REPORT on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges
(COM(2001) 74 – C5‑0001/2002 – 2001/0308(COD))

16 July 2002 - ***I

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy
Rapporteur: Hans Blokland
Draftsman (*): Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
(*) Enhanced Hughes Procedure

PROCEDURAL PAGE

By letter of 20 December 2001 the Commission submitted to Parliament, pursuant to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges (COM(2001) 74 - 2001/0308 (COD)).

At the sitting of 17 January 2002, the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this proposal to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy as the committee responsible and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism for their opinions (C5-0001/2002).

At the sitting of 27 February 2002, the President of Parliament announced that the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, which had been asked for an opinion, would be involved in drawing up the report, under the enhanced Hughes Procedure.

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy had appointed Hans Blokland rapporteur at its meeting of 22 January 2002.

It considered the Commission proposal and draft report at its meetings of 18 June 2002 and 10 July 2002.

At the latter meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 32 votes to 9, with 1 abstention.

The following were present for the vote:Caroline F. Jackson, chairman; Mauro Nobilia, Alexander de Roo and Anneli Hulthén, vice-chairmen; Hans Blokland, rapporteur; and Per-Arne Arvidsson, María del Pilar Ayuso González, David Robert Bowe, Dorette Corbey, Avril Doyle, Anne Ferreira, Francesco Fiori (for John Bowis, pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Karl-Heinz Florenz, Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo, Robert Goodwill, Françoise Grossetête, Cristina Gutiérrez Cortines, Heidi Anneli Hautala (for Patricia McKenna), Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Anneli Korhola, Bernd Lange, Peter Liese, Torben Lund, Jules Maaten, Minerva Melpomeni Malliori, Jorge Moreira da Silva, Riitta Myller, Ria G.H.C. Oomen-Ruijten, Frédérique Ries, Didier Rod (for Hiltrud Breyer), Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Guido Sacconi, Inger Schörling, Jonas Sjöstedt, Renate Sommer (Horst Schnellhardt), María Sornosa Martínez, Dirk Sterckx (for Chris Davies), Catherine Stihler, Antonios Trakatellis, Kathleen Van Brempt and Phillip Whitehead.

The opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism is attached. On 4 February 2002, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs decided not to deliver an opinion.

The report was tabled on 16 July 2002.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges (COM(2001) 74 – C5‑0001/2002 – 2001/0308(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal (COM(2001) 74[1]),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2)of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5‑0001/2002),

–   having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the opinion of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (A5‑0269/2002),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.   Asks to be consulted again should the Commission intend to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

