This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52011SC1456
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
/* SEC/2011/1456 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT /* SEC/2011/1456 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation on rules
and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating
restrictions at Community airports
which will repeal Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 March 2002
Summary of IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1.
Problem definition
1.
Within the regulatory context formed by ICAO
obligations[1]
and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality set out in Article 5 of
the Treaty on European Union, Directive 2002/30/EC[2] (hereinafter ‘the Directive’), going
under the umbrella of the Environmental Noise Directive[3], is part of the ‘balanced
approach’ to noise management at EU airports. 2.
The aim of the Directive is to facilitate the
introduction of operating restrictions in a consistent manner at airport level
so as to limit or reduce the number of people significantly affected by the
harmful effects of noise. 3.
To this end, the Directive lays down a common
framework of rules and procedures for the introduction of operating
restrictions at EU airports, which should safeguard environmental protection
around the airports in a way that is compatible with internal market
requirements by considering similar operating restrictions at airports with
broadly comparable noise problems. 4.
The common framework includes: ·
rules on how to carry out in general the
noise assessment process, which has to be taken
into account prior to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions.
Operating restrictions are defined as noise-related actions that limit or
reduce access of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes to an airport. · specific rules on the introduction of operating restrictions aimed
at the withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft
(hereinafter MCA), which are the noisiest in the aircraft fleet. They are
defined by the Directive as aeroplanes that have a cumulative margin of no more
than 5 decibels in relation to Chapter 3 noise certification limits. · a procedure[4] to be followed by the relevant authorities on the introduction of
any new operating restriction. 5.
In light of the results of the stakeholder
consultations, the Commission has come to the conclusion that, taking into
account the intrinsic limitations to EU action set out above, the rules and
procedures laid down by the Directive on the way EU airports introduce
operating restrictions today are not applied in a consistent manner and their
impact is limited. This is felt particularly on two levels: · First, the specific rules on the introduction of operating
restrictions aimed at the withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft are no
longer effective. Indeed, over time, the number of MCA has become comparatively
small due to their natural replacement through technological development. The
definition of the MCA has become obsolete and the associated phasing-out period
inappropriate. · Second, stakeholders have reported that, in the current legal framework, operating restrictions are considered
differently at airports with broadly comparable noise problems, entailing potential
distortions of competition. This situation is due to the fact that the existing
rules on how to carry out in general the noise assessment process are not clear
and not sufficiently precise. Also, the existing procedure for introducing
operating restrictions is considered to be too weak.
2.
Analysis of subsidiarity
6.
The Directive contributes to the proper
functioning of the European air transport system. It responds to the objectives
of Articles 90 and 91 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(TFEU). 7.
According to Article 4 of the TFEU, EU action
regarding noise-related operating restrictions, as part of the common air
transport policy, has to be justified. In the present case, it is therefore
necessary that the subsidiarity principle set out in Article 5(3) of the Treaty
on European Union is respected. This involves assessing two aspects. 8.
Firstly, assessment of whether the objectives of
the proposed action could not be achieved sufficiently by Member States in the
framework of their national constitutional system, the so-called ‘necessity
test’. In the present case, this justification centres on the need to ensure
that international rules and procedures are implemented by Member States in a
uniform and efficient manner in order to provide EU and non-EU operators with a
level playing field. 9.
Secondly, it has to be considered whether and
how the objectives could be better achieved by action on the part of the EU,
the so-called ‘test of European added value’. The EU’s added value in terms of
the present initiative should consist in implementing measures that take into
account the situation of different airports while, at the same time, ensuring
that noise-related operating restrictions are implemented in a cost-effective
way at locations where the noise situation requires action and the appropriate,
locally-tailored balance is found between the various transport and
environmental policy objectives. Any individual action at Member State level
would have the potential to prejudice the functioning of the internal market.
3.
Objectives of the EU initiative
10.
In the specific regulatory framework set out
above, the general policy objective of this initiative is to harmonise
and strengthen further the common rules and procedures concerning the
introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at EU airports as part of
the noise management process. 11.
Thus revised, the common framework would promote
the most cost-effective noise-related solutions designed to achieve noise
quality objectives as established by EU, national or local rules. It should
also contribute to the overarching noise policy objective of avoiding,
preventing or reducing on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including
annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise.[5] 12.
In light of the root causes of the problems that
have been identified, the general objective of the proposed initiative can be
translated into more specific goals: (1)
Make the set of rules on MCA effective by
revising the definition of MCA and the associated phasing-out provision[6]; (2)
Ensure that operating restrictions are
considered at airports with broadly comparable noise problems in a consistent
manner by: ·
clarifying how to carry out a noise assessment
process; ·
strengthening the procedural framework leading
to the introduction of operating restrictions. 13.
In order to evaluate the progress made towards
achieving the general and specific policy objectives, the following operational
policy objectives are proposed: ·
The ratio of new curfews to total operating
restrictions should be brought to a level that is comparable to the level
achieved by other main economic powers by 2020 whilst reducing or, at least, containing the levels of noise
exposure of citizens; ·
All new operating restrictions should include measures
targeting MCA with the aim of maximising noise reduction.
