52015SC0263

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 7.12.2015

SWD(2015) 263 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

{COM(2015) 613 final}
{SWD(2015) 262 final}

Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment on a policy initiative on aviation safety and a possible revision of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem being addressed?

This initiative is a general review of the European aviation safety system and of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, which is the EU's framework regulation for aviation safety. The problem comprises four components: (1) safety – while the present system has so far been effective in ensuring a high level of safety it may not be able to ensure that the accident rate continues to decrease in proportion to traffic growth (50% increase in the next 20 years); (2) overregulation – the regulatory system is burdensome and creates excessive costs; (3) new market developments - the aviation market and technologies have outpaced the regulatory framework (new business models, new technologies) over the last decade; (4) oversight - there are significant differences in capabilities of Member States to effectively implement the aviation safety legislation. The problem causes are: shortages and inefficient use of resources, gaps and inconsistencies in the regulatory system, and predominantly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all regulation. The problems affect all actors in the aviation safety system and indirectly the travelling public.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

The initiative aims to improve the performance of the European aviation system with regard to safety, security, competitiveness and environmental protection. It also has to be seen in context of the Commission's new aviation strategy and the Juncker priorities, when it comes to cutting red tape, simplification of procedures, and stimulating economic growth and innovation through modern regulatory approaches, such as risk and performance based regulation. The initiative pursues the following specific objectives: (1) Eliminate unnecessary requirements and ensure regulation proportionate to the risks involved; (2) efficient integration and effective oversight of new technologies and market developments; (3) a cooperative safety management process between the Union and MS to jointly identify and mitigate risks; (4) close gaps in the regulatory system and ensure consistency; (5) create a system of pooling and sharing of resources between MS and EASA.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

Air transport is to a large extent of transnational character and therefore, by nature, calls for a regulatory approach at EU-level. There is a general understanding of the MS that common rules are necessary in the area of aviation safety to reach a high level of safety. Common legislation does away with the need to coordinate between Member States regulatory systems and as such contributes to an increase in safety. Promoting a common European safety system headed by EASA as a regulatory and implementing body can most effectively be achieved only at EU level. Similarly, efficiency gains will stem from a single European aviation safety system countering costly fragmentation.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

This initiative concerns the revision of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, and therefore has a legislative character. Policy options were developed in three domains (not mentioning the baseline; preferred options in italics):

1. Management and Resources:

1.2 Enhanced cooperation with the current system

1.3(a) Joint oversight system with voluntary transfer of responsibilities

1.3(b) Joint oversight system with voluntary transfer of responsibilities + emergency oversight mechanism

1.4 A single EU aviation safety authority

2. Proportionality and safety performance:

2.2 Enablers for a proportional and performance based safety system

2.3 Two-layered regulatory system: one prescriptive – one performance based

2.4 Transition to a full performance based regulatory system

3.1. Gaps and inconsistencies – ground-handling

3.1(B) Industry standards / no certification

3.1(C) Implementing rules / certification

3.2. Gaps and inconsistencies – security:

3.2(B) Legal framework for security aspects of design only

3.2(C) Coordinated approach to safety and security related matters

3.3. Gaps and inconsistencies – environment

3.3(B) EU essential requirements for environmental protection with respect to aeronautical products

The preferred policy scenario combines options of limited EU intervention and including voluntary elements.

Who supports which option?

Management and quality of resources: Support from MS and industry for sharing of resources on a voluntary basis (PO 1.2 and 1.3(a)). PO 1.3(b) and 1.4: possible opposition from MS because of mandatory elements.

Proportionality and safety performance: PO 2.2 support from MS and industry PO 2.3 industry support, but likely opposition from MS because of complex administration PO 2.4 least support from MS and industry

Ground-handling: general support from MS and industry with the exception of airlines

Security: PO 3.2(C) expanding EASA mandate could meet opposition from MS and industry

Environment: PO 3.3(B) no change in scope but only in implementation, therefore not controversial.

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

With respect to the internal market there will be positive impacts on level playing field through more uniform oversight and a broader range of possibilities to demonstrate compliance including an increased use of industry standards. Compliance cost for businesses will be reduced through risk based oversight as well as more proportionate regulation and procedures (e.g. simplified leasing for airlines, simplified certification procedures for light aircraft). Innovation will be stimulated through more proportionate and performance based regulation. In terms of social impacts stimulating innovation is expected to translate into additional jobs on the market. Aviation safety is expected to improve through better oversight EU-wide, a European collaborative safety management process, and closing safety gaps for ground handling and security. Environmental impacts will be marginal but positive.

Impacts could be quantified only to a limited extent as the options aim at setting a regulatory framework the impact of which can only be quantified when translated into concrete measures (e.g. implementing rules) or measures are of voluntary nature and impacts will depend on take-up.

