REPORT on the 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

21.11.2012 - (COM(2011)0828 – C7‑0456/2011 – 2011/0398(COD)) - ***I

Committee on Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Jörg Leichtfried

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the 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

(COM(2011)0828 – C7‑0456/2011 – 2011/0398(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0828),

–   having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7‑0456/2011),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to the reasoned opinions submitted, within the framework of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the French Senate, the German Bundesrat and the Netherlands Senate, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

–   having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 28 March 2012[1],

–   having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 11 May 2012[2],

–   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0372/2012),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment  1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(2) 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.	(2) Sustainable development of air transport necessitates the introduction of measures aimed at reducing the noise from aircraft at and around airports with particular noise problems. A large number of EU citizens are exposed to high noise levels which may lead to negative health effects, particularly where night flights are concerned.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6a) In order to reduce the need for operating restrictions, the national action plans described in Directive 2002/49/EC should, in the immediate future, embrace the adoption of complementary measures to manage external airport noise, such as soundproofing of homes and plans for general noise barriers.
Justification
The 2002 Directive on management of environmental noise is, unfortunately, on its way to becoming obsolete owing to the huge increase in air traffic in recent years. Until such time as this directive is revised, the present Regulation should complement it insofar as possible.
Amendment  3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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.	(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, or the measures established by Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise1, do not achieve the noise abatement objectives. Additional noise abatement measures should be drawn up following a systematic process of environmental monitoring and control and be based on a conservative approach with the aim of identifying promptly the management and/or operational Monitoring-Based Corrective Actions (MBCA) required.
	__________________
	1 OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12
Amendment  4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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.	(8) While a noise abatement objective should be chosen by comparing all costs and all benefits, the tool to reach this objective should be cost-effective, taking account of health, economic and social aspects.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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, 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.	(9) The Commission should be able to evaluate proposed operating restrictions before their implementation.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(9a) The use of approved noise abatement operational procedures should ensure that the necessary flight safety is maintained by considering all factors that might affect a particular operation. Noise abatement operational measures must not preclude or prohibit anti-terrorist security measures.
Justification
Safety and security are overriding priorities in aviation.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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.	(10) In accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC, noise assessments should be based on objective and measurable criteria common to all the Member States. That information must be reliable, obtained in a transparent manner, comparable and accessible to all stakeholders. Assessments should include monitoring of the latest technological developments and exchanges of information on the latest findings concerning the procedures to be employed. Competent authorities should put in place the necessary monitoring and enforcement tools. Noise assessments should be carried out or supervised by outside agencies independent of the airport operator.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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.	(13) In order to reflect the continuous technological progress 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 method and technical report relating to the assessment of the noise situation at an airport. 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.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(13a) In order to ensure legal certainty and planning reliability, operating restrictions and decisions on the operation of airports, including court decisions and the outcome of mediation processes which were already introduced or under examination before the entry into force of this Regulation should not be subject to this Regulation but should be dealt with under existing rules.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(16a) This Regulation deals solely with aircraft noise. It does not seek to regulate the impact of pollutant emissions from the operation of aircraft and measures to reduce those emissions. Rules and procedures governing emissions-related operating restrictions should be laid down in a separate legislative act.
Amendment  11 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
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.	1. This Regulation lays down the rules on the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions in a consistent manner on an airport-by-airport basis and where a noise problem has been identified so as to help improve the noise climate and to limit or reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise, in accordance with the Balanced Approach.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph2 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) 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;	(a) to facilitate the achievement of specific environmental noise abatement objectives, as laid down in Union, national or local rules, and to assess their interdependence with other environmental objectives, including health aspects, at the level of individual airports;
Amendment  13 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) 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.	b) to enable selection of the most effective noise mitigation measures, taking account of both health and economic aspects, 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.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
This Regulation shall apply to aircraft engaged in civil aviation.	This Regulation shall apply to aircraft flights engaged in civil aviation.
Amendment  15 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
It shall not apply to aircraft engaged in military, customs, police, or similar services.	It shall not apply to aircraft flights engaged in military customs, police, or similar services.
Justification
The proposal for a Regulation would apply to airports with more than 50,000 civil aircraft movements per year. Therefore, it applies to flights and not to aircraft.
Amendment  16 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(2) ‘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.	(2) ‘Balanced Approach’ means the process established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in Volume 1, Part V of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention 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 minimising noise in the most effective way taking account, inter alia, of health and economic aspects, on an airport by airport basis in order to safeguard the health of citizens living in nearby areas.
Amendment  17 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(4) ‘Marginally compliant aircraft’ means civil aircraft 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;	(4) ‘Marginally compliant aircraft’ means aircraft that are certified in accordance with Chapter 3 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 8 EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels) during a transitional period of four years after the entry into force of this Regulation, and by a cumulative margin of less than 10 EPNdB following the end of that transitional period. 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 3 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention;
Justification
It is proposed to adapt the definition to better reflect the life cycle of aircrafts.
Amendment  18 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(6) ‘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.	(6) '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, which for example apply for an identified time period during the day or only for certain runways at the airport.
Justification
The definition of partial operating restrictions in Article 2(6) shall be based on ICAO’s definition (see page I-7-2 of ICAO Guidance on the Balanced Approach, ICAO Doc 9829).In particular, the definition proposed by the Commission is inaccurate and inconsistent with ICAO’s Balanced Approach as it limits partial restrictions to restrictions affecting operations according to time period. The balanced approach is based on the core principle that solutions to noise problems need to be tailored to the specific characteristics of the airport concerned. It requires due consideration to be given to its four principal elements, namely noise reduction at source, land-use planning and management, noise abatement operational procedures, and not as a first resort operating restrictions.
Amendment  19 Proposal for a regulation Article 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Competent authorities	Competent authorities and right of appeal
