CELEX: 51988PC0662
Language: en
Date: 1988-12-13
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the limitation of noise emission from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes (presented by the Commission)

ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DE LA COMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (88) 662
Vol. 1988/0221
 ---pagebreak--- Disclaimer
Conformément au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 concernant
l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique européenne et de
la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, p. 1) modifié en dernier
lieu par le règlement (UE) 2015/496 du Conseil du 17 mars 2015 (JO L79 du 25. 3.2015, p. 1), ce
dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents classifiés présents dans ce dossier
ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit règlement ou sont considérés déclassifiés
conformément aux articles 26(3) et 59(2) de la décision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 de la
Commission du 13 mars 2015 concernant les règles de sécurité aux fins de la protection des
informations classifiées de l'Union européenne.
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning
the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the
European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as last amended by Council
Regulation (EU) 2015/496 of 17 March 2015 (OJ L 79, 27.3.2015, p. 1), this file is open to the
public. Where necessary, classified documents in this file have been declassified in conformity
with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation or are considered declassified in conformity with
Articles (26.3) and 59(2) of the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015
on the security rules for protecting EU classified information.
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1. Februar
1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und
der Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983, S. 1), zuletzt geändert durch die
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 2015/496 vom 17. März 2015 (ABI. L 79 vom 25.3.2015, S. 1), ist dieser Akt
der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in diesem Akt in
Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 der genannten Verordnung freigegeben; beziehungsweise werden
sie auf Grundlage von Artikel 26(3) und 59(2) der Entscheidung der Kommission (EU, Euratom)
2015/444 vom      13.   März 2015     über die   Sicherheitsvorschriften für den Schutz von  EU-
Verschlusssachen als herabgestuft angesehen.
 ---pagebreak--- COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                                                COM ( 88 ) 662        final
                                                Brussels , 6           December 1988
                            Proposal for a
                   COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
         on the limitation of noise emission from
                 civil subsonic jet aeroplanes
               ( presented by the Commission )
                                                                ■ V'' ' /
                                                            V        J-       Vr
                                                       V     s   , v*       »
                                                     N     v* , c?        /;■
                                                      W.
 ---pagebreak---                                       SUMMARY
Action already taken by the Community will ensure that there will be no more
very noisy subsonic jet civil aeroplanes using Community airports after 1988 .
Therefore, ignoring the noise effects of any increase in air traffic, the noise
climate in the vicinity of airports will improve gradually until it would level out
during 1988 . However Chapter 2 aeroplanes are still relatively noisy and will still
be operating . The best available environmental climate will only occur when all
subsonic jet civil aeroplanes meet the noise standards of Chapter 3 of Annex 16 . It
follows that from an environmental standpont it is necessary to as a first step to
prevent any further Chapter 2 aeroplanes being added to the air registers of the
Community ;
This action should be followed by the removal of all Chapter 2 aeroplanes already
on the registers within an agreed time scale and in cooperation with other
international organisations .
It is essential that operators are given a clear indication of exactly how and when
proposed rules will come into force both to signal the Community 's intent and to
allow operators and manufacturers as much notice as possible . Thus it is essential
for the Community to introduce realistic, comprehensive rules in a reasonable
time scale to ensure that a harmonized approach prevails throughout the
Community . This is particularly important in view of the recent shift towards de¬
regulation of European air traffic .
This impetus towards deregulation should be encouraged and , in conjunction
with the creation of an area without internal frontiers, the proposal applies to
the addition to the total Community fleet, rather than to undividual national
registers . As a consequence of the freedom of movement that such a rule wouid
allow, it is essential that exemptions should be limited and that those granted
under this proposal should be closely monitored and restricted in time .
The proposal for a Directive is a dual purpose instrument concerned on the one
 hand with the Environment, the improvement of the acoustic environment of
 people living in the vicinity of airports and under enroute traffic and on the other
 hand , with Industry and Transport, in that it aims to ensure that a harmonized
 approach to the problem of accelerated retirement of Chapter 2 aeroplanes
 prevails throughout the European Community .
 ---pagebreak---                             EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Background
This proposal for a Directive falls within the Programmes of Action of the European
Communities on the Environment 0 ) and 1977 (2). The 4th Programme of Action (3)
specifically mentions Community work on a non-addition rule . Furthermore , the
Council , in reply to Written Question N° 654/73 put by Members of the European
Parliament on the subject of aeroplane noise , stated that " the environment
programme of the European Communities provides for mounting a campaign
against environmental and noise pollution caused by aeroplanes .
