Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
1
40
CFR
Part
87
[
AMS­
FRL­____­_]

Control
of
Air
Pollution
From
Aircraft
and
Aircraft
Engines;
Emission
Standards
and
Test
Procedures
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM).

SUMMARY:
In
this
action,
we
are
proposing
to
amend
the
existing
United
States
regulations
governing
the
exhaust
emissions
from
new
commercial
aircraft
gas
turbine
engines.
Under
the
authority
of
section
231
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
proposing
new
emission
standards
for
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx)
for
newly
certified
commercial
aircraft
gas
turbine
engines
with
rated
thrust
greater
than
26.7
kilonewtons
(
kN).

This
action
proposes
to
adopt
standards
equivalent
to
the
latest
(
effective
in
2004)
NOx
standards
of
the
United
Nations
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization
(
ICAO),
and
thereby
bring
the
United
States
emission
standards
into
alignment
with
the
internationally
adopted
standards.
In
addition,
today's
action
also
would
amend
the
test
procedures
for
gaseous
exhaust
emissions
to
correspond
to
recent
amendments
to
the
ICAO
test
procedures
for
these
emissions.

After
December
31,
2003,
the
proposed
NOx
standards
would
apply
to
newly
certified
gas
turbine
engines
 
those
engines
designed
and
certified
after
the
effective
date
of
the
proposed
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
2
regulations.
Since
the
proposed
NOx
standards
would
apply
to
only
newly
certified
gas
turbine
engines,
newly
manufactured
engines
(
those
engines
built
after
the
effective
date
of
the
proposed
regulations)
would
not
have
to
meet
these
standards.
Moreover,
all
engines
currently
being
built
would
not
have
to
comply
with
the
NOx
emission
standards
that
EPA
is
adopting
today.

Today's
proposed
amendments
to
the
emission
test
procedures
are
those
recommended
by
ICAO
and
are
widely
used
by
the
aircraft
engine
industry.
Thus,
today's
action
would
establish
consistency
between
U.
S.
and
international
standards,
requirements,
and
test
procedures.
Since
aircraft
and
aircraft
engines
are
international
commodities,
there
is
some
commercial
benefit
to
consistency
between
U.
S.
and
international
emission
standards
and
control
program
requirements
(
i.
e.,
easier
to
qualify
products
for
international
markets
since
the
Federal
Aviation
Administration
(
FAA)
can
certify
engines
for
ICAO
compliance).
In
addition,
today's
action
ensures
that
domestic
commercial
aircraft
will
meet
the
current
international
standards,
and
thus,

the
public
can
be
assured
they
are
receiving
the
air
quality
benefits
of
the
international
standards.

DATES:
Comments:
EPA
requests
comments
on
the
proposed
rulemaking
by
[
insert
DATE
30
days
after
DATE
of
publication
of
this
proposed
rulemaking].
More
information
about
commenting
on
this
action
may
be
found
under
Public
Participation
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
and
section
I.
C.
If
EPA
conducts
public
hearings
on
today's
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM),
EPA
will
publish
a
timely
document
in
the
Federal
Register
that
specifies
the
time
and
location
of
such
hearings.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
3
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
section
I.
C.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Bryan
Manning,
U.
S.
EPA,

Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
Assessment
and
Standards
Division,
2000
Traverwood,

Ann
Arbor,
MI
48105.
Telephone
(
734)
214­
4832;
Fax:
(
734)
214­
4816,
E­
mail:

manning.
bryan@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Regulated
entities
Entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
are
those
that
manufacture
and
sell
commercial
aircraft
engines
and
aircraft
in
the
United
States,
and
the
owners/
operators
of
such
aircraft
(
and
accompanying
engines)
in
the
United
States.
Regulated
categories
include:

Category
NAICSa
Codes
SIC
Codesb
Examples
of
potentially
affected
entities
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
4
Industry
..........
336412
3724
Manufacturers
of
new
aircraft
engines
Industry
..........
336411
3721
Manufacturers
of
new
aircraft
Industry
..........
481
4512
Scheduled
air
carriers,
passenger
and
freight
a
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)

b
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
system
code
This
table
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
This
table
lists
the
types
of
entities
that
EPA
is
now
aware
could
potentially
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
in
the
table
could
also
be
regulated.
To
determine
whether
your
activities
are
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
40
CFR
87.20.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information
?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
2002­
0030.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
5
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
and
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
You
may
be
charged
a
reasonable
fee
for
photocopying
docket
materials,
as
provided
in
40
CFR
part
2.

2.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
"
Federal
Register"
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.

The
EPA
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
also
publishes
Federal
Register
notices
and
related
documents
on
the
following
secondary
web
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
(
look
in
What's
New
or
under
the
specific
rulemaking
topic).

An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.

Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
the
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
6
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
section
I.
B.
1.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,

whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.

Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

For
additional
information
about
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
visit
EPA
Dockets
online
or
see
67
FR
38102,
May
31,
2002.

C.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
7
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
"
late."
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.

1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.

This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.

i.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
"
Information
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
8
Sources,"
"
Dockets,"
and
"
EPA
Dockets."
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
2002­
0030.
The
system
is
an
"
anonymous
access"
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.

ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
connell.
carol@
epa.
gov,

Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
2002­
0030.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
is
not
an
"
anonymous
access"
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.

iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
section
I.
C.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.

2.
By
Mail.
Send
your
comments
to:
Air
Docket,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

Mailcode:
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
2002­
0030.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
9
3.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
EPA
Docket
Center,
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Room
B108,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.

20004,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
2002­
0030.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
section
I.
B.
1.

4.
By
Facsimile.
Fax
your
comments
to:
(
202)
566­
1741,
Attention
Docket
ID.
No.

OAR
2002­
0030.

D.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
contact
person
listed
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).

Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
2.

In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
10
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

E.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:

1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.

2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.

3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.

4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.

5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.

6.
Offer
alternatives.

7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.

II.
Introduction
A.
Brief
History
of
EPA's
Regulation
of
Aircraft
Engine
Emissions
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
11
Section
231(
a)(
2)(
A)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
directs
the
EPA
Administrator
to
"
issue
proposed
emission
standards
applicable
to
the
emission
of
any
air
pollutant
from
any
class
or
classes
of
aircraft
or
aircraft
engines
which
in
his
judgment
causes,
or
contributes
to,
air
pollution
which
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
endanger
public
health
or
welfare''
(
42
U.
S.
C.

7571(
a)(
2)(
A)).
Under
this
authority
EPA
has
conducted
several
rulemakings
since
1973
establishing
emission
standards
and
related
requirements
for
several
classes
(
commercial
and
general
aviation
engines)
of
aircraft
and
aircraft
engines.
Most
recently,
in
1997
EPA
promulgated
NOx
emission
standards
for
newly
manufactured
gas
turbine
engines
(
those
engines
built
after
the
effective
date
of
the
regulations
or
already
certified
engines)
and
for
newly
certified
gas
turbine
engines
(
those
engines
designed
and
certified
after
the
effective
date
of
the
regulations).
1
In
addition,
EPA
promulgated
a
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
emission
standard
for
newly
manufactured
gas
turbine
engines
in
this
same
1997
rulemaking.
At
the
time,
the
1997
rulemaking
established
consistency
between
the
U.
S.
and
international
standards.
(
See
40
CFR
part
87
for
a
description
of
EPA's
aircraft
engine
emission
control
requirements
and
14
CFR
part
34
for
the
Secretary
of
Transportation's
regulations
for
ensuring
compliance
with
these
standards
in
accordance
with
section
232
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.)

B.
Interaction
With
the
International
Community
1U.
S.
EPA,
"
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Aircraft
and
Aircraft
Engines;
Emission
Standards
and
Test
Procedures;"
Final
Rule,
62
FR
25356,
May
8,
1997.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
12
Since
publication
of
the
initial
standards
in
1973,
EPA,
together
with
the
Federal
Aviation
Administration
(
FAA),
has
worked
with
the
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization
(
ICAO)
on
the
development
of
international
aircraft
engine
emission
standards.
ICAO
was
established
in
1944
by
the
United
Nations
(
by
the
Convention
on
International
Civil
Aviation,

the
"
Chicago
Convention")
"...
in
order
that
international
civil
aviation
may
be
developed
in
a
safe
and
orderly
manner
and
that
international
air
transport
services
may
be
established
on
the
basis
of
equality
of
opportunity
and
operated
soundly
and
economically."
2
ICAO's
responsibilities
include
developing
aircraft
technical
and
operating
standards,
recommending
practices,
and
generally
fostering
the
growth
of
international
civil
aviation.

In
1972
at
the
United
Nations
Conference
on
the
Human
Environment,
ICAO's
position
on
the
human
environment
was
developed
to
be
the
following:
"[
i]
n
fulfilling
this
role
ICAO
is
conscious
of
the
adverse
environmental
impact
that
may
be
related
to
aircraft
activity
and
its
responsibility
and
that
of
its
member
States
to
achieve
maximum
compatibility
between
the
safe
and
orderly
development
of
civil
aviation
and
the
quality
of
the
human
environment."
Also,
in
1972
ICAO
established
the
position
to
continue
"*
*
*
with
the
assistance
and
cooperation
of
other
bodies
of
the
Organization
and
other
international
organizations
*
*
*
the
work
related
to
2ICAO,
"
Convention
on
International
Civil
Aviation,"
Sixth
Edition,
Document
7300/
6,

1980.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
13
the
development
of
Standards,
Recommended
Practices
and
Procedures
and/
or
guidance
material
dealing
with
the
quality
of
the
human
environment
*
*
*."
3
The
United
States
is
one
of
188
participating
member
States
of
ICAO.
4
Under
the
basic
ICAO
treaty
established
in
1944
(
the
Chicago
Convention),
a
participating
nation
which
elects
not
to
adopt
the
ICAO
standards
must
provide
a
written
explanation
to
ICAO
describing
why
a
given
standard
is
impractical
to
comply
with
or
not
in
their
national
interest.
5
ICAO
has
no
3International
Civil
Aviation
Organization
(
ICAO),
Foreword
of
"
Aircraft
Engine
Emissions,"
International
Standards
and
Recommended
Practices,
Environmental
Protection,

Annex
16,
Volume
II,
Second
Edition,
July
1993.
Copies
of
this
document
can
be
obtained
from
ICAO
(
www.
icao.
int)
or
found
in
Docket
OAR
2002­
0030,
Document
__­_­__.

4As
of
June
20,
2002
there
were
188
Contracting
States
according
to
the
ICAO
website
located
at
http://
www.
icao.
int.

5Text
of
Article
38
of
Chicago
Convention:

Any
State
which
finds
it
impracticable
to
comply
in
all
respects
with
any
such
international
standard
or
procedure,
or
to
bring
its
own
regulations
or
practices
into
full
accord
with
any
international
standard
or
procedure
after
amendment
of
the
latter,
or
which
deems
it
necessary
to
adopt
regulations
or
practices
differing
in
any
particular
respect
from
those
established
by
an
international
standard,
shall
give
immediate
notification
to
the
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization
of
the
differences
between
its
own
practice
and
that
established
by
the
international
standard
.
.
.
.
In
any
such
case,
the
Council
shall
make
immediate
notification
to
all
other
states
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
14
punitive
powers
for
states
that
elect
not
to
adopt
ICAO
standards.
ICAO
standards
require
States
to
provide
written
notification
and
failure
to
provide
such
notification
could
have
negative
consequences
as
detailed
below.

If
a
Contracting
State
files
a
written
notification
indicating
that
it
does
not
meet
ICAO
standards,
other
Contracting
States
are
absolved
of
their
obligations
to
"
recognize
as
valid"
the
certificate
of
airworthiness
issued
by
that
Contracting
States,
since
that
certificate
will
not
have
been
issued
under
standards
"
equal
to
or
above"
ICAO
standards.
In
other
words,
other
Contracting
States
do
not
have
to
allow
aircraft
belonging
to
that
Contracting
State
to
travel
through
their
airspace.
6
Further,
if
it
fails
to
file
a
written
notification,
it
will
be
in
default
of
its
obligations,
and
risks
mandatory
exclusion
of
its
aircraft
from
the
airspace
of
other
Contracting
States
and
the
loss
of
its
voting
power
in
the
Assembly
and
Council.
7
of
the
difference
which
exists
between
one
or
more
features
of
an
international
standard
and
the
corresponding
national
practice
of
that
State.

6Text
of
Article
33
of
Chicago
Convention:

Certificates
of
airworthiness
and
certificates
of
competency
and
licenses
issued
or
rendered
valid
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
or
licenses
were
issued
or
rendered
valid
are
equal
to
or
above
the
minimum
standards
which
may
be
established
from
time
to
time
pursuant
to
this
Convention.

7Articles
87
and
88
of
Chicago
Convention.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
15
The
ICAO
Council's
Committee
on
Aviation
Environmental
Protection
(
CAEP)

undertakes
ICAO's
technical
work
in
the
environmental
field.
The
CAEP
is
responsible
for
discussing
and
recommending
measures
to
the
ICAO
Council
that
address
the
environmental
impact
of
international
civil
aviation.
At
CAEP
meetings,
the
United
States
is
represented
by
the
FAA,
which
plays
an
active
role
at
these
meetings
(
see
section
V
for
further
discussion
of
FAA's
role).
8
If
the
ICAO
Council
adopts
a
CAEP
proposal
to
adopt
a
new
environmental
standard,
it
then
becomes
part
of
the
ICAO
standards
and
recommended
practices
(
Annex
16
to
the
Chicago
Convention).
9
On
June
30,
1981,
the
ICAO
Council
adopted
its
first
international
standards
and
recommended
practices
covering
aircraft
engine
emissions.
10
These
standards
limit
aircraft
8EPA
is
a
principal
participant
in
the
development
of
U.
S.
policy
in
ICAO/
CAEP
and
other
international
venues.
EPA
assists
and
technically
advises
FAA
on
aviation
emissions
matters.

9ICAO,
"
Aircraft
Engine
Emissions,"
International
Standards
and
Recommended
Practices,
Environmental
Protection,
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
Second
Edition,
July
1993.
Copies
of
this
document
can
be
obtained
from
ICAO
(
www.
icao.
int)
or
found
in
Docket
OAR
2002­

0030,
Document
__­_­__.

