Select Committee on European Legislation First Report


AIRCRAFT NOISE

7.   We consider that the following raises questions of legal and political importance, but make no recommendation for its further consideration at this stage:--

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

(17481) 9781/96 COM(96)413	Draft Directive amending Directive 92/14/EEC on the limitation of the operation     of aeroplanes covered by part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the     Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988).
Legal base:	Article 84 (2); co-operation; qualified majority voting.

Background

7.1  This proposed Directive would amend Directive 92/14/EEC[9] which implements, in the EU, proposals to which the UK has already agreed in the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Earlier Community legislation[10] has prevented the worst offending "non-noise certificated" aircraft operating to or from Community airports since 1988. The 1992 Directive applies to aircraft weighing more than 34 tonnes, seating 19 or more people and with low bypass ratio engines meeting intermediate (Chapter 2) noise standards. It requires aircraft more than 25 years old (calculated from the date they receive an individual certificate of airworthiness) to cease operating , and imposes a final cut-off date of 31 March 2002, after which no aircraft of this size would be allowed to operate unless it met the latest more prescriptive (Chapter 3) noise standards.

7.2  The 1992 Directive takes into account the economic effect of the Directive on air carriers of developing nations, and contains a preliminary list of individual aircraft from developing nations which are exempted from the non-operation rule until 2002.

The present proposal

7.3  The primary purpose of the proposal now before us is to amend the list of exempted aircraft in the 1992 Directive by the addition of specific aircraft from nations which qualify for an exemption, but which were not notified to the Commission at the time of the adoption of the Directive.

7.4  The draft Directive proposes a number of other changes. In particular:

(i)  the provision to permit Member States operating "airport systems" (grouped airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted) to limit or exclude non-complying aircraft from one or more of the airports in the system;
(ii)  an amending provision to specify that Member States may establish a timetable for the withdrawal of Chapter 2 aeroplanes only for aircraft registered in that Member State;
(iii)  a number of drafting amendments to some of the articles in Directive 92/14 and the introduction of a number of revised definitions and provisions.

7.5  The draft also provides for the establishment of an Advisory Committee to assist the Commission to make changes to the list of exempted aircraft.

The Government's views

7.6  In an Explanatory Memorandum dated 17 October, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen) tells us that the main purpose of the draft Directive, that is to say updating the Annex to Directive 92/14 and providing for an Advisory Committee, would be unlikely to have immediate policy implications for the UK. He continues:

"However, problems might arise in the unlikely event that the Commission, assisted by the proposed Advisory Committee, make changes to the list of exempted aeroplanes with which the UK was not in full agreement. But most Member States are likely to insist on a Committee which has greater control over the Commission."

7.7  The Minister says that the secondary purposes of the draft Directive: on airport systems; on timetables for phase out; and the "clarification" of definitions, have greater policy implications for the UK. He says:

"Article 8 of Regulation 2408/92[11] presently provides that Member States which operate airport systems may direct intra-Community air traffic to one particular airport for, among other things, environmental reasons. Article 8 of Regulation 2408/92 also provides for appeal to the Commission against such direction. The proposed amendment to Directive 92/14 in the draft directive appears to be aimed at providing a parallel position to Regulation 2408/92 for services from outside the Community, but without such safeguards, which it would be necessary to introduce.
"Article 2 of Directive 92/14 reflects the ICAO/ECAC[12] agreements that Member States meet their obligations to phase out Chapter 2 aeroplanes, and also provides that an operator is not required to remove Chapter 2 aeroplanes at a rate greater than 10% of its total fleet, in any one year until 2002 when all Chapter 2 aircraft have to be phased out.
"The UK has consistently argued that the Chicago Convention prohibits discrimination between aircraft on a state's own register and those registered in any other state. For this reason, any exemptions available to UK operators under the 10% rule must also be available to operators in other registers. The proposed amendment to Directive 92/14 would remove the possibility of extending the 10% rule to aircraft on the registers of third countries, which is the Commission interpretation. The UK will aim to secure its position in negotiations."

Conclusion

7.8  Although on the face of it this proposal would make only minor changes to Directive 92/14/EEC, it is the latest step along a path of Community legislation on aircraft noise which is based on work done by international organisations and which we and our predecessors have regarded as raising matters of political importance.

7.9  The fact that the Minister considers that the new provisions on agreement of a timetable for the removal of what are described as Chapter 2 aeroplanes (those which are acceptable now but which will not be acceptable after 2002) on a Member State's own register may not be consistent with international obligations under the Chicago Convention is clearly a matter of legal importance. Before clearing this document, we would like to know how this inconsistency is to be resolved.

7.10  Both the Commission's and the Department's Explanatory Memoranda on this proposal were unclear. Neither document makes complete sense without reference to the banning of aircraft over 25 years old and for that it is necessary to look at Directive 92/14. We doubt whether, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the legal point, that a debate on this proposal will be necessary, but we ask the Department to ensure that its Explanatory Memoranda are comprehensible without reference to separate legislation.

---

9.   OJ No. L 76, 23.03.1992, p.21. Back

10.  In particular Directives 80/51/EEC (OJ No. L 18, 24.01.80. p.26); and 83/206/EEC (OJ No. L 117, 04.05.83, p.15). Back

11.  Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intro-Community air routes: OJ No. L 240, 24.08.92, p.8.  Back

12.  European Civil Aviation Conference. Back

---

Prepared 12th November 1996