its differences to ICAO. Thus, if ICAO were to adopt SST noise standards we would be obligated to accept them unless we notified differences to ICAO.

Another matter which should be addressed is the relevance of the certificate of airworthiness which may be granted an aircraft. This . . . is frequently raised in the context of discussions relating to noise control. Article 33 of the Chicago Convention provides:

Certificates of airworthiness. . . issued . . . by the contracting state in which the aircraft is registered, shall be recognized as valid by the other contracting states, provided that the requirements under which such certificates... were issued . . . are equal to or above the minimum standards which may be established from time to time pursuant to this Convention.

A similar provision is found in the bilateral agreements. The United States has also negotiated several other bilateral agreements relating to the reciprocal acceptance of airworthiness certifications. Because of these provisions, it may be argued that the noise level of an aircraft's engine should not be questioned, just as other inherent parts of an aircraft are not questioned, after it has received the certificate . . . this argument attributes too wide a scope to the airworthiness certificate.

"Airworthiness" is not defined in the relevant agreements, but the dictionary meaning and common usage limit the scope of the term to safety matters. Furthermore, the standards contained in ICAO Annex 8, entitled "Airworthiness of Aircraft," adhere to this concept in that all the Annex 8 standards relate to safety in the design and operation of aircraft. Since it is apparent that the noise produced by an aircraft has no necessary relationship to its operational safety, it follows that a certificate of airworthiness should not be considered to preclude separate noise regulation.

Similarly, ICAO has recently adopted noise standards for subsonic aircraft. Significantly, these standards were not treated as airworthiness standards but instead were the subject of a new annex. All this . . . illustrates the point that agreements relating to the mutual recognition of certificates of airworthiness, including the provisions of the Chicago Convention, do not prescribe the imposition of national noise standards.

. . I should like . . . to underscore one of the most important aspects of the Chicago Convention, . . . the provision relating to nondiscrimination. Although a nation retains the legal right to impose laws and regulations relating to noise standards applicable to aircraft within its territory, Article 11 makes it clear-along with Article 15 and other provisions that these laws and regulations must be applied without distinction as to nationality,-i.e., in a fair and nondiscriminatory fashion. For commercial operations, the same kind of concept is reflected in each bilateral agreement the United States has concluded which contains a provision to the effect that there shall be "fair

and equal opportunity" for the airlines of each contracting party to operate on any route covered by the agreement.

These provisions are a major reason for the success of international aviation today. The framers of these agreements wisely recognized the importance of fairness in the treatment of the significant air transportation interests of other countries. The Chicago Convention is intended to end discrimination on the basis of nationality, ultimately detrimental to the interest of all, in respect of aviation. And the same principle applies for commercial operations where we have established bilateral relations.

The 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation is at TIAS 1591; 61 Stat. 1180; 3 Bevans 944; entered into force for the United States Apr. 4, 1947. The 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement is at EAS 487; 59 Stat. 1693; 3 Bevans 916 (entered into force for the United States, subject to a reservation, Feb. 8, 1945). Art. 5 of a standard bilateral air services transit agreement provides:

A. The laws and regulations of one Contracting Party relating to the admission to or departure from its territory of aircraft engaged in international air navigation, or to the operation and navigation of such aircraft while within its territory, shall be applied to the aircraft of the airline or airlines designated by the other Contracting Party and shall be complied with by such aircraft upon entrance into or departure from and while within the territory of the first Contracting Party.

B. The laws and regulations of one Contracting Party relating to the admission to or departure from its territory of passengers, crew, cargo or mail of aircraft, including regulations, relating to entry, clearance, immigration, passports, customs, and quarantine, shall be complied with by or on behalf of such passengers, crew, cargo or mail of the airline of the other Contracting Party upon entrance into or departure from and while within the territory of the first Contracting Party.

Supersonic Transport

The Civil Aeronautics Board announced on December 16, 1975, that it would defer action on a petition asking the Board to amend the foreign air carrier permits of British Airways and Air France to forbid the use of the Concorde supersonic transport pending final decision by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation on environmental issues. The petition was filed on September 24, 1975, by the Environmental Defense Fund requesting the Board to amend the carriers' foreign air carrier permits to forbid the use of the Concorde on grounds that it would deplete the stratospheric zone shield; that it could not carry the fuel reserves normally required for safety on transatlantic flights; that it would exceed tolerable noise levels; that it would waste fuel; and that it would not comply with Environmental Protection Agency emission standards.

The Secretary of the Department of Transportation announced that a final public hearing on the issues raised by the applications of Air France and British Airways filed with the Federal Aviation Administration would be held on January 5, 1976, with final decision no later than February 4, 1976.

CAB Order 75-12-71; CAB Press Release 75-190, Dec. 16, 1975. On Feb. 4, 1976, William T. Coleman, Secretary of the Dept. of Transportation, ruled that France

and the United Kingdom could operate limited service by the Concorde to New York and Washington on a 16-month trial basis. For the text of his statement, see The New York Times, Feb. 5, 1976, p. 16.

Illegal Rebating

On September 29, 1975, the Department of Justice announced that it had filed a 190-count criminal information together with a consent decree terminating a civil suit against 19 international air carriers in connection with rebating in trans-Atlantic scheduled air service. The criminal information and injunction were filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York. Seventeen foreign airlines and two United States airlines pleaded nolo contendere to the criminal information and agreed to a consent decree which would enjoin similar practices in the future.