1. Member States shall designate competent authorities responsible for adopting measures on operating restrictions, as well as an independent appeal body.	1. Member States in which an airport is located shall designate one or more competent authorities responsible for following the process of adoption of operating restrictions, as well as an independent appeal body, in accordance with national laws and practices.
2. The competent authorities and the appeal body shall be independent of any organisation which could be affected by noise-related action.	2. The competent authorities and the appeal body shall be independent of any organisation which could be affected by noise-related action.
3. 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.	3. The Member States shall notify in a timely manner the Commission of the names and addresses of the designated competent authorities and appeal body referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission shall publish that information.
	4. Member States shall ensure the right to appeal against the operating restrictions adopted pursuant to this Regulation before the appeal body in accordance with national legislation and procedures.
Amendment  20 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. Member States shall adopt a Balanced Approach in regard to aircraft noise management. To this end, they shall:	1. Member States shall implement the Balanced Approach in regard to aircraft noise management, on an airport-to-airport basis, within the scope of this Regulation. To this end, they shall assess the noise situation at an individual airport in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC, including harmful effects on human health. Where a noise problem is identified, they shall:
Amendment  21 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) assess the noise situation at an individual airport;	(a) ensure that the noise abatement objective for that airport, taking account, as appropriate, of Article 8 and Annex V of Directive 2002/49, is defined;
(b)define the environmental noise abatement objective;
Amendment  22 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) evaluate the likely cost-effectiveness of the available measures;	(d) carry out a formal and comprehensive assessment of the likely cost-effectiveness of the available measures;
Amendment  23 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) noise abatement operational procedures;	(c) noise abatement operational procedures, including the guidance of take-off and landing routes;
Amendment  24 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
The available measures may include the withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft, if so deemed necessary.	The available measures may include the withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft, if so deemed necessary. Member States may offer economic incentives to encourage aircraft operators to use less noisy aircraft during the transitional period referred to in Article 2(4).
Amendment  25 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. Member States may, within the Balanced Approach, differentiate noise mitigating measures according to aircraft type, runway use and/or timeframe covered.	3. Member States may, within the Balanced Approach, differentiate noise mitigating measures according to aircraft noise performance, runway use, flight path and/or timeframe covered.
Amendment  26 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 5
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
5. 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 shall be non-discriminatory, in particular on grounds of nationality, identity or activity of aircraft operators.	5. Measures or a combination of measures taken in accordance with this Regulation for a given airport shall be appropriate to achieve the environmental noise abatement objectives set for that airport. Operating restrictions shall be non-discriminatory, in particular on grounds of nationality, identity or activity of aircraft operators and be non-arbitrary.
Amendment  27 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	6a. The Member States shall adopt, speedily and without any undue delay, the necessary legislative measures for the application of Article 4.
Amendment  28 Proposal for a regulation Article 5
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. 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.	1. The competent authorities shall ensure that the noise situation at airports for which they are responsible is assessed 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.
2. The competent authorities shall use the method, indicators and information described in Annex I for the assessment of the current and future noise situation.	2. The competent authorities shall use the method, indicators and information described in Annex I for the assessment of the current and future noise situation.
3. 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.	3. If that assessment indicates that new operating restriction measures may be required to address a noise problem at an airport, the competent authorities shall ensure that:
4. 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 representatives, and provide technical information and advice on noise mitigating measures to the competent authorities.	(a) the method, indicators and information in Annex I are applied to take due account of the contribution of each type of measure under the Balanced Approach,
5. 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.	(b) at the appropriate level, technical cooperation is established between the airport operators, aircraft operators and air navigation service providers to examine measures to mitigate noise. The competent authorities shall also ensure that local residents, or their representatives, and relevant local authorities are consulted, and that technical information on noise mitigating measures is provided to them.
6. 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:	(c) the cost-effectiveness of any new operating restriction is assessed, in accordance with Annex II. Minor technical amendments to existing measures without substantive implications on capacity or operations are not considered as new operating restrictions.
(a) representatives from local residents living in the surroundings of the airports affected by air traffic noise;	(d) the consultation process with interested parties is organised 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 operating restrictions to provide comments. The interested parties shall at least include:
(b) relevant airport operators;	(i) local residents, living in the vicinity of the airports, affected by air traffic noise or their representatives and representatives of the relevant local and regional authorities
(c) representatives of aircraft operators which may be affected by noise-related actions;	(ii) representatives of local businesses based in the surroundings of the airports whose operations are affected by air traffic and the operation of the airport;
(d) relevant air navigation service providers;	(iii) relevant airport operators;
(e) the Network Manager, as defined in Commission Regulation No 677/2011.	(iv) representatives of aircraft operators which may be affected by noise-related actions;
	(v) relevant air navigation service providers;
	(vi) the Network Manager, as defined in Commission Regulation No 677/2011;
	(vii) where applicable, the designated slots coordinator.
7. 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.	4. 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 made available on-line, thus allowing local residents living in the surroundings of the airports and other interested parties to access the information freely.
	The relevant information shall include:
	(a) information on alleged infringements due to changes in flight paths, in terms of their impact and the reasons why such change were made,
	(b) the criteria used when distributing and managing traffic in each airport, to the extent that those criteria may have an environmental or noise impact.
	5. The competent authorities shall ensure that the operators of airport facilities install computerised noise measuring systems at different points close to flight paths which affect or are likely to affect the local population. The data collected by those noise measuring systems may be consulted via the internet.
Amendment  29 Proposal for a regulation Article 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. 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.	1. 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.
2. At the request of the Commission, aircraft operators shall communicate the following noise information in respect of their aircraft that use Union airports:	2. At the request of the Commission and if the Agency does not already have the information requested, aircraft operators shall communicate the following noise information in respect of their aircraft that use Union airports:
(a) the tail number of the aircraft;	(a) the tail number of the aircraft;
(b) the noise performance certificate or certificates of the aircraft used, together with the associated actual maximum take-off weight;	(b) the noise certificate or certificates of the aircraft used, together with the associated actual maximum take-off weight;
(c) any modification of the aircraft which influences its noise performance;	(c) any modification of the aircraft which influences its noise performance and is recorded in its noise certificate
(d) 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.	Each time an operator changes the noise certificate used for an aircraft, it shall inform the Commission.
The data shall be provided free of charge, in electronic form and using the format specified, where applicable.	The data shall be provided in electronic form and using the format specified, where applicable. The Commission shall bear any costs for providing those data.