10ICAO,
Foreword
of
"
Aircraft
Engine
Emissions,"
International
Standards
and
Recommended
Practices,
Environmental
Protection,
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
Second
Edition,
July
1993.
Copies
of
this
document
can
be
obtained
from
ICAO
(
www.
icao.
int)
or
found
in
Docket
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
16
engine
emissions
of
NOx,
CO,
and
hydrocarbons
(
HC),
in
relation
to
other
engine
performance
parameters,
and
are
commonly
known
as
stringency
standards.
On
March
24,
1993,
the
ICAO
Council
approved
a
proposal
adopted
at
the
second
meeting
of
the
CAEP
(
CAEP/
2)
to
tighten
the
original
NOx
standard
by
20
percent
and
amend
the
test
procedures.
At
the
next
CAEP
meeting
(
CAEP/
3)
in
December
1995,
the
CAEP
recommended
a
further
tightening
of
16
percent
and
additional
test
procedure
amendments,
but
on
March
20,
1997
the
ICAO
Council
rejected
this
stringency
proposal
and
approved
only
the
test
procedure
amendments.
At
its
next
meeting
(
CAEP/
4)
in
April
1998,
the
CAEP
adopted
a
similar
16
percent
NOx
reduction
proposal,
which
the
ICAO
Council
approved
on
February
26,
1999.11
The
CAEP/
4
16
percent
NOx
reduction
standard
applies
to
new
engine
designs
certified
after
December
31,
2003
(
applies
only
to
newly
certified
engines).
12
As
discussed
earlier,
in
1997
EPA
amended
its
regulations
to
adopt
the
1981
ICAO
NOx
and
CO
emission
standards,
as
well
as
the
NOx
emission
standards
and
test
procedures
revised
by
ICAO
in
1993.
As
discussed
above,
the
U.
S.
has
an
obligation
under
the
Convention
on
International
Civil
Aviation
to
notify
ICAO
regarding
differences
between
U.
S.
standards
and
OAR
2002­
0030,
Document
__­_­__.

11
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization
(
ICAO),
Aircraft
Engine
Emissions,
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
Second
Edition,
July
1993,
Amendment
4
effective
on
July
19,
1999.

12These
NOx
standards
will
be
interchangeably
be
referred
to
as
the
1998
CAEP/
4
standards
and
the
1999
ICAO
standards
throughout
this
Notice.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
17
ICAO
standards,
and
to
provide
notification
on
the
date
by
which
the
program
requirements
will
be
consistent.
In
response
to
the
recent
actions
by
ICAO
and
for
the
reasons
discussed
below,

EPA
proposes
to
adopt
standards
equivalent
to
ICAO's
1999
amendment
to
the
NOx
emission
standard,
the
test
procedure
changes
approved
by
ICAO
in
1997,
and
other
technical
amendments
to
further
align
EPA
and
ICAO
requirements.

C.
EPA's
Responsibilities
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act
As
discussed
earlier,
section
231
of
the
CAA
directs
EPA,
from
time
to
time,
to
propose
aircraft
engine
emission
standards
for
any
air
pollutant
that
could
reasonably
endanger
public
health
and
welfare.
In
addition,
EPA
is
required
to
ensure
such
standards'
effective
dates
permit
the
development
of
necessary
technology,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
compliance
cost.

Also,
EPA
must
consult
with
the
FAA
concerning
aircraft
safety
before
proposing
or
promulgating
emission
standards.
(
See
section
V
of
today's
proposal
for
further
discussion
of
EPA's
coordination
with
FAA
and
FAA's
responsibilities
under
the
CAA.)

In
addition,
section
233
of
the
CAA
vests
authority
to
implement
emission
standards
for
aircraft
engines
only
in
EPA.
13
States
are
preempted
from
taking
independent
action.
Thus,

13CAA
section
233
entitled
"
State
Standards
and
Controls''
states
that
"
No
State
or
political
subdivision
thereof
may
adopt
or
attempt
to
enforce
any
standard
respecting
emissions
of
any
air
pollutant
from
any
aircraft
or
engine
thereof
unless
such
standard
is
identical
to
a
standard
applicable
to
such
aircraft
under
this
part.''
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
18
while
many
states
are
implementing
control
programs
to
reduce
mobile
source
emissions,
EPA
has
the
authority
to
establish
an
emission
control
program
for
aircraft
engines.

III.
Environmental
Need
for
Control
As
mentioned
above,
section
231(
a)(
2)(
A)
of
the
CAA
authorizes
the
EPA
Administrator
to,
from
time
to
time,
revisit
emission
standards
for
aircraft
engine
emissions
"*
*
*
which
in
his
judgment
causes,
or
contributes
to
air
pollution
which
may
*
*
*
endanger
public
health
or
welfare."
In
judging
the
need
for
the
NOx
standard
promulgated
in
today's
action,
the
Administrator
has
determined
(
1)
that
the
public
health
and
welfare
is
endangered
in
several
air
quality
regions
by
violation
of
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
for
ozone
(
NOx
contributes
to
the
formation
of
ozone);
and
(
2)
that
airports
and
aircraft
are
now
or
are
projected
to
be,
significant
sources
of
emissions
of
NOx
in
some
of
the
air
quality
control
regions
in
which
the
NAAQS
are
being
violated.

Currently,
aircraft
account
for
over
1
percent
of
the
total
U.
S.
mobile
source
NOx
ground
level
emissions
inventory.
14
Commercial
aircraft
emissions
contribute
about
70
percent
of
the
14"
National
Air
Quality
and
Emission
Trends
Report,"
1999,
EPA,
2001,
at
Table
A­
4.

This
document
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oar/
aqtrnd99/.
A
copy
of
this
table
can
also
be
found
in
Docket
No.
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
19
NOx
aircraft
emissions
inventories.
15
Commercial
aircraft
emissions
are
a
fast
growing
segment
of
the
transportation
sector's
emission
inventory.
This
growth
in
commercial
aircraft
emissions
is
occurring
at
a
time
when
other
significant
mobile
and
stationary
sources
are
drastically
reducing
emissions,
thereby
accentuating
the
growth
in
aircraft
emissions.
Nationally,
aircraft
NOx
emissions
experienced
a
130
percent
growth
from
1970
to
1995,
and
they
are
expected
to
increase
by
25
percent
from
1995
to
2010.16
From
a
local/
regional
perspective,
the
1999
EPA
study,
Evaluation
of
Air
Pollutant
Emissions
from
Subsonic
Commercial
Jet
Aircraft,
reported
that
from
1990
to
2010
increases
in
commercial
aircraft
NOx
emissions
for
the
ten
cities
studied
(
19
airport
facilities
with
significant
commercial
jet
aircraft
activity
were
identified
within
these
selected
cities)
are
expected
to
range
from
50
to
110
percent.
17
In
addition,
the
study
showed
15E.
H.
Pechan
and
Associates,
Inc.,
  
National
Annual
Aircraft
Emissions
by
Subcategory
from
Trends
1995
Report''
(
National
Air
Pollutant
Emission
Trends
1995­­
EPA),
Facsimile
from
Maureen
Mullen
to
Bryan
Manning
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,
August
16,
1996.

16"
National
Air
Pollutant
Emission
Trends,"
1900­
1996,
EPA,
1997,
at
Table
B­
2.
A
copy
of
this
table
can
also
be
found
in
Docket
No.
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__.

17This
document
(
EPA420­
R­
99­
013,
April
1999)
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
aviation.
htm.
It
can
also
be
found
in
Docket
No.
OAR­
2002­
0030,

Document
No.
__­_­__.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
20
that
in
2010
commercial
aircraft
are
projected
to
contribute
as
much
as
10
percent
of
total
regional
mobile
source
NOx
emissions
in
at
least
two
of
the
cities
studied.
18
Air
pollutants
resulting
from
airport
operations
are
emitted
from
several
types
of
sources:

aircraft
main
engines
and
auxiliary
power
units
(
APUs);
ground
support
equipment
(
GSE)
,

which
include
vehicles
such
as
aircraft
tugs,
baggage
tugs,
fuel
trucks,
maintenance
vehicles,

and
other
miscellaneous
vehicles
used
to
support
aircraft
operations;
ground
access
vehicles
(
GAV),
which
include
vehicles
from
off­
site
used
by
passengers,
employees,
freight
operators,

and
other
persons
utilizing
an
airport.
EPA's
previous
estimates
show
aircraft
engines
comprise
approximately
45
percent
of
total
air
pollutant
emissions
from
airport
operations;
GAV
account
for
another
45
percent,
and
APUs
and
GSE
combined
make
up
the
remaining
10
percent.
19
Since
18Based
on
the
one­
hour
ozone
standard,
nine
of
the
ten
metropolitan
areas
are
currently
not
in
attainment
of
NAAQS
for
ozone
;
the
tenth
city
has
attained
the
ozone
standard
and
is
considered
an
ozone
"
maintenance"
area.
For
detailed
information
on
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,

see
the
following
EPA
website:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
airlinks/
ozpminfo.
html.
EPA
has
not
yet
designated
areas
for
the
8­
hour
standard.

19The
California
FIP,
signed
by
the
Administrator
2/
14/
95,
is
located
in
EPA
Air
Docket
A­
94­
09,
item
number
V­
A­
1.
The
FIP
was
vacated
by
an
act
of
Congress
before
it
became
effective.

In
addition,
the
1997
EPA
Draft
Final
Report
entitled,
"
Analysis
of
Techniques
to
Reduce
Air
Emission
at
Airports"
(
prepared
by
Energy
and
Environmental
Analysis,
Inc),
it
was
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
21
EPA
has
established
stringent
emission
standards
for
GAVs
and
other
motor
vehicles
that
will
be
manufactured
and
introduced
into
commerce
in
future
years,
overall
emissions
from
these
vehicles
will
continue
to
decline
for
many
years.

Adopting
standards
equivalent
to
the
latest
ICAO
NOx
emission
standards
and
the
related
ICAO
test
procedures
would
help
in
achieving
and/
or
maintaining
compliance
with
the
NAAQS
for
ozone
(
O3),
NOx,
and
particulate
matter
(
PM).
Some
of
the
adverse
effects
on
public
health
and
welfare
associated
with
these
pollutants
are
discussed
briefly
below.

A.
Oxides
of
Nitrogen
(
NOx)

NOx
is
directly
harmful
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Exposure
to
NO2
(
nitrogen
dioxide)
can
reduce
pulmonary
function
and
increase
airway
irritation
in
healthy
subjects
as
well
as
people
with
pre­
existing
pulmonary
conditions.
In
children,
exposure
to
NO2
at
or
near
the
level
of
the
ambient
standard
appears
to
increase
the
risk
of
respiratory
illness.

NOx
and
one
of
its
key
transformation
products
(
nitric
acid)
also
contribute
to
a
number
of
adverse
environmental
impacts
such
as
overgrowth
of
algae
and
oxygen
depletion
estimated
that
for
the
four
airports
studied
(
which
are
large
air
traffic
hubs)
on
average
aircraft
compromise
approximately
35
percent
of
NOx
emissions
from
airport
operations;
GAV
account
for
another
35
percent,
and
APUs
and
GSE
contribute
about
15
percent
each
for
the
remaining
30
percent.
This
document
can
be
found
in
Docket
No.
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­

__.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
22
(
eutrophication).
(
NOx
and
its
products
have
a
role
in
excess
nitrogen
loads
to
sensitive
water
bodies.
For
instance,
27
percent
of
excess
nitrogen
to
the
Chesapeake
Bay
comes
from
the
air.)
20
NOx
and
its
products
contribute
to
acid
rain,
which
affects
both
terrestrial
and
aquatic
ecosystems
(
already
under
stress
from
sulfur
related
acidification),
including
acidification
of
surface
waters,
reduction
in
fish
populations,
damage
to
forests
and
associated
wildlife,
soil
degradation,
damage
to
materials,
monuments,
buildings,
etc.,
and
reduced
visibility.
In
addition,
NOx
at
cruise
altitudes
from
subsonic
aircraft
is
considered
to
be
a
precursor
of
tropospheric
ozone
and
a
contributor
to
greenhouse
gas.
21
20Atmospheric
nitrogen
deposition
onto
surface
waters
and
deposition
to
watershed
and
subsequent
transport
into
the
tidal
waters
has
been
documented
to
contribute
from
12
to
44
percent
of
the
total
nitrogen
loadings
to
the
United
States
coastal
waterbodies.
Nitrogen
is
the
nutrient
limiting
growth
of
algae
in
most
coastal
waters
and
estuaries.
Thus,
addition
of
nitrogen
results
in
accelerated
algae
and
aquatic
plant
growth
causing
adverse
ecological
effects.

High
levels
of
nitrate
in
drinking
water
is
a
health
hazard,
especially
for
infants.

Atmospheric
nitrogen
deposition
in
sensitive
watersheds
can
increase
stream
water
nitrate
concentrations;
the
added
nitrate
can
remain
in
the
water
and
be
transported
long
distances
downstream.
(
U.
S.
EPA,
"
Nitrogen
Oxides:
Impacts
on
Public
Health
and
the
Environment,"

EPA­
452/
R­
97­
002,
August
1997.)

21Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change
(
World
Meteorological
Organization/
United
Nations
Environment
Program),
"
Aviation
and
the
Global
Atmosphere,''
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
23
B.
NOx
and
Ozone
NOx
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
are
precursors
in
the
photochemical
reaction
which
forms
tropospheric
ozone.
Ground­
level
ozone,
the
main
ingredient
in
smog,
is
formed
by
complex
chemical
reactions
of
NOx
and
VOCs
in
the
presence
of
heat
and
sunlight.

Based
on
a
large
number
of
studies,
we
have
identified
several
key
health
effects
caused
when
people
are
exposed
to
levels
of
ozone
found
today
in
many
areas
of
the
country.
A
large
body
of
evidence
shows
that
ozone
can
cause
harmful
respiratory
effects
including
chest
pain,

coughing,
and
shortness
of
breath,
which
affect
people
with
compromised
respiratory
systems
most
severely.
When
inhaled,
ozone
can
cause
acute
respiratory
problems;
aggravate
asthma;

cause
significant
temporary
decreases
in
lung
function
of
15
to
over
20
percent
in
some
healthy
adults;
cause
inflammation
of
lung
tissue;
produce
changes
in
lung
tissue
and
structure;
may
increase
hospital
admissions
and
emergency
room
visits;
and
impair
the
body's
immune
system
defenses,
making
people
more
susceptible
to
respiratory
illnesses.
Children
and
outdoor
workers
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
elevated
ambient
levels
of
ozone
during
exercise
and,
therefore,
are
at
a
greater
risk
of
experiencing
adverse
health
effects.
Beyond
its
human
health
effects,
ozone
has
been
shown
to
injure
plants,
which
has
the
effect
of
reducing
crop
yields
and
reducing
productivity
in
forest
ecosystems.