The Council has already taken action in respect of propeller-driven and subsonic jet
aeroplanes ( 4); this proposal is to establish a uniform Community approach to
further limit noise from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes, bearing in mind the Council 's
statement that account should be taken of the work done by international
organisations .
Aéroplane Noise Standards
With the introduction of commercial jet aeroplanes in the early 1960 's, aeroplane
noise in the vicinity of airports and under enroute traffic increased to such an
extent that there was a public outcry . An international conference was held in
London in 1966 at which it was agreed that the problem of aeroplane noise had to
be dealt with on an international^ basis and that means of control were necessary to
prevent the noise issue from becoming a major deterrent to the orderly and
successful development of the air transport system . This was taken up by the
International Civil Aviation Organisation , ( ICAO ) which , in 1968 , set up a
Committee on Aeroplane Noise , ( CAN ), which was assigned the task of defining ,
measuring and creating standards for aeroplane noise . By 1970 there was
international agreement on the noise standards for civil subsonic jets designed
after 1 January 1969 (with an exception for a period for certain high by-pass ratio
engined aeroplanes). These standards are published in Volume 1 , Chapter 2 of
Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation . In 1977 , after further
research and experience, those standards were made significantly more severe .
They are published in Volume 1 , Chapter 3 of Annex 16 .
<»> OJ N°C  112 , 20.12.1973 , p.1 .
< 2)OJ N°C  139 , 13.06.1977 , p.1 .
( 3) OJ N°C 328,  07.12.1987,  p.28 .
(4) OJN"L     18, 24.01.1980 , p.26 .
 ---pagebreak--- Chapters 2 and 3 of Annex 16 require all civil subsonic jet aeroplanes whose designs
were accepted after 1 . January 1969 to be noise certificated to one or other of the
standards, depending on the date of acceptance of the certificate of airworthiness,
(C of A), of the prototype . Thus these ICAO actions have caused there to be 3 groups
of aeroplanes flying today with significantly different noise levels :
GROUP 1         Non-noise certificated aeroplanes, i.e those whose prototypes
                received their C of A before 1 .January 1969 such as the B 707 , DC-8,
                DC-9 , Caravelle , B 727 , B 737 , VC-10 , Trident , BAC 1-1 1 etc.
GROUP 2         Aeroplanes whose prototypes received their C of A after 1 . January
                1969 and before 6 . October 1977 , which have to meet the standards of
                Chapter 2 of Annex 16 . This group includes the DC- 10, Tristar, most
                marks of the B 747, Airbus A 300, plus aeroplanes of group 1 which
                were manufactured after 1 . January 1976 , or , if manufactured before
                that date , have been modified to reduce noise , and tested and
                accepted to the standards of Chapter 2 .
GROUP 3         Aeroplanes whose prototypes received their C of A on or after 6 .
                October 1977 , which have to meet Chapter 3 standards ; such as the B
                757 , B 767 , BAe 146 , A 320 . It also happens that the Airbus A 300 ,
                Tristar and B 737-300, amongst others, meet Chapter 3 and therefore
                can be considered as being in this group .
Initial Community Législation
Initial action to reduce the noise from aeroplanes was taken by the Community
through the Directive on aeroplane noise - 80/51 /EEC, which prevents any further
group 1 aeroplanes, i.e. non-noise certificated , being added to the civil air registers
of Member States and required the removal of such aeroplanes already on the
registers by 31 . December 1986, (a possible exemption would enable a few group 1
aeroplanes to continue flying until - at the latest - 31 . December 1988). ICAO, for its
part , by its standards, has prevented any further manufacture of group 1
aeroplanes . By an amendment to 80/51 /EEC , the Community has prevented foreign
register group 1 aeroplanes landing in the Community since 1 . January 1988,
although some exemptions have been granted until 31 . December 1989 . Afterthis
final cut-off date group 1 noisy aeroplanes will no longer be an environmental
nuisance in the Community . Unfortunately , group 2 aeroplanes are not a great deal
quieter; the noise difference between these and group 3 aeroplanes is significant,
particularly in the important - and numerous - short/medium range category .
