Proposal for a REGULATION 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 Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2011-12-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: International Civil Aviation Organisation, airport, noise level, noise pollution, noise protection

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 1.12.2011 
COM(2011) 828 final 

2011/0398 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION 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 Union airports within a Balanced Approach and 
repealing Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

{SEC(2011) 1455 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1456 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Noise  from  aircraft  at  or  around  airports  is  a  nuisance  for  a  growing  number  of 
European citizens, especially at night, as indicated in Table 1 below. An active noise 
management  strategy  is  therefore  necessary  to  mitigate  the  undesired  effects.  Such 
noise strategy must, however, carefully balance the interests of the affected citizens 
with other interests and take due account of the knock-on effects on the capacity of 
the whole aviation network. 

Table 1: Forecasts from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) of 
number of people affected by noise (in millions) in Europe – without substantial 
operational and technological improvements1 

Noise level/Year 

> 55 DNL 

> 60 DNL 

> 65 DNL 

2006 

2.63 

0.799 

0.23 

2016 

3.47 

1.14 

0.32 

2026 

4.48 

1.53 

0.43 

2036 

5.79 

2.12 

0.66 

The introduction of operating restrictions, may have a substantial impact on business 
and  operations,  as  it  restricts  access  to  an  airport.  Hence,  the  process  leading  to  a 
decision on noise-related operating restrictions should be consistent, evidence-based 
and robust to be acceptable for all stakeholders. 

In  an  effort  to  ensure  a  consistent  approach  to  the  application  of  noise  abatement 
measures at air ports, the ICAO adopted a set of principles and guidance constituting 
the  so-called  "Balanced  Approach"  on  noise  managment,  which  encourages  ICAO 
Contracting States: 

• 

• 

• 

to mitigate aviation noise through selection of the optimum local combination 
from  a  range  of  measures  (1)  reducing  noise  at  source  (from  use  of  quieter 
aircraft),  (2) making  best  use  of  land  (plan  and  manage  the  land  surrounding 
airports;  (3)  introducing  operational  noise  abatement  procedures  (by  using 
specific  runways,  routes  or  procedures);  and  (4)  imposing  noise-related 
operating restrictions (such as a night ban or phasing out of noisier aircraft). 

to select the most cost-effective range of measures. 

not to introduce noise-related operating restrictions, unless the authority is in a 
position,  on  basis  of  studies  and  consultations,  to  determine  whether  a  noise 
problem  exists  and  having  determined  that  an  operating  restriction  is  a  cost-
effective way of dealing with the problem. 

This  regulation  aims  to  apply  noise-related  operating  restrictions  of  the  Balanced 
Approach in the EU in a consistent manner which should greatly reduce the risk of 

Source: CAEP/8 – Information Paper 8 – expressed in Day-Night average noise levels (DNL) – baseline 
scenario, without substantial technology or operational improvements – ICAO European regio 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
international  disputes  in  the  event  that  third  country  carriers  are  impacted  by  noise 
abatement measures at air ports in the Union. In addition, competent authorities will 
be  in  a  better  position  to  phase-out  the  noisiest  aircraft  in  the  fleet.  The  proposed 
regulation  will  repeal  Directive  2002/30/EC  which  was  instrumental  in  bringing  an 
international  dispute  to  an  end  and  set  the  first  steps  in  the  harmonization  of  noise 
management policies, including tackling the noisiest aircraft of that time. However, 
the instrument needs to be adapted to the current requirements of the aviation system 
and the growing noise problem. 

This  regulation  will  ensure  that  the  noise  assessment  process  will  become  more 
robust. All steps in the assessment process will be clarified in order to ensure a more 
consistent application of the balanced approach across the Union. This proposal does 
not,  however,  stipulate  noise  quality  objectives  which  continue  to  derive  from  the 
existing  national  and  local  rules.  Instead,  it  aims  at  a  system  facilitating  the 
achievement of these noise quality goals in the most cost-effective way. 

At ICAO level the EU actively supports the development of new noise standards for 
aircraft  and  invests  in  new  technologies  through  Framework  Programmes  and  the 
Clean  Sky  project2.  But  land  use  planning,  together  with  the  associated  insulation 
and compensation programmes, is a national or local competence. 

Operational  noise  abatement  procedures  are  used  at  all  airports  in  different  forms: 
noise  preferential  routes  (where  aircraft  fly  e.g.  over  least  populated  areas),  thrust 
management (the more thrust, the more noise is generated but the steeper the aircraft 
may climb) or specific measures on the ground (e.g. use of specific taxi or runways). 
The  EU  contributes  through  its  Single  European  Sky  legislation,  which  aims  at 
setting performance targets for air navigation service providers in the environmental 
field, and through the associated research programmes SESAR and Clean Sky. 

As shown in Figure 1, the measures primarily applied at European airports are noise 
abatement  procedures.  However,  in  addition,  operating  restrictions  are  frequently 
used.  The  following  restrictions  have  been  introduced  at  the  224  EU  airports 
assessed3  for  this  report:  116  curfews4,  52  noise  limits,  51  restrictions  targeted 
aircraft of the noise standard 'Chapter 3', 38 noise quotas and 7 noise budgets. 

The Clean Sky JTI will be one of the largest European research projects ever, with a budget estimated at 
€1.6 billion,  equally  shared  between  the  European  Commission  and  industry,  over  the  period  2008  - 
2013.  
The Boeing database 'Airports with Noise Restrictions' is publicly available at: 
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/listcountry.html. Although only 69 airports are currently 
covered by the Directive, more airports will fall within its scope with increased traffic foreseen for the 
future. Therefore an overview of all 224 airports is provided. 
Curfews limit operations during a certain period of time (noise-related restrictions on traffic). 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

2 

3 

4 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1: Overview of current European (EU and non-EU) airport noise-related restrictions 

Source: Boeing Database 
Note:  
APU: regulated use of auxiliary power unit (to start engines); 
NAP: noise action plan; 
Stg3-Ch3: phase-out of noisiest aircraft which only satisfy the old ICAO noise standard, as described 
in Chapter 3 of the relevant ICAO Annex. 