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

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Title of directive
on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges (Text with EEA relevance)	on the establishment of a Community framework for noise charges on civil subsonic aircraft (Text with EEA relevance)
Justification According to the title of the Commission proposal, it is concerned with noise classification. However, the words ‘noise classification’ do not appear in the body of the proposal for a directive. Indeed, the proposal is not concerned with noise classification at all, but with noise charges. The title of the directive ought therefore to be amended to make it clear that it concerns noise charges.
Amendment 2 Recital 6
(6)   Such modulation is not designed to generate additional revenue. It should respect the principle of revenue neutrality and be applied in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.	(6)   Such modulation is not designed to generate additional revenue. It should respect the principle of revenue neutrality and be applied in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. However, environmental charges that are levied with the specific purpose of financing environmental mitigation measures in the area surrounding the airport, such as sound insulation for example, are compatible with current ICAO charging principles and are thus allowed under this Directive.
Justification Under the principle of revenue neutrality the sum of surcharges and rebates should not exceed the cost of provision of the service. However, we must make it clear that the said cost of service provision covers not only services of a strictly operational nature at airports but also those arising from measures that have to be adopted to mitigate the effects of the noise produced by aircraft in the area surrounding the airport.
Amendment 3 Recital 7
	(7)    With a view to ensuring optimum proportionality between noise charges and the noise impact on the population, a noise classification should be established for aircraft based on the levels of noise measured in situ in the vicinity of aerodromes, reflecting actual operating conditions and thus the noise nuisance effectively perceived by persons living close to airport infrastructures.
(7)   The certificated noise levels as defined in Annex 16 - Volume I to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition, July 1993 are considered to reflect adequately the noise impact for the population living in the vicinity of airports. The noise level at arrival can be adequately characterised by the certificated noise level at the approach measurement point as defined in the said Annex 16, for the noise level at departure there is a good correlation with the average of the certificated noise level at the sideline and flyover measurement point as defined in the said Annex 16.	Pending the establishment of such a classification, it is considered that the certificated noise levels as defined in Annex 16 - Volume I to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition, July 1993 may be used on a transitional basis to represent the noise impact for the population living in the vicinity of airports. In this context, the noise level at arrival can be represented by the certificated noise level at the approach measurement point as defined in the said Annex 16, and the noise level at departure can be represented by the average of the certificated noise level at the sideline and flyover measurement point as defined in the said Annex 16.
Justification In order to reflect the noise nuisance actually perceived by people in the vicinity of airports, methods of measuring noise should be improved.
Amendment 4 Article 2, paragraph 1, point (b)
(b)   "modulation" means that within a globally revenue neutral framework there can be differentiation in the level of noise charges applied.	(b)   "modulation" means that within a globally revenue neutral framework there can be differentiation in the level of noise charges applied in the case of ordinary noise charges.
Justification In Article 1(a), a division into ordinary and specific charges was made. Revenue neutrality, however, relates only to ordinary charges.
Amendment 5 Article 3, point 1
(1)   The noise charge for arrivals and departures should be proportional to the relative noise impact of arrivals and departures for populations around airports. The noise charge for an arrival and a departure at a given airport should be calculated as set out in the Annex to the present Directive.	(1)   The noise charge for arrivals and departures should correspond to the relative noise impact of arrivals and departures for populations around airports. The noise charge for an arrival and a departure at a given airport shall be calculated as set out in the Annex to the present Directive. Different unit noise charges for different times of the day shall be permitted.
Justification The use of the term ‘proportional’ suggests a mathematical relationship, which, however, does not exist. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that the criteria are actually observed in a uniform way. In addition, it is clear that noise nuisance is felt to a greater extent at night than during the day. Differentiation of noise charges according to the time of day should therefore be permitted.
Amendment 6 Article 3, paragraph 3
(3)   The modulation of noise charges within a given time period should be limited to a ratio of 20 being the maximum variation between the highest and the lowest noise charge. A lower ratio may be applied.	(3)   The modulation of noise charges within a given part of the day selected by the airport (for example day and night) should be limited to a ratio of 40 being the maximum variation between the highest and the lowest noise charge. A lower ratio may be applied.
