PUBLIC
HEARING
FOR
AIRCRAFT
ENGINE
EMISSION
STANDARDS
NOTICE
OF
PROPOSED
RULEMAKING
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Thursday,
November
13,
2003
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
N.
W.
Washington,
D.
C.

Environmental
Protection
Agency
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
N.
W.
Washington,
D.
C.
2
PARTICIPANTS:

Don
Zinger,
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Glenn
Passavant,
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Mike
Thrift,
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Bryan
Manning,
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Amy
Royden,
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
Russell
Long,
Blue
Water
Network
Mark
MacLeod,
Environmental
Defense
Jake
Schmidt,
Center
for
Clean
Air
Policy
Jack
Saporito,
Alliance
of
Residents
Concerning
O

Hare
Nancy
Young,
Air
Transport
Association
3
AGENDA:
PAGE
EPA
Opening
Statement
4
Testimony
7
Royden
­
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
Long
­
Blue
Water
Network
1
MacLeod
­
Environmental
Defense
3
Schmidt
­
Center
for
Clean
Air
Policy
4
Saporito
­
Alliance
of
Residents
Concerning
O

Hare
5
Young
­
Air
Transport
Association
86
4
P
R
O
C
E
E
D
I
N
G
S
1
MR.
ZINGER:
If
we
could
ask
folks
to
take
2
their
seat
please
and
we

ll
get
started.
3
Good
morning.
I
would
like
to
welcome
all
of
4
you
to
this
very
impressive
room.
We
certainly
have
5
plenty
of
seats
for
all,
so
I
would
ask
you
if
you
6
would
like
­­
it
looks
like
you
are
all
seated
over
in
7
this
direction
anyway
so
I
think
that
works.
8
Welcome
to
today

s
hearing.
My
name
is
Don
9
Zinger.
I

m
the
acting
chief
of
staff
in
the
Office
of
10
Air
and
Radiation
and
I
will
be
serving
as
the
11
presiding
officer
for
this
hearing.
12
We
will
be
hearing
testimony
today
on
a
notice
13
of
proposed
rulemaking
for
amending
the
existing
14
emissions
standards
for
oxides
of
nitrogen
for
new
15
commercial
aircraft
engines.
The
proposed
regulations
16
being
considered
today
were
published
in
the
Federal
17
Register
on
September
30,
2003.
18
The
proposed
emissions
standards
are
19
equivalent
to
the
latest
emissions
standards
of
the
20
United
Nations
International
Civil
Aviation
21
5
Organization
and
thereby
would
bring
the
United
States
1
aircraft
standards
into
alignment
with
the
2
international
standards.
These
standards
would
go
into
3
effect
in
2004
and
would
apply
to
aircraft
engines
with
4
rated
thrusts
greater
than
26.7
kilonewtons
that
are
5
newly
certified
after
the
effective
date
of
the
6
regulations.
7
Following
this
public
hearing
there
will
be
an
8
opportunity
for
everyone
to
submit
us
written
comments.
9
Representing
EPA
with
me
are
Glenn
Passavant
10
and
Bryan
Manning,
both
from
the
Office
of
11
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
and
Mike
Thrift
from
12
the
Office
of
General
Counsel.
13
Before
getting
started
with
today

s
testimony
14
I
would
like
to
take
a
few
minutes
to
read
a
prepared
15
statement
to
outline
how
we
will
hold
this
hearing.
16
We
are
conducting
this
hearing
in
accordance
17
with
Section
3.07(
D)(
5)
of
the
amended
Clean
Air
Act
18
which
requires
EPA
to
provide
interested
persons
with
19
an
opportunity
for
oral
presentation
of
data,
views
or
20
arguments
in
addition
to
an
opportunity
to
make
written
21
6
submissions.
This
hearing
provides
the
opportunity
for
1
such
oral
presentations.
2
The
official
record
for
this
hearing
will
be
3
kept
open
until
December
15,
2003,
as
provi
not
apply.
4
The
presiding
officer,
however,
is
authorized
to
5
strike
statements
from
the
record
which
are
deemed
6
irrelevant
or
needlessly
repetitious
and
to
enforce
7
reasonable
limits
on
the
duration
of
the
statement
of
8
any
witness.
9
Witnesses
must
state
their
name
and
10
affiliation
prior
to
making
their
statement.
When
a
11
witness
has
finished
his
or
her
presentation
members
of
12
this
panel
will
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
13
related
to
the
testimony.
Witness
are
reminded
that
14
any
false
statements
or
false
responses
to
questions
15
may
be
a
violation
of
the
law.
16
Witnesses
will
have
a
chance
later
in
the
17
hearing
to
provide
rebuttal
and
supplemental
testimony.
18
In
addition,
witnesses
can
submit
rebuttal
and
19
supplemental
testimony
until
December
15th.
20
If
any
members
of
the
audience
wishing
to
21
7
testify
have
not
already
signed
up
please
submit
your
1
name
at
the
reception
table
over
there
at
the
entrance.
2
We
will
try
to
accommodate
everyone
who
wants
to
3
testify.
Everyone
attending
should
sign
the
register
4
whether
or
not
you
testify.
5
Finally,
if
you
would
like
a
transcript
of
the
6
proceedings
you
should
make
arrangements
directly
with
7
the
court
reporter
during
one
of
the
breaks.
8
Before
we
begin
testimony
I
want
to
ask
if
9
there
are
any
clarifying
questions.
Okay,
I
see
none.
10
With
that
we
will
begin
with
our
first
11
speaker.
The
first
witness
this
morning
is
Ms.
Amy
12
Royden
who
is
representing
STAPPA
and
ALAPCO.
13
Ms.
Royden?
Feel
free
to
sit
down
at
the
14
table.
If
we
could
also
ask
you
to
write
your
name
on
15
the
placard.
That
helps
the
court
reporter
get
the
16
spelling
correctly.
17
MS.
ROYDEN:
Okay.
18
MR.
ZINGER:
And
we
would
ask
that
subsequent
19
witnesses
also
do
the
same.
I
think
there
is
some
20
markers
up
there.
21
8
MS.
ROYDEN:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Amy
1
Royden
and
I

m
a
senior
staff
associate
of
STAPPA,
the
2
State
and
Territorial
Air
Pollution
Program
3
Administrators,
and
ALAPCO,
the
Association
of
Local
4
Air
Pollution
Control
Officials,
the
two
national
5
associations
of
air
quality
officials
of
the
states,
6
territories
and
more
than
165
major
metropolitan
areas
7
across
the
country.
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
8
present
STAPPA
and
ALAPCO

s
testimony
on
EPA

s
proposed
9
rule
to
amend
the
existing
regulations
for
NOx
10
emissions
from
­­
and
test
procedure
requirements
for
11
new
commercial
aircraft
to
mirror
those
of
the
United
12
Nations
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization,
13
ICAO.
14
STAPPA
and
ALAPCO
have
long
been
concerned
15
with
the
significant
and
ever
growing
level
of
aviation
16
related
emissions
and,
moreover,
the
associated
adverse
17
health
consequences
that
occur
in
numerous
areas
of
the
18
country.
While
we
remain
confident
that
states
and
19
localities
will
be
able
to
implement
measures
to
20
effectively
reduce
emissions
from
ground
access
21
9
vehicles
and
ground
support
equipment
at
airports,
we
1
depend
upon
EPA
for
its
leadership
in
regulating
2
emissions
for
aircraft.
Particularly
as
the
nation
3
prepares
to
implement
the
health
based
eight
hour
ozone
4
and
PM
2.5
NAAQS,
it
is
essential
that
we
not
squander
5
important
opportunities
for
garnering
much
needed
6
emission
reductions.
7
For
this
reason
STAPPA
and
ALAPCO
are
8
extremely
disappointed
in
EPA

s
recently
proposed
NOx
9
emission
standards
and
test
procedures
for
new
10
commercial
aircraft.
The
proposed
standards
will
do
11
nothing
to
reduce
aircraft
emissions
because
nearly
all
12
currently
certified
or
in
production
engine
models
13
already
meets
or
performs
better
than
the
ICAO
14
standards
and
manufacturers
already
adhere
to
the
ICAO
15
test
procedures.
16
In
my
comments
today
I
will
highlight
the
17
importance
of
controlling
NOx
from
aircraft
and
propose
18
a
preferred
approach
for
EPA
and
regulating
NOx
19
emissions
from
aircraft.
20
As
you
know,
NOx
is
a
major
contributor
to
21
10
multiple
environmental
problems
including
ozone,
fine
1
particles,
acid
rain,
regional
haze
and
the
2
nitrification
of
water
bodies.
Significant
additional
3
reductions
in
emissions
of
this
pollutant
are
needed
to
4
adequately
address
these
problems
and
to
balance
the
5
projected
growth
in
activity
in
sectors
that
are
6
responsible
for
most
NOx
emissions.
7
In
the
U.
S.
NOx
emissions
from
all
sources
8
actually
increased
slightly,
2st
significant
sources
of
9
NOx.
With
the
introduction
of
the
Tier
II
federal
10
motor
vehicle
standards
NOx
emissions
from
the
typical
11
light
duty
vehicle
will
be
99
percent
lower
than
those
12
from
the
uncontrolled
1960'
s
car.
13
The
recently
adopted
2007
standards
will
14
require
a
90
percent
reduction
in
NOx
from
current
15
levels
for
heavy
duty
trucks
and
buses.
The
proposed
16
standards
for
heavy
duty
non­
road
engines
will
reduce
17
new
engine
NOx
by
90
percent
from
current
levels
18
starting
in
2011.
Moreover,
NOx
emissions
from
power
19
plants
in
the
Eastern
U.
S.
are
now
controlled
at
20
approximately
70
percent
and
will
likely
be
controlled
21
11
even
more
stringently
and
year
round
as
a
result
of
1
anticipated
multi­
pollutant
legislative
proposals
in
2
the
near
future.
3
Finally,
as
a
result
of
the
federal
4
transportation
conformity
process,
ground
5
transportation
programs
in
major
urban
areas
will
face
6
significant
pressure
to
reduce
NOx
emissions.
By
7
contrast,
NOx
emissions
from
aircraft
are
projected
to
8
increase
at
a
rapid
rate
into
the
future.
Using
recent
9
FAA
growth
projections,
aircraft
emissions
are
10
projected
to
double
by
2030.
Currently
NOx
emissions
11
from
major
airports
already
are
greater
than
emissions
12
from
large
stationary
sources,
such
as
refineries
and
13
electrical
generating
facilities.
For
most
states
and
14
localities
with
major
airports
and
seaports,
aircraft
15
and
international
marine
vessels
are
the
only
two
16
source
sectors
where
emissions
are
projected
to
17
increase
in
the
future.
18
As
described
above,
other
major
stationary
and
19
mobile
sources
are
expected
to
meet
much
more
stringent
20
standards
than
what
might
be
achieved
by
even
the
21
12
deepest
cuts
being
contemplated
in
CAEP
6,
to
say
1
nothing
of
the
standards
that
EPA
is
proposing
in
its
2
rulemaking.
Given
the
long
life
and
slow
turnover
of
3
the
aircraft
fleet,
the
most
stringent
feasible
4
standards
are
needed
now
to
help
offset
future
growth.
5
6
In
assessing
the
stringency
of
the
standards
7
proposed
by
EPA
and
NPRM
we
note
that
the
combined
8
effect
of
these
standards
with
previously
adopted
9
standards
will
achieve
only
about
a
33
percent
10
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
from
new
engines
models
11
relative
to
uncontrolled
levels.
By
comparison,
all
12
other
emission
sources
are
being
controlled
to
well
13
over
50
percent
and
some
as
high
as
95
percent.
14
We
also
note
that
the
word

standard

as
used
15
to
describe
the
emission
levels
set
by
ICAO
is
a
16
misnomer.
First,
emission
standards
set
by
air
17
regulatory
agencies
for
all
other
sources
of
air
18
pollutant
emissions
always
define
a
technology
forcing
19
performance
level
that
is
beyond
what
sources
are
20
currently
achieving,
unlike
wevels
should
be
and
what
21
13
technology
would
likely
be
able
to
achieve.
1
By
contrast,
the
ICAO
standards
and
the
2
aircraft
engine
standards
proposed
in
this
NPRM
are
not
3
technology
forcing
since
by
the
date
the
standards
are
4
adopted
most
engines
in
production
already
meet
the
5
standards
by
significant
margins.
Today
85
percent
of
6
existing
engines
already
meet
the
standards
adopted
by
7
ICAO.
8
Second,
the
proposed
NOx
standards
would
not
9
apply
to
already
certified,
newly
manufactured
engines.
10
A
primary
consideration
in
standard
setting
by
ICAO
is
11
the
number
of
in­
production
and
already
certified
12
engines
that
would
not
meet
the
proposed
standard.
13
CAEP
4
responded
to
the
concern
about
potential
impact
14
of
new
standards
on
the
asset
values
of
these
extinct
15
fleet
aircraft
by
only
applying
the
new
stringency
16
level
to
newly
certified
engines.
Consequently,
high
17
emitting
engines
can
continue
to
be
manufactured
and
18
brought
into
service,
further
contributing
to
the
long
19
term
increase
in
aircraft
emissions
that
is
projected
20
to
occur
absent
a
more
aggressive
approach
to
21
14
regulating
the
source.
1
This
type
of
regulation
is
clearly
2
inconsistent
with
the
approach
used
for
other
source
3
sectors
and
inadequate
to
meet
the
needs
of
state
and
4
local
air
pollution
control
agencies
in
attaining
the
5
federal
ozone
standards.
Nearly
all,
94
percent,
6
already
certified
engines
currently
meet
or
perform
7
better
than
the
CAEP
4
NOx
standard.
8
Furthermore,
as
noted
in
EPA

s
NPRM,
except
9
for
aircraft
engines,
all
current
mobile
source
10
programs
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
that
involve
new
11
emission
standards
apply
to
newly
manufactured
engines
12
or
vehicles
based
on
the
certification
model
year,
and
13
we
question
the
logic
of
not
following
the
same
14
approach
here.
At
a
minimum
in
its
rule
EPA
should
15
identify
a
production
cut
off
date
for
already
16
certified
engines
to
prevent
manufacturers
from
17
offering
these
engines
for
sale
unless
the
engines
were
18
redesigned
and
recertified
to
meet
the
standard.
19
STAPPA
and
ALAPCO
believe
that
at
the
very
20
least
it
is
incumbent
upon
EPA
to
assess
the
viability
21
15
of
setting
standards
for
aircraft
engines
that
reflect
1
the
emission
reductions
that
technologists
will
deliver
2
at
a
future
implementation
date.
EPA
should
also
3
consider
a
certification
process
that
accounts
for
4
engine
and
airframe
combinations.
NASA
is
engaged
in
a
5
research
and
development
program
to
develop
an
engine
6
that
emits
70
percent
less
NOx
than
required
by
the
7
CAEP
2
standards.
The
goal
is
to
achieve
this
8
reduction
without
adversonable
starting
point
for
a
9
true
technology
based
regulation.
10
Given
the
promising
technological
developments
11
occurring
with
aircraft,
aerodynamic
design
and
12
stronger,
lighter
materials,
there
is
tremendous
13
promise
for
more
fuel
efficient
and
lower
emitting
14
aircraft
in
the
future.
EPA
should
consider
ways
to
15
regulate
emissions
from
the
aircraft
rather
than
the
16
engine
in
order
to
encourage
the
ongoing
development
17
and
application
of
new
airframe
technology.
18
In
conclusion,
state
air
quality
officials
and
19
environmental
commissioners
have
consistently
20
articulated
to
EPA,
FAA
and
DOT
that
the
federal
21
16
government
needs
to
find
a
way
to
reduce
aircraft
1
emissions
in
a
manner
that
will
ensure
that
they
will
2
eventually
start
to
decline
compared
to
current
levels.
3
The
rule
proposed
by
EPA
in
the
NPRM
falls
far
short
4
of
putting
us
on
a
path
to
that
goal
and
in
fact
will
5
guarantee
that
aircraft
related
emissions
of
NOx
will
6
continue
to
increase
significantly
in
the
foreseeable
7
future.
This
leaves
state
and
local
agencies
in
the
8
unenviable
position
of
having
to
extract
further
9
emission
reductions
from
other
sectors
in
order
to
10
offset
increased
emissions
from
the
aviation
sector.
11
The
history
of
Clean
Air
Act
implementation
is
12
a
testament
to
the
fact
that
technological
innovation
13
follows
rather
than
precedes
the
adoption
of
stringent
14
emission
reduction,
emission
control
requirements.
15
This
has
been
the
case
for
emission
control
16
technologies
for
both
stationary
and
mobile
sources.
17
Further,
history
has
shown
that
the
costs
of
these
18
control
technologies
almost
always
has
been
far
lower
19
than
suggested
by
initial
estimates.
In
order
to
20
achieve
the
emission
reductions
from
aircraft
engines
21
17
necessary
to
eventually
reverse
the
trend
of
increasing
1
NOx
emissions
from
this
source
EPA
must
establish
2
standards
that
promote
and
accelerate
technological
3
innovation.
4
Consequently,
STAPPA
and
ALAPCO
believe
that
5
the
era
of
EPA
adopting
aircrashould
be
subject
to
the
6
same
relative
level
of
control
as
other
major
7
industries.
We
recommend
that
in
its
final
rule
EPA
8
establish
standards
that
meet
the
air
quality
needs
of
9
the
U.
S.
using
the
same
technology
forcing
approach
10
that
the
agency
has
so
successfully
used
for
other
11
mobile
sources.
12
In
the
coming
weeks
we
will
continue
to
13
evaluate
the
agency

s
proposal
and
develop
written
14
technical
comments
for
submittal
by
the
deadline.
15
STAPPA
and
ALAPCO
look
forward
to
working
with
EPA
16
closely
to
address
emissions
from
aircraft
in
a
way
17
that
will
ensure
appropriate
and
meaningful
reductions.
18
I
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
provide
19
the
Association

s
perspectives
on
this
proposed
20
rulemaking.
Thanks.
21
18
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you
very
much.
I
have
a
1
couple
of
clarifying
questions
and
then
we
will
see
if
2
other
panelists
also
do.
3
On
page
3
of
your
testimony
you
mention
that
4
­­
you
suggest
that
EPA
identify
a
production
cut­
off
5
date
for
already
certified
engines.
Do
you
have
a
date
6
in
mind
that
you
would
like
to
recommend
to
us?
7
MS.
ROYDEN:
Not
at
this
time,
but
it
is
8
something
we
will
consider
for
inclusion
in
our
written
9
comments
and
I

ll
note
that,
that
that
what

s
you
are
10
interested
in.
11
MR.
ZINGER:
Also
on
page
3
you
bring
up
the
12
idea
of
a
certification
process
that
accounts
for
both
13
the
engine
and
the
airframe
itself.
Has
your
14
organization
looked
at
the
legal
authority
that
EPA
15
might
have
to
do
that?
16
MS.
ROYDEN:
No,
we
have
not.
17
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
Any
other
questions?
18
MR.
MANNING:
I
just
have
one
clarifying
19
question
on
page
3,
the
first
paragraph.
I
think
in
20
the
middle
it
says,

