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.  
COMMISSIONE  DELLE COMUNITÀ EUROPEE 
COM(83)  194 def. 
Bruxelles,  12 aprile  1983 
COMUNICAZIONE DELLA COMMISSIONE AL CONSIGLIO 
Ulteriori  repliche della  Comunità al  Dipartimento  di Stato degli 
Stati Uniti d'America  per reiterare  le obiezioni  contro la normativa 
sui limiti  sonori  operativi degli  aeromobili 
COM(83)  194 def. 

COMUNICAZIONE  DELLA COMMISSIONE AL  CONSIGLIO 
Ulteriori repliche della  Comunità  al Dipartimento di Stato degli 
Stati  Uniti d'America per  reiterare  le obiezioni contro la normativa 
sui limiti  sonori operativi degli aeromobili (Aircraft Operating 
Noi se Li  mi ts ) 
La nota informativa del Segretariato generale n.  8822/80  AER28  ENVKO, 
datata  28 luglio 1980,  redatta  successivamente alla 991a riunione del 
Comitato dei Rappresentanti Permanenti, tenutasi il 19 giugno 1980, fa 
presente che un promemoria è stato trasmesso al Dipartimento di Stato, 
nonché  all'Amministrazione federale dell'aviazione americana (FAA) e 
all'Ente responsabile della protezione dell'ambiente (Environmental 
Protection Agency) per esprimere le ferme obiezioni della  Comunità  contro 
la FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 80-7 (Notifica di proposta 
di normativa:  limiti  sonori operativi degli aeromobili) nella misura in 
cui è applicabile agli aeromobili registrati all'estero. 
La FAA ha pubblicato la normativa definitiva il 28 novembre 1980 facendo 
poche  concessioni  alle obiezioni espresse dalla  Comunità  e a quelle ana­
loghe formulate da un vasto numero di singoli  Stati  stranieri. 
L'Organizzazione internazionale  dell'aviazione  civile  (ICA0)  ha approvato, 
nella 23a Assemblea generale del settembre/ottobre 1980, una risoluzione 
attraverso la quale si ribadiva la precedente decisione del Consiglio 
dell'ICAO secondo la quale anteriormente al 1° gennaio 1988 non  potrà 
essere  avviata nessuna iniziativa del genere di quella intrapresa dagli 
Stati  Uniti. 
Dopo  che i rappresentanti della Commissione hanno consultato l 1 "Association 
of European Airlines" (AEA) (Associazione delle linee aeree europee), come 
pure gli esperti in materia di rumori da aeromobili di  tutti  gli  Stati 
membri ed il Gruppo di lavoro "rumori da aeromobili) della Conferenza 
europea per l'aviazione civile  (ECAC),  il Comitato dei rappresentanti 
permanenti ha  deciso,  nella  1036a  riunione, del 1° luglio 1981, di 
trasmettere  un'ulteriore obiezione agli  Stati  Uniti d'America. La relativa 
démarche  è stata intrapresa il 15 luglio 1981 nella forma che risulta 
dal documento  7192/81  AER20 ENV99 + Cor. 1. 

-3-
AIOE  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. 

- V-
Therefore, in accordance  with  Federai Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 11, 
Section  11-25 the European Economie Community petitions the Administrator 
of the United States Federai 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 
ihternational agreements. 
The petition is attached herewith and it woutd be appreciated if, in the 
interests of comity, the Department of State woutd give this petition its 
full  support. 

Administrator 
Federal  Aviation Administration 
Rules  Docket (AGC - 204) 
800,  Independence Avenue 
Washington,  DC 20591 
U.S.A. 
Petition from the European Economie Community to the Administrator of 
of the United States Federai Aviation Administration (FAA) of the Depart­ 
ment of Transportation for Amendment of Federai 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 Federai 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 certificatedto 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, alt 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  futi  assembty of the 149 
Member  States of ICAO in 1980 and forms part of Resolution A23-10. 

-6-
International  Standards.  for  aircrqft noise  are  puhlished  ?n  Annex-16  to the 
Convention  on  International. Aviation. 
Thev  wercoreoared  with  the.  assist ance,  of the  United States. 
Jh.ese  _St anda rds are accepted  as  such  for  foreign registered 
aircraft  by most ~of the ;  .Member States  of  ICAO.  The  United 
States  as far as is  known, bemg  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  : 
" it is  especially important during this period  that  the  United States 
demonstrates  its  continued support  for an  international aviation system  ! 
founded  on  comity  and  reciprocity,  and its  sensitivity  to  foreign govern-
ment concerns." 
In the  same context President Reagan also noted  : 
"in tight  of the  present situation,  I consider  it essential  that  the  United 
States  take  every reasonabte step  to  reassure  the  international aviation 
community  of our  witlingness  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 
Ci) 91.301Cb), 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") 

1-
b) Section  91.303  . . : 
(i> Annotate existing paragraph as sub-para (a) 
Cii) Sub-para (a) line 5, insert  after  " ... subpart", the words 
•that  is registered in the United States", 
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. (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 :stated in para 2 above nor are 
they necessarily exhaustive. However they are sufficient to illustrate to the 
FAA the purpose of the proposal. 

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 Hay/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.  i n the preparation of  _the_  Aircraft  Noise  Standards 
agreed internationally. It is agreed 
that  under  Artide 38 of the  Convention  on International  Civil  Aviation, 
•differences,  to ICAO  Standards  can be notined 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 samé 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 Tatter ~.  will  be at a competitive disadvantage. 
It is suggested  that  neither "two complying fleets" nor "competitive dis-
advantage'is 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 virtuélly the same as FAR-36. : 
Conciusion 
16. Accordingly  it is  requested  that  FAR-Part  91 be  amended  as stated in, 
Paragraph 6 above or similar amendments be introduced into Federai 
Aviation Regulations to achieve the same objective. 

Petition  from the-  Europe  an ' Economie  Community  to the  Adnini  strntor 
of the  Federai  Avintion  Administration (FAA) for amendment of FAR 91 in  
accordance  with FAR 11.25 
SUW1ARY 
This  petition proposes amendments to FAR 91 Subpart E - "Operating Noise 
Limits"  Sectionn  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 affeets ci vii  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  .-.mendment  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  3ircraft  until January 1, 1988. The full Assembly of the  Inter­
national Civil Aviation Organization, the Convention for which was signed by 
the United  Strtes,  has requested .contracting States not to prohibit before 
Januò^y  1, 1933 the operation of foreign registered non noise ccrtificated 
subsonic  jet s-^oplanes to and from their territories. 
The prcposed amendment  also,  would,  after  January 1, 1988, permit noise certi-
ficated foreign registered aircraft  that  met the internationatty approved 
noise  Standards of Annex 16 to the Convention on  International  Civil Aviation 
to land and  take  off in the United States. 

7 / 
The petition offers counter argumcnts 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 Reconnendations 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.