• 

9. 

10. 

11. 

• 

12. 

13. 

European provisions on operating restrictions noise management 

This proposal aims to strengthen the basic logic of the ICAO Balanced Approach by 
making a stronger link between its pillars and by clarifying the different steps of the 
decision-making process when considering operating restrictions. 

Consistent  application  of  the  approach  should  identify  the  most  cost-effective 
solutions,  tailor  made  to  the  specific  airport  situation.  The  assessment  method  will 
also take due account of the network-wide effects of noise mitigating measures. 

The  current  rules  cover  about  70 European  airports  with  more  than  50 000 
movements of civil subsonic jet aircraft per calendar year. 

Consistency with the civil aviation policy and other objectives of the Union 

This  initiative  is  consistent  with  other  parts  of  European  aviation  policy  and  wider 
environmental policies. 

The European aviation industry should grow in a sustainable way where economic, 
social  and  environmental  aspects  are  appropriately  balanced.  Noise  mitigating 
measures  may  substantially  impact  the  capacity  of  the  aviation  network  on  the 
ground and in the air. The proposals will ensure more consistency between the noise-
related  actions,  airport  capacity  and  flight  efficiency  requirements  under  Single 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
European  Sky,  and  the  implementation  of  performance  regulation  on  air  traffic 
management. The proposals follow the logic of the gate-to-gate approach. 

14. 

The  proposal  will  contribute  to  delivering  the  'National  Action  Plans'  on  air  traffic 
noise which Member States are obliged to adopt on basis of Directive 2002/49/EC. 

2. 

• 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents 

15. 

The most affected stakeholders as regards noise and aviation are the citizens living 
around  airports  represented  in  local  community  groups,  airports,  aircraft  operators 
(with air cargo as specific niche), aircraft manufacturers, local authorities (including 
planning  authorities  which  also  represent  the  wider  economic  interests)  and 
independent noise councils. These stakeholders were intensely consulted: 

• 

• 

• 

in  2007  the  external  consultant  collected  responses  to  questionnaires,  and 
conducted  interviews  with  a  range  of  stakeholders  on  the  implementation  of 
Directive 2002/30/EC; 

in 2008 the Commission organised an open consultation on the ways forward 
to amend the Directive; 

in  2010,  all  stakeholders 
the 
consultationprocess were contacted and the range of stakeholders was widened. 

that  had  previously  contributed 

to 

Summary of responses 

16. 

17. 

The  Member  States  stressed  the  need  to  preserve  flexibility  in  the  assessment  of 
noise  problems  and  the  necessity  to  provide  for  transitional  arrangements,  to  avoid 
duplication  of  efforts  (e.g.  environmental  assessments  to  be  re-used)  and  fine-tune 
the  relation  between  the  two  Directives  2002/30/EC  and  2002/49/EC,  so  that  the 
same  assessments  can  satisfy  both  of  them;  and  consider  the  international  context, 
with regard to the use of methods and measures. 

The  representatives  of  local  community  groups,  namely  the  Aviation  Environment 
Federation representing noise and environmental action groups from the UK, France 
and Germany, stressed the need to properly regulate (i.e. not just rely on guidelines) 
on the basis of a noise protection threshold; the key role of operating restrictions to 
improve  the  noise  nuisance  situation  and  incentives  to  replace  the  noisiest  aircraft; 
and to widen the definition of marginally compliant aircraft to have a real impact. 

18. 

Operators5,  namely  the  Association  of  European  Airlines,  representing  the  legacy 
airlines, and the European Express Association argued that the principles of ICAO's 

5 

While  this  is  the  AEA  statement,  its  position  should  represent  all  operators,  namely  ERA  (regional), 
IACA (leisure) and ELFAA (low cost), as they are affected in quite similar ways. Only IACA may have 
relatively more night flights for their operations. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Balanced Approach should be correctly applied (on an airport-by-airport basis); that 
operational restrictions should be used to mitigate identified noise problems and as a 
last resort; that the method should deliver the most cost-effective measures; and that 
land  use  planning  would  become  integrated  in  decisions  on  operating  restrictions. 
The operators also requested a further clarification of the Directive, and reiterated the 
need  to  consider  amending  the  definition  of  marginally  compliant  aircraft  on  the 
basis of international regulation to avoid market distortions. If regulatory action was 
deemed necessary, operators preferred a regulation to a directive. 

The airports6, represented by ACI, stressed that the full range of Balanced Approach 
measures  should  be  exploited  and  that  there  is  scope  to  widen  the  definition  of 
marginally compliant aircraft. 

The  French  independent  noise  council  (ACNUSA)7  argued  for  a  widening  of  the 
definition  of  marginally  compliant  aircraft,  the  use  of  parameters  which  genuinely 
capture the affected population's feelings, improved modelling of airport noise and a 
more  systematic  use  of  noise-friendly  operating  procedures,  such  as  'continuous 
descent approaches'. 

The  aeronautical  industry  is  especially  involved  in  the  development  of  new  noise 
standards  within  the  ICAO  technical  working  groups  and  focuses  on  the  need  to 
consider  interdependencies  between  possibly  conflicting  objectives  like  noise  and 
CO2 reduction and the longer-term view of standard development, where the rhythm 
of standard setting must keep pace with technological feasibility, and the value of the 
fleet over the lifetime of aircraft and should be competition neutral. 