Justification In the interests of clarity it should be specified that ‘time period’ means part of a 24-hour period. In practice, different basic charges will apply during the day and at night. The ratio of 20 establishes an upper limit for the amount of the charge. Even if aircraft produce more noise, the charge payable will not be any higher: the annex shows that aircraft which produce more than Td plus 13 dB will not have to pay a higher charge. Changing the ratio from 20 to 40 would expand the range by 3 decibels (from 13 dB to 16dB). As it is unlikely that even noisier aircraft will come into operation, this represents a sufficient expansion of the range. In brief, the culprits responsible for the most noise will pay more because they cause a greater nuisance.
Amendment 7 Article 4, point 1
(1)   As from 1 April 2003	(1)   As from 1 April 2004
Justification With a view to implementing the principles of a new system of noise charges as provided for in the directive, a longer transitional period is needed in order to allow airport operators a reasonable time in which to adjust to the new legal framework. There is, however, no necessity to alter the transitional period pursuant to point 2.
Amendment 8 Article 7, first paragraph
Review and reporting	Review and reporting
The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report based on experience on the application of this Directive not later than 1 April 2008.	The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report based on experience on the application of this Directive not later than 1 April 2008. This report shall in particular assess the possibility of introducing, for the purpose of modulating the charges, a noise classification of aircraft based on noise levels measured in situ in the vicinity of aerodromes, reflecting actual operating conditions and thus the noise nuisance effectively perceived by persons living close to airport infrastructure. .
Justification See justification for Amendment 3.
Amendment 9 Annex, Calculation of noise charge
▪   Calculation of noise charge	▪   Calculation of noise charge
The total noise charge for one arrival and one departure at a given airport is:	The total noise charge for one arrival and one departure at a given airport is:
C = Ca.10^[(La - Ta )/10]+ Cd.10^[(Ld - Td )/10]	C = Ca.10^[(La - Ta )/10]+ Cd.10^[(Ld - Td )/10]
where:	where:
Ca and Cd are the unit noise charges at departures and arrivals for the considered airport. Ca and Cd can be equal to zero. They reflect the relative importance of noise emissions at arrivals and departures for the impacted population;	Ca and Cd are the unit noise charges at departures and arrivals for the considered airport. Ca and Cd shall have a value of at least 10 euro per 10 000 kg. They reflect the relative importance of noise emissions at arrivals and departures for the impacted population;
La is the certificated noise level at approach;	La is the certificated noise level at approach;
Ld = (Lf + Ll)/2, Lf and Ll are the certificated noise levels at the flyover and lateral measurement points; and	Ld = (Lf + Ll)/2, Lf and Ll are the certificated noise levels at the flyover and lateral measurement points; and
Ta and Td are noise thresholds at departures and at arrivals corresponding to categories of relatively quiet aircraft for the considered airport. These thresholds are fixed around 13 decibels below upper thresholds corresponding to 95 % of the noise energy emitted at the airport as indicated on the graph.	Ta and Td are noise thresholds at departures and at arrivals corresponding to categories of relatively quiet aircraft for the considered airport. These thresholds are fixed around 13 decibels below upper thresholds corresponding to 95 % of the noise energy emitted at the airport as indicated on the graph.
Justification In the case of airports which set the multiplication factors Ca and Cd at zero, this directive will have no effect whatsoever. It would be better to make noise charging compulsory at all airports. This will prevent distortions of competition and noise dumping. A minimum multiplication factor is a good interim solution (e.g. a minimum of EUR 10 per 10 000 kg). In this way, distortions of competition will be kept to a minimum and account will also be taken of subsidiarity.
Amendment 10 Annex, Modulation of noise charges
Modulation of noise charges
According to the principle that charges should be based as closely as possible on underlying costs, there should be specific noise charges for financing noise mitigation programmes and other noise charges should be compensated by negative noise charges (rebates) in order to be revenue neutral.	According to the principle that charges should be based as closely as possible on underlying costs, there should be specific noise charges for financing noise mitigation programmes.
This revenue neutrality should be achieved separately at departure and at arrival. For instance, at departure the noise charge (positive or negative) should be for the aircraft I
C i = Cd . [ E d i -1/N . Σ E d j ] Where
Cd is the unit charge for departure at the considered airport
E d i is the relative noise energy at departure for the aircraft which is considered; and
N and Σ E d j are the forecast number of departures and the forecast cumulated noise energy at departure during the year, which is considered.
C i can be positive or negative
Justification The Commission proposal stipulates very strictly that the revenue from noise charges must not exceed the costs. This does not take account of the fact that the costs of noise nuisance can be very difficult to calculate. At the same time it should be realised that airports cannot alleviate all the adverse effects of noise nuisance. For example, it is not possible to make amends to people for disturbances to their sleep or for psychological effects of noise nuisance. The main aim of noise charges is to promote quieter aircraft. The formulation of the principle that the charges should be based as closely as possible on underlying costs is sufficient.

