ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 194 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/00 83 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the openi ng to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Community and the European Atomic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this f ile is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 198 3 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom 27 .9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
KOMMISSIONEN  FOR  DE  EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER 
KOM(83) 194 endelig udg. 
Bruxelles,  den 12.  april  1983 
MEDDELELSE  FRA KOMMISSIONEN TIL  RÅDET 
Yderligere  indvending  fra Fællesskabet  til De forenede 
Staters Department  of State mod reglerne  om flystøjgrænser 
KOM(83)  194 endelig udg. 

MEDDELELSE  FRA  KOMMISSIONEN  TIL RÅDET 
Yderligere  indvending  fra Fællesskabet til De  forenede  Staters  Department  of 
State  mod  reglerne  om flystøjgrænser 
Rådets sekretariats informationsnote 8822/80 AER 28  ENV140  af 28.  juli  1980, 
som fulgte  det 991. møde den 19.  juni  1980 i De faste repræsentanters Komité, 
oplyste,  at et aide-memoire var blevet afleveret til De forenede Staters De­
partment of State, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) og Environmental 
Protection Agency, og at  dette  indeholdt en klar indvending fra Fællesskabets 
side  mod gennemførelsen af FAA Notice of  Proposed  Rulemaking  (NPRM)  80-7 for 
støjgrænser gældende for fremmedindregistrerede fly. 
FAA offentliggjorde  de endelige regler den 28. november 1980 med meget små 
indrømmelser over for Fællesskabets indvendinger og lignende indvendinger fra 
en lang række andre fremmede stater. 
Den internationale civile luftfartsorganisation (ICAO) blev ved den 23. gene­
ralforsamling i september/oktober 1980 enig om en resolution, som bekræftede 
den foregående beslutning fra  ICAO's  råd, og som anmodede om, at der ikke blev 
truffet  nogen foranstaltninger før 1. januar 1988 af den art, USA havde  truffet. 
Efter  at Kommissionens repræsentanter havde  haft  drøftelser med Association of 
European  Airlines  (AEA),  f lystøj eksperter i alle medlemsstater og f lystøj arbejds­
gruppen under European  Civil  Aviation Conference  (ECAC),  enedes De faste repræ­
sentanters Komité ved sit 1 036. møde den 1.  juli  1981 om, at Fællesskabet  skul­
le gøre yderligere indvendinger over for De forenede Stater, og  dette  skete den 
15. juli  1981, som beskrevet i dok. -7192/81  AER20  ENV99  + Cor. 1. 
En kopi af svaret fra De forenede Stater blev rundsendt i Rådets sekretariats 
informationsnote 8202/81  AER26  ENV 115. De forenede Stater gjorde  visse  indrøm­
melser  over for Fællesskabet og lovede at enhver sag, som blev forelagt til 
overvejelse,  ville blive behandlet fuldstændigt og åbent og udtalte, at man  vil­
le indrømme dispensation, hvor  dette  kunne begrundes. Der blev imidlertid ikke 
gjort  nogen indrømmelser vedrørende de væsentligste principielle indvendinger, 
nemlig at de internationale støj standarder i  ICAO  Annex 16 af USA  fuldt  ud  skul­
le anerkendes for fremmedregistrerede fly, og at USA skulle følge den relevante 
resolution fra den 23. generalforsamling i  ICAO. 

- 2 -
ECAC  afgav  også  en formet  indvending til De forenede Staters myndigheder 
svarende  til  Fællesskabets  og fik samme svar. Derefter forelagde  ECAC  den 10. 
juni  1982 i henhold til visse FAA-regler et andragende til De forenede Stater 
gående  ud på, at USA skulle  ændre  sine  gældende  støjregler,  således  at de 
ovennævnte  principper blev respekteret. 
Kommissionen,  som er  observatør  for  Fællesskabet  i ECAC's  flystøjarbejdsgrup-
pe, medvirkede ved udarbejdelsen af andragendet. Denne ECAC-arbejdsgruppe har 
ladet forlyde, at  ethvert  tilsvarende andragende fra  Fællesskabet  ville  være 
nyttigt,  og Kommissionens arbejdsgruppe  bestående  af flystøj  eksperter fra alle 
medlemsstaterne (undtagen Luxembourg) blev ved sit  møde  i november 1982 enig 
om, at man ville  støtte  en  sådan  løsning.  Vedlagt findes derfor udkastet til 
forslag  til et andragende tit FAA om  ændring  af deres  flystøjgrænser,  udarbej­
det efter  det format, som  kræves  i Federal Aviation Regutation (FAR)  11.25. 
Det henstilles, at  Fællesskabet  ikke  stækker  sit pres på Det forenede Stater 
om at ændre  et regelsæt,  som så  helt  åbenlyst  er i modstrid med normat  inter­
national praksis inden for  luftfart,  især  eftersom der nu er en  væsentlig  æn­
dring  i den politiske holdning til  miljøsager  i De forenede Stater, og vi der­
for har en bedre chance for at  trænge  igennem med vore synspunkter. 

