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.  
ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ  ΤΩΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΩΝ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ 
COM (83) 194 τελικό 
Βρυξέλλες, 12 Απριλίου 1983 
ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ 
Περαιτέρω απάντηση της Κοινότητας προς το Υπουργείο των Εξωτερικών 
των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, όσον αφορά τις αντιρρήσεις της για τη 
ρύθμιση σχετικά με τα Όρια Θορύβου των Αεροσκαφών 
CΟΜ(83) 194 τελικό 

c c 
i 
Ί 
ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ 
riepaiTÈpo  anfivTnon  TOC; KoivÓTrp-ac;  npoq TO Ynoupyefo  TQV E^GJTEPIKQV 
TUV Hvuufivov  rioXiTe'ifiv,  6aov aipopd TIC,  avT ippnae ic. Tqc; y\a Tn, pi3B-
piaq OXETIK5 (je TQ 'Opia  BoptiPou  TUV AEpooxaipov 
Το ενημερωτικό σημείωμα της Γραμματείας του Συμβουλίου, αριθ.  8822/80 
AER28  ENV140  της 28ης Ιουλίου  1980,  το οποίο εκδόθηκε μετό την 991η 
συνεδρίαση της 19ης Ιουνίου  1980  της Επιτροπής των Μονίμων Αντιπροσώ­
πων, γνωστοποιούσε ότι ένα επεξηγηματικό σημείωμα είχε μεταβιβαστεί 
στο Υπουργείο Εξωτερικών των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, την Ομοσπονδιακή 
Διοίκηση Αεροπορίας  (FAA)  και την Επιτροπή Πρροτασίας Περιβάλλοντος, 
που περιείχε έντονες αντιρρήσεις της Κοινότητας όσον αφορά την εφαρμο­
γή του Σημειώματος της  FAA  σχετικά με Προτεινόμενο Κανονισμό  (NPRM) 
80-7  για τα όρια θορύβου που πρέπει να εφαρμόζονται σε ξένα αεροσκάφη. 
Η FAA  δημοσίευσε τον τελικό κανονισμό στις  28 ι Νοεμβρίου  1980  προβαίνο­
ντας σε πολύ λίγες παραχωρήσεις, όσον αφορά τις αντιρρήσεις της Κοινό­
τητας και παρόμοιες αντιρρήσεις προερχόμενες από μεγάλο αριθμό ανε­
ξαρτήτων ξένων κρατών. 
0 Διεθνής Οργανισμός Πολιτικής Αεροπορίας  (ICA0),  κατά την 23η Γενική 
Συνέλευση τον Σεπτέμβριο/Οκτώβριο  1980  εξέδωσε ψήφισμα επιβεβαιώνοντας 
την προηγούμενη απόφαση του Συμβουλίου του  ICfiD  της οποίας το αίτημα 
ήταν να μη ληφθεί κανένα μέτρο, του είδους που ελήφθη από τις ΗΠΑ, πριν 
από την 1η Ιανουαρίου  1988, 
Μετά από διαβούλευση αντιπροσώπων της Επιτροπής με την Ένωση Ευρωπαϊ­
κών Αεροπορικών Γραμμών  (ÆA),  τους Εμπειρογνώμονες για το θόρυβο των 
Αεροσκαφών από Ολα τα Κράτη μέλη και την Ομάδα Εργασίας για το θόρυβο 
των Αεροσκαφών της Ευρωπαϊκής Διάσκεψης Πολιτικής Αεροπορίας  (ECAC), 
συμφωνήθηκε από την Επιτροπή των Μόνιμων Αντιπροσώπων, κατά τη 1036η 
συνεδρίαση της την 1η Ιουλίου  1981,  ότι η Κοινότητα θα έπρεπε να προ­
βεί σε έκφραση περαιτέρω αντιρρήσεων προς τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες της 
Αμερικής και το διάβημα έγινε στις  15  Ιουλίου  1981  με τον τρόπο που 
περιγράφεται στο έγγραφο  7192/81  AER20  ENV99  + Διορθ.  1. 
Αντίγραφο της απαίτησης των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών κυκλοφόρησε στο ενημερω­
τικό σημείωμα  8202/81  AER26  ΕΝνΊΐ5.της Γραμματείας του Συμβουλίου. Οι 
ΗΠΑ προέβησαν σε ορισμένες παραχωρήσεις, όσον αφορά τη θέση της Κοινό­
τητας, και υποσχέθηκαν ότι θα μελετούν πλήρως και με κατάλληλο τρόπο 
κάθε περίπτωση που υποβάλλεται προς εξέταση, δήλωσαν δε ότι θα δέχο­
νται εξαιρέσεις Οπου αυτό δικαιολογείται. Πάντως δεν προέβησαν σε 
καμμία παραχώρηση όσον αφορά τις αντιρρήσεις που βασίζονται κυρίως 
στην αρχή ότι οι ΗΠΑ θα έπρεπε να αναγνωρίσουν πλήρως, για τα ξένα 
αεροσκάφη, τα διεθνή πρότυπα θορύβου του  ICAO  Παράρτημα  16 και ότι 
θα έπρεπε να συμμορφωθούν με το σχετικό ψήφισμα της 23ης Γενικής Συνέ­
λευσης του  ICAO, 

