ICAO COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

WORKING GROUP 3 – EMISSIONS TECHNICAL 

London, England

April 1-3, 2009

 

Response to U.S. EPA Papers 14 and 16

(Presented by ICCAIA)

 

1.       Introduction

ICCAIA would first of all like to thank the U.S. EPA for once again
participating directly in the CAEP Working Group 3 meeting. This enables
more direct contact on issues both important to the Agency and important
to the manufacturers. This paper is written in response to several
issues with regards to the 3 working papers submitted to the 6th meeting
of CAEP Working Group 3 during the CAEP8 cycle.

2.	WP14 Production Cut-Offs for NOx Standards

At the September 2008 Steering Group Meeting in Seattle, the meeting
agreed to proceed with further studies of a production cut-off for the
CAEP/6 NOx standards in FESG and MODTF (CAEP-SG/20082_SD/4).  These
studies would focus on the analysis of costs and benefits of a CAEP/6
NOx production cut-off.  

In the current EPA paper they suggest various reasons why they wish to
push for production cut-off regulations for aviation with the following
paragraph being one of the main reasons: “In domestic U.S. programs,
for mobile sources (except aircraft), manufacturers must recertify their
product lines each year, thus creating some form of a production cut-off
on the first year of a new emission standard. To accommodate reasonable
business practice, the U.S. EPA has incorporated various provisions to
ensure an orderly product phase-in and phase-out (e.g., annual %
phase-in/phase-out requirements by models or production), but in no case
are previously certified engine families grandfathered into the new
program indefinitely.  Such provisions are very workable in other
sectors, but may be less attractive in the aviation sector. As discussed
in CAEP-SG/20071-WP/26, ultimately, for the U.S. and the nations of many
participating CAEP members, the aviation sector stands as the only
source that is allowed to indefinitely produce existing engines that do
not meet the latest emission standards.”

 ICCAIA wish to state a few points with regards to this statement: -

It has been proven within CAEP that market forces mean that aircraft
engine manufacturers have voluntary complied with CAEP NOx standards
within a suitable timeframe from when the regulations were first agreed.

Aircraft engines are covered by airworthiness regulations throughout
their life and any changes to such engines have to get approval from the
airworthiness authorities. It is noted that there are virtually no
examples where an aircraft engine has been re-certificated with inferior
NOx emissions after the original certification date. 

Furthermore CAEP has accepted advice on the minor affect of in-service
deterioration CAEP-WG3-CETG-WP5-6 on NOx emissions.

Finally at this meeting a paper is being presented, that has been
accepted by the EPA on applicability of emissions standards for engines
that covers the issue of post certification changes
CAEP-WG3-CTG6-WP6-Att A.

EPA makes various further claims that engine manufacturers do not
voluntary comply with CAEP NOx standards and the EPA states, “For the
same reasons, a production cut-off should be considered for the CAEP/8
NOx stringency increase.  Although CAEP-SG/20082-WP6, Production Cut-Off
for Engine NOx Standards (Presented by FESG Rapporteurs, September 4,
2008), asserts that market forces have worked in the absence of a
production cut-off, we believe there is still much to gain by
considering and possibly adopting a production cut-off provision. 
Ultimately, a production cut-off may best ensure that backsliding does
not occur and that the emission reduction benefits expected from the new
standards are achieved.” In the recommendations EPA suggest production
cut-off standards “8 years” after the agreement on NOx regulations. 

On the one hand this paragraph accepts the FESG assertion that market
forces are working, and yet on the other hand it still wishes to push
for production cut-off rules for CAEP8.

ICCAIA expects the continued work of the FESG will maintain that a
production cut-off provision for the CAEP6 standard is not required due
to market forces providing the incentive.

ICCAIA asks that the meeting note that ICCAIA member companies have
always voluntarily met and often bettered the “8 years” criterion
used in the EPA Working Paper in the past.

ICCAIA suggests that any discussion on CAEP8 production cut-off
regulations be referred directly to SG, but ICCAIA wish to note that
imposition of this work during this cycle is inappropriate, as FESG will
not have time to consider this in their analysis. 

ICCAIA recommends that any work on CAEP8 production cut-off
considerations does not start until some time into the CAEP9 cycle, and
ICCAIA further notes that its membership does not believe there is a
necessity to complete such work as history has shown that manufacturers
voluntarily comply with CAEP NOx standards.

3.	WP16 Exemption Working Paper

ICCAIA supports the work to include suitable exemption text and guidance
in Annex 16 and the ETM. This is primarily covered in the work of the
ad-hoc group on Annex 16 and ETM referenced in CAEP-WG3-CTG6-WP5, and
ICCAIA thanks the EPA for becoming involved in this ad-hoc group. ICCAIA
does not believe that just including such provisions in the CAEP
recommendations should be some kind of green light for production
cut-off regulations for the reasons stated in section 3.

EPA makes the following very good points that ICCAIA supports: -

“The language for these allowances, which is contained in 2.1.1.1 of
Volume II, can be interpreted and implemented in a variety of ways.  The
U.S. has applied this allowance in its regulations (40 CFR 87.7) to
create three broad categories for potential exemptions from U.S.
emissions standards: (1) temporary exemptions, (2) very low production
exemptions, and (3) hardship exemptions.  The temporary exemptions
address situations such as aircraft manufactured in the U.S. that are
being exported.  The exemption for very low production models allows for
consideration of exemptions of a total production for U.S. civil
aviation of up to 200 units covered by the same type certificate after
January 1, 1984.  The hardship provision potentially allows exemptions
based on other factors.  The term “exemption” is not defined in U.S.
aircraft regulations, but the regulatory exemptions are drafted such
that exempted aircraft engines are exempted only from emission standards
while remaining subject to the regulations overall.”

“Reciprocity.  The language related to exemptions does not address
whether exemptions issued by one certificating authority should
necessarily be accepted by other authorities.  Whether or not such
reciprocity is assumed directly affects the need for the Annex to
include detailed provisions related to exemptions in this area. 
Increased specificity of the Annex would likely increase the likelihood
that reciprocity would be seen as appropriate. Some degree of
reciprocity is already covered under existing bilateral agreements. 
Greater specificity in these provisions would promote a harmonized
approach to granting exemptions and thus reinforce the utility of
current reciprocity agreements.”

      Recommendations

ICCAIA recommends that any analysis for the requirement for production
cut-off provisions for any future CAEP8 standard should not be
considered in advance of any CAEP8 standard setting procedure be
completed.

ICCAIA supports the work to include suitable exemption text and guidance
in Annex 16 and the ETM and recommends that CAEP WG3 support the
inclusion of this work.

 

WG3-Flimsy6-2

Summary

This working paper responds to the issues brought to CAEP WG3 by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Working Papers 14 and 16.

ICCAIA is pleased that the U.S. EPA are once again directly involved in
the CAEP process and within CAEP work on analysis on whether there is a
need for production cut-offs for NOx standards. ICCAIA believes the
evidence presented within CAEP proves that market forces do indeed show
that the manufacturers voluntarily comply with new CAEP NOx standards.
For CAEP6 ICCAIA can state with confidence that it is highly likely that
all commercial engines in production by the end of 2010 will meet the
CAEP6 NOx standards. ICCAIA recommends that any analysis for the
requirement for production cut-off provisions for any future CAEP8
standard should not be considered in advance of any CAEP8 standard
setting procedure be completed.

ICCAIA supports the work to include suitable exemption text and guidance
in Annex 16 and the ETM and recommends that CAEP WG3 support the
inclusion of this work in the future work programme.