AIDE  MEMOIRE 
No significant changes were made by the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA)  to their rule on "Operating Noise Limits for certain Turbojet Aircraft 
engaged in Domestic or Foreign Air Commerce in the United States" following 
the aide-memoires from the European Economic Community to the Department of 
State dated June 27, 1980 and July 15, 1981. 
The response of the FAA of August 12, 1981 and previous justifications 
refer to domestic problems. These are understood, and the Community fully 
sympathizes  with  them as they are similar to those experienced  within  the 
Community. However, the Community has complied fully  with  international 
agreements. 
The FAA, in the view of the European Economic Community, has not justified 
the fact  that  their rule imposes on foreign registered aircraft domestic 
noise  Standards and not those of the internationally agreed Noise Standards 
of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention, of which the United States is a 
signatory. The concessions  that  were made to Annex 16 in the final rule 
are not substantive and still rule out aircraft  that  meet the international 
Standards  but which do not meet the United States domestic regulation. 
Similarly the FAA have still failed to act in accordance  with  the inter­
nationally agreed International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
Resolution  A23-10. 
The European Economic Community considers strongly  that  in the interests 
of the orderly development of air transportation it is encumbent on the 
United States authorities to ensure  that  international agreements in the 
field of aviation are honoured as far as foreign registered aircraft are 
concerned  as has been done by the Community. -3-

-tf-
Therefore, in accordance  with  Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 11, 
Section  11-25 the European Economic Community petitions the Administrator 
of the United States Federal Aviation Administration of the Department of 
Transportation, through the Department of State, for amendment of FAR 
Part 91 - General Operating and Flight  Rules,  to bring them in line  with 
international agreements. 
The petition  is attached herewith and it would be appreciated if, in the 
interests of comity, the Department of State would give this  petition  its 
full  support. 
/ 

~ J -
Administrator 
Federal  Aviation Administration 
Rules  Docket (AGC - 204) 
800,  Independence Avenue 
Washington,  DC 20591 
U.S.A. 
Petition from the European Economic Community to the Administrator of 
of the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the Depart­ 
ment of Transportation for Amendment of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)  
Part  91 - General Operating and Flight Rules - in accordance  with  FAR  
Part  11 Section 11-25 
Objective 
1. This proposed amendment to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) - Part 91 
if agreed would alter amendment 91/171 concerning "Operating Noise 
Limits for certain Turbojet Aeroplanes engaged in Domestic and Foreign 
Air Commerce in the United States" 
2. The amendment would ensure  that  the United States regulation followed 
normal international practice in the field of Aviation. This would be 
done by allowing aircraft not on the United States Aviation Register, 
that  are permitted by internationally accepted aircraft noise Standards 
not to be noise certificated, to fly to and from the United States up 
to at least January 1, 1988, and thereafter, aircraft  that  meet the 
international noise Standards and are noise certificated to them will 
be permitted to continue to fly to and from the United States. 
Background  • 
3. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), of which the 
United States is a member and whose Convention is signed by the United 
States,  has requested in Resolution A23-10, all States not to prohibit 
the operation of foreign registered non-noise certificated subsonic jet 
aeroplanes  into  and out of their territories before January 1, 1988. 
This  date was agreed by a vast majority in the  full  assembly of the 149 
Member  States of ICAO in 1980 and forms part of Resolution A23-10. 
./. 