Today
85
percent
of
existing
21
19
engines
already
meet
the
ICAO
or
the
meet
the
standards
1
adopted
by
ICAO.

And
then
the
next
paragraph
it
says,
2

Nearly
all,
94
percent,
already
certified
engines
3
currently
meet
or
perform
better
than
the
CAEP
NOx
4
standard.

I
think
that

s
right
out
of
the
Federal
5
Register
notice,
but
I
think
I
may
know
what
the
6
difference
is
between
those
numbers,
but
if
you
could
7
clarify
that
might
help.
If
you
know.
8
MS.
ROYDEN:
I

ll
have
to
get
back
to
you
on
9
that
and
consult
with
our
technical
committee
about
the
10
difference.
But
I
will
get
back
to
you,
Bryan.
Sorry
11
about
that.
12
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
13
MR.
ROYDEN:
Thank
you.
14
MR.
ZINGER:
Our
next
witness
is
Mr.
Russell
15
Long
from
the
Blue
Water
Network.
Russell
could
not
be
16
with
us
today
but
he

s
on
the
telephone.
17
Russell,
can
you
hear
us?
18
MR.
LONG:
Yes.
Can
you
hear
me
okay?
19
MR.
ZINGER:
Yes.
Amazing.
20
MR.
LONG:
Well,
let
me
start
by
thanking
the
21
20
agency
for
allowing
me
to
participate
by
phone.
It
1
saves
me
a
trip
across
country.
2
My
name
is
Russell
Long
and
I

m
the
executive
3
director
of
Blue
Water
Network,
a
national
4
environmental
organization
with
members
in
all
50
5
states.
For
eight
years
our
work
has
largely
focused
6
on
emissions
from
mobile
sources
and
fuels.
I
7
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
aircraft
8
proposed
rule
today.
Blue
Wral
aviation,
air
taxi
and
9
military
aircraft
engines
from
regulation.
The
Clean
10
Air
Act
states
that,

The
administrators
shall
propose
11
emission
standards
applicable
to
the
emission
from
any
12
class
or
classes
of
aircraft
engines.

There
is
no
13
exemption
in
section
231
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
for
14
general
aviation
and
military
aircraft
engines.
These
15
engine
categories,
therefore,
need
to
be
regulated.
16
In
addition,
emissions
from
these
exempted
17
aircraft
engines,
that
are
between
1
to
26
percent
of
18
emissions
from
all
aircraft
engines
according
to
the
19
EPA,
are
significant,
such
that
EPA
cannot
exempt
them
20
from
regulation
without
explaining
the
basis
of
its
21
21
decision.
1
Furthermore,
the
agency
has
failed
to
2
appropriately
address
the
extent
to
which
these
3
categories
add
to
the
emissions
inventory.
EPA
has
at
4
the
very
least
an
affirmative
obligation
to
properly
5
conduct
a
detailed
inventory
of
the
emissions
from
all
6
aircraft
engines
instead
of
citing
unidentified
7
limitations
on
estimated
current
military
aircraft
8
emissions.
EPA
indicates
that
emissions
from
general
9
aviation
air
taxi
and
military
aircraft
engines
10
represents
between
1
and
26
percent
of
the
total
11
inventory.
Such
a
broad
range
of
uncertainty
fails
to
12
satisfy
even
the
most
basic
requirements
for
EPA
to
13
conduct
accurate
assessments
and
inventories
of
14
emissions
that
may
significantly
contribute
to
air
15
pollution.
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
the
agency
to
16
assess
and
regulate
any
class
or
classes
of
emissions
17
generators
and
accurately
control
such,
and
without
an
18
appropriate
and
accurate
inventory
it
would
appear
to
19
be
infeasible
for
the
agency
to
take
effective
actions.
20
Our
second
area
of
concern
pertains
to
the
21
22
scope
of
the
regulation.
The
Clean
Air
Act
states
1
that,

The
administrators
shall
propose
emission
2
standards
applicable
to
the
emission
of
any
air
3
pollutant
from
aircraft
engines
which
in
his
judgment
4
cause
or
contribute
to
air
pollution
which
may
5
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
enhe
agency
failed
to
6
regulate
a
number
of
pollutants
that
would
fall
under
7
this
statute.
8
For
example,
the
agency
fails
to
regulate
9
particulate
matter,
a
significant
contributor
to
air
10
pollution
in
non­
attainment
areas,
especially
in
urban
11
areas
with
heavy
aircraft
traffic.
This
is
a
12
particularly
glaring
oversight
given
that
the
agency
13
projects
dramatic
increases
in
air
traffic
over
the
14
next
several
decades
which
will
continue
to
increase
15
the
rates
of
asthma,
cancer
and
other
respiratory
16
problems
for
millions
of
Americans
who
live
in
urban
17
areas
that
are
not
in
attainment
of
the
nation

s
air
18
quality
goals.
19
The
agency
must
also
establish
a
revised
20
hydrocarbon
emissions
standards,
which
substantially
21
23
contribute
to
ozone
in
non­
attainment
areas,
which
adds
1
to
the
toxic
exposure
burden
upon
airport
workers,
2
passengers
and
local
residents
exposed
to
such
exhaust.
3
In
addition,
it
is
our
understanding
that
4
aviation
gasoline
is
one
of
the
last
engine
categories
5
still
containing
lead.
The
emissions
of
lead
from
such
6
engines,
particularly
around
airports,
is
believed
to
7
impact
air
and
water
quality,
wildlife,
and
human
8
health,
especially
for
people
residing
near
the
flight
9
paths
of
commercial
jet
operations.
Such
toxic
10
exposures
also
constitute
a
serious
environmental
11
concern
given
that
many
people
of
color
and
low
income
12
communities
are
adjacent
to
airports
across
the
United
13
States.
14
Lead
from
aircraft
also
impacts
aircraft
15
workers,
maintenance
personnel
and
aircraft
passengers,
16
and
it
appears
at
greater
frequency
and
at
higher
17
levels
in
wetlands
and
other
land
areas
adjacent
to
18
airports
than
in
other
areas.
19
While
Blue
Water
Network
understands
the
need
20
for
aviation
gasoline
like
other
fuels
to
include
21
24
octane
enhancers,
there
are
octane
enhancers
besides
1
lead
that
have
done
a
more
than
adequate
job
for
all
2
categories
of
vehicles
without
jeopardizing
public
3
health
or
safety.
Non­
oxygenated
fuels
used
by
many
4
refineries
have
proven
themselves
to
be
safe,
reliable
5
and
widely
available
for
virtually
every
category
of
6
vessel,
vehicle
and
craft
imaginable.
Oxygenated
fuels
7
are
also
considered
safe
for
such
categories,
including
8
ethanol,
which
is
also
widely
available
today
across
9
the
nation.
10
Lead
is
one
of
the
criteria
air
pollutants
11
which
EPA
has
the
affirmative
obligation
to
regulate
12
and
we
believe
the
EPA
must
do
so
as
part
of
this
13
rulemaking.
14
Our
third
comment
involves
the
stringency
of
15
control
that
EPA
chose
in
the
proposed
regulations.
16
Congress
required
the
agency
to,

Issue
proposed
17
emission
standards
applicable
to
any
pollutant
of
18
aircraft
engines
which
endanger
public
health
or
19
welfare
and
to
hold
public
hearing
with
respect
to
such
20
standards
in
such
air
quality
regions
as
are
most
21
25
seriously
affected
by
aircraft
engines,
aircraft
1
emissions.

The
agency
has
an
obligation
to
establish
2
standards
that
will
not
simply
memorialize
the
status
3
quo
mission
standards
of
engines
already
in
production,
4
but
to
accept
public
input
by
affected
stakeholders
and
5
based
upon
such
input
set
meaningful
standards
that
6
will
have
the
effect
of
reducing
emissions
for
the
7
benefit
of
public
health
and
welfare,
especially
in
8
regions
that
are
most
seriously
affected
by
aircraft
9
emissions.
10
EPA

s
admission
that
94
percent
of
all
11
commercial
engines
currently
in
production
already
meet
12
or
exceed
the
proposed
standards
and
that
EPA
is
13

codifying
current
practice

is
stark
evidence
of
EPA

s
14
failure
in
regard
to
the
establishment
of
meaningful
15
standards
to
protect
public
health
and
welfare.
As
a
16
result,
the
general
public
will
be
afforded
little
if
17
any
environmental
benefit
from
the
proposed
rule
nor
18
will
this
rule
contribute
towards
achieving
the
Clean
19
Air
Act
goal
of
healthful
air
quality
for
all
20
Americans.
21
26
The
agency

s
suggestion
that
it
may
choose
to
1
establish
more
stringent
standards
at
some
pointr
such
2
standards
are
proposed.
Section
231(
B)
specifically
3
notes
that
aircraft
engines

shall
take
effect
after
4
such
period
as
the
administrator
finds
necessary,
after
5
consultation
with
the
Secretary
of
Transportation,
to
6
permit
the
development
and
application
of
the
requisite
7
technology.

Unfortunately
the
proposed
rule
ignores
8
the
requirement
for
the
development
and
application
of
9
the
requisite
technology
as
evidenced
by
EPA

s
own
10
admission
that
only
6
percent
of
commercial
engines
11
currently
fail
to
achieve
the
proposed
standards.
12
Congress
never
intended
for
EPA
to
propose
13
standards
that
were
without
meaning.
The
statute
14
clearly
indicates
that
any
standard
proposed
must
not
15
only
be
meaningful
with
respect
to
the
public
health
16
and
welfare
but
it
should
also
­­
it
should
only
be
17
promulgated
within
a
time
frame
sufficient
for
the
18

development
and
application

of
newer
technologies
19
that
will
benefit
public
health.
20
Blue
Water
Network
argues
that
the
standards
21
27
as
proposed
neither
benefit
public
health
to
any
1
meaningful
degree
nor
do
they
allow
sufficient
time
for
2
manufacturers
to
achieve
significant
progress
in
3
achieving
the
more
stringent
standards
for
which
the
4
Clear
Air
Act
calls.
However,
instead
of
developing
5
meaningful
standards
or
providing
sufficient
time
6
frames
of
limitations
EPA
has
simply
codified
what
7
amounts
to
little
more
than
an
anti­
backsliding
8
standard.
Had
Congress
required
a
no
backsliding
9
standard,
in
other
words
the
establishment
of
standards
10
nearly
codifying
the
emissions
values
engines
are
11
already
achieving,
it
would
have
been
a
very
simple
12
matter
for
them
to
clarify
this
point
in
the
Act.
13
Their
failure
to
do
so
and
their
choices
of
the
14
phrases,
the
development
of
requisite
technologies,
15
public
hearings
with
respect
to
such
standards,
and
the
16
need
to

protect
public
health
and
welfare,

mean
far
17
greater
emissions
reductions
than
contained
in
EPA

s
18
current
proposal.
19
Furthermore,
by
adopting
the
virtually
20
identical
emissions
standards
proposed
by
an
21
28
international
body,
ICAO,
the
CAEP
6
emissions
1
standards,
EPA
has
shunted
aside
its
obligation
to
meet
2
the
Clean
Air
Act
requirements
to
establish
new
3
standards
to
protect
air
quality.
Congress
certainly
4
did
not
provide
for
the
agency
to
defer
to
5
international
bodies
where
there
are
ineffectual
6
standards
memorializing
the
status
quo.
The
failure
to
7
adopt
genuine
technology
forcing
standards
for
aircraft
8
operating
in
the
U.
S.
places
the
agency
in
clear
9
violation
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
10
Finally,
the
EPA
proposes
to
grandfather
all
11
engine
families
who
were
previously
in
production
prior
12
to
the
rulemaking,
allowing
indefinite
continued
13
production
of
such
families
as
the
staff
has
commented.
14
EPA
justifies
this
by
arguing
that
emissions
from
such
15
engine
families
are
small.
However,
Blue
Water
Network
16
is
not
aware
of
any
agency
precedent
for
such
an
17
exemption.
In
fact,
EPA
admits
in
the
preamble
to
the
18
proposed
regulation
that
EPA
has
never
exempted
already
19
certified
engines
before.
It
would
be
arbitrary
and
20
capricious
to
exempt
already
certified
engines
without
21
29
explaining
why
this
rulemaking
is
different
from
1
previous
aircraft
emissions
rules
or
other
rules
which
2
did
not
carve
out
exemptions
for
already
certified
3
engines.
Nor
do
we
agree
that
the
impacts
of
4
grandfathering
already
certified
engines
can
be
5
characterized
as
insig
upon
the
Clean
Air
Act
we
6
believe
that
EPA
must
not
and
cannot
permit
the
7
grandfathering
of
such
engine
families.
8
In
connection
with
the
exemption,
EPA
requests
9
comments
as
to
whether
EPA
should
apply
the
proposal
to
10
already
certified
engines
at
a
date
two,
four
and
six
11
years
after
the
implementation
date
for
these
new
12
designs.
For
the
public
to
offer
meaningful
comment
on
13
this
issue,
information
on
why
such
lead
time
is
14
necessary
must
be
provided
such
that
EPA
and
the
public
15
could
pick
the
shortest
lead
times.
16
Thank
you
very
much.
17
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you,
Russell.
18
Do
we
have
any
questions
from
the
panelists?
19
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Russell,
this
is
Glenn
20
Passavant.
Good
morning,
Russell.
21
30
MR.
LONG:
Unfortunately
I
can

t
hear
you
very
1
well.
2
MR.
PASSAVANT:
How
about
if
I
speak
right
3
into
the
mike.
Is
that
better?
4
MR.
LONG:
It

s
a
little
better.
5
MR.
PASSAVANT:
I

ll
get
even
closer
then.
6
Russell,
I
just
wanted
to
seek
a
clarification
7
on
your
one
point
about
the
stringency
of
the
standard
8
where
you
are
indicating
that
you
felt
that
the
agency
9
had
not
gone
far
enough
on
setting
of
the
standard
and
10
I
­­
not
having
anything
written
in
front
of
me
I

m
11
trying
to
ascertain
if
your
position
or
your
comment
is
12
that
the
agency
should
set
a
standard
at
some
as
of
yet
13
undetermined
level
for
some
yet
undetermined
future
14
date
and
set
that
out
there
as
a
future
standard
for
15
the
industry
to
work
toward
as
a
opposed
to
what
we