• [1] OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002, p. 221.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Introduction

On 28 March 2002, the directive on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (COM(2001)695) entered into force. This directive is based on an individual approach to each airport. Only once it has been demonstrated that the noisiest aircraft cause specific problems around the airports concerned can they possibly be banned from using particular airports. Thus it remains possible for noisy aircraft which only just comply with the standard for Chapter 3 aircraft (those which ‘only marginally comply’) to land at European airports. In order to counter the adverse impact of these noisy aircraft, measures are to be taken around airports, such as moving runways, installing noise barriers, moving residential areas and so on. Clearly these measures will require considerable expenditure and effort. Noise charges are intended to cover such costs.

Substance of the Commission proposal

Aircraft noise is already an element in some Community airport charging systems. In order to prevent a proliferation of different charging schemes, the Commission has submitted a proposal to harmonise them. This makes use of a Community framework for noise charges on civil subsonic aircraft. It is intended that the framework should be used only as a parameter for calculating noise charges. The aim of noise charges is to promote the use of quieter aircraft.

The introduction of a Community framework for noise charges should also enhance transparency, fairness of treatment and predictability, thus increasing the environmental effectiveness of noise charges. The Commission proposal complies with the basic principles adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), namely:

1.   no discrimination between equivalent services

2.   airport charges should be proportionate to costs

3.   transparency

After a transitional period, the framework will enter into force for all noise charge systems in the Member States with effect from 1 April 2006. However, the Member States will retain responsibility for the decision to introduce noise charges to combat noise nuisance at airports. As the Council has still not adopted the Commission proposal on airport charge systems, we can conclude that there is still not sufficient political will among the various Member States to introduce such a system. According to the Commission, the proposed framework could usefully supplement the system proposed in 1997, but can also operate by itself.

Comments on the Commission proposal

1.   Incorrect title

According to the title of the Commission proposal, it is concerned with noise classification. However, the words ‘noise classification’ no longer appear in the body of the proposal for a directive. Indeed, the proposal is not concerned with noise classification at all, but with noise charges. The title of the directive ought therefore to be amended to make it clear that it concerns noise charges.

2.   The charge is too discretionary and will therefore distort competition

One very basic question is what consequences this directive will have in practice. There is reason to fear that, in the form in which the Commission has proposed it, the directive will have no effect whatsoever in practice. All that it achieves is to relate the amount of the charge to the noise nuisance caused by an aircraft. However, airports will themselves determine the impact of the noise charge on the total charge (as any multiplication factor may be chosen). Airports will also have the option of refraining from introducing any noise charge at all (by setting the multiplication factor at zero). If they do so, this directive will have no effect whatsoever. It would be better to make noise charging compulsory at all airports. This will prevent distortions of competition and noise dumping. A minimum multiplication factor would be a good interim solution. In this way, distortions of competition would be kept to a minimum and account would also be taken of subsidiarity.

3.   The charge is not sufficiently differentiated

The proposed charge is based on the absolute noise emissions of individual aircraft. As the noise energy level is most directly related to noise nuisance, this is taken as the basis for the calculation. The annex to the Commission proposal indicates how noise charges should be calculated. A complicated formula has been worked out whereby:

• ∙the charge is doubled for every additional 3 dB of noise
• ∙the ratio of the lowest to the highest charge must not exceed 20.

The ratio of 20 establishes an upper limit for the amount of the charge. Even if aircraft produce more noise, the charge payable will not be any higher: the annex shows that aircraft which produce more than Td plus 13 dB will not have to pay a higher charge. Changing the ratio from 20 to 40 would expand the range by 3 decibels (from 13 dB to 16dB). As it is unlikely that even noisier aircraft will come into operation, this represents a sufficient expansion of the range. In brief, the culprits responsible for the most noise will pay more because they cause a greater nuisance.

4.   The relationship between the noise charge and costs is unclear

The Commission proposal stipulates very strictly that the revenue from noise charges must not exceed the costs. It is not clear which costs it is referring to here. Certain costs, such as environmental costs due to noise nuisance, are very difficult to calculate. Moreover, airports will not be able to alleviate all the adverse effects of noise nuisance. For example, it is not possible to reverse the effects of disturbances to people’s sleep or the psychological effects of noise nuisance, although it may be possible to afford people some compensation for them. It is important to bear in mind that the main aim of noise charges is to promote quieter aircraft.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL POLICY, TRANSPORT AND TOURISM

20 June 2002

for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purpose of calculating noise charges

(COM(2001) 74 – C5‑0001/2002 – 2001/0308(COD))

Draftsman (*): Josu Ortuondo Larrea

(*) Enhanced Hughes Procedure

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism appointed Josu Ortuondo Larrea draftsman at its meeting of 21 February 2002.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 22 May 2002 and 18 June 2002.

