No C 299/16 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 18.12.  76 
2.3. Article  4 
2.3.1.  The  reference  to 'unforeseen  circumstances 
or force  majeure'  at the  end  of this  Article  does  not 
strictly  cover  the case  of accidents.  Now,  more  often 
than  not,  the destruction  of duty-free  goods  is due  to 
accidents  en route.  It would  be a good  idea  to 
expressly  mention  accidents  (see,  for  instance, 
Article  41 of the  revised  TIR  Convention,  Geneva, 
November  1975,  which  in a similar  case  referred  to 
accidents  as an exonerating  circumstance). 
2.4. Article  7 
2.4.1.  Bearing  in mind  what  has  been  said  on 
Article  1 (definition  of entry  in the accounts),  it must 
be clear  that  this  Article  refers  to  national 
procedures.  Now  the  wording  of this  Article,  which 
in fact  refers  people  to the  Directive  on deferred 
payment,  could  lead  to the  authorities  having  to 
grant  time  limits  for payment  on a case-by-case  basis 
to businesses  using  consolidated  procedures  (also 
known  as  simplified  or 'domiciled'  procedures). 
These  procedures  give  satisfaction  to both  businessmen 
and the  authorities  and  they  should  therefore  be kept.  The  following  could  be inserted  at the beginning 
of Article  7: 
'Without  prejudice  to the  special  provisions 
applicable  to  consolidated  or  simplified 
procedures  or to the time  limits  for payment.  ..' 
2.5. Article  8 
2.5.1.  Paragraph  1 (b) 
2.5.1.1.  Once  again,  settlement  by  prescription 
refers  to national  provisions. 
2.5.2.  Paragraph  2 (a) (iii) 
2.5.2.1.  The  same  applies  as  for  Article  4. 
Reference  should  be made  to accidents. 
2.5.3.  Paragraph  2 (b) (i) 
2.5.3.1.  This  should  include  rules  corresponding  to 
those  in paragraph  2 (a),  to cover  withdrawal  of a 
declaration  by the declarant  upon  authorization. 
Done  at Brussels,  28 October  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  on the  limitation  of noise  emission 
from  subsonic  aircraft 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 126  of 9 June  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 6 May  1976,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
18. 12. 76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 299/17 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
142nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 27 and  28 October  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 6 May  1976  for an 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its bureau  on 
13 May  1976,  instructing  the Section  for Protection 
of the  Environment,  Public  Health  and  Consumer 
Affairs  to draw  up an opinion  and  a report  on the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Protection  of the Environment,  Public  Health  and 
Consumer  Affairs  on 12 October  1976; 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
rapporteur,  Mrs  Evans, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 142nd  plenary 
session  held  on 27 and  28 October  1976  (meeting  of 
28 October), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 44 votes  to 10, with  8 abstentions: 
The Committee  approves  the proposal,  subject  to the 
comments  set out below: 
1. General  comments 
1.1. Community  action  against  noise 
1.1.1.  The  Committee  observes  that  proposals  for 
Directives  have  already  been  submitted  for  most 
sources  of noise  (motor  vehicles,  pneumatic  drills,  site 
machinery,  etc.)  in connection  with  the  'general 
programme  for the elimination  of technical  barriers 
to trade'.  Lowever,  the  Commission  considers 
aircraft  noise  to be an issue  warranting  specific  action 
under  the heading  of environmental  protection. 1.1.2.  Accordingly,  the Commission's  proposal  for 
a Directive  on aircraft  noise  is in keeping  with  the 
principles  laid  down  in the first  action  programme  on 
the environment  and  it is also  based  on work  carried 
out at international  level,  in particular  by the ICAO. 
1.1.3.  In  this  connection,  the Committee  notes  that 
the Commission's  proposal  only  covers  one  aspect  of 
the noise  issue,  viz.,  emission  at source.  But  it 
observes  that,  in its second  action  programme  on the 
environment,  the  Commission  also  envisages  wider 
ranging  measures  embracing  noise  emission, 
transmission  and  perception. 
1.1.4.  Accordingly,  the  Committee  recommends 
that the  Commission  commence  work  as soon  as 
possible  on perceived  aircraft  noise,  as an adjunct  to 
the present  proposal  for  a Directive.  The  perceived 
noise  level  is the most  important  factor  as far as the 
public  is concerned. 
1.1.5.  Turning  now  to the  principle  on which  all 
the Commission's  proposed  measures  respecting 
aircraft  rest,  viz.,  that  the  measures  should  be 
technically  feasible  and  economically  reasonable,  the 
Committee  considers  public  health  protection  to be 
of paramount  importance.  The  economic  cost  of the 
proposed  measures  cannot  be divorced  from  the 
question  of the social  damage  caused  by noise. 
1.2. The  scope  of the proposal  for a Directive 
1.2.1.  The  Committee  observes  that  the  Directive 
is to apply  to all subsonic  aircraft,  whether  jet or 
otherwise  propelled  with  the characteristics  specified 
in Annex  I. But,  in the Committee's  view,  limiting  the 
scope  to subsonic  aircraft  will  detract  from  the 
impact  of the  Directive,  since  it will  not  be able  to 
take account  of the  present  difficulties  that  have 
arisen  with  supersonic  aircraft. 
1.2.2.  It  should  also  be pointed  out  that  other 
types  of aircraft  cannot  be covered  by the  present 
proposal  for a directive,  but only  by new  Directives. 
No C 299/18 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 18.12.  76 
The procedure  for making  adjustments  in the light  of 
technical  progress  cannot,  in the  Committee's  view, 
be used  to change  the actual  scope  of the Directive. 
