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.  
COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 
COM(83) 194 final 
Brussels,  12 April  1983 
COMMUNICATION  FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE  COUNCIL 
Further Community  response  to the  United States  Department  of State 
objecting  to their rule on Aircraft  Operating Noise Limits 
COM(83)  194 final 

COMMUNICATION  FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE COUNCIL 
Further Community response  to the  United States Department  of 
State objecting  to  their rule  on  Aircraft Operating Noise Limits 
Council  Secretariat information note 8822/80  AER28  ENV140  dated  28  July  1980 
which followed  the  991st meeting  on 19  June  1980 of the  Committee  of  Per­
manent Representatives, notified  that  an  aide-memoire  had  been delivered  to 
the United States Department  of  State,  the  Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA)  and the  Environmental Protection Agency, which contained  a firm 
Community objection  to  implementation  of the FAA  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule­
making  (NPRM)  80-7 for  operating noise limits,  as  applicable  to  foreign 
registered aircraft. 
The FAA  published  the  final rule  on 28  November  1980  with  very  little  con­
cession  to the  Community objections  and to  similar objections  from  a large 
number  of  individual foreign states. 
The International  Civil Aviation Organization (ICA0)  at its  23rd General 
Assembly  in  September/October  1980  agreed  a Resolution confirming  the  previous 
ICA0  Council decision requesting  no  action before  1 January  1988 of the  kind 
that the USA had  taken. 
Following consultation  by  Commission representatives  with  the  Association  of 
European  Airlines  (AEA),  the  Aircraft Noise Experts  of all  Member States  and 
the Aircraft Noise Working Group  of the  European Civil Aviation Conference 
(ECAC),  it was  agreed  by the  Permanent Representatives Committee  at its 
1036th meeting  on 1  July  1981  that  the  Community should make  a further 
objection  to the  United States  of America  and the  demarche  was  made  on 
15 July  1981 in the  manner  as set out in doc.  7192/81  AER20  ENV99  + Cor. 1. 
A copy  of the  response  from  the  United States  was  circulated  in  Council 
Secretariat information note 8202/81  AER26  ENV115.  The USA  made some  con­
cessions  to the  Community position  and  promised  full  and  proper consideration 
to every  case  presented  for  consideration  and  said  that  they would  grant 
exemptions where justified. However they made  no  concession  to the  major 
principle objections  that  the  international noise standards  of ICA0 Annex  16 
should  be  fully  recognized  for  foreign registered aircraft  by the USA and  that 
they should comply  with  the  relevant Resolution  of the  23rd General Assembly 

- 2 -
ECAC  also submitted formal objections to the United States Authorities in 
a similar manner to those presented by the Community;  with  similar responses. 
ECAC  then, on 10 June 1982, submitted a petition to the United States, in 
accordance  with  certain FAA rules,  that  the USA should amend their operating 
Noise  Rules  to ensure  that  the principles referred to above should be honoured. 
The Commission in their role as an observer for the Caimunity at the  ECAC  Aircraft Noise 
Working Group assisted in the preparation of the petition. That  ECAC  Working Group 
has intimated  that  any equivalent petition from the Community would be helpful 
and a Commission Working Group of Aircraft Noise Experts from all Member States 
(except Luxembourg) has agreed in its November 1982 meeting  that  they support 
that  approach. Accordingly,attached is the  draft  of a proposed petition to 
the FAA for amendment of their Aircraft Operating Noise Limits which has been 
prepared in the format required by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 11.25. 
It is suggested  that  the Community should not relax its pressure on the United 
States  to correct a regulation which is so obviously contrary to normal inter­
national action in the field of aviation, particularly as in the significantly 
changing political approach to environmental matters now taking place in the 
United States we have now a better chance of  success. 

-3-
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. 
./. 

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. 

- 5-
Administrator 
Federal  Aviation Administration 
Rules Docket (A6C - 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 
» I— ~ ~l  f ,4--*---  ~ ->  «sn~.U  n » ~.n •  iU/><«  n r An, . An4- An -. A  C-^A^OW  l-iw tKo I In -J 4-^,4 
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 A23-1Q. 

International  Standards  for aircraft  noise  are published in Ann.ex-16 to the 
Convention  on. International. Aviation. -  • -<. ... - _ -
They  were.  .Drepa.red with the.  assistance  of the  United  States.  . ... . J 
These  Standards  .* are accepted as  such  for foreign registered 
aircraft by  most  of the; .Member States of ICAO. The United 
States as fa'r as is known, being the only Member  State  not to accept them 
(unless they are equivalent 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 Controllers 
strike,  wrote  to CAB Chairman - Marvin S. Cohen  that  : 1 
" it is especially important during this period  that  the United States ' 
demonstrates its continued support for an international aviation system j 
founded on comity and reciprocity, and its sensitivity to foreign govern­
ment concerns." . ' i 
In the same context 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 internationally agreed noise 
Standards,  also the concern of other Nations as expressed in their comments 
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." ; 
(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 
(i) Annotate existing paragraph as sub-para (a) 
<ii) Sub-para (a) line 5, insert  after  " ... subpart", the words 
•that  is registered in the United States", 
(iii) After s(ubpara (a) insert new subpara Cb) 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 pegistered 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) -
It · 
7. It is suggested  that  the above proposed amendments are not the only amendments 
that  could be used to achieve the objective ^stated in para 2 above nor are 
they necessarily  exhaustive.  However  they are sufficient to illustrate to the 
FAA the  purpose  of the  proposal. 
Justification  . • -
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 unilater i declaration of Nov. 18, 1976. 
where it was stated  that  if agreement jas not reached in ICAO by 1980 
on the application of noise Standards lO 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. 

13. Annex 16 to the  Convention  on  International  Civil Aviation. The United 
States  participated.  in the preparation of the Aircraft Noise  Standards 
agreed internationally. It is agreed 
that  under'Article 38 of the Convention on  International  Civil Aviation, 
•differences( 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. \ 
15. . 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  sams  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 r .opart E - "Operating Noise 
Limits"  Sections  9.1.301;  91.303;  91.306  and ?1.307. If approved the effect 
would be to adjust amendment  91/171  in as * >r 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 amendment would ensure  that  the United States regulation was 
in accoroance  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 
January  1, 1933 the operation of foreign registered non noise certificated 
subson'c  jet  ;•;••?<-op  I anes to and from their territories. 
The prcposed 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 'Y --jani zat i on 
of which the United States is a Member, and ii contrary to the expressed 
sentiments of the President of the United States.