Finally, the local authorities of the Airports Regions Conference, who are mainly in 
charge  of  land  use,  highlighted  their  approach  from  an  environmental  capacity 
perspective  of  a  region,  which  includes  land  use  planning,  use  of  appropriate 
indicators, a mediation process, and a need to better integrate the requirements under 
the environmental noise directive with the airport noise directive (2002/30/EC). 

All in all, the proposals are generally close to the views expressed in the consultation 
round.  The  formal  proposals  will  stress  the  interdependence  of  the  different  noise 
mitigating  measures,  whereby  noise  operating restrictions  should  not  be  considered 
first  and  foremost,  but,  if  deemed  necessary,  should  ne  seen  as  an  important  and 
complementary  contributor  in  a  wider  combination  of  cost-effective  measures.  The 
definition  of  marginally  compliant  aircraft  is  also  made  stricter,  so  that  competent 
authorities again have an efficient noise mitigating instrument at their disposal. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

Scientific/expertise domains concerned 

24. 

A general background study has been carried out to provide a quantitative as well as 
qualitative analysis of the impact of this revision. In addition, Eurocontrol has been 

6 
7 

The Airports Council International ACI has a specific working group on the issue. 
ACNUSA (together with its Walloon sister organisation) is a unique forum for tackling, in an advisory 
capacity, noise nuisances independently from authorities and airports. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
providing more recent and detailed information on the number of flights performed 
by 'marginally compliant aircraft'. 

Methodology used 

25. 

The consultant organised an intensive consultation, mainly in the form of interviews 
with  different  stakeholders,  as  well  as  desk  research.  In  addition,  Eurocontrol 
provided up-to-date information from the relevant data warehouses. 

Summary of advice received and used 

26. 

The  main  conclusions  were  that  the  Directive,  whilst  its  value  is  recognized  in 
bringing  an  international  dispute  to  an  end 8  and  introducing  EU  competence  on 
operating  restrictions,  was  not  as  effective  in  harmonizing  the  decision-making 
process as had been hoped. There was a need to update the Directive to take account 
of the evolving composition of the fleet, to strengthen the link between the different 
elements of the Balanced Approach and to bring in new legal instruments on noise 
management, like the environmental noise directive (2002/49/EC), the development 
of new noise standards or the Single European Sky performance regulation. 

Means used to make the expert advice publicly available 

27. 

The full report of the study has been published on DG MOVE's website. 

3. 

• 

28. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

8 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

The  proposal  introduces  a  new  regulation  to  replace  Directive  2002/30/EC.  This 
regulation clarifies and completes the requirements of that directive. 

Specification  of  objectives  to  stress  link  with  other  elements  of  the  Balanced 
Approach and other instruments to manage air traffic noise. 

Definition of allocation of responsibilities. 

Listing of general requirements to manage noise. 

Provision of more details on the noise assessment process. 

Specification of stakeholders to be consulted. 

Harmonisation of data and methods. 

Specification of notification and introduction requirements. 

Allowing  comitology  to  adapt  reference  to  noise  standards  to  new  technological 
progress. 

European States were threatened with an official complaint procedure in ICAO. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9 

• 

• 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

• 

33. 

• 

34. 

35. 

Provision of support to competent authorites. 

Legal basis 

The  proposal  is  based  on  Article  100(2)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functionning  of  the 
European Union. 

Subsidiarity principle 

The  subsidiarity  principle  applies  insofar  as  the  proposal  does  not  fall  under  the 
exclusive  competence  of  the  Union.  The  objectives  of  the  proposal  can  not  be 
sufficiently achieved by the Member States individually. 

European action will better achieve the objectives of the proposal for the following 
reasons: 

A  harmonised  approach  to  noise-related  operating  restrictions  as  part  of  the  noise 
management  process  around  European  airports  contributes  towards  improving  the 
environmental performance of air transport operations and creates a more predictable 
operational environment for airline and airport operators. In addition, the harmonised 
assessment method should reduce the risk of bias in competition between airports or 
between airlines and of poor practice being implemented, which may impact not only 
the capacity of the airport concerned, but on overall aviation network efficiency. 

Such  an  approach  offers  more  cost-effective  solutions  to  environmental  problems 
around airports and avoids a patchwork of different noise requirements for operators 
who, by definition, operate an international network. 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle. Whilst a regulation strictly 
harmonises  the  method  to  follow,  it  allows  Member  States  to  take  into  account 
airport-specific  situations  with  a  view  to  developing  appropriate  solutions  to  the 
noise  problems  on  an  airport-by-airport  basis.  The  proposals  do  not  prejudge  the 
desired environmental objectives or the concrete measures taken. 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instrument: Regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reasons. 

• 

• 

The subject of the regulation is a noise assessment method. Only a regulation 
guarantees full harmonisation of this method. 

The  proposed  assessment  method  is  sufficiently  flexible  to  deal  with  any 
specific airport situation and does not prejudge the desired level of protection 
which Member States want to guarantee their citizens, or the concrete selection 
of cost-effective measures. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
4. 

36. 

5. 

• 

37. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The  proposal  has  no  additional  implications  for  the  European  budget.  The  costs 
associated  with  the  right  of  scrutiny  do  not  entail  additional  costs  compared  to  the 
current financial burden in monitoring the implementation of the existing legislation, 
including  reimbursement  for  committee  meetings.  The  data  bases  on  noise 
certification  information  already  exist.  The  proposal  introduces  a  more  formal 
reference  to  ensure  the  quality  of  the  data  and  the  guaranteed  access  of  interested 
parties. Finally, this proposal forms an integral part of work on noise management –
with the associated budgets - which is already undertaken in other areas, like ICAO 
noise stringency development, Single Sky or SESAR. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

European Economic Area 

The  proposed  act  concerns  an  EEA  matter  and  should  therefore  extend  to  the 
European Economic Area. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2011/0398 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION 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 Union airports within a Balanced Approach and 
repealing Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

The European Parliament and the Council 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 100(2) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee2, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions3, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure4, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

A  key  objective  of  the  common  transport  policy  is  sustainable  development.  This 
requires  an  integrated  approach  aimed  at  ensuring  both  the  effective  functioning  of 
Union transport systems and protection of the environment. 

Sustainable  development  of  air  transport  necessitates  the  introduction  of  measures 
aimed  at  reducing  the  noise  nuisance  from  aircraft  at  airports  with  particular  noise 
problems. A large number of EU citizens are exposed to high noise levels which may 
lead to negative health effects. 

Following the removal of the noisiest aircraft pursuant to 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  airports5  and  Directive  2006/93/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the regulation of the operation 
of aircraft covered by Part II, Chapter 3, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on 
International  Civil  Aviation,  second  edition  (1988)6,  an  update  of  new  measures  is 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ L85, 28.3.2002, p.40. 
OJ L 374, 27.12.2006; p.1.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

required  to  enable  authorities  to  deal  with  the  noisiest  aircraft  to  improve  the  noise 
climate  around  airports  in  the  Union  within  the  international  framework  of  the 
Balanced Approach on Noise Management. 

Resolution A33/7 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) introduces 
the concept of a “Balanced Approach” to noise management and establishes a coherent 
method  to  address  aircraft  noise.  The  ICAO  'Balanced  Approach'  should  remain  the 
foundation  of  noise  regulation  for  aviation,  as  a  global  industry.  The  Balanced 
Approach  recognises  the  value  of,  and  does  not  prejudge,  relevant  legal  obligations, 
existing  agreements,  current  laws  and  established  policies.  Incorporating  the 
international  rules  of  the  Balanced  Approach  in  this  Regulation  should  substantially 
lessen the risks of international disputes in case third country carriers may be affected 
by noise-related operating restrictions. 

The  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on 
noise operating restrictions at EU Airports 7 pointed to the need to clarify in the text of 
the Directive the allocation of responsibilities and the precise obligations and rights of 
interested  parties  during  the  noise  assessment  process  so  as  to  guarantee  that  cost-
effective measures are taken to achieve the noise abatement objectives. 

The  introduction  of  operating  restrictions  by  Member  States  at  Union  airports  on  a 
case-by-case  basis,  whilst  limiting  capacity,  can  contribute  to  improving  the  noise 
climate  around  airports.  However,  there  is  a  possibility  of  introducing  distortions  of 
competition or hampering the overall efficiency of the Union aviation network through 
the  inefficient  use  of  existing  capacity.  Since  the  objectives  cannot  be  sufficiently 
achieved by the Member States and can therefore be more effectively achieved by the 
Union  by  means  of  harmonised  rules  on  the  introduction  of  operating  restrictions  as 
part of the noise management process, the Union may adopt measures in accordance 
with  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  as  set  out  in  Article 5  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of 
the  principle  of 
the  European  Union.  In  accordance  with 
proportionality, as set out  in that  Article,this Regulation does not  go beyond  what is 
necessary to achieve those objectives. Such harmonised method does not impose noise 
quality  objectives,  which  continue  to  derive  from  Directive  2002/49/EC  or  other 
European,  national  or  local  rules,  and  does  not  prejudge  the  concrete  selection  of 
measures. 

(7)  While noise assessments should take place on a regular basis, such assessments should 
only lead to additional noise abatement measures if the current combination of noise 
mitigating measures does not achieve the noise abatement objectives. 

(8)  While  a  cost-benefit  analysis  provides  an  indication  of  the  total  economic  welfare 
effects by comparing all costs and benefits, a cost-effectiveness assessment focuses on 
achieving a given objective in the most cost-effective way, requiring a comparison of 
only the costs. 

(9) 

Suspension of noise mitigating measures is important to avoid unwanted consequences 
on  aviation  safety,  airport  capacity  and  competition.  Whilst  an  appeal  procedure 
against  noise-related  operating  restrictions  may  relate  to  noise  abatement  objectives, 

7 

COM(2008)66 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assessment  methods  and  selection  of  cost-effective  measures,  the  appeal  may  not 
suspend  their  implementation.  Therefore,  the  Commission  should  well  before 
implementation  of  the  measures  be  able  to  use  the  right  of  scrutiny  and  to  suspend 
measures deemed to produce unwanted or irreversible consequences. It is recognised 
that the suspension should be for a limited period. 

(10)  Noise assessments should build on existing information available and ensure that such 
information  is  reliable  and  accessible  to  competent  authorities  and  stakeholders. 
Competent authorities should put in place the necessary monitoring and enforcement 
tools. 

(11) 

It  is  recognised  that  Member  States  have  decided  on  noise-related  operating 
restrictions in accordance with national legislation based on nationally acknowledged 
noise methods, which may not (yet) be fully consistent with the method as described 
in the authoritative European Civil Aviation Conference Report Doc 29 on 'Standard 
the 
Method  of  Computing  Noise  Contours  around  Civil  Airports'  nor  use 
internationally  recognised  aircraft  noise  performance  information.  However,  the 
efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  an  operating  restriction,  together  with  the  efficiency 
and effectiveness of the relevant action plan of which the restriction is a part, should 
be  assessed  in  accordance  with  methods  prescribed  in  ECAC  Doc 29  and  the  ICAO 
Balanced  Approach.  Accordingly,  Member  States  should  adapt  their  assessments  of 
operating  restrictions  in  national  legislation  towards  full  compliance  with  ECAC 
Doc 29. 