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.	3. Modelling of airport community noise shall be based on manufacturer-provided aircraft noise and performance data recommended for use by the international community and made available through ICAO. 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. The Agency shall refer to the established ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection Modelling and Databases Group's process to determine data validity and best practices and ensure continued harmonisation across international airworthiness agencies.
4. 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.	4. 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.
Amendment  30 Proposal for a regulation Article 7
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. 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 for the airport concerned for the relevant scheduling period, to the Member States, the Commission and the relevant interested parties.	1. When introducing an operating restriction, the competent authorities shall give notice three months before, 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 for the airport concerned for the relevant scheduling period, to the Member States, the Commission and the relevant interested parties.
2. 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.	2. 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 noise abatement 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.
3. 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.	3. 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, ending at least two months prior to the determination of the slot coordination parameters as referred to in paragraph 1. The competent authorities shall decide on the annual rate for removing marginally compliant aircraft. This annual rate shall not be more than 25 % of the movements and shall be applied uniformly to each affected operator with reference to its number of movements with marginally compliant aircraft at that airport.
4. Any appeal against decisions on noise-related operating restrictions shall be organised in accordance with national law.
Amendment  31 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(ba) aircraft on flights operated for humanitarian or diplomatic purposes.
Justification
Competent authorities should have the possibility to exempt flights operated by marginally compliant aircraft for humanitarian purposes from the application of this regulation.
Amendment  32 Proposal for a regulation Article 10
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. 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.	1. At the request of a Member State or on its own initiative, and without prejudice to a pending appeal procedure, the Commission may within a period of two months after the day on which it receives notice, as referred to in Article 7(1), evaluate the process for the introduction of a noise-related operating restriction. Where the Commission finds that the introduction of a noise-related operating restriction does not follow the process set out in this Regulation, the Commission may notify the relevant competent authorities accordingly. The relevant competent authorities may take the Commission's opinion into account.
2. The competent authorities shall provide the Commission with information demonstrating compliance with this Regulation.	2. The competent authorities shall provide the Commission with information demonstrating compliance with this Regulation.
3. 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.
4. 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.	3. Where the Commission has not notified its opinion within a period of two months after it has received notice, as referred to in Article 7(1), the competent authority may apply the envisaged decision on an operating restriction.
Amendment  33 Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) amendments of the definitions of aircraft in Article 2 point (3) and of marginally compliant aircraft in Article 2 point (4);	deleted
Justification
Delegation of powers to the Commission should be limited to technical adaptations and changes. The political decisions should remain in the remit of co-legislators.
Amendment  34 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. 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.	2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 11 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment  35 Proposal for a regulation Article 13
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Article 13	deleted
Committee
1. 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.
This committee is a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.
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.
Justification
This provision becomes obsolete as Article 10(3) is deleted.
Amendment  36 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	Article 14a
	Transitional provisions
	Operating restrictions and decisions on the operation of airports, including court decisions and the outcome of mediation processes which were introduced or under examination before the entry into force of this Regulation shall not be subject to this Regulation. They shall, to the extent that Directive 2002/30/EC is applicable, continue to be subject to that Directive and, where applicable, the national rules transposing it. The effects of Directive 2002/30/EC shall therefore be maintained for such measures. A minor technical amendment to the existing measure without substantive implications on capacity or operations shall not be considered as a new operating restriction.
Justification
Grandfathering clause is needed in order to make it clear that existing operating restrictions and procedures on introducing those restrictions which were launched prior the entry into force of the new Regulation remain subject to the existing rules.
Amendment  37 Proposal for a regulation Annex 1 – section 1 – point 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
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.	1. Competent authorities will use noise assessment methods which have been developed in accordance with Annex II to Directive 2002/49/EC
Justification
This amendment aims to ensure the consistency of the methodology prescribed by Directive 2002/49 and the future Regulation.
Amendment  38 Proposal for a regulation Annex 1 – section 3 – point 1 – point 1.2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1.2 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.	1.2 A description of the noise abatement objectives for the airport and the national context.
Justification
This annex is about the assessment of the noise situation around airports. Therefore, it should be done against the noise abatement objective for a specific airport. The practicalities deriving from the second sentence are not clear.
Amendment  39 Proposal for a regulation Annex 1 – section 3 – point 1 – point 1.3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1.3 Details of noise contours for the current and previous years – including an assessment of the number of people affected by aircraft noise.	1.3 Details of noise contours for the current and at least the previous two years – including an assessment of the number of people affected by aircraft noise, carried out in accordance with Annex III to Directive 2002/49/EC.
Amendment  40 Proposal for a regulation Annex 1 – section 3 – point 2.1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2.1 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.	2.1 Descriptions of airport developments (if any) already approved and in the pipeline, for example, increased capacity, runway and/or terminal expansion, approach and take-off forecasts, projected future traffic mix and estimated growth and a detailed study of the noise impact on the surrounding area caused by expanding the capacity, runways and terminals and by modifying flight paths and approach and take-off routes.
Amendment  41 Proposal for a regulation Annex 1 – section 3 – point 2 – point 2.4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
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.	Forecast noise contours – including an assessment of the number of people likely to be affected by aircraft noise – distinguish between established residential areas, newly constructed residential areas and planned future residential areas that have already been granted authorisation by the competent authorities.
Justification
To optimise the evaluation of the impact of noise on residential areas close to airport, plans for future residential areas should also be taken into account. Plans which have been granted building authorisation by the competent authorities therefore need to be specifically mentioned.
Amendment  42 Proposal for a regulation Annex 1 – section 3 – point 3 – point 3.1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3.1 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.	3.1 Outline of the additional measures available and an indication of the main reasons for their selection.
Justification
This provision should remain in the remit of co-legislators. It is proposed to take it out from delegated acts.
Amendment  43 Proposal for a regulation Annex 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
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:	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) The anticipated noise benefit of the envisaged measures, now and in the future;	1) The anticipated noise benefit, including the health benefit, of the envisaged measures, now and in the future;
2) Safety of aviation operations, including third party risk;	2) Health and safety of local residents living in the surroundings of the airport
3) Capacity of the airport;	3) Safety of aviation operations, including third party risk;
4) Effects on the Europan aviation network.	4) Direct, indirect and catalytic employment and economic effects, including potential effects on regional economies.
In addition competent authorities may take due account of following factors:	4a) Impact on working conditions at airports;
1) Health and safety of local residents living in the surroundings of the airport;	4b) Capacity of the airport;
2) Environmental sustainability, including interdependencies between noise and emissions;	4c) Effects on the European aviation network
3) Direct, indirect and catalytic employment effects.	4d) Environmental sustainability, including interdependencies between noise and emissions;

