Noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft
The Issue
1. The proposed Directive would determine how noise charges should be calculated for individual aircraft where noise charges are to be made. It would continue to allow airports to decide whether or not to make noise charges and, if so, their precise level.
2. The proposed calculation would use the ICAO noise certification measurements for Chapter 3 aircraft to reflect noise performance. The proposed methodology allows airports to take into account local airport specific parameters. It is intended that any variation should be no more than 1:20 between the highest and lowest charge (within each defined reference period).
3. The proposal reflects the principle that the aircraft operator should pay a fair price proportional to the noise impact of their aircraft and accords with ICAO principles that any charging scheme introduced at an airport should either be revenue neutral or the revenues to be used for noise mitigation measures around the airport.
4. The proposal would apply from 1 April 2003 to newly introduced noise charging régimes or significant revisions to existing régimes. From 1 April 2006 it would apply to all noise charging régimes.
The Objective
5. The objective of the Directive is to ensure that common criteria based on the noise performance of aircraft are used when calculating the level of noise charges at airports for environmental purposes. Such an objective, whilst desirable, is not essential.
Risk Assessment
6. Risks from aircraft noise are generally associated with annoyance rather than health or safety, although the possibility of links between noise and ill health remains a contentious issue.
7. There is uncertainty about whether the proposed Directive would function compatibly alongside existing banded systems classifying aircraft for the purposes of night operating restrictions.
Options
8.The Government will need to review the options when the compatibility of the proposal with existing charging systems and the wider impact of the proposals, if any, are clear.
The options are:
a. seek to achieve the objective by voluntary agreement
b. accept proposed Directive as drafted
c. propose amendments so that greater flexibility is retained for member states
d. decline to support the proposed Directive
(a) seek to achieve the objective by voluntary agreement
Pros:
would avoid the possible difficulties identified with the proposal.
Cons:
UK and all other EU states already on record as recommending a legislative approach
May not achieve the objective of harmonisation
(b) Accept proposed Directive as drafted
Pros:
Supports a harmonised approach allowing airports to develop new or existing noise charging schemes.
Would give the aviation industry some degree of certainty for planning purposes and would introduce transparency into noise charging systems.
Cons:
It is not clear why harmonisation of noise charge calculations across the EU is necessary or why it the offers any real advantage over the existing system of locally determined noise charging
may require changes to existing noise charging régimes in the UK, including those at the major London Airports.
(c) Seek amendment to the proposed Directive
Pros:
This would be constructive and seek to rectify technical deficiencies and ensure compatibility with existing charging systems.
Cons:
No guarantee that suitable amendments can be secured.
(d) Oppose the Directive
Pros:
If successful, would eliminate any risk of prejudicing future development of noise charging systems in the UK.
Cons:
Would be a volte face as the UK has helped to promote the idea of a common approach to noise charges through ECAC.
May not succeed given QMV and co-decision. UK may be isolated.
Equity/Fairness Issues
9. The proposed Directive does not raise significant issues of equity or fairness. The calculation method proposed has been designed with fairness and the need to avoid discrimination in mind. However, because the methodology is based upon the absolute noise performance of aircraft, operators of even the quietest large aircraft may be subject to noise charges higher than other operators with smaller aircraft, despite investment in the best available technology.
The Benefits
10. Seek to achieve the objective by voluntary agreement. Although this may simplify the introduction of a harmonised approach, this is unlikely to find favour with other EU countries and may be difficult to enforce.
Accept as drafted. A standard EU-wide approach would be established.
Seek to amend the proposed Directive. Would be constructive and more closely align the Directive with UK interests.
Oppose the Directive. There is little to commend outright opposition unless the impact on business or the wider policy considerations identified in the Explanatory Memorandum dictate otherwise.
The Costs
(i) Business sectors affected
11.Two main business sectors are affected: airlines and airport operators.
(ii) Compliance costs for a typical business
12. There is no such thing as a typical airline or airport business. UK airlines range from multi-billion pound global businesses to single aircraft operations. UK airports also differ tremendously in the type and numbers of aircraft that they attract and their sensitivity to noise, as well as their turnover and ownership structure. There is no minimum size test in the proposed Directive, it would apply to any airport which introduced noise related charges.
Airlines
13. The proposed Directive is concerned with a calculation methodology for noise charges. It is permissive i.e. if an airport operator wishes to impose a noise charge on airlines using the airport, the proposed Directive would require the charge to be calculated in a particular way. The proposed Directive does not require the imposition of charges.
14. The financial implications for individual airlines would therefore depend upon:
which airports introduced a noise charge under the proposed Directive
what charge is introduced
the fleet mix of the individual airline, and the airports to which it operates
how individual aircraft are operated, for example whether they operate mainly during night time periods
the aircraft mix at individual airports
Therefore not possible to predict the effect on individual UK airlines The relatively young and technologically advanced nature of most UK registered aircraft would suggest that UK airlines should be as well if not better placed than their foreign competitors under new charging regimes.
Airports
15. The extent of the impact on airports would depend on whether they introduce noise-related charges, amend existing noise charging schemes or decide not to introduce charges and whether revenues are generated. Airports which introduce new or amended charging schemes may incur some additional administration costs which will probably be partly or fully recouped from aircraft operators. It could involve additional costs for airports that need to modify the software used for their charging systems.
Results of Consultations
16.DTLR copied the proposed Directive to the Airport Operators Association (AOA), the British Air Transport Association (BATA), BAA plc, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) asking for comments. BAA foresee considerable difficulties (at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted) with the 2006 target for implementing a charging system compatible with the Directive, as it would fall mid-way through its 5-year economic regulation review cycle (the current review is already underway). CAA are also concerned as to whether the existing banding system could be retained under the proposals. No other substantive comments have been received so far.
Monitoring and Review
17. Article 7 of the proposed Directive provides for the Commission to submit a report and, if appropriate, proposals for amendment, to the European Parliament and Council on the application of this proposed Directive not later than 1 April 2008.
Securing Compliance
20. The proposed Directive would have to be brought into force in UK domestic law by secondary legislation.
Recommendation
21. The Government will give further consideration to the possible impacts of the proposal. Subject to this we propose to take a constructive approach and seek to negotiate suitable amendments to meet UK concerns.
Signed
JOHN SPELLAR
Date
Contact point:
Mr L Britton
Aviation Environmental Division 1
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Zone 1/33
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
LONDON
SW1P 4DR
