19 min read

December 2024 EASA Aerodrome Rules Revision: In-Depth Look at the Changes

December 2024 EASA Aerodrome Rules Revision: In-Depth Look at the Changes
Photo by Mark Stenglein / Unsplash

Introduction

In December 2024, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published a major revision of the Easy Access Rules (EAR) for Aerodromes, consolidating several recent regulatory updates into Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 . These changes are not just routine edits – they introduce significant new requirements and improvements in areas such as information security, aerodrome operational safety, occurrence reporting, and change of aerodrome operator procedures . The updates stem from multiple EU regulations and EASA decisions issued in 2023–2024, and they carry staggered applicability dates from early 2024 through February 2026 . In this article, we delve into all the major changes in the December 2024 revision, explaining each in detail and examining how they impact various aviation stakeholders. We also highlight initial industry reactions and explain how tools like Aviation.bot can help professionals stay compliant with these updates.

Information Security Requirements for Aerodromes

One of the most notable additions is a new focus on information security (i.e. cybersecurity) as an integral part of aerodrome safety. EASA has incorporated provisions from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/203, which requires aviation organizations – including certified aerodromes – to establish an Information Security Management System (ISMS) to manage cyber risks that could impact safety . In practice, this means aerodrome operators must:

• Implement a formal ISMS and conduct regular information security risk assessments of their critical systems . This involves identifying potential cyber threats to airport operations and assessing their safety impact.

Detect, report, and respond to information security incidents that could affect aviation safety . For example, an airport must be able to detect a cyber-attack on its airfield lighting control or ATC systems, report it to authorities, and have contingency plans to maintain safety.

• Integrate information security into the existing Safety Management System. The rules require internal reporting channels for cyber issues and coordination with the national authority on significant incidents .

• Ensure they have competent and trustworthy personnel managing information security, documented procedures (an Information Security Management Manual), and records of all related activities .

These information security requirements have a long lead-time – they become applicable in February 2026 – recognizing that establishing robust cyber defenses is a complex task. Nevertheless, this marks a proactive shift: EASA is explicitly acknowledging that cyber threats (like hacking of airport systems) can be aviation safety hazards. For aerodrome management, this change means investing in IT security expertise and technology. Compliance officers at airports will need to develop new policies, training, and possibly conduct drills for cyber incident response. In the bigger picture, this move aligns aerodrome operators with airlines, maintenance organizations, and air navigation service providers under a common EU Part-IS (Information Security) framework for safety . Stakeholders have largely welcomed this update – in today’s digital age, a cyber incident that disables runway lights or airport communications could be as dangerous as a physical hazard. As one aviation analysis noted, “in an age where cyber threats pose a genuine risk to operational integrity, integrating robust info security protocols in aerodrome operations is essential” .

Alignment with Occurrence Reporting Requirements

Another major change is the overhaul of aerodrome occurrence reporting rules to align with the EU’s general occurrence reporting Regulation (EU) No 376/2014. The updated rules aim to ensure that aerodrome operators (and any apron management service providers) have reporting systems consistent with the EU framework for collecting and analyzing safety occurrences . In the December 2024 revision, EASA deleted the old Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation 139/2014 (which dealt with reporting) and replaced them with new provisions that point to Regulation 376/2014 . Concretely, the new ADR.OR.C.030 – Occurrence Reporting rule was inserted, obliging aerodrome operators to report incidents, near-misses, and other occurrences through the national mandatory reporting systems . This ensures consistency in what gets reported and how, fostering a just culture environment where safety issues are openly shared.

For example, if an aircraft experiences a runway excursion or there is a vehicle incursion on a taxiway, the aerodrome operator must not only investigate internally but also file an official occurrence report. The revision also extends occurrence reporting duties to apron management service providers (where apron control is delegated) , meaning those entities must likewise report safety occurrences on the apron. By integrating these requirements, safety data flows from aerodromes will improve, enabling trend analysis and preventive actions across Europe. From a stakeholder perspective, aerodrome safety managers and compliance officers will need to ensure their occurrence reporting procedures and IT systems meet the new standard. Airline operators might see more efficient sharing of incident information at airports they serve, and regulators gain better oversight of ground incidents. Industry experts have praised this alignment – making reporting easier and more standardized encourages proactive safety management. As one commentary noted, “the new regulations simplify the reporting process, making it more accessible for aerodrome operators to document and analyze incidents effectively. Timely reporting and analysis can lead to a significant reduction in accidents” . In short, this change isn’t just bureaucratic; it’s about using data to prevent accidents.

