M-A-G  MACC INFO  WIGGINS TDC MP's LINKS  NEW OOP's                          If you want to make comments or find out more about the Manston Airport Group, email on 
g r o u p @ m - a - g. f s n e t. c o. u k  or post to P.O. Box 311, Ramsgate CT11 9XL. ALL enquiries are confidential.

Hush-kit war heats up.

WASHINGTON, March 15 /PRNewswire/ -- 

    The European Commission said the filing of Article 84 Action threatens the efforts it made to try and find a reasonable solution in the current dispute between the European Union and the United States on noise near airports. 

    Ms Loyola de Palacio, vice-president for transport and energy, lamented this decision which will make it harder to find an agreement.

    `The Commission is still committed to seeking a resolution to this dispute that is acceptable to both sides. 

    We will continue to work for the development of a more stringent noise standard, which takes advantage of the existing and more environmentally friendly technology currently available while striking a balance with the economic interests of the concerned aircraft industry and the legitimate interests of those affected by noise.

    1. In the European Union, noise around airports is at the heart of increasing tensions: air transport activities  threatened the legitimate expectation of people living around airports who do not wish to be faced with a further deterioration of noise pollution. 

    The EU considers it is necessary to provide a reasonable and short-term answer to legitimate environmental concerns in order to prevent further proliferation of different local rules at individual airports, and thereby, ensuring continued growth and a stable operating environment for all air carriers flying into European airports.    

    For the last ten years, no delegation has been more active within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in the pursuit of new noise standards than the Union and its member states. 

    The EU and the member states has co-operated actively to change and improve the so-called "Chapter 3 standard", only one currently accepted at the international level, but certainly insufficient, to a new one which reflects better modern technology and other related noise factors. 

    Since the early 1990's and until recently, the United States blocked all progress on the noise issue within the ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), which drove the European Union to adopt its own regulation in 1999 (No. 925/99).

    2. The so-called "hush-kit" EU-Regulation targets concerns about aircraft noise at and around EU airports. It foresees the interdiction for Union member states to add aircraft to their registers which meet the requirements of ICAO's Chapter 3 only by virtue of re-certification. 

    These aircraft are considerably noisier than genuine Chapter 3 aircraft and make, therefore, a disproportionate contribution to the noise climate at airports. 

    Although the EU Regulation was adopted unanimously by the EU Council of Ministers on April 29, 1999, its implementation was delayed until May 4, 2000 in order to allow for consultations with the United States on a mutually acceptable solution to noise problems, preferably to be established at the level of ICAO. 

    Its entering into force would in no way whatsoever impact operations of aircraft already registered in member states or already operating to and from the Union.

    3. On March 14, 2000 the US Government formally lodged an Article 84 complaint under the Chicago  Convention with ICAO against the EU Regulation.

    The regulation is aimed at addressing the environmental threat posed by older production aircraft originally certified, in terms of noise, as Chapter 2 compliant, such as older B-727, B-737 and DC-9.

    4. The European Commission believes the filing of the Article 84 complaint will severely complicate efforts within ICAO to develop a new more stringent noise standard (Chapter 4) to relieve noise pollution around airports. 

    The move is particularly regrettable at a time when progress is being made on work to define a new Chapter 4 noise standard in ICAO and where both sides have stated that they are committed to the developments of such a standard in ICAO and to phase-out measures for the nosiest Chapter 3 aircraft.

    5. Under the terms of the draft agreement negotiated between the US and the EU and then unfortunately, rejected by the US yesterday; the EU would have been obliged to further suspend its Regulation and in return the US would have refrained from taking any action against the Regulation, including action under Article 84. 

    In addition, the parties provisionally agreed on the objectives for the new noise standard. Unfortunately, US industry, which has shown little enthusiasm for a new noise standard, was unwilling to accept this balanced compromise proposal. 

    In light of industry's opposition the U.S. Government decided to rejected the deal that been the result of intense negotiations between the two sides.

    The Commission wishes to recall:
    *  that aircraft noise continues to constitute a serious nuisance to millions of people, and that the problems are particularly acute in the EU;

    *  that if public concerns over aircraft noise are not adequately addressed it will threaten the efficient use of available airport capacity and the EU's ability to meet expected future growth in air transport activities;

    *  that current Chapter 3 noise standards were developed more than 20 years ago and that current technology offers possibilities for significantly reducing noise pollution around airports;

    *  that current production aircraft often surpass Chapter 3 noise standards by substantial margins;

    *  that older aircraft, originally certified as Chapter 2 such as older B-727, B-737 and DC-9,  even if "hush-kitted" still are dramatically noisier than aircraft manufactured to meet Chapter 3;

    *  that re-certification techniques imposing operational restrictions, such as maximum take off weight and maximum flap settings, used by Federal Aviation Authority as a means to bring certain older aircraft, originally certified as Chapter 2, into compliance with Chapter 3 standards produce little or no environmental benefits;

    *  that noise levels around airports depend on the number of aircraft movements and the fleet mix serving the airport;

    *  that aircraft movements are expected to double at many airport in the next twenty years;

    *  that the fleet mix serving airports deteriorated as a result of the unilateral U.S. decision to accelerate the phase out of Chapter 2 aircraft, because it led to a significant increase in the number of hushkitted aircraft used by US carriers;

    *  that the EU and its Member States have for years without success pressed ICAO to address the issue of noise pollution by revisiting its noise standards;

    *  that efforts by the EU and its Member States to get ICAO to address noise pollution was in part blocked by the US;

    *  that ICAO only began to revisit the issue after the EU presented its Regulation;

    *  that the Regulation seeks to achieve two environmental goals, namely the reduction of noise and emissions;

    *  that there is a close link between low by-pass ratios on the one hand and noise performance and CO2 emissions of an aircraft engine on the other hand and that by-pass ratios have been used by both ICAO and the FAA as proxies for noise performance

    *  that from outset the Commission has indicated willingness to propose alternative criteria if the US could propose an alternative that would assure the same environmental benefits and that the US has made no such proposal to date.

SOURCE European Union
Web Site: http://www.eurunion.org

Index Top