indicators 

Key indicators 

Definition 

Relevance 

Monitoring the noise performance of aircraft and quality of noise management policies 

Noise certification  

This indicator shows the noise 
performance of new aircraft. 

Number of movements of MCA 

Overview of operating restrictions 
and the mix of noise mitigating 
measures 

This  indicator  gives  the  number  of 
flights  performed  in  the  ECAC 
region of MCA (can be detailed per 
airport and airline). 

This  new  indicator  would  compile 
information from noise action plans 
and  performance  plans  on 
the 
quality 
noise  mitigating 
measures. 

of 

This 
the 
indicator  monitors 
progress  in  noise  performance  of 
new aircraft. 

This  indicator  shows  trends  in  the 
use of MCA. 

This  indicator  would  reveal  the 
quality of noise assessment process. 

EN 

9 

   EN