EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY (14903/05)
Letter from Gillian Merron MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport to the Chairman
I am writing to update you on the progress of
negotiations on this dossier, which would extend the responsibilities
of the EASA in order to extend its scope to cover rule-making
and standardisation of flight operations and personnel licensing.
Since Karen Buck's letter of 7 March 2006[27]
and SEM and RIA of 8 March 2006 extensive negotiations have continued
in the Aviation Working Group, most recently on 14 and 16 November.
When the Commission's proposals were published last December we
had significant concerns, however the Agency's performance has
improved very significantly since then, and continues to do so.
All the relevant technical issues with the proposal have now been
satisfactorily resolved in the course of the negotiations. The
Transport Council on 11 December will be invited to reach a general
approach on the text, and I am content that UK should give its
support to the proposal.
If I could now turn to the specific points originally
raised in your letter of 18 January and the action the Government
has taken to address them. Firstly, you raised concerns regarding
the consistency of the extension of competencies of the Agency
with the principle of subsidarity. As I described in my previous
letter the Government is content that the subsidiarity principle
is being properly respected. Given the existence of a single European
aviation market, which requires common rules, we do not believe
that the establishment and application of these rules can be achieved
apart from at the Community level. The implementation of these
rules, however, will be undertaken by the national aviation authorities
of the Member States.
In your letter you also referred to our concerns
on the issue of attestations and medical certificates for cabin
crew; and the provisions applying the basic principles and essential
requirements to airlines and aircraft from third countries. In
negotiations we have continued to address these issues, and in
the case of cabin crew attestations have agreed that the measures
to be adopted should not go further than those already agreed
in Council Regulation 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical
requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil
aviation (EU-OPS).
A consultation was issued by the Department
on 20 January 2006, and closed on 21 April 2006. Representative
organisations and stakeholders were made aware of the consultation
by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on behalf of the Department.
It was also made available on the Department's website. A total
of 28 separate responses were received from a wide range of respondees.
As part of the consultation process a stakeholder symposium was
held which generated a significant level of interest.
In summary, many respondents expected medium
to long term savings as costs fell due to economies of scale across
the EU. They were also generally happy with the proposed operating
provisions covering community carriers. Additionally, respondents
felt that the provision of a pan-European Recreational Pilot's
Licence would be beneficial, with the free movement this entails,
as was the use of a General Practitioner for the medical certification
of such a licence.
Full details of the consultation have been published
on the Department's website. The Department has worked closely
with the CAA in the ongoing negotiation of this dossier at the
European level, and has sought to incorporate the view of stakeholders
where relevant.
I attach a Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment,
updating the Initial Regulatory Impact Assessment that was submitted
on 8 March. It is difficult at this stage to be any more precise
about anticipated regulatory impacts as these will depend to a
large extent on the final text of the regulation, and on the detailed
Implementing Rules, which have yet to be written.
It will take some time for the legislative proposal
to run its course—probably into late 2007 and beyond. Should
there be deterioration in the Agency's performance the UK would,
of course, have further opportunities to express its views in
Council before final adoption of the Regulation. The European
Parliament has begun its consideration of this dossier and is
currently expected to hold its Plenary First Reading in March
2007. I will, of course, keep you informed of the progress of
the proposed Regulation.
28 November 2006
Annex A
PARTIAL REGULATORY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Department for Transport
TITLE OF
PROPOSAL
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of 15
July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing
a European Aviation Safety Agency.
PURPOSE AND
INTENDED EFFECT
OBJECTIVE
The main objective is to improve the level of
aviation safety within the common market in air transport. The
proposed Regulation seeks to achieve this by amending Regulation
1592/2002 to extend the EASA system to include air operations,
pilot licensing and third-country aircraft in order to ensure
a high, uniform level of safety. It also puts forward a number
of amendments to the original EASA framework in light of experiences
since 2002.
BACKGROUND
Established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002
of 15 July 2002, EASA began to carry out its statutory responsibilities
on 28 September 2003. The original Regulation set out the basic
principles and essential requirements in areas related to the
certification of aeronautical products and appliances. Regulation
1592/2002 required the Commission to bring forward further proposals
in due course to extend the scope of EASA which it has now done.
RATIONALE FOR
COMMUNITY INTERVENTION
The UK Government, as part of its commitment
to ensuring consistent and ever greater standards of safety in
the Union, has supported the general objective of extending EASA's
scope on a measured, step-by-step basis. The proposal is now being
discussed in the Council of the European Union.
CONSULTATION
An Initial RIA formed part of the Government's
consultation on this proposal and sought opinions from all parties,
in particular those businesses, groups and individuals directly
affected by the Regulation. The consultation closed on 21 April
2006 and we received 28 responses. This Partial RIA is based upon
the answers to that consultation.
