Second
Round
of
FAA
Comments
on
EPA
Preliminary
Draft
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM)
on
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Aircraft
and
Aircraft
Emissions;
Emissions
Standards
and
Test
Procedures
GENERAL
As
previously
stated
in
our
first
round
of
comments
to
EPA's
draft
NPRM
to
adopt
ICAO
CAEP
4
NOx
standards
of
1999,
FAA
strongly
supports
the
long
overdue
proposal
to
adopt
the
CAEP
4
standards
to
40
CFR
Part
87
as
they
appear
in
the
NPRM
section
titled
Part
87
­­
Control
of
Air
Pollution
From
Aircraft
and
Aircraft
Engines.

We
appreciate
the
considerable
changes
and
additions
to
the
Draft
NPRM
that
were
taken
into
consideration.
However,
we
continue
to
have
serious
concerns
over
EPA's
approach
to
the
NPRM
preamble
to
adopt
the
CAEP
4
NOx
standards.
We
believe
that
the
preamble
should
be
much
more
focused
by
simply
specifying
the
standards;
clearly
and
unambiguously
quantifying
aviation's
relative
contribution
to
pollution
presently
and,
according
to
current
forecasts,
in
the
future;
highlighting
the
credible
international
approach
to
reducing
aviation
emissions
by
which
standards
are
established
through
ICAO;
highlighting
the
importance
of
costs,
benefits,
technology,
and
safety
in
establishing
standards;
identifying
the
successful
progress
of
the
aviation
industry
in
reducing
emissions
to
date;
and
identifying
the
continued
efforts
of
the
international
community
in
addressing
aviation
emissions
in
a
harmonized
fashion.

Limiting
the
NPRM
to
these
most
germane
topics
would
keep
the
regulatory
process
focused
on
adoption
of
the
current
CAEP
4
standard
alone
and
invite
less
controversy
over
what
should
otherwise
be
an
easy
progression
in
the
development
of
U.
S.
aircraft
emissions
standards.
EPA's
approach
to
adopting
the
latest
international
standards
appears
to
be
a
venue
for
unlimited
comment
on
every
possible
aspect
of
aviation
emissions
rather
than
simply
an
adoption
of
the
CAEP
4
NOx
standards.
More
appropriately,
much
of
the
text
currently
found
in
the
NPRM
might
best
be
drafted
in
a
separate
request
for
information
and,
with
important
consideration
given
to
timing
at
this
point,
would
help
to
expedite
adoption
of
the
CAEP
4
NOx
standards
before
the
logical
U.
S.
deadline
of
December
31,
2003.

It
is
clear
from
the
original
substantive
text,
continued
discussions
and
comments
among
our
staffs,
and
addition
of
what
appears
to
be
even
more
extemporaneous
text
to
the
NPRM,
that
we
are
not
likely
to
persuade
EPA
into
adopting
a
more
simplified,
focused
approach.
Consequently,
we
are
very
reluctantly
offering
comments
to
the
sections
of
the
text
to
which
we
most
strongly
object,
or
otherwise
believe
require
changing,
and
are
only
offering
direct
editorial
changes
to
the
discussion
on
the
stakeholder
process
found
on
pages
76
through
79.

COMMENTS
TO
THE
PREAMBLE
Page
2,
first
full
paragraph,
third
second
sentence:
"
Since
aircraft
and
aircraft
engines
are
international
commodities,
there
is
some
commercial
benefit
to
consistency..."
insert
"
significant"
before
commercial.
Harmonization
offers
a
very
meaningful
benefit
to
US
manufacturers.

Page
14,
first
full
paragraph,
second
sentence,
and
elsewhere
in
the
NPRM:
"
The
CAEP
is
responsible
for
discussing
and
recommending
measures
to
the
ICAO
Council
that
address
the
environmental
impact
of
international
civil
aviation."
The
CAEP
does
much
more
than
simply
discuss
and
recommend
measures,
such
as
researching,
evaluating,
and
recommending
measures
to
the
ICAO
Council
that
address
the
environmental
impact
of
international
civil
aviation.
The
document
still
does
not
fully
convey
the
importance
and
role
of
CAEP
in
establishing
international
standards.

Page
17,
Environmental
Need
for
Control:
The
data,
as
presented,
is
still
confusing.
The
text
should
state
that
aviation
contributes
less
than
2%
of
NOx
emissions
rather
than
"...
over
1
percent
of
the
NOx
emissions..."
Figures
identifying
a
40%
increase
to
NOx
by
2020
(
p.
18)
are
based
on
1995
reports/
data
and,
we
believe,
there
are
more
current
sources
of
data
for
aircraft
emissions
that
should
be
referenced.
For
example,
the
more
recent
2001
EPA
trends
reports,
which
include
updated
EPA
methodologies
for
estimating
emissions,
indicate
that
from
1999
to
2001
there
was
a
19%
decrease
in
aircraft
NOx
emissions,
a
24%
decrease
in
CO
emissions,
and
a
52%
decrease
in
VOC
emissions.
These
"
actual"
decreases
must
be
identified
if
EPA
persists
in
wanting
to
"
project"
increases
out
to
2020
based
upon
speculative
assumptions.
Again,
quoting
too
many
statistics
in
an
unbalanced
fashion
is
likely
to
give
the
reader
an
inaccurate
view
of
the
actual
current
contribution
of
aviation
emissions
and
their
comparison
to
other
sources,
and
an
inflated
basis
upon
which
to
judge
potential
future
increases
of
such
emissions.