4.
Policy options
14.
The logic of constructing the Policy Options
reflects the interaction between the two problems. Each Policy Option is
composed of two main components which address one of the problems each.
Moreover, each Policy Option is designed to maintain at least the same noise
climate as under a business-as-usual scenario (Policy Option 1). What
distinguishes the Policy Options is the intensity of intervention that,
depending on the option, is higher on the first, and lower on the second
problem. Tackling the issues related to MCA (Problem 1) will lead to fewer
and/or better-focused operating restrictions affecting non-marginally compliant
(less noisy) aircraft. Hence the significance of the issues related to correct
implementation of the Balanced Approach (Problem 2) for the latter aircraft
decreases. Table
1: Mapping problem, drivers and
objectives Specific Objectives || Policy options PO2 || PO3 || PO4 Make the specific rules on MCA effective by: || revising the obsolete definition of MCA || Change the definition of MCA to include aircraft below Chapter 3 -12 EPNdB standard || Change the definition of MCA to include aircraft below Chapter 3 -10 EPNdB standard || Change the definition of MCA to include aircraft below Chapter 3 -8 EPNdB standard choosing an adequate associated phasing-out period || Complete phase-out allowed within 4 years || Complete phase-out allowed within 2 years || Complete phase-out allowed within 2 years Ensure that similar operating restrictions are considered at airports with broadly comparable noise problems in a consistent manner by: || strengthening the procedural framework leading to the introduction of operating restrictions || Establishment of EU-level support cell for implementation of the BA || Establishment of EU-level support cell for implementation of the BA || Establishment of EU-level support cell for implementation of the BA clarifying and specifying how to carry out a noise assessment process || Additional rules on the scope of stakeholder consultation || Additional rules on the scope of stakeholder consultation || Additional rules on the scope of stakeholder consultation || Higher legal certainty for infringement procedures || COM right of scrutiny with suspension possible until revised assessment is found adequate || Mandatory COM scrutiny and prior authorisation 15.
The European legislation on airport noise is
currently in the form of a Directive. This choice of legal instrument has
partly led to the wide variation in the way operating restrictions are
introduced in Europe. 16.
In order to address the problems identified
above, Policy Options 3 and 4 propose to give the Commission a right of scrutiny.
This is justified by the fact that if the cost-effectiveness of an operating restriction
is not demonstrated, taking into account other noise management instruments,
the Commission would need to ensure that such a measure can be suspended until
the assessment process is done in a correct way. Transparent, EU-wide
applicable and interpreted criteria would need to be established on the
possibility of suspending an operating restriction. 17.
There is also the fact that the Policy Options include
an update of the definition of MCA. This definition would need to apply equally
in all Member States, being a technical standard which is agreed by the same
Member States in ICAO. Reflecting on the likely future need to amend this
definition in order to keep up with scientific progress and the autonomous
renewal of the aircraft fleet, all Policy Options provide for the possibility
of updating the definition of MCA through a delegated act by the appropriate committee. 18.
On the basis of the above argumentation, a
Regulation would probably be a more appropriate tool for translating the policy
changes into legislation.
5.
Assessment of impacts
19.
The analysis of impacts shows that the three
Policy Options have clear economic, social and environmental impacts. – From an economic point of view, Policy Option 2 seems to
be overall preferable as it has the smallest increase in administrative costs.
However this Policy Option can be regarded as challenging in terms of
international relations. Policy Option 3 would avoid this negative impact on
external relations, but would pose an additional burden on the EU budget. This Policy
Option would keep the administrative burden similar to Policy Option 1. – Also from a social point of view, Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 have a
similar impact. The only major difference in the effects stems from the extent
to which operational measures affecting the safety of aircraft are scrutinised.
Policy Options 2 and 3 can be considered largely equivalent in this respect. – With regard to the environment, Policy Option 4 can be clearly
distinguished by the relatively high potential of negative impacts related to
trade-off between operational measures addressing noise and climate change.
Again, Policy Options 2 and 3 can be considered by and large comparable in
relation to the environmental impacts. Table 2:
Summary table of impacts compared to Policy Option 1 || Policy Option 2 || Policy Option 3 || Policy Option 4 Impact on the implementation of the Balanced Approach || Medium || Medium || High Economic impacts || || || Impact on: The efficient functioning of the European aviation network || Low || Low || Low Airports || Medium || Medium || Low Aircraft operators || Low || Low || Medium Airframe and aircraft engine manufacturers || Medium || Medium || Neutral Administrative costs || Up to € 1 800 000/year || Up to € 3 000 000/year || Up to € 4 200 000/year EU budget || Low || Medium || High International relations || High || Low || Medium Social impacts || || || Impact on governance and participation || High || High || High Impact on employment level and conditions || Low || Low || Low Impact on safety || Low || Medium || Medium Environmental impacts || || || Impact on noise || Neutral || Neutral || Neutral Impact on climate change || Medium || Medium || Neutral Legend: Negative
impacts are identified as dark orange in bold italics. ‘HIGH’
refers to high likelihood of significant impacts. ‘MEDIUM’ and ‘LOW’ mean lower
probabilities of a significant impact arising. The magnitude of impact will in
all cases depend on the measures chosen through the discretion of local and
national authorities and aircraft operators.