OPTIONS
As stated in the Initial RIA, there are three
options, as follows:
Accept and support the text as it currently
stands.
(b) Consider Amendments to the Text
On the basis of consultation the Government
may seek to develop the proposals on the basis of its reasoned
opinion, as informed by the response received from interested
parties.
As this is a piece of Community legislation
this option is not relevant in this context. It is in the United
Kingdom's best interests to formulate an opinion on these proposals.
The proposals cover a large number of detailed
amendments and additions to Regulation 1592/2002. As previously
stated all were not acceptable as drafted to either the UK Government
or other Member States, and amendments have been debated during
the consideration of the proposal. Option (b) was therefore the
only realistic option. Respondents agreed with this assessment.
COSTS AND
BENEFITS
SECTORS AND
GROUPS AFFECTED
— Businesses, groups and individuals
involved in the aviation industry (commercial, recreation and
leisure).
The responses to the Initial RIA did not identify
any further sectors and groups affected that HMG had not considered
prior to the consultation.
BENEFITS
It is expected that the implementing measures
for operations and pilot licensing will largely be based on existing
harmonised requirements agreed by the JAA. It is therefore unlikely
that they will impose any significant financial burden on the
industry. Indeed the creation of a more efficient European system
should, in time, reduce the burdens on UK industry.
As part of the consultation exercise we sought
contributions from stakeholders on the potential benefits of this
proposal. We also invited comments on any positive changes that
could be made to the text.
In the medium to long term respondents expected
costs to reduce due to savings of scale across the Union. Further
benefits included:
— The use of Assessment Bodies was
felt to be beneficial by some respondents, who put themselves
forward as likely candidates.
— The provision of a pan-European Recreational
Pilot's Licence, with the free movement this entails was viewed
favourably.
— The use of a General Practitioner
in such a licence was felt to be positive and less costly than
an Aero-medical Examiner.
COSTS
Costs are likely to come from a period of adaptation,
by both industry and the Agency. It is expected that the implementing
measures for operations and pilot licensing will largely be based
on existing harmonised requirements agreed by the JAA. It is therefore
unlikely that they will impose any significant financial burden
on the industry. Again we sought opinions on the likely costs
of the proposed amendments.
Concerns were expressed as to the adverse regulatory
impact of a cabin crew licence and medical certificate scheme.
The costs of the latter were expected to run into £1 million
for one consultee. Furthermore, it was argued that this would
not improve safety levels.
The Government has taken on board these comments
and has put forward these arguments in the context of the Aviation
Working Group.
SMALL FIRMS
IMPACT TEST
We wished to obtain feedback from this sector
of the economy on the expected impact of the proposal on their
business arrangements. Concerns were expressed that there may
be onerous requirements placed on recreational flying clubs, in
particular with regard to flying training. The Government recognises
that not all operators falling within the proposed definition
of commercial operations should be required to fulfil the requirements
of an AOC. HMG will seek to ensure that the Implementing Rules
devised as a result of this Regulation will regulate some commercial
operations such as Flying Training Organisations with a lighter
touch than other commercial operations.
COMPETITION ASSESSMENT
We did not foresee any adverse competition effects
however we invited comments on the likely effects of the proposal.
Some respondents maintained that it was unfair
for fractional ownership operations to be treated as non-commercial.
They argued that these were commercial operations and should be
administered as such.
The Government's interpretation of the Regulation
is that the level of regulation applied to commercial operations
through the implementing rules will be proportionate to the activity
performed. The Commission argues that, when an aircraft is above
a certain size and level of complexity and where an accident would
endanger a significant number of lives, it is reasonable to expect
it to meet more onerous regulations, whether it is flown commercially
or not. This seeks to ensure that fractional ownership operations
are overseen to a satisfactory level regardless of their non-commercial
classification.
ENFORCEMENT, SANCTIONS
AND MONITORING
The Agency would implement some certification
directly however the majority would be done by Member States'
national authorities according to their normal procedures.
Letter from the Chairman to Gillian Merron
MP
Thank you for your letter of 28 November 2006.
Sub-Committee B considered your letter at its meeting on 11 December.
We were grateful to you for updating the Committee
on the proposal ahead of Transport Council. We shared the concerns
about the competence of the EASA to take on an expanded role,
which you expressed to us last December. We are pleased that the
EASA's performance "has improved significantly since then,
and continues to do so". We support the UK's agreement to
the general approach in Council.
Nevertheless we share your view that the Agency's
performance must be monitored over the coming year, and that if
it were to deteriorate, we trust that you would reassess the UK's
position. As the proposal is subject to amendments in the European
Parliament, we would be grateful to you for an update following
the plenary first reading, which you expect to take place in March
2007.
We will maintain scrutiny at this stage.
12 December 2006
27 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, pp 92-93. Back
| 