ve
16
done,
which
is
to
more
adopt
current
technology
17
standards.
18
MR.
LONG:
Yes,
that

s
correct.
I
think
the
19
Act
clearly
calls
for
any
standard
that
is
proposed
to
20
be
meaningful
and
to
provide
sufficient
time
as
all
of
21
31
your
other
proposals
have
done
in
the
past,
for
1
industry
to
develop
the
requisite
technology
to
achieve
2
those
standards,
and
obviously
codifying
the
status
quo
3
satisfies
neither
condition.
4
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Russell,
did
you
have
any
5
specific
time
frames
or
percent
reductions
in
mind
when
6
formulating
this
idea?
7
MR.
LONG:
I
may
in
our
written
comments
8
before
December
15th,
but
at
the
current
time
I
would
9
prefer
not
to
go
on
record
with
any
suggestions.
10
Though
I
think
STAPPA

s
comment
was
very
interesting,
11
that
NASA
is
working
on
reductions
of
NOx
at
a
level
of
12
70
percent,
but
obviously
that

s
not
widely
available
13
technology
at
the
current
time.
So
something
short
of
14
70
percent
sounds
as
though
it
may
be
appropriate.
15
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Okay,
Russell,
one
final
thing
16
if
I
could
please.
Maybe
this
is
a
question
­­
some
17
point
you
did
not
directly
address.
Maybe
I
would
ask
18
you
to
address
this
in
your
written
comments
if
you
19
choose
to,
and
that
is
you
were
talking
a
little
bit
20
about
the
carryover
of
current
production
engines
into
21
32
the
future
and
sort
of
in
the
context
of
the
way
the
1
certification
program
works,
and
in
the
rule
we
asked
2
for
comment
on
that
issue
and
also
asked
for
comment
on
3
the
concept
of
averaging.
You
didn

t
mention
the
4
averaging
here
in
your
comments
and
I
would
appreciate
5
it
if
you
have
any
thoughts
on
that
that
you
might
6
share
them
in
your
written
testimony.
7
MR.
LONG:
I
heard
your
comment
asking
me
to
8
say
something
about
averaging.
I
didn

t
hear
the
9
previous
one
though.
10
MR.
PASSAVANT:
That

s
the
gist
of
what
I
11
said,
Russell,
is
if
in
your
written
comments
you
might
12
say
something
about
averaging,
if
you
felt
that
was
13
appropriate.
14
MR.
LONG:
Okay.
We
will
do
that.
15
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Thank
you.
16
MR.
MANNING:
Russell,
this
is
Bryan
Manning.
17
The
question
I
have
is
in
the
beginning
of
your
18
testimony
I
was
sort
of
working
to
make
sure
the
mike
19
worked
over
there.
I
couldn

t
quite
hear
what
you
said
20
about
the
inventory,
had
some
issues
with
inventories.
21
33
Could
you
elaborate
or
repeat
a
little
bit
of
what
you
1
said?
2
MR.
LONG:
Yes.
The
inventory
for
general
3
aviation,
air
taxi,
and
military
aircraft
engines
EPA
4
has
determined
as
being
between
1
and
26
percent
of
5
emissions
from
all
aircraft
engines.
We
believe
that

s
6
significant.
EPA
first
of
all
cannot
exempt
those
7
engines
from
regulation
without
explaining
the
basis
of
8
its
decision,
but
second
EPA
must
determine
with
9
greater
accuracy
what
the
actual
amount
is
of
that
10
inventory.
The
Act
is
very
clear
that
the
standards
11
must
apply
to
those
classes
of
engines
and
it

s
very
12
difficult
to
determine
first
of
all
what
the
inventory
13
actually
is
when
EPA
apparently
has
not
done
a
thorough
14
assessment.
15
MR.
mments
that
you
choose
to
provide.
16
MR.
LONG:
Okay,
I
certainly
will.
17
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you.
18
Our
next
witness
is
Mr.
Mark
MacLeod
from
19
Environmental
Defense.
20
MR.
MacLEOD:
Good
morning.
21
34
MR.
ZINGER:
Good
morning,
Mark.
If
you
could
1
again
take
one
of
those
placards
there
and
put
that
in
2
front.
Thank
you.
3
MR.
MacLEOD:
My
handwriting
will
be
exposed
4
to
the
world.
5
MR.
ZINGER:
We
won

t
comment
on
that.
6
MR.
MacLEOD:
Thank
you.
I

m
Mark
MacLeod
7
with
Environmental
Defense.
I

m
testifying
today
on
8
behalf
of
Environmental
Defense,
a
non­
profit,
non­
9
governmental,
and
non­
partisan
environmental
10
organization
with
300,000
members
nationwide.
Since
11
1967
our
organization
has
linked
science,
economics
and
12
law
in
tackling
environmental
problems.
Our
core
13
mission
includes
protecting
public
health
and
the
14
environment
by
lowering
airborne
contaminants
and
15
greenhouse
gases.
16
Since
the
advent
of
the
modern
Clean
Air
Act
17
in
1970
EPA
has
led
a
nationwide
effort
to
lower
18
harmful
air
pollutants.
There
have
been
some
striking
19
successes.
The
phase
out
of
lead
in
gasoline
for
20
example
has
slashed
lead
emissions
by
98
percent
over
21
35
1970
levels,
helped
to
dramatically
curb
public
1
exposure
to
a
deleterious
neurotoxin.
This
historic
2
success
is
one
of
many
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
that
3
EPA,
the
business
community
and
citizens
should
be
4
proud
of.
5
But
important
air
quality
challenges
remain.
6
Nationwide
monitoring
indicates
that
175
million
people
7
living
in
628
counties
are
exposed
to
levels
of
ground
8
level
ozone
or
smog
that
exceed
the
national
health
9
based
standard.
Elevated
ozone
concentrations
have
a
10
suite
of
adverse
health
affects,
including
decreased
11
lung
function,
particularly
in
children
active
12
outdoors;
hospital
admissions
and
emergency
room
visits
13
for
respiratory
causes
among
children
and
adults
with
14
preexisting
respiratory
disease
such
as
asthma,
15
inflammation
of
the
lungs,
and
possible
long
term
16
damage
to
the
lungs.
17
State
and
local
governments
will
need
18
vigorous
federal
clean
air
measures
to
lower
smog
19
forming
pollutants
and
to
restore
healthy
air
quality
20
to
vast
areas
of
the
country.
But
EPA

s
meager
21
36
proposal
today
will
only
make
it
more
difficult
for
the
1
states
to
develop
clean
air
plans.
EPA

s
proposal
2
misses
an
important
opportunity
to
lower
smog
forming
3
NOx
pollution.
Indeed
NOx
emissions
from
aircraft
are
4
rising
and
will
continue
to
rise
in
the
absence
of
5
meaningful
emissions
standards.
EPA
must
do
its
part
6
to
put
in
place
federal
measures
to
lower
NOx
pollution
7
from
aircraft
and
help
stgenerally
not
regulated
by
8
states
and
local
clean
air
plans
even
though
they
may
9
be
significant
sources
of
pollution.
Indeed
a
recent
10
analysis
of
airport
related
pollution
found
that
11
emissions
inventories
are
seriously
under
reported
and
12
state
implementation
plans
fail
at
highlighting
the
13
imperative
for
effective
federal
measures
to
address
14
this
source
category.
And
for
a
reference
you
can
see
15
the
NESCAUM
and
CCAP
report
reference
in
our
written
16
comments.
17
Airports
are
in
fact
a
significant
source
of
18
ozone
forming
pollution
in
numerous
ozone
non­
19
attainment
areas.
For
example,
22
of
the
largest
31
20
airports
in
the
U.
S.
are
located
in
ozone
non­
21
37
attainment
areas,
and
according
to
air
quality
1
monitoring
data
from
1997
to
1999
there
137
airports
in
2
potential
eight
hour
ozone
non­
attainment
areas.
3
Without
rigorous
technology
forcing
emission
4
standards
that
lower
harmful
NOOx
emissions,
NOOx
5
emissions
from
aircraft
engines
will
likely
rise
over
6
the
foreseeable
future.
The
soon
to
be
implemented
7
ICAO
and
EPA
NOOx
standards
are
meager
and
will
not
8
meaningfully
address
the
NOOx
air
pollution
from
9
aircraft.
10
As
was
mentioned
earlier,
the
General
11
Accounting
Office
February
2003
report,
Aviation
and
12
Environment,
Strategic
Framework
Needed
to
Address
13
Challenges
Posed
by
Aircraft
Emission,
found
that
while
14
new
aircraft
engines
are
more
fuel
efficient
and
emit
15
less
carbon
monoxide,
they
nevertheless
emit
more
NOOx
16
than
older
models.
GAO

s
comparison
of
Boeing
737
17
series
aircraft
concluded
that
NOx
emissions
were
47
18
percent
higher
for
newer
engines
than
the
older
19
engines.
20
The
fact
that
newer
engines
discharge
more
NOx
21
38
pollution
than
older
engines
is
an
important
point
in
1
light
of
the
EPA
proposed
standards.
The
proposed
rule
2
explains
that
94
percent
of
in­
production
engine
models
3
in
the
ICAO
database
already
meet
or
perform
better
4
than
the
proposed
standard.
This
strongly
suggests
5
that
EPA

s
proposed
engine
standard
not
only
misses
the
6
mark
in
lowering
pollution
but
fails
to
provide
the
7
anti­
backsliding
protection
against
rising
NOx
expected
8
from
new
engines.
9
While
the
benefit
to
air
quality
due
to
the
10
increased
fuel
efficiency
and
decreased
CO
emissions
is
11
important,
the
NOx
pollution
from
aircraft
must
be
12
meaningfully
addressed.
The
new
ICAO
standards
and
the
13
proposed
EPA
standards
will
not
achieve
this
result.
14
In
addition,
the
potential
standard
requiring
an
15
additional
5
to
30
percent
reduction
that
ICAO
is
16
considering
will
still
fail
to
return
the
NOx
emissions
17
from
newer
aircraft
back
to
existing
pollution
levels.
18
And
we
want
to
just
reiterate
that
some
states
19
are
precluded
from
adopting
emission
standards
for
20
aircraft.
It

s
imperative
that
the
EPA
adopt
and
21
39
implement
rigorous
federal
standards.
Section
233
of
1
the
Clean
Air
Act
prevents
states
from
adopting
2
standards
and
it
is
important
that
EPA
take
the
3
responsibility
for
lowering
smog
emission,
smog
forming
4
emissions
from
this
source.
This
will
not
only
help
5
the
states
achieve
the
health
based
standard,
but
6
ensures
that
the
responsibility
of
achieving
the
7
nation

s
health
standards
are
borne
equitably
among
all
8
contributing
sources.
9
A
recent
editorial
in
the
Dallas
Morning
News
10
by
Representative
Joe
Barton
pointed
to
the
state

s
11
inability
to
regulate
aircraft
emissions
in
the
Dallas­
12
Fort
Worth
area
as
adding
to
the
area

s
difficulty
in
13
complying
with
the
ozone
standard.
14
Environmental
Defense
requests
that
the
EPA
15
improve
aircraft
emissions
rules
in
the
following
ways:
16
As
has
been
mentioned
by
a
couple
of
other
speakers
17
today,
we
believe
that
EPA

s
aircraft
emission
18
standards
should
be
technology
forcing
and
provide
19
clear
and
real
emissions
reductions
in
order
to
achieve
20
a
downward
trend
in
NOOx
emissions.
Near
term
21
40
reductions
in
NOOx
pollution
may
also
be
achieved
with
1
existing
technologies
that
improve
efficiency
without
a
2
resulting
NOx
increase.
For
example,
improving
bypass
3
air
ratio
will
simultaneously
reduce
NOx
and
fuel
burn.
4
Enacting
more
stringent
regulations
will
spur
5
technology
development.
Such
improvements
can
be
6
achieved
with
more
efficient
aircraft
engines
and
more
7
aerodynamic
aircraft
bodies,
as
mentioned
by
the
NASA
8
proposals
that
were
being
discussed
earlier.
9
The
development
of
technology
in
airport
10
management
improvements,
we
also
encourage
the
11
development
of
technology
in
airport
management
12
improvements
that
will
reduce
aircraft,
taxi
and
idling
13
times
by
making
the
on
airport
movement
of
aircraft
14
more
efficient
and
should
be
pursued.
15
Because
states
are
preempted
from
establishing
16
emission
standards
for
aircraft,
EPA
should
work
with
17
the
states
and
other
stakeholders
on
additional
policy
18
strategies
that
states
can
employ
to
lower
NOx
19
pollution
for
aircraft.
For
example,
local
cap
and
20
trade
or
airport
bubble
approaches
have
the
potential
21
41
to
limit
airport
related
emissions,
provide
flexibility
1
in
achieving
reductions,
and
encourage
the
use
and
2
development
of
cleaner
technologies.
In
addition,
3
emission
based
fees
such
as
increased
or
variable
4
landing
fees
are
another
potential
useful
tool
for
5
lowering
emissions.
Programs
to
create
incentives
for
6
improving
airlines
overall
operational
and
efficiency,
7
reducing
taxi
time,
and
reducing
power
output
during
8
taxi,
takeofreempted
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
that
EPA
9
should
help
provide
the
policy
foundation
for
these
10
programs.
11
A
significant
amount
of
air
pollution
from
12
airports
is
due
to
the
suite
of
equipment,
such
as
13
ground
support
equipment.
We
urge
the
EPA
to
promptly
14
finalize
the
non­
road
emission
standards
proposed
in
15
April
to
help
and
expand
the
federal
diesel
retrofit
16
program
in
order
to
achieve
significant
lasting
17
reductions
in
these
important
sources
of
air
pollution.
18
And
one
other
note
that
unfortunately
is
not
19
in
the
written,
a
copy
of
my
oral
comments,
is
we
20
wanted
to
reiterate
that
there
is
incredibly
long
life
21
42
for
these
aircraft
engines
and
so
it
really
is
1
important
that
we
establish
low
standards
now
because
2
these
engines
are
likely
to
be
around
for
a
couple
of
3
decades.
And
so
we
just
want
to
reiterate
that
as
4
well.
5
We

ll
be
filing
written
comments
on
December
6
15th
and
elaborating
on
the
points
we

ve
made
today.
7
Thank
you.
8
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you,
Mark,
for
those
9
comments.
I
just
have
one
clarifying
question
on
page
10
4
of
your
statement.
You
are
talking
about
the
11
proposed
standard
requiring
­­
I

m
sorry,
this
is
not
12
the
proposed
standard.
These
are
the
levels
of
13
reduction
that
are
being
considered
for
CAEP
6.
You
14
mentioned
the
5
to
30
percent
reduction
would
still
15
fail
to
return
the
NOx
emissions
from
newer
aircraft
16
even
back
to
existing
pollution
levels.
Could
you
just
17
elaborate
on
that
a
bit?
18
MR.
MacLEOD:
I
will
attempt
to
and
we

ll
19
address
it
further
in
the
written
ones,
but
given
the
20
GAO
report
showing
that
there

s
a
47
percent
increase
21
43
in
higher
­­
from
newer
engines
to
older
engines,
I
1
think
the
point
we

re
making
there
is
even
if
you
have
2
a
30
percent
reduction
off
of
that
you

re
still
not
­­
3
you
know,
your
overall
emissions
is
still
increased
4
over
time.
5
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
6
MR.
MacLEOD:
But
I

ll
elaborate
on
that
in
7
our
written
comments.
8
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you.
Other
questions?
9
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Mark,
on
that
same
point
I
was
10
a
little
­­
I
understood
the
point
about
the
GAO
11
report,
but
when
there

s
a
standard
in
place
if
the
12
emissions
of
a
new
engine
go
up
it
either
meets
the
13
standards
or
it
doesn

t
meet
the
standards
and
you
14
can

t
certify
it
if
it
doesn

t
meet
the
standards.
So
15
I
was
a
little
confused
as
to
­­
I
understood
what
47
16
percent
means
but
compared
to
what?
It
just
sort
seems
17
like
this
is
sort
of
a
moot
point
unless
there

s
18
carryover
for
new
standards
as
well,
which
there
is
19
not,
for
new
engines,
which
there
is
not
under
our
20
program.
21
44
MR.
MacLEOD:
Well,
I
think
reading
the
bottom
1
of
page
3
and
the
top
of
page
4
together
as
I
2
understand
it
and
you
can
clarify,
I
think
the
point
3
we

re
making
is
that
the
current
suite
of
engines,
the
4
pollution
levels
have
increased
over
time
and
now
the
5
proposed
­­
as
listed
in
the
rule
of
proposal,
the
6
proposed
rule
will
­­
you
know,
94
percent
of
the
7
current
engines
meet
that.
And
so
I
guess
what
the
8
overall
point
is
is
that
the
overall
­­
when
you
put
9
those
two
together
emissions
have
increased
over
time
10
and
all
the
rule
is
doing
is
sort
of
certifying
the
11
existing
state
of
technology.
That

s
not
providing
a
12
real
reduction.
13
MR.
PASSAVANT:
It
may
be
the
use
of
the
word
14
new
is
sort
of
a
misnomer
here
if
you

re
talking
about
15
a
737
engine
but
­­
16
MR.
MacLEOD:
Yes,
sure.
17
MR.
PASSAVANT:
­­
it
is
true
that
as
CO
and
18
hydrocarbons
tend
to
go
down
in
engines
that,
all
of
19
the
things
being
equal,
there

s
a
trade
off
where
NOx
20
tends
to
go
up,
and
that
may
be
in
fact
what
you
see
21
45
here
because
we

ve
had
hydrocarbon
standards
for
1
engines
before
we
had
NOx
standards.
2
MR.
MacLEOD:
Right.
3
MR.
PASSAVANT:
But
nonetheless,
the
fact
4
remains
that
if
there

s
a
standard
in
place
a
new
5
engine
still
has
to
meet
it.
6
MR.
MacLEOD:
Right.
7
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Okay.
Thank
you.
8
MR.
MANNING:
A
clarifying
question.
9
(
Interruption
to
proceeding.)
10
MR.
MANNING:
A
clarifying
question
on
page
4,
11
Mark.
It
may
be
the
same
point
Glenn

s
trying
to
make
12
­­
I

m
not
sure
­­
but
the
first
paragraph,
the
last
13
sentence,
you
talk
about
our
standards,

fails
to
14
provide
even
an
anti­
backsliding
protection
against
the
15
rising
NOx
expected
from
new
engines.