(12)  Centralisation  of  information  on  noise  would  substantially  reduce  the  administrative 
burden for aircraft and airport operators alike. Such information is currently provided 
and managed at the individual aiport level. These data need to be put at their disposal 
for operational purposes. It is important to use the data bank of the European Aviation 
Safety  Agency  (the  Agency)  concerning  noise  performance  certification  as  a 
validation  tool  with  the  European  Organisation  for  the  Safety  of  Air  Navigation 
(Eurocontrol) data on individual flights. Such data are currently already systematically 
requested  for  central  flow  management  purposes,  but  need  to  be  specified  for  the 
purpose of this Regulation and for performance regulation of air traffic management. 
Good  access  to  validated  modelling  data  should  improve  the  quality  of  mapping  of 
noise contours of individual airports and strategic mapping to support policy decisions. 

(13) 

In  order  to  reflect  the  continuous  technological  progress  in  engine  and  airframe 
technologies and the methods used to map noise contours, the power to adopt acts in 
accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
should  be  delegated  to  the  Commission  with  respect  to  regularly  updating  the  noise 
standards for aircraft referred to in this Regulation and the reference to the associated 
certification methods; amending the definitions of marginally compliant aircraft and of 
civil aircraft accordingly, and updating the reference to the method to computing noise 
contours.  It  is  particularly  important  that  the  Commission  carry  out  appropriate 
consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, 
when preparing and drawing-up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely 
and  appropriate  transmission  of  relevant  documents  to  the  European  Parliament  and 
Council. 

(14) 

In  order  to  ensure  uniform  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation, 
implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
be  exercised  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  182/2011  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general 
principles  concerning  mechanisms  for  control  by  the  Member  States  of  the 
Commission's exercise of implementing powers.8 

(15)  The  advisory  procedure  should  be  used  for  the  adoption  of  implementing  decisions 
with  respect  to  whether  the  Member  States  that  are  planning  to  introduce  operating 
restrictions may proceed with their introduction in the event that the Commission has 
suspended  the  operating  restrictions  given  that  those  decisions  are  only  of  a  limited 
scope. 

(16)  Consdidering  the  need  for  the  consistent application  of  the  noise  assessment  method 
within the EU aviation market, this Regulation sets out common rules in the field of 
noise operating restrictions. Directive 2002/30/EC should therefore be repealed,  

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Subject-matter, objectives and scope 

1. 

This  Regulation  lays  down  rules  on  the  introduction  of  noise-related  operating 
restrictions  in  a  consistent  manner  on  an  airport-by-airport  basis  so  as  to  help 
improve the noise climate and to limit or reduce the number of people significantly 
affected  by  the  harmful  effects  of  aircraft  noise,  in  accordance  with  the  Balanced 
Approach. 

2. 

The objectives of this Regulation are 

(a) 

(b) 

to  facilitate  the  achievement  of  specific  environmental  noise  abatement 
objectives, as laid down in Union, national and local rules, and to assess their 
interdependence with other environmental objectives, at the level of individual 
airports; 

to  enable  selection  of  the  most  cost-effective  noise  mitigation  measures  in 
accordance  with  the  Balanced  Approach  so  as  to  achieve  the  sustainable 
development of the airport and air traffic management network capacity from a 
gate-to-gate perspective. 

3. 

This Regulation shall apply to aircraft engaged in civil aviation. 

It shall not apply to aircraft engaged in military, customs, police, or similar services. 

Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply: 

8 

OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

‘Airport’  means  an  airport  which  has  more  than  50 000  civil  aircraft 
movements per calendar year (a movement being a take-off or landing), taking 
into consideration the average number of movements of the last three calendar 
years before the noise assessment; 

‘Balanced  Approach’  means  the  method  under  which  the  range  of  available 
measures, namely reduction of aircraft noise at source, land-use planning and 
management,  noise  abatement  operational  procedures  and  operating 
restrictions, is considered in a consistent way with the view to addressing the 
noise problem in the most cost-effective way on an airport by airport basis. 

'Aircraft' means fixed-wing aircraft with a maximum certificated take-off mass 
of 34 000 kg or more, or with a certificated maximum internal accommodation 
for  the  aircraft  type  in  question  consisting  of  more  than  19 passenger  seats, 
excluding any seats for crew only; 

‘Marginally  compliant  aircraft’  means  civil  aircaft  that  meet  the  Chapter  3 
certification  limits  laid  down  in  Volume 1,  Part  II,  Chapter  3  of  Annex 16  to 
the  Convention  on  International  Civil  Aviation  (Chicago  Convention)  by  a 
cumulative  margin  of  less  than  10EPNdB  (Effective  Perceived  Noise  in 
decibels),  whereby  the  cumulative  margin  is  the  figure  expressed  in  EPNdB 
obtained  by  adding  the  individual  margins  (i.e.  the  differences  between  the 
certificated noise level and the maximum permitted noise level) at each of the 
three  reference  noise  measurement  points  as  defined  in  Volume  1,  Part  II, 
Chapter 4 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention; 

‘Noise-related action' means any measure that impacts the noise climate around 
airports,  for  which  the  principles  of  the  ICAO  Balanced  Approach  apply, 
including  other  non-operational  actions  that  can  affect  the  number  of  people 
exposed to aircraft noise; 

‘Operating restrictions’ means a noise-related action that limits the access to or 
reduces the optimal capacity use of an airport, including operating restrictions 
aimed  at  the  withdrawal  from  operations  of  marginally  compliant  aircraft  at 
specific  airports  as  well  as  operating  restrictions  of  a  partial  nature,  affecting 
the operation of civil aircraft according to time period. 

Article 3 

Competent authorities 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Member  States  shall  designate  competent  authorities  responsible  for  adopting 
measures on operating restrictions, as well as an independent appeal body. 