At the last meeting it adopted the following amendments by 35 votes, with 2 abstentions.

The following were present for the vote: Luciano Caveri, chairman; Gilles Savary, Helmuth Markov, vice-chairmen; Josu Ortuondo Larrea, draftsman; Emmanouil Bakopoulos, Philip Charles Bradbourn, Felipe Camisón Asensio, Luigi Cocilovo, Nirj Deva (for Christine de Veyrac), Alain Esclopé, Giovanni Claudio Fava, Jacqueline Foster, Mathieu J.H. Grosch, Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Ewa Hedkvist Petersen, Juan de Dios Izquierdo Collado, Georg Jarzembowski, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Brigitte Langenhagen (for Sérgio Marques) Emmanouil Mastorakis, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Bill Miller (for Danielle Darras), Francesco Musotto, Karla M.H. Peijs, Wilhelm Ernst Piecyk, Giovanni Pittella (for Bernard Poignant), Samuli Pohjamo, José Javier Pomés Ruiz, Reinhard Rack, Carlos Ripoll i Martínez Bedoya, Dana Rosemary Scallon, Ingo Schmitt, Dirk Sterckx, Ulrich Stockmann, Hannes Swoboda (for Brian Simpson), Ari Vatanen, Mark Francis Watts , and Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (for Renate Sommer).

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The Commission’s proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating noise charges, is an integral part of the Union’s strategy to combat noise pollution in and around the Union’s airports by means of incentives to operators by modulating airport charges in order to take account of the level of noise nuisance caused by a specific aircraft. At present the criteria used for differentiation and quantification of nuisance as an environmental cost vary widely from Member State to Member State. This has negative repercussions on the proper functioning of the air transport market. Furthermore, the differentiation often lacks consistency in a Community context and does not always make it possible to compare one system with another. The Commission considers that, following the recent transition to an all Chapter 3 fleet, it is now appropriate to establish a framework of common criteria for noise classification of aircraft within Chapter 3. Its initiative builds upon the European Civil Aviation Conference recommendations on noise charges and should prevent a proliferation of noise charging systems using different classifications. The proposed classification, which is for charging purposes only, is based upon the absolute noise performance of individual aircraft as measured for the purpose of granting a noise certificate. This is in accordance with ICAO Doc 9082, which specifically states that ‘any noise related charges should be associated with the landing fee, possibly by means of surcharges or rebates, and should take into account the noise certification provisions of Annex 16 in respect of aircraft noise levels’.

The Commission states that, in order to respect the principle of proportionality between noise levels and noise impact, the proposed classification should use the noise energy level which is equal to the antilogarithm of the noise level expressed in decibels. It justifies this by the fact that the external costs, at noise levels which are typical of noisy airports, are not proportional to the noise level expressed in decibels but rather to noise energy. These costs increase, the Commission informs us, ‘far more quickly than the noise level in decibels: an increase of 3 decibels implies a doubling of costs’.

Your rapporteur has had extensive contacts with the Association of European Airlines (AEA) and the ACI - European Region. In general both these organisations welcome and support the Commission proposal; however they take opposite views as to the application of Article 3(3) of the proposal, which allows for the definition of multiple time periods within any 24 hour period and the application within any given time period of the ratio of 1:20 as the maximum variation between the highest and the lowest noise charge. After due consideration of the arguments put forward by both these organisations, your rapporteur considers that any alteration of the Commission’s initial proposal on this point would either result in a pan-European system that would greatly reduce the effect of the proposed noise charging system - or indeed of those already in existence - or would render the harmonisation of noise charging legislation inoperative. It should be remembered in this context that the present Commission proposal is the result of extensive negotiations over a prolonged period with all stakeholders within the context of the ECAC.