16
MR.
MacLEOD:
Yes.
17
MR.
MANNING:
Getting
away
from
the
whole
idea
18
of
rising
NOx
or
whatever,
just
­­
previous
testimony
19
said
that
these
standards
were
anti­
backsliding
20
standards
and
you

re
saying
that
they
don

t
even
do
21
46
that.
Is
that
what
you
meant
by
that
statement
or
is
1
the
word
new
sort
of
­­
2
MR.
MacLEOD:
I
think
it
may
depend
on
what
3
your
baseline
is
and
so
we

ll
elaborate
on
that.
But
I
4
think
that

s
where
the
perspective
changes
on
what
you
5
consider
the
baseline
to
be.
6
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay,
thank
you,
Mark.
7
MR.
MacLEOD:
Thank
you.
8
MR.
ZINGER:
Our
next
witness
is
Mr.
Jake
9
Schmidt
from
the
Center
for
Clean
Air
Policy.
10
MR.
SCHMIDT:
I

ll
recycle
if
that

s
okay.
11
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Jake
Schmidt
and
I
12
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
EPA

s
13
proposed
aircraft
engine
emission
standards.
I
am
a
14
policy
analyst
at
the
Center
for
Clean
Air
Policy,
15
CCAP,
where
I
serve
as
the
lead
on
aviation
emissions.
16
I
am
here
today
to
provide
some
comments
on
behalf
of
17
CCAP.
18
CCAP
was
founded
in
1985
by
a
bipartisan
group
19
of
state
governors
to
address
the
issue
of
acid
rain.
20
We
are
an
environmental
think­
tank
that
seeks
to
21
47
promote
and
implement
innovative
solutions
to
major
1
environmental
and
energy
problems
which
balance
both
2
environmental
and
economic
interests.
The
Center

s
3
work
is
guided
by
the
belief
that
market­
based
4
approaches
to
environmental
problems
offer
the
greatest
5
potential
to
reach
common
ground
between
these
often
6
conflicting
interests.
Through
efforts
at
the
state,
7
federal,
and
international
levels
the
Center
emphasizes
8
the
need
for
cost
effective,
pragmatic
and
9
comprehensive
long
term
solutions.
For
several
years
10
we

ve
been
involved
at
both
the
national
and
11
international
levels
on
aviation
emissions.
12
Analysis
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
shows
that
a
wide
13
number
of
areas
are
expected
to
be
designated
as
non­
14
attainment
for
the
eight
hour
ozone
and
fine
15
particulate
matter
standards.
In
particular,
EPA
16
currently
estimates
that
290
counties
nationwide
are
17
expected
to
be
in
non­
attainment
for
eight
hour
ozone
18
standard
and
129
counties
will
not
meet
the
fine
19
particulate
standard.
As
most
of
these
areas
are
20
located
near
major
urban
areas,
some
form
of
air
travel
21
48
will
serve
many
of
these
areas.
Therefore,
the
impact
1
of
this
proposed
rule
on
air
quality
is
of
concern
to
2
CCAP
and
others.
3
CCAP
is
concerned
with
the
current
emission
4
levels
of
aircraft
and
the
projected
increase
in
5
aircraft
operations
since
these
aircrafts
operations
6
are
usually
centered
around
major
urban
areas
with
air
7
quality
problems.
Recent
research
conducted
by
the
8
Northeast
States
for
Coordinated
Air
Use
Management,
9
NESCAUM,
at
three
airports
in
the
Northeast
shows
that
10
airport
related
emissions
for
aircraft,
ground
service
11
equipment
and
auxiliary
power
units
are
large
sources
12
of
emissions
compared
to
other
sources
in
their
13
respective
regions.
Of
these
emission
sources
the
14
analysis
showed
that
aircraft
emissions
account
for
15
about
85
percent
of
emissions
from
these
sources.
16
While
it
is
fair
to
say
that
aircraft
may
17
account
for
a
slightly
different
percentage
of
airport
18
related
emissions
at
each
airport,
it
is
also
correct
19
to
expect
that
aircraft
are
one
of,
it
not
the
most,
20
dominant
source
of
on­
airport
emissions
at
airports
21
49
throughout
the
nation.
1
Future
levels
of
projected
aircraft
operations
2
are
also
of
concern.
According
to
the
Federal
Aviation
3
Administration
nationwide
aircraft
operations
for
air
4
carrier
and
air
taxi/
commuter
are
projected
to
grow
5
substantially
through
2014,
34
percent
between
2003
and
6
2014.
The
analysis
by
NESCAUM
showed
that
future
7
emissions
at
the
studied
airports
could
become
as
large
8
as
major
stationary
sources
in
the
region.
While
this
9
analysis
did
not
account
for
recent
changes
resulting
10
within
the
industry
from
such
activities
as
September
11
11th,
it
shows
the
potential
magnitude
of
these
sources
12
in
the
future.
13
CCAP
appreciates
the
agency
moving
forward
14
with
adoption
of
the
ICAO
standards
being
considered
15
today,
but
has
concerns
on
several
fronts.
First,
the
16
standards
adopted
by
the
International
Civil
Aviation
17
Organization,
ICAO,
and
proposed
by
EPA
are
rate
based.
18
While
it
is
important
to
reduce
the
emissions
19
intensity
of
aircraft
engines,
a
rate
based
standard
20
does
not
address
aggregate
emissions.
Since
the
21
50
environment
and
human
health
depend
on
emissions
1
loading,
not
emissions
per
some
metric,
this
approach
2
is
problematic.
While
an
aggressive
rate
based
3
approach
could
lead
to
reductions
in
aggregate
4
emissions,
the
level
proposed
today
appears
not
to
5
achieve
such
a
threshold.
A
rough
back
of
the
envelope
6
calculation
in
essence
could
show
that
this
proposal
7
will
not
lead
to
an
aggregate
reduction
in
emissions
in
8
the
future.
9
Second,
the
standards
established
by
ICAO
have
10
not
typically
been
technology
forcing
as
many
folks
11
have
mentioned
today.
The
rule
currently
being
12
proposed
is
met
by
almost
all
of
the
engines
currently
13
in
production,
94
percent
according
to
EPA
estimates,
14
even
the
new
NOx
stringency
standards
under
15
consideration
by
ICAO
in
early
2004
are
met
by
a
number
16
of
the
current
in­
production
engines.
17
For
example,
the
least
stringent
of
the
new
18
options,
the
negative
5
percent
being
considered
by
19
ICAO,
is
met
by
90
percent
of
the
current
engines
in
20
production.
The
most
stringent
of
the
options,
21
51
negative
30
percent,
is
met
by
over
30
percent
of
the
1
current
engines
in
production.
Since
the
new
options
2
being
considered
only
apply
to
engines
produced
in
the
3
future,
in
2008
at
the
earliest
the
new
options
will
4
not
apply
to
these
engines.
5
Third,
the
standards
being
proposed
for
both
6
today
and
under
consideration
for
future
standards
7
apply
only
to
newly
designed
and
certificated
engines.
8
Since
aircraft
are
in
the
U.
S.
fleet
for
long
periods
9
of
time,
for
example
10
to
30
years,
the
new
standards
10
will
have
a
limited
impact
on
overall
emission
levels
11
for
quite
some
time.
12
Lastly,
the
standards
being
considered
are
13
based
upon
the
engine

s
emissions
characteristics
and
14
therefore
do
not
account
for
emissions
attributable
to
15
airframe
design
and
condition.
Likewise,
the
potential
16
emissions
benefit
of
improved
airframe
designs
are
not
17
incorporated.
Recent
airframe
designs
being
discussed
18
by
major
developers
are
showing
the
possibility
of
19
dramatic
improvements
in
airframe
design
that
could
20
lead
to
substantial
improvements
in
emissions.
21
52
The
combination
of
these
factors
and
the
level
1
of
the
proposed
standard
gives
us
serious
concern
that
2
this
proposal
will
lead
to
significant
environmental
3
improvement
and
assist
communities
in
meeting
the
4
health
based
standards
required
by
law.
Furthermore,
5
as
airports
continue
to
operate
and
potentially
expand,
6
pressures
to
dramatically
reduce
aircraft
emissions
are
7
likely
to
mount.
In
Europe
serious
concern
is
being
8
given
to
the
possibility
that
the
expansion
of
airports
9
or
operations
may
be
limited
in
the
future
due
to
10
projected
emissions
increases
from
aircraft.
This
is
a
11
distinct
concern
in
the
U.
S.
given
the
current
and
12
projected
levels
of
aircraft
emissions.
Getting
ahead
13
of
this
concern
xtremely
important
for
the
aviation
14
industry.
15
As
we
are
currently
celebrating
the
100th
16
anniversary
of
the
Wright
Brothers
flight
now
seems
an
17
excellent
time
to
reconsider
how
we
address
aviation

s
18
environmental
impact.
While
we
are
here
to
discuss
19
emissions
standards
we
should
also
keep
in
mind
the
20
role
of
marked­
based
measure.
The
great
success
of
the
21
53
acid
rain
trading
program
shows
the
power
of
the
market
1
to
provide
flexibility
for
meeting
emissions
objectives
2
and
lowering
the
cost
of
complying
with
those
3
objectives.
4
A
recent
study
by
CCAP
and
NESCAUM
evaluate
a
5
number
of
marked­
based
approaches,
such
as
emissions
6
bubbles
and
emissions
based
landing
fees,
that
could
7
provide
useful
models
for
marked­
based
measures
within
8
the
sector.
Some
extremely
intelligent
engineers
9
design
aircraft
­­
literally
rocket
scientists.
We
10
need
to
provide
the
proper
signals
and
incentives
for
11
these
engineers
to
design
the
least
environmentally
12
damaging
aircraft
and
for
airlines
to
purchase
the
most
13
environmentally
friendly
aircraft.
14
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
of
15
my
testimony.
16
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you,
Jake.
Just
a
couple
17
of
clarifying
questions.
On
the
second
page
of
your
18
statement
you
mention
that
the
proposed
standards
are
19
rate
based.
Do
you
have
any
suggestions
for
the
agency
20
as
to
another
basis
that
could
be
used
to
set
emission
21
54
standards?
1
MR.
SCHMIDT:
To
some
extent
the
problem
is
2
not
necessarily
­­
it

s
a
combination
of
rate
based
as
3
a
problem
and
a
combination
of
the
level
set
out.
I

d
4
be
happy
to
provide
some
greater
comments,
and
I
5
haven

t
put
much
thought
to
that,
but
I

ll
attempt
to
6
do
that
in
my
written
comments.
I
think
the
level
­­
7
given
­­
if
the
level
of
the
rate
based
standard
is
8
very
aggressive
essentially
a
rate
based
standard
has
9
not
much
difference
than
an
aggregate
emissions
cap,
10
but
I
think
the
level
proposed
here
today
given
that
11
the
majority
of
the
engines
already
meet
this
will
not
12
sort
of
achieve
that
given
the
projected
increases
in
13
emissions
operation
­­
or
aircraft
operations
going
14
forward.
But
I

ll
take
that
into
my
­­
15
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
Similar
to
a
previous
16
witness
you
also
mentioned
the
concept
of
looking
at
17
both
the
aircraft
engine
as
well
as
the
airframe
and
18
combination
and
so
I

ll
ask
you
the
same
question.
19
Have
you
looked
at
whether
EPA
has
the
authority
to
set
20
a
standard
on
that
basis?
21
55
MR.
SCHMIDT:
No,
we
have
not.
We
are
not
1
lawyers
so
­­
but
I

ll
keep
that
in
mind
and
see
if
2
there

s
something
that
we
can
provide
in
our
written
3
comments.
4
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay,
thank
you.
Other
5
questions?
6
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Jake,
to
follow­
up
on
­­
I
7
have
different
points
on
the
same
things
Don
touched
8
on.
On
the
first
one
about
the
rate
based,
when
you
9
were
reading
this
and
I
was
trying
to
assimilate
it
I
10
got
the
impression
you
were
talking
about
a
mass
basis
11
as
an
approach
to
this
as
opposed
to
a
rate
basis.
In
12
here
it

s
grams
per
kilonewtons
or
thrust
and
here
you
13
could
be
thinking
­­
were
you
thinking
grams
or
grams
14
per
landing/
take­
off
cycle
or
­­
it

s
just
­­
that
15
wasn

t
at
all
clear
to
me.
Almost
all
of
our
standard
16
­­
I
think
all
of
our
standards
are
rated
based
as
a
17
matter
of
fact
as
I
think
about
it,
grams
per
mile
or
18
grams
per
kilometer
type
thing.
So
just
if
you
could
19
give
that
a
little
more
thought.
20
And
the
other
thing
was,
and
maybe
this
is
a
21
56
better
question
for
another
group
of
folks,
but
1
oftentimes
when
we
see
changes
in
­­
let

s
talk
about
2
motor
vehicles,
something
that

s
a
little
more
­­
maybe
3
a
little
easier
to
draw
a
parallel
to.
A
change
in
the
4
motor
vehicle
transmission
design
or
the
aerodynamics
5
of
a
motor
vehicle,
and
that
has
a
positive
effect
on
6
emissions,
that
happens
independent
of
the
design
of
7
the
engine.
If
you
put
a
more
efficient
set
of
tires
8
on
a
car
let

s
say,
okay,
that
gives
you
less
rolling
9
resistance
and
you
use
less
fuel
you
get
less
10
emissions,
okay.
Here
if
you
make
changes
in
the
11
airplane
that
make
the
engine
more
efficient,
which
is
12
part
of
the
big
driving
force
behind
doing
this
I

m
13
sure,
would
you
not
also
see
reductions
in
emissions
14
independent
of
what
you
did
to
the
engine?
15
MR.
SCHMIDT:
Well,
not
being
a
rocket
16
scientist
either
I
will
not
attempt
to
kill
it
too
17
much.
I
mean,
my
understanding
is
that
there
is
18
designs
to
the
airframe
that
can
allow
you
to
use
19
different
engines
and
that
provides
the
opportunity
to
20
reduce
NOx
and
oftentimes
can
reduce
fuel
use
and
noise
21
57
emissions.
It
just
sort
of
depends.
But
there
can
1
alternatively
be
designs
that
don

t
lead
to
that
is
2
sort
of
my
understanding.
But
­­
3
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Okay.
I
think
your
former
4
statement
is
correct,
that
if
you
had
a
revolutionary
5
airframe
design
you
would
come
up
with
an
engine
for
6
that
design.
That
could
be
lower
noise,
lower
thrust,
7
lower
emissions,
et
cetera,
but
I
just
to
some
degree
8
think
that
it

s
­­
I
didn

t
want
to
be
left
with
the
9
impression
that
there
was
sort
of
some
kind
of
a
tweak
10
you
could
make
to
an
airframe
that
would
reduce
11
emissions.
I
just
­­
I
don

t
think
it

s
quite
that
12
simple.
Thanks.
13
MR.
SCHMIDT:
Well,
I
do
think
­­
I
have
seen
14
from
other
sources,
and
I

m
trying
to
think
of
where,
15
but
there
is
slight
modifications
you
can
make
to
the
16
airframe
and
it

s
being
used.
Winglets
have
been
used
17
by
a
number
of
air
carriers
to
reduce
fuel
burn.
And
18
so
I
think
there
is
some
after
the
fact
things
you
can
19
do
to
the
airframe.
They
are
limited
probably,
but
20
it

s
not
­­
21
58
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Thank
you.
1
MR.
THRIFT:
I
have
got
one.
So
far
everybody
2
that
has
commented
has
had
something
to
say
about
the
3
limited
scope
of
the
rules
applicability
and
I
have
one
4
question
that
I
would
address
to
all
of
you
who
have
5
commented
so
far
on
this
issue,
which
is
if
EPA
were
to
6
consider
expanding
the
scope
of
the
rule
would
a
7
supplemental
proposal
be
required
or
would
any
of
those
8
changes
be
possibly
a
logical
outgrowth
of
the
proposal
9
such
that
they
could
be
included
in
the
final
rule?
10
And
that

s
something
that
you
all
can
address
in
your
11
written
comments.
12
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
Thank
you,
Jake.
13
Our
next
witness
is
Mr.
Jack
Saporito
14
representing
the
Alliance
of
Residents
Concerning
15
O