A grand jury had been impanelled in September 1974 to conduct an investigation of such rebating as would constitute criminal offenses in violation of 49 U.S.C. 1472(d), a statutory criminal provision which had never previously been enforced. By agreement with the U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, the 19 international air carriers entered a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal information charging ten counts of rebating, and each signed a civil consent decree prohibiting future violations subject to penalties which may be imposed for contempt of court. In return, there were to be no further civil or criminal proceedings against the air carriers arising out of rebating practices occurring prior to the entry of the criminal convictions and civil consent decree.

The decree contains a self-policing and reporting provision under which each air carrier is obligated to conduct reasonable inquiries to determine whether it has been in compliance with the injunction and to assure such compliance. In addition, each carrier is required to report annually to the U.S. Attorney concerning such inquiry and actions taken, and whether the air carrier has committed certain violations of the statute prohibiting rebating. A further provision requires each carrier to provide actual notice of the judgment to all its travel agents in the United States, thus making the travel agents subject to any penalties imposed for contempt of court for future rebating violations.

49 U.S.C. 1472(d) provides:

(d) Offering, granting, or giving rebates or concessions.

Any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent, or any officer, agent, employee, or representative thereof, who shall, knowingly and willfully, offer, grant, or give, or cause to be offered, granted, or given, any rebate or other concession in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or who, by any device or means, shall, knowingly and willfully, assist, or shall willingly suffer or permit, any person to obtain transportation or services subject to this chapter at less than the rates, fares, or charges lawfully in effect, shall be deemed

guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject for each offense to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000.

Secretary of State Kissinger, on August 11, 1975, in an address to the annual convention of the American Bar Association at Montreal, expressed U.S. readiness to engage in a cooperative search for agreed international ground rules in outer space. The relevant excerpt from his address follows:

The oceans are not the only area in which technology drives man in directions he has not foreseen and toward solutions unprecedented in history. No dimension of our modern experience is more a source of wonder than the exploration of space. Here, too, the extension of man's reach has come up against national sensitivities and concerns for sovereignty. Here, too, we confront the potential for conflict or the possibility for legal order. Here, too, we have an opportunity to substitute law for power in the formative stage of an international activity.

Space technologies are directly relevant to the well-being of all nations. Earth-sensing satellites, for example, can dramatically help nations to assess their resources and to develop their potential. In the Sahel region of Africa we have seen the tremendous potential of this technology in dealing with natural disasters. The United States has urged in the United Nations that the new knowledge be made freely and widely available.

The use of satellites for broadcasting has a great potential to spread educational opportunities, and to foster the exchange of ideas.

In the nearly two decades since the first artificial satellite, remarkable progress has been made in extending the reach of law to outer space. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 placed space beyond national sovereignty and banned weapons of mass destruction from Earth orbit. The treaty also established the principle that the benefits of space exploration should be shared. Supplementary agreements have provided for the registry of objects placed in space, for liability for damage caused by their return to Earth, and for international assistance to astronauts in emergencies. Efforts are underway to develop further international law governing man's activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

Earth-sensing and broadcasting satellites, and conditions of their use, are a fresh challenge to international agreement. The U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is seized with the issue, and the United States will cooperate actively with it. We are committed to the wider exchange of communication and ideas. But we recognize that there must be full consultation among the countries directly concerned. While we

believe that knowledge of the Earth and its environment gained from outer space should be broadly shared, we recognize that this must be accompanied by efforts to insure that all countries will fully understand the significance of this new knowledge.

The United States stands ready to engage in a cooperative search for agreed international ground rules for these activities.

See Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1889, Sept. 8, 1975, p. 358.

Direct Broadcasting by Satellite

On October 13, 1975, Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., Deputy U.S. Representative to the United Nations, made a statement in Committee I (Political and Security) of the U.N. General Assembly on direct broadcasting by satellite. He noted that the question of prior consent to broadcasting remained unresolved, and he restated the U.S. view that adoption of a prior-consent regime is undesirable in principle and probably infeasible in practice. With a view to reconciling differences among states on the issue, he presented a proposed new approach based on notification and consultation. The following is an excerpt from Ambassador Bennett's statement:

Based on our review of the points and interests raised in the debates on direct broadcasting during the last year, we would like to propose a new approach which we believe might serve as an effective basis for reconciling many of our divergent interests.

In his August statement on international law before the American Bar Association meeting in Montreal, Secretary of State Kissinger suggested that any system for direct television broadcasting by satellite should be accompanied by full consultations among the countries concerned. I wish to elaborate on the meaning of this suggestion. In particular, we are proposing that before direct television broadcasting is undertaken, states within the reception area should be notified of the intention to broadcast. Those who broadcast should be prepared, on a reciprocal basis, to assume an obligation to give formal notification to states within the likely broadcast area. In addition, those who broadcast should agree to consult fully with the governments of the states in the intended reception area if the latter so request, with the intention of making good-faith efforts to reconcile problems that may be raised.

We believe that this approach would offer protection for any state which has legitimate concerns about direct television broadcasting into its territory, without establishing an international scheme based on prior consent. We do not envisage establishment through these procedures of a right of any state to prohibit others from undertaking broadcasting. We do envis