6.
Comparison of options
6.1.
Coherence
20.
As shown above, Policy Option 3 is the most
coherent, carefully balancing action to achieve the specific policy objectives.
No significant negative impact is foreseen under this Policy Option, which
therefore represents the lowest trade-offs across the economic, social, and
environmental domains.
6.2.
Effectiveness
21.
Table 3 gives a brief overview
of the policy options’ effectiveness with regard to the specific policy
objectives defined in Section 3. This shows that in terms of effectiveness, no
clear priority can be established. Nevertheless, Policy Option 3 appears to be
the most balanced option because it offers the most appropriate palette of
actions to meet the defined objectives. 22.
As regards the objective related to the rules on
MCA, the effectiveness of the envisaged Policy Options is dependent upon their
level of ambition in relation to the noise performance of aircraft. In this
respect, Policy Option 2 is expected to score best because the revised
definition of MCA is the strictest, in that the MCA will encompass aircraft whose
noise performance is below Chapter 3 -12EPNdB standard and therefore close to
Chapter 4 aircraft. Accordingly, Policy Option 4 offers the lowest
effectiveness, being the least ambitious in terms of noise performance of aircraft,
whereas Policy Option 2 scores better than Policy Option 3. 23.
As regards the objective related to the
consistent introduction of operating restrictions at EU airports, the
effectiveness of the envisaged Policy Options is dependent upon the degree of
the quality control performed. Policy Option 4 offers the best possibilities in
this respect. The option benefits from its much stronger focus on the
procedural framework, especially with the prominent role of the Commission in
controlling the quality of the assessment process. The Commission will indeed
be in charge of mandatory scrutiny and prior authorisation of any envisaged
operating restrictions at EU airports. Compared to Policy Option 4, Policy
Option 3 is less effective because the quality control will not be systematic.
However, it will enable the Commission to focus its quality control on the most
problematic operating restrictions. Policy Option 2 is expected to be by far
the least effective because scrutiny of the quality of the assessment process
will be performed ex post through infringement procedures. Table 3: Effectiveness of envisaged Policy Options
in light of specific policy objectives Specific policy objectives || Policy Option 1 || Policy Option 2 || Policy Option 3 || Policy Option 4 Make the specific rules on MCA effective by: revising obsolete definition of MCA choosing an adequate associated phasing-out period || neutral || high || medium || low Ensure that similar operating restrictions are considered at airports with broadly comparable noise problems in a consistent manner by: clarifying and specifying how to carry out a noise assessment process strengthening the procedural framework leading to the introduction of operating restrictions || neutral || low || medium - high || high
6.3.
Efficiency
24.
Given that the proposed initiative is of a
procedural nature, the total cost of the envisaged Policy Options covers
administrative costs and cost to the EU budget. 25.
In light of the estimations detailed above,
Policy Option 2 appears to be the most efficient as it would bring about
the smallest increase in administrative costs. However, this assessment does
not take account of the potential costs of an international dispute in the
highly globalised aviation market, possibly negatively affecting EU aircraft
operators.
6.4.
Conclusion
26.
In light of the above, preference is given to
Policy Option 3. Policy Option 3 appears, in particular with respect to
coherence, the most suitable Policy Option for achieving the objectives
identified in Section 3.
7.
Monitoring and evaluation
27.
The Commission will properly evaluate and review
the Regulation five years after its adoption. On top of the evidence produced
in the framework of a scrutiny or appeal procedure on particular cases, the
Commission will constantly monitor a set of core indicators which will be updated
to trace the effectiveness of the Regulation. Table 4: Monitoring indicators Key indicators || Definition || Relevance Monitoring the noise performance of aircraft and quality of noise management policies Noise certification || This indicator shows the noise performance of new aircraft. || This indicator monitors the progress in noise performance of new aircraft. Number of movements of MCA || This indicator gives the number of flights performed in the ECAC region of MCA (can be detailed per airport and airline). || This indicator shows trends in the use of MCA. Overview of operating restrictions and the mix of noise mitigating measures || This new indicator would compile information from noise action plans and performance plans on the quality of noise mitigating measures. || This indicator would reveal the quality of noise assessment process. [1] In 2001, the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (hereinafter ICAO) Assembly endorsed the concept of
a ‘Balanced Approach’ to aircraft noise management. The ICAO Balanced Approach
offers a policy framework for reducing noise at airports in a cost-effective
manner and using restrictions on operations not as a first resort, but only
after consideration of other possible measures, namely reduction at source,
land-use planning and management, noise abatement operational procedures and
operating restrictions. . [2] Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures
with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at
Community airports (Text with EEA relevance). OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 40–46. [3] Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of
environmental noise - Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation
Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment and management of
environmental noise. [4] This procedure covers areas such as consultation of
stakeholders, prior information of the Commission and other Member States and
right of appeal. [5] See Article 1 of the Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC). [6] This would involve the revision of Article 2 (d) and
Article 6 on ‘Rules on the introduction of operating restrictions aimed at
the withdrawal of MCA’.