Hare.
16
MR.
SAPORITO:
My
oral
testimony
varies
17
slightly
from
our
written
comments.
18
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
19
MR.
SAPORITO:
Good
morning.
Thank
you
for
20
inviting
us
here
today.
I
am
Jack
Saporito,
executive
21
59
director
of
the
Alliance
of
Residents
Concerning
1
O

Hare.
2
AReCO
is
a
respected
Chicago
area
organization
3
known
globally
and
with
many
years
experience
that
has
4
been
at
that
vanguard
of
the
airport
and
aircraft
5
public
health,
safety
and
environmental
issues
since
6
the
mid­
90'
s.
AReCO
represents
over
40
area
7
communities
with
municipal,
family
and
professional
8
membership
from
across
the
country.
AReCO
is
not
your
9
typical
environmental
organization
since
most
of
our
10
board
members
are
successful
businesspeople,
and
while
11
AReCO
concerned
about
the
economic
costs
of
public
12
health
and
environment
and
the
other
quality
of
life
13
problems,
especially
since
quality
of
life
issues
are
14
one
of
the
major
reasons
that
businesses
locate
where
15
they
do.
16
AReCO
is
also
very
concerned
about
public
17
health
and
environmental
problems
that
harm
airport
18
neighbors
living
20
miles
or
more
away
from
the
19
airports.
Today
I
am
representing
many
of
over,
well
20
over
700
groups
and
hundreds
of
cities
and
towns
that
21
60
are
concerned
about
airport
and
aircraft
related
1
issues,
many
of
whom
along
with
several
scientists
2
provided
support
for
me
to
attend
today.
3
Many
of
my
colleagues
and
members
that
I
4
represent
here
for
the
national
and
international
5
organization
are
employed
in
the
aerospace
industry
­­
6
pilots,
air
traffic
controllers,
employees
of
NASA
and
7
Boeing,
Williams
Aviation
Consultants,
and
many
others
8
such
as
the
well­
respective
Baylor
University
School
of
9
Aviation
and
Air
Sciences.
As
a
result
we
have
a
10
strong
working
knowledge
of
the
issues,
bringing
strong
11
factual
evidence
to
the
table.
We
have
a
vital
12
interest
in
ensuring
that
the
environmental
protection
13
process
fully
complies
with
full
disclosure,
all
14
environmental
laws
and
regulations,
and
all
other
15
aspects
that
will
protect
citizens

healthy,
safety
and
16
our
environment
and
other
quality
of
life
issues.
17
As
you
know,
airports
­­
airport
operations
18
emit
extraordinary
amounts
and
unusual
types
of
serious
19
and
deadly
air,
water,
noise
and
ground
pollution
which
20
is
mostly
unregulated
and
grossly
under
reported
for
21
61
various
reasons.
Airports
and
their
aircraft
are
among
1
the
worst
polluters
in
the
world,
causing
significant
2
damage
not
only
with
their
extraordinary
contribution
3
to
climate
change
but
also
pandemic
public
health
4
problems
caused
by
toxic
pollution.
It
is
important
to
5
remember
that
airports
and
their
aircraft
are
major
6
local
point
or
area
emission
sources
since
over
90
7
percent
of
the
aircraft
emissions
are
emitted
at
or
8
relatively
near
the
airport
during
the
landing
and
9
takeoff
cycles,
idling,
taxiing.
10
Airports
are
basically
major
functioning
­­
11
I

m
sorry
­­
they

re
basically
cities
with
mega­
12
aircraft
operations.
They
have
all
­­
for
instance,
13
O

Hare
Airport
has
a
daily
population
of
about
250,000
14
people
plus
tens
of
thousands
of
airport
workers,
15
caterers,
and
whatever,
and
it
has
all
the
support
16
facilities
you

d
need
for
that.
Major
airports
also
17
have
on­
site
incinerators
to
burn
rubbish,
18
international
rubbish.
There

s
175,000
cars
and
trucks
19
and
buses
that
go
into
O

Hare
each
day
yet
it

s
located
20
on
only
four
square
miles
of
land
in
a
densely
21
62
populated
area.
Accordingly,
a
new
O

Hare
peotone
1
study
shows
that
8.3
million
people

s
health
is
2
affected
by
O

Hare
operations,
5.5
million
3
significantly
so.
4
It
is
unclear
to
me
why
the
EPA
is
motivated
5
in
this
proceeding
to
set
new
NOx
emission
limits.
Is
6
it
for
climate
change
problems,
or
for
public
health
7
reasons,
or
is
it
for
both?
As
you
may
know,
the
U.
S.
8
General
Accounting
Office
looked
at
the
issue
regarding
9
climate
change
and
found
that
in
the
United
States
10
aviation
emissions
accounted
for
about
3
percent
of
the
11
greenhouse
gases
and
other
emissions
that
contribute
to
12
the
global
warming
phenomena.
And
actually
that

s
13
astounding
when
you
think
of
it.
It

s
only
8,600
14
aircraft
here
in
the
U.
S.
that
are
contributing
to
15
that.
While
this
percentage
is
relatively
small,
16
aviation
emissions
are
potentially
significant
for
a
17
number
of
reasons
and
I

m
going
to
quote
from
18
Congressman
Oberstar

s
press
release
on
this,
the
four
19
items.
20

Aircraft
emissions
are
deposited
directly
21
63
into
the
upper
atmosphere
and
some
of
them
have
a
1
greater
warming
effect
than
gases
emitted
closer
to
the
2
earth,
such
as
automobile
exhaust.
Two,
the
primary
3
gas
emitted
by
jet
aircraft
engines
is
carbon
dioxide,
4
which
can
survive
in
the
upper
atmosphere
for
up
to
100
5
years.

6
That

s
the
end
of
the
quote
and
I
would
like
7
to
talk
about
NOx
here.
While
the
release
of
NOx
by
8
aircraft
is
relatively
small
in
the
upper
atmosphere,
9
because
it
lasts
25
times
longer
than
ground
based
10
emissions
it
basically
equates
to
jet
­­
commercial
jet
11
aircraft
are
responsible
for
more
than
half
of
the
man­
12
made
NOx
burden
in
the
upper
atmosphere.
13
Back
on
the
quote,

Number
three,
carbon
14
dioxide
combined
with
other
exhaust
gases
and
15
particulates
emitted
from
jet
engines
could
have
two
to
16
four
times
as
great
an
impact
on
the
atmosphere
as
17
carbon
dioxide
emissions
alone.
And
four,
the
growing
18
demand
for
jet
service
is
likely
to
generate
more
19
emissions
that
cannot
be
offset
by
reductions
achieved
20
through
technological
improvements
alone.

21
64
The
GAO
report
recommended
further
research
1
into
the
impact
of
jet
exhaust
on
the
global
atmosphere
2
to
help
guide
the
development
of
new
engine
aircraft
3
technology.
It
also
called
upon
other
governments
to
4
reduce
emissions
through
improved
air
traffic
control
5
and
regulatory
and
economic
incentives,
thus
reducing
6
the
number
of
flights.
7
Now
many
studies
point
to
commercial
jet
8
aircraft
as
a
major
if
not
the
major
cause
of
man­
made
9
climate
change.
As
in
the
GAO
report
look
for
the
10
European
Union
­­
I

m
sorry
the
European
nations
and
11
others
to
also
demand
the
rationing
of
flights.
12
Regarding
the
proposed
NOx
standards
and
13
public
health,
the
EPA
proposes
to
adopt
into
U.
S.
14
regulations
already
existing
international
civil
15
aviation
organization,
ICAO
aircraft
engine
NOx
16
standards.
Note
that
engine
design
is
driven
by
the
17
air
transportation
industry

s
customer,
those
that
buy
18
the
jets,
who
are
primarily
interested
in
reduced
fuel
19
costs
per
passenger
mile.
The
next
priority
is
the
20
noise
level.
Everything
else,
including
NOx
emissions,
21
65
is
tertiary.
1
It
will
be
argued
by
the
industry
that
2
reducing
fuel
consumption
will
reduce
emissions,
but
3
that
is
not
systematically
true
since
flights
are
4
projected
to
massively
increase,
perhaps
tripling
in
a
5
relatively
short
period
of
time
as
the
Federal
Aviation
6
Administration
testified
to
Congress
in
July.
I
might
7
also
add
that
we
have
internal
documents
from
the
FAA
8
and
NASA
that
show
that
prior
to
September
11th
they
9
were
predicting
flights
to
double
by
2010
and
every
10
eight
to
ten
years
thereafter
until
2050
mainly
as
a
­­
11
because
of
the
economic
globalization
treaties
that
12
will
kick
in
around
28
­­
2008.
In
fact,
the
EPA

s
13
proposed
actions
will
not
significantly
change
local
14
NOx
and
ozone
containment
concentrations
from
airports
15
with
intended
serious
negative
health
impacts
on
16
millions
of
people
nor
will
it
materially
improve
acid
17
rain
conditions,
particulates,
water
acidification,
18
weather
changes,
et
cetera.
This
is
too
little,
too
19
late,
and
that

s
too
bad.
20
The
proposed
NOx
standards
for
engine
21
66
certification
are
already
nine
years
old
and
will
apply
1
only
to
newly
certified
engines
after
2004.
It
will
2
not
apply
to
any
existing
aircraft
in
the
fleet,
nor
3
will
it
apply
to
any
newly
manufactured
aircraft
using
4
already
certified
engines.
Almost
all,
94
percent
of
5
the
existing
fleet
engines,
would
already
meet
these
6
new
standards.
7
Newer
aircraft
engines
often
spew
out
more
NOx
8
than
the
older
ones
that
they
replace
and
the
trend
is
9
not
improving
primarily
because
the
air
transportation
10
industry
has
no
­­
has
little
or
no
interest
in
the
11
issue.
Fuel
economy,
bottom
line
profit,
is
the
number
12
one
motivator,
not
reducing
toxic
emissions
into
our
13
environment.
14
The
EPA
participates
in
ICAO

s
standard
15
setting
committees
but
the
reality
is
that
commercial
16
air
interests
and
money
provide
the
overwhelming
basis
17
for
the
standards.
Also,
many
of
the
members
are
third
18
world
countries
and
cannot
afford
the
needed
standards,
19
especially
since
they
buy
our
used
aircraft
when
20
they

re
20
to
30
years
old.
21
67
We
are
also
concerned
about
the
United
States

1
research
pursuit
directed
at
reduced
NOx
and
emission
2
levels
since,
for
instance,
engine
NOx
reduction
3
research
by
the
National
Aeronautic
and
Space
Agency,
4
NASA,
has
for
all
practical
purposes
ceased
because
of
5
minimization
of
funding.
The
new
NOx
standards,
even
6
though
they
are
directed
at
engine
manufacturers
for
7
say
the
next
decade,
mean
no
substantial
overall
fleet
8
impact
will
be
seen
for
perhaps
two
to
three
decades
9
from
now,
partially
because
they
do
not
push
the
10
technology
lever
bar
upward.
11
To
give
you
a
sense
of
a
time
line,
even
if
we
12
had
all
the
solutions
today,
and
believe
me
they

re
13
decades
away,
it
would
take
two
to
three
decades
before
14
the
U.
S.
fleet
would
be
adequately
­­
would
adequately
15
have
those
standards
­­
met
the
new
requirements.
We
16
need
also
to
be
concerned
about
reducing
NOx
emissions
17
and
unacceptable
noise
levels
that
with
the
current
18
engine
technology
and
petroleum
fuels
that
commercial
19
jet
aviation
are
addicted
to
for
the
next
four
to
five
20
decades
increase
hazardous
and
toxic
air
emissions,
21
68
therefore
compounding
the
airport
poisoning
health
1
problems
that
are
already
pandemic
in
nature.
2
Data
from
both
the
State
of
Illinois
and
the
3
EPA
agencies
show
that
O

Hare

s
aircraft
alone
already
4
emit
more
volatile
organic
chemicals
­­
or
compounds­­
5
than
from
all
the
Illinois
generating
power
plants
6
combined,
with
carbon
monoxide
emissions
as
much
as
60
7
percent
of
that
total.
Adding
the
associated
ground,
8
mobile
and
stationary
emissions
would
at
least
double
9
that.
10
Based
on
the
data
that
AReCO
has
it
appears
11
that
also
the
other
Clean
Air
Act
criteria
is
also
off
12
the
charts.
And
it

s
not
only
the
amount
of
emissions,
13
it

s
also
other
trigger
effects
like
the
synergistic
14
effects,
atmospheric,
solar
decomposing,
the
15
synergistic
effects
of
over
the
200
compounds
or
toxics
16
that
we
found
being
emitted
from
the
airports.
17
Engine
particulate
standards
beyond
NOx
drive
18
secondaries
continue
to
be
non­
existence,
with
the
air
19
industry
dominated
ICAO
totally
unwilling
to
advance
20
beyond
their
now
ancient
smoke
number
standard
that
was
21
69
basically
designed
to
hide
the
pollution
from
us.
In
1
order
to
protect
the
American
public
the
U.
S.
EPA
must
2
officially
adopt
the
position
and
action
plan
in
this
3
proceeding
to
rectify
this
egregious
situation.
4
Aviation
related
emissions
are
different
than
5
any
other
type
of
polluter
and
it
doesn

t
take
much.
6
A
Los
Angeles
school
district

s
studies
data
found
that
7
just
small
flight
volumes
of
approximately
15
jet
8
operations
a
day
causes
a
significant
increase
in
9
cancer
risks
among
people
living
in
the
flight
paths.
10
A
prestigious
eight
state
EPA
NESCAUM
study
11
found
that
collectively
the
aircraft
alone
at
Boston

s
12
Logan,
Bradley
and
Manchester
airports
emitted
35
tons
13
of
NOx,
44
tons
of
CO,
and
700
tons
of
hydrocarbon
in
14
1999.
The
combined
aircraft
related
benzine
emissions
15
were
20
tons
at
the
three
airports
in
1999.
By
16
startling
comparison
aggregate
benzine
emissions
from
17
the
largest
stationary
sources
in
Massachusetts,
18
Kentucky
­­
I

m
sorry
­­
Connecticut,
and
New
Hampshire
19
combined
total
only
19
­­
only
6
tons
in
1996.
20
To
make
another
point,
O

Hare,
Dallas,
21
70
Atlanta,
and
some
of
the
other
major
airports
have
more
1
operations,
flight
operations
than
those
three
airports
2
combined
and
much
larger
aircraft,
but
I

m
not
3
downplaying
the
significance
of
those
three
airports
4
and
the
pollution
they
cause.
In
fact,
extrapolating
5
the
study

s
findings
to
Chicago
O

Hare
Airport
and
all
6
of
its
related
aircraft
operations
demonstrate
that
7
it

s
not
only
one
of
the
worst
polluters
in
the
state
8
of
Illinois
but
among
the
worst,
if
not
the
worst,
man­
9
made
air
polluter
in
at
least
the
United
States.
10
Government
and
independent
studies
show
that
11
there
are
strong
correlations
that
O

Hare
airport
and
12
its
aircraft
operations
is
a
major
contributor
in
full
13
or
in
part
towards
the
deaths
of
hundreds
of
people
14
each
year
from
cancer
alone.
Besides
the
significant
15
impacts
that
aircraft
have
on
our
upper
atmosphere,
16
locally
the
emissions
from
airports
and
aircraft
17
operations
pose
a
significant
health
threat
and
have
18
been
linked
to
conditions
including
cancer,
asthma,
19
brain
tumors,
emphysema,
heart
disease,
leukemia,
20
Hodgkin

s
disease,
kidney
damage
and
scores
of
others.
21
71
Evidence
shows
emissions
from
airports
and
aircraft
1
expose
an
extremely
large
number
of
people
living
and
2
working
in
distances
greater
than
20
miles
away
from
an
3
airport.
A
study
commissioned
by
four
local
4
communities
found
that
O