New Procedures for Change of Aerodrome Operator

The revision introduces explicit procedures to handle a scenario that, until now, had little coverage: what happens if an aerodrome changes its operator (for instance, if an airport’s ownership or management is transferred to a new company). A new rule ADR.OR.B.060 – Change of Aerodrome Operator has been added, along with a corresponding authority procedure ADR.AR.C.060 . These provisions ensure that when an incumbent airport operator ceases operations and a new operator takes over, the transition is safe, smooth, and well-coordinated .

Under the new rules, the current aerodrome operator must notify the competent authority well in advance of the date the transfer will occur . The competent authority, upon application by the prospective new operator, will issue a new certificate effective on the takeover date, provided the new operator can demonstrate it meets key requirements (especially regarding management and safety systems) . Importantly, the rules allow the new operator to inherit the existing certificate’s terms and the aerodrome’s Declared Distances and Data (DAAD) without starting from scratch . In other words, if nothing significant changes about the physical aerodrome or its facilities, the new operator does not have to re-prove compliance with those technical requirements that “remain unchanged” . The authority will reissue the certificate in the new operator’s name and revoke the old one, transferring over the attached conditions (like runway details, operating limitations, etc.).

This is a pragmatic approach that prevents unnecessary disruption. Aerodrome management teams contemplating a transfer of operations must, however, ensure continuity of the Safety Management System and other organizational obligations during the handover. The “safe and smooth transition” principle means the outgoing operator should cooperate fully to pass on manuals, records, and knowledge to the incoming operator . From the perspective of airline operators and the traveling public, these rules are reassuring: even if an airport’s management changes, there should be no lapses in safety or service. Regulatory consultants have noted that this formal change-of-operator process will likely require detailed planning and perhaps transition agreements between old and new operators to cover things like personnel handovers and pending corrective actions. Overall, codifying this process fills an important gap, ensuring regulatory oversight during ownership changes and preserving safety performance through the transition.

Enhanced Aerodrome Operational Safety Measures

Perhaps the most extensive set of changes in the 2024 revision are those enhancing day-to-day aerodrome operational safety. EASA has amended and expanded Part-ADR.OPS rules to incorporate best practices and ICAO recommendations (particularly from ICAO Doc 9981, PANS-Aerodromes) on various safety topics. Aerodrome operators will need to update their procedures and training to comply with these new measures by 2025. The key operational safety changes include:

An airport “Operations” vehicle on the movement area. The new rules push aerodrome operators to strengthen safety programs on the airfield, from FOD detection to work site management.

Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Control: While not explicitly named in the regulation text, the revision underscores the need for keeping runways/taxiways clear of debris. A new definition of “FOD” was added in the rules, and aerodrome operators are expected to implement a formal FOD detection and removal program (e.g. regular runway inspections and FOD walks). This reduces the risk of debris causing aircraft damage during takeoffs and landings – a direct safety improvement for airline operations. (The emphasis on FOD is reflected in industry materials accompanying the rule, which highlight FOD control as a new topic of focus.)

Removal of Disabled Aircraft: A brand new rule ADR.OPS.B.011 – Removal of disabled aircraft requires aerodromes to have a plan for rapidly removing a disabled aircraft from the runway or other critical area . The plan should ensure coordination, resources and equipment are in place to clear an aircraft that cannot move under its own power . For example, airports might need pre-arranged agreements with salvage companies or onsite equipment (like dollies or cranes) ready to deploy. The goal is to minimize runway closures and prevent extended operational disruptions in the event of an incident.