1999.
A
copy
of
this
document
can
be
found
at
the
Cambridge
University
Press'
web
site
at
www.
cup.
org
or
Docket
No.
OAR
2002­
0030,
Document
No,
__
­_­__.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
24
There
is
strong
and
convincing
evidence
that
exposure
to
ozone
is
associated
with
exacerbation
of
asthma­
related
symptoms.
Increases
in
ozone
concentrations
in
the
air
have
been
associated
with
increases
in
hospitalization
for
respiratory
causes
for
individuals
with
asthma,

worsening
of
symptoms,
decrements
in
lung
function,
and
increased
medication
use,
and
chronic
exposure
may
cause
permanent
lung
damage.
The
risk
of
suffering
these
effects
is
particularly
high
for
children
and
for
people
with
compromised
respiratory
systems.

In
addition
to
the
health
effects
described
above,
there
exists
a
large
body
of
scientific
literature
that
shows
that
harmful
effects
can
occur
from
sustained
levels
of
ozone
exposure
at
low
levels.
22
Studies
of
prolonged
exposures,
those
lasting
about
7
hours,
show
health
effects
from
prolonged
and
repeated
exposures
at
moderate
levels
of
exertion
to
ozone
concentrations
as
low
as
0.08
ppm.
The
health
effects
at
these
levels
of
exposure
include
transient
pulmonary
function
responses,
transient
respiratory
symptoms,
effects
on
exercise
performance,
increased
airway
responsiveness,
increased
susceptibility
to
respiratory
infection,
increased
hospital
and
emergency
room
visits,
and
transient
pulmonary
respiratory
inflammation.

The
current
primary
and
secondary
ozone
NAAQS
is
0.12
ppm
daily
maximum
1­
hour
concentration,
not
to
be
exceeded
more
than
once
per
year
on
average.
EPA
is
replacing
the
22Additional
information
about
these
studies
can
be
found
in
Chapter
2
of
"
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis:
Heavy­
Duty
Engine
and
Vehicle
Standards
and
Highway
Diesel
Fuel
Sulfur
Control
Requirements,"
December
2000,
EPA420­
R­
00­
026.
Docket
No.
OAR­
2002­
0030,

Document
XX­
A­
XX.
This
document
is
also
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
diesel.
htm#
documents.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
25
previous
1­
hour
ozone
standard
with
a
new
8­
hour
standard.
The
new
standard
is
set
at
a
concentration
of
0.08
parts
per
million
(
ppm),
and
the
measurement
period
is
8
hours.
Areas
are
allowed
to
disregard
their
three
worst
measurements
every
year
and
average
performance
over
three
years
to
determine
if
they
meet
the
standard.
That
is,
the
standard
is
set
by
the
4th
highest
maximum
8­
hour
concentration.

Ground
level
ozone
today
remains
a
pervasive
pollution
problem
in
the
United
States.

About
51
million
people
live
in
areas
with
design
values
above
the
level
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
based
on
three
years
of
data
(
1999­
2001).
In
addition,
about
111
million
people
live
in
areas
with
design
values
above
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
based
on
those
three
years
of
data.

Approximately
61
million
of
these
people
live
in
areas
with
design
values
above
the
8­
hour
standard
but
are
below
the
design
standard
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
(
i.
e.,
they
are
attaining
the
1­
hour
standard).
The
remainder
of
these
people
live
in
areas
with
design
values
above
the
8­

hour
ozone
standards
but
are
above
the
design
value
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
(
i.
e.,
they
are
not
attaining
the
1­
hour
standard).
23
This
represents
291
counties
with
design
values
above
the
level
of
the
8­
hour
standard.

Over
the
last
decade,
declines
in
ozone
levels
were
found
mostly
in
urban
areas,
where
emissions
are
heavily
influenced
by
controls
on
mobile
sources
and
their
fuels.
Twenty­
three
23Memorandum
to
Docket
A­
2001­
11
from
Fred
Dimmick,
Group
Leader,
Air
Trends
Group,
"
Summary
of
Currently
Available
Air
Quality
Data
and
Ambient
Concentrations
for
Ozone
and
Particulate
Matter,"
December
3,
2002,
Air
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.

XX­
B­
XX.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
26
metropolitan
areas
have
realized
a
decline
in
ozone
levels
since
1989,
but
at
the
same
time
ozone
levels
in
11
metropolitan
areas
with
7
million
people
have
increased.
24
Regionally,
California
and
the
Northeast
have
recorded
significant
reductions
in
peak
ozone
levels,
while
four
other
regions
(
the
Mid­
Atlantic,
the
Southeast,
the
Central
and
Pacific
Northwest)
have
seen
ozone
levels
increase.
The
highest
ambient
concentrations
are
currently
found
in
suburban
areas,

consistent
with
downwind
transport
of
emissions
from
urban
centers.
Concentrations
in
rural
areas
have
risen
to
the
levels
previously
found
only
in
cities.

C.
NOx
and
Secondary
Particulate
Matter
NOx
emitted
at
low
altitude
is
also
a
precursor
in
the
formation
of
some
nitrate
particulate
matter
(
PM)
in
the
atmosphere
(
mostly
ammonium
nitrate).
25
In
general,
nitrate
PM
is
a
significant
contributor
to
overall
ambient
PM
concentrations
in
many
parts
of
the
western
U.
S.,

24National
Air
Quality
and
Emissions
Trends
Report,
1998,
March,
2000,
at
28.
This
document
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oar/
aqtrnd98/.
Relevant
pages
of
this
report
can
be
found
in
________.
This
_________
is
available
in
Air
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.

__­_­__.

25Secondary
PM
is
formed
when
NOx
reacts
with
ammonia
in
the
atmosphere
to
yield
ammonium
nitrate
particulate.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
27
and
thus,
contributes
to
the
overall
health
and
welfare
concerns
related
to
PM.
26
Essentially
all
nitrate
PM
is
of
such
a
diameter
that
it
is
respirable
in
humans.

IV.
Description
of
Action
Under
the
authority
of
section
231
of
the
CAA,
EPA
today
proposes
to
adopt
standards
equivalent
to
ICAO's
February
1999
NOx
emission
standards
(
these
NOx
standards
were
adopted
at
CAEP/
4
in
1998
and
approved
by
the
ICAO
Council
in
1999)
and
March
1997
test
procedure
amendments.
Today's
proposed
emission
standards
and
test
procedure
amendments
apply
to
commercial
aircraft
engines;
no
general
aviation
or
military
engines
are
covered
by
today's
proposal.
The
commercial
aircraft
engines
subject
to
today's
proposed
NOx
standards
are
those
gas
turbine
engines
that
are
newly
certified
(
and
designed)
after
the
effective
date
of
the
proposed
regulations.
(
Newly
manufactured
or
already
certified
engines
built
after
the
effective
date
of
the
proposed
regulations
would
not
have
to
meet
these
standards.)
For
the
sake
of
consistency
and
harmonization,
the
effective
dates
below
for
the
proposed
NOx
standards
are
identical
with
those
of
the
ICAO
1999
NOx
standards.
The
proposed
NOx
emission
standards,

test
procedure
amendments,
and
their
effective
dates
are
described
below.

26As
a
national
average,
each
100
tons
of
NOx
reduction
will
result
in
about
4
tons
of
secondary
PM
reduction.
This
conversion
rate
varies
from
region
to
region,
and
is
greatest
in
the
West.
(
U.
S.
EPA,
Final
Rule,
"
Control
of
Emissions
of
Air
Pollution
from
Nonroad
Diesel
Engines,
63
FR
56967,
October
23,
1998.)
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
28
A.
What
Emission
Standards
Are
Under
Consideration?

As
discussed
earlier
in
sections
II
and
III
of
today's
notice,
section
231(
a)(
2)(
A)
of
the
CAA
authorizes
EPA
to
establish
emission
standards
for
aircraft
engine
emissions
"...
which
in
[
her]
judgment
causes,
or
contributes
to,
air
pollution
which
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
endanger
public
health
or
welfare."
The
Administrator
may
revise
such
standards
from
"
time
to
time."
CAA
section
231(
b)
requires
that
any
emission
standards
provide
sufficient
lead
time
"
to
permit
the
development
and
application
of
the
requisite
technology,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
the
cost
of
compliance
within
such
period."

Today's
rule
proposes
near­
term
standards
that
will
go
into
effect
in
2004
to
ensure
future
engines
do
not
jeopardize
recent
or
past
technology
gains.
These
standards
are
equivalent
to
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
international
consensus
emissions
standards
for
aircraft
engines
adopted
by
ICAO's
CAEP
in
1998.27
EPA
intends
to
promulgate
these
standards
by
January
2004
in
order
to
be
consistent
with
U.
S.
obligations
under
ICAO.
At
the
same
time,
EPA
anticipates
establishing
more
stringent
NOx
standards
in
the
future.
EPA
will
participate
at
CAEP/
6
(
sixth
meeting
of
CAEP),
which
is
scheduled
in
early
2004,
to
establish
more
stringent
international
consensus
emission
standards
for
aircraft
engines.
Such
standards
will
likely
be
a
central
consideration
in
a
future
EPA
regulation
of
aircraft
engine
emissions.

27ICAO,
CAEP,
Fourth
Meeting,
Montreal,
Quebec,
April
6­
8,
1998,
Report,
Document
9720,
CAEP/
4.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
29
We
believe
this
two­
step
approach
is
the
most
appropriate
means
to
address
emissions
from
aircraft
engines
in
this
rulemaking.
It
would
codify
current
practice,
with
no
significant
lead
time,
as
a
near­
term
approach.
EPA
has
authority
to
revise
emission
standards
from
"
time
to
time".
EPA
intends
to
address
more
stringent
emission
standards
requiring
more
lead
time
in
a
future
rulemaking
(
see
section
IV.
A.
2
and
IV.
A.
3.
for
further
discussion
of
future
standards).

1.
Today's
Proposed
NOx
Standards
EPA
proposes
to
adopt
standards
equivalent
to
ICAO's
1999
NOx
emission
standards
for
newly
certified
aircraft
gas
turbine
engines
(
turbofan
and
turbojet
engines)
of
rated
thrust
or
output
greater
than
26.7
kilonewtons
(
kN)
with
compliance
dates
as
follows:
28
For
engines
of
a
type
or
model
of
which
that
date
of
manufacture
of
the
first
individual
production
model
was
after
December
31,
2003:

a)
for
engines
with
a
pressure
ratio
of
30
or
less:

1)
for
engines
with
a
maximum
rated
output
of
more
than
89.0
kN:

NOx
=
(
19
+
1.6(
rated
pressure
ratio))
g/
kN(
rated
output)

2)
for
engines
with
a
maximum
rated
output
of
more
than
26.7
kN
but
not
more
than
89.0
kN:

28This
proposal
includes
standards
for
low­,
mid­,
and
high­
thrust
engines
(
see
below
for
further
discussion
of
the
different
standards
based
on
the
thrust
of
the
engines)
.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
30
NOx
=
(
37.572
+
1.6(
rated
pressure
ratio)
­
0.2087(
rated
output))
g/
kN(
rated
output)

b)
for
engines
with
a
pressure
ratio
of
more
than
30
but
less
than
62.5:

1)
for
engines
with
a
maximum
rated
output
of
more
than
89.0
kN:

NOx
=
(
7
+
2.0(
rated
pressure
ratio))
g/
kN(
rated
output)

2)
for
engines
with
a
maximum
rated
output
of
more
than
26.7
kN
but
not
more
than
89.0
kN:

NOx
=
(
42.71
+
1.4286(
rated
pressure
ratio)
­
0.4013(
rated
output)
+

0.00642(
rated
pressure
ratio

rated
output))
g/
kN(
rated
output)

c)
for
engines
with
a
pressure
ratio
of
62.5
or
more:

NOx
=
(
32
+
1.6(
rated
pressure
ratio))
g/
kN(
rated
output).

The
NOx
emission
standards
presented
above
are
equivalent
to
the
ICAO
NOx
standards
that
will
become
effective
after
December
31,
2003.

i.
Rationale
of
Proposed
NOx
Standards
for
Newly
Certified
Mid­
and
High­
Thrust
Engines
EPA
is
proposing
to
adopt
NOx
standards
for
newly
certified
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines
(
those
engines
designed
and
certified
after
the
effective
date
of
the
proposed
regulations,

which
have
a
rated
output
or
thrust
greater
than
89
kN)
that
represent
about
a
16
percent
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
31
reduction
(
or
increase
in
stringency)
from
the
existing
standard.
29
(
See
section
IV.
A.
1(
a)(
1)
and
IV.
A.
1(
b)(
1)
above
for
the
standards
for
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines.)
The
proposed
standards
ensure
that
new
engine
designs
would
incorporate
the
existing
combustor
technology
and
would
not
perform
worse
than
today's
current
engines.
EPA
intends
to
promulgate
these
standards
by
January
2004
in
order
to
be
consistent
with
U.
S.
obligations
under
ICAO.
(
See
section
II.
B
for
a
discussion
of
the
obligation
of
ICAO's
participating
nations).
At
this
time,
there
is
not
sufficient
lead
time
to
require
more
stringent
emission
standards
than
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
emission
standards
by
January
2004.
As
discussed
later
in
section
IV.
A.
2
for
future
standards,
we
are
deferring
action
on
more
stringent
NOx
standards
because
pursuant
to
section
231(
b)
of
the
CAA
we
need
more
time
to
better
understand
the
cost
of
compliance
with
such
standards,
and
additional
cost
data
is
expected
to
be
available
from
CAEP/
6
in
early
2004
(
see
section
IV.
A.
2
for
further
discussion
regarding
lead
time).

