You are on page 1of 3

16.1.

2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 14/33

3.3. Supporting measures on construction and maintenance of road infrastructure should
be more geared to road safety; telematics would be very useful
for improving respect for the rules of the road and for
3.3.1. In the Committee’s view, the rapid development of communicating to road users any information likely to
the CARE database is a key factor for any prioritisation and encourage safety-orientated behaviour.
any road safety policy based on the cost-efficiency principle.
That is why the Committee mentioned it above in the section
General criticisms and suggestions. 4. Conclusion

In general, the Committee supports any action likely to
3.3.2. The Committee endorses the two other supporting improve road safety. In particular, it is pleased that the Council
measures — an integrated information system and research of Transport Ministers adopted a resolution on 26 June 2000
into vehicle standards and telematics. However, it feels that on strengthening road safety, which indeed accords with the
this research should also cover road infrastructure. Standards measures advocated in this opinion.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President
of the Economic and Social Committtee
Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the
harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil
aviation’

(2001/C 14/06)

On 27 April 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 September 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr von Schwerin.

At its 376th plenary session of 19 October 2000 (meeting of 19 October) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion by 94 votes, with one abstention.

1. Introduction 2. Gist of the Commission proposal

1.1. The Commission proposal for a regulation is intended 2.1. The Commission’s explanatory memorandum to the
to harmonise technical requirements and administrative pro- proposal makes the following points:
cedures in the field of civil aviation. The idea is that, in future,
JAR-OPS 1 (Joint Aviation Requirements for the operation of 2.1.1. When drawing up the second liberalisation package
aircraft engaged in commercial air transportation) — issued by in 1989, the Council and the Commission agreed that
the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) and already incorporated Community air transport policy also had to address the har-
by Member States into national law — will (with minor monisation of the regulatory framework applicable to civil
amendments) take the form of a regulation published by the aviation in order both to maintain a high level of safety and to
Commission. ensure fair competition in the internal market.
C 14/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16.1.2001

2.1.2. To achieve these goals, the Community adopted 2.6. The annex was compiled with the following objectives
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the harmonisation in mind:
of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the
field of civil aviation with the aim of establishing and keeping — Adhering to the safety level proposed by the JAA;
up to date harmonised rules for the design, manufacture,
operation and maintenance of aircraft, and for personnel and
organisations involved in these tasks. — Limiting the extent of Community requirements to what
is strictly necessary to ensure automatic recognition of
Air Operator Certificates. Therefore the text covers only
Section 1 of JAR-OPS 1 and excludes other parts dealing
2.1.3. This regulation also lists a number of technical with acceptable means of compliance (AMC) or explana-
requirements — Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) — pro- tory material as defined in Section 2 of JAR-OPS 1;
duced by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), which have the
force of law in the Community.
— Keeping the text as close as possible to JAR-OPS 1 in
order to facilitate further developments and amendments
as well as compatibility with the regulatory system in
JAA countries which are not EU Member States;
2.2. Against this background, the Commission services
examined the JAR-OPS 1 document adopted by the JAA in
1995 with the aim of establishing harmonised requirements Ensuring compatibility with Community law by making
for the operation of aircraft engaged in commercial air adjustments to the following provisions:
transportation. The introduction of common rules in this
domain into Community law falls within the scope of Council — Registration of aircraft
Regulations (EEC) No 3922/91 and No 2407/92.
— Short term wet-lease-in

2.3. However, it appears that, for a number of reasons, — Exemptions/operational directives.
JAR-OPS 1 cannot be transposed simply by listing it in the
annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 as had been
done in the case of other JAR-codes. 2.7. The work done by the JAA in producing JAR-OPS
1 constitutes a good basis for adopting common safety
requirements in commercial air transportation. Accordingly,
the Commission proposes incorporating its content into
2.3.1. Firstly, the text of JAR-OPS 1 contains some pro- Community law with the minimum changes necessary to meet
visions which are incompatible with Community law and Community obligations and policies.
policies. Adjustments are therefore required to ensure the
necessary consistency.