Aerodrome Works Safety: Construction or maintenance work on the airfield can introduce hazards. The revised rules replace ADR.OPS.B.070 with an expanded Aerodrome works safety rule, mandating a process to manage the safety of any works on the movement area . This includes requiring specific authorizations and notifications for work, safety measures (like closing areas, marking construction vehicles, issuing NOTAMs), and oversight by the aerodrome operator . Essentially, airports must implement a works safety management plan to ensure that runway/taxiway construction or repairs don’t compromise operational safety (for instance, preventing runway incursions by construction equipment). This change will affect airport operations departments, which must liaise closely with contractors and ATC during projects.

the sun is setting over a highway with dark clouds
Photo by Nick Fewings / Unsplash

Closed Runway/Taxiway Markings: The revision introduces ADR.OPS.B.071 – Closed runways and taxiways (or parts thereof), which stipulates that any runway or taxiway that is temporarily or permanently closed must be clearly marked as such . The rule aligns with ICAO standards: typically a large yellow or white “X” is placed at each end of a closed runway, and lights may be turned off or covered . This prevents pilots or vehicle drivers from mistakenly entering or using a closed strip. Going forward, aerodrome operators must have procedures (and equipment like portable illuminated X markers) to rapidly mark closures – for example, if a runway is closed due to an accident or for repairs, the closure markings should be visible both day and night. This change directly benefits pilots (including airline crews) by reducing confusion and risk of attempted landings on a closed runway.

Operations Above Certified Aerodrome Design: A significant new requirement addresses situations where an aircraft larger or heavier than an airport’s certified design criteria wants to use the aerodrome. Under the new ADR.OPS.B.090 – Use of the aerodrome by aircraft exceeding the certified design characteristics, aerodrome operators must assess the safety impact and obtain prior approval from the competent authority before accommodating such operations . For instance, if a cargo airline requests to operate a Boeing 747-8 at an airport only designed/certified for up to Boeing 747-400, the airport must evaluate whether the runways, taxiways, pavement strength, and rescue services can handle the 747-8, and then seek approval from the regulator. This ensures that risks (like pavement damage or insufficient emergency cover) are mitigated in advance. In practice, airports might issue specific conditions for the flight (e.g., daylight only, special handling). This is a change that affects both aerodromes and airlines – it formalizes the process for one-off or irregular operations by larger aircraft, improving safety oversight.

“Hot Spot” Identification: Borrowing an ICAO concept, the rules now explicitly require identifying hot spots on the movement area. ADR.OPS.B.095 – Hot Spots is a new rule that mandates aerodrome operators to designate locations on the airfield that have a history or high risk of runway incursions or collisions, and to implement measures to mitigate those risks . Hot spots (e.g., confusing taxiway intersections or complex runway crossings) should be charted and communicated to pilots, and mitigation might include improved signage, markings, or awareness training. This change means airports will work with air traffic controllers and airlines to continuously review where incidents or confusion tend to occur and ensure those areas are clearly identified in briefs and charts. Pilots benefit by being alerted to “hot spots” at unfamiliar airports, hopefully preventing navigation errors on the ground.

Runway Suspension & Closure Procedures: The addition of ADR.OPS.B.100 – Suspension of runway operations and runway closure requires aerodrome operators to have formal procedures for suspending or closing runways and for coordinating such events . For example, if an airport needs to temporarily suspend operations on a runway due to sudden weather changes, wildlife on the runway, or an inspection, there should be a clear process to do so safely: notifying ATC, using signals or NOTAMs, and ensuring no aircraft attempts to land. Similarly, planned closures (for maintenance, etc.) should be handled with coordination among operations, tower, and airlines. These procedures will help avoid miscommunication – a contributing factor in some past incidents where a closed runway was mistakenly used.

Pavement Overload Operations: A new provision ADR.OPS.C.011 – Overload operations addresses operating aircraft that approach or exceed the pavement strength limits of runways or taxiways . Repeated use of very heavy aircraft can damage pavement if not managed. The rules now say airports must have procedures to regulate such operations – for instance, limiting the number of movements of a very heavy aircraft within a certain time, or requiring special permission, to prevent cumulative damage . This ties in with the prior approval for oversized aircraft: even if approved, their operations might be limited to avoid excessive wear. Aerodrome infrastructure managers will likely need to monitor pavement condition more closely and possibly invest in reinforcement if they plan to regularly accommodate heavier planes. For airlines, it means there might be restrictions on, say, maximum takeoff weight or frequency when using smaller airports, ensuring the runway remains safe.