Action already taken by the Community will ensure that there will be no more very
noisy subsonic civil jet aeroplanes using Community airports after 1989 . However
 ---pagebreak--- aeroplanes that only meet the standards of Chapter 2 of Annex 1 6 are still relatively
noisy and will still be operating . The best available environmental climate will only
occur when all subsonic civil jet aeroplanes meet the noise standards of Chapter 3 of
Annex 1 6 . It follows that from an environmental standpoint it is necessary to
prevent any further Chapter 2 aeroplanes being brought into the Community . This
action should be followed by the removal of all Chapter 2 aeroplanes already on
the civil air registers of Member States within an agreed timescale .
The Problem of Chapter 2 Aeroplanes
With existing regulations Chapter 2 aeroplanes may continue to be imported into
the Community even though they are considerably noisier than aeroplanes of a
similar weightthat meet the standards of Chapter 3 of Annex 16 . A Chapter 3
aeroplane has a considerably higher capital cost than its equivalent Chapter 2
aeroplane , and Chapter 2 aeroplanes can be bought second-hand , or leased on
favourable terms. Therefore , in spite of the fact that a Chapter 3 aeroplane has
greater fuel efficiency and that this fact, plus several others, means lower direct
operating costs, ( DOCs) 0 ) the purchase or leasing of a Chapter 2 aeroplane as a
replacement or to meet a new operational requirement, particularly when profits
are low , can be attractive to an airline .
A newly manufactured Chapter 2 can remain in service for more than 25 years .
Chapter 2 aeroplanes appeared in airline service about 1970 and are still comming
into service , although since 1987 only as second-hand aeroplanes, and therefore we
can expect them still to be in use into the next century - unless regulatory action is
taken to restrict them . The sub-group of the group of experts on the abatement of
nuisance caused by air transport, (ANCAT) which was established to investigate the
possible consequences of a Chapter 2 non-addition rule , using the United Kingdom
Department of Trade and Industry's fleet forecasting model , stated that in the year
2000 there could still be 352 aeroplanes flying in European registration in the
short/medium range category that only meet the noise standards of Chapter 2 of
Annex 16 .
The ANCAT figures are considered conservative by the airlines as represented by the
Association of European Airlines, (AEA) and the Association des Compagnies
Aeriennes, (ACE), which in their reports to the ANCAT sub-group suggested that
airlines will still be adding Chapter 2 aeroplanes to their fleets in the early 1990 's .
ACE go further and suggest it will be " well into the 1990 's " These associations also
consider that the in-use life of a Chapter 2 aeroplane is greater than 25 years. (This
must be compared with the ANCAT sub-group recommendation of 20 years and the
22 years suggested in research carried out for the Commission ). If both of the airline
association 's suppositions are correct then in the year 2000 there could be nearer
400 Chapter 2 short/medium range category aeroplanes flying on Community civil
air registers, and in the year 1995 as many as 518 .
 ( 1 ) Airbus Industry claim that a B 737-200 , (Chapter 2 ) relative DOC per seat is 24%
 higher than that of the A 320, (Chapter 3 ).
 ---pagebreak--- Chapter 3 - The Most Stringent Existing Standard
It is generally agreed that aeroplanes that meet Chapter 3 noise standards
represent the latest major development in aeroplane noise reduction , specifically
engine noise reduction . It is obvious therefore that aeroplanes that meet Chapter 3
noise standards represent the most up to date acoustical development that will be
incorporated in manufacture and that will be operational for the foreseeable
future . It follows that the best noise environmental situation in the vicinity of
airports will occur when all aeroplanes using that airport meet Chapter 3 standards.
Although this is obvious, evidence that it is so is apparent from measurements
taken and calculations done in Austria which show a significant reduction in
aeroplane noise annoyance at Vienna airport following the replacement of some
non-noise certificated aeroplanes by those meeting Chapter 3 noise standards.0 ) (2)
Similar studies were undertaken in France and the Netherlands which indicated
that improvements of up to 5 dBs could be achieved at certain airports.O)
A Chapter 2 aeroplane is significantly more noisy than an equivalent in size Chapter
3 aeroplane . The following footprints were produced in the Commission 's own
CANAR computer program using the FAA INM Data Bank version 3 . For instance
the Chapter 2 aeroplane B 727-200 , ( approximately 145 passengers and with a
gross weight of around 190.000 lbs), gives a 90 EPNL noise footprint of 75.29 km2
whereas the Chapter 3 aeroplane B 757 , (approximately 180 passengers and with a
 gross weight of 200.000 lbs), gives a 90 EPNL footprint of only 11 . 22 km2 . Similarly a
 Chapter 2 DC 9-30, ( 115 passengers/ 100.000 lbs), gives a 90 EPNL footprint of 43.55
 km2 whilst the more capacious and heavier Chapter 3 B 767 , ( 230 passengers/
 260.000 lbs), gives a 90 EPNL footprint of only 9.07 km2 . More modern types of
aeroplane, the BAe 146 and the Fokker 100 for example, are even quieter. The areas
quoted will differ very slightly according to the engines actually used on a
 particular type of aeroplane but they are sufficiently accurate for comparative
purposes .