3. The Committee’s comments
2.3.2. Secondly, since the various interested parties still
disagree on many points, the Commission will have to make
up its own mind and draw its own conclusions. 3.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal
for a regulation, since the incorporation of JAR-OPS 1 into
Community law will make it possible to harmonise safety
2.3.3. This is necessary, because the rules will have a huge requirements and avoid distortions of competition in the single
economic impact on thousands of enterprises and their market.
workers.

3.2. The Committee also hopes that such a move will
rectify the current failure of some EU Member States to
2.4. The procedure used for adopting the legislation must implement JAR-OPS 1 and the distortions of competition this
display the usual transparency and involve all interested generates.
parties. Accordingly, the full text of the provisions will pass
through the usual procedure for the adoption of Community
legislation. 3.3. However, the Commission proposal still has a number
of flaws which need to be eliminated. In terms of content, the
Committee is in broad agreement with the Commission
proposal, particularly since it is based on JAR-OPS 1 and this
2.5. The Commission has opted for transposing the content has already been coordinated with the appropriate authorities.
of JAR-OPS 1 by adding a new annex to Council Regulation However, the Commission proposal makes no reference to
(EEC) No 3922/91. Its purpose is to make the necessary other JARs, which are, however, important for flight operations
adjustments to the previous text of the regulation in order to and are connected with JAR-OPS 1 (JAR-26, JAR-145, JAR-
secure proper transposition. STD, JAR-TSO, JAR-FCL 1, JAR-FCL 3 etc.)
16.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 14/35

3.3.1. Up to now, JAR-OPS 1 has contained these refer- 3.6. The Commission is asked to rectify the translation
ences. The Commission proposal would isolate the EU OPS errors in order to secure the practical implementation of
from the overall JAR scheme, which operates as a closed, the paper as a whole. To prevent misunderstandings, the
interlinked system. Committee also proposes that the Commission paper make
greater use of the recognised technical terms employed in JAR-
OPS 1. Accordingly, the Committee feels it is advisable to stick
3.4. In failing to take account of Section 2 of JAR-OPS 1, closely to the JAR-OPS 1 text (both the original English version
the Commission also fails in its objective of harmonising the and the translations which already exist). Furthermore, the
rules. Many of the additional requirements and limitations set Commission proposal should be based on JAR-OPS Change 1,
out in Section 2 of JAR-OPS 1 might be interpreted differently which is the most recent version and follows on from JAR-
by the national aviation authorities, and this would inevitably OPS 1.
lead to distortions of competition in the single market. Here,
the Committee sees a need for further regulation.
4. Final observation
3.5. Moreover, the translations of the Commission proposal
differ — in some cases substantially — from JAR-OPS 1 and 4.1. The Committee feels it is essential to establish the
contain errors. This must be rectified. That does not of course planned European Air Safety Authority (EASA) as quickly as
apply to the passages from the JAR-OPS 1 text deliberately possible. This authority would then be able to issue all the
omitted from the Commission proposal. rules governing air traffic — including the EU OPS.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President
of the Economic and Social Committee
Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission
— The results of the public consultation on the 1999 Communications Review and Orientations
for the new Regulatory Framework’

(2001/C 14/07)

On 2 May 2000 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 8 September 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Lagerholm.

At its 376th plenary session of 19 October 2000 the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion unanimously.

1. The Commission communication conclusions with regard to the forthcoming proposals for the
new regulatory framework. Respondents held differing views
1.1. The communication reports on the consultation associ- on, for instance, funding of national regulatory authorities, the
ated with the 1999 Communications Review (1) and draws introduction of two thresholds for asymmetric obligations in
respect of access and interconnection, guidelines for afforda-
bility of universal services, and users’ facilities and quality of
(1) OJ C 204, 18.7.2000, p. 3. service.