Overall, these operational safety enhancements aim to close safety gaps and align with international best practices. They cover ground safety (FOD, works, hot spots), procedural safety (runway closure, safety committees), and technical safety margins (disabled aircraft removal, overload ops). Aerodrome operators have until March–May 2025 (when most of these rules become applicable) to comply . Many airports will need to revise their Aerodrome Manuals, update training for operations staff, and possibly procure new equipment (like runway closure markers or heavy-duty towing gear). Safety committees will also see clearer guidelines: the rules revised ADR.OR.D.027 – Safety programmes and aerodrome safety committees to incorporate ICAO’s latest provisions on composition/functioning of local runway safety teams . This means airports should involve airlines, air traffic services, ground handlers and others in regular safety meetings to review issues and implement improvements. By formalizing these practices, EASA is pushing for a more collaborative safety culture at aerodromes.

Visual Signals for Radio Communication Failures

Finally, the December 2024 revision includes a focused update for an emergency communication scenario: radio communication failure on the airfield. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/405 introduced changes to ADR.OPS.B.031 – Communications to ensure that if radio contact is lost between the control tower and vehicles or personnel on the manoeuvring area, there is a standard method to signal instructions . In essence, aerodrome operators and air traffic controllers must use visual signals (light gun signals) to direct ground vehicles or personnel when radios fail. This aligns the aerodrome rules with longstanding ICAO and FAA practices of using a signal light gun from the tower to convey messages like “stop” or “vacate runway” to vehicles in case of lost comms.

Control tower personnel using a signal light gun – a backup method to communicate with aircraft or vehicles during radio failure.

For example, if an “Operations” pickup truck is inspecting the runway and its radio suddenly dies, the tower will use a flashing red light signal to tell the driver to immediately clear the runway. The new rule explicitly mandates aerodrome procedures for such signals, and corresponding Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) detail the meanings (likely: steady red = stop; flashing red = exit runway; flashing green = proceed, etc., analogous to signals for aircraft). Aerodrome drivers will need to be trained and regularly refreshed on recognizing light signals from the tower. While many airports already had this in training, making it a rule ensures uniform application across Europe. This change improves safety by providing a fallback communication method, preventing accidents if radios fail or frequency congestion occurs. From the perspective of compliance officers, it means updating the airside driver training syllabus and possibly equipping control towers with up-to-standard signal lamps (if not already in place). It’s a relatively small change but an important one – as noted in the regulatory text, “it is necessary to amend the rules to cover radio communication failure between the ATS unit and vehicles or pedestrians on the manoeuvring area” . This way, no one is left guessing, and critical instructions can still be conveyed to avert incidents.

Impact on Stakeholders

Aerodrome Operators & Management: The airport operators themselves are most directly affected by these changes. Aerodrome management will need to allocate resources and planning to comply with new rules: hiring or training staff for cyber security, establishing new procedures (e.g. for disabled aircraft removal, works safety), and coordinating with their national aviation authority for approvals (overrides, operator changes). Operationally, airports that haven’t had things like a runway safety team or FOD walk program will need to create them, fostering a more systematic safety approach. Some changes could incur costs – for instance, purchasing a heavy-duty “disabled aircraft recovery kit” or contracting a standby service, buying runway closure ‘X’ markers or signal light guns, or investing in an electronic occurrence reporting system. However, these enhancements also reduce risk of costly incidents (runway damage, accidents) and can improve efficiency (quick recovery from disruptions). For management, demonstrating compliance with the latest standards is crucial for retaining their aerodrome certificate. The new change-of-operator process also means if an airport is being sold or transferred, management must engage early with authorities to ensure a smooth handover. Overall, while the to-do list for aerodrome operators is growing, the outcome is a safer, more resilient operation.

Airline Operators: Airlines and aircraft operators benefit indirectly from the aerodrome rule changes. Improved runway safety (FOD control, better work coordination, hot spot mitigation) means less risk of damage or delays for aircraft. For example, an airline’s jet is less likely to incur FOD damage on landing because the airport now performs thorough runway sweeps. The requirement for airports to have a disabled aircraft removal plan could significantly cut down runway closure times after an incident, meaning airlines face fewer lengthy diversions or delays. The formal procedure for oversize aircraft operations gives airlines clarity – if they plan to fly a bigger aircraft into a smaller airport, they know a proper safety assessment and approval is needed. While this might restrict some ad-hoc operations, it ensures that when it does happen, it’s done safely. Airlines’ flight operations and dispatch departments will also appreciate consistent occurrence reporting from airports (they might receive more feedback or notices about incidents at outstations), and pilots will certainly welcome clear marking of closed runways and identified hot spots on airport diagrams. In some cases, airlines might need to adapt: for instance, if an airport now enforces stricter limits on heavy operations, an airline might have to adjust payloads or aircraft types. But by and large, these changes enhance the safety environment in which airlines operate. Airline safety managers are likely following these updates closely and may collaborate with airports (through the safety committees) to address shared risks (like runway incursions).

