FantasticSearch

(1) 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.

(2) Sustainable development of air transport requires the introduction of measures aimed at reducing the noise impact from aircraft at Union airports. Those measures should improve the noise environment around Union airports in order to maintain or increase the quality of life of neighbouring citizens and foster compatibility between aviation activities and residential areas, in particular where night flights are concerned.

(3) Resolution A33/7 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) introduces the concept of a ‘Balanced Approach’ to noise management (Balanced Approach) and establishes a coherent method to address aircraft noise. The 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 risk of international disputes in the event of third-country carriers being affected by noise-related operating restrictions.

(4) Following the removal of the noisiest aircraft pursuant to Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2006/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council , an update of how to use operating restriction measures is required to enable authorities to deal with the current noisiest aircraft so as to improve the noise environment around Union airports within the international framework of the Balanced Approach.

(5) The report from the Commission of 15 February 2008 entitled ‘Noise Operation Restrictions at EU Airports’ pointed to the need to clarify in the text of Directive 2002/30/EC the allocation of responsibilities and the precise rights and obligations of interested parties during the noise assessment process so as to guarantee that cost-effective measures are taken to achieve the noise abatement objectives for each airport.

(6) 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 distorting competition or hampering the overall efficiency of the Union aviation network through the inefficient use of existing capacity. Since the achievement of the specific noise abatement objective of this Regulation cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of harmonised rules on the process for introducing operating restrictions as part of the noise management process, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. Such a harmonised method does not impose noise quality objectives, which continue to derive from Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council , other relevant Union rules or legislation within each Member State, and does not prejudge the concrete selection of measures.

(7) This Regulation should only apply to Member States in which an airport with more than 50 000 civil aircraft movements per calendar year is located and when the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions is being considered at such an airport.

(8) This Regulation should apply to aircraft engaged in civil aviation. It should not apply to aircraft such as military aircraft and aircraft undertaking customs, police and fire-fighting operations. Furthermore, various operations of an exceptional nature, such as flights for urgent humanitarian reasons, search and rescue in emergency situations, medical assistance, and disaster relief, should be exempted from this Regulation.

(9) While noise assessments should be carried out on a regular basis in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC, 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, taking into account expected airport development. For airports where a noise problem has been identified, additional noise abatement measures should be identified in accordance with the Balanced Approach methodology. In order to ensure a wide application of the Balanced Approach within the Union, its use is recommended whenever it is considered adequate by the individual Member State concerned, even beyond the scope of this Regulation. Noise-related operating restrictions should be introduced only when other Balanced Approach measures are not sufficient to attain the specific noise abatement objectives.

(10) 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. This Regulation should not prevent Member States from using cost-benefit analyses where appropriate.

(11) The importance of health aspects needs to be recognised in relation to noise problems, and it is therefore important that those aspects be taken into consideration in a consistent manner at all airports when a decision is taken on noise abatement objectives, taking into account the existence of common Union rules in this area. Therefore, health aspects should be assessed in accordance with Union legislation on the evaluation of noise effects.

(12) Noise assessments should be based on objective and measurable criteria common to all Member States and should build on existing information available, such as information arising from the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC. Member States should ensure that such information is reliable, that it is obtained in a transparent manner and that it is accessible to competent authorities and stakeholders. Competent authorities should put in place the necessary monitoring tools.

(13) The competent authority responsible for adopting noise-related operating restrictions should be independent of any organisation involved in the airport’s operation, air transport or air navigation service provision, or representing the interests thereof and of the residents living in the vicinity of the airport. This should not be understood as requiring Member States to modify their administrative structures or decision-making procedures.

(14) 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, as yet, might not be fully consistent with the method described in the authoritative European Civil Aviation Conference Report Doc 29 entitled ‘Standard Method of Computing Noise Contours around Civil Airports’ (ECAC Doc 29) nor use the internationally recognised aircraft noise performance information. However, the efficiency and effectiveness of a noise-related operating restriction should be assessed in accordance with the methods prescribed in ECAC Doc 29 and the Balanced Approach. Accordingly, Member States should adapt their assessments of operating restrictions in national legislation towards full compliance with ECAC Doc 29.

(15) A new and wider definition of operating restrictions as compared to Directive 2002/30/EC should be introduced in order to facilitate the implementation of new technologies and new operational capabilities of aircraft and ground equipment. Its application should not lead to delay in the implementation of operational measures which could immediately alleviate the noise impact without substantially affecting the operational capacity of an airport. Such measures should therefore not be considered to constitute new operating restrictions.