29
The
proposed
NOx
standards,
which
are
equivalent
to
the
CAEP/
4
standards,
represent
a
16
percent
reduction
from
the
existing
standards
at
a
rated
pressure
ratio
of
30.
At
rated
pressure
ratios
of
10
and
20
,
the
proposed
standards
correspond
to
27
and
20
percent
reductions,

respectively.
In
addition,
at
rated
pressure
ratios
of
40
and
50,
the
proposed
NOx
standards
signify
9
and
4
percent
reductions,
respectively.
Also,
the
proposed
and
existing
standards
are
equivalent
at
a
rated
pressure
ratio
of
62.5.
See
Figure
1
in
section
IV.
B.
for
a
comparison
of
the
proposed
(
or
CAEP/
4)
NOx
standards
to
the
existing
(
or
CAEP/
2)
standards.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
32
EPA
believes
that
the
proposed
standards
would
not
impose
any
additional
burden
on
manufacturers,
because
manufacturers'
are
already
designing
new
engines
to
meet
the
ICAO
international
consensus
standards
by
2004
(
see
section
VII
of
today's
notice
for
further
discussion
of
regulatory
impact).
Even
though
the
U.
S.
did
not
immediately
adopt
the
ICAO
NOx
standards
after
1999,
engine
manufacturers
have
continued
to
make
progress
in
reducing
these
emissions.
Today's
proposed
standards
are
aimed
at
assuring
that
this
progress
is
not
reversed
in
the
future.

ii.
Rationale
of
Proposed
NOx
Standards
for
Newly
Certified
Low­
Thrust
Engines
For
newly
certified
low­
thrust
engines
(
engines
with
a
thrust
or
rated
output
of
more
than
26.7
kN
but
not
more
than
89.0
kN),
EPA
is
today
proposing
to
adopt
near­
term
NOx
standards
that
are
different
than
the
standards
proposed
for
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines
(
engines
with
thrust
greater
than
89.0
kN).
30
In
addition
to
rated
pressure
ratio,
the
proposed
standards
for
low­

30
Today's
proposed
NOx
standards
for
low
thrust
or
small
engines
specify
that
engines
with
a
rated
output
or
thrust
at
26.7
kN
meet
the
existing
standard,
and
engines
with
a
rated
output
at
89
kN
meet
the
proposed
(
or
CAEP/
4)
standards.
For
engines
with
rated
outputs
or
thrust
levels
between
26.7
and
89
kN,
a
linear
interpolation
was
made
between
the
low
range
of
the
existing
standard
and
the
high
range
of
the
proposed
standard
based
upon
the
rated
output
to
determine
the
proposed
NOx
limits
for
such
engines.
Thus,
thrust
dependent
standards
are
being
proposed
for
engines
with
rated
output
or
thrust
between
26.7
kN
and
89
kN.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
33
thrust
engines
would
also
be
dependent
on
an
engine's
thrust
or
rated
output.
31
(
See
section
IV.
A.
1(
a)(
2)
and
IV.
A.
1(
b)(
2)
for
a
description
of
these
different
standards.)
For
example,
at
a
rated
pressure
ratio
of
30
and
a
thrust
of
58
kN
(
thrust
level
in
the
middle
of
26.7
kN
and
89
kN),

these
proposed
standards
are
an
8
percent
reduction
(
or
increase
in
stringency)
from
the
existing
standard
compared
to
a
16
percent
reduction
for
the
proposed
standards
for
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines.
32
The
existing
standards
were
not
set
at
stringency
level
that
created
a
need
for
low­
thrust
engines
to
have
different
requirements,
but
at
the
level
of
NOx
stringency
proposed
today
different
standards
are
considered
necessary
for
such
engines.
Due
to
their
physical
size,
it
is
31The
proposed
standards
for
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines
are
dependent
only
on
an
engine's
rated
pressure
ratio.

32Additional
examples
of
the
proposed
standards
for
low­
thrust
engines
in
comparison
to
the
proposed
standards
for
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines
are
provided
below.
At
rated
pressure
ratios
of
10
and
20
with
a
thrust
of
58
kN,
the
proposed
low­
thrust
engine
standards
are
a
14
and
10
percent
reduction
from
the
existing
standard,
respectively.
Whereas,
at
these
same
rated
pressure
ratios,
the
proposed
standards
for
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines
are
27
and
20
percent
reductions.

In
addition,
at
rated
pressure
ratios
of
40
and
50
with
a
thrust
of
58
kN,
these
low­
thrust
engine
standards
signify
a
5
and
2
percent
reduction
from
the
existing
standard,
respectively.
In
comparison,
at
these
same
rated
pressure
ratios,
the
proposed
standards
for
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines
are
9
and
4
percent
reductions.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
34
difficult
to
apply
the
best
NOx
reduction
technology
to
low
thrust
or
small
engines.
The
difficulty
increases
progressively
as
size
is
reduced
(
from
around
89
kN).
33
For
example,
the
relatively
small
combustor
space
and
section
height
of
these
engines
creates
constraints
on
the
use
of
low
NOx
fuel
staged
combustor
concepts
which
inherently
require
the
availability
of
greater
flow
path
cross­
sectional
area
than
conventional
combustors.
34
Also,
fuel
staged
combustors
need
more
fuel
injectors,
and
this
need
is
not
compatible
with
the
relatively
lower
total
fuel
flows
of
lower
thrust
engines.
(
Reductions
in
fuel
flow
per
nozzle
are
difficult
to
attain
without
having
clogging
problems
due
to
the
small
sizes
of
the
fuel
metering
ports.)
In
addition,

lower
thrust
engine
combustors
have
an
inherently
greater
liner
surface­
to­
combustion
volume
ratio,
and
this
requires
increased
wall
cooling
air
flow.
Thus,
less
air
would
be
available
to
obtain
acceptable
turbine
inlet
temperature
distribution
and
for
emissions
control.
35
Since
the
33ICAO/
CAEP,
Report
of
Third
Meeting,
Montreal,
Quebec,
December
5­
15,
1995,
Document
9675,
CAEP/
3.
A
copy
of
this
report
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.

__­_­__).

34"
The
burner
section
of
an
aircraft
engine,
which
contains
the
combustion
chamber,
burns
a
mixture
of
fuel
and
air,
and
delivers
the
resulting
gases
to
the
turbine
at
a
temperature
which
will
not
exceed
the
allowable
limit
at
the
turbine
inlet."
(
United
Technologies
Pratt
and
Whitney,

"
The
Aircraft
Gas
Turbine
Engine
and
Its
Operation,"
August
1998.)

35ICAO/
CAEP
Working
Group
3
(
Emissions),
"
Combined
Report
of
the
Certification
and
Technology
Subgroups,"
section
2.3.6.1,
Presented
by
the
Chairman
of
the
Technology
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
35
difficulties
increase
progressively
as
engine
thrust
size
is
reduced,
EPA
believes
it
would
be
appropriate
to
make
a
graded
change
in
stringency
of
the
proposed
NOx
standards
for
low­
thrust
engines.

EPA
intends
to
promulgate
these
standards
for
low­
thrust
engines
by
January
2004
in
order
to
be
consistent
with
its
obligations
under
ICAO.
Currently,
there
is
not
sufficient
lead
time
to
require
more
stringent
emission
standards
than
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
emission
standards
by
January
2004.
As
discussed
later
in
section
IV.
A.
2
and
IV.
A.
3.
for
future
standards,
we
are
deferring
action
on
more
stringent
NOx
standards
because
pursuant
to
section
231(
b)
of
the
CAA
we
need
more
time
to
better
understand
the
cost
of
compliance
with
such
standards,
and
additional
cost
data
is
expected
to
be
available
from
CAEP/
6
in
early
2004
(
see
section
IV.
A.
2
and
IV.
A.
3.
for
further
discussion
regarding
lead
time).

2.
Future
NOx
Standards
for
Newly
Certified
Mid­
and
High­
Thrust
Engines
More
stringent
standards
will
be
necessary
in
the
future.
As
discussed
earlier
in
section
III,
the
substantial
growth
in
aircraft
emissions
is
occurring
at
a
time
when
other
mobile
source
categories
are
reducing
emissions.
FAA
reports
that
flights
of
commercial
air
carriers
will
increase
by
21
percent
by
2010
and
35
percent
by
2015.36
In
addition,
the
1999
EPA
study
of
Subgroup,
Third
Meeting,
Bonn,
Germany,
June
1995.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__)

36The
flight
forecast
data
is
based
on
FAA's
Terminal
Area
Forecast
System
(
TAFS).
TAFs
is
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
36
commercial
aircraft
activity
in
ten
cities
projected
that
the
aircraft
NOx
emissions
would
double
in
some
of
these
cities
by
2010,
and
the
aircraft
component
of
the
regional
mobile
source
NOx
emissions
in
these
ten
cities
would
grow
from
a
range
of
1
to
4
percent
that
existed
in
1990
to
a
range
of
2
to
10
percent
in
2010.37
Thus,
based
on
these
trends
more
stringent
NOx
standards
than
the
proposed
standards
are
needed
in
the
future
to
reduce
aircraft
NOx
emissions
in
nonattainment
areas.

Further
stringency
of
the
NOx
standards
would
reduce
the
expected
growth
in
commercial
aircraft
emissions.
The
importance
of
controlling
aircraft
emissions
has
grown
in
many
areas
(
especially
areas
not
meeting
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS)
as
controls
on
other
sources
become
more
stringent
and
attainment
of
the
NAAQS's
has
still
not
been
achieved.
(
Many
the
official
forecast
of
aviation
activity
at
FAA
facilities.
This
includes
FAA­
towered
airports,

federally­
contracted
towered
airports,
nonfederal
towered
airports,
and
many
non­
towered
airports.
For
detailed
information
on
TAFS
and
the
air
carrier
activity
forecasts
see
the
following
FAA
website:
http://
www.
apo.
data.
faa.
gov/
faatafall.
HTM.
As
of
December
9,
2002,

the
aviation
forecasts
contained
in
TAFS
for
Fiscal
Years
2001­
2015
do
not
incorporate
any
impact
of
the
September
11
terrorist
attacks.
The
forecasts
do,
however,
provide
government
and
aviation
planners
with
a
valuable
benchmark
to
measure
the
impact
of
the
September
11
events.

37U.
S.
EPA,
"
Evaluation
of
Air
Pollutant
Emissions
from
Subsonic
Commercial
Jet
Aircraft,"

April
1999,
EPA420­
R­
99­
013.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
37
airports
in
the
U.
S.
are
located
in
nonattainment
areas.
38)
As
activity
increases,
aircraft
are
emitting
increasing
amounts
of
NOx
in
many
nonattainment
areas,
and
thus,
aircraft
emissions
further
aggravate
the
problems
in
these
areas
(
either
by
emitting
pollutants
directly
within
a
nonattainment
area
or
by
contributing
to
regional
transport
emissions
in
an
area
upwind
of
a
nonattainment
area).
More
stringent
aircraft
engine
NOx
standards
would
assist
in
alleviating
these
problems
in
nonattainment
areas,
and
they
would
aid
in
preventing
future
concerns
in
areas
currently
designated
as
attainment
(
or
maintenance)
areas.
In
addition,
attainment
or
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS
requires
that
aircraft
engines
be
subject
to
a
program
of
control
compatible
with
their
significance
as
pollution
sources.

EPA,
therefore,
is
considering
more
stringent
future
standards,
beyond
today's
proposed
standards.
Leading
up
to
CAEP/
6
in
early
2004,
one
of
the
objectives
of
CAEP
(
and/
or
the
international
aviation
community)
is
to
consider
more
stringent
aircraft
engine
standards
than
CAEP/
4
standards
for
all
gaseous
emissions,
especially
NOx.
39
In
September
2002,
the
CAEP
38For
information
on
the
geographic
location
of
airports,
see
the
following
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
(
Bureau
of
Transportation
Statistics)
website:
www.
bts.
gov.
oai.
The
report
or
database
provided
on
the
website
entitled,
"
Airport
Activity
Statistics
of
Certificated
Air
Carriers:
Summary
Tables
2000,"
lists
airports
by
community.
In
addition,
see
the
following
EPA
website
for
information
on
nonattainment
areas
for
criteria
pollutants:

www.
epa.
gov/
oar/
oaqps/
greenbk.

39ICAO,
CAEP,
Fifth
Meeting,
Montreal,
Quebec,
January
1­
17,
2001,
"
Report
on
Agenda
Item
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
38
Steering
Group
directed
CAEP's
Working
Group
3
(
Emissions­
Technical
Issues
Working
Group)
and
Forecasting
and
Economic
Analysis
Support
Group
(
FESG)
to
analyze
the
following
six
options
for
further
NOx
stringency,
with
an
implementation
date
of
2012:
5,
10,
15,
20,
25
and
30
percent
for
newly
certified
engines.
40
Based
on
the
results
of
this
analysis,
a
proposal
for
more
stringent
NOx
standards
is
expected
to
be
made
at
CAEP/
6.41
(
No
changes
to
the
standards
of
other
pollutants,
hydrocarbons
and
carbon
monoxide,
are
anticipated.)
EPA
is
currently
working
with
FAA
and
Working
Group
3
(
as
described
in
section
V)
in
the
evaluation
of
NOx
stringency
options
for
CAEP/
6.

4,"
CAEP/
5­
WP/
86,
January
17,
2001.
A
copy
of
this
report
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­

0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__).

40ICAO,
CAEP,
Steering
Group
Meeting,
Paris,
France,
September
10­
13,
2002,
"
Summary
of
Discussions
and
Decisions
of
the
Second
Meeting
of
the
Steering
Group,"
September
11,
2002,

CAEP­
SG20022­
SD/
2.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,

Document
No.
__­_­__).
FESG
is
analyzing
the
costs
and
emission
reductions
of
the
these
stringency
options.
More
recently,
FESG
agreed
to
also
analyze
the
six
options
for
an
implementation
date
of
2008.