AMENDMENTS

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

Text proposed by the Commission[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 6
(6)   Such modulation is not designed to generate additional revenue. It should respect the principle of revenue neutrality and be applied in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.	(6)   Such modulation is not designed to generate additional revenue. It should respect the principle of revenue neutrality and be applied in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner. However, environmental charges that are levied with the specific purpose of financing environmental mitigation measures in the area surrounding the airport, such as sound insulation for example, are compatible with current ICAO charging principles and are thus allowed under this Directive.
Justification Under the principle of revenue neutrality the sum of surcharges and rebates should not exceed the cost of provision of the service. However, we must make it clear that the said cost of service provision covers not only services of a strictly operational nature at airports but also those arising from measures that have to be adopted to mitigate the effects of the noise produced by aircraft in the area surrounding the airport.
Amendment 2 Recital 8
(8)   Noise charges should be proportional to the incremental nuisance for human beings caused by individual aircraft separately at arrival and departure. The relationship between this incremental nuisance and the aircraft noise level can be most adequately reflected by the noise energy level.	(8)    Noise charges should correspond to the noise caused by individual aircraft at arrival and departure. Noise charges serve to encourage the use of less noisy aircraft (‘ordinary noise charge’) and/or involve measures to recover the costs of alleviating or preventing noise problems at airports (‘specific noise charge’). The relationship between the incremental nuisance and the aircraft noise level can be deflected either by the sound level or by the noise energy level.
Justification The noise nuisance experienced by human beings depends not only on the noise energy level, but also on local conditions. It is therefore unsatisfactory to use the noise energy level as the sole criterion for the calculation of noise charge. Under the heading “Modulation of noise charges in the Annex, noise charges are divided into ‘Specific noise charges’ and ‘other noise charges’. A clean distinction should be made here. The system of noise charges should not, therefore, be solely linked to the noise energy level. Under the heading ‘Modulation of noise charges’ in the Annex, noise charges are divided into ‘specific noise charges’ and ‘other noise charges’ . In view of the different basis for calculating such charges (see Annex), a clear distinction should already be made here.
Amendment 3 Recital 9
(9)   In order to ensure maximum transparency between noise charging systems at Community airports, the common framework for noise classification of aircraft should after a suitable transition period be applied by airports which operate commercial flights between Member States provided that they levy noise charges.	(9)   In order to ensure maximum transparency between noise charging systems at Community airports, the common framework for noise classification of aircraft should after a suitable transition period be applied by airports which operate commercial flights between Member States provided that they levy, or intend to introduce, noise charges. Existing, alternative systems of noise charges at airports may be retained, provided that they go further, and are more advanced, than the system proposed.
Justification The necessary harmonisation as regards the calculation of noise charges must not be allowed to undermine the effectiveness of existing systems. At some airports, noise charging systems go further than the system proposed, and ensure a high level of protection against noise. Adapting such systems in line with the directive would reduce standards, at the expense of those living in the vicinity of airports.
Amendment 4 Recital 13
(13)   The Commission should carry out by 1 April 2008 an evaluation of the implementation of this Directive.	(13)   The Commission should carry out by 1 April 2010 an evaluation of the implementation of this Directive.
Justification The date indicated in the original text is unrealistic.
Amendment 5 Article 1, paragraph 2
This Directive applies in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 4 to airports or airport systems which operate commercial flights between Member States and which are located in the territory of a Member State, provided that noise charges are applied.	This Directive applies in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 4 to airports or airport systems which operate commercial flights between Member States and which are located in the territory of a Member State, provided that noise charges are applied or are to be introduced. Existing, alternative systems of noise charges at airports may be retained, provided that they go further, and are more advanced, than the system proposed.
Justification The necessary harmonisation as regards the calculation of noise charges must not be allowed to undermine the effectiveness of existing systems. At some airports, noise charging systems go further than the system proposed, and ensure a high level of protection against noise. Adapting such systems in line with the directive would reduce standards, at the expense of those living in the vicinity of airports.