Page
19:
"
Recently,
FAA
reported
that
flights
of
commercial
air
carriers
will
increase
by
18
percent
from
2002
to
2010
and
45
percent
from
2002
to
2020."
To
fully
give
context
to
the
impact
of
the
events
of
September
11th,
earlier
projections
should
be
quoted
here
for
comparison.

Page
55,
first
partial
paragraph,
last
sentence:
"...
we
need
more
time
to
better
understand
the
benefits
and
cost
of
compliance
with
such
standards..."
CAEP
not
only
looks
at
costs,
but
also
the
benefits
of
various
stringency
standards
and
this
should
be
equally
conveyed
throughout
the
NPRM.

Page
56,
the
footnote
on
fleet
structure:
We
have
not
fully
reviewed
the
reference,
however
it
is
difficult
to
understand
why
the
airlines
would
be
incorporating
RJ's
if
they
are
that
much
less
fuel
efficient
than
aircraft
they
are
replacing.
Could
some
clarification
be
provided
on
this?

Page
59,
first
partial
paragraph,
last
sentence:
Perhaps
a
more
thorough
discussion
of
the
LTTG,
including
the
fact
that
it
makes
considerations
beyond
CAEP
6,
should
be
included.

Page
60,
first
full
paragraph,
first
sentence:
Same
comment
with
regard
to
costs
and
benefits
as
made
to
page
55,
first
partial
paragraph,
last
sentence.

Page
68,
Section
3:
It
would
be
much
better
to
open
this
section
with
an
introduction
of
ICAO's
review
of
production
cut­
off
dates
and
ask
for
comments
in
this
context.
This
would
be
more
consistent
with
the
US
approach
and
not
leave
ICAO
as
an
after
thought
in
this
part
of
the
NPRM.

Page
69,
first
paragraph,
last
three
sentences:
The
concept
of
emissions
averaging
pertaining
to
the
CAEP
4
NOx
standard
should
be
deleted
from
this
NPRM.
Current
text
already
acknowledges
that
the
concept
would
have
little
value
with
respect
to
this
rulemaking.
If
EPA
believes
this
could
be
a
valid
concept,
then
it
should
be
presented
as
such
for
possible
future
consideration
under
the
ICAO
CAEP
work
program,
and
future
considerations
of
more
stringent
emissions
standards
that
may
be
adopted
by
ICAO.

EDITORIAL
CHANGES
NEEDED
FOR
THE
SECTION
ON
THE
STAKEHOLDER
PROCESS,
PAGES
76­
79:

We
suggest
that
the
entire
section
on
the
stakeholder
process,
"
VI
Possible
Future
Aircraft
Emissions
Controls...."
be
edited
according
to
the
following:
VI.
Possible
Future
Aviation
Emissions
Reductions
(
EPA/
FAA
Voluntary
Aviation
Emissions
Reduction
Initiative)

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.
It
is
possible
that
other
approaches
may
provide
effective
avenues
to
achieve
additional
aviation
emissions
reductions
beyond
the
regulatory
standards
for
aircraft
engine
certification
promulgated
by
EPA.
The
Agency
invites
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
aviation
emissions
led
to
EPA
and
FAA
signing
a
memorandum
of
understanding
(
MOU)
in
March
1998
agreeing
to
work
to
identify
efforts
that
could
reduce
emissions.
124
Since
that
time
FAA
and
EPA
have
jointly
chaired
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
NASA.

Initially,
the
discussions
with
stakeholders
focused
on
the
prospect
of
aircraft
engine
emission
reduction
retrofit
kits,
which
might
be
applied
to
certain
existing
aircraft
engines.

However,
since
such
kits
did
not
materialize
as
anticipated,
the
focus
was
expanded
by
the
stakeholdersto
identify
strategies
for
various
types
of
ground
service
equipment
(
GSE)
in
use
at
airports
(
e.
g.,
baggage
tugs
and
fuel
trucks),
in
addition
to
strategies
to
reduce
aircraft
emissions.

More
recently,
the
stakeholders
agreed
to
attempt
to
reach
consensus
on
a
two­
step
program
based
on
an
assessment
of
the
relative
timing
involved
to
achieve
further
wide­
scale
emissions
reductions
in
ground­
based
aviation
sources
compared
to
the
aircraft
fleet:
Near
term:

focused
on
GSE
emissions
reductions
Longer
term:
focused
on
aircraft
emissions
reductions125
124FAA
and
EPA,
"
Agreement
Between
Federal
Aviation
Administration
and
Environmental
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.
__­_­
__)

125A
program
for
aircraft
emissions
reductions
would
supplement
the
traditional
regulatory
approach
to
engine
emission
standards.
The
stakeholders
are
currently
discussing
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
mechanism
that
could
be
used
to
codify
or
enforce
an
eventual
agreement
has
yet
to
be
determined.
The
goal
of
the
EPA/
FAA
stakeholder
initiative
is
to
develop
a
program
that
will
achieve
significant
national
emissions
reductions.

[
Some
of
the
sentences
in
the
above
paragraph
have
been
moved
into
other
paragraphs.

Other
sentences
are
simply
proposed
to
be
deleted.]

[
This
final
paragraph
should
be
entirely
deleted.
It
is
not
consistent
with
a
primary
driver
of
a
national
agreement,
which
is
to
substitute
a
nationally­
consistent
approach
for
a
patchwork
of
state/
local
requirements.]