41ICAO,
CAEP,
Steering
Group
Meeting,
Paris,
France,
September
10­
13,
2002,
"
Summary
of
Discussions
and
Decisions
of
the
First
Meeting
of
the
Steering
Group,"
September
10,
2002,

CAEP­
SG20022­
SD/
1.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,

Document
No.
__­_­__).
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
39
Manufacturers
should
be
able
to
achieve
additional
reductions
with
more
lead
time
than
is
provided
by
today's
proposal.
After
CAEP/
6,
we
would
assess
whether
or
not
the
new
international
consensus
and
longer­
term
standards
(
which
are
expected
to
be
adopted)
would
be
stringent
enough
to
protect
the
U.
S.
public
health
and
welfare.
If
so,
we
would
propose
to
adopt
the
CAEP/
6
NOx
standards
soon
thereafter.
If
not,
we
would
plan
to
seek
additional
emissions
reductions
by
either
pursuing
further
stringency
in
emission
standards
at
the
next
meeting
of
CAEP
(
CAEP
meetings
typically
occur
every
three
years)
or
soon
begin
taking
action
independently
in
the
U.
S.
(
e.
g.,
initiate
EPA
rulemaking
for
more
stringent
standards
or
voluntary
agreements
as
described
in
section
VI).
Prior
to
deciding
on
the
course
of
action
to
take
after
CAEP/
6,
EPA
would
consult
with
the
FAA.

Deferring
EPA
regulatory
action
on
more
stringent
future
standards
until
after
CAEP/
6
will
allow
us
to
obtain
important
additional
information
on
the
costs
and
emissions
reductions
of
such
standards.
As
discussed
earlier,
FESG
is
currently
analyzing
the
costs
and
emission
benefits
(
taking
into
account
lead
time)
for
the
six
options
of
further
NOx
stringency
(
beyond
the
CAEP/
4
standards)
being
considered
for
CAEP/
6.
After
evaluating
such
information,
we
will
then
be
better
situated
to
make
decisions
on
an
appropriate
level
of
stringency
and
implementation
timing
that
maximizes
emission
reductions
from
aircraft
engines,
taking
into
consideration
cost.

In
addition,
if
we
address
more
stringent
future
standards
in
accordance
with
CAEP/
6
action,
we
would
have
the
benefits
of
harmonizing
with
international
standards.
42
Due
to
the
42As
discussed
earlier,
the
U.
S.
has
an
obligation
to
be
compatible
with
the
ICAO
program
if
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
40
international
nature
of
the
aviation
industry,
setting
NOx
standards
at
the
appropriate
level
to
meet
U.
S.
air
quality
needs
through
international
consensus
provides
the
potential
for
greater
environmental
benefits.
Aircraft
and
aircraft
engines
are
international
commodities,
and
they
are
designed
and
built
to
meet
international
standards.
Adoption
of
international
standards
ensures
emission
reductions
from
domestic
and
foreign
aircraft
in
the
U.
S.
In
addition,
international
consensus
standards
lead
to
air
quality
benefits
in
the
U.
S.
and
throughout
the
world.

As
described
earlier
in
this
notice,
section
231
of
the
CAA
authorizes
EPA
from
"
time
to
time"
to
revisit
emission
standards,
and
it
requires
that
any
standards'
effective
dates
permit
the
development
of
necessary
technology,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
the
cost.
As
we
discussed
above,
we
are
not
proposing
more
stringent
NOx
standards
today
primarily
because
we
need
more
time
to
better
understand
the
cost
of
compliance
of
such
standards,
and
additional
cost
data
is
expected
to
be
available
from
CAEP/
6
in
early
2004.
Producing
(
and/
or
developing)
new
engines
or
engine
technologies
requires
significant
financial
investments
from
engine
manufacturers,
which
takes
time
to
recoup
(
the
amount
of
time
depends
upon
sales
of
engines,

replacement
parts,
etc.),
and
deferring
action
on
further
stringency
until
after
CAEP/
6,
would
enable
us
to
be
more
informed
regarding
such
investments
and
better
positioned
to
make
decisions
on
more
stringent
standards.
In
addition,
working
through
the
international
consensus
process
for
more
stringent
standards
would
have
the
benefits
described
earlier
in
this
section.

We
request
comment
on
the
six
options
for
further
NOx
stringency
being
considered
for
CAEP/
6,

including
the
implementation
timing.
Commenters
suggesting
further
stringency
at
this
time
deemed
appropriate.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
41
should
specify
the
stringency
option(
s)
and
implementation
date(
s)
they
prefer,
and
to
the
extent
possible
provide
cost,
technical,
and
other
justification
for
such
options
and
dates.
Also,
we
solicit
comment
on
our
intent
to
defer
action
on
more
stringent
standards
until
after
CAEP/
6,

which
is
scheduled
to
occur
in
early
2004.

3.
Future
NOx
Standards
for
Newly
Certified
Low­
Thrust
Engines
As
described
earlier
in
section
IV.
A.
2.,
there
is
a
need
for
more
stringent
standards
in
the
future,
and
low­
thrust
engines
would
be
included
in
EPA's
future
plans
to
pursue
further
NOx
stringency.
For
the
six
stringency
options
being
analyzed
by
CAEP's
Working
Group
3
and
FESG
for
CAEP/
6,
they
each
have
different
standards
for
low­
thrust
engines.
These
potential
low­
thrust
engine
standards
are
all
more
stringent
than
the
standards
proposed
today
for
lowthrust
engines.
With
more
lead
time
than
provided
in
today's
proposal,
manufacturers
should
be
able
to
meet
these
levels
of
further
stringency.
Similar
to
the
future
standards
for
mid­
to
highthrust
engines,
we
would
assess
the
appropriateness
of
international
standards
for
low­
thrust
engines
after
CAEP/
6.

Deferring
EPA
regulatory
action
on
more
stringent
future
standards
for
low­
thrust
engines
until
after
CAEP/
6
will
enable
us
to
obtain
additional
information
on
the
technological
feasibility,
costs,
and
emission
reductions
of
such
standards.
After
analyzing
such
information,

we
would
be
in
a
better
position
to
determine
the
appropriate
level
of
stringency
for
standards
in
the
future.
We
request
comment
on
our
intent
to
defer
action
on
more
stringent
standards
for
low­
thrust
engines
until
after
CAEP/
6,
which
is
scheduled
to
occur
in
early
2004.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
42
B.
Already
Certified,
Newly
Manufactured
Engines
Under
current
rules,
the
proposed
NOx
standards
would
not
apply
to
already
certified,

newly
manufactured
engines
(
in­
production
engines
or
engines
built
after
the
effective
date
of
the
proposed
standards),
and
the
rationale
for
not
applying
these
standards
to
already
certified
low­,
mid­,
and
high­
thrust
engines
is
discussed
below.
Nearly
all
already
certified
engines
(
94
percent
of
in­
production
engine
models
in
the
ICAO
Engine
Exhaust
Emissions
Data
Bank43)

currently
meet
or
perform
better
than
the
standards
we
are
proposing
to
adopt
today.
44
(
See
43
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization
(
ICAO),
Engine
Exhaust
Emissions
Data
Bank,
July
2002.
This
data
bank
is
available
at
http://
www.
QinetiQ.
com/
aviation_
emissions_
databank.
A
copy
of
this
data
can
also
be
found
in
Docket
No.
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__.
In
addition,
a
copy
of
a
table
including
data
of
engine
NOx
emissions
from
the
ICAO
data
bank
and
their
margin
to
the
proposed
NOx
standards
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__.

44
116
out
of
124
engines
(
94
percent
of
engine
models
in
production)
perform
better
than
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards.
The
8
in­
production
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines
that
are
not
achieving
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
are
three
different
Pratt
and
Whitney
(
PW)
engine
types
or
families
 
engine
and
their
thrust
variants
with
the
same
build
standard
 
as
follows:
(
1)
JT8D­
217C
and
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
43
Figure
1
below
for
a
comparison
of
the
NOx
emission
levels
of
current
in­
production
engines
to
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards.
45)
At
the
time
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
were
adopted
in
1998,
all
JT8D­
219,
(
2)
PW4077D,
PW4084D,
and
PW4090
and
(
3)
PW4164,
PW4168,
and
PW4168A.

(
See
Figure
1
below
that
specifically
shows
these
8
in­
production
models
in
relation
to
the
proposed
or
CAEP/
4
standards.)
The
JT8D­
217C
and
JT8D­
219
engines
have
combustors
described
as
environmental
kits
(
E­
kit)
in
the
ICAO
Engine
Exhaust
Emissions
Data
Bank.

In
addition,
these
116
engine
models
represent
98
percent
of
the
total
population
of
engines
installed
on
in­
production
aircraft.
If
out
of
production
aircraft
for
the
environmental
kits
listed
above
are
included
(
potentially
these
E­
kits
could
be
installed
in
engines
utilized
on
out
of
production
aircraft),
the
8
engines
that
are
not
achieving
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
could
represent
about
10
percent
of
the
in­
production
market
(
JP
Fleet
International
Data
from
Peter
Norman
of
QinetiQ
,
June
2002).
[
Note
to
FAA:
Do
you
have
data
available
to
verify
the
percentage
of
market
values
listed
above
and
to
determine
the
fraction
of
U.
S.
LTOs
from
in­
production
aircraft
with
these
engines
(
relative
to
total
in­
production
aircraft
U.
S.

LTOs)?
Maybe
we
could
work
together
to
generate
a
table
for
the
docket
that
lists
the
number
of
engines
in
the
market
for
each
in­
production
engine
listed
in
the
ICAO
Data
Bank.
Such
data
would
help
the
reader
better
understand
the
effect
of
the
proposed
standards.]

45
For
Figure
1,
the
Allison,
Rolls­
Royce,
and
Textron
Lycoming
engines
with
rated
pressure
ratios
less
than
20
and
NOx
levels
above
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
actually
perform
better
than
the
standards,
since
there
are
different
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
for
these
low
thrust
engines
(
see
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
44
but
11
in­
production
engines
and
5
newly
designed
engine
models
(
these
5
engines
were
in
the
design
and
development
process
in
1998)
had
NOx
emission
levels
that
would
perform
better
than
the
CAEP/
4
standards.
46
Based
on
a
recent
FESG
analysis
of
applying
the
CAEP/
4
standards
to
already
certified
engines
(
at
dates
2,
4,
and
6
years
after
the
implementation
date
for
newly
certified
engines),
from
those
16
engine
models
identified
in
1998
today
there
are
only
4
already
certified
engine
models
or
two
engine
families
remaining
that
would
not
meet
the
CAEP/
4
standards.
47
The
other
engine
models
have
either,
through
additional
testing
or
section
IV.
A.
1.
ii.
for
further
discussion
of
NOx
standards
for
low
thrust
engines).
(
16
of
the
124
engines,
13
percent
of
engine
models
in
production,
in
Figure
1
and
the
ICAO
Engine
Exhaust
Emissions
Data
Bank
are
low
 
thrust
engines
 
engines
with
thrust
greater
than
26.7
kN
but
not
more
than
89
kN.)

46
ICAO,
CAEP/
4,
Working
Paper
4,
"
Economic
Assessment
of
the
EPG
NOx
Stringency
Proposal,"
March
12,
1998,
Presented
by
the
Chairman
of
Forecasting
and
Economic
Analysis
Support
Group
(
FESG),
Agenda
Item
1:
Review
of
proposals
relating
to
NOx
emissions,

including
the
amendment
of
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
See
Table
3.1
of
paper.

47CAEP
Steering
Group
Meeting,
"
FESG
Economic
Assessment
of
Applying
a
Production
Cut­

Off
To
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
Standard",
Presented
by
the
FESG
Co­
Rapporteurs,
Paris,
September
10­
13,
2002
(
CAEP­
SG20022­
WP/
20,
September
12,
2002).
The
remaining
already
certified
engine
models
are
the
JT8D­
217C,
JT8D­
219,
PW4084D,
and
PW4090.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
45
modifications,
been
improved
to
meet
the
standards
or
the
engines
are
no
longer
in­
production.
48
(
There
is
only
one
remaining
newly
designed
engine
model
 
out
of
the
five
identified
in
1998
 
that
may
be
certified
after
2003,
and
thus,
it
would
need
to
meet
the
CAEP/
4
or
proposed
standards
for
newly
certified
engines,
which
are
effective
beginning
in
2004.)
49
48
Only
the
first
and
second
engine
types
of
the
three
PW
types
described
earlier
would
not
meet
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
if
they
were
applied
to
newly
manufactured
or
already
certified
engines.
The
PW4077D
is
a
derated
version
of
the
PW4084D,
and
it
is
essentially
considered
the
same
engine.
In
addition,
the
PW4077D
has
a
NOx
level
that
is
0.2
percent
greater
than
the
CAEP/
4
standards.
FESG
rounded
this
margin
to
zero
and
considered
the
PW4077D
to
be
meeting
the
NOx
levels
of
the
CAEP/
4
standards.
The
third
engine
type
 
PW4164,
PW4168
and
PW4168A
engines
­­
are
now
certified
with
the
PW
4168
Technologically
Affordable
Low
NOx
(
Talon)
II
engine
combustor
technology,
which
performs
significantly
better
than
the
CAEP/
4
standards.