 Even if it can be shown that the actual number of Chapter 2 aeroplanes remaining
in operation at a specific time hardly affects the noise/annoyance contours around
an airport, as calculated by the presently accepted methodology, the significant
increased noise level of a single Chapter 2 aeroplane in a stream of Chapter 3
aeroplanes, on a route to or from an airport, is known to be an annoyance in itself,
whatever the smoothed numeric effect that aeroplane - or several similar
aeroplanes - has in an annoyance assessment over a long period of operation .
 0 ) ANCAT working paper ANCAT/21 , WP/2 , Appendix C.
 (2) ANCAT working paper ANCAT/22 , WP/2 .
 (3) ANCAT working paper ANCAT/2 1 , WP/5 .
 ---pagebreak---  Costs to Airlines .
When both the Commission and ECAC proposals were first drafted , i.e. when they
included both a non-addition and a non-operation rule , they were attacked by
airline associations on the groundsthat they imposed excessive and unreasonable
costs on that industry . In order to quantify costs, ECAC undertook a detailed and
comprehensive studyO ) of airline costs, fleet replacement plans, aeroplane
availibility etc. The final conclusions of that study are quoted below :
" 46 . The sub-group considers that the costs of the proposals (i.e. both the non ¬
addition and the non-operation rules) are likely to be of the order of $500 million -
measured at 1986 prices, i.e. costs discounted to the value of 1986 - but they could
well be less because of a balance of factors that tend to lower costs - such as the
10% rule and exemption clauses - which have not been taken into account.
 47 . The total cost of $500 million US should be looked at in the relation of ECAC
(i.e. 22 member states) airline operating expenditures, - $24,000 million US in 1985 .
This would indicate that the proposals would increase the costs to ECAC airlines,
and hence fare levels, by about a half of one percent."
While some airline associations may argue about details of the exact amount, most
responsible authorities agree that this report is a good indication of the true cost to
the airline industry . It is interesting to note that the ECAC methodology has been
accepted by ICAO as a basis for a world-wide costing exercise being carried out for
the next ICAO Assembly meeting in October 1989 .
The Présent Proposai
The present proposal is largely based on the work of a sub-group of ANCAT. This
sub-group was constituted primarily to review the report prepared by the European
Commission on the feasibility of introducing a non-addition rule for Chapter 2
aeroplanes. This sub-group consisted of four members of ANCAT who were
coincidently also Community Member States, ( Denmark , France , the Netherlands
and the United Kingdom ) and Austria . It met three times and at the meetinq of
ANCAT 21 in October 1985 it presented a draft European Civil Aviation Conference,
( ECAC), Recommendation on Chapter 2 limitation . This draft recommendation
included both a non-addition and a non-operation rule .
Following ANCAT 22 and a meeting of national technical experts of the Member
States on aeroplane noise , the Commission prepared a proposal which took into
account the work undertaken by ECAC in its essential aspects. The minor differences
reflected the Commission 's experience in the application of the two previous
Directives, 80/51 /EEC and 83/206/ EEC . In October 1986 , at the 26th Session of the
 ICAO Assembly contracting states, including all Member States of the Community ,
adopted a resolution , (A26-1 1 ), which requested that no legislation restricting the
operation of Chapter 2 aeroplanes should be enacted before the next full meeting
of the ICAO Assembly to be held in October 1989 . Consequently both ECAC and the
Commission redrafted their proposals to limit the application to a non-addition
rule .
(D ANCAT working paper ANCAT/24, WP/2
 ---pagebreak--- In May 1988, at a meeting of the Directors General of Civil Aviation of the ECAC
member states, the field of application of the ECAC proposal was changed .
Unfortunately this change split an agreed and recognized international standard ,
introducing exemptions based upon an aeroplane’s engine type . The amended
proposal was adopted at the ECAC triennial meeting in June 1988 . Whilst
understanding the reasoning behind the ECAC change , the Commission believes
that it sets an unfortunate example . Consequently it has chosen to exempt only
those aeroplanes which are likely to be bought by small , regional airlines in the
process of starting operations - those aeroplanes of 34,000 k.g . and below .The
argument that some Boeing 747s almost meet Chapter 3 and therefore should also
be exempted would establish a dangerous precedent which the Commission feels is
unjustified .