Hare
Airport
emitted
over
200
5
toxins
and
showed
that
O

Hare
represented
unacceptable
6
cancer
risks
for
a
32
mile
radius
around
the
airport.
7
Over
70
percent
of
our
nation

s
population
8
lives
within
20
miles
of
a
major
airport.
I

d
like
to
9
repeat
that.
It
bears
repeating.
Over
70
percent
of
10
our
nation

s
population
lives
within
20
miles
of
a
11
major
airport.
12
We
firmly
believe
that
O

Hare
is
a
major
13
reason
that
the
Chicago
area
has
some
of
the
highest
14
cancers
and
other
airport
poisoning
disease
rates
in
15
America.
And
just
to
show
the
problem
of
cities,
there
16
are
three
other
major
airports
located
within
20,
25
17
miles
of
O

Hare
and
that
situation
is
no
different
than
18
most
major
cities
­­
Washington,
LA,
New
York.
19
What
is
needed
are
comprehensive
and
20
aggressive
solutions.
One,
the
EPA
should
establish
21
72
the
NOX
regulations
to
a
much
tougher
level,
one
that
1
might
be
acceptable
if
say
90
percent
of
the
fleet
2
could
not
meet
it.
This
same
standard
should
3
additionally
be
applied
retroactively
to
all
existing
4
aircraft
with
a
phase
in
period
linearly
with
5
increasing
stringency
for
about
the
next
20
years.
6
Two,
the
air
industry
should
be
forced
to
7
contribute,
perhaps
through
passenger
facility
charges,
8
at
least
$
10
million
a
year
to
the
EPA
and
NASA
for
9
engine
research
directed
at
emission
reductions.
10
Three,
the
U.
S.
EPA
should
immediately
change
11
regulations
to
cause
all
airports
to
be
considered
12
consolidated
sources
of
NOx
and
other
criteria
and
13
toxic
pollutant
emissions.
This
aggregation
should
14
include
all
fleet,
mobile
and
area
sources
and
aircraft
15
­­
and
sources
of
airport
and
aircraft
related
sources,
16
both
on
and
off
airport
property,
as
well
as
aircraft
17
operations
generally
below
3,000
meter
altitude.
18
Four,
EPA
and
the
Federal
Aviation
19
Administration
should
petition
and
demand
that
ICAO
20
include
significant
voting
representation
of
21
73
environmental
interests
within
their
committee
on
1
aviation
environmental
protection,
CAEP
committees,
2
otherwise
U.
S.
funding
will
be
appropriately
reduced.
3
Five,
this
procedure
should
require
that
all
4
new
aircraft
engine
certifications
include
measurements
5
and
characterizations
of
PM10
and
PM2.5
particulate
6
matter
emissions
in
each
of
the
five
major
operating
7
modes
starting
in
the
year
2004.
8
Six,
further
this
proceeding
should
require
9
that
all
existing
engines
be
similarly
measured
and
10
characterized
for
particulate
matter
over
the
next
11
three
years.
12
Seven,
all
airport
expansion
projects
from
13
here
forward
involving
an
operational
increase
shall
14
have
environmental
evaluations
and
effective
mitigation
15
of
the
consolidated
airport,
aircraft
operations
16
producing
particulate
matter
of
at
least
2.5
air
17
quality
degradations
estimated
using,
amongst
other
18
metrics,
either
aircraft
engine
measurements
or
default
19
maximum
expected
values
established
by
the
EPA
and
20
using
dispersion
analysis
models
and
techniques
21
74
appropriate
to
the
geographical
and
meteorological
1
airport
conditions
rather
than
just
the
FAA
mandated
2
model.
3
Eight,
in
the
next
proceeding,
EPA,
FAA,
along
4
with
Congress
should
establish
airport
based
incentive
5
landing
fees
proportional
to
the
amount
of
pollutants
6
an
aircraft
emits
at
that
facility,
in
the
total
five
7
operating
modes,
where
such
fees
are
of
an
amount
8
guaranteed
to
materially
prompt
both
the
airlines
and
9
airports
to
reduce
pollutant
emissions.
These
10
incentive
fees
should
be
placed
in
a
trust
fund
11
directed
strictly
at
the
environmental
­­
strictly
at
12
environmental
improvements
administered
by
the
EPA
with
13
an
independent
fund
disbursal
oversight
board
which
14
includes
significant
environmental
interest
15
representation.
16
I
would
like
to
finish
with
what
we
believe
is
17
one
of
the
top
stumbling
blocks
to
protecting
the
18
majority
of
Americans
who
are
harmed
by
airport
and
19
aircraft
operations.
One
of
the
many
purposely
oft
20
repeated
air
industry
distortions
is
that
airports
in
21
75
general,
and
Chicago

s
O

Hare
Airport
specifically,
are
1
the
primary
economic
engines
of
cities
future
growth
or
2
new
growth.
However,
as
pointed
out
in
the
report
I
3
gave,
A
Vicious
Circle,
the
primary
indicating
numbers
4
do
not
bear
that
out.
Furthermore,
the
ill­
advised
5
plans
that
are
going
forward
to
massively
expand
6
existing
airports
will
basically
provide
only
temporary
7
jobs
for
construction
while
eliminating
perhaps
8
millions
of
new
potential
­­
new
jobs
and
businesses
9
that
would
be
created
by
building
a
national,
world­
10
class,
high
speed
rail
system
with
sophisticated
inter­
11
modal
operations.
12
We
stand
with
the
GAO
in
opposing
such
massive
13
expansion
of
existing
facilities
and
with
them
on
their
14
major
solutions
to
long
term
capacity
needs
which
are,
15
one,
take
the
issue
away
from
the
FAA
and
make
this
a
16
transportation
issue,
not
just
an
aviation
issue;
two,
17
put
back
the
operational
and
management
controls,
the
18
removal
of
which
started
the
massive
delays
we
saw
back
19
in
2000;
three,
build
a
national
weigh
port
system
and;
20
four,
build
a
world­
class
national
high
speed
rail
21
76
system.
1
Finally,
airports
and
major
urban
populated
2
areas
are
indeed
incompatible,
not
necessarily
because
3
of
some
inherent
incompatibility
but
rather
because
4
both
the
regulators,
the
FAA,
EPA,
Congress,
the
5
President,
have
not
yet
properly
set
the
necessary
6
protective
rules
in
place
and
the
airports
and
airlines
7
have
not
properly
characterized
their
emissions
or
the
8
technology
needed.
9
There
are
also
other
solutions,
such
as
10
building
new
environmentally
friendly
airport
designs,
11
developing
new
fuel
sources,
et
cetera.
However,
again
12
they
are
so
futuristic.
What
they

re
doing
now
is
­­
13
what
they
have
on
the
table
now
is
to
fly,
lift
off
a
14
plane
with
one
fuel
and
change
over
in
flight
for
15
another.
And
there

s
various
fuel
combinations.
Some
16
of
the
problems
they

re
having
right
now
is
that
they
17
freeze
just
around
zero.
But
the
technology
that

s
18
needed,
that
they

re
really
looking
at,
are
hydrogen,
19
which
Boeing
and
Airbus
just
put
on
a
shelf
because
20
there

s
problems
with
holding
capacity.
The
tanks
21
77
would
be
bigger
than
the
airplanes.
Another
one
that
1
they

re
looking
at
which
is
very
futuristic
but
I

ve
2
seen
the
test
on
is
laser,
flying
airplanes
by
laser.
3
But
we

re
talking
way
in
the
future.
4
This
is
America
and
we
need
to
set
the
5
protection
bar
higher,
not
adopt
one
that

s
set
for
6
developing
nations

pocketbooks
or
just
for
airline
7
profit
maximization.
We
need
to
protect
America
first.
8
Thank
you.
9
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Saporito.
We
10
appreciate
your
comments.
11
Early
in
your
statement
you
asked
the
question
12
of
whether
EPA
was
proposing
this
NOx
standard
for
13
climate
change
purposes
or
for
health
purposes
and
I
14
would
just
like
to
respond
to
that,
that
the
primary
15
reason
is
to
protect
public
health,
to
reduce
NOx
16
because
of
its
contribution
to
forming
ozone
which
is
a
17
national
air
quality
criteria
pollutant.
So
that
is
18
the
primary
reason.
19
We
do
appreciate
your
comments
related
to
20
climate
change,
but
I
did
want
to
make
that
point.
21
78
MR.
SAPORITO:
Thank
you.
1
MR.
ZINGER:
Another
question,
on
item
number
2
3
of
your
list
of
eight
suggestions
­­
let
me
find
it
3
here.
You
suggest
that
EPA
change
the
regulations
to
4
consolidate
all
sources
of
pollution
at
an
airport.
I
5
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
elaborate
on
what
the
6
implications
of
that
are
and
what
the
purpose
would
be
7
if
we
were
to
do
that.
8
MR.
SAPORITO:
There
are
various
polluters
at
9
airports.
United
is
one
polluter,
American
is
another
10
polluter,
the
city
of
Chicago
and
the
airport
owner
is
11
another
polluter.
The
de­
icing
company
that
they
hire
12
is
another
polluter.
There
is
various
sources
and
it

s
13
not
­­
the
problem
with
us
finding
out
how
much
an
14
airport
pollutes
­­
and
the
aircraft
are
another
15
polluter.
They

re
considered
a
car
basically.
The
16
problem
with
us
getting
a
hold
of
the
actual
numbers
of
17
the
polluters
is
finding
out
who
they
are,
how
much
18
they
pollute,
and
putting
it
all
together.
19
The
traffic
that

s
backed
up
on
a
Monday
20
morning
or
Friday
night
all
the
way
downtown
Chicago
by
21
79
O

Hare
Airport,
that

s
pollution
caused
by
the
airport.
1
And
while
some
might
say,
well,
why
are
you
2
considering
something
like
that,
well
that

s
used
­­
3
that
number
is
used
in
productivity
levels.
They
4
actually
count
the
number
­­
the
amount
of
time
that

s
5
lost
because
O

Hare
Airport
is
a
productivity.
So
I
6
believe
that
that
should
also
be
included.
7
I
hope
I

ve
answered
your
question.
I
don

t
8
know.
Is
that
­­
9
MR.
ZINGER:
I
think
so.
I
mean
­­
10
MR.
SAPORITO:
There
are
many
sources
of
11
pollution
and
they

re
not
all
considered
one.
They

re
12
all
considered
somebody
else

s
pollution
and
that

s
the
13
problem.
14
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
So
I
can
see
that
one
15
benefit
would
be
to
have
a
more
comprehensive
inventory
16
of
where
the
pollution
comes
from.
17
MR.
SAPORITO:
Yes.
18
MR.
ZINGER:
I
guess
I
was
also
asking
if
you
19
had
in
mind
that
it
would
follow
that
somehow
we
would
20
address
those
pollution
sources
in
some
comprehensive
21
80
fashion,
like
I
think
it
had
been
suggested
by
a
1
previous
witness
that
there
could
be
an
airport
bubble
2
or
a
cap­
and­
trade
system
over
the
entire
airport
as
3
opposed
to
identifying
and
controlling
individually
the
4
sources
of
pollution.
So
I
was
just
questioning
5
whether
you
had
that
concept
in
mind
or
something
else.
6
MR.
SAPORITO:
A
cap­
and­
trade
bubble
is
good
7
if
you

re
going
to
cap
the
number
of
flights,
but
I
8
don

t
see
that
happening
from
a
financial
aspect.
The
9
problem
is
cap­
and­
trade
probably
will
not
work
because
10
it

s
the
aircraft
that
are
generating
all
the
other
11
pollution
sources
besides
themselves.
If
you
put
in
12
one
flight
you

re
probably
talking
200
vehicles
or
more
13
just
to
service
that
one
flight
­­
people
driving
in,
14
buses,
the
buggies,
and
all
the
pollution
it
creates
15
plus
the
water
pollution.
I
mean
really
if
you
start
16
thinking
about
it,
just
bringing
in
one
flight
creates
17
a
whole
source
of
pollution
not
only
in
the
bubble
but
18
people
are
going
downtown.
So
I

m
not
sure
cap­
and­
19
trade
would
work
unless
you
capped
the
number
of
20
flights
and
then
start
from
there.
21
81
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
1
Other
questions?
2
MR.
SAPORITO:
Thank
you.
3
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Yes,
sir.
On
page
1
of
your
4
statement
you
make
the
statement
that
90
percent
of
5
aircraft
emissions
are
emitted
at
or
relatively
near
6
the
airport
during
the
landing/
takeoff
cycle.
I
don

t
7
think
that

s
our
understanding
at
all
of
the
actual
8
machinations
of
aircraft.
In
fact,
most
is
at
9
altitude,
what
we
would
call
at
altitude.
I

m
curious
10
as
to
where
you
might
have
derived
that.
11
MR.
SAPORITO:
This
goes
back
a
number
of
12
years.
However
­­
and
I
don

t
know
the
studies.
I

d
13
have
to
go
back
and
try
to
find
them.
It
showed
that
7
14
percent
of
the
emissions
­­
I

m
sorry
7
percent
of
the
15
fuel
was
actually
burned
in
flight.
The
rest
of
it
was
16
getting
up
there
and
getting
down,
and
that

s
where
the
17
major
resources
are
and
that
happens
at
the
airport.
18
MR.
PASSAVANT:
If
you
can
find
that
and
19
provide
that
to
us
that
would
be
very
helpful.
20
MR.
SAPORITO:
Sure.
This
is
a
hunt.
21
82
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Good
luck.
1
MR.
SAPORITO:
Thank
you.
2
MR.
PASSAVANT:
And
maybe
if
you
could
just
3
take
a
quick
moment
and
on
the
bottom
of
what
would
be,
4
I
guess
it
would
be
page
4,
your
first
point,
you
seem
5
to
be,
if
I

m
reading
this
correctly,
suggesting
that
6
we
set
a
standard
that

s
much
more
stringent
than
7
what

s
been
proposed.

EPA
should
establish
the
NOx
8
regulations
at
a
much
tougher
level,
one
that
might
be
9
acceptable
if
90
percent
of
existing
fleet
engines
10
could
not
meet
it.

11
So
alluding
to
our
little
chart
you
would
say
12
move
the
line
down
so
that
only
10
percent
of
existing
13
engines
could
meet
it,
and
if
I

m
reading
this
14
correctly,
phase
it
out?

This
standard
should
be
15
applied
retroactively
to
all
existing
fleet
engines.

