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.  
COMMISSIE  VAN DE  EUROPESE GEMEENSCHAPPEN 
COM(83) 194 def. 
Brussel,  12 april  1983 
MEDEDELING  VAN DE COMMISSIE  AAN DE RAAD 
Vervolg op het antwoord van de  Gemeenschap  aan het Department 
of State van de  Verenigde  Staten waarin  bezwaar  wordt aangetekend 
tegen het reglement  inzake de grenswaarden voor  het geluidsniveau 
van luchtvaartuigen 
COM(83)  194 def. 

MEDEDELING  VAN DE COMMISSIE  AAN DE RAAD 
Vervolg  op het antwoord van de Gemeenschap aan het Department of 
State van de Verenigde Staten waarin bezwaar wordt aangetekend tegen 
het reglement inzake de grenswaarden voor het geluidsniveau van 
luchtvaartuigen (Aircraft Operating Noise Limits) 
In de  Informatieve  Nota  8822/80  AER28 ENV 140 van het Secretariaat-
generaal van de Raad, gedateerd 28  juli  1980, naar aanleiding van de 
991e vergadering op 19 juni 1980 van het  Comité  van Permanente 
Vertegenwoordigers, werd medegedeeld dat er een nota was verzonden aan 
het Department of State van de Verenigde Staten, de Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) en het Environmental Protection  Agency,  waarin de 
Gemeenschap  met klem bezwaar aantekende tegen de uitvoering van de FAA 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 80-7 inzake de grenswaarden van het 
geluidsniveau  die gelden voor in het buitenland geregistreerde 
luchtvaartui gen. 
De FAA publiceerde het definitieve reglement op 28 november 1980 met zeer 
weinig  concessies  aan de bezwaren van de Gemeenschap en aan soortgelijke 
bezwaren van een groot aantal afzonderlijke buitenlandse staten. 
De Internationale  Burgerluchtvaart Organisatie  (ICA0,  International  Civil 
Aviation  Organization) nam op haar 23e algemene vergadering in 
september-oktober 1980 een resolutie aan, waarin het eerdere besluit van 
de ICAO-raad dat voor 1 januari 1988 geen maatregelen werden verlangd 
zoals  die welke de USA hadden getroffen werd bevestigd. 
Na overleg van de vertegenwoordigers van de Commissie met de  Association 
of European Airlines (AEA), de deskundigen op het gebied van het lucht­
vaartlawaai van alle Lid-Staten en de werkgroep voor luchtvaartlawaai van 
de Europese Burgerluchtvaart Conferentie  (ECAC,  European Civil Aviation 
Conference)  besloot het  Comité  van Permanente Vertegenwoordigers op  zijn 
1036e  vergadering op 1  juli  1981 dat de Gemeenschap nogmaals bezwaar 
moest  aantekenen bij de Verenigde Staten van Amerika en dit werd gedaan 
op 15 juli  1981 op de  wijze  die in doe.  7192/81  AER20 ENV99+ Cor. 1 is 
ui teengezet. 

- 2 -
Een kopie van het antwoord van de Verenigde Staten werd rondgestuurd in de 
Informatieve  Nota  8202/81  AER26 ENV115 van het Secretar!aat-generaaL van 
de Raad. De USA kwamen enigszins tegemoet aan het standpunt van de 
Gemeenschap,  zegden toe alle passende aandacht te zullen schenken aan elk 
voorgetegd geval en verklaarden dat in gerechtvaardigde gevallen vrij-
steLLingen  zouden worden verleend. Zij kwamen evenwel niet tegemoet aan 
de belangrijkste bezwaren die inhielden dat de internationale geluids-
normen van ICAO annex 16 volledig door de USA dienden te worden erkend 
voor  in het buitenland geregistreerde Luchtvaartuigen en dat dit Land 
de desbetreffende resotutie van de 23e aLgemene vergadering van ICAO moest 
naleven. 
Ook ECAC  tekende formeel bezwaar aan bij de autoriteiten van de 
Verenigde Staten op soortgelijke manier als de Gemeenschap en met soort-
gelijke antwoorden. VervoLgens diende  ECAC  op 10 juni 1982 een  petitie  in 
bij de Verenigde Staten, in overeenstemming met bepaalde voorschriften 
van de FAA, waarin de USA werd verzocht het regtement voor het geluids-
niveau van Luchtvaartuigen zodanig te wijzigen dat de bovengenoemde 
principes  werden nageleefd. 
De Commissie  werkte  in haar rol als waarnemer namens de Gemeenschap 
bij de nerkgroep voor LuchtvaartLawaai van  ECAC  mee aan het opstellen van 
de petitie. Deze werkgroep van  ECAC  gaf te kennen dat een soortgelijke 
petitie  van de Gemeenschap zeer nuttig zou  zijn  en een werkgroep van de 
Commissie  bestaande uit deskundigen op het gebied van luchtvaartlawaai uit 
alle Lid-Staten (met uitzondering van Luxemburg) besloot op  zijn  vergade­
ring in november 1982 deze aanpak te steunen. Bijgevolg is een ontwerp 
bijgesloten van een voorstel voor een  petitie  aan de FAA tot wijziging 
van de Aircraft Operating Noise Limits d,i e is opgesteld in de krachtens 
Federai Aviation ReguLation(FAR) 11.25 vereiste vorm. 
Vorgesteld wordt dat de Gemeenschap haar druk op de Verenigde Staten om 
een reglement te corrigeren dat zo duidelijk in tegenspraak is met de 
normale internationale activiteiten op luchtvaartgebied, niet verslapt, 
te meer daar wij bij de thans in de Verenigde Staten pLaatsvindende 
belangrijke wijziging van het milieubeleid een betere kans van slagen 
hebben. 

-J-
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  d'CAO) 
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. 

-S-
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. 
Backqround 
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  r,craft,  noise are published in Annex-16 to the 
Convention  on.  International  Aviation. --• _ - _ - ... 
Thev  were.Drepared  with  the. assistance. of the United States. 
.These.  Standards are accepted as  such  for foreign registered 
aircraft by most of the Member States of ICAO. The United 
States as far 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  : • 
" it is especially important during this period  that  the United States '• 
. demonstrates its continued suDDort for an international aviation system I 
founded  on comity and reciprocity, and its sensitivity to foreign govern­
ment concerns. ii 
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 II 
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. '. 
t 
Detail of Proposed Amendment to FAR - Part 91 
6. Subpart E - "Operatino 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") 

t>) Section  91.303  .· . , ' %>' 
(i) Annotate existing paragraph as sub-para (a)  · 
(ii) Sub-para Ca) Line  5, insert  after  " ...  subpart", the words 
•that  ij registered in the United States", 
(iii) After s^bpara (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  911307  - 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. 
Justification  %  . ; 
.1 
8. It should be noted  that  the following comments are in addition t 0 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. 6eneral 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 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 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. 

13. Annex 16 to the Convention on  International  Civil Aviation. The United 
States part  icipated  i n the  preparat  i on of t_he_  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. I 
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 Euronean ' Economic  Community  to the  Administrntor 
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; ©1.303; 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.mendment would ensure  that  the United States regulation was 
in accoraance  with  international agreements on aircraft noise. In particular 
United States aircraft noise regulations would not be applied to foreign 
resistered  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, 1983 the operation of foreign registered non noise certificated 
subsonic  jet s^oplanes to and from their territories. 
The proposed amehdnent also, would, after January \, 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.