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

With respect to costs for businesses and national administrations, see the two sections below. At EU level, developing the virtual academy, the central repository of certificates, the pool of experts and support to rulemaking/inspections for ground handling, security and environment will require additional efforts from EASA which can partially be absorbed by existing resources or via fees and charges. The transfer of a limited portion of en-route charges from Eurocontrol to EASA could free up resources at EASA which could then be used to address the other measures. There are no significant negative social or environmental impacts.

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?

Positive impacts for businesses will stem from a more proportional and performance based regulatory system, more flexibility in the means to meet requirements, an increased reliance on industry standards, simplified certification procedures for light aircraft and consequently reduced compliance cost. New technologies can be introduced more easily. SME may not benefit from performance based regulation to the same extent as larger businesses but they will benefit more from moving to risk-based oversight, which removes unnecessary controls. Airlines will be positively impacted by simplification of leasing approvals and possible consolidation of certificates held by the same company in multiple Member States. Financing of measures related to pooling or sharing of resources will be borne by the industry based on the 'user pays principle', which may impact businesses in those Member States where oversight is currently financed from general tax revenue.

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?

With respect to implementation costs Member States that have not yet introduced State Safety Programmes will be required to do so. Further costs arise from the need for additional training. Certain Member States will have to develop expertise in cyber security and ground handling. Nevertheless, the majority of the measures proposed will be applied on a voluntary basis, and would be activated by a Member State predominantly on the basis of a positive cost-benefit analysis. After some initial set-up and training costs, positive impacts on the resources of national aviation administrations are expected in the mid and long run, by achieving efficiency gains through the pooling and sharing of resources and the move to more targeted, risk-based oversight. The pooling and sharing of resources will be financed by fees and charges based on the 'user pays principle'. The preferred ground-handling and security options do not involve new certification requirements and thus oversight costs for Member States are not expected to be significant.

Will there be other significant impacts?

Creating a regulatory system that favours the introduction of new technologies and frees resources through more proportional administrative procedures will have a positive impact on the competitiveness of manufacturers and airlines and ultimately jobs and growth. Similarly, maintaining or improving the European safety record thanks to collaborative safety management processes, risk based oversight and closing safety gaps in regulation will contribute to the protection of travelling public but also to (international) competitiveness.

D. Follow up

When will the policy be reviewed?

The implementation of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 is subject to a mandatory evaluation every 5 years required by the regulation itself. This evaluation is commonly referred to as Article 62 evaluation.

Top

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 7.12.2015

SWD(2015) 263 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

{COM(2015) 613 final}
{SWD(2015) 262 final}

Executive Summary Sheet

Impact assessment on the safe development of drone operations in the EU

A. Need for action

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?

The main problem is that the current regulatory system hampers the development of drone market. The existing aviation rules do not properly address the specificities of drones and are either disproportionate to the operational risk, too difficult (heavy) to carry or present such high cost that most drone services are uneconomical. Besides, drone operations pose a number of issues which are not, or much less, present in 'manned' civil aviation. They concern safety, security, privacy and data protection, environmental protection, and liability. Much as there does not appear to be a need to amend the legal framework in this respect at EU level, there are some difficulties in applying the existing rules for drone operations. The main causes of the problems are: (1) divided responsibilities for drone regulation, leading to diverging requirements in the internal market; (2) too costly and too time and resource intensive Individual authorisations; (3) not properly addressed specificities of drones in the traditional methods of civil aviation regulation; (4) the lack of proper information and instruments by the oversight and law enforcement authorities. The problems affect all actors in the aviation system, drone manufacturers and operators and indirectly all citizens concerning that drone could be flying everywhere.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

The general policy objective is to enable the development of drones and drone services in a safe, secure and sustainable manner and in full respect of citizens’ fundamental rights. For this purpose the initiative aims at amending Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and several implementing acts in order to extend the EU legislative framework on all drones. In this respect, the first specific objective is to eliminate the regulatory obstacles which today hamper the manufacturing and operation of drones, so that manufacturers may easily place their products on the market and operators may provide drone services to the economy. Unjustified regulatory obstacles should be removed but justified regulation such as essential safety rules, should remain in place or, where lacking, be developed. The second specific objective is to mitigate the specific risks and problems arising from the use of drones, notably in the fields of safety, security, privacy and data protection, and environment. Addressing those issues will be critical to ensure public acceptance of drones as an increasingly common part of daily life.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

Air transport is to a large extent of transnational character and therefore, by nature, calls for a regulatory approach at EU-level to reach a high level of safety. Taking into account that the new technologies allow ever very light drones to interfere with “manned aviation”, for which the EU is already competent, the EU legislation should also cover all types of drones in order to act coherently and thus prevent that drone operations negatively impact the safety of existing aviation activities. From the perspective of drones as “aeronautical products”, national markets do not provide sufficient scale to develop such global technologies. Mutual recognition in the single market is difficult to achieve in the presence of detailed national standards and rules. Only EU basic rules for the whole range of drones, regardless of weight, offer a consistent regulatory framework for drone manufacturing and operations in the EU internal market.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

This initiative has a legislative character. As drone operations are aviation safety critical, any approach based purely on voluntary action would be sub-optimal in terms of delivering high safety performance in a way that is coordinated with other air traffic. Policy options were developed regarding the approach to regulation (not mentioning the baseline) and in any case would need to be followed by a number of implementing acts:

1. Extension of the existing EU aviation regulation to all drones - integrating drones in the EU legislative framework with the traditional civil aviation approach.