• [1]  OJ C 181, 21.6.2012, p. 177.
• [2]  OJ C 277, 13.9.2012, p. 110.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Commission's proposal

The Proposal aims at updating existing measures in order to enable local authorities to improve the noise climate around airports in the Union within the international framework of the ICAO's Balanced Approach on Noise Management. The Balanced Approach needs to be applied in a consistent manner.

The Balanced Approach covers the full range of noise mitigating measures – 1) reduction of aeroplane noise at source, 2) land-use planning and management measures, 3) noise abatement operational procedures (using of specific runways, routes or procedures) and 4) operating restrictions – imposes the assessment of the noise problem and provides for appropriate consultation.

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 project. But land use planning, together with the associated insulation and compensation programmes, is a national or local competence. Operational procedures fall under competence of the airport and the air traffic service providers and are covered by Single European Sky legislation.

The Proposal thus covers noise-related operating restrictions together with the process related requirements (mapping, cost-efficiency assessment and consultation) and transposes international commitments into European law.

The issue of noise standards is addressed in another piece of European legislation, the so-called environmental noise directive (Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise), which obliges Member States to identify the main sources of environmental noise, to measure the noise impact and to take appropriate action. The Proposal would complete Directive 2002/49/EC by providing the process to deliver a noise action plan of cost-effective noise mitigating measures against air traffic.

The Rapporteur's assessment and recommendations

The main issues at stake are the right of scrutiny for the Commission, concept of cost-effectiveness, definition of marginally compliant aircraft and the scope of delegation of powers to the Commission.

The Commission's right of scrutiny (Article 10)

German Bundesrat, Austrian Bundesrat, French Senate and Dutch First Chamber found that Commission's right of scrutiny under Article 10 infringing the principle of subsidiarity of the European Union. Several Members of the European Parliament raised their concerns that Article 10 would allow the Commission to undermine outcomes of regional mediation agreements. These agreements between airports, the region and citizens are often reached after years of difficult and exhausting negotiations. The Rapporteur finds broad opposition amongst almost all parties on keeping Article 10. Therefore, rewording is proposed in order to ensure that competences of local authorities and the principle of EU subsidiarity are fully respected.

Cost-effectiveness

Both, economic benefits and impacts on health and quality of people living in the vicinity of airports should be equally considered when assessing the noise situation at EU airports. Therefore, amendments aiming at strengthening this balance are proposed, including a new concept of "overall efficiency" of the proposed operating restrictions.

Marginally compliant aircraft (Article 2(4)

The concept of marginally compliant aircraft plays important role in noise management. Phasing-out of the noisiest aircraft can be a quite effective measure to mitigate the noise. Focusing on the noisiest aircraft gives breathing space for further growth – whilst relieving the citizens living in the surroundings of airports. At the same time, the phase-out of the noisiest aircraft should take into account investments and lifecycle of aircraft.

Delegated acts (Article 11)

While some degree of flexibility is needed in order to ensure that legislation catches up with technological development, it should be nevertheless carefully assessed whether the proposed delegation of powers to the Commission is necessary in all areas. It is the legislator who bears final responsibility for legislative texts. Distinction should be drawn between technical adaptations and political decisions. The scope of the proposed delegation of powers seems to be inappropriately broad and the Parliament should reserve the right to amend politically important elements in the ordinary legislative procedure.

OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (15.10.2012)

for the Committee on Transport and Tourism

on the 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
(COM(2011)0828 – C7‑0456/2011 – 2011/0398(COD))

Rapporteur: Andres Perello Rodriguez

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The European Union, which leads the world in environmental legislation and combating climate change, still has unfinished business when it comes to dealing with noise pollution. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has a special responsibility to ensure that this Regulation comes into being, as the number of people affected by airport noise, particularly at night, continues to rise, with the resulting ill-effects on health having been documented by countless scientific reports.

In the first place, most of the sectors consulted regretted the repeal of a directive which they considered valid. This opinion therefore attempts to reclaim what it considers to be some essential aspects of the Directive, such as reintroduction of the definition of interested parties, references to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and to public participation. However, even if the changes proposed by this report in order to correct the imbalances were to be finally adopted, the rapporteur feels that the Directive is still the most appropriate instrument, since the process of transposition inherent to a directive makes it possible for legislation to be tailored to each specific case, and also forces Member States to achieve goals and results within a fixed timescale, whereas a regulation merely sets common minimum requirements.

As far as questions linked to the ‘profitability’ of introducing operational restrictions are concerned, the Commision’s proposal seems to be too heavily weighted towards issues of economic profitability. The rapporteur therefore deems it necessary to correct the terminology used by the Commission when referring to the ‘profitability’ of the operating measures. If we wish to keep economic and environmental profitability and health protection on an equal footing, it is essential to replace references to ‘profitability’ with ‘efficiency’ and a correct ‘cost/benefit’ relationship, as the ICAO does in its resolutions.

It is also important to clarify the concept of ‘interested parties’, expanding the ‘consultative’ role assigned to interested parties to one in ‘participatory’ processes. The establishment of pre-dispute mediation bodies is also proposed and the inclusion, in Article 10, of the due right of affected parties to appeal to the Commission not only in cases where an operating restriction is adopted in a way which fails to comply with the Regulation, but also in cases where the competent authorities decline to apply an operating restriction which has been shown to be necessary to public health. In fact, and bearing in mind that the previous directive arose as a means of resolving possible conflicts of an international nature, the aim here is to put an end to the complaints made to the Commission or the numerous legal proceedings involving excessive noise pollution currently underway in European courts, of which the recent judgment on night flights at Frankfurt airport is the most notable example.

Also with regard to Article 10, the rapporteur disagrees with the Commission's self-attributed right to direct scrutiny of any operating restriction and proposes that the Commission’s role should instead be based on a process of consideration and recommendation to the Member States.

The rapporteur views the definition of operating restrictions very favourably, but also considers that if air traffic and airport facilities are to be managed more sustainably, it is preferable to take preventive action rather than to adopt palliative measures in the form of an operating restriction. To achieve this, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity and bearing in mind that night flights are still the major unresolved problem, we recommend the introduction of ‘night terminals’, as has already been done at some airports. Night terminals can be purpose built mini-airports or specially adapted landing strips, far from population centres and the noisiest routes.

Lastly, given the huge increase in air traffic and the large number of airports which have been expanded in recent years, the rapporteur wishes to recommend, as a complementary measure, a revision of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, to include a specific chapter covering airport facilities, thereby complementing the too general provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. In the meantime, the rapporteur has included in this report mechanisms for coordination between the above-mentioned Directive and the new Regulation, enabling them to complement each other in their response to the new situation of greatly increased airport activity in the EU.