Amendment 6 Article 2, paragraph 1, point (a)
(a)   "noise charge" means a specific noise levy by the airport, related to the certificated noise characteristics of the aircraft, which is designed to recover the costs of alleviation or prevention of noise problems and to encourage the use of less noisy aircraft.	(a)   "noise charge" means a noise levy by the airport, related to the certificated noise characteristics, or noise characteristics as measured at the airport, of the aircraft. Charges serve to encourage the use of less noisy aircraft (‘ordinary noise charge’) and/or involve measures to recover the costs of alleviating or preventing noise problems at airports (‘specific noise charge’).
Justification The certificated noise characteristics alone are insufficient, as the actual impact on the population depends on local conditions and can therefore most accurately be measured directly at the airport. Under the heading ‘Modulation of noise charges’ in the Annex, noise charges are divided into ‘specific noise charges’ and ‘other noise charges’ . In view of the different basis for calculating such charges (see Annex), a clear distinction should already be made here.
Amendment 7 Article 2, paragraph 1, point (b)
(b)   "modulation" means that within a globally revenue neutral framework there can be differentiation in the level of noise charges applied.	(b)   "modulation" means that within a globally revenue neutral framework there can be differentiation in the level of noise charges applied in the case of ordinary noise charges.
Justification In Article 1(a), a division into ordinary and specific charges was made. Revenue neutrality, however, relates only to ordinary charges.
Amendment 8 Article 2, paragraph 1, point (c)
(c)   "La" means the noise level of an aircraft at arrival. It is equal to the value of the certificated noise level expressed in Effective Perceived Noise (EPN) decibels at the approach measurement point and calculated as defined in Annex 16 - Volume 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition, July 1993. The related noise energy is equal to the antilogarithm La/10.	(c)   "La" means the noise level of an aircraft at arrival. It is equal to the value of the certificated noise level expressed in Effective Perceived Noise (EPN) decibels at the approach measurement point and calculated as defined in Annex 16 - Volume 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition, July 1993 or the level as measured at the airport. In so far as the noise level relates to noise energy, it is equal to the antilogarithm La/10.
Justification Following on from amendment 8 ,it is necessary to insert these words in order to take account of the sound pressure or sound level measurements to be carried out on the spot with a view to calculating noise characteristics.
Amendment 9 Article 2, paragraph 1, point (d)
(d)   "Ld" means the noise level of an aircraft at departure. It is equal to the arithmetic average (mean) of the certificated noise levels expressed in EPN decibels at the lateral and flyover measurement points as defined in the said Annex 16. The related noise energy is equal to antilogarithm Ld/10.	(d)   "Ld" means the noise level of an aircraft at departure. It is equal to the arithmetic average (mean) of the certificated noise levels expressed in EPN decibels at the lateral and flyover measurement points as defined in the said Annex 16 or the level as measured at the airport. In so far as the noise level relates to noise energy, it is equal to antilogarithm Ld/10.
Justification Following on from amendment 8, it is necessary to insert these words in order to take account of the sound pressure or sound level measurements to be carried out on the spot with a view to calculating noise characteristics.
Amendment 10 Article 3, title
Common framework for the calculation of noise charges.	Common framework for the calculation and revision of noise charges.
Justification The common framework for the calculation of noise charges must cover both the establishment of new charges and the division of existing charges.
Amendment 11 Article 3, first sentence
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the calculation of noise charges at airports in their territory is based on the following criteria:	Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the calculation and revision of noise charges at airports in their territory is based on the following criteria:
Justification The amendment relates to the author’s amendment 10, which inserts Article 4, point 3a, a new provision in substance.
Amendment 12 Article 3, point 1
(1)   The noise charge for arrivals and departures should be proportional to the relative noise impact of arrivals and departures for populations around airports. The noise charge for an arrival and a departure at a given airport should be calculated as set out in the Annex to the present Directive.	(1)   The noise charge for arrivals and departures should correspond to the relative noise impact of arrivals and departures for populations around airports. The noise charge for an arrival and a departure at a given airport shall be calculated as set out in the Annex to the present Directive. Different unit noise charges for different times of the day shall be permitted.
Justification The use of the term ‘proportional’ suggests a mathematical relationship, which, however, does not exist. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that the criteria are actually observed in a uniform way. In addition, it is clear that noise nuisance is felt to a greater extent at night than during the day. Differentiation of noise charges according to the time of day should therefore be permitted.
Amendment 13 Article 3, point 2
(2)   The calculation of the noise energies at arrival and departure shall be based on the noise levels La and Ld.	(2)   The calculation of the noise charges at arrival and departure shall be based on the noise levels La and Ld.
Justification This amendment is necessary as the Article concerned deals with the calculation of noise charges. Noise levels La and Ld do not necessarily relate only to noise energies.
Amendment 14 Article 3, point 3
(3)   The modulation of noise charges within a given time period should be limited to a ratio of 20 being the maximum variation between the highest and the lowest noise charge. A lower ratio may be applied.	(3)   Systems of noise charges must not, following their introduction or revision, be changed for at least two scheduling periods.
Justification Airlines need a degree of certainty when planning future costs.
Amendment 15 Article 4, point 1
(1)   As from 1 April 2003	(1)   As from 1 April 2004
(a)   in any significant revision of existing systems of noise charges	(a)   in any significant revision of existing systems of noise charges
b)   for newly introduced systems of noise charges.	b)   for newly introduced systems of noise charges.
Justification With a view to implementing the principles of a new system of noise charges as provided for in the directive, a longer transitional period is needed in order to allow airport operators a reasonable time in which to adjust to the new legal framework. There is, however, no necessity to alter the transitional period pursuant to point 2.
Amendment 16 Article 4, point 2
(2)   As from 1 April 2006 to any system of noise charges.	(2)   As from 1 April 2006 to any system of noise charges. This does not apply in the case of airports that already have a system of noise charges which goes further than that proposed in the Directive.
Justification Harmonisation must not be allowed to undermine the effectiveness of existing systems. At some airports, noise charging systems go further than the system proposed. Adapting such systems in line with the directive would reduce standards, at the expense of those living in the vicinity of airports.
Amendment 17 Article 7, first paragraph
The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report based on experience on the application of this Directive not later than 1 April 2008.	The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report based on experience on the application of this Directive not later than 1 April 2010.
Justification The date indicated in the original text is unrealistic.
Amendment 18 Annex, Calculation of noise charge, point 2
La is the certificated noise level at approach;	La is the certificated noise level, or the noise level as measured on the spot, at approach;
Justification See justification to amendment 8 .
Amendment 19 Annex, Calculation of noise charge, point 3
Ld = (Lf + Ll)/2, Lf and Ll are the certificated noise levels at the flyover and lateral measurement points; and	Ld = (Lf + Ll)/2, Lf and Ll are the certificated noise levels, or the noise levels as measured on the spot, at the flyover and lateral measurement points; and
Justification See justification to amendment 8.
Amendment 20 Annex, Calculation of noise charge, point 4
Ta and Td are noise thresholds at departures and at arrivals corresponding to categories of relatively quiet aircraft for the considered airport. These thresholds are fixed around 13 decibels below upper thresholds corresponding to 95 % of the noise energy emitted at the airport as indicated on the graph.	Ta and Td are noise thresholds at departures and at arrivals corresponding to categories of relatively quiet aircraft for the considered airport. These thresholds are set by the airport itself in accordance with its system of charges.
Justification The thresholds proposed by the Commission relate to the spread of noise charges based on a maximum ratio of the highest to the lowest noise charge of 20. This spread factor corresponds to a difference of 13 decibels. This limit on the spread of noise charges is to be rejected for the reasons set out in the justification to the amendment 14 and must not, therefore, be taken into account in the formula for calculating noise charges.
Amendment 21 Annex, Modulation of noise charges, point 2
E d i is the relative noise energy at departure for the aircraft which is considered; and	E d i is the relative noise energy or the sound pressure at departure for the aircraft which is considered; and
Justification Follows from justification to amendment 8.
Amendment 22 Annex, Modulation of noise charges, point 3
N and Σ E d j are the forecast number of departures and the forecast cumulated noise energy at departure during the year, which is considered.	N and Σ E d j are the forecast number of departures and the forecast cumulated noise energy or cumulated sound pressure at departure during the year, which is considered.
Justification Follows from justification to amendment 8.

• [1] OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002, p. 221.