The  competent  authorities  and  the  appeal  body  shall  be  independent  of  any 
organisation which could be affected by noise-related action. 

The Member States shall notify the Commission of the names and addresses of the 
designated competent authorities and appeal body referred to in paragraph 1. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Article 4 

General rules on aircraft noise management 

Member  States  shall  adopt  a  Balanced  Approach  in  regard  to  aircraft  noise 
management. To this end, they shall: 

assess the noise situation at an individual airport; 

define the environmental noise abatement objective; 

identify measures available to reduce the noise impact; 

evaluate the likely cost-effectiveness of the available measures;  

select the measures; 

consult the stakeholders in a transparent way on the intended actions; 

decide on the measures and provide for sufficient notification; 

implement the measures; and 

provide for dispute resolution. 

Member  States  shall,  when  taking  noise-related  action,  consider  the  following 
combination  of  available  measures,  with  a  view  to  determining  the  most  cost-
effective combination of measures: 

the foreseeable effect of a reduction of aircraft noise at source; 

land-use planning and management; 

noise abatement operational procedures; 

not as a first resort, operating restrictions. 

1. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

2. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

The  available  measures  may  include  the  withdrawal  of  marginally  compliant  aircraft,  if  so 

deemed necessary. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Member  States  may,  within  the  Balanced  Approach,  differentiate  noise  mitigating 
measures according to aircraft type, runway use and/or timeframe covered. 

Without  prejudice  to  paragraph 3,  operating  restrictions  which  take  the  form  of  a 
withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft from airport operations shall  not affect 
civil  subsonic  aircraft  that  comply,  through  either  original  certification  or 
recertification, with the noise standard in Volume 1, Part II, Chapter 4 of Annex 16 
to the Chicago Convention. 

Measures or a combination of measures taken in accordance with this Regulation for 
a  given  airport  shall  not  be  more  restrictive  than  necessary  to  achieve  the 
environmental noise abatement objectives set for that airport. Operating restrictions 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
6. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

shall  be  non-discriminatory,  in  particular  on  grounds  of  nationality,  identity  or 
activity of aircraft operators. 

The  measures  taken  in  accordance  with  this  Regulation  shall  contribute  to  the 
'National  Action  Plans'  relating  to  noise  emitted  by  air  traffic,  as  mentioned  in 
Article 8 of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.9 

Article 5 

Rules on noise assessment 

The competent authorities shall assess the noise situation at airports in their territory 
on a regular basis, in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2002/49/EC and 
national  or  local  rules.  The  competent  authorities  may  call  on  the  support  of  the 
Performance Review Body referred to in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) 
No 691/2010.10 

The competent authorities shall use the method, indicators and information described 
in Annex I for the assessment of the current and future noise situation. 

When the assessment of the noise situation reveals that new measures are necessary 
to  achieve  or  maintain  the  level  of  noise  abatement  objectives,  the  competent 
authorities shall take due account of the contribution of each type of measure under 
the Balanced Approach, in accordance with Annex I. 

The  competent  authorities  shall  ensure  that,  at  the  appropriate  level,  a  forum  for 
technical  cooperation  is  established  between  the  airport  operator,  aircraft  operator 
and air navigation service provider, for actions which these operators are responsible 
for,  and  taking  due  account  of  the  interdependency  between  measures  to  mitigate 
noise and to reduce emissions. The members of this forum for technical cooperation 
shall regularly consult local residents or their represetntatives, and provide technical 
information and advice on noise mitigating measures to the competent authorities. 

The competent authorities shall assess the cost-effectiveness of the new measures, as 
referred  ton  in  paragraph  3  in  accordance  with  Annex II.  A  minor  technical 
amendment  to  an  existing  measure  without  substantive  implications  on  capacity  or 
operations is not considered as a new operating restriction. 

The  competent  authorities  shall  organise  the  consultation  process  with  interested 
parties  in  a  timely  and  substantive  manner,  ensuring  openness  and  transparency  as 
regards  data  and  computation  methodology.  Interested  parties  shall  have  at  least 
three  months  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  new  measures  to  provide  comments.  The 
interested parties shall at least include: 

(a) 

representatives  from  local  residents  living  in  the  surroundings  of  the  airports 
affected by air traffic noise; 

9 
10 

OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.  
OJ L 201, 3.8.2010, p. 1. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7. 

1. 

2. 

(b) 

relevant airport operators; 

(c) 

representatives  of  aircraft  operators  which  may  be  affected  by  noise-related 
actions; 

(d) 

relevant air navigation service providers; 

(e) 

the Network Manager, as defined in Commission Regulation No 677/2011.11 

The  competent  authorities  shall  follow  up  and  monitor  the  implementation  of  the 
noise  mitigating  measures  and  take  action  as  appropriate.  They  shall  ensure  that 
relevant information is provided on a regular basis to the local residents living in the 
surroundings of the airports. 

Article 6 

Noise performance information 

Decisions  on  noise-related  operating  restrictions  shall  be  based  on  the  noise 
performance of the aircraft as determined by the certification procedure conducted in 
accordance with Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention, fifth edition of 
July 2008. 

At the request of the Commission, aircraft operators shall communicate the following 
noise information in respect of their aircraft that use Union airports: 

(a) 

the tail number of the aircraft; 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

the  noise  performance  certificate  or  certificates  of  the  aircraft  used,  together 
with the associated actual maximum take-off weight; 

any modification of the aircraft which influences its noise performance; 

aircraft noise and performance information of the aircraft for noise modelling 
purposes. 

For each flight making use of a Union airport, aircraft operators shall communicate 
the noise performance certificate used and the tail number. 

The  data  shall  be  provided  free  of  charge,  in  electronic  form  and  using  the  format 
specified, where applicable. 

3. 