16
So
essentially
you
would
make
this
an
in
use
standard
17
as
well?
18
MR.
SAPORITO:
Yes.
19
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Okay.
Thank
you.
20
MR.
SAPORITO:
Thank
you.
21
83
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
1
MR.
MANNING:
A
question
on
the
last
page.
2
You
may
have
touched
upon
this
already,
but
the
first
3
paragraph,
the
last
page,
you
talk
about
building
a
4
national
weigh
port
system.
5
MR.
SAPORITO:
Yes.
A
weigh
port
system
would
6
solve
a
lot
of
our
capacity
problems
right
now
at
7
airports
and
bring
in
­­
it
would
open
up
the
slots
for
8
the
money
makers,
the
long
distance
flights.
And
what
9
that
is
is
building
­­
when
we
say
four
to
six,
the
GAO
10
says
up
to
ten
airports
far
enough
away
from
the
urban
11
population,
environmentally
buffered,
and
strictly
12
zoned
to
limit
urban
sprawl.
And
what
we
would
do
13
there
is
to
send
it
transfer
traffic.
14
O

Hare
has
54
to
56
percent
of
the
passengers
15
coming
in
there
are
just
transferring.
It

s
basically
16
wearing
down
the
carpet
and
getting
on
another
plane
17
and
they
could
be
getting
on
a
plane
somewhere
else
18
that

s
mainly
an
airport
for
that
purpose.
And
I
don

t
19
know
how
much
mail
and
cargo,
but
I
assume
­­
and
20
freight
­­
I
assume
it

s
a
lot,
but
I
don

t
know
the
21
84
numbers
on
that.
1
The
other
reduction
would
be
high­
speed
rail.
2
About
50
percent
of
the
flights
more
or
less
are
500
3
miles
or
less
around
airports
in
the
U.
S.
and
they
4
could
be
going
more
efficiently
on
high
speed
rail
5
rather
than
on
­­
by
air.
6
And
I
think
what
would
most
interesting
and
7
beneficial
for
the
air
transportation
industry
would
be
8
to
link
these
all
up
as
a
world­
class
inter­
modal
9
operations,
high
speed
rail
to
the
airports
and
10
possibly
giving
them
either
ownership
or
some
kind
of
a
11
share
in
the
running,
or
operation,
or
tickets.
I
12
believe
that
that

s
the
future
anyhow.
13
I
think
Europe,
a
lot
of
Europe
is
doing
it.
14
If
I

m
not
mistaken
Germany,
Italy
and
others
are
15
already
saying
you
can

t
fly
regionally.
It
has
to
be
16
by
rail.
Lufthansa
I
think
was
ordered
to.
17
Does
that
answer
­­
18
MR.
MANNING:
Okay.
19
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you
very
much.
20
MR.
SAPORITO:
Thank
you
very
much.
21
85
MR.
ZINGER:
Our
next
witness
is
Nancy
Young
1
from
the
Air
Transport
Association.
2
MS.
YOUNG:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Nancy
3
Young
and
I

m
the
managing
director
of
environmental
4
programs
for
the
Air
Transport
Association
of
America,
5
ATA.
6
As
you
may
know,
ATA
is
the
principal
trade
7
and
service
organization
of
the
major
scheduled
air
8
carriers
in
the
United
States.
Accordingly,
we

re
9
interested
in
this
rulemaking
under
discussion
today
as
10
it
will
effect
the
aircraft
available
to
our
carriers,
11
ensuring
that
those
aircraft
have
enhanced
NOx
12
performance
while
also
ensuring
that
the
United
States
13
regulations
on
aircraft
engine
emissions
are
fully
14
consistent
with
the
international
standards
established
15
by
the
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization
or
16
ICAO.
17
ATA
strongly
supports
the
proposal
put
forward
18
by
EPA.
While
ATA
is
preparing
detailed
comments
for
19
submission
within
the
formal
comment
period
for
this
20
rulemaking,
we
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
share
21
86
some
of
the
reasons
that
we
support
the
proposal.
1
First
and
foremost
we
support
the
proposal
2
because
it

s
based
on
sound
technical
grounds.
EPA
3
proposes
to
codify
into
United
States
law
the
NOx
4
certification
standard
adopted
by
the
ICAO
in
1999.
As
5
the
record
for
this
rulemaking
demonstrates,
that
6
certification
standard
was
subject
to
rigorous
study
by
7
ICAO
and
its
Committee
on
Aviation
Environmental
8
Protection,
CAEP.
9
CAEP

s
studies
focused
on
three
fundamental
10
criteria
­­
what
NOx
certification
standard
would
be
11
technologically
feasible,
environmentally
beneficial
12
and
economically
reasonable.
These
criteria
are
the
13
right
technical
criteria
for
aircraft
engine
emission
14
standards.
In
addition,
they
are
fully
consistent
with
15
the
mandates
of
the
United
States
Clean
Air
Act
with
16
respect
to
aircraft
engine
emission
standards.
17
Confirming
technological
feasibility
is
a
must
18
in
setting
aircraft
engine
emission
standards.
That
is
19
because
the
aircraft
must
be
airworthy,
safe
and
fully
20
operable
under
flight
conditions
without
comprise
as
a
21
87
first
order
of
business.
Accordingly,
whether
an
1
emission
standard
is
technologically
feasible
depends
2
not
on
just
whether
it
can
be
achieved
in
a
laboratory
3
or
even
on
one
aircraft
type,
but
whether
it
can
be
4
achieved
on
a
range
of
actual
aircraft
engine
and
5
airframe
combinations
that
are
certified
as
airworthy,
6
safe
and
fully
operable
under
flight
conditions,
again
7
without
comprise.
8
The
ICAO
standard
that
EPA
proposes
to
codify
9
ensures
these
things
and
therefore
is
the
right
10
standard
for
the
United
States
and
the
traveling
11
public.
In
addition,
beyond
ensuring
feasibility
the
12
standard
also
provides
significant
environmental
13
benefit.
The
standard
at
issue
provides
a
16
percent
14
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
beyond
the
current
15
standards,
and
the
current
NOx
engine
emission
standard
16
which
were
codified
into
U.
S.
law
in
1997
brought
a
20
17
percent
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
from
previous
18
standards.
19
For
those
stakeholders
interested
only
in
NOx
20
reduction
the
benefits
of
this
rulemaking
may
not
seem
21
88
like
enough.
However,
we
cannot
and
should
not
be
1
looking
at
just
NOx
alone.
At
the
same
time
2
improvements
are
being
made
in
NOx
the
manufacturers
3
and
the
airlines
continue
to
make
progress
across
the
4
spectrum
of
environmental
parameters
applicable
to
5
aircraft
engines.
6
For
example,
since
1975
we

ve
made
125
percent
7
gain
in
fuelistration
statistics.
Also
since
1975
8
we

ve
reduced
the
population
exposed
to
significant
9
levels
of
aircraft
noise
under
what

s
referred
to
as
10
the
65
D&
L
Standard.
Within
the
United
States
we

ve
11
reduced
this
from
over
7
million
to
fewer
than
500,000
12
people
today,
all
the
while
tripling
our
enplanements.
13
We

ve
also
achieved
continued
reductions
in
carbon
14
monoxide
smoke
and
unburned
hydrocarbons.
15
With
these
advances
across
environmental
16
parameters,
as
I
noted
we
should
not
look
at
NOx
alone
17
but
also
we
cannot.
The
complicated
physics
in
18
aircraft
engines
demands
that
no
single
parameter
be
19
considered
to
the
exclusion
of
others.
That
is
because
20
there
are
demonstrated
interrelationships
and
trade­
21
89
offs
between
various
parameters.
For
example,
1
increasing
the
pressure
ratio
for
aircraft
engines
2
reduces
fuel
burn
and
resulting
carbon
dioxide
by
3
improving
thermal
efficiency.
However,
such
an
4
increase
also
increases
NOx
production,
and
depending
5
on
the
degree
of
the
pressure
ratio
change
may
also
6
affect
noise.
These
and
other
interrelationships
need
7
to
be
considered
and
addressed
as
we
seek
continued
8
improvements
across
the
spectrum
of
environmental
9
parameters.
10
So
in
addition
to
demonstrating
that
the
11
standard
under
consideration
is
technologically
12
feasible
and
environmentally
beneficial,
ICAO
also
13
found
that
it

s
economically
reasonable.
That,
too,
is
14
important
as
a
legal
matter
as
the
Clean
Air
Act
15
directs
that
the
cost
of
engine
emission
standards
be
16
taken
into
account.
But
it

s
also
important
as
a
17
matter
of
economic
stability,
not
just
for
the
aviation
18
industry
but
also
for
the
United
States
economy
in
19
general.
20
I
will
not
belabor
the
point,
but
most
21
90
certainly
air
transportation
powers
our
national
1
economy.
This
was
made
readily
apparent
by
the
events
2
of
9/
11
and
the
continued
economic
downturn
since.
As
3
a
sound
economy
benefits
us
all,
and
also
is
strongly
4
correlated
with
better
environmental
performances,
5
performance
across
all
sectors,
economic
reasonableness
6
makes
for
both
good
economic
as
well
as
good
7
environmental
policy.
8
While
the
first
reason
ATA
supports
the
9
proposed
NOx
standard
is
that
it
is
technically
sound.
10
A
close
second
is
the
fact
that
it
would
ensure
that
11
the
United
States
regulations
on
NOx
from
aircraft
12
emissions,
engines,
remain
consistent
with
the
13
standards
established
by
ICAO.
As
the
preamble
to
the
14
proposed
rule
points
out,
consistency
of
United
States
15
engine
certification
standards
with
ICAO
standards
is
16
critical
to
the
acceptance
of
U.
S.
certified
aircraft
17
worldwide.
18
Put
in
practical
terms,
based
on
our
treaty
19
obligations
under
the
Chicago
Cfly
internationally
20
without
undue
restriction
by
other
countries.
And
21
91
although
we
are
focusing
on
the
NOx
standard
here
what
1
is
at
stake
is
far
greater
­­
that
is
the
continued
2
viability
of
a
proven
United
Nations
body,
ICAO,
to
3
establish
worldwide
consensus
standards
on
the
myriad
4
of
safety,
security,
environmental
air
traffic
5
management
and
other
parameters
that
allow
6
international
aviation
to
function.
7
By
having
key
aircraft
and
engine
standards
8
established
by
ICAO
the
global
community
has
devised
a
9
way
for
aircraft
to
fly
from
country
to
country
without
10
having
to
do
the
impossible
­­
change
aircraft
engines
11
or
other
vital
parts
in
mid­
air
to
satisfy
what
surely
12
would
be
varying
standards
at
each
destination.
To
the
13
extent
we
can
honor
this
system
by
adopting
the
ICAO
14
standards
into
our
own
law
we
should
as
it
makes
15
international
travel
possible
and
better
overall
as
the
16
rest
world,
too,
must
adhere
to
the
standards.
17
The
NOx
standard
is
certainly
a
standard
we
18
should
honor
as
the
United
States
played
a
key
role
in
19
its
development
at
ICAO
and
supported
its
adoption
20
there.
21
92
And
here
I
must
add
a
bit
of
constructive
1
criticism
to
my
testimony.
While
we
support
EPA

s
2
proposal
to
adopt
the
ICAO
standard
we
believe
it
3
should
have
been
­­
it
would
have
been
better
had
the
4
United
States
done
so
sooner.
As
the
proposed
rule
5
points
out,
ICAO
adopted
the
standard
in
1999.
Given
6
market
forces
upon
its
adoption
the
manufacturers
began
7
in
earnest
to
comply
with
the
standard,
even
though
it
8
will
not
become
effective
under
the
ICAO
mandate
until
9
January
1,
2004.
As
ATA
has
repeatedly
requested
since
10
1999
to
show
its
commitment
to
such
ICAO
standards,
but
11
also
to
show
a
more
orderly
progress
in
the
United
12
States
standards,
EPA
should
have
taken
steps
to
adopt
13
this
rule
immediately.
14
As
EPA
notes
in
the
proposed
rule,
ICAO

s
15
Committee
on
Aviation
Environmental
Protection
is
now
16
assessing
another
NOx
engine
emission
standard.
ATA
17
supports
the
work
that
ICAO,
CAEP
are
doing
to
analyze
18
potential
options
for
another
standard
because
we
want
19
to
continue
to
improve
the
NOx
profiles
of
our
aircraft
20
on
a
go
forward
basis.
We
urge
the
United
States
to
21
93
work
within
this
process
to
ensure
that
the
next
1
standard,
like
the
one
under
consideration
today,
is
2
technologically
feasible,
environmentally
beneficial,
3
and
economically
reasonable
while
taking
into
account
4
and
avoiding
undue
environmental
trade­
offs.
5
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
for
me
to
6
provide
testimony
today.
7
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you,
Nancy.
A
couple
of
8
questions.
Most
of
the
previous
witnesses
have
9
mentioned
as
a
point
of
criticism
that
this
proposal
10
does
not
require
existing
engines,
those
that
are
11
already
certified,
to
meet
the
new
NOx
standard.
I
12
wonder
if
ATA
has
any
comments
that
you
would
like
to
13
make
either
today
or
in
your
written
submission
letter
14
on
that
point.
15
MS.
YOUNG:
I

ll
make
two
comments
today,
that
16
we
certainly
are
going
to
expand
our
comments
for
17
purposes
of
the
December
15th
deadline.
One,
the
way
18
the
proposal
puts
it
it
is
really
a
question
about
in­
19
production
aircraft
that
have
already
­­
engines
that
20
are
already
certified
should
those
be
affected.
I
mean
21
94
there
are
actually
two
sets
we

d
be
interested
in.
One
1
that
the
question
isn

t
posed
at,
which
is
the
existing
2
fleet,
we
absolutely
oppose
anything
that
retroactively
3
applies
to
the
existing
fleet.
4
But
then
with
respect
to
the
aircraft
engines
5
that
are
in­
production,
the
two
points
I
would
make
­­
6
one,
when
ICAO
sets
the
standard,
because
there
are
so
7
few
engine
manufacturers
and
all
of
us
have
to
operate
8
internationally,
immediately
the
manufacturers
begin
to
9
conform
their
behavior
basically.
They
do
the
best
10
that
they
can
do
to
make
­­
to
meet
the
standard.
11
And
so
there
really
is
a
market­
based
driven
12
production
cutoff
for
in­
production
aircraft.
And
13
that

s
really
then
borne
out
historically.
By
the
14
time,
you
know
­­
by
the
time
a
new
standard
is
15
implemented,
as
this
one
will
be
on
January
1,
2004,
16
most
of
the
aircraft
engines
meet
it.
That

s
exactly
17
what

s
happened
and
that

s
exactly
what
people
are
18
complaining
about.
19
ICAO
actually
adopted
this
standard
or
it
was
20
adopted
by
CAEP
in
1998.
So
really
since
1998,
because
21
95
the
action
in
1999
was
just
confirmatory,
we

ve
all
1
known
that
this
standard
was
going
to
go
into
effect
2
and
we
did
what
we
needed
to
do
to
come
into
3
compliance.
4
So
I
guess
point
number
one
is
the
market
5
driven
behavior
obviates
the
need
for
a
production
6
cutoff.
But
­­
and
on
number
two,
we
haven

t
really
7
studied
a
production
cutoff
for
this
particular
rule
in
8
the
United
States
yet.
ICAO
is
looking
at
that
9
question
right
now
and
is
doing
a
study
on
that
that
10
will
be
produced
at
CAEP
6,
and
that
shows
that
there
11
are
only
a
couple
of
engines
left
that
don

t
meet
it.
12
So,
you
know,
we

re
looking
at
that
data
to
13
see
what
position
we
should
take,
but
I
don

t
think
14
we

re
talking
about
a
significant
set
of
aircraft
15
engines.
16
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
Thank
you
for
that.
17
MS.
YOUNG:
Does
that
answer
your
question?
18
MR.
ZINGER:
Yes.
Yes,
I
think
it
does.
Let
19
me
just
pursue
that
a
little
further.
If
in
fact
as
20
you
and
other
witnesses
have
pointed
out
most
of
the
21
96
engines
already
meet
the
standard
then
that
could
be
1
turned
into
an
argument
that
it
doesn

t
necessarily
2
matter
if
EPA
were
to
codify
the
standard
as
applying
3
to
all
engines
that
are
produced
after
say
2004,
that
4
they
would
have
to
meet
the
standard.
5
So,
I
mean,
this
is
probably
more
of
a
comment
6
than
a
question.
You
can
certainly
respond
if
you
7
would
like.
8
MS.
YOUNG:
To
the
extent
that
there
are
any
9
engines
that
aren

t
meeting
it
now,
I
mean
this
is
a
10
substantive
difference
between
the
proposal
that
you
11
would
put
on
the
table
and
one
that
would
say
that
12
production
engines
that
don

t
meet
the
standard,
you
13
know,
can

t
be
produced.
14
MR.
ZINGER:
I
think
I
was
just
following
up
15
on
the
point
that
as
soon
as
ICAO
adopts
the
standards
16
all
of
the
manufacturers
take
steps
to
try
to
meet
that
17
as
quickly
as
possible,
presumably
with
all
the
engines
18
that
they
are
producing
at
that
time.
And
so
it
just
19
seems
to
follow
that
it
really
doesn

t
have
much
of
an
20
effect
if
EPA
were
to
adopt
it
as
applying
to
all
21
97
engines
that
are
produced
after
the
effective
date
1
because
they

re
all
going
to
be
there
anyway.
2
And
I

m
just
trying
to
understand
­­
I
think
3
that

s
the
point
some
of
the
other
witnesses
were
4
making,
and
again
I
think
this
is
more
in
terms
of
a
5
comment
but
certainly
if
you
have
a
response
to
that
we
6
would
be
­­
we
would
like
to
hear
it.
7
MS.
YOUNG:
The
standards
should
apply
to
8
aircraft
that

s
certified,
newly
certified
aircraft
9
engines.
That

s
what
the
ICAO
provision
is
and
we
10
support
the
United
States
complying
with
what
ICAO
has
11
endorsed
and
the
United
States
supported
in
the
process
12
five
years
­­
or
seven
years
ago
or
whatever
it
was.
13
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
Thank
you.
14
MS.
YOUNG:
My
math
is
bad.
15
MR.
ZINGER:
One
other,
I
guess,
request.
If
16
you
do
have
comments
to
make
on
this
we

ve
also
­­
I
17
guess
one
of
the
benefits
of
going
­­
you
have
some
18
benefits
and
disadvantages
of
going
last
as
the
19
witness.
We

ve
had
a
chance
to
hear
a
number
of
the
20
other
people
and
therefore
I

m
asking
some
questions
21
98
related
to
what
they
have
commented
on
as
well.
1
We