stack of books on table
Photo by Wesley Tingey / Unsplash

Compliance Officers and Safety Managers: For those in charge of regulatory compliance and safety management (either within an airport or advising one), the December 2024 changes present a significant compliance update to manage. Compliance officers at aerodromes will need to conduct gap analyses against the new rules. Every affected area – from documentation (Aerodrome Manual updates to include new procedures) to training programs (new training on radio failure signals, etc.) and infrastructure (perhaps ensuring the airport meets any new equipment needs) – must be reviewed. They will have to update compliance checklists and might interface with the regulator to demonstrate how the airport will comply by the applicable dates. The information security requirement in particular may be challenging for compliance teams, as it introduces an entirely new domain; they might need to bring in IT security experts or consultants to build an ISMS and integrate it with the SMS. Regulatory consultants who specialize in aerodrome compliance will likely see increased demand from airports needing help to interpret the new requirements and implement them. These consultants will be parsing the fine print of the ED Decisions (AMC/GM) for details on, say, how to run an effective safety committee or what exactly needs to be included in a works safety procedure. They may conduct workshops or produce guidance materials for aerodromes – indeed, some in the industry have already organized briefings on these updates. The changes also put pressure on national aviation authorities’ aerodrome inspectors (another set of compliance professionals) to update their oversight checklists and be prepared to audit against these new rules come 2025–2026.

Regulatory Consultants and Industry Advisors: As mentioned, consulting firms and training organizations in the aviation safety space will play a key role in disseminating knowledge about these changes. They are translating the EU regulations and EASA decisions into practical advice. Many have published articles or held webinars highlighting the introduction of FOD programs, apron management coordination, and other topics we’ve discussed (for example, the airsight GmbH consultancy maintains an updated list of these amendments and offers briefings). The general sentiment in the consulting community is that these updates are timely and positive – but they stress the importance of beginning implementation early. Consultants are advising aerodromes to not underestimate the effort required, especially for the information security part (which may involve significant organizational change and new expertise). On social media and forums frequented by aviation professionals, the response to the EASA aerodrome rule update has been mostly supportive. Many note that Europe is catching up to global best practices (citing ICAO’s influence on things like runway safety teams and closed-runway markings). A few have raised concerns about potential increased administrative burden, but as one commentator argued, the “initial investment in compliance can lead to significant reductions in operational risks and liabilities”, making it worthwhile in the long run . In short, industry experts view these changes as a necessary evolution to keep aerodrome operations safe and efficient as air traffic grows and new challenges (like cyber threats) emerge.

Industry Reactions and Responses

The aviation industry’s reaction to the December 2024 aerodrome rule changes has been a mix of praise and pragmatic planning. Aviation safety media and forums have highlighted how this revision “revolutionizes” certain aspects of aerodrome safety by instituting more stringent oversight . Many safety professionals applaud the heightened emphasis on cyber security and safety culture. For instance, the emphasis on local runway safety teams and better occurrence reporting is seen as reinforcing a proactive safety culture where all parties collaborate – something that was already encouraged, but now has regulatory teeth. One industry analysis summarized the sentiment well: these updates “underscore the necessity for stringent oversight in an industry where the stakes are incredibly high” , reminding everyone that staying complacent is not an option.

At the same time, professionals are rolling up their sleeves to implement the changes. Airports are scheduling training sessions for their staff on new procedures, and some have already begun procurement for required equipment (such as dedicated FOD detection tools or additional airfield signage). Airlines, via IATA or local airline operator committees at airports, are engaging in the enhanced safety committees to ensure their concerns (like ensuring timely removal of disabled aircraft so their flights aren’t diverted for long) are heard. Notably, EASA provided lead time for most rules, which has tempered any potential backlash – industry players have time to adapt. Workshops and seminars are proliferating: EASA and national authorities have been disseminating the changes through safety newsletters, and private firms are hosting webinars (for example, an ICAO EUR runway safety webinar in May 2024 discussed many of these topics in anticipation of the rules ).