People living close to airports and their related environment suffer from a triple scourge of noise, air and chemical pollution. For this reason, every effort must be made to ensure that airports are fully sustainable. As a Vice-Chairman of UECNA once said to me, ‘progress which affects people's health and wellbeing is not progress at all’.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Amendment  1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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.	(1) A key objective of the common transport policy is sustainable development. This requires an integrated approach aimed at ensuring the effective functioning of Union transport systems alongside the protection of the environment and citizens' health.
Amendment  2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(2) 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.	(2) Sustainable development of air transport necessitates the introduction of measures aimed at reducing the noise nuisance from aircraft at and around airports with particular noise problems. A large number of EU citizens are exposed to high noise levels which may lead to negative health effects, particularly where night flights are concerned.
Justification
The increase in nocturnal air traffic in recent years is endangering people’s health and calls into question the sustainability of airports. This issue needs to be specifically addressed in the context of this regulation (directive).
Amendment  3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(4) 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.	(4) 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. This Regulation completes this approach, with the aim of reducing most of the environmentally harmful effects of civil aviation, through the application of integrated measures including: technological progress, appropriate operating procedures, proper organisation of air transit and appropriate use of airport planning mechanisms, planning measures and land-use management. The 'Balanced Approach' focuses on four principal elements: reduction of noise at source; land-use planning and management; noise abatement operational procedures; and operating restrictions on aircraft. These principles 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 national and international disputes in case third country carriers may be affected by noise-related operating restrictions.
Justification
This correction provides a better framework for Article 4 of the present Regulation. Although the previous directive resulted from an international dispute, it should be noted that disputes relating to noise management are now largely settled in national courts.
Amendment  4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(5) The Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on noise operating restrictions at EU Airports  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.	(5) The Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on noise operating restrictions at EU Airports 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 effective measures, based on economic and environmental cost-benefit, are taken to achieve the noise abatement objectives.
Justification
In its present form, the Commission’s proposal is too heavily based on expressions of economic profitability. In this case, any cost-benefit assessment needs to place economic considerations on an equal footing with environmental ones, including public health.
Amendment  5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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 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 European Union. In accordance with the principle of 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.	(6) The introduction of operating restrictions by Member States at Union airports should be carried out on a case-by-case basis. A one-size-fits all approach is not appropriate as no two airports are the same. It is important to set local objectives which stakeholders have played a key role in selecting.
Amendment  6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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 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 European Union. In accordance with the principle of 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.	(6) The introduction of operating restrictions by Member States at Union airports on a case-by-case basis, whilst limiting capacity, can and should 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, in cost-benefit terms, 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 European Union. In accordance with the principle of 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.
Amendment  7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6a) In its latest implementation report on Directive 2002/49/EC, the Commission recognised that the Member States have shown very different approaches and levels of ambition with regard to threshold values and goals for noise emission; the Union must, in addition to harmonising rules on operating restrictions proposed by the present Regulation, consider the need to adopt Union-wide standards for the harmonisation of airport noise emission and interference limit values.
Justification
.
Amendment  8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6b) In the above-mentioned implementation report on Directive 2002/49/EC the Commission also recognised that too many different limit, threshold and guideline values exist and that would be advisable for these limits to be fixed in line with the assessments made by the World Health Organisation.
Amendment  9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(6c) In order to reduce the need for operating restrictions, the national action plans described in Directive 2002/49/EC should, in the immediate future, embrace the adoption of complementary measures to manage external airport noise, such as soundproofing of homes and plans for general noise barriers.
Justification
The 2002 Directive on management of environmental noise is, unfortunately, on its way to becoming obsolete owing to the huge increase in air traffic in recent years. Until such time as this directive is revised, the present Regulation should complement it insofar as possible.
Amendment  10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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.	(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, or the measures established by Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise1 , do not achieve the noise abatement objectives. Additional noise abatement measures should be drawn up following a systematic process of environmental monitoring and control and be based on a conservative approach with the aim of identifying promptly the management and/or operational Monitoring-Based Corrective Actions (MBCA) required.
	__________________
	1 OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12
Amendment  11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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.	deleted
Justification
The text presented by the Commission seems to be mainly concerned with achieving the objectives by the most economical means possible. However, in some cases, it is not possible to place a price on measures to safeguard public health and airport sustainability. It must also be borne in mind that the negative effects of health problems also have a direct or indirect economic cost.
Amendment  12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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.	(10) In accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC, noise assessments should be based on objective and measurable criteria common to all the Member States. This information must be reliable, obtained in a transparent manner, comparable and accessible to all stakeholders.
	Assessments should include monitoring of the latest technological developments and exchanges of the latest findings concerning the procedures to be employed.
	Competent authorities should put in place the necessary monitoring and enforcement tools.
	Noise assessments should be carried out or supervised by outside agencies independent of the airport operator.
Amendment  13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 12
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(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 airport 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.	(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 airport level. These data need to be made available to them for operational purposes, and to other interested parties on request. 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.
Amendment  14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(16a) Directive 2011/92/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment already provides for a comprehensive assessment of airport projects including noise mitigation. This can be considered as meeting, in part, the assessment requirements of Directive2002/49/EC and the present Regulation, particularly in the case of airport infrastructure extension projects. The extension of airport infrastructure should be promoted, in order to safeguard the sustainable development of air transport activities.
Justification
Recitals 13 and 17 of the previous, now to be repealed, directive are restored, since it is essential, if operating restrictions are to be introduced, for the terms of the Impact Directive to be taken into consideration, particularly in the case of airport expansions.
Amendment  15 Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(16a) This legislative act deals solely with aircraft noise. It does not seek to regulate the impact of pollutant emissions from the operation of aircraft and measures to reduce those emissions. Rules and procedures governing emissions-related operating restrictions should be laid down in a separate legislative act.
Amendment  16 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) 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;	(a) to facilitate the achievement of specific environmental noise abatement objectives for each individual airport, as laid down in Union, national and local rules, and to assess their interdependence with economic, social and other environmental objectives, at the level of individual airports;
Amendment  17 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) 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.	(b) to enable selection of the most effective noise mitigation measures, taking account of both the health and the economic aspects, 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.
Amendment  18 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(ba) guarantee the transparency of the consultations and the processes involving stakeholders, including through the use of innovative on-line information systems which make it possible to disseminate environmental data and information and for members of the public to express criticisms, with a view to achieving the maximum possible degree of transparency, in keeping with Article 6 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the environmental impact of certain public and private projects1.
	__________________
	1 OJ L 26, 28.1.2012, p. 1.
Amendment  19 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(2) ‘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.	(2) ‘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 minimising noise in the most effective way taking account of both the health and the economic aspects, on an airport by airport basis to safeguard the health of the citizens living in the nearby areas..
Justification
The text presented by the Commission seems to be mainly concerned with achieving the objectives by the most economical means possible. However, in some cases, it is not possible to put a price on measures to safeguard public health and airport sustainability.
Amendment  20 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – point 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(4a) ‘Interested parties’: natural or legal persons affected by or benefited by the introduction or absence of noise reduction measures, including operating restrictions, or having a legitimate interest in the introduction of such measure;
Justification