The  Agency  shall  verify  the  aircraft  noise  and  performance  data  for  modelling 
purposes  in  accordance  with  Article 6 (1)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  216/2008  of  the 
European Parliament and the Council.12 

11 
12 

OJ L 185 ,15.7.2011, p. 1. 
OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Data  shall  be  stored  in  a  central  database  and  made  available  to  competent 
authorities,  aircraft  operators,  air  navigation  service  providers  and  airport  operators 
for operational purposes. 

Article 7 

Rules on the introduction of operating restrictions 

Before  introducing  an  operating  restriction,  the  competent  authorities  shall  give 
notice of six months, ending at least two months prior to the determination of the slot 
coordination  parameters  as  defined  in  Article 2,  point m)  of  Council  Regulation 
EEC N° 95/93 13 for the airport concerned for the relevant scheduling period, to the 
Member States, the Commission and the relevant interested parties. 

Following the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 5, the notification of 
the  decision  shall  be  accompanied  by  a  written  report  explaining  the  reasons  for 
introducing the operating restriction, the environmental objective established for the 
airport, the measures that were considered to meet that objective, and the evaluation 
of the likely cost-effectiveness of the various measures considered, including, where 
relevant, their cross-border impact. 

Where  the  operating  restriction  concerns  the  withdrawal  of  marginally  compliant 
aircraft from an airport, no new services shall be allowed with marginally compliant 
aircraft  at  that  airport  six  months  after  the  notification.  The  competent  authorities 
shall decide on the annual rate for removing marginally compliant aircraft from the 
fleet of affected operators at that airport, taking due account of the age of the aircraft 
and the composition of the total fleet. Without prejudice to paragraph 3 of Article 4, 
this rate shall not be more than 20% of that operator’s fleet of marginally compliant 
aircraft serving that airport. 

4. 

Any  appeal  against  decisions  on  noise-related  operating  restrictions  shall  be 
organised in accordance with national law. 

Article 8 

Developing nations 

1. 

The  competent  authorities  may  exempt  marginally  compliant  aircraft  registered  in 
developing nations from noise operating restrictions provided that such aircraft: 

(a) 

(b) 

are  granted  a  noise  certification  to  the  standards  specified  in  Chapter  3, 
Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention. 

were  operated  in  the  Union  during  the  five-year  period  preceeding  the  entry 
into  force  of  this  Regulation,  were  on  the  register  of  the  developing  nation 
concerned and continue to be operated by a natural or legal person established 
in that nation. 

13 

OJ L 14 22.01.1993. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

Where  a  Member  State  grants  an  exemption  provided  for  in  paragraph 1,  it  shall 
forthwith  inform  the  competent  authorities  of  the  other  Member  States  and  the 
Commission of the exemptions it has granted. 

Article 9 

Exemptions for aircraft operations of an exceptional nature 

On  a  case  by  case  basis,  the  competent  authorities  may  authorise  individual  operations  of 
marginally compliant aircraft which could not take place on the basis of the provisions of this 
Regulation, at airports situated in their territory. 

The exemption shall be limited to: 

(a) 

(b) 

aircraft  whose  individual  operations  are  of  such  an  exceptional  nature  that  it 
would be unreasonable to withhold a temporary exemption; 

aircraft  on  non-revenue  flights  for  the  purpose  of  alterations,  repair  or 
maintenance. 

Article 10 

Right of scrutiny 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

At the request of a Member State or on its own initiative, and without prejudice to a 
pending  appeal  procedure,  the  Commission  may  scrutinise  the  decision  on  an 
operating  restriction,  prior  to  its  implementation.  Where  the  Commission  finds  that 
the  decision  does  not  respect  the  requirements  set  out  in  this  Regulation,  or  is 
otherwise contrary to Union law, it may suspend the decision. 

The  competent  authorities  shall  provide 
demonstrating compliance with this Regulation. 

the  Commission  with 

information 

The Commission shall decide in accordance with the advisory procedure laid down 
in Article 13(2), in particular taking into account the criteria in Annex II, whether the 
competent  authority  concerned  may  proceed  with  the  introduction  of  the  operating 
restriction.  The  Commission  shall  communicate  its  decision  to  the  Council  and  the 
Member State concerned. 

Where  the  Commission  has  not  adopted  a  decision  within  a  period  of  six  months 
after  it  has  received  the  information  referred  to  in  paragraph 2,  the  competent 
authority may apply the envisaged decision on an operating restriction. 

Article 11 

Delegated acts 

The Commission  shall  be empowered to adopt delegated acts  in accordance  with Article 12 
concerning: 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(a) 

(b) 

amendments  of  the  definitions  of  aircraft  in  Article 2  point (3)  and  of 
marginally compliant aircraft in Article 2 point (4); 

amendments  and  updates  of  the  noise  certification  standards  provided  for  in 
Articles 4 and 8; and of the certification procedure provided for in Article 6(1). 

(c) 

amendments to the method and technical report set out in Annex I. 

Article 12 

Exercise of the delegation 

The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the 
conditions laid down in this Article. 

The  delegation  of  power  referred  to  in  Article 11  shall  be  conferred  for  an 
indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Regulation. 

The delegation of power referred to in Article 11 may be revoked by the European 
Parliament or by the Council. The revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the 
powers  specified  in  that  decision.  It  shall  take  effect  the  day  following  the 
publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later 
date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in 
force. 

As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to 
the European Parliament and to the Council. 

A  delegated  act  adopted  pursuant  to  Article 11  shall  enter  into  force  only  if  no 
objection  has  been  expressed  either  by  the  European  Parliament  or  the  Council 
within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament 
and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and 
the  Council  have  both  informed  the  Commission  that  they  will  not  object.  That 
period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament 
or the Council. 