49
The
PW
Canada
growth
engine
is
the
one
remaining
newly
designed
engine
model.
The
ICAO
Engine
Exhaust
Emissions
Data
Bank
currently
does
not
have
emissions
certification
data
for
such
an
engine,
and
thus,
we
anticipate
that
the
PW
Canada
growth
engine
would
still
be
affected
by
the
proposed
standards.
Yet,
due
to
the
CAEP/
4
standards
already
established,
we
expect
that
PW
Canada
has
already
planned
modifications
for
this
engine
or
any
other
newly
certified
engines
to
meet
today's
proposed
standards.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
46
INSERT
FIGURE
1
The
recent
FESG
analysis
indicates
that
the
environmental
benefit
(
or
NOx
emissions
reduction)
of
applying
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
to
already
certified
engines,
which
would
only
affect
these
4
remaining
engines,
would
be
very
small.
As
mentioned
earlier,
the
remaining
four
already
certified
(
or
in­
production)
engines
that
perform
worse
than
the
CAEP/
4
or
proposed
standards
are
the
following
Pratt
and
Whitney
(
PW)
mid­
and
high­
thrust
engines:
JT8D­
217C,

JT8D­
219,
PW4084D,
and
PW4090.
The
in­
production
JT8D­
217C
and
JT8D­
219
engines
could
potentially
apply
to
future
supersonic
business
jets,
and
the
aircraft
application
for
PW4084D
and
4090
engines
would
be
the
Boeing
777­
200s
and
­
300s.
Since
business
jets
have
a
very
low
utilization
(
about
100
to
200
annual
departures
per
aircraft),
the
emission
reductions
from
potential
new
JT8D­
217C
and
JT8D­
219
applications
would
be
very
small
irregardless
of
the
size
of
the
supersonic
business
jet
market.
If
the
potential
JT8D­
217C
and
JT8D­
219
supersonic
business
jets
were
to
capture
the
entire
projected
supersonic
business
jet
market
(
200
to
400
aircraft
over
a
10
year
period
or
20
to
40
aircraft
per
year),
the
total
estimated
annual
departures
would
be
about
2,000
to
8,000.
For
the
years
2005
and
2010,
there
are
estimated
to
be
from
23
to
27
million
departures
from
the
global
passenger
aircraft
fleet
(
the
potential
supersonic
business
jet
market
could
potentially
be
about
.01
to
.03
percent
of
these
global
fleet
departures),
so
the
resulting
NOx
emission
benefits
would
be
very
small.
50
In
regard
to
Boeing
50CAEP
Steering
Group
Meeting,
"
FESG
Economic
Assessment
of
Applying
a
Production
Cut­
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
47
777
aircraft
with
PW4084D/
4090
engines,
the
incremental
departures
for
such
aircraft
are
projected
to
be
no
greater
than
0.1
percent
per
year
(
up
to
25,500
departures
in
2010);
therefore,

the
resulting
NOx
emissions
reductions
would
also
be
considered
very
small.
(
The
FESG
assessment
also
showed
that
the
costs
of
applying
the
CAEP/
4
standards
to
already
certified
engines
would
be
relatively
small
on
an
industry
wide
basis.)
51
Consequently,
we
would
expect
there
to
be
minimal
environmental
benefit
to
also
apply
the
proposed
and
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
for
newly
certified
engines
to
already
certified,
newly
manufactured
engines
for
an
effective
date
after
2003
(
the
implementation
date
of
today's
proposed
standards
is
December
31,
2003).

Also,
if
an
already
certified
engine
design
meets
the
standards
that
we
are
proposing
today,
then
it
is
unlikely
that
either
existing
or
future
engine
designs
built
to
that
design
or
type
(
derivatives
or
thrust
variants
with
the
same
build
standard)
will
not
meet
these
standards.
When
design
modifications
are
made
to
an
existing
engine
type,
then
this
engine
type
would
likely
need
to
be
re­
certified.
A
re­
certified
engine
type
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
CAEP/
4
and
new
proposed
NOx
standards.

For
the
remaining
4
engines
(
or
two
engine
families)
being
built
that
do
not
meet
the
CAEP/
4
standards,
Pratt
and
Whitney
has
other
in­
production
engine
models
(
potentially
derived
Off
To
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
Standard",
Presented
by
the
FESG
Co­
Rapporteurs,
Paris,
September
10­
13,
2002
(
CAEP­
SG20022­
WP/
20,
September
12,
2002).
In
particular,
see
Table
5.1
entitled,
"
Excerpt
from
FESG
CAEP/
5
Traffic
and
Fleet
Mix
Forecast."

51The
costs
of
applying
CAEP/
4
standards
to
already
certified
engines
would
impact
just
one
engine
manufacturer.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
48
versions
or
thrust
variants
of
engines
with
the
same
build
standard)
or
replacement/
alternative
engines
that
perform
better
than
the
proposed
NOx
standards
and
that
are
also
similar
in
size
and
aircraft
application.
52
For
example,
the
PW
4098
engine
would
achieve
the
NOx
levels
of
the
proposed
standards,
and
similar
to
the
PW4090
it
is
utilized
on
the
Boeing
777­
200
and
777­
300.

Due
to
the
1998
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards,
Pratt
and
Whitney
has
recently
certified
and
manufactured
these
other
or
replacement
engines.
Also,
based
upon
the
CAEP/
4
standards,
they
have
already
targeted
future
(
after
2003)
engine
designs
for
modification
so
that
newly
certified
or
designed
engines
would
meet
today's
proposed
NOx
standards.
Therefore,
it
appears
unlikely
that
a
substantial
number
of
the
4
remaining
engines
would
be
built
or
sold
in
the
future,
unless
they
were
produced
as
spare
engines
(
replacement
engines
for
existing
aircraft
instead
of
newly
manufactured
aircraft).

1.
Effect
of
Market
Forces
In
1998,
FESG
indicated
at
CAEP/
4
that
"...
market
forces
and
potential
local/
regional
operating
restrictions
might
encourage
the
manufactures
to
modify
their
existing
products,
so
52Although
the
remaining
4
engines
(
or
two
engine
families)
currently
being
built
are
expected
to
still
be
in
production
in
year
2004,
they
would
not
be
required
to
meet
the
proposed
standards.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
49
that
they,
too,
comply
with
the
proposed
stringency."
53
These
modifications
to
in­
production
engines
would
be
considered
"
voluntary
environmental
enhancement."
54
Thus,
there
was
significant
consideration
at
CAEP/
4
given
to
the
effect
that
new
NOx
standards
for
newly
certified
engines
would
potentially
have
on
in­
production
or
already
certified
engines.
Many
parties
within
CAEP
and
its
working
groups
consider
market
forces
to
have
a
real
and
tangible
effect
on
newly
manufactured
or
already
certified
engines,
even
though
such
engines
are
not
required
to
comply
with
the
new
standards.
We
are
unaware
of
any
new
local/
regional
operating
53ICAO,
CAEP/
4,
Working
Paper
4,
"
Economic
Assessment
of
the
EPG
NOx
Stringency
Proposal,"
March
12,
1998,
Presented
by
the
Chairman
of
FESG,
Agenda
Item
1:
Review
of
proposals
relating
to
NOx
emissions,
including
the
amendment
of
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
section
3.3.2
of
the
paper.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.

__­_­__)

54However,
FESG
indicated
that
the
"...
the
development
of
production
engine
emissions
enhancements
would
only
occur
if
the
market
place
showed
enough
interest
in
the
enhancements
or
if
the
failure
to
meet
the
proposed
stringency
became
a
competitive
disadvantage."
(
ICAO,

CAEP/
4,
Working
Paper
4,
"
Economic
Assessment
of
the
EPG
NOx
Stringency
Proposal,"

March
12,
1998,
Presented
by
the
Chairman
of
FESG,
Agenda
Item
1:
Review
of
proposals
relating
to
NOx
emissions,
including
the
amendment
of
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
section
5.6.2
of
the
paper.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__)
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
50
restrictions
being
implemented
throughout
the
world
due
to
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards.

However,
it
seems
some
market
forces
from
the
CAEP/
4
newly
certified
engine
standards
have
affected
production
engines
since
there
are
now
only
four
in­
production
engine
models
remaining
from
1998
that
would
not
meet
the
CAEP/
4
standards.
The
Agency
solicits
comment
on
the
effect
market
forces
and
potential
local/
regional
operating
restrictions
might
have
on
manufacturers
to
modify
in­
production
or
already
certified
engines.

2.
Impact
of
Existing
Fleet
Aircraft
An
element
of
the
emissions
proposals
made
at
CAEP/
4
was
to
increase
NOx
stringency
as
far
as
possible
without
affecting
the
existing
fleet
aircraft
asset
values,
and
this
was
proposed
to
be
achieved
by
applying
the
new
stringency
to
new
engine
designs
only
(
newly
certified
engines).
55
Two
studies
on
whether
the
financial
value
of
existing
aircraft
assets
were
affected
by
the
CAEP/
2
NOx
standards
were
reviewed
for
CAEP/
4,
and
the
studies
did
not
reveal
any
correlation
between
approval
of
the
CAEP/
2
emissions
standards
and
aircraft
values.
Thus,

FESG
was
unable
to
definitively
assess
the
effect
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
would
have
on
fleet
aircraft
values.
56
(
The
scope
of
the
two
studies
and
their
ground
rules
were
set
by
FESG.)
These
55ICAO,
CAEP,
Fourth
Meeting,
Montreal,
Quebec,
April
6­
8,
1998,
Report,
Document
9720,

CAEP/
4.

56ICAO,
CAEP/
4,
Working
Paper
4,
"
Economic
Assessment
of
the
EPG
NOx
Stringency
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
51
studies
showed
that
a
large
number
of
factors
impact
aircraft
asset
values.

3.
Request
for
Comment
on
Applying
the
Proposed
NOx
standards
to
Already
Certified
Engines
We
are
requesting
comment
on
whether
to
apply
the
proposed
NOx
standards
to
engines
built
to
already
certified
engine
designs.
57
Although
there
is
expected
to
be
minimal
environmental
benefits
(
as
well
as
relatively
small
costs)
from
such
a
requirement,
it
would
ensure
that
manufacturers
could
not
indefinitely
produce
existing
engines
that
do
not
meet
these
standards
(
four
such
in­
production
or
already
certified
engines
models
exist
today).
58
Historically,
EPA
and
ICAO
have
applied
emission
standards
to
already
certified
engines,
and
thus,
such
requirements
for
today's
proposed
standards
would
maintain
this
practice.
59
Yet,
in
Proposal,"
March
12,
1998,
Presented
by
the
Chairman
of
FESG,
Agenda
Item
1:
Review
of
proposals
relating
to
NOx
emissions,
including
the
amendment
of
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
section
4
of
the
paper.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.

__­_­__.

57Spare
engines
for
existing
aircraft
would
not
be
covered
by
such
a
requirement.

58Nearly
all
engines
built
to
already
certified
engine
designs
are
unlikely
to
be
out
of
compliance
with
the
proposed
NOx
standards.

59EPA
promulgated
a
HC
standard
in
1982
that
applied
to
newly
manufactured
engines
beginning
in
1984.
Also,
the
original
ICAO
NOx,
HC,
and
CO
standards
approved
in
1981
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
52
contrast
to
past
practices
for
aircraft
engine
standards,
all
current
CAA
Title
II
(
Emission
Standards
for
Moving
Sources)
emission
standard
programs
involving
new
standards
(
besides
aircraft
engine
NOx
standards)
apply
to
newly
manufactured
engines
or
vehicles
based
on
the
certification
model
year
(
new
standards
apply
to
newly
and
already
certified
engines
or
vehicles
in
the
same
year).
In
these
programs,
EPA
has
incorporated
emission
averaging
programs
to
make
a
more
orderly
product
phase­
in
and
phase­
out.
However,
averaging
is
not
part
of
the
ICAO
protocol,
and
it
is
not
clear
that
it
is
of
any
value
here
since
most
in­
production
engines
already
meet
the
proposed
standards.
In
particular,
we
solicit
comment
on
the
rationale
discussed
above
for
applying
the
proposed
standards
to
already
certified
engines,
including
whether
an
emission
averaging
program
for
such
engines
would
be
useful.

As
discussed
earlier,
FESG
and
Working
Group
3
are
currently
considering
applying
the
1998
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
to
already
certified
engines.
The
implementation
dates
being
analyzed
for
such
a
requirement
are
2,
4,
and
6
years
after
December
31,
2003
(
the
implementation
date
for
newly
certified
engines).
Based
on
the
results
of
the
complete
assessment
(
which
are
not
yet
available),
FESG
and
Working
Group
3
are
expected
to
recommend
an
implementation
date
for
applying
the
CAEP/
4
standards
to
already
certified
applied
to
newly
manufactured
engines
starting
in
1986.
In
1997,
EPA
adopted
this
CO
standard,
which
was
to
be
implemented
later
that
same
year
for
newly
manufactured
engines.
In
addition,
the
March
24,
1993
ICAO
amendment
to
tighten
the
original
NOx
standard
by
20
percent
(
CAEP/
2
standards),
which
EPA
adopted
in
1997,
applied
to
newly
certified
engines
beginning
in
1996
and
newly
manufactured
engines
in
2000.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
53
engines
at
CAEP/
6
in
early
2004
(
a
decision
on
this
date
is
also
expected
at
CAEP/
6).
60
If
this
requirement
and
date
is
accepted
at
CAEP/
6,
EPA
would
plan
to
propose
the
new
requirement
soon
thereafter
(
see
section
IV.
B.
above
for
a
discussion
of
the
emission
benefit
of
applying
the
proposed
standards
to
already
certified
engines).
We
request
comment
on
applying
standards
for
already
certified
engines
at
a
date
2,
4,
and
6
years
after
the
implementation
date
for
new
designs
(
2006,
2008,
and
2010).
Commenters
suggesting
different
dates
should
specify
the
date(
s)
they
prefer
and,
to
the
extent
possible,
provide
technical
and
other
justification
for
such
suggested
dates.
Also,
we
request
comment
on
our
current
intent
to
not
propose
standards
for
already
certified
engines
until
after
a
CAEP/
6
decision
is
made
on
this
issue.

C.
Amendments
to
Criteria
on
Calibration
and
Test
Gases
for
Gaseous
Emissions
Test
and
Measurement
Procedures
60The
FESG
analysis
mentioned
earlier
(
CAEP­
SG20022­
WP/
20,
September
12,
2002)
addresses
the
impact
of
applying
the
CAEP/
4
NOx
standards
to
already
certified
engines
at
2,
4,
and
6
years
after
the
implementation
date
of
the
CAEP/
4
standards
for
newly
certified
engines.
Yet,

further
assessment
of
the
NOx
emission
reductions
was
requested
by
the
Steering
Group
for
the
next
meeting
in
mid­
2003.
(
ICAO,
CAEP,
Steering
Group
Meeting,
Paris,
France,
September
10­
13,
2002,
"
Summary
of
Discussions
and
Decisions
of
the
First
Meeting
of
the
Steering
Group,"
September
10,
2002,
CAEP­
SG20022­
SD/
1.
See
page
3.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__).
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
54
In
today's
proposed
rule,
EPA
proposes
to
incorporate
by
reference
ICAO's
1997
amendments
to
the
criteria
on
calibration
and
test
gases
for
the
test
procedures
of
gaseous
emissions
(
ICAO
International
Standards
and
Recommended
Practices
Environmental
Protection,
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
  
Aircraft
Engine
Emissions,''
Second
Edition,
July
1993;

Amendment
3,
March
20,
1997,
Appendices
3
and
5)
in
40
CFR
87.64
.
ICAO's
amendments,

which
became
effective
on
March
20,
1997,
apply
to
subsonic
(
newly
certified
and
newly
manufactured
or
already
certified
engines)
and
supersonic
gas
turbine
engines.
The
proposed
technical
changes
would
correct
a
few
inconsistencies
between
the
specifications
for
carbon
dioxide
(
CO2)
analyzers
(
Attachment
B
of
Appendices
3
and
5)
and
the
calibration
and
test
gases
(
Attachment
D
of
Appendices
3
and
5)
of
gaseous
emissions.
The
test
procedure
amendments
incorporated
by
reference
would
be
effective
60
days
after
the
publication
of
the
final
rule.