An adapted version of the previous directive’s definition of ‘interested parties’, which should remain under the article on definitions in order to ensure greater transparency and participation in decision making by interested parties. Moreover, if Article 5 defines specific action for interested parties, there needs to be a definition of such parties under Article 2.
Amendment  21 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Member States shall designate competent authorities responsible for adopting measures on operating restrictions, as well as an independent appeal body.	Member States shall designate competent authorities responsible for adopting measures on operating restrictions, as well as an impartial mediating body and an independent appeal body.
Justification
The designation of a pre-appeal mediating body could prevent matters being taken to court in cases of adoption of or failure to adopt operating restrictions.
Amendment  22 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Competent authorities	Competent authorities, consultation and right to take legal action
Amendment  23 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3a. Prior to the adoption of operating restrictions, a consultation procedure shall be carried out to hear the parties concerned.
Justification
Although the proposal for a regulation takes over from Directive 2002/30/EC the arrangement involving the competent authority responsible for imposing operating restrictions and the independent complaints body, it fails to lay down a right to be consulted and a right to take legal action against a decision to impose operating restrictions. This gives the impression that the administrative review procedure is being replaced lock, stock and barrel by a complaints procedure.
Amendment  24 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	3b. Member States shall guarantee the right to take legal action against the measures implemented by the competent authority, in accordance with the relevant national laws and procedures.
Justification
Although the proposal for a regulation takes over from Directive 2002/30/EC the arrangement involving the competent authority responsible for imposing operating restrictions and the independent complaints body, it fails to lay down a right to be consulted and a right to take legal action against a decision to impose operating restrictions. This gives the impression that the administrative review procedure is being replaced lock, stock and barrel by a complaints procedure.
Amendment  25 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) identify measures available to reduce the noise impact;	(c) identify measures available to reduce the noise impact, including the more effective use of existing time slots through the introduction of larger aircraft, a reduction in the number of uneconomic feeder flights which take up time slots and a greater focus on point-to-point routes in order to reduce the number of feeder flights operated with small aircraft;
Amendment  26 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) evaluate the likely cost-effectiveness of the available measures;	(d) evaluate the likely effectiveness of the available measures in the light of the environmental objective set;
Amendment  27 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Competent authorities	Competent authorities, consultation and right to take legal action
Amendment  28 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1a (new) (unnumbered)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	To this end they may, if they deem it appropriate, create economic incentives to encourage businesses to use less noisy aircraft ahead of the established deadline;
Amendment  29 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. 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:	2. Member States shall, when taking action to minimise the noise impact on the surrounding area, consider the following combination of available measures, with a view to determining the most effective combination of measures, and the order or priority of their application in each specific case;
Justification
The decision to apply a particular type of operating restriction needs to be adequately justified.
Amendment  30 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) land-use planning and management;	(b) Land-use planning and management and, in particular:
	- the possibility of creating areas in the vicinity of airports in which the sound levels set by the national Action Plan must not be exceeded;
	- the possibility of introducing spatial planning measures, such as restrictions on any new construction;
Justification
Although spatial planning is not a Community competency, the Regulation is able to introduce a series of recommendations to Member States in this sphere.
Amendment  31 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) noise abatement operational procedures;	(c) noise abatement operational procedures, including changes to landing and take-off routes;
Amendment  32 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) not as a first resort, operating restrictions.	(d) as and when necessary, operating restrictions.
Justification
The main aim of the Regulation is to ensure the sustainability of the airport facilities and protect public health. This point clarifies this aim.
Amendment  33 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. Member States may, within the Balanced Approach, differentiate noise mitigating measures according to aircraft type, runway use and/or timeframe covered.	3. Member States may, within the Balanced Approach, differentiate noise mitigating measures according to aircraft type, runway use, flight path and/or timeframe covered.
Amendment  34 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 5
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
5. 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 shall be non-discriminatory, in particular on grounds of nationality, identity or activity of aircraft operators.	5. Measures or a combination of measures taken in accordance with this Regulation for a given airport shall not be more restrictive than necessary to meet the terms of the WHO night noise guidelines for Europe and to achieve the health-related and environmental noise abatement objectives set for that airport and the development of the region it serves. Operating restrictions shall be non-discriminatory, in particular on grounds of nationality, identity or activity of aircraft operators.
Amendment  35 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. 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 representatives, and provide technical information and advice on noise mitigating measures to the competent authorities.	4. 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 and the technical officers of the local administrations affected by the noise 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 other interested parties, and provide technical information and advice on noise mitigating measures to the competent authorities. Planning, technical and organisational measures to mitigate noise and reduce emissions shall be discussed in this forum.
Justification
Given that many local administrations employ technical officers specialised in noise mitigation and spatial management, these representatives should be able to take part in the work of the technical forum. Furthermore, victims’ associations and representatives of local residents are not necessarily the same in all cases. A victims’ association, at a higher level than a residents’ association, may be affiliated to a national or European federation and able to contribute the findings of its technical officers to noise assessment participatory and consultative processes. The amendment takes account of the frequent criticism that people affected by aircraft noise are consulted only as an afterthought and then by airline industry representatives.
Amendment  36 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 5
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
5. The competent authorities shall assess the cost-effectiveness of the new measures, as referred to 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.	5. The competent authorities shall assess the effectiveness of the new measures, as referred to above, 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.
Amendment  37 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 6
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
6. 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:	6. The competent authorities shall organise the participatory 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 four months prior to the adoption of the new measures to provide comments.
	Where the measures lead to more far-reaching changes or expansions, such as those described in Article 4(2b), Interested parties shall have at least nine months prior to the adoption of the new measures to provide comments.
	The interested parties shall, in addition to the provisions of Article 2, at least include:
Justification
The role of territorial representatives, victims’ associations and other interested parties cannot remain limited to mere consultation; their full participation must be encouraged. Furthermore, three months for the analysis and adoption of new measures can be considered too short when the action being taken may involve operational changes in the airports functioning. In the case of major initiatives, the timescale should be a minimum of nine months.
Amendment  38 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 6 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) representatives from local residents living in the surroundings of the airports affected by air traffic noise;	(a) representatives from local residents living in the surroundings of the airports affected by air traffic noise and associations of affected persons;
Justification
Victims’ associations and representatives of local residents are not always the same in all cases. A victims’ association, at a higher level than a residents’ association, may be affiliated to a national or European federation and able to contribute the findings of its technical officers to noise assessment participatory and consultative processes.
Amendment  39 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 6 – point a a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(a a) representatives of local businesses, regional and local authorities, public and private stakeholders and businesses based in the surroundings of the airports whose operations are affected by air traffic and the operation of the airport;
Amendment  40 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 7
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
7. 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.	7. 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 made available on-line, thus allowing local residents living in the surroundings of the airports, and other interested parties to access the information freely.
Amendment  41 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	The relevant information shall include:
	(a) information on alleged infringements due to changes in flight paths, in terms of their impact and the reasons why such change were made,
	(b) the criteria used when distributing and managing traffic in each airport, to the extent that these may have an environmental or noise impact.
Justification
If deviations from flight paths occur too frequently, they significantly increase the noise impact predicted by strategic noise maps. At present not all interested parties receive this information, which should, in the interests of transparency, be made available in order to prevent abuses likely to directly increase the level of noise impact.
Amendment  42 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 7 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(7a) The competent authorities shall ensure that the operators of airport facilities install computerised noise measuring systems at different points close to flight paths which affect or are likely to affect the local population. These data may be consulted via internet.
Justification
A specific example of the use of this system at Barcelona airport can be found at: http://bcn331.webtrak-lochard.com