On the topic of information security, which is relatively new for airport operators, there’s a recognition of its importance. Some airport IT leaders have taken to LinkedIn or conferences noting that complying with Part-IS will not only satisfy EASA but also protect their operations from real incidents (like the ransomware attack that hit one European airport’s passenger systems last year – a scenario that an ISMS could help prevent or manage). The collaborative aspect of cyber risk is also being highlighted: since the reg requires looking at interfaces with other organizations , airports and airlines and ATC units are talking more about jointly handling cyber threats.

In summary, the professional community is treating these changes seriously. The overall response is that of proactive acceptance – there’s little resistance because each change clearly addresses known safety issues or gaps. Instead, the focus is on “how do we implement this effectively?”. To aid that, the EASA eRules platform provides the consolidated text, and EASA’s machine-readable XML can help larger organizations integrate the changes into their compliance tracking software . The consensus is that these updates will ultimately raise the safety bar at European aerodromes, and industry players are aligning to make it happen.

Staying Compliant: How Aviation.bot Can Help

Keeping up with regulatory changes like the ones above can be daunting. This is where Aviation.bot comes into play. Aviation.bot is a smart aviation compliance assistant equipped with features to help professionals stay on top of evolving regulations and ensure nothing falls through the cracks. Here’s an overview of Aviation.bot’s features and how each can assist with compliance in light of the new EASA aerodrome rules:

Document and Data Search: The December 2024 EAR for Aerodromes spans multiple documents (Regulations, Decisions, AMC/GM). Aviation.bot includes a powerful search function across a vast database of aviation documents. You could query, “Find ‘hot spot’ in EASA aerodrome rules”, and Aviation.bot will pull up the exact reference and even provide the context or related guidance. It’s like having an aviation law library on call – useful for consultants who need to cite specific provisions or for authorities double-checking details.

Ask-A-Question Interface: Perhaps one of Aviation.bot’s most powerful features is its interactive Q&A ability. Aviation professionals can ask nuanced questions like, “How much time do we have to comply with the new information security requirements for airports?” and the bot will answer: e.g. “The requirements (Reg 2023/203) must be implemented by 22 Feb 2026 , so you have roughly one year from now, but preparation should start early.” If a compliance officer is unsure how to interpret “overload operations” in context, Aviation.bot can explain it, possibly with reference to ICAO standards or examples. This on-demand clarification saves time and reduces the risk of misinterpretation.

By leveraging these features, aviation professionals – whether at an airport, an airline, or a consulting firm – can navigate regulatory changes like the December 2024 aerodrome rules with confidence and efficiency. Instead of scrambling through PDFs and websites, they have a one-stop intelligent assistant that not only provides information, but also helps translate it into action.

Conclusion: The December 2024 revision of EASA’s Aerodrome rules brings substantial enhancements to safety and security in airport operations. From requiring cyber-resilience to tightening up runway safety practices, these changes aim to future-proof aerodromes in a rapidly evolving aviation landscape. While the scope of updates is broad, tools like Aviation.bot ensure that every stakeholder can understand what needs to be done and how to do it in time. With the right knowledge and support, compliance becomes less of a challenge and more an opportunity to elevate the safety and efficiency of aviation operations for all.

Sources:

1. EASA News Release – “EASA published updated Easy Access Rules for Aerodromes – Revision from December 2024”

2. Airsight GmbH – Overview of Amendments to Regulation (EU) 139/2014 (updated Sept 2024)

3. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1400 (OJ L 159, 24.5.2024) – Aerodrome safety, change of operator, occurrence reporting (Recitals)

4. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/405 (OJ L 117, 11.4.2024) – Use of signals in case of radio communication failure (Recitals)

5. Skybrary – Summary of Regulation (EU) 2023/203 on Information Security

6. Global Regulatory Insights – “Revolutionizing Aerodrome Safety: The Imperative of Updated Regulations” (Dec 2024)

7. EUR-Lex – Text of Article 1, Commission Delegated Reg 2024/1400 (certificate transfer conditions)

8. EUR-Lex – Recital (3) and (4), Commission Delegated Reg 2024/1400 (occurrence reporting alignment and ATS compliance monitoring) .