For
CAEP/
3
in
1995,
the
Russian
Federation
presented
a
working
paper
entitled,

"
Corrections
to
Annex
16,
Volume
II,"
that
stated
the
following:
61
According
to
CAEP/
2
recommendations,
in
the
list
of
calibration
and
test
gases
(
see
the
table
in
Attachment
of
Appendices
3
and
5)
"
CO2
in
N2"
was
replaced
61Russian
Federation,
"
Corrections
to
Annex
16,
Volume
II,"
Agenda
Item
2:
Review
of
reports
of
working
groups
relating
to
engine
emissions
and
the
development
of
recommendations
to
the
Council
thereon,
Working
Paper
19,
Presented
by
A.
A.
Gorbatko,
November
11,
1995
(
distributed
November
30,
1995),
CAEP/
3,
Montreal,
December
5
to
15,
1995.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__)
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
55
with
"
CO2
in
air"
gas.
At
the
same
time
the
following
sub­
paragraph
was
newly
introduced
into
Attachment
B
(
Appendices
3
and
5)
:

(
g)
The
effect
of
oxygen
(
O2)
on
the
CO2
analyzer
response
shall
be
checked.
For
a
change
from
0
percent
O2
to
21
percent
O2
the
response
of
a
given
CO2
concentration
shall
not
change
by
more
than
2
per
cent
of
reading.
If
this
limit
cannot
be
met
and
appropriate
correction
factor
shall
be
applied.

Since
the
best
way
to
carry
out
this
checking
procedure
is
to
calibrate
the
analyzer
first
with
CO2
in
nitrogen
and
then
with
CO2
in
air,
both
"
CO2
in
N2"
and
"
CO2
in
air"
gases
have
to
be
retained
in
the
list.
It
seems
then
that
"
CO
in
air,"
"
CO2
in
air,"
"
NO
in
N2"
and
now
"
CO2
in
N2"
have
to
be
replaced
with
"
CO
in
zero
air,"
"
CO2
in
zero
air,"
"
CO2
in
zero
nitrogen"
and
"
NO
in
zero
nitrogen"
just
by
analogy
with
the
gaseous
mixtures
of
different
hydrocarbons
diluted
by
zero
air
and
listed
in
the
same
table.

In
addition,
at
CAEP/
3
the
United
Kingdom
then
presented
a
working
paper
on
this
same
issue.
62
They
indicated
that
CAEP's
Working
Group
3
(
Emissions
Working
Group)
had
62United
Kingdom,
"
Amendments
to
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
Attachment
D
to
Appendices
3
and
5
(
Calibration
and
Test
Gases),"
Agenda
Item
2:
Review
of
reports
of
working
groups
relating
to
engine
emissions
and
the
development
of
recommendations
to
the
Council
thereon,
Working
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
56
accepted
the
above
proposals
of
the
Russian
Federation
paper
on
correcting
inconsistencies
in
the
list
of
calibration
and
test
gases
specified
in
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
Attachment
D
to
Appendices
3
and
5,
and
Working
Group
3
had
recommended
that
these
proposals
be
presented
at
CAEP/
3.
The
United
Kingdom
also
recommended
the
adoption
of
these
Russian
Federation
proposals
 
to
utilize
CO2
in
nitrogen
gas
mixture
to
check
the
effect
of
oxygen
on
CO2
analyzers.
In
addition,
they
recommended
the
specification
of
all
calibration
and
test
gases
required
for
all
the
gaseous
emissions
tests
required
in
Annex
16.

At
CAEP/
3,
the
CAEP
members
agreed
that
the
above
amendments
to
the
calibration
and
test
gases
were
justified,
and
thus,
these
amendments
were
then
adopted.
63
In
today's
notice,

EPA
proposes
to
incorporate
by
reference
the
amendments
to
the
criteria
on
calibration
and
test
gases
for
the
test
procedures
of
gaseous
emissions,
because
the
changes
improve
the
test
procedures
by
correcting
inconsistencies
and
distinguishing
between
calibration
and
test
gases.

The
amendments
would
include
the
following:
(
1)
listing
all
calibration
gases
separately
from
test
gases
for
HC,
CO2,
CO
and
NOx
analyzers,
(
2)
changing
"
N2"
to
"
zero
nitrogen"
in
relation
to
the
test
gases
for
the
HC
and
NOx
analyzers,
(
3)
adding
"
CO2
in
zero
nitrogen"
as
a
test
gas
for
Paper
20,
Presented
by
M.
E.
Wright,
November
14,
1995
(
distributed
November
30,
1995),

CAEP/
3,
Montreal,
December
5
to
15,
1995.
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­

2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__)

63ICAO/
CAEP,
Report
of
Third
Meeting,
Montreal,
Quebec,
December
5­
15,
1995,
Document
9675,
CAEP/
3.
A
copy
of
this
report
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.

__­_­__).
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
57
CO2
analyzer,
(
4)
changing
"
air"
to
"
zero
air"
in
relation
to
the
test
gas
for
CO
and
CO2
analyzers,
(
5)
revising
the
accuracy
to
"+
1
percent"
for
the
"
propane
in
zero
air"
test
gas
of
HC
analyzer,
(
6)
amending
the
accuracy
to
"+
1
percent"
for
the
"
CO2
in
zero
air"
test
gas
of
CO2
analyzer,
(
7)
adding
the
accuracy
"+
1
percent"
for
the
"
CO2
in
zero
nitrogen"
test
gas
of
CO2
analyzer,
(
8)
changing
accuracy
to
"+
1
percent"
for
test
gas
of
CO
analyzer,
and
(
9)
revising
accuracy
to
"+
1
percent"
for
test
gas
of
NOx
analyzer.

Manufacturers
are
already
voluntarily
complying
with
ICAO's
1997
amendments
to
the
criteria
on
calibration
and
test
gases
for
the
test
procedures
of
gaseous
emissions.
Thus,
formal
adoption
of
these
ICAO
test
procedure
amendments
would
require
no
new
action
by
manufacturers.
In
addition,
the
existence
of
ICAO's
requirements
would
ensure
that
the
costs
of
compliance
(
as
well
as
the
air
quality
impact)
with
these
test
procedures
will
be
minimal.
(
In
the
1982
and
1997
final
rules
on
aircraft
engine
emissions
[
47
FR
58462,
December
30,
1982
and
62
FR
25356,
May
8,
1997,
respectively],
EPA
incorporated
by
reference
the
then­
existing
ICAO
testing
and
measurement
procedures
for
aircraft
engine
emissions
[
ICAO
International
Standards
and
Recommended
Practices
Environmental
Protection,
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
"
Aircraft
Engine
Emissions,"
First
and
Second
Editions,
Appendices
3
and
5
were
incorporated
by
reference
in
40
CFR
87.64]
in
order
to
eliminate
confusion
over
minor
differences
in
procedures
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
U.
S.
and
ICAO
standards.)

D.
Correction
of
Exemptions
for
Very
Low
Production
Models
Because
of
an
editorial
error,
the
section
in
the
aircraft
engine
emission
regulations
regarding
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
58
exemptions
for
very
low
production
models
is
incorrectly
specified
(
see
section
40
CFR
part
87.7(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)).
In
the
October
18,
1984
final
rulemaking
(
49
FR
41000),
EPA
intended
to
amend
the
low
production
engine
provisions
of
the
aircraft
regulations
by
revising
paragraph
(
b)

and
deleting
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
b)(
2)
in
order
to
eliminate
the
maximum
annual
production
limit
of
20
engines
per
year.
In
the
revisions
to
paragraph
(
b),
EPA
retained
the
maximum
total
production
limit
of
200
units
for
aircraft
models
certified
after
January
1,
1984.64
For
section
87.7(
b),
EPA
today
proposes
to
correct
this
editorial
error
by
eliminating
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
and
(
b)(
2).

As
discussed
further
in
the
1984
final
rulemaking,
this
proposed
action
would
provide
more
flexibility
for
engine
manufacturers
in
scheduling
during
the
last
few
engine
production
years.
Also,
the
air
quality
impact
of
eliminating
the
annual
production
limit
would
be
very
small.

V.
Coordination
with
FAA
The
requirements
contained
in
the
notice
are
being
proposed
after
consultation
with
the
Secretary
of
Transportation
in
order
to
assure
appropriate
consideration
of
aircraft
safety.
Under
section
232
of
the
CAA,
the
Secretary
of
Transportation
(
DOT),
has
the
responsibility
to
enforce
64This
action
was
taken
in
1984
to
provide
greater
flexibility
to
manufacturers
for
scheduling
engine
production
rates
during
the
final
years.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
59
the
aircraft
emission
standards
established
by
EPA
under
section
231.65
In
addition,
section
231(
b)
of
the
CAA
states
that
"[
a]
ny
regulation
prescribed
under
this
section
*
*
*
shall
take
effect
(
after
consultation
with
the
Secretary
of
Transportation)
to
permit
the
development
and
application
of
the
requisite
technology,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
the
cost
of
compliance
*
*
*."
As
in
past
rulemakings
and
pursuant
to
the
above
referenced
sections
of
the
CAA,
EPA
has
coordinated
with
the
Federal
Aviation
Administration
(
FAA)
of
the
DOT
during
the
process
of
formulating
the
NOx
emission
standards
and
test
procedure
amendments
for
aircraft
engine
emissions
proposed
here.

Moreover,
FAA
is
the
official
U.
S.
delegate
to
ICAO.
FAA
agreed
to
the
1997
and
1999
amendments
at
ICAO's
Third
and
Fourth
Meetings
of
the
Committee
on
Aviation
Environmental
Protection
(
CAEP
3
and
4)
after
advisement
from
EPA.
66
FAA
and
EPA
were
both
members
of
the
CAEP's
Working
Group
3
(
among
others),
whose
objective
was
to
evaluate
emissions
technical
issues
and
develop
recommendations
on
such
issues
for
CAEP
3
and
4.
After
assessing
emissions
test
procedure
amendments
and
new
NOx
standards,
Working
Group
3
made
recommendations
to
CAEP
on
these
elements.
These
recommendations
were
then
considered
at
the
CAEP
3
and
4
meetings,
respectively,
prior
to
their
adoption
by
ICAO
in
1997
and
1999.

65Specifically,
the
FAA
of
the
DOT
has
the
responsibility
to
enforce
the
aircraft
emission
standards
established
by
EPA.

66The
Third
Meeting
of
CAEP
(
CAEP/
3)
occurred
in
Montreal,
Quebec
from
December
5
through
15
in
1995.
CAEP/
4
took
place
in
Montreal
from
April
6
through
8,
1998.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
60
In
addition,
as
discussed
above,
FAA
would
have
the
responsibility
to
enforce
today's
proposed
requirements.
As
a
part
of
its
compliance
responsibilities,
FAA
conducts
the
emission
tests
or
delegates
that
responsibility
to
the
engine
manufacturer,
which
is
then
monitored
by
the
FAA.
Since
the
FAA
does
not
have
the
resources
or
the
funding
to
test
engines
themselves,

FAA
selects
engineers
at
each
plant
to
serve
as
representatives
(
called
designated
engineering
representatives
(
DERs))
for
the
FAA
while
the
manufacturer
performs
the
test
procedures.

DERs'
responsibilities
include
evaluating
the
test
plan,
the
test
engine,
the
test
equipment,
and
the
final
testing
report
sent
to
FAA.
DERs'
responsibilities
are
determined
by
the
FAA
and
today's
proposal
will
not
affect
their
duties.

VI.
Possible
Future
Aircraft
Emissions
Controls
(
EPA/
FAA
Voluntary
Aviation
Emissions
Reduction
Initiative)

It
is
possible
that
other
controls
may
provide
effective
avenues
to
additional
emissions
reduction
from
aircraft.
The
Agency
encourages
extensive
comment
on
the
potential
approach
for
additional
reductions
discussed
below
and
any
other
approaches.

Concerns
by
state
and
local
air
agencies
and
environmental
and
public
health
organizations
about
the
ICAO
standards
(
primarily
CAEP/
4
NOx
standard),
led
to
EPA
and
FAA
signing
a
memorandum
of
understanding
(
MOU)
in
March
1998
agreeing
to
work
to
identify
efforts
that
could
reduce
aircraft
emissions.
67
Since
that
time
FAA
and
EPA
have
jointly
chaired
67FAA
and
EPA,
"
Agreement
Between
Federal
Aviation
Administration
and
Environmental
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
61
a
national
stakeholder
initiative
whose
goal
is
to
develop
a
voluntary
program
to
reduce
pollutants
from
aircraft
and
other
aviation
sources
that
contribute
to
local
and
regional
air
pollution
in
the
United
States.
The
major
stakeholders
participating
in
this
initiative
include
representatives
of
the
aviation
industry
(
passenger
and
cargo
airlines
and
engine
manufacturers),

airports,
state
and
local
air
pollution
control
officials,
environmental
organizations,
and
National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Administration
(
NASA)

Initially,
the
discussions
with
stakeholders
focused
on
aircraft
engine
emission
reduction
retrofit
kits,
which
could
be
applied
to
certain
existing
aircraft
engines.
However,
as
the
initiative
evolved,
the
focus
was
expanded
by
the
stakeholders
to
consider
a
range
of
aviation
emissions
sources
and
potential
control
strategies.
For
example,
not
only
were
control
strategies
being
evaluated
that
could
apply
to
an
aircraft's
main
engines
and
auxiliary
power
unit
(
APU),

but
the
group
was
also
evaluating
strategies
for
various
types
of
ground
service
equipment
(
GSE)

in
use
at
airports
(
e.
g.,
baggage
tugs
and
fuel
trucks),
as
well
as
highway
vehicles
operating
on
airport
grounds
(
e.
g.,
shuttle
buses)
and
stationary
sources
at
airports
(
e.
g.,
boilers
and
repair
facilities).
More
recently,
the
stakeholder
initiative
was
narrowed
to
focus
on
a
two­
step
program:

Protection
Agency
Regarding
Environmental
Matters
Relation
to
Aviation,"
signed
on
March
24,

1998
by
FAA's
Acting
Assistant
Administrator
for
Policy,
Planning,
and
International
Aviation,

Louise
Maillet,
and
EPA's
Acting
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation,
Richard
Wilson.
A
copy
of
this
document
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­
2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­

__)
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
62
S
Near
term:
focused
on
GSE
emissions
reductions
S
Longer
term:
focused
on
aircraft
emissions
reductions68
The
stakeholders
are
currently
working
on
a
framework
for
reaching
consensus
on
the
goals
or
targets
for
emissions
reductions,
timing,
accountability,
State
Implementation
Plan
implications
(
including
general
conformity),
and
numerous
other
issues
that
have
been
raised
for
GSE
and
aircraft
emission
reductions.
If
this
initiative
is
successful,
an
agreement
would
be
reached
among
all
the
stakeholders
on
a
national
voluntary
aviation
emissions
reduction
program.
The
provisions
of
such
an
agreement
could
eventually
be
proposed
and
finalized
as
EPA
regulations
in
some
fashion,
or
they
may
become
enforceable
through
another
mechanism.