Amendment  43 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. 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.	4. Data shall be stored in a central database for at least five years and made available to competent authorities, aircraft operators, air navigation service providers and airport operators for operational purposes. Other interested parties, as described in Articles 2 and 5, shall have access to this information on request.
Amendment  44 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. 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.	2. 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 cost-benefit of the various measures considered, including, where relevant, their cross-border impact.
Amendment  45 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	Article 7 a
	Existing operating restrictions
	The provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to operating restrictions already in place at the time of its entry into force.
Justification
Part of Article 7 of the previous directive is restored. As established by the ICAO in its Resolution A 33/7, operating restrictions already in place at the time of entry into force of the new legislation are deemed to have been introduced in compliance with the provisions of Directive 2002/30/EC, and do not therefore need to be reviewed. If an existing operating restriction should be found not to comply with the new Regulation, the conflict shall be resolved via application of Article 10.
Amendment  46 Proposal for a regulation Article 8
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Article 8	deleted
Developing nations
1. The competent authorities may exempt marginally compliant aircraft registered in developing nations from noise operating restrictions provided that such aircraft:
(e) are granted a noise certification to the standards specified in Chapter 3, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention.
(f) were operated in the Union during the five-year period preceding 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.
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.
Amendment  47 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(ba) aircraft used in humanitarian operations
Amendment  48 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Right of scrutiny	Power of consideration and recommendation
Justification
The rapporteur considers it positive that the Commission should be able to intervene by examining a specific operating restriction and even by recommending the best course of action to the Member State, but does not find it necessary to burden the Commission with the responsibility of ‘scrutiny’ described in Article 10 (right of scrutiny) of the draft Regulation.
Amendment  49 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Indicators – point 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. 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.	1. Air traffic noise impact will be described, at least, in terms of noise indicators Lden, Lnight and LAmax which are defined and calculated in accordance with Annex I to Directive 2002/49/EC. Different significant air traffic days at the airport in question shall be used as a reference for these calculations.
Justification
The problem with using only Lden and Lnight indicators is that the noise energy peaks caused by an aircraft passing overhead are diluted in the time when no aircraft are passing, so that the nuisance caused by such an abrupt surge of energy is not described by the indicator. The LAmax indicator, on the other hand, reflects the increase in energy contrasted with the background noise and does not dilute the overall result in the minutes when no aircraft are passing overhead. Measurements should, furthermore, be taken on significant days so that the total annual average can take the readings for the busiest air traffic days into account.
Amendment  50 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Noise management information – point 1.1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1.1. A description of the airport including information about its size, location, surroundings, air traffic volume and mix.	1.1. A description of the airport including information about its capacity, location, surroundings, sensitive areas (schools and educational, cultural and sports centres, hospitals and homes for the elderly close to the airport or affected by runway approach or take-off routes), air traffic volume and mix and potential specific and cumulative impact and risk factors, in terms of noise levels, in the light of local and environmental circumstances.
Justification
Spatial management and planning are every bit as important as the present and future planning and management of aeronautical infrastructure and the means by which it operates, since the former is what really determines the noise impact on those living close to the airport.
Amendment  51 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Noise management information – point 1.3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1.3 Details of noise contours for the current and previous years – including an assessment of the number of people affected by aircraft noise.	Details of noise contours for the current and at least the last two previous years – including an assessment of the number of people affected by aircraft noise, carried out according to the provisions of Annex III of Directive 2002/49/EC.
Justification
One of the major points of conflict in the court cases currently underway in the various Member States is the discrepancy in results depending on the methodology used to collect assessment data. Therefore, the present inventory should stick to the same assessment methods set out by the Environmental Noise Directive.
Amendment  52 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Noise management information – point 1.4.3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1.4.3. For noise abatement operational measures, to the extent that these measures do not restrict capacity of an airport:	1.4.3. For noise abatement operational measures:
Justification
The aim of this Regulation is not solely to safeguard air traffic-related economic activity; it also seeks to ensure that this activity is carried out in a balanced and sustainable manner so that it has no health repercussions for the surrounding population.
Amendment  53 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Noise management information – point 1.4a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	1.4a A detailed description of the relationship and consultation with the interested parties and of the reports and information presented by them.
Justification
The current inventory, which will determine existing deficiencies, should include a reference to any claims which have been presented by the various interested parties.
Amendment  54 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Noise management information – point 1.4b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	1.4b A list of the exemptions granted each year, as described in Articles 8 and 9.
Justification
It is advisable for the inventory to include this type of information, for the sake of transparency and to avoid possible abuses.
Amendment  55 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Noise management information – point 2.1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2.1 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.	2.1 Descriptions of airport developments (if any) already approved and in the pipeline, for example, increased capacity, runway and/or terminal expansion, approach and take-off forecasts, projected future traffic mix and estimated growth and a detailed study of the noise impact on the surrounding area caused by expanding the capacity, runways and terminals and by modifying flight paths and approach and take-off routes.
Justification
Clarification of the aims described in the text of the Regulation and of Directive 49/2002/EC. In other words, increases in capacity or infrastructure, or changes in the functioning of the airport need to involve corresponding new measures to mitigate and minimise noise impact, which must be provided for beforehand.
Amendment  56 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Noise management information – point 2.3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2.3 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.	A description of effect on noise climate and the number of people affected without further measures, and of those measures already planned to minimise the noise impact over the same period.
Justification
The proposed change is a return to the word ‘minimise’, used in the wording of the previous directive, which better reflects the aim of protecting the environment and population from the noise impact of overflying aircraft.
Amendment  57 Proposal for a regulation Annex I – Noise management information – point 3.1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3.1 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.	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-benefit 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.
Amendment  58 Proposal for a regulation Annex II – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Assessment of the cost-effectiveness of noise-related operating restrictions	Cost-benefit assessment of noise-related operating restrictions
Amendment  59 Proposal for a regulation Annex III – introductory paragraph
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
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:	The cost-benefit relationship of envisaged noise-related operating restrictions will be assessed taking due account of following elements, to the extent possible, in quantifiable terms:
Amendment  60 Proposal for a regulation Annex II – points
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1) The anticipated noise benefit of the envisaged measures, now and in the future;	1) The anticipated noise benefit of the envisaged measures, now and in the future;
2) Safety of aviation operations, including third party risk;	2) Safety of aviation operations, including third party risk;
3) Capacity of the airport;	3) Capacity of the airport;
4) Effects on the European aviation network.	4) Effects on the European aviation network.
In addition competent authorities may take due account of the following factors:
1) Health and safety of local residents living in the surroundings of the airport;	5) Health and safety of local residents living in the surroundings of the airport;
2) Environmental sustainability, including interdependencies between noise and emissions;	6) Environmental sustainability, including interdependencies between noise and emissions;
3) Direct, indirect and catalytic employment effects.	7) Direct, indirect and catalytic employment effects.
Justification
The cost-benefit assessment should give equal consideration to important aspects such as the health and safety of local residents and environmental sustainability.
Amendment  61 Proposal for a regulation Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4a) noise-related changes in the value of properties;
Amendment  62 Proposal for a regulation Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 4 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4b) impact on business location criteria in the vicinity of the airport;
Amendment  63 Proposal for a regulation Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 4 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4c) impact on working conditions at airports;
Amendment  64 Proposal for a regulation Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 4 d (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4d) impact on road and rail transport;
Amendment  65 Proposal for a regulation Annex II – paragraph 1 – point 4 e (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4e) impact on external costs;
Amendment  66 Proposal for a regulation Annex II – paragraph 2 – point 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3) Direct, indirect and catalytic employment effects.	3) Direct and indirect employment effects, especially in the sectors affected by air traffic..
Justification
The use of the word ‘catalytic’ confines the assessment to positive employment effects. However, the cost-effectiveness assessment should also take account of the negative effects of an increase in capacity, hence the proposal to delete the word ‘catalytic’.