1.2.3.  The  Committee  notes  that  the Directive  will 
only apply  to modern  aircraft  and  that,  as a result, 
there  is no stipulation  requiring  older  models  still  in 
service  to undergo  conversion. 
1.2.4.  The  Commission  considers  that,  in view  of 
the composition  of air  traffic  at airports  in the 
Community,  the  conversion  of older  models  would 
make  only  a limited  contribution  to noise  abatement. 
Moreover,  it would  entail  a substantial  outlay  by the 
airlines,  and  this  would  be  passed  on  to the 
consumer. 
1.2.5.  The  Committee  realizes  that,  under  the 
Treaty  of Rome,  the Commission  has no authority  to 
include  the noise  emission  levels  of military  aircraft 
in its proposals. 
Nevertheless,  the  Committee  would  urge  Member 
States  to undertake,  of their  own  volition,  to extend 
the provisions  of the  present  Directive  to military 
aircraft,  since  they  are  a significant  source  of noise 
nuisance. 
1.3. Noise  levels 
1.3.1.  The  Committee  notes  that,  as  far  as 
evaluation  of aircraft  noise  is concerned,  the proposal 
for a Directive  refers  to measurement  and  flight  test 
procedures  specified  in the  version  of Annex  16 to 
the Convention  on international  civil  aviation  that 
was adopted  by the Council  of the ICAO  on 3 April 
1974. 
1.3.2.  Uniform  application  of the principles  set out 
in that  document  ought  to obviate  any  inconsistency 
in determining  and  checking  noise  leves.  But,  the 
Committee  wonders  whether  the provisions  of Article 
4 fully  meet  this  requirement. 
1.3.3.  The  Committee  considers  that,  should  a 
Member  State  find  that  a given  aircraft  fails  to 
conform  to noise  requirements,  it should  be able  to 
take the matter  up with  the competent  authorities  of 
the Member  States  where  the  aircraft  is registered, 
with  a view  to ensuring  that  the necessary  measures 
are taken.  The  Committee  therefore  urges  the 
Commission  to see about  aligning  ground  monitoring procedures.  It should  also  put into  effect  Community 
procedures  for the exchange  of monitoring  data. 
1.3.4.  The  Committee  also  considers  that  the 
Commission  should,  as soon  as possible,  start  work 
on noise  levels  within  aircraft  and,  in particular,  on 
flight  decks.  It is pleased  to see that  the International 
Standards  Organization  is  currently  studying 
procedures  for measuring  noise  inside  aircraft. 
1.3.5.  The  Committee  trusts  that  the findings  made 
in these  studies  will  be incorporated  in a Community 
instrument.  It also  hopes  that  bans  on aircraft  taking 
off and  landing  at night  and  at certain  other  times 
will be aligned  at European  level.  When  this  is done, 
due allowance  should  be made  for world  traffic  and 
special  local  noise  abatement  requirements  based  on 
the population  density  in the neighbourhood  of the 
airport.  Incidentally,  the  Committee  considers  that 
grants  should  be  made  to people  living  around 
airports  for  the  purpose  of making  their  living 
conditions  more  tolerable  (e.g.  for  soundproofing 
homes). 
1.3.6.  The  Committee  also  considers  that  the 
provisions  of Article  6 whereby  'no  Member  State 
may refuse,  on grounds  relating  to the level  of noise 
it emits,  to allow  an aircraft  to take  off or land  on its 
territory'  must  not stand  in the way  of the citizens  of 
the Member  States  being  protected  from  noise  by any 
amendment  to regulations  on  airport  operation 
which  may  arise  as a result  of the entry  into  force  of 
the present  Directive.  Rules  on night  flying  should 
take account  of the  siting  of airports  in relation  to 
population  density  (for  instance,  transferral  of night 
traffic  to isolated  airports). 
1.3.7.  The  Committee  also  urges  the Commission 
to waste  no time  before  getting  down  to studying 
how the airlines  can  be persuaded  to acquire  quieter 
aircraft  (e.g.  taxes,  levies  and  tax  concessions  all 
geared  to aircraft  noise  characteristics). 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  1 
2.1.1.  For  the  reasons  given  in  its  general 
comments,  the Committee  proposes  that  the adjective 
'subsonic'  should  be deleted  from  this  Article  and 
from  the title  of the Directive. 
18.12.76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 299/19 
2.2. Article  4 
2.2.1.  The  Committee  refers  back  to its general 
comments,  and  proposes  that  the  following  new 
paragraph  be incorporated  in Article  4: 
'Where  a Member  State  finds  that  an aircraft 
entered  on the register  of another  Member  State 
does  not  conform  in respect  of noise,  it shall 
Done  at Brussels,  28 October  1976. inform  that  Member  State  of the  anomalies 
found.' 
2.3. Article  10 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  when  the 
Committee  set up by this  Article  is convened,  the 
Commission  should  consult  with  interested  groups, 
before  taking  its decision. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a four-year  period  programme  (1977  to 1980)  in the field 
of scientific  and  technical  education 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 187  of 10 August  1976,  page  6. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 2 August  1976,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
142nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 27 and  28 October  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Atomic  Energy  Community,  and  in 
particular  Article  7 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 2 August  1976  for an 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its bureau  on 
28 September  1976,  instructing  the Section  for Energy and Nuclear  Questions  to draw  up an opinion  and  a 
report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for Energy  and  Nuclear  Questions  at its 27th  meeting 
held on 13 October  1976, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by the 
rapporteur,  Mr Bonety, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 142nd  plenary 
session  of 27 and  28 October  1976  (meeting  of 28 
October  1976), 
Whereas  it is necessary  to lay  down  a common 
research  and  development  policy,  in order  to attain 
the Community's  objectives;