Article 1 . establishes the objective of the proposal and exempts aeroplanes of
34,000 k.g . or less.
Article 2 . is the essence of the non-addition rule , i.e. after 1 . November 1990 ,
aeroplanes may not be brought into the Community for addition to Member States'
registers unless they meet the standards of Chapter 3 of Annex 1 6. This article
includes aeroplanes leased - but not necessarily added to the national register.
Article 3 . lays down exemptions that may be granted , without time limit, by
Member States .
Article 4. is the standard exemption article, similar to Article 4 of 80/51 /EEC,
although provisions have been added to address the problem of leased
aeroplanes.The exemptions are limited in time .
Article 5 . covers the way in which exemptions may be granted and ensures the
recognition of these exemptions.
Consultation
The Commission has held numerous meetings with aeroplane manufacturers,
airline and airport operators and other interested parties . In addition , meetings of
national technical experts were held in October 1986 and April 1988 .
Conclusions
The annexed proposal for a draft Directive is a dual purpose instrument concerned
on the one hand with the Environment, in particular the improvement of the
acoustic environment of people living in the vicinity of airports and under enroute
traffic and on the other hand , with Industry and Transport, in that it aims to ensure
that a harmonized . Community approach is taken to the problem of Chapter 2
aeroplanes .
As a balance to the ICAO decision to delay any implementation of further
aeroplane noise legislation , it should be noted that the meeting of OECD
 Environmental Ministers, which took place in Paris in June 19850 ) called for
further action on aeroplane noise . This proposal for a Directive, which builds on
existing Community instruments in the field , can also be seen as a response to that
 request .
0 ) On 20 . June 1985 , the OECD Council adopted a Recommendation on
strengthening Noise Abatement Policies, (C (85 ) 103 ).
 ---pagebreak--- Finally and most importantly , work undertaken by the Commission in co-operation
with other international bodies indicated that limiting the addition into the
Community of aeroplanes which were unable to meet the noise certification
standards specified in Chapter 3 of Annex 16 , would in itself be of limited
environmental benefit, and should therefore be considered only as a first stage , to
be followed by measures to limit the operation of aeroplanes which only comply
with the standards of Chapter 2 of Annex 16 .
 ---pagebreak---                                                 - 1 -
                                        Draft Proposal for a
                                     COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
                           on the limitation of noise emission from
                                  civil subsonic jet aeroplanes
THE COUNCILOFTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
and in particular Article 84(2 ) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal of the Commission ,
Having regard to the opinion ofthe European Parliament ( 1 ),
 Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2 ),
Whereas the application of noise emission standards to civil subsonic jet
aeroplanes has significant consequences for the provision of air transport services
in particular where such standards impose restrictions on the type of aeroplanes
that may be operated by airlines, encourage investment in the latest and quietest
aeroplanes available and facilitate the better use of existing capacity, including
that of airports ; and whereas Council Directive 80/51 /EEC ( 3 ), as amended by
Directive 83/206/EEC (4) fixes limits on emission of such noise ;
Whereas the priority programme of the Council for the study of air transport
questions refers to emissions from aeroplanes including noise .
Whereas the programme of action of the European Commmunities on the
environment ( 5) shows clearly the importance of the problem of noise and , in
particular, the need to take action against noise due to air traffic;
(1)
(2 )
( 3 ) OJ Nü L 18 , 24.1.1980 , P. 26
(4) OJ N°L 117 , 4.5.1983 , p. 15
 ( 5 ) OJ N " C 328 , 7.12.1987 , p. 1
 ---pagebreak--- Whereas aeroplane noise should be further reduced , taking into account
environmental factors, technical feasibility and economic consequences ;
Whereas therefore , it is appropriate to restrict the addition of civil subsonic jet
aeroplanes to Member States’ registers to those which comply with the standards
specified in Part II , Chapter 3 , Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on
International Civil Aviation , 1st edition , ( November 1981 ), and , in conjunction
with the creation of an area without internal frontiers, it would be reasonable to
exclude from this non-addition rule aeroplanes on national registers of Member
States on 1 November 1990 , whereas, due to the freedom of movement such a
rule would allow, it is essential that exemptions are limited and that those
granted , closely monitored and restricted in time ;
Whereas common rules for this purpose should be introduced in a reasonable
timescale to ensure that a harmonized approach prevails throughout the
Community , supplementing existing rules ; whereas this is particularly important
in view of the recent impetus given to limited de regulation of European air
traffic ;
Whereas the work undertaken by the Community m co-operation with other
international bodies indicated that limiting the addition to Member States'
registers of aeroplanes which are unable to meet the noise certification
standards specified in Chapter 3 of Annex 16 , would in itself be of limited
environmental benefit, and should therefore be considered only as a first stage ,
to be followed by measures to limit the operation of aeroplanes which do not
comply with the standards of Chapter 3 of Annex 16 ,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE
 ---pagebreak---                                          - 3 -
                                      ARTICLE 1
1  The objective of this Directive is to lay down stricter rules for the limitation
   of noise emission from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes .
2  This Directive does not apply to aeroplanes with a maximum take-off mass
   of 34,000 kg or less.
                                      ARTICLE 2
 1 Member States shall ensure that as from 1st November 1990 , civil subsonic
   jet aeroplanes registered or leaded for use after that date in their territory,
   or in the territory of another Member State may not be operated in their
   territory unless granted a noise certificate to the standards at least equal to
   those specified in Part II , Chapter 3 Volume 1 of Annex 1 6 to the Convention
    on International Civil Aviation , 1st edition ( November 1981 ).
2   Paragraph 2.1 . does not apply to aeroplanes on the national registers of
   Member States on 1 November 1990
                                      ARTICLE 3
Member States may grant exemptions from the provisions of Article 2 for :
   (a ) aeroplanes of historie interest ;
   ( b ) aeroplanes which replace an equivalent number of aeroplanes which
         have been accidently destroyed
                                       ARTICLE 4
1. Member States may grant exemptions from the provisions of Article 2 , on
   an annual basis and for no more than 5 years in total , for :
    (a)   aeroplanes which were used by the operator, being an operator of a
          Member State , before 1st January 1989 , under hire purchase or leasing
          contracts still in effect, and which for that reason have been registered
          in a non-Member State ;
                                                                                    ÂÎ
 ---pagebreak---                                          4
   (b)    aeroplanes leased to an operator of a non Member State which for
          that reason have been temporarily removed from a Member States
          register ;
   ( c)   aeroplanes which are leased from a non-Member State on a short¬
          term basis provided that the operator demonstrates that this is the
          normal practice in its sector of the industry and that the pursuit of his
          operations would otherwise be adversely affected
                                     ARTICLE 5
1  A Member State granting exemptions shall inform the competent
   authorities of the Member States and the Commission of the fact and of the
   criteria for their decision .
2. Member States shall recognize the exemptions granted by other Member
   States in respect of aeroplanes on the registers of those Member States .
                                     ARTICLE 6
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws , regulations and
   administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 30
   September 1989 .
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the
   provisions which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive .
                                     ARTICLE 7
                This Directive is addressed to the Member States .
                                                                                    yfS
 ---pagebreak---                     FICHE D' IMPACT SUR LA COMPETITIVITE ET L' EMPLOI
I.     Quelle est la justification principale de la mesure ?
         Protection of the environment by an extension of Community
         Legislation in this field .
II .   Caractéristiques des entreprises concernées. En particulier :
       a) Y a -t-il un grand nombre de PME ?        No
       b) Note-t-on des concentrations dans des régions
            i . éligibles aux aides régionales des Etats membres ? No
            ii . éligibles au Feder ?   NO
 III . Quelles sont les obligations imposées directement aux entreprises ?
         Airlines may not import elderly , noisy'         aeroplanes into the Community
       although imports from other M. S. are permitted but Airlines will benefit
         from lower Direct Operating Costs=of modern aeroplanes .
 IV .  Quelles sont les obligations susceptibles d' être imposées indirectement
       aux entreprises via les autorités locales ?
         Ni l
V      Y a -t- il des mesures spéciales pour les PME ?
       Lesquelles ?
         Ni l
VI .   Quel est l' effet prévisible
       a) sur la compétitivité des entreprises ?
           No - the Directive applies equally to all airlines
       b ) sur l' emploi ?
           The creation of orders for new civil subsonic jet aeroplanes -
           - with subcontracts spread throughout the entire European
           Aerospace Industries .
 VII .  Les partenaires sociaux ont -ils été consultés ?    No
       Quels sont leurs avis ?
           N /A .
                                                                                        Л4