-i-
International  Standards, for  air.craft.  jioise are puhlishec 1 in Anoex-16  to the 
Convention  on Internationa  L Av iati on. ----- ,.. 
.Thev were...oreoared  with the.  .assistance,  of the  United States.  . ' 
Tijese Standards  .  eTe accepted  as such for foreign registered 
aircraft by ' "most ~ of the ; .Member  States of ICAO. The United 
j • 
States as far as is known^being  the only Member  State not to  accept them 
f « 
(un l es s they'are eqtrivalent  to FAA-FAR-Part 36).  , # •.'••» 
4» The proposed  amendment if  agreed  would be in accord with  a statement  made 
by President  Reagan who, during the United States  Air Traffic  Contro-llers 
strike, wrote to CAB Chairman  - Harvin S. Cohen that : 1 
" it is  especially  important during  this period that  the United States  > 
demonstrates  its continued support  for an international  aviation  system  i 
founded on comity ano* reciprocity,  and its sensitivity  to foreign  govern-
ment concerns."  . ' i 
In the same cóntext  President  Reagan  also noted  : • : 
. "in light of the present  situation,  I consider  it essential  that the United 
States take every reasonable step  to reassure  the international  aviation 
community  of our  willingness  to address  matters of common  concern in a 
cooperative  manner." 
5. Although  the remarks  of the President  of the United States  were in another 
context,  their applicability  in matters of international«./  agreed  noise 
Standards, also  the concern  of other Nations  as expressed  in their conments 
on FAA NPRM 80-7, can  hardly;be disputed.  '. ', 
Detail of Proposed  Amendment to FAR -  Part 91 • 
6. Subpart E - "Operating Noise  Limits" 
a) Section  91-301 
Ci) 91.301(b),  Page 49, line 14, after "United States'V  insert : 
. "but registered outside  the United States." 
Cii) 91.301(b),  Page 49, lines 17-25,'.  de lete from and includine;  the. 
Words - "when  those requirements",  to the end  cf the paragraph 
(ie to and  including  " .... were Part 36 noise  levels") 

b) Section 91.303 .· _ '.'· . ·' 
Ci) Annotate existing paragraph as sub-para (a) 
(ii) Sub-para (a) Line 5, insert after " ... subpart", the words 
•that  ij registered in the United States", 
("Hi) After s(ubpara (a) insert new subpara (b) as follows 
.·...·', /'b) On and after January 1, 1988, no person may operate to or 
from  an  airport  in the United States any subsonic airplane 
covered by this subpart  that  is registered outside the United 
States  unless  that  airplane has been shown to comply  with  at 
least the noise Standards of Chapter 2 of Volume I of Annex 16 
to the Convention on Internal:ional  Civil  Aviation." ». 
c) Sections 91.306 and 91:307 - all references to section 91.303 shall 
read 91.303 a) · 
7. It is suggested  that  the above proposed amendments are not the only amendments 
that  could be used to achieve the objective Jstated in para 2 above nor are 
they necessarily exhaustive. However they are sufficient to illustrate to the 
FAA the purpose of the proposal. 
Justification . · · ________ \ . • : 
I 
8. It should be noted  that  the following comments are in addition to those in  .'" 
paragraphs  2-5  above. They are in general, in argument against the justi­
fications outlined in the "Supplementary Information" provided by FAA on 
publication of its Final Rule on "Operating Noise Limits" as amendment No  91/171 
9. General Comment . It is international practice  that  a national aviation adminis­
tration  when applying regulations more stringent than those which are  inter-  « 
nationally agreed, does so only in respect of its own registered aircraft; It 
does  not usually apply such rules to foreign registered aircraft. In this 
·· way the orderly development of internationally agreed aviation Standards 
and Recommendations can best be achieved.  .· · . 

10. Amendment 91/171, in as much as it is applied to foreign registered 
aircraft, is not only contrary to normal international practice (for 
relatively minor national advantages) but its application is believed 
to be contrary to the expressed opinion of the President of the United 
States,  as quoted in paragraph 4 above. 
11. ICAO Assembly Resolution A23-10. The FAA complains  that  agreement was 
not reached in  ICAO,  after its unilateral declaration of Nov. 18, 1976. 
where it was stated  that  if agreement was not reached in ICAO by 1980 
on the application of noise Standards to non-noise certificated aircraft, 
regulatory action would be taken. However the ICAO Assembly did reach an 
agreement which resulted in the ICAO Resolution A23-10 of October 1980 
(following a similar decision of the ICAO Council in May/June 1979). This 
was agreed by a large majority of the entire ICAO Assembly and was an 
agreement democratically reached, even if by consensus; the United States 
being one of the minority of States which opposed the Resolution. It is 
therefore  difficult  to see how the U.S. can claim  that  an agreement has 
not been reached in ICAO and to use this as justification forapplying its 
domestic  regulation to foreign registered aircraft 3 years before the date 
requested by ICAO as the earliest date such action should be taken. It is 
understood  that  at least three other ICAO Contracting States adapted their 
national regulations to abide by  that  Resolution. There seems to be good 
reasons  for the United States to adopt a similar attitude. 
12. Health. It is suggested  that  it has not been satisfactorily proved  that 
the health of United States citizens will suffer as has been implied, 
because  of the minority of foreign registered aircraft, compared  with  the 
numbers of Domestic aircraft,  that  will be admitted if non-noise certifi­
cated  foreign registered aircraft are allowed to fly to and from the . 
United States  until  Jan. 1, 1988. Especially considering the numbers of 
such  domestic registered aircraft  that  will be exempted to Jan. 1, 1988. 
Similarly  it is not thought  that  health will be impaired if foreign 
registered aircraft,  that  meet international noise Standards, are per­
mitted  to fly to and from the United States after January 1, 1988. 