The
avenue
to
codify
or
enforce
an
eventual
agreement
has
yet
to
be
determined.

There
is
growing
interest,
particularly
at
the
state
and
local
level,
in
addressing
emissions
from
aircraft
and
other
aviation­
related
sources.
Such
interest
is
often
related
to
plans
for
airport
expansion
which
is
occurring
across
the
country.
Some
state
and
local
agencies
are
already
moving
ahead
to
address
concerns
about
emissions
originating
at
airports.
The
purpose
of
the
EPA/
FAA
voluntary
initiative
is
to
develop
a
program
that
will
achieve
significant
national
emissions
reductions.
It
will
not
attempt
to
assess
or
evaluate
specific
individual
airports,

although
it
may
review
and
use
to
the
extent
possible
emissions
and
other
data
which
may
have
been
generated
by
or
for
an
individual
airport.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
this
effort
is
68A
program
for
aircraft
emissions
reductions
would
not
necessarily
include
engine
emission
standards.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
63
focused
on
reductions
in
air
emissions
and
will
not
address
aircraft
noise.

If
the
voluntary
initiative
is
successful
in
its
efforts,
it
may
not
be
necessary
for
state
and
local
authorities
to
take
further
actions
to
reduce
aviation
emissions.
On
the
other
hand,

depending
on
the
extent
of
emissions
reductions
and
when
they
might
be
implemented,
some
areas
may
need
to
seek
further
reductions
from
those
aviation
sources
they
have
authority
to
address.
Obviously,
each
jurisdiction
will
need
to
make
that
assessment
after
they
know
the
benefits
that
will
occur
as
a
result
of
this
national
initiative.

VII.
Regulatory
Impacts
Aircraft
engines
are
international
commodities,
and
thus,
they
are
designed
to
meet
international
standards.
Today's
proposal
will
have
the
benefit
of
establishing
consistency
between
U.
S.
and
international
emission
standards
and
test
procedures.
Thus,
an
emission
certification
test
which
meets
U.
S.
requirements
would
also
be
applicable
to
all
ICAO
requirements.
Engine
manufacturers
are
already
developing
improved
technology
in
response
to
the
ICAO
standards
that
match
the
standards
proposed
here,
and
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
costs
incurred
by
the
aircraft
industry
as
a
result
of
the
existing
ICAO
standards
should
be
attributed
to
today's
proposed
regulations
(
as
discussed
above,
these
standards
only
apply
to
newly
certified
or
designed
engines,
but
not
already
certified,
newly
manufactured
or
inproduction
engines).
Also,
the
test
procedure
amendments
(
revisions
to
criteria
on
calibration
and
test
gases)
necessary
to
determine
compliance
are
already
being
adhered
to
by
manufacturers
during
current
engine
certification
tests.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
proposed
regulations
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
64
would
impose
no
additional
burden
on
manufacturers.

The
existence
of
ICAO's
requirements
results
in
minimal
cost
as
well
as
air
quality
benefits
from
today's
proposed
requirements.
69
Since
aircraft
and
aircraft
engines
are
international
commodities,
there
is
some
commercial
benefit
to
consistency
between
U.
S.
and
international
emission
standards
and
control
program
requirements
(
i.
e.,
easier
to
qualify
products
for
international
markets
since
FAA
can
certify
engines
for
ICAO
compliance).
While
not
a
regulatory
impact
per
se,
EPA
proposed
adoption
of
the
ICAO
standards
and
related
test
procedures
would
meet
our
treaty
obligations
and
strengthen
the
U.
S.
position
in
future
ICAO/
CAEP
processes
related
to
emission
standards.

VIII.
Public
Participation
We
request
comment
on
all
aspects
of
this
proposal.
This
section
describes
how
you
can
participate
in
this
process.

69CAEP's
Forecasting
and
Economic
Analysis
Support
Group
(
FESG)
concluded
at
CAEP/
4
that
their
assessment
of
these
new
NOx
standards
indicates
that
the
direct
costs
of
the
standards
would
be
minimal,
and
the
benefits
would
be
modest.
(
ICAO,
CAEP/
4,
Working
Paper
4,

"
Economic
Assessment
of
the
EPG
NOx
Stringency
Proposal,"
March
12,
1998,
Presented
by
the
Chairman
of
FESG,
Agenda
Item
1:
Review
of
proposals
relating
to
NOx
emissions,
including
the
amendment
of
Annex
16,
Volume
II..
A
copy
of
this
paper
can
be
found
in
Docket
OAR­

2002­
0030,
Document
No.
__­_­__)
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
65
A.
How
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

We
are
opening
a
formal
comment
period
by
publishing
this
document.
We
will
accept
comments
during
the
period
indicated
under
DATES
above.
If
you
have
an
interest
in
the
proposed
emission
control
program
described
in
this
document,
we
encourage
you
to
comment
on
any
aspect
of
this
rulemaking.
We
also
request
comment
on
specific
topics
identified
throughout
this
proposal.

Your
comments
will
be
most
useful
if
you
include
appropriate
and
detailed
supporting
rationale,
data,
and
analysis.
Commenters
are
especially
encouraged
to
provide
specific
suggestions
for
any
changes
to
any
aspect
of
the
regulations
that
they
believe
need
to
be
modified
or
improved.
You
should
send
all
comments,
except
those
containing
proprietary
information,
to
our
Air
Docket
(
see
section
I.
C
under
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION)

before
the
end
of
the
comment
period.

If
you
submit
proprietary
information
for
our
consideration,
you
should
clearly
separate
it
from
other
comments
by
labeling
it
"
Confidential
Business
Information."
You
should
also
send
it
directly
to
the
contact
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
instead
of
to
the
public
docket.
This
will
help
ensure
that
no
one
inadvertently
places
proprietary
information
in
the
docket.
If
you
want
us
to
use
your
confidential
information
as
part
of
the
basis
for
the
final
rule,
you
should
send
a
nonconfidential
version
of
the
document
summarizing
the
key
data
or
information.
We
will
disclose
information
covered
by
a
claim
of
confidentiality
only
through
the
application
of
procedures
described
in
40
CFR
part
2.
If
you
don't
identify
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
66
information
as
confidential
when
we
receive
it,
we
may
make
it
available
to
the
public
without
notifying
you.

B.
Will
There
Be
a
Public
Hearing?

If
EPA
conducts
public
hearings
on
today's
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM),

EPA
will
publish
a
timely
document
in
the
Federal
Register
that
specifies
the
time
and
location
of
such
hearings
(
see
DATES).

IX.
Statutory
Authority
The
statutory
authority
for
today's
proposal
is
provided
by
sections
231
and
301(
a)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
amended,
42
U.
S.
C.
7571
and
7601.
See
section
III
of
today's
NPRM
for
discussion
of
how
EPA
meets
the
CAA's
statutory
requirements.

X.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
this
regulatory
action
is
  
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
order
defines
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
67
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;

(
2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
is
not
a
"
significant
regulatory
action''
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review.
As
a
result
of
the
ICAO
standards,
all
aircraft
engines
covered
by
today's
proposed
rule
already
meet
the
standards
or
will
do
so
by
the
time
the
standards
go
into
effect.
Thus,
the
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
today's
proposed
standards
would
be
minimal,
and
none
of
the
other
thresholds
identified
in
the
executive
order
would
be
triggered
by
this
action.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
rule
would
not
itself
impose
any
reporting
or
recordkeeping
requirements.
Any
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
associated
with
these
standards
would
be
defined
by
the
Secretary
of
Transportation
in
enforcement
regulations
issued
later
under
the
provisions
of
section
232
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Since
most
if
not
all
manufacturers
already
measure
NOx
and
report
the
results
to
the
FAA,
any
additional
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
68
associated
with
FAA
enforcement
of
these
proposed
regulations
would
likely
be
very
small.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
that
meet
the
definition
for
business
based
on
SBA
size
standards;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,

school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
or
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
The
following
table
1
provides
an
overview
of
the
primary
SBA
small
business
categories
potentially
affected
by
this
proposed
regulation.

Table
1
 
Primary
SBA
Small
Business
Categories
Potentially
Affected
by
This
Proposed
Regulation
Industry
NAICSa
Codes
Defined
by
SBA
as
a
small
business
if:
b
Manufacturers
of
new
aircraft
engines
336412
<
1,000
employees
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
69
Manufacturers
of
new
aircraft
336411
<
1,500
employees
Scheduled
air
carriers,
passenger
and
freight
481
<
1,500
employees
a
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)

b
According
to
SBA's
regulations
(
13
CFR
121),
businesses
with
no
more
than
the
listed
number
of
employees
or
dollars
in
annual
receipts
are
considered
"
small
entities"
for
purposes
of
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis.

After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
proposed
rule
will
not
impose
any
requirements
on
small
entities.
Because
of
the
limited
classes
of
aircraft
engines
to
which
today's
proposed
regulations
apply,
no
small
entities
would
be
affected.
Our
review
of
the
list
of
manufacturers
of
commercial
aircraft
gas
turbine
engines
with
rated
thrust
greater
than
26.7
kN
indicates
that
there
are
no
U.
S.

manufacturers
of
these
engines
that
qualify
as
small
businesses.
We
are
unaware
of
any
foreign
manufacturers
with
a
U.
S.­
based
facility
that
would
qualify
as
a
small
business.
In
addition,
the
proposed
rule
will
not
impose
significant
economic
impacts
on
engine
manufacturers.
As
discussed
above
in
section
VII,
engine
manufacturers
are
already
developing
improved
technology
in
response
to
the
ICAO
standards
that
match
the
standards
proposed
here,
and
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
costs
incurred
by
the
aircraft
industry
as
a
result
of
the
existing
ICAO
standards
should
be
attributed
to
today's
proposed
regulations.
Also,
the
test
procedure
amendments
(
revisions
to
criteria
on
calibration
and
test
gases)
necessary
to
determine
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
70
compliance
are
already
being
adhered
to
by
manufacturers
during
current
engine
certification
tests.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
proposed
regulations
would
impose
no
additional
burden
on
manufacturers.
The
existence
of
ICAO's
requirements
results
in
minimal
cost
from
today's
proposed
requirements.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
P.
L.
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,

and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,

in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,

including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
71
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditure
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
As
a
result
of
the
ICAO
standards,
all
aircraft
engines
covered
by
today's
proposal
would
already
meet
the
proposed
standards.
Thus,
the
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
today's
proposed
standards
will
be
minimal.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
"
Federalism"
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."

"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government."

This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
72
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,

or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
proposed
rule
creates
no
mandates
on
State,
local
or
tribal
governments.
The
rule
imposes
no
enforceable
duties
on
these
entities,
because
they
do
not
manufacture
any
engines
that
are
subject
to
this
rule.
This
rule
will
be
implemented
at
the
Federal
level
and
impose
compliance
obligations
only
on
private
industry.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
"
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments"
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."

This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
The
proposed
emission
standards
and
other
related
requirements
for
private
industry
in
this
rule
have
national
applicability
and
therefore
do
not
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
Tribal
Governments.
This
rule
will
be
implemented
at
the
Federal
level
and
impose
compliance
obligations
only
on
engine
manufacturers.
Tribal
governments
will
be
affected
only
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
73
to
the
extent
they
purchase
and
use
aircraft
having
regulated
engines.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
EPA
specifically
solicits
additional
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
tribal
officials.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
(
1)
is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
Section
5­
501
of
the
Order
directs
the
Agency
to
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,

and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.

This
proposal
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.

The
effects
of
ozone
and
PM
on
children's
health
were
addressed
in
detail
in
EPA's
rulemaking
to
establish
NAAQS
for
these
pollutants,
and
EPA
is
not
revisiting
those
issues
here.

EPA
believes,
however,
that
the
emission
reductions
from
this
rulemaking
will
further
reduce
air
toxics
and
the
related
adverse
impacts
on
children's
health.
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
74
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
("
NTTAA"),
Public
Law
104­
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

This
proposed
rulemaking
involves
technical
standards
for
testing
emissions
for
commercial
aircraft
gas
turbine
engines.
EPA
proposes
to
use
test
procedures
contained
in
ICAO
International
Standards
and
Recommended
Practices
Environmental
Protection,
with
the
Preliminary
Draft
 
Do
not
cite,
quote,
or
distribute
2/
28/
03
75
proposed
modifications
contained
in
this
rulemaking.
70
These
procedures
are
currently
used
by
all
manufacturers
of
commercial
aircraft
gas
turbine
engines
(
with
thrust
greater
than
26.7
kN)
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
ICAO
emissions
standards.

EPA
welcomes
comments
on
this
aspect
of
the
proposed
rulemaking
and,
specifically,

invites
the
public
to
identify
potentially­
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
and
to
explain
why
such
standards
should
be
used
in
this
regulation.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
87
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,

Incorporation
by
reference,
Aircraft
engines.

Dated:
______,
200_

Christine
Todd
Whitman,

Administrator.

70ICAO
International
Standards
and
Recommended
Practices
Environmental
Protection,
Annex
16,
Volume
II,
"
Aircraft
Engine
Emissions,"
Second
Edition,
July
1993
­­
Amendment
3,
March
20,
1997.
Copies
of
this
document
can
be
obtained
from
ICAO
(
www.
icao.
int)
or
found
in
Docket
OAR
2002­
0030,
Document
__­_­__.