- 2 -
H ECAC  επίσης εξέφρασε επίσημες αντιρρήσεις προς  τις Αρχος των 
Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών  με  τρόπο ανάλογο προς αυτό  της  Κοινότητας, 
με ανάλογες απαντήσεις.  Στη  συνέχεια  η ECAC,  στις  10  Ιουν fau 
1982,  υποβάλε διαμαρτυρία προς  τις  Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, σύμφωνα 
με ορισμένους κανόνες  της  FAA,  ισχυριζόμενη  ότι οι ΗΠΑ 8α  έπρε­
πε να  τροποποιήσουν τους Κανονισμούς θορύβου ώστε  να  διασφαλιστεί 
η τήρηση  των  ανωτέρω αναφερομένων αρχών. 
Η Επιτροπή,  με το  ρόλο  του  παρατηρητή  για την  Κοινότητα στην 
Ομάδα Εργασίας  για το  θόρυβο  των  Αεροσκαφών  της  ECAC,  συνέβαλε 
στην προπαρασκευή  της  διαμαρτυρίας.  Η εν  λόγω Ομάδα Εργασίας 
της ECAC,  εξέφρασε  τη  γνώμη  ότι μια  ισοδύναμη διαμαρτυρία,  εκ μέ­
ρους  της  Κοινότητας  θα  ήταν χρήσιμη  και μία  Ομάδα Εργασίας  της 
Επιτροπής  με  Εμπειρογνώμονες  για το  θόρυβο  των  Αεροσκαφών  από όλα 
τα Κράτη μέλη (εκτός  του  Λουξεμβούργου) συμφώνησε, κατά  τη·  διάρ­
κεια  της  βυνεδρίασης  της τον  Νοέμβριο  του 19Θ2, να  υποστηρίξει 
την εν  λόγω άποψη. Συνεπώς, συνάπτεται  το  σχέδιο προτεινόμενης 
διαμαρτυρίας προς  την  FAA,  για  τροποποίηση  των  Ορίων θορύβου  των 
Αεροσκαφών,  που  συντάχθηκε  υπό τη  μορφή  που  απαιτείται  από τον 
Κανονισμό  της  Ομοσπονδιακής Αεροπορίας  (FAR) 11.25. 
Προτείνεται  ότι η  Κοινότητα  δεν θα  πρέπει  να  χαλαρώσει  την  πίεση 
της επί των  Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, ώστε  να  διορθώσουν  ένα  κανονισμό 
ο οποίος είναι τόσο οφθαλμοφανώς αντίθετος προς  τον  κανονικό! 
διεθνή μηχανισμό  στο  πεδίο  της  αεροπορίας, ιδιαίτερφ λαμβάνοντας 
υπόψη  ότι  τώρα έχουμε μεγαλύτερες πιθανότητες επιτυχίας, λόγω 
της σημαντικής πολιτικής μεταστροφής  που  πραγματοποιείται  την  επο­
χή αυτή, όσον αφορά  την  αντιμετώπιση  των  ζητημάτων  του  περιβάλλο­
ντος. 

AIDE MEMOIRE 
No significant changes  were  made by the Federal Aviation Administration 
CFAA)  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. 

-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. 
t t 

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. 

International Standards,  for ai rcra.ft  Jioise  ars  published  in Annex -16 to th 
Convention  on.  International. Aviation.  — -- ,-
..Thev  were.Drepared  with  the.  assistance,  of the  United States.  - — 
.These.Standards  »  afe  accepted  as  such  for  foreign registered 
aircraft  by  ' most  ~ of the ; -Member States  of  ICAO.  The  Unite 
States  as far as is  known.being  the  only Member State  not to  accept thei 
(unless  they'are equivalent  to  FAA-FAR-  Part  36). , 
» » 
• ... ' 
• » 
4« The  proposed amendment  if  agreed would  be in  accord  with  a statement  ma'i 
by President Reagan  who,  during  the  United States  Air  Traffic Controlle 
strike, wrote  to  CAB  Chairman  - Marvin  S.  Cohen  that  : 
" it is  especially important during this period  that  the  United States 
. demonstrates  its  continued support  for an  international aviation system 
founded  on  comity ancf'reciprocity,  and its  sensitivity  to  foreign goveri 
ment  concerns."  . • • . 
In the  same context President Reagan also noted  : • 
"in light  of the  present situation,  I consider  it essential  that  the Un 
States  take every reasonable step  to  reassure  the  international  aviatioi 
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  anotl 
context, their applicability  in  matters  of  internationally agreed noise 
Standards,  also  the  concern  of  other Nations  as  expressed  in  their commi 
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 
'- (i) 91.301(b),  Page 49, line 14, after "United  States",  insert : 
. "but registered  outside  the United States."  i 
(ii) 91.301(b),  Page 49, lines 17-25,'. delete from  and including  the. 
words - "when those requirements",  to the end of the paragraph 
(ie to and including  " .... were Part 36. noise levels") 

b) Section 91.303 m ' __. 
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", 
(iii) 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  International  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 istated in para 2 above nor are 
they necessarily exhaustive. However they are sufficient to illustrate to the 
FAA the purpose of the proposal. 
Justification ' . j 
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 >ts 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 for applying 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. 1 

13. Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The United 
States  participated, in the preparation of theAircraft 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 complying fleets" nor'competitive dis­
advantageous  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. _ i The 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 Administrator 
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 91.301; 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 engagod in domestic 
or foreign air commerce in the United States. It became effective on 
November  28, 1980and is effective as far as foreign registered aircraft are 
concerned,  from January 1, 1985. 
The proposed .-.mendment 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 St/tes, has requested .contracting States not to prohibit before 
January  1, 1983 the operation of foreign registered non noise certificated 
subsonic  jet s-.^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.' . 

The petition offers counter arguments to the 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 aviation, is contrary to the 
Standards  and Recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organization 
of which the United States is a Member, and is contrary to the expressed 
sentiments of the President of the United States. 
+ + +