s 
13. Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The United 
States  part i c ipated. i n the preparati on_ of t_he_ Aircraft Noise Standards 
agreed  internationally. » _ It is agreed 
that  under'Article 38 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 
•difference^ to ICAO Standards can be notified and a State can thus adopt 
its own noise Standards instead of those internationally agreed. However 
it is suggested  that  this does not give  that  State the  right  to apply 
those Standards to any but its own aircraft and certainly not to 
disqualify those foreign registered aircraft  that  do meet the inter­
national Standards of Annex 16. 
14. The implication by FAA, in part of its justification for applying FAR 36 
Standards  to foreign registered aircraft, is  that  aircraft modified by 
retrofit  to meet Annex 16 might have less acoustical technology applied 
than the same aircraft modified to meet FAR 36 and thus cause the artifi­
cial  creation of two complying fleets, which is apparently objectionable 
to the FAA. The FAA has also implied  that  foreign registered aircraft 
must .meet'the same regulations as United States aircraft engaged in foreign 
commerce  otherwise the latter ,· will be at a competitive disadvantage. 
It is suggested  that  neither "two comptying fleets" nor "competitive dis­
advantage's  created by the United States complying at this time  with 
International practice, in any greater degree than was the  case  when the 
FAA in FAR'36  stage 2 applied, over 10 years ago, more stringent noise 
Standards  to its own.aircraft than were applied by Chapter 2 of Volume I 
of Annex 16, to.foreign registered aircraft. j 
15. v \ jhe concessions given to Annex 16 in the: 
Final  Rule as compared  with  NPRM  80-7 were entirely illusary as they 
were conditional to acceptance of only those parts of Annex 16 which 
are virtually the same as  FAR-36.  : 
Conclusion  · · 
16. Accordingly it is requested  that  FAR-Part  91 be amended as stated in. 
Paragraph  6 above or similar amendments be introduced into Federal 
Aviation Regulations to achieve the same objective. 

! 
Petition from the European ' Economic Community  to the Admi ni str at or 
of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for amendment of FAR 91 in  
accordance  with  FAR 11.25 
* 
! SUMMARY 
This  petition proposes amendments to FAR 91 Subpart E - "Operating Noise 
Limits" Sections 9.1.301; 91.303; 91.306 and 91.307. If approved the effect 
would be to adjust amendment 91/171 in as far as it affects civil subsonic 
aircraft registered outside the United States. 
Amendment 91/171 was introduced as a result of the FAA final rule on 
operating noise limits for. certain  turbojet  airplanes engaged in domestic 
or foreign air commerce in the United States. It became effective on 
November  28, 1980:and is effective as far as foreign registered aircraft are 
concerned,  from January 1, 1985. 
The proposed r.nendment would ensure  that  the United States regulation was 
in accordance  with  international agreements on aircraft noise. In particular 
United States aircraft noise regulations would not be applied to foreign 
registered aircraft  until  January 1, 1988. The  full  Assembly of the  Inter­
national Civil Aviation Organization, the Convention for which was signed by 
the United States, has requested contracting States not to prohibit before 
Januo'-y  1, 1983 the operation of foreign registered non noise certificated 
subsonic  jet 2-."-oplanes to and from their territories. 
The proposed amendment also, would, after January 1, 1988, permit noise certi­
ficated foreign registered aircraft  that  met the internationally approved 
noise  Standards of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation 
to land and.take off in the United States.' . 

-14-
The petition offers counter arguments  to  tht? FAA reasoning  for  requiring 
foreign registered aircraft  to  meet  the  domestic noise regulations  of the 
United States.  The  foundation  of  these arguments  is  that  to do so is 
contrary  to  accepted practice  in the  field  of avTa^o7?>rH*^c.ntrary to the 
Standards  and  Reconmendations  of the  International Civil Aviation 0rgant"ra*4-O-a 
of which  the  United States  is a  Member,  and is  contrary  to the  expressed 
sentiments  of the  President  of the  United States. 
• • +