PROCEDURE

Title	Introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach
References	COM(2011)0828 – C7-0456/2011 – 2011/0398(COD)
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	TRAN 15.12.2011
Opinion by        Date announced in plenary	ENVI 15.12.2011
Rapporteur        Date appointed	Andres Perello Rodriguez 12.1.2012
Discussed in committee	21.6.2012	20.9.2012
Date adopted	10.10.2012
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	54 3 3
Members present for the final vote	Martina Anderson, Elena Oana Antonescu, Kriton Arsenis, Sophie Auconie, Pilar Ayuso, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sandrine Bélier, Sergio Berlato, Lajos Bokros, Milan Cabrnoch, Martin Callanan, Nessa Childers, Yves Cochet, Chris Davies, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Matthias Groote, Françoise Grossetête, Satu Hassi, Jolanta Emilia Hibner, Karin Kadenbach, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Holger Krahmer, Jo Leinen, Corinne Lepage, Peter Liese, Zofija Mazej Kukovič, Linda McAvan, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Miroslav Ouzký, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Gilles Pargneaux, Andres Perello Rodriguez, Pavel Poc, Anna Rosbach, Oreste Rossi, Kārlis Šadurskis, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Theodoros Skylakakis, Bogusław Sonik, Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu, Salvatore Tatarella, Thomas Ulmer, Åsa Westlund, Sabine Wils
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Adam Gierek, Julie Girling, Esther Herranz García, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Vladimir Urutchev, Anna Záborská, Andrea Zanoni

PROCEDURE

Title	Introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach
References	COM(2011)0828 – C7-0456/2011 – 2011/0398(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	1.12.2011
Committee responsible        Date announced in plenary	TRAN 15.12.2011
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)        Date announced in plenary	ENVI 15.12.2011
Rapporteur(s)        Date appointed	Jörg Leichtfried 10.1.2012
Discussed in committee	8.5.2012	18.9.2012	5.11.2012
Date adopted	6.11.2012
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	33 9 2
Members present for the final vote	Magdi Cristiano Allam, Inés Ayala Sender, Georges Bach, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Philip Bradbourn, Antonio Cancian, Michael Cramer, Joseph Cuschieri, Philippe De Backer, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Christine De Veyrac, Saïd El Khadraoui, Ismail Ertug, Carlo Fidanza, Knut Fleckenstein, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu Grosch, Jim Higgins, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Jaromír Kohlíček, Georgios Koumoutsakos, Jörg Leichtfried, Eva Lichtenberger, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Hubert Pirker, Petri Sarvamaa, David-Maria Sassoli, Vilja Savisaar-Toomast, Olga Sehnalová, Brian Simpson, Keith Taylor, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău, Giommaria Uggias, Peter van Dalen, Dominique Vlasto, Artur Zasada
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Michael Gahler, Petra Kammerevert, Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Anna Rosbach, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Sabine Wils, Janusz Władysław Zemke
Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote	Patricia van der Kammen
Date tabled	21.11.2012