2. Risk-based EU legislation on drones - the rules and approval and oversight procedures would be based on the particular risk and would no longer be quasi-automatically derived from the characteristics of the drone.

2.1 Applying EU product legislation to low-risk drones – low risk, small, mass produced drone offered for sale in retail shops and on the internet would be authorised on the basis of the a “new approach” product harmonization legislation.

PO2.1 is the preferred policy option as it addresses the safety risks in a less burdensome manner. The provisions in product safety regulations specifically adapted to mass products could complete the aviation rules as developed under PO2.

Who supports which option?

Legislative action at the EU level is supported by all stakeholders and MS (conclusions of the European Summit of 19 December 2013). The vast majority of stakeholders indicated in the public consultation that the current 150kg division of competence is obsolete and the status quo gets little support. There is a wide agreement that there is a need to move away from weight and take a set of factors into account, such as the type of the operation, the quality of the drone operator, the place of the operation and the reliability of the whole system (96%). Rules proportional to the risk of the operation were strongly advocated in particular by manufacturers and operators of lighter and less complex drones. Option 2 and sub-option 2.1 propose such approach by adjusting the requirements to the risks of a drone operation.

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

Option 2.1 will stimulate the development of the internal market for drone products and services by providing common rules and standards, including by making best use of general market surveillance tools for drones involved in low risk operations. At the same time, by applying rules proportionally to the risks, the market segment of smaller drones (where many SMEs are present) should not be stifled by overregulation. The flexibility of the option to deal with the wide range of operational risks and fast evolving technologies will allow for faster deployment of new technologies and consequently keeping the competitive edge of the EU companies. This option has the highest potential to keep operating costs for businesses low and to minimize the administrative work, by providing flexible framework for a range of procedures, such as self-declarations, simple validation or partial certifications. It should also be effective in addressing all safety risks, particularly by facilitating the compliance, as well as facilitate the enforcement of security, privacy and environmental provisions

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

The costs of the preferred option for business should be kept a low level. Harmonisation of rules and a single technical approval/ recognition of pilot and operator licence would lower the costs for any cross-border operation. The aim of the option is to keep authorisation costs down and proportional to the risk, but the overall impact on costs will depend on the implementing rules and the current requirements in Member States. Concerning the cost for national and European authorities, the regulation costs, it is expected that they could be borne with the existing resources. The costs of market oversight and authorisations of drones will be split within the EASA system taking into account optimal use of resources, with some responsibilities transferred to police and market surveillance. In any case, the costs under this option would be less than in the case that no EU initiative was taken.

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?

Positive impacts on small businesses will stem from a more proportional and risk based regulatory system, more flexibility in the means to meet requirements, an increased reliance on industry standards, simplified certification procedures for light drones and consequently reduced compliance cost. The objective of making the requirements proportional to the risk is exactly to keep the compliance costs low and to avoid unnecessary administrative burden, in particular for SMEs not familiar with the traditional aviation safety system. That is why it would be proposed to use the well-known CE marking mechanism. No official authorisation of the low risk category of drones would reduce the compliance costs for many small companies and operators active in this market segment, making them more competitive. The only negative impact could stem from the need to adjust to the new European safety systems from the national one (if such existed) for the drones used in specific risk category.

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?

With respect to implementation costs, Member States that have not yet introduced specific rules for drones below 150kg will be required to do so. Further costs will also arise from the need for additional training. The market surveillance bodies (notified bodies) will have to develop expertise in drones and drone technologies, although this would also be the case to some extent under the baseline. National aviation authorities will also need to bear the costs of adjusting to new rules and of oversight of an increasing number of drones/ drone operations.

Will there be other significant impacts?

The initiative should substantially increase the safety of the European airspace and could contribute to the better perception of drones, by addressing the main concerns related to them. A better public acceptance of drone operations is a prerequisite for the drone market expansion.

Proportionality?

The preferred option should properly balance the need to have common safety rules in Europe and not to put unnecessary burden on businesses. It should also adequately divide the responsibilities between various actors in the revised collaborative EASA system, leaving as many responsibilities as possible at national or local level.

D. Follow up

When will the policy be reviewed?

Top