ve
heard
a
number
of
witnesses
point
out
2
that
the
standards
that
we
are
proposing
are
not
3
technology
forcing,
and
I
understand
from
your
4
statement
some
of
the
reasons
why
you
think
­­
5
MS.
YOUNG:
Which
I
would
be
glad
to
elaborate
6
on.
7
MS.
ZINGER:
Let
me
just
ask
a
hypothetical
8
scenario.
Does
ATA
envision
in
the
future
the
9
possibility
of
ICAO
or
CAEP
or
EPA
establishing
a
10
technology,
a
true
technology
forcing
aircraft
engine
11
standard
that
could
have
mechanisms
built
into
it
that
12
would
be
acceptable
to
ATA?
And
let
me
elaborate
on
13
this.
If
it
were
possible
to
establish
the
standard
at
14
some
future
date
and
then
build
into
that
some
kind
of
15
a
checkpoint
or
technology
review
that
prior
to
the
16
effective
date
all
the
affected
parties,
including
the
17
engine
manufacturers
obviously,
would
present
the
18
results
of
how
much
progress
they

ve
made
to
that
19
point,
and
the
deciding
parties,
whether
it

s
a
CAEP
or
20
EPA
or
some
other
body
would
then
make
the
decision
on
21
99
whether
to
continue
to
work
toward
the
effective
date
1
and
the
level
of
stringency
that
had
been
proposed
2
earlier
and
so
it
would
give
some
possibility
of
the
3
industry,
both
the
engine
manufacturers
as
well
as
the
4
airlines,
to
see
how
the
technology
is
in
fact
being
5
developed
and
have
the
possibility
of
revising
those
­­
6
either
the
standard,
the
stringency
or
the
effective
7
date
based
on
the
progress
that

s
been
made
to
date.
8
MS.
YOUNG:
That

s
a
long
question
there,
Don.
9
MR.
ZINGER:
Yes,
it
is.
10
MS.
YOUNG:
I
have
two
responses
to
that.
11
One,
I
mean
I

ll
never
say
never
to
anything.
If
the
12
world
changes
significantly
we
are
always
looking
for
13
ways
to
flow
with
those
changes,
but
we
absolutely
14
oppose
the
setting
of
technology
forcing
standards
in
15
this
context
and
that
would
include
with
the
type
of
16
hypothetical.
We
could
come
up
with
lots
of
17
hypotheticals
that
you
gave
that
there
would
be
a
weigh
18
point
at
which
some
body
of
people
would
sit
down
and
19
revisit
that
standard.
20
One
of
the
reasons
why
is
because
you

re
21
100
postulating
setting
up
future
NOx
standards,
even
with
1
a
way
point
setting
it
sort
of
in
a
vacuum,
and
one
of
2
the
things
that
ATA
has
proposed
for
several
years
in
3
the
research
fora,
in
the
regulatory
fora
at
ICAO,
et
4
cetera,
is
looking
at
standards
more
in
terms
of
the
5
interrelationships
and
trying
to
do
standard
setting
in
6
a
way
where
you

re
looking
at
NOx,
and
you

re
looking
at
7
CO,
and
you

re
looking
at
COs,
and
you

re
looking
at
the
8
other
parameters
and
you

re
trying
to
set
standards
9
where
you

re
taking
each
of
those
into
account.
10
So
the
hypothetical
that
you
postulate,
even
11
though
it
would
allow
a
chance
in
some
time
in
the
12
future
to
take
a
look
at
how
we

re
doing
relative
to
13
it,
it
would
have
been
set
in
a
vacuum
without
respect
14
to
how
we
may
be
doing
on
those
other
parameters
and
15
there

s
a
lot
of
give
and
take
there.
16
The
other
thing,
unfortunately
the
17
manufacturers
are
not
testifying
today,
think
they
18
could
do
a
better
job
of
talking
about
the
investment
19
in
new
technology
that
costs
millions
and
millions
and
20
billions
of
dollars
and
how
the
potential
for
waste
if
21
101
we
set
again,
in
what
I
view
is
a
vacuum,
a
standard
1
that
everybody
in­
off
with
other
environmental
2
standards,
and
then
you

ve
spent
billions
of
dollars
on
3
something
that
you
might
have
better
spent
your
money
4
on
another
way.
And
I
don

t
mean,
you
know,
for
5
corporate
coffers
because
none
of
us
are
making
any
6
money
on
this
now.
7
My
other
answer
­­
so
a
categorical
no
to
the
8
hypothetical
you
posed.
My
other
answer
is
I
think
9
we

ve
devised,
and
in
large
part
with
some
of
the
good
10
ideas
of
the
various
stakeholders
in
this
room,
11
including
you
all,
an
alternative
in
the
ICAO
process,
12
and
that
is
a
long
term
technology
goals
approach
where
13
you
look
at
and
set
standards
as
we
do
now
with
respect
14
to
what
is
certifiable
on
an
aircraft
so
that
the
15
traveling
public
knows
that
it

s
safe
to
get
on
that
16
aircraft
and
they
know
there
are
standards
that
are
17
going
to
support
that.
18
But
you
have
another
set
of
issues
that
you
19
approach
as
long
term
technology
goals,
and
you
pull
20
together
through
a
long
term
technology
goal
process
21
102
information
like
the
NASA
stretch
goals,
which
by
the
1
way
are
stretch
goals
and
I
would
never
want
to
have
to
2
apply
those
to
a
standard
setting
process,
but
you
can
3
take
those
NASA
stretch
goals,
you
can
take
the
4
European
goals,
you
can
take
the
Japanese
and
Russian
5
goals,
you
can
take
what
information
you
can
glean
from
6
the
engine
and
airframe
manufacturers
about
even
if
you
7
can

t
do
it
regulatorily
what
can
you
do
about
engine
8
and
airframe
combinations.
How
much
­­
if
we
can
make
9
the
airframe
lighter
how
much
emissions
benefit
are
we
10
going
to
get?
Maybe
we
don

t
standards
that
way
in
the
11
United
States.
It
doesn

t
mean
we
can

t
think
about
it
12
in
terms
of
a
long
goal.
13
So
we
put
those
into
the
long
term
technology
14
goals
process,
and
as
has
been
proposed
at
ICAO
you
15
begin
a
regular
review
of
that
process,
and
the
very
16
vetting
of
those
processes
with
the
various
17
stakeholders
helps
you
sort
of
true­
up
the
information
18
that
you
have
and
as
some
would
argue
is
a
vehicle
for
19
moving
the
ball
forward
on
the
various
parameters
over
20
time.
And
right
now
the
long
term
technology
goals
21
103
concept
is
being
­­
is
focusing
on
NOx,
but
it
was
1
agreed
very
early
in
that
process
that
it
had
to
2
include
the
various
parameters
and
think
about
3
interrelationships
to
be
a
really
successful
thing.
4
So
I
would
say
that
is
a
better
approach
to
5
dealing
with
how
can
we
bring
the
research
and
sort
of
6
get
great
minds
thinking
about
this
stuff
more.
That

s
7
a
better
approach.
8
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you.
Other
questions?
9
MR.
PASSAVANT:
That
was
a
nice,
long
eloquent
10
answer
to
the
question.
11
MS.
YOUNG:
It
was
a
long
question.
12
MR.
PASSAVANT:
It
does
seem
to
miss
the
13
point,
though,
and
this
is
a
point
that
I
think
came
up
14
in
Mr.
Long

s
testimony
so
I
would
like
to
­­
15
unfortunately
I
don

t
think
he

s
on
the
line
any
16
longer.
He
­­
in
his
testimony
it
was
his
belief
that
17
the
statute
called
for
the
agency
to
set
a
standard
out
18
there
with
lead
time
and
identifying
or
pushing
toward
19
requisite
technology,
sort
of
like
Don
laid
out
a
20
moment
ago.
21
104
And
that
was
a
­­
that
was
a
­­
that
was
a
1
specified
procedure
with
an
outcome
where
you
indicated
2
a
process
and
a
process
that
doesn

t
have
an
outcome
3
necessarily
other
than
more
process.
4
MS.
YOUNG:
Right.
5
MR.
PASSAVANT:
And
there
is
really
I
think
6
the
fundamental
rub
between
the
two
ideas,
both
of
7
which
­­
8
MS.
YOUNG:
I
actually
disagree
with
that.
9
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Okay.
Well,
please
explain
10
why.
11
MS.
YOUNG:
Had
the
EPA
proposed
this
in
1999
12
when
ICAO
adopted
it
it
could
have
said
in
1999
you

ve
13
got
to
meet
the
standard
by
2004
and
this
is
the
lead
14
time
that
is
needed,
and
it
would
have
fit
very
well
15
into
what
has
happened.
We

ve
used
the
lead
time
that
16
you
guys
would
have
otherwise
provided
us
by
17
regulation.
18
So
I
think
what
ICAO
has
done,
and
what
the
19
Clean
Air
Act
asks
for,
and
what
EPA
is
now
doing
is
20
perfectly
consistent
under
the
law.
If
EPA
had
done
21
105
what
it
had
done
earlier
there
would
be
less
room
in
1
this
room
for
people
to
complain
about
it.
2
MR.
PASSAVANT:
There
may
be
­­
let
me
just
3
say
two
things.
First
of
all,
there
still
may
be
a
4
conundrum
between
what
the
statute
calls
for
and
what
5
you

re
suggesting.
But
I
appreciate
your
point
that
6
you
just
made
by
making

99
versus
2004
and
it
might
be
7
instructive
for
the
record
to
show
between
the
1999
8
ICAO
date
and
the
2003
ICAO
date
how
much
progress
has
9
actually
been
made
in
terms
of
pulling
down
the
average
10
emission
levels.
That
actually
could
be
very
11
instructive
I
think
in
resolving
this
discussion.
12
MS.
YOUNG:
All
right.
But
I
also
add
that
13
the
Clean
Air
Act
does
not
in
the
case
of
aircraft
14
engine
emissions,
as
in
other
places
in
the
Clean
Air
15
Act,
it
does
not
call
for
a
technology
forcing
16
standard.
When
Congress
has
mandated
a
technology
17
forcing
standard
it
has
said
so,
using
not
necessarily
18
those
exact
words
but
words
akin
to
that.
And
so
I
19
think
a
clear
distinction
under
the
law
can
be
made.
20
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Well,
I
won

t
go
there
for
the
21
106
point
of
this
discussion,
but
I
would
just
ask
if
you
1
would
do
that.
2
The
other
thing
that
I
think
would
be
useful,
3
and
I
don

t
­­
and
this
may
not
be
useful
to
ask
you
to
4
do
this
now,
but
for
the
record
virtually
every
other
5
commentor
today
expressed
displeasure
over
the
lack
of
6
environmental
benefits
associated
with
what
we
were
7
doing.
You
claim
in
your
testimony
that
there
are
8
environmental
benefits.
9
MS.
YOUNG:
I
took
it
right
out
of
the
10
preamble.
11
MR.
PASSAVANT:
Well,
I

m
not
asking
you
­­
12
that

s
not
what
I

m
asking
you
for.
What
I

m
shooting
13
for
here
is
to
say
if
you
think
what
they

re
saying
is
14
wrong
and
then
I
would
appreciate
an
explanation
as
to
15
how
that
­­
how
your
conclusion
is
different
than
their
16
conclusion
based
upon
what
is
essentially
the
same
17
information.
18
MS.
YOUNG:
My
conclusion
is
taken
right
from
19
testimony,
that
the
standards
have
ratcheted
down
the
20
NOx
that
is
allowed
over
time.
My
other
point
is
we
21
107
also
have
to
continue
to
make
improvements
on
the
1
various
environmental
parameters,
and
that
we
do.
So
2
while
the
NOx
benefits
may
not
seem
significant
when
3
you
talk
16
percent
change
or
whatever,
I
understand.
4
If
you

re
a
state
that
has
to
in
your
state
5
implementation
plan
meet
the
ozone
standard
and
you

re
6
trying
to
get
every
NOx
emission
reduction
you
can,
7
it

s
not
very
satisfactory.
I
understand
that
8
pressure,
but
I
think
the
record
speaks
for
itself
and
9
that
there
are
reductions,
number
one,
but
number
two
10
that
we
are
dealing
with
a
variety
of
parameters
that
11
we
have
to
continue
to
reduce
and
aircraft
don

t
have
12
some
of
the
same
control
technology
options
that
13
stationary
sources
have.
So
I
think
we
have
a
very
14
good
environmental
record.
15
And
one
of
the
other
things
that
has
not
come
16
up
today,
you
know,
the
airline
industry
does
not
17
shrink
from
its
responsibility
to
continue
to
have
18
environmental
performance.
One
of
the
things
that
19
hasn

t
come
up
today
is
where
NOx
is
relative
to
other
20
transportation
sources.
We
account
for
.75
percent
of
21
108
the
total
NOx
emissions
from
transportation
sources.
1
By
comparison
highway
vehicles
count
for
77
percent
of
2
the
total
NOx
emissions
from
transportation
and
3
railroad
account
for
11.5
percent.
So
we
are
getting
4
reductions
but
also
we

re
a
relatively
small
source.
5
And
I
understand
growth
in
aviation
shows
that
6
there
are
going
to
be
more
flights
and
more
emissions
7
overall,
so
we
need
to
continue
to
improve
our
8
performance
and
that

s
why
there
are
new
standards
and
9
we

re
continuing
to
work
to
go
beyond
those
if
we
can.
10
MR.
PASSAVANT:
A
final
questionuse
I
think
11
what
people
are
doing
is
they

re
focusing
on
where
the
12
line
is
on
the
chart
and
looking
where
the
13
certification
levels
are
and
saying
there

s
no
change.
14
And
I
think
you

re
suggesting
that
in
fact
there
has
15
been
change
over
the
last
four
or
five
years,
and
I
16
think
that

s
instructive
for
people
to
see
that.
17
MS.
YOUNG:
Okay.
Well,
we
will
provide
more
18
detail
in
our
written
comments.
19
MR.
PASSAVANT:
The
final
thing
would
be
just
20
to
follow
up
on
the
first
point
Don
made
about
21
109
something
that
I
refer
to
as
the
derivative
engine
1
issue,
this
is
the
engines
that
are
now
certified
for
2
the
future.
This
is
an
economic
issue
as
well
as
it
is
3
an
environmental
issue.
It
would
be
interesting
­­
I
4
think
it
would
be
instructive
for
us
to
have
a
better
5
understanding
as
to
what
is
the
normal
anticipated
life
6
cycle
for
an
engine.
You
might
not
be
the
right
person
7
to
answer
this,
Nancy,
because
you

re
an
ATA
person
and
8
not
an
IA
person.
But
in
other
words,
if
the
agency
9
were
to
take
this
comment
and
say,
well,
maybe
there
10
should
be
a
cut
off
date
or
maybe
there
should
be
a
cut
11
off
date
plus
two
years,
or
a
phase
out,
or
something
12
like
that,
what
is
a
reasonable
economic
model
to
use
13
to
look
at
that
and
say
at
what
point
in
time
is
an
14
engine,
is
it
reasonable
from
an
economic
basis
to
15
phase
out
the
production
of
an
engine,
in
addition
to
16
the
environmental
side,
that
there

s
a
big
economic
17
issue
there
as
well.
18
MS.
YOUNG:
Right.
I
am
not
qualified
to
19
answer
that
but
we
will
put
that
question
to
our
20
carriers.
21
110
MR.
PASSAVANT:
I
know
there

s
an
AIA
1
representative
in
the
audience.
Maybe
he
can
respond
2
to
it
as
well.
3
Thank
you.
4
MR.
ZINGER:
Thank
you.
Oh,
I

m
sorry.
Any
5
other
questions?
Glenn?
No.
6
Okay.
Thank
you
very
much.
7
MS.
YOUNG:
Thank
you
very
much.
8
MR.
ZINGER:
Okay.
That
concludes
the
people
9
who
had
signed
up
to
testify,
but
let
me
ask
is
there
10
anyone
else
in
the
audience
who
would
like
to
provide
11
comments
at
this
time?
No.
12
I
would
remind
everyone
that
as
we
had
said
13
before
the
written
comments
we
would
ask
for
those
to
14
be
submitted
to
EPA
by
December
15th.
So
I
would
like
15
to
thank
again
all
of
the
people
who
came
today,
the
16
witnesses
in
particular
who
traveled
here
and
took
the
17
time
to
provide
what
I
thought
were
very
useful
18
comments.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
also
to
those
who
19
attended
as
observers
as
well.
Thank
you
and
I
declare
20
the
hearing
closed.
21
111
(
Whereupon,
at
12:
15
p.
m,
the
hearing
was
1
adjourned.)
2
*
*
*
*
*
3