Article 13 

Committee 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  the  committee  instituted  by  Article 25  of 
Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council.14 

This committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 

Where  reference  is  made  to  this  paragraph,  Article  4  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No 182/2011 shall apply. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

2. 

14 

OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

Where  the  opinion  of  the  committee  is  to  be  obtained  by  written  procedure,  that 
procedure shall be terminated without result when, within the time limit for delivery 
of  the  opinion,  the  chair  of  the  committee  so  decides  or  a  simple  majority  of 
committee members so request. 

Article 14 

Information and revision 

Member  States  shall  submit  information  on  the  application  of  this  Regulation  to  the 
Commission upon request. 

No  later  than  five  years  after  the  entry  into  force  of  this  Regulation,  the  Commission  shall 
report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation. 

The  report  shall  be  accompanied,  where  necessary,  by  proposals  for  revision  of  this 
Regulation. 

Article 15 

Repeal 

Directive  2002/30/EC  is  repealed  with  effect  as  from  the  date  of  entry  into  force  of  this 
Regulation. 

Article 16 

Entry into force 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
ANNEX I 

Assessment of the noise situation at an airport 

Methodology: 

1. 

Competent  authorities  will  use  noise  assessment  methods  which  have  been 
developed in accordance with the ECAC Report Doc 29 'Report on Standard Method 
of Computing Noise Contours around Civil Airports', 3rd Edition. 

Indicators: 

1. 

2. 

Air traffic noise impact will be described, at least, in terms of noise indicators Lden 
and Lnight which are defined and calculated in accordance with Annex I to Directive 
2002/49/EC. 

Competent  authorities  may  use  additional  noise  indicators  which  have  a  scientific 
basis to reflect the annoyance of air traffic noise. 

Noise management information: 

1. 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

Current inventory 

A  description  of  the  airport  including  information  about  its  size,  location, 
surroundings, air traffic volume and mix. 

A  description  of  the  environmental  sustainability  objectives  for  the  airport  and  the 
national  context.  This  will  include  a  description  of  the  aircraft  noise  objectives  for 
the airport. 

Details  of  noise  contours  for  the  current  and  previous  years  –  including  an 
assessment of the number of people affected by aircraft noise. 

A description of the existing and planned measures to manage aircraft noise already 
implemented  in  the  framework  of  the  Balanced  Approach  and  their  impact  and 
contribution to the noise situation, which will include: 

1.4.1. For reduction at source: 

- 

- 

Evolution of aircraft fleet and technology improvements; 

Specific fleet modernisation plans; 

1.4.2. For land-use planning and management: 

- 

Planning instruments in place, like comprehensive planning or noise zoning; 

Mitigating  measures  in  place,  like  building  codes,  noise  insulation  programmes  or 

- 
measures to reduce areas of sensitive land use; 

- 

Consultation process of the land-use measures; 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
- 

Follow-up of encroachment; 

1.4.3.  For  noise  abatement  operational  measures,  to  the  extent  that  these  measures  do  not 

restrict capacity of an airport: 

Use of preferential runways; 

Use of noise preferential routes; 

Use of noise abatement take-off and approach procedures. 

- 

- 

- 

Indication  of  the  extent  to  which  these  measures  are  regulated  under  environment 

- 
indicators, mentioned in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 691/2010. 

1.4.4.  For operating restrictions: 

- 

- 

Use of global restrictions, like cap rules on movements or noise quotas; 

Financial instruments in place, like noise-related airport charges; 

Use  of  aircraft-specific  restrictions,  like  the  withdrawal  of  marginally  compliant 

- 
aircraft; 

Use  of  partial  restrictions,  making  a  distinction  between  measures  at  day  and  during 

- 
the night. 

2. 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

3. 

3.1 

Forecast without new measures 

Descriptions of airport developments (if any)  already approved and in the pipeline, 
for example, increased capacity, runway and/or terminal expansion, and the projected 
future traffic mix and estimated growth. 

In  the  case  of  airport  capacity  extension  the  benefits  of  making  that  additional 
capacity available within the wider aviation network and the region. 

A  description  of  effect  on  noise  climate  without  further  measures,  and  of  those 
measures already planned to ameliorate the noise impact over the same period. 

Forecast noise contours – including an assessment of the number of people likely to 
be affected by aircraft noise – distinguish between established residential areas and 
newly constructed residential areas. 

Evaluation of the consequences and possible costs of not taking action to reduce the 
impact of increased noise – if it is expected to occur. 

Assessment of additional measures 

Outline of the additional measures available and an indication of the main reasons for 
their  selection.  Description  of  those  measures  chosen  for  further  analysis  and 
information on the outcome of the cost-efficiency analysis, in particular the cost of 
introducing these measures; the number of people expected to benefit and timeframe; 
and a ranking of the overall effectiveness of particular measures. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

An overview of the possible environmental and competitive effects of the proposed 
measures on other airports, operators and other interested parties. 

Reasons for selection of the preferred option. 

A non-technical summary. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
ANNEX II 

Assessment of the cost-effectiveness of noise-related operating restrictions 

The  cost-effectiveness  of  envisaged  noise-related  operating  restrictions  will  be  assessed 
taking due account of following elements, to the extent possible, in quantifiable terms: 

1) 

2) 

3) 

4) 

The anticipated noise benefit of the envisaged measures, now and in the future; 

Safety of aviation operations, including third party risk; 

Capacity of the airport; 

Effects on the Europan aviation network. 

In addition competent authorities may take due account of following factors: 

1) 

Health and safety of local residents living in the surroundings of the airport; 

Environmental  sustainability, 

2) 
emissions; 

including 

interdependencies  between  noise  and 

3) 

Direct, indirect and catalytic employment effects. 

EN 

24 

   EN