Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the registration and use within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993)'
14. 9. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 284/1 II (Preparatory Acts) ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the registration and use within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993)’ (98/C 284/01) On 27 March 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 1 June 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Gafo Ferna´ndez. At its 356th plenary session held on 1 and 2 July 1998 (meeting of 1 July), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 125 votes to three, with one abstention. 1. Introduction The implementation of Directive 92/14/EEC (1) 1. 1. on noise from civil subsonic jet aeroplanes means the gradual phase-out between 1995 and 2002 of aeroplanes which exceed the noise thresholds established according to the most stringent international noise standards (2) and contained in the directive. 1. 2. The development of ‘hushkits’ for many noisy aeroplane types has meant that some of these aeroplane types no longer need to be phased out, as the fitting of hushkits enables them to meet the noise standards laid down in Directive 92/14/EEC. 1. 3. The noise problem, however, is not the only adverse effect that these generally very old aeroplanes have on the environment. At the same time they have a considerably higher fuel consumption than more modern planes, which means that their CO2 and NOx emissions are relatively much higher. In addition, while there (1) OJ L 76, 23. 3. 1992. (2) These are contained in Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. may not necessarily be any direct correlation between environment considerations and aircraft safety, the use of new aircraft would increase passenger safety and public safety in general. 1. 4. The current draft directive seeks to reconcile the right of European carriers to demand a structured renewal of their fleet, as provided for in Directive 92/14/EEC, with the protection of the environment. It aims to achieve this by restricting the fitting of hushkits to aeroplanes currently registered in an EU Member State and banning the registration in Member States of hushkitted aeroplanes which have been operating in other countries. So, one of the objectives of the current draft 1. 4. 1. directive is to avoid a potential influx of hushkitted aircraft from the United States for registration in the EU, as the noise standards established for the air fleet in the US are set to trigger a considerable surplus of this type of aircraft with a very high average age, and these aircraft may well find their way into the EU. C 284/2 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14. 9. 98 2. General comments The Economic and Social Committee supports 2. 1. the current draft directive’s aim of improving the protection of the environment and air transport safety while safeguarding existing plans for the renewal of the air fleet owned by EU carriers in keeping with the provisions of Directive 92/14/CEE. 2. 2. The ESC wishes to stress that, given the inter- national nature of air transport, EU measures should serve as an immediate reference framework for adoption at international level within the ICAO (1) so that Euro- pean air carriers are not forced into a situation of competitive disadvantage. The ESC would also like to highlight the fact 2. 3. that, in order to achieve harmonization across the EU and fit in with the global and border-free nature of air transport operations the adoption of the draft directive in conjunction with Directive 92/14/EEC should avoid justified any operating restrictions in certain airports, which could endanger the single market in air transport. across-the-board and insufficiently 2. 3. 1. The ESC recently issued an opinion on airport charges (2) in which it welcomes the Commission’s proposal (3) to allow these to be differentiated according to the level of noise pollution from different aeroplanes. This would promote the use of less noisy aeroplanes and thus contribute to protecting the environment. 2. 4. The ESC has become aware of the major effort which the draft directive will entail for air freight carriers, due to the fact that the aeroplanes used for this purpose are relatively older and mainly use airports during night hours. The ESC calls upon the Commission (1) International Civil Aviation Organization. (2) OJ 73, 9. 3. 1998. (3) Proposal for a Council Directive on airport charges, OJ C 257, 22. 8. 1997. Brussels, 1 July 1998. to study ways of preventing the possible emergence of flags of convenience under the protection of the temporary exemption provided for under Article 3(3), which would result in unfair competition for EU carriers. The ESC agrees with the temporary exemptions 2. 5. granted in the draft directive for emergency cases. 2. 5. 1. However, the Committee wishes to oppose the exemption granted under Article 4. 2 to civil aircraft used exclusively outside the territory of the Community and in the French overseas departments. 2. 6. Lastly, the ESC stresses that the European Union should play a pro-active leadership role, within Europe itself above all and also within the ICAO, to ensure that these standards are adopted at international level. This is the only way to guarantee effective and universal protection of the environment and a parallel increase in air transport safety. 3. Specific comments 3. 1. The following new recital should be added: ‘Whereas given the international nature of air trans- port, efforts should be made to ensure that measures to limit noise pollution from aeroplanes are adopted as part of international agreements; whereas if such measures are adopted at Community level, they should serve as a reference for adoption as quickly as possible at international level. ’ 3. 2. The following new recital should be added: ‘Whereas in order to avoid a deterioration in noise levels around airports, measures to restrict aeroplane noise should be backed up with more systematic planning of the surrounding air space and be accompanied by specific measures for research into noise reduction under the Fifth Community RTD Framework Programme. ’ The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS