[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45012-45052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17660]
[[Page 45011]]
Vol. 76
Wednesday,
No. 144
July 27, 2011
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068
Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Proposed
Emission Standards and Test Procedures; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 144 / Wednesday, July 27, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 45012]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687; FRL-9437-2]
RIN 2060-AO70
Control of Air Pollution From Aircraft and Aircraft Engines;
Proposed Emission Standards and Test Procedures
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes several new NOX emission
standards, compliance flexibilities, and other regulatory requirements
for aircraft turbofan or turbojet engines with rated thrusts greater
than 26.7 kilonewtons (kN). We also are proposing certain other
requirements for gas turbine engines that are subject to exhaust
emission standards. First, we are proposing to clarify when the
emission characteristics of a new turbofan or turbojet engine model
have become different enough from its existing parent engine design
that it must conform to the most current emission standards. Second, we
are proposing a new reporting requirement for manufacturers of gas
turbine engines that are subject to any exhaust emission standard to
provide us with timely and consistent emission-related information.
Third, and finally, we are proposing amendments to aircraft engine test
and emissions measurement procedures. EPA actively participated in the
United Nation's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
proceedings in which most of these proposed requirements were first
developed. These proposed regulatory requirements have largely been
adopted or are actively under consideration by its member states. By
adopting such similar standards, therefore, the United States will
maintain consistency with these international efforts.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2011.
Hearing: The public hearing will be held on August 11, 2011 at the
Sheraton Chicago O'Hare Airport Hotel, 6501 North Mannheim Road,
Rosemont, IL 60018. Telephone (847)699-6300. See section VII for more
information about public hearings.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0687, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: 202-566-9744.
Mail: EPA Docket center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687, Mailcode: Mail Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
In addition, please mail a copy of your comments to the contact person
identified below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0687. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is 202-566-1742
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wilcox, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4390; fax number: (734) 214-4816; e-
mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Does this action apply to me?
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that
manufacture and sell aircraft engines and aircraft in the United
States. Regulated categories include:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS \a\ Codes SIC Codes \b\ Examples of potentially affected entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................... 336412 3724 Manufacturers of new aircraft engines.
Industry................................... 336411 3721 Manufacturers of new aircraft.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code
This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
activities are regulated by this
[[Page 45013]]
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 87.1 (part 87). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Table of Contents
I. Overview and Background
A. Summary of the Proposal
B. EPA's Responsibilities Under the Clean Air Act
C. Interaction With the International Community
D. Brief History of EPA's Regulation of Aircraft Engine
Emissions
E. Brief History of ICAO Regulation of Aircraft Engine Emissions
II. Why is EPA taking this action?
A. NOX Inventory Contribution
1. Landing and Takeoff (LTO) Emissions
2. Non-LTO Emissions
B. Health, Environmental and Air Quality Impacts
1. Background on Ozone, PM and NOX
a. What is ozone?
b. What is particulate matter?
c. What is NOX?
2. Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Ozone, PM and
NOX
a. What are the health effects of ozone?
b. What are the health effects of PM?
c. What are the health effects of NOX?
3. Environmental Effects Associated With Exposure to Ozone, PM
and NOX
a. Deposition of Nitrogen
b. Visibility Effects
c. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
4. Impacts on Ambient Air Quality
III. Details of the Proposed Rule
A. NOX Standards for Newly-Certified Engines
1. Tier 6 NOX Standards for Newly-Certified Engines
a. Numerical Emission Limits for Higher Thrust Engines
b. Numerical Emission Limits for Lower Thrust Engines
2. Tier 8 NOX Standards for Newly-Certified Engines
a. Numerical Emission Limits for Higher Thrust Engines
b. Numerical Emission Limits for Lower Thrust Engines
B. Application of NOX Standards for Newly-
Manufactured Engines
1. Phase-In of the Tier 6 NOX Standards for Newly-
Manufactured Engines
2. Exemptions and Exceptions From the Tier 6 Production Cutoff
a. New Provisions for Spare Engines
b. New Provisions for Engines Installed in New Aircraft
i. Time-Frame and Scope
ii. Production Limit
iii. Exemption Requests
iv. Coordination of Exemption Requests
c. Voluntary Emission Offsets
3. Potential Phase-In of New Tier 8 NOX Standards for
Newly-Manufactured Engines
C. Application of Standards for Derivative Engines for Emission
Certification Purposes
D. Annual Reporting Requirement
E. Proposed Standards for Supersonic Aircraft Turbine Engines
F. Amendments to Test and Measurement Procedures
G. Possible Future Revisions to Emission Standards for New
Technology Turbine Engines and Supersonic Aircraft Turbine Engines
IV. Description of Other Revisions to the Regulatory Text
A. Applicability Issues
1. Military Engines
2. Noncommercial Engines
B. Non-Substantive Revisions
C. Clarifying Language for Regulatory Text
V. Technical Feasibility, Costs, and Emission Benefits
VI. Consultation With FAA
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
IX. Statutory and Executive Orders Review
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations
I. Overview and Background
This section summarizes the major provisions of the proposed rule
for aircraft gas turbine engines. It also contains background on the
EPA's standard setting authority and responsibilities under the Clean
Air Act, the connection between our emission standards and those of the
international community, and a brief regulatory history for this source
of emissions.
A. Summary of the Proposal
We are proposing several new emission standards and other
regulatory requirements for aircraft turbofan and turbojet engines \1\
with rated thrusts greater than 26.7 kilonewtons (kN). First, we are
proposing two new tiers of more stringent emission standards for oxides
of nitrogen (NOX). The proposed standards would apply
differently to two classes of these engines, i.e., ``newly-certified
engines'' and ``newly-manufactured engines.'' The newly-certified
engine standards would apply to aircraft engines that have received a
new type certificate and have never been manufactured prior to the
effective date of the new emission standards. Requirements for newly-
manufactured engines would apply to aircraft engines that were
previously certified and manufactured in compliance with preexisting
standards, and would require manufacturers to either comply with the
newer standards by a specified future date or cease production. Newly-
manufactured engine standards are also sometimes referred to as
``production cutoff'' standards. Second, we are proposing certain time-
limited flexibilities, i.e., the potential for exemptions or exceptions
as defined in the regulations for newly-manufactured engines that may
not be able to comply with the first tier of the proposed
NOX standards because of specific technical or economic
reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Turbofan and turbojet engines will be collectively referred
to as turbofan engines hereafter for convenience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing a number of additional changes that would
apply to a wider range of aircraft gas turbine engines \2\ than those
that would be subject to the proposed new emission standards. First, we
are proposing to define a derivative engine for emissions certification
purposes. The intent of this definition is to distinguish when the
emission characteristics of a new turbofan engine model vary
sufficiently from its existing parent engine design, and must show
compliance with the emission standard for a newly-certificated engine.
Second, we are proposing new reporting requirements for manufacturers
that produce gas turbine engines subject to any exhaust emission
standard. This would provide us with timely and consistent emission
data and other information that is necessary to conduct emission
analyses and develop appropriate public policy for the aviation sector.
Specifically, reports would be required for turbofan engines with rated
thrusts greater than 26.7 kN, which are subject to gaseous emission and
smoke standards, in addition to turbofans less than or equal to 26.7
kN, and all turboprop engines, that are only subject to smoke
standards. Third, we are proposing amendments to the test and
measurement procedures for aircraft engines. Finally, as described in
section IV., we are proposing minor amendments to provisions addressing
definitions, acronyms and abbreviations, general applicability and
[[Page 45014]]
requirements, exemptions, and incorporation by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The term gas turbine engine includes turbofan, turbojet, and
turboprop engines designs. The rated output for turbofan and
turbojet engines is normally expressed as kilonewtons (kN) thrust.
The rated output for turboprop engines is normally expressed as
shaft horsepower (hp) or shaft kilowatt (kW).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of these proposed regulatory requirements have already been
adopted or are actively under consideration by the United Nation's
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The proposed
requirements would bring the United States into alignment with the
international standards and recommended practices.
B. EPA's Authority and Responsibilities Under the Clean Air Act
Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the
Administrator of EPA to, from time to time, propose aircraft engine
emission standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from
classes of aircraft engines which in her judgment causes or contributes
to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare. (See 42 U.S.C. 7571(a)(2)(A).) Section 231(a)(2)(B)
directs EPA to consult with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) on such standards, and prohibits EPA from changing
aircraft emission standards if such a change would significantly
increase noise and adversely affect safety. 42 U.S.C. 7571(a)(2)(B)(i)-
(ii). Section 231(a)(3) provides that after we propose standards, the
Administrator shall issue such standards ``with such modifications as
he deems appropriate.'' 42 U.S.C. 7571(a)(3). The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit has held that this provision confers an unusually
broad degree of discretion on EPA to adopt aircraft engine emission
standards as the Agency determines are reasonable. NACAA v. EPA, 489
F.3d 1221 (DC Cir. 2007).
In addition, under CAA section 231(b) EPA is required to ensure, in
consultation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), that the
effective date of any standard provides the necessary time to permit
the development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance. 42 U.S.C. 7571(b).
Section 232 then directs the FAA to prescribe regulations to insure
compliance with EPA's standards. 42 U.S.C. 7572. Finally, section 233
of the CAA vests the authority to promulgate emission standards for
aircraft or aircraft engines only in EPA. States are preempted from
adopting or enforcing any standard respecting aircraft engine emissions
unless such standard is identical to EPA's standards. 42 U.S.C. 7573.
Section VI. of today's proposal further discusses our coordination with
DOT through the FAA.\3\ It also describes DOT's responsibility under
the CAA to enforce the aircraft emission standards established by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The functions of the Secretary of Transportation under part
B of title II of the Clean Air Act (Sec. Sec. 231-234, 42 U.S.C.
7571-7574) have been delegated to the Administrator of the FAA. 49
CFR 1.47(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Interaction With the International Community
We began regulating the emissions from aircraft engines in 1973.
Since that time, we have worked with the FAA and later with the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to develop
international standards and other recommended practices pertaining to
aircraft engine emissions. ICAO was established in 1944 by the United
Nations (by the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the
``Chicago Convention'') ``* * * in order that international civil
aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that
international air transport services may be established on the basis of
equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically.'' \4\
ICAO's responsibilities include developing aircraft technical and
operating standards, recommending practices, and generally fostering
the growth of international civil aviation. The United States is
currently one of 190 participating member States of ICAO.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),
``Convention on International Civil Aviation,'' Ninth Edition,
Document 7300/9, 2006. Copies of this document can be obtained from
the ICAO Web site located at http://www.icao.int.
\5\ Members of ICAO's Assembly are generally termed member
States or contracting States. These terms are used interchangeably
throughout this preamble.
\6\ There are currently 190 Contracting States according to ICAO
website located at http://www.icao.int.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interests of global harmonization and international air
commerce, the Chicago Convention urges a high degree of uniformity by
its member States. Nonetheless, the Convention also recognizes that
member States may adopt their own unique airworthiness standards and
that some may adopt standards that are more stringent than those agreed
upon by ICAO.
The Convention has a number of other features that govern
international commerce. First, States that wish to use aircraft in
international transportation must adopt emission standards and other
recommended practices that are at least as stringent as ICAO's
standards. States may ban the use of any aircraft within their airspace
that does not meet ICAO standards.\7\ Second, States are required to
recognize the airworthiness certificates of any State whose standards
are at least as stringent as ICAO's standards, thereby assuring that
aircraft of any member State will be permitted to operate in any other
member State.\8\ Third, and finally, to ensure that international
commerce is not unreasonably constrained, a participating nation which
elects to adopt more stringent standards is obligated to notify ICAO of
the differences between its standards and ICAO standards.\9\ However,
if a nation sets tighter standards than ICAO, air carriers not based in
that nation (foreign-flagged carriers) would only be required to comply
with ICAO standards or more stringent standards imposed by their own
nations, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ICAO, ``Convention on International Civil Aviation,''
Article 87, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 2006. Copies of this
document can be obtained from the ICAO website located at http://www.icao.int/icaonet/arch/doc/7300/7300_9ed.pdf.
\8\ ICAO, ``Convention on International Civil Aviation,''
Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 2006. Copies of this
document can be obtained from the ICAO Web site located at http://www.icao.int/icaonet/arch/doc/7300/7300_9ed.pdf.
\9\ ICAO, ``Convention on International Civil Aviation,''
Articles 38, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 2006. Copies of this
document can be obtained from the ICAO Web site located at http://www.icao.int/icaonet/arch/doc/7300/7300_9ed.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAO Council's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP) undertakes ICAO's technical work in the environmental field. The
Committee is responsible for evaluating, researching, and recommending
measures to the ICAO Council that address the environmental impact of
international civil aviation. CAEP is composed of various task groups,
work groups, and other contributing committees whose contributing
members include atmospheric, economic, aviation, environmental, and
other professionals. At CAEP meetings, the United States is represented
by the FAA, which plays an active role at these meetings. EPA has
historically been a principal participant in the development of U.S.
policy in various ICAO/CAEP working groups and other international
venues, assisting and advising FAA on aviation emissions, technology,
and policy matters. If ICAO adopts a CAEP proposal for a new
environmental standard, it then becomes part of ICAO standards and
recommended practices (Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ICAO, ``Aircraft Engine Emissions,'' International
Standards and Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex
16, Volume II, Second Edition, July 2008. A copy of this document is
in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 45015]]
D. Brief History of EPA's Regulation of Aircraft Engine Emissions
As mentioned above, we initially regulated gaseous exhaust
emissions, smoke, and fuel venting from aircraft engines in 1973.\11\
Since that time, we have occasionally revised those regulations. Two of
these revisions are most pertinent to today's proposal. First, in a
1997 rulemaking, we made our emission standards and test procedures
more consistent with those of ICAO for turbofan engines used in
commercial aviation with rated thrusts greater than 26.7kN.\12\ These
ICAO requirements are generally referred to as CAEP/2 standards. (The
numbering nomenclature for CAEP requirements is discussed in the next
section.) That action included new NOX emission standards
for newly-manufactured commercial turbofan engines (those engines built
after the effective date of the regulations that were already certified
to pre-existing standards) \13\ and for newly-certified commercial
turbofan engines (those engine models that received their initial type
certificate after the effective date of the regulations). It also
included a CO emission standard for newly-manufactured commercial
turbofan engines. Second, in our most recent rulemaking in 2005, we
promulgated more stringent NOX emission standards for newly-
certified commercial turbofan engines.\14\ That final rule brought the
U.S. standards closer to alignment with ICAO CAEP/4 requirements that
were effective in 2004. In ruling on a petition for judicial review of
the 2005 rule filed by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(NACAA), the U.S. Court of Appeals held that EPA's approach of tracking
the ICAO standards was reasonable and permissible under the CAA. NACAA
v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1230-32 (DC Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. EPA, ``Emission Standards and Test Procedures for
Aircraft;'' Final Rule, 38 FR 19088, July 17, 1973.
\12\ U.S. EPA, ``Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures;'' Final
Rule, 62 FR 25356, May 8, 1997. While ICAO's standards were not
limited to ``commercial'' aircraft engines, our 1997 standards were
explicitly limited to commercial engines, as our finding that
NOX and CO emissions from aircraft engines cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare was so limited, See 62 FR 25358.
As explained later in today's notice, we are proposing to expand the
scope of that finding and of our standards to include such emissions
from both commercial and non-commercial aircraft engines, in order
to bring our standards into full alignment with ICAO's.
\13\ This does not mean that in 2005 we promulgated requirements
for the re-certification or retrofit of existing in-use engines.
\14\ U.S. EPA, ``Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures;'' Final
Rule, 70 FR 2521, November 17, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Brief History of ICAO Regulation of Aircraft Engine Emissions
The first international standards and recommended practices for
aircraft engine emissions was recommended by CAEP's predecessor, the
Committee on Aircraft Engine Emissions (CAEE), and adopted by ICAO in
1981.\15\ These standards limited aircraft engine emissions of HC, CO,
and NOX. In 1994, ICAO adopted a CAEP/2 proposal to tighten
the original NOX standard by 20 percent and amend the test
procedures.\16\ At the next CAEP meeting (CAEP/3) in 1995, the
Committee recommended a further tightening of 16 percent and additional
test procedure amendments, but in 1997 the ICAO Council rejected this
stringency proposal and approved only the test procedure amendments. At
the CAEP/4 meeting in 1998, the Committee adopted a similar 16 percent
NOX reduction proposal, which ICAO approved on 1998. The
CAEP/4 standards applied only to new engine designs certified after
December 31, 2003 (i.e., the requirements did not also apply to newly-
manufactured engines unlike the CAEP/2 standards). In 2004, CAEP/6
recommended a 12 percent NOX reduction, which ICAO approved
in 2005.17 18 The CAEP/6 standards applied to newly-
certified engine models beginning after December 31, 2007. At the most
recent meeting, CAEP/8 recommended a further tightening of the
NOX standards by 15 percent for newly-certified
engines.19 20 The Committee also recommended that the CAEP/6
standards be applied to newly-manufactured engines. ICAO is currently
considering the CAEP/8 recommendations. We expect final ICAO action
regarding the CAEP/8 recommendations in 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ICAO, Foreword of ``Aircraft Engine Emissions,''
International Standards and Recommended Practices, Environmental
Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, Third Edition, July 2008. A copy of
this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\16\ CAEP conducts its work over a period of years. Each work
cycle is numbered sequentially and that identifier is used to
differentiate the results from one CAEP to another by convention.
The first technical meeting on aircraft emission standards was
CAEP's successor, i.e., CAEE. The first meeting of CAEP, therefore,
is referred to as CAEP/2.
\17\ CAEP/5 did not address new aircraft engine emission
standards.
\18\ ICAO, ``Aircraft Engine Emissions,'' Annex 16, Volume II,
Third Edition, July 2008, Amendment 4 effective on July 20, 2008.
Copies of this document can be obtained from the ICAO Web site at
http://www.icao.int.
\19\ CAEP/7 did not address new aircraft engine emission
standards.
\20\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Report of the Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1-12,
2010,'' CAEP/8-WP/80. A copy of this document is in docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Why is EPA taking this action?
As mentioned above, section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA authorizes the
EPA Administrator to ``from time to time, issue proposed emission
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollution from any
class or classes of aircraft or aircraft engines which in his judgment
causes, or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' 42 U.S.C.
7571(a)(2)(A).
One of the principal components of aircraft exhaust emissions is
NOX. NOX is a precursor to the formation of
tropospheric ozone.\21\ Many commercial airports are located in urban
areas and many of these areas have ambient pollutant levels above the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM 2.5) (i.e., they are in nonattainment
for ozone and PM 2.5). This section discusses the
contribution of aircraft engines used in commercial service with rated
thrusts greater than 26.7kN to the national NOX emissions
inventory and to NOX emission inventories in selected ozone
nonattainment areas, the potential effect of NOX emissions
in the upper atmosphere on ground level PM 2.5 in addition
to the health and welfare impacts of NOX and PM emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed
by complex chemical reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and NOX in the presence of heat and sunlight. Standards
that reduce NOX emissions will help address ambient ozone
levels. They can also help reduce particulate matter (PM) levels as
NOX emissions can also be part of the secondary formation
of PM. See Section II.B below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Inventory Contribution
In contrast to all other mobile sources, whose emissions occur
completely at ground level, the emissions from aircraft and aircraft
engines can be divided into two flight regimes. The first regime
includes the emissions that are released in the lower layer of the
atmosphere and directly affect local and regional ambient air quality.
These emissions generally occur at or below 3,000 feet above ground
level, i.e., during the landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle. The aircraft
operations that comprise an LTO cycle are: engine idle at the terminal
gate (and sometimes during ground delays while holding for the active
runway); taxiing between the terminal and the runway; take-off; climb-
out; and approach to the airport. The second regime includes emissions
that occur above 3,000 feet above ground level,
[[Page 45016]]
known as non-LTO emissions. Collectively, the emissions associated with
all ground and flight operations are generally referred to as full
flight emissions.
The aircraft engine NOX emission inventories for the LTO
and non-LTO flight regimes described above are discussed separately in
the following sections.
1. Landing and Takeoff Emissions
In this section, we will discuss NOX emission
inventories for commercial turbine-engine aircraft, both nationally and
for selected ozone nonattainment areas (NAAs). These inventories
reflect emissions during the landing and takeoff cycle only. The most
recent comprehensive analysis of historical and current LTO emissions
from aircraft engines comes from a study undertaken for us by Eastern
Research Group (ERG).\22\ The study analyzed the national emissions of
commercial aircraft operations in the United States, and showed that in
the most recent year studied (2008), such aircraft operations
contributed about 97 thousand tons to the national NOX
inventory. A summary of the national inventory of LTO NOX
emissions is shown in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Historical Assessment of Aircraft Landing and Take-off
Emissions (1986-2008),'' Eastern Research Group, May 2011. A copy of
this document can be found in public docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When these nationwide LTO emissions are compared to the total U.S.
mobile source inventory for 2009, they account for less than one
percent of the total. However, such a comparison may be a bit
misleading, as it only includes those aircraft emissions that occur
below 3,000 feet altitude, while comparing them to the entirety of
other mobile source emissions. In the U.S., LTO emissions account for
only about ten percent of full flight NOX emissions. When
considering full flight aircraft emissions (i.e., including both LTO
and non-LTO emissions), the contribution of aircraft to the total
mobile source NOX inventory is approximately 7.7
percent.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. EPA, ``Comparison of Aircraft LTO and Full Flight
NOX Emissions to Total Mobile Source NOX
Emissions,'' memorandum from John Mueller, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0687, May 10, 2011.
Table 1--Current National NOX Emissions From Commercial Aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 total NOX
Aircraft category (thousand tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Carrier.......................................... 86
Commuter/Air Taxi.................................... 11
------------------
Total Commercial................................. 97
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, it is important to assess the contribution of
commercial aircraft LTO NOX emissions on a local level,
especially in areas containing or adjacent to airports. The historical
analysis conducted by ERG also included an assessment of selected ozone
nonattainment areas (NAAs). The NAAs selected for study were chosen as
follows. First, the 25 ozone NAAs with airports which had high
commercial traffic volumes were identified. Second, the 25 ozone NAAs
with the largest population were identified. These lists were combined.
However, there was some overlap, and this led to a total of 41 NAAs
being identified for the study. These 41 NAAs collectively include 200
airports, accounting for about 70 percent of commercial air traffic
operations. Although 41 NAAs were studied, the non-aircraft emissions
data source that the aircraft emissions were compared to for this
analysis did not distinguish between the Boston NAA in Massachusetts
and the greater Boston NAA in New Hampshire. Thus, aircraft emissions
from those two NAAs were combined into a single NAA for the purpose of
this analysis, yielding 40 NAAs for study. Current (2008) and projected
(2020) NOX emissions for these 40 NAAs, as well as the
percent contribution of aircraft to total mobile source inventories (as
compared to 2005 and 2020 mobile source inventories), are shown in
Table 2.24 25 The relative contribution of aircraft in any
given NAA varies based on activity in other transportation and
industrial sectors. As can be seen from this table, expected growth in
aircraft operations in many of these areas combined with anticipated
reductions in NOX emissions from other mobile source
categories results in the growth of the relative contribution of
aircraft LTO emissions to mobile source NOX emissions in
NAAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. EPA, ``Relative Contribution of Aircraft to Total
Mobile Source NOX Emissions in Selected Ozone
Nonattainment Areas,'' memorandum from John Mueller, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687, May 10, 2011.
\25\ U.S. EPA, ``Addendum to ``Relative Contribution of Aircraft
to Total Mobile Source NOX Emissions in Selected Ozone
Nonattainment Areas,'''' memorandum from John Mueller, Assessment
and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to
docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687, May 17, 2011.
Table 2--Current NOX Emissions in Selected Ozone Nonattainment Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 aircraft 2020 aircraft
2008 total NOX percent of percent of
Nonattainment area (tons) mobile source mobile source
NOX NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque, NM........................................... 380 1.6 4.3
Anchorage, AK............................................. 2,538 23.4 49.3
Aspen..................................................... 16 2.0 6.6
Atlanta, GA............................................... 5,808 2.6 8.2
Baltimore, MD............................................. 1,148 1.3 4.4
Boston--including MA and NH NAAs.......................... 2,032 1.0 2.7
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC....................... 1,917 2.6 10.0
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN........................... 6,007 1.8 5.0
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN............................. 1,287 1.5 3.3
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH................................ 680 0.5 1.3
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX..................................... 3,880 1.7 6.9
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO.......... 2,649 2.5 7.1
Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI..................................... 2,312 1.1 3.0
El Paso, TX............................................... 223 0.9 1.1
Greater Connecticut, CT................................... 405 0.8 2.4
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX............................ 3,045 1.3 3.4
Indianapolis, IN.......................................... 1,089 1.4 3.0
[[Page 45017]]
Las Vegas, NV............................................. 2,308 6.0 15.8
Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA..................... 6,479 1.5 4.5
Louisville, KY-IN......................................... 1,211 1.9 6.2
Memphis, TN-AR............................................ 2,988 6.3 16.8
Milwaukee-Racine, WI...................................... 557 0.9 3.2
Minneapolis-St Paul, MN................................... 2,154 1.0 5.1
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT.............. 10,093 2.3 6.3
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE........ 2,308 1.0 2.8
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ.......................................... 2,298 1.4 3.3
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA.............................. 480 0.5 1.1
Providence (entire State), RI............................. 232 1.0 2.3
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC............................ 565 1.0 3.2
Reno, NV.................................................. 246 1.9 4.4
Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA................... 70 0.2 0.5
Sacramento Metro, CA...................................... 603 1.0 2.0
Salt Lake City, UT........................................ 1,235 4.4 14.1
San Diego, CA............................................. 1,035 1.4 3.4
San Francisco Bay Area, CA................................ 4,405 2.7 6.7
San Joaquin Valley, CA.................................... 74 0.0 0.1
Seattle-Tacoma, WA........................................ 1,958 1.4 3.9
St. Louis, MO-IL.......................................... 810 0.6 1.6
Syracuse, NY.............................................. 139 0.8 1.9
Washington, DC-MD-VA...................................... 2,983 2.0 6.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 shows how commercial aircraft operations are projected to
rise in the future on a nationwide basis. As operations increase, the
inventory impact of these aircraft on national and local NOX
inventories will also increase, as was seen in Table 2.
Table 3--Current and Projected Commercial Aircraft Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total increase
Air carrier Commuter/air Total commercial in commercial
Year operations taxi operations operations operations over
(millions) (millions) (millions) 2008 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.................................... 14.1 13.8 27.9 ................
2020.................................... 16.5 14.1 30.5 9
2030.................................... 20.6 16.0 36.6 31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: December 2010 FAA TAF, which is located at http://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp.
2. Non-LTO Emissions
Historically, emphasis has been placed on evaluating emissions
during LTO operations given their obvious impact on local air quality.
Less emphasis has been placed on evaluating emissions from non-LTO
operations (emissions at altitudes greater than 3,000 feet above ground
level) based on the assumption that such emissions have a lesser impact
on local air quality. However, modeling by Barrett et al. (2010) finds
that these upper atmosphere emissions may adversely affect public
health more than was previously thought.\26\ Based on the data and
methodology of the authors, this effect is caused primarily by two
pathways:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Barrett, S. R. H., R. E. Britter and I. A. Waitz, 2010.
Global mortality attributable to aircraft cruise emissions.
Environmental Science & Technology 44 (19), pp. 7736-7742. DOI:
10.1021/es101325r.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The formation of fine particulate matter, i.e., PM2.5,
from emission of gaseous precursors of PM (NOX and
SO2) in the upper atmosphere that are then transported to
the lower atmosphere. (The formation of secondary PM2.5 from
NOX is discussed further in section II.B.1.b).
Aviation NOX emissions promote ozone formation
throughout the troposphere and hence increase hydroxyl radical (OH)
concentrations. This increases the oxidation of non-aviation
SO2 (such as that emitted from power stations) in the gas
phase relative to aqueous oxidation and dry deposition thereby
increasing atmospheric sulfate (a type of PM2.5)
concentrations.
The authors of this work estimated that full flight emissions cause
almost 10,000 premature mortalities (their central estimate) per year
worldwide, with over 450 per year in the U.S. The pollutants emitted
during cruise operations were estimated to be about 80 percent of the
population-weighed PM2.5 from aviation, with the remainder
being associated with LTO operations (although they note the LTO
portion may be under-estimated). The study asserts that over 380
premature mortalities per year in the U.S. can be attributed to
secondary PM2.5 associated with non-LTO operations. We
request comments on the results of these studies and the existence of
other research into this area.
B. Health, Environmental and Air Quality Impacts
NOX emissions from aircraft and other mobile and
stationary sources contribute to the formation of ozone. In addition,
NOX emissions at low altitude
[[Page 45018]]
also react in the atmosphere to form secondary fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), particularly ammonium nitrate. In the following
sections we discuss the adverse health and welfare effects associated
with NOX emissions, in addition to the current and projected
levels of ozone and PM across the country. The ICAO NOX
standards with which we are proposing to align will help reduce ambient
ozone and secondary PM levels and thus will help areas with airports
achieve or maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The discussion of PM health and welfare effects throughout
this notice relates exclusively to the effects of the proposed
NOX emission standards on the formation of secondary PM
from nitrate formation in the atmosphere. Presently, there are no
emission standards for PM emitted directly from aircraft turbine
engines. The current and planned future work programs for CAEP/ICAO
are developing PM test procedures and information to characterize
the amount and type of these emissions from aircraft engines that
are in production. Ultimately, this information will be used to
assess the need for an aircraft turbine engine PM standard (i.e.,
whether PM emissions from aircraft cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare), with standard setting as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Background on Ozone, PM and NOX
a. What is ozone?
Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed by the reaction of
VOC and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the presence of
sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are
emitted by many types of pollution sources, such as highway and nonroad
motor vehicles and engines, power plants, chemical plants, refineries,
makers of consumer and commercial products, industrial facilities, and
smaller area sources.
The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is
complex.\28\ Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical
set of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature
and sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high
for several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its
precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically occurs
on a single high-temperature day. Ozone can be transported hundreds of
miles downwind from the sources of precursor emissions, resulting in
elevated ozone levels even in areas with low local VOC or
NOX emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. This document
is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687. This document may be
accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. What is particulate matter?
The discussion includes PM2.5 because the NOX
emitted by aircraft engines can react in the atmosphere to form
nitrate, a component of PM2.5. Particulate matter is a
generic term for a broad class of chemically and physically diverse
substances. It can be principally characterized as discrete particles
that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase spanning several
orders of magnitude in size. Since 1987, EPA has delineated that subset
of inhalable particles small enough to penetrate to the thoracic region
(including the tracheobronchial and alveolar regions) of the
respiratory tract (referred to as thoracic particles). Current NAAQS
use PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles (with
PM2.5 referring to particles with a nominal mean aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 2.5 [micro]m), and use PM10
as the indicator for purposes of regulating the coarse fraction of
PM10 (referred to as thoracic coarse particles or coarse-
fraction particles; generally including particles with a nominal mean
aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 [micro]m and less than or equal
to 10 [micro]m, or PM10-2.5). Ultrafine particles are a
subset of fine particles, generally less than 100 nanometers (0.1
[mu]m) in aerodynamic diameter.
Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and
by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., SOX,
NOX and VOC) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region,
meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a
complex mixture of different pollutants including sulfates, nitrates,
organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These
particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel
hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
c. What is NOX?
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of the NOX
family of gases. Most NO2 is formed in the air from the
oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high
temperature. NO2 can dissolve in water vapor and further
oxidize to form nitric acid which reacts with ammonia to form nitrates,
an important component of ambient PM. NOX along with non-
methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) are the two major precursors of ozone. The
health effects of ozone, ambient PM and NOX are covered in
section II.B.2.
2. Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Ozone, PM and
NOX
a. What are the health effects of ozone?
The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are
assessed in EPA's 2006 Air Quality Criteria Document (ozone AQCD) and
2007 Staff Paper.29 30 People who are more susceptible to
effects associated with exposure to ozone can include children, the
elderly, and individuals with respiratory disease such as asthma. Those
with greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time spent
outdoors (e.g., children and outdoor workers), are of particular
concern. Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing,
throat irritation, and breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce lung
function and cause pulmonary inflammation in healthy individuals. Ozone
can also aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require
medical attention and/or the use of additional medication. Thus,
ambient ozone may cause both healthy and asthmatic individuals to limit
their outdoor activities. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of
a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and highly
suggestive evidence that short-term ozone exposure directly or
indirectly contributes to non-accidental and cardiopulmonary-related
mortality, but additional research is needed to clarify the underlying
mechanisms causing these effects. In a recent report on the estimation
of ozone-related premature mortality published by the National Research
Council (NRC), a panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short-
term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature
deaths and that ozone-related mortality should be included in estimates
of the health benefits of reducing ozone exposure.\31\ Animal
toxicological evidence indicates that with repeated exposure, ozone can
[[Page 45019]]
inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which may lead to permanent
changes in lung tissue and irreversible reductions in lung function.
The respiratory effects observed in controlled human exposure studies
and animal studies are coherent with the evidence from epidemiologic
studies supporting a causal relationship between acute ambient ozone
exposures and increased respiratory-related emergency room visits and
hospitalizations in the warm season. In addition, there is suggestive
evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity
and non-accidental and cardiopulmonary mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. This document
is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687. This document may be
accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
\30\ U.S. EPA (2007) Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone, Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information. OAQPS Staff Paper.EPA-452/R-07-003. This document is
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687. This document is available
electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_sp.html.
\31\ National Research Council (NRC), 2008. Estimating Mortality
Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air
Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC. A copy of
this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. What are the health effects of PM?
Scientific studies show ambient PM is associated with a series of
adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in
EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (ISA).\32\
The ISA summarizes evidence associated with PM2.5,
PM10-2.5, and ultrafine particles (UFPs), and concludes the
following.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. EPA (2009) Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter, EPA 600/R-08/139F. A copy of this document is in
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ISA concludes that health effects associated with short-term
exposures (hours to days) to ambient PM2.5 include
mortality, cardiovascular effects, such as altered vasomotor function
and hospital admissions and emergency department visits for ischemic
heart disease and congestive heart failure, and respiratory effects,
such as exacerbation of asthma symptoms in children and hospital
admissions and emergency department visits for chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory infections.\33\ The ISA notes
that long-term exposure to PM2.5 (months to years) is
associated with the development/progression of cardiovascular disease,
premature mortality, and respiratory effects, including reduced lung
function growth, increased respiratory symptoms, and asthma
development.\34\ The ISA concludes that the currently available
scientific evidence from epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and
toxicological studies supports a causal association between short- and
long-term exposures to PM2.5 and cardiovascular effects and
mortality. Furthermore, the ISA concludes that the collective evidence
supports likely causal associations between short- and long-term
PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects. The ISA also
concludes that the scientific evidence is suggestive of a causal
association for reproductive and developmental effects and cancer,
mutagenicity, and genotoxicity and long-term exposure to
PM2.5.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ U.S. EPA (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, 2009. Section 2.3.1.1.
\34\ U.S. EPA (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, 2009. page 2-12, Sections
7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1.
\35\ U.S. EPA (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, 2009. Section 2.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For PM10-2.5, the ISA concludes that the current
evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term
exposures and cardiovascular effects, such as hospitalization for
ischemic heart disease. There is also suggestive evidence of a causal
relationship between short-term PM10-2.5 exposure and
mortality and respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw
conclusions regarding the health effects associated with long-term
exposure to PM10-2.5.
For ultrafine particulates (UFPs), the ISA further concludes that
there is suggestive evidence of a causal relationship between short-
term exposures and cardiovascular effects, such as changes in heart
rhythm and blood vessel function. It also concludes that there is
suggestive evidence of association between short-term exposure to UFPs
and respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions
regarding the health effects associated with long-term exposure to
UFP's.
c. What are the health effects of NOX?
Information on the health effects of NO2 can be found in
the EPA Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen Oxides.\36\
The EPA has concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled
human exposure, and animal toxicological studies provide evidence that
is sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory
effects and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA concludes that
the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes from epidemiologic
studies of respiratory effects including symptoms, emergency department
visits, and hospital admissions. The ISA also draws two broad
conclusions regarding airway responsiveness following NO2
exposure. First, the ISA concludes that NO2 exposure may
enhance the sensitivity to allergen-induced decrements in lung function
and increase the allergen-induced airway inflammatory response
following 30-minute exposures of asthmatics to NO2
concentrations as low as 0.26 ppm. In addition, small but significant
increases in non-specific airway hyper-responsiveness were reported
following 1-hour exposures of asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO2.
Second, exposure to NO2 has been found to enhance the
inherent responsiveness of the airway to subsequent nonspecific
challenges in controlled human exposure studies of asthmatic subjects.
Enhanced airway responsiveness could have important clinical
implications for asthmatics since transient increases in airway
responsiveness following NO2 exposure have the potential to
increase symptoms and worsen asthma control. Together, the
epidemiologic and experimental data sets form a plausible, consistent,
and coherent description of a relationship between NO2
exposures and an array of adverse health effects that range from the
onset of respiratory symptoms to hospital admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides
of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/071.
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. A copy of this document is in docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the weight of evidence supporting a causal relationship is
somewhat less certain than that associated with respiratory morbidity,
NO2 has also been linked to other health endpoints. These
include all-cause (non-accidental) mortality, hospital admissions or
emergency department visits for cardiovascular disease, and decrements
in lung function growth associated with chronic exposure.
3. Environmental Effects Associated With Exposure to Ozone, PM and
NOX
a. Deposition of Nitrogen
Emissions of NOX from aircraft engines contribute to
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in the U.S. Atmospheric deposition
of nitrogen contributes to acidification, altering biogeochemistry and
affecting animal and plant life in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
across the U.S. The sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
to acidification from nitrogen deposition is predominantly governed by
geology. Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen deposition in sensitive
areas acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. Increased acidity in surface
waters creates inhospitable conditions for biota and affects the
abundance and nutritional value of preferred prey species, threatening
biodiversity and ecosystem function. Over time, acidifying deposition
also removes essential nutrients from forest soils, depleting the
capacity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and
[[Page 45020]]
negatively affecting forest sustainability. Major effects include a
decline in sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce (Picea
rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum); and a loss of biodiversity of
fishes, zooplankton, and macro invertebrates.
In addition to the role nitrogen deposition plays in acidification,
nitrogen deposition also leads to nutrient enrichment and altered
biogeochemical cycling. In aquatic systems increased nitrogen can alter
species assemblages and cause eutrophication. In terrestrial systems
nitrogen loading can lead to loss of nitrogen sensitive lichen species,
decreased biodiversity of grasslands, meadows and other sensitive
habitats, and increased potential for invasive species.
Adverse impacts on soil chemistry and plant life have been observed
for areas heavily influenced by atmospheric deposition of nutrients,
metals and acid species, resulting in species shifts, loss of
biodiversity, forest decline and damage to forest productivity. Across
the U.S. there are many terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that have
been identified as particularly sensitive to nitrogen deposition. The
most extreme effects resulting from nitrogen deposition on aquatic
ecosystems are due to nitrogen enrichment which contributes to
``hypoxic'' zones devoid of life. Three hypoxia zones of special
concern in the U.S. are the zones located in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Chesapeake Bay in the mid-Atlantic region, and Long Island Sound, in
the northeast U.S.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ U.S. EPA (2008). Nitrogen Dioxide/Sulfur Dioxide Secondary
NAAQS Review: Integrated Science Assessment (ISA). Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009
from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=180903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deposition of airborne particles can reduce the aesthetic
appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling,
and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants)
to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion.\38\ Particles
affect materials principally by promoting and accelerating the
corrosion of metals, by degrading paints, and by deteriorating building
materials such as concrete and limestone. Particles contribute to these
effects because of their electrolytic, hygroscopic, and acidic
properties, and their ability to adsorb corrosive gases (principally
sulfur dioxide).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ U.S. EPA (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. Retrieved on April 9,
2009 from http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/pmstaffpaper_20051221.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Visibility Effects
NOX emissions contribute to visibility impairment in the
U.S. through the formation of secondary PM2.5.\39\
Visibility impairment is caused by light scattering and absorption by
suspended particles and gases. Visibility is important because it has
direct significance to people's enjoyment of daily activities in all
parts of the country. Individuals value good visibility for the well-
being it provides them directly, where they live and work, and in
places where they enjoy recreational opportunities. Visibility is also
highly valued in significant natural areas, such as national parks and
wilderness areas, and special emphasis is given to protecting
visibility in these areas. For more information on visibility see the
final 2009 PM ISA.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ U.S. EPA (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter (AQCD). Volume I Document No. EPA600/P-99/002aF and Volume II
Document No. EPA600/P-99/002bF. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903.
\40\ U.S. EPA (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, 2009. A copy of this
document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
Elevated ozone levels contribute to environmental effects, with
impacts to plants and ecosystems being of most concern. Ozone can
produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on
the concentration level and the duration of the exposure. Ozone effects
also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that
even low concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the
potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to
plants includes visible injury to leaves and impaired photosynthesis,
both of which can lead to reduced plant growth and reproduction,
resulting in reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of
sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the impairment of
photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes carbohydrates (its
source of energy and food), can lead to a subsequent reduction in root
growth and carbohydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more
subtle plant and ecosystems impacts. These latter impacts include
increased susceptibility of plants to insect attack, disease, harsh
weather, interspecies competition and overall decreased plant vigor.
The adverse effects of ozone on forest and other natural vegetation can
potentially lead to species shifts and loss from the affected
ecosystems, resulting in a loss or reduction in associated ecosystem
goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone injury to leaves can result
in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special scenic significance
like national parks and wilderness areas. The final 2006 Ozone Air
Quality Criteria Document presents more detailed information on ozone
effects on vegetation and ecosystems.
4. Impacts on Ambient Air Quality
The aircraft NOX emission standards we are proposing
would impact ambient concentrations of air pollutants. Nationally,
levels of PM2.5, ozone, and NOX are
declining.\41\ However as of 2008, approximately 127 million people
lived in counties that exceeded any NAAQS.\42\ These numbers do not
include the people living in areas where there is a future risk of
failing to maintain or attain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ U.S. EPA (2010). Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends
through 2008. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 454/R-09-002. This document
can be accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2010/.
\42\ U.S. EPA (2010). Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends
through 2008. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 454/R-09-002. This document
can be accessed electronically at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2010/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States with nonattainment areas are required to take action to
bring those areas into compliance in the future. Based on the final
rule designating and classifying 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas for
the 1997 standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004), most 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas will be required to attain the ozone NAAQS in the
2007 to 2013 time frame and then maintain the NAAQS thereafter. EPA is
reconsidering the 2008 ozone NAAQS. If EPA promulgates different ozone
NAAQS as a result of the reconsideration, these standards would replace
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and EPA would subsequently designate nonattainment
areas for the revised primary ozone NAAQS. The attainment dates for
areas designated nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS could
range from 2015 to 2032, depending on the severity of the problem.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ U.S. EPA (2010). Fact Sheet Revisions to Ozone Standards.
This document can be accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/fs20100106std.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas designated as not attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
will need to attain the 1997 standards in the 2010 to 2015 time frame,
and then maintain them thereafter. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5
[[Page 45021]]
nonattainment areas will be required to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2014 to 2019 time frame and then be
required to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
thereafter.
The aircraft engine emission standards being proposed today were
approved by ICAO/CAEP and would have an implementation date of 2013.
Therefore, the aircraft engine emission reductions that are being
proposed today should be useful to states in attaining or maintaining
the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels and which
will assist in reducing the number of areas that fail to achieve the
NAAQS. Even so, our air quality modeling projects that in 2030 as many
as 16 counties with a population of almost 35 million may not attain
the 2008 ozone standard of 0.075 ppm (75 ppb).\44\ In addition, our air
quality modeling projects that in 2030 at least 9 counties with a
population of almost 28 million may not attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ and 26 counties with a
population of over 41 million may not attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.\45\ These numbers do not
account for those areas that are close to (e.g., within 10 percent of)
the standards. These areas, although not violating the standards, would
also benefit from any reductions in NOX ensuring long-term
maintenance of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ U.S. EPA (2010). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final
Rulemaking To Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Chapter 7:
Environmental and Health Impacts. EPA420-R-10-009.
\45\ U.S. EPA (2010). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final
Rulemaking To Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Chapter 7:
Environmental and Health Impacts. EPA 420-R-10-009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently no NO2 nonattainment areas. However,
the NO2 standards were recently revised and a new 1-hour
NO2 standard was promulgated.\46\ Nonattainment area
designations for the 1-hour NO2 standard are expected to be
finalized in 2012. These proposed aircraft NOX reductions
would be useful to states in attaining or maintaining the
NO2 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ U.S. EPA, ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Nitrogen Dioxide;'' Final Rule, 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Details of the Proposed Rule
We are proposing two different levels or tiers of increasingly more
stringent NOX emission standards for gas turbofan engines
with maximum rated thrusts greater than 26.7 kilonewtons (kN).\47\ Each
of the tiers would potentially apply to newly-certified engines. Newly-
certified aircraft engines are those that would receive a new type
certificate after the effective date of the applicable standards. Such
engine types or models would not have begun production prior to the
effective date of the new requirement.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The proposed standards would apply to engines used in
commercial and noncommercial aviation for which the FAA issues
airworthiness certificates, e.g., non-revenue, general aviation
service. The vast majority of these engines are used in commercial
applications. See section IV.A.2. for more information regarding
noncommercial applications.
\48\ ICAO standards describe newly-certified engines as ``* * *
engines of a type or model for which the date of manufacture of the
first individual production model was after * * *.'' the effective
date of the emission standards. See ICAO, ``Aircraft Engine
Emissions,'' Annex 16, Volume II, Third Edition, July 2008,
Amendment 4 effective on July 20, 2008. A copy of this document is
in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing to apply the first tier of the two tiers of
standards to newly-manufactured engines. Newly-manufactured aircraft
engines are those that have been previously certified and manufactured
in compliance with preexisting standards, and will continue to be
produced after the effective date of a new applicable standard.
Normally, these newly-manufactured engines would need to comply with
the same NOX limits as newly-certified engines, but at a
later date or cease production.\49\ The end of this ``phase-in'' period
for the newly-manufactured engine standards is sometimes referred to a
``production cutoff,'' for obvious reasons. Again, we are proposing
only the first of the two new tiers of NOX standards for
newly-manufactured engines. These provisions are described in detail
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The standards for newly-manufactured engines are described
in general regulatory terms as the date that the type or model was
first certified and produced in conformance with specific emission
standards, and the date beyond which an individual engine meeting
those same requirements cannot be made. So ICAO standards describe
newly-manufactured engines as ``* * * engines of a type or model for
which the date of manufacture of the first individual production
model was after * * *.'' the effective date of the applicable
standards, and `` * * * for which the date of manufacture of the
individual engine was on or before * * * '' a specific date that is
later than the first effective date of the standards. See ICAO,
``Aircraft Engine Emissions,'' Annex 16, Volume II, Third Edition,
July 2008, Amendment 4 effective on July 20, 2008. Copies of this
document can be obtained from the ICAO Web site at http://www.icao.int.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five other regulatory features are being proposed in today's
action. First, we are proposing to revise provisions addressing certain
time-limited flexibilities, i.e., potential exemptions, for newly-
manufactured engines that may not be able to comply with the first tier
of the proposed new NOX standards because of specific
technical or economic reasons.\50\ Similarly, the proposal includes
exception provisions for spare engines. Second, we are proposing to
define a derivative engine for emissions certification purposes. The
intent of this definition is to distinguish when the emission
characteristics of a new turbofan engine model vary substantially from
its existing parent engine design, and must show compliance with the
emission standards for a newly-certificated engine. Third, we are
proposing new CO and NOX standards for turbofan engines that
are used to propel supersonic aircraft. These standards were adopted by
ICAO in the 1980s, but were not previously added to our HC emission
standard for these engines. The proposed standards would meet our
treaty obligation under the Convention on International Civil Aviation
as previously described in section I.B. Fourth, we are proposing
several amendments to the emission testing and measurement procedures
in our regulations that are intended to implement ICAO's Annex 16 and
to incorporate the entire annex in our regulations by reference.
Finally, as described in section IV., we are proposing amendments to
current regulatory provisions addressing definitions, acronyms and
abbreviations, general applicability and requirements, exemptions, and
incorporation by reference. These amendments are intended to clarify
requirements, make them more consistent with other parts of the
program, update the text to be consistent with current standard
language conventions, or remove obsolete provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ These apply only to the Tier 6 NOX standards. We
are not yet proposing a production cutoff for the Tier 8
NOX standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed further below, with the exception of the annual
reporting requirement described in section III.D., the proposed
amendments reflect those changes that were previously adopted by ICAO
or that CAEP has recommended for adoption by ICAO in the near future.
In this latter case, we are proposing these standards and recommended
practices at this time rather than wait until ICAO takes final action
to help ensure that our standards, and the FAA's implementing
regulations, are adopted in a timely manner once ICAO completes its
process. We anticipate that our final standards would generally conform
to ICAO's final standards, once adopted.
[[Page 45022]]
This would better enable the regulated industry to respond to new,
globally harmonized requirements in an orderly manner, which is
important given the international nature of the market for the aircraft
engines that would be affected by today's proposed rule. It would also
avoid continuing the significant lag time that has sometimes occurred
between ICAO's adoption of international standards and our adoption of
corresponding standards under U.S. law. To the extent ICAO adopts
standards that differ from those recommended by CAEP before we issue
our final rule, we would then consider whether to make conforming
amendments in our final standards, or to issue a supplemental proposal
reflecting the amended ICAO standards, if appropriate.
This proposal also is consistent with our authority and obligations
under the CAA as described in section I.B. More specifically, the
technical feasibility and cost of the proposed emission standards were
well documented by our own analyses and CAEP as described later in this
section and in section V., Technical Feasibility, Costs, and Emission
Benefits. We think that the proposal would provide adequate lead time
for the development and application of the requisite technology with
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance. We have consulted
with the Department of Transportation through the FAA regarding lead
time, noise, safety, and the technical feasibility of the proposed
standards. Today's proposal is also consistent with U.S. treaty
obligations under the Chicago Convention as described in section I.C.,
because the proposed requirements are consistent with current ICAO
standards or those that we expect ICAO to adopt prior to the
promulgation of any final rule.
Except to the extent needed to make our standards conform to ICAO's
standards by making them applicable to both commercial and non-
commercial engines, we are not proposing revised exhaust emission
standards for HC, CO, or smoke, which would remain in effect as
currently promulgated. All engines subject to the proposed new
NOX standards would also continue to be subject to the
existing HC, CO, and smoke standards. It is worth emphasizing that
although we are proposing to include these existing HC, CO, and smoke
standards in a new section 87.23, which would also contain the proposed
Tier 6 and Tier 8 NOX standards, we are not actually
proposing new standards, since under the current form of part 87 these
HC, CO and smoke standards would already continue to apply to new
engine types subject to future revised NOX standards.
We are proposing to adopt a new naming convention in this preamble
and the regulatory text to more easily distinguish between the proposed
tiers of increasingly more stringent NOX emission standards.
This convention is also consistent with the numeric identifier that
CAEP uses to differentiate the CAEP work cycle that produces new
NOX standards. (The CAEP naming convention is described in
section I.E.) As a result, the first tier of proposed NOX
standards, which are consistent with CAEP/6, will be referred to as
Tier 6 in the remainder of today's notice. The second tier of proposed
standards will be referred to as Tier 8, which is consistent with CAEP/
8. We are also incorporating the new naming convention in the
regulations for the existing NOX emission standards, i.e.,
Tier 0, Tier 2, and Tier 4. There is no material change to the existing
NOX standards themselves, except to the extent that upon the
effectiveness of a final rule reflecting today's proposal the existing
NOX standards would be superseded by Tier 6 standards.
We acknowledge that this new naming convention is a change from the
past practice of not describing aircraft engine emission standards as
tiers. However, we believe the new naming scheme is a valuable tool
that makes referring to individual NOX standards much
easier. It is also similar to the terminology we use for other mobile
source sectors that are subject to environmental regulation and for
which standards have become more stringent or have otherwise been
amended over time.
A. NOX Standards for Newly-Certified Engines
We are proposing two different tiers of increasingly stringent
NOX standards. These standards would apply for all for
newly-certified turbofan aircraft engines with maximum rated thrusts
greater than 26.7 kN.\51\ (See section III.B. for a discussion of how
these standards would apply for newly-manufactured engines that are not
considered to be newly certified.) The numerical value of the
applicable standard for an individual engine model is defined by the
engine's thrust level and pressure ratio. Simply stated, the pressure
ratio is a ratio of the air pressure entering the engine to the air
pressure at the entrance to the combustor, i.e., after the air has
passed through the compressor section of the engine. Each of the
proposed tiers is described separately below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ There are no gaseous emission standards, e.g.,
NOX, for gas turbine engines with maximum rated thrusts
equal to or less than 26.7 kN. These engines are, however, subject
to smoke and fuel venting standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tier 6 NOX Standards for Newly-Certified Engines
This first tier of proposed standards is equivalent to the CAEP/6
NOX limits that were already adopted by ICAO and became
internationally effective after December 31, 2007. Given that aircraft
turbofan engines are international commodities, engine manufacturers
have already introduced engine models after that date that demonstrate
compliance with these international standards, or are already planning
to do so for upcoming engine designs. Based on this, and on our
evaluation of the necessary lead time, we are proposing that this tier
of standards take effect immediately upon the effective date of our
final regulations.
The basic form of the NOX standards for turbofan engines
is different for higher- and lower-rated thrust engines. Higher output
engines are defined as having rated thrusts equal to or greater than 89
kN, while lower output engines are defined as having rated thrusts less
than 89 kN but greater than 26.7 kN. The proposed Tier 6 NOX
standards for each of these power grouping are described separately
below.
a. Numerical Emission Limits for Higher Thrust Engines
The proposed Tier 6 NOX standards for newly-certified
gas turbine engines with rated thrusts of 89 kN or more are
differentiated by pressure ratio as shown below.
For engines with a pressure ratio of 30 or less: g/kN
rated output = 16.72 + (1.4080 * engine pressure ratio).
For engines with a pressure ratio of more than 30 but less
than 82.6: g/kN rated output = -1.04 + (2.0 * engine pressure ratio).
For engines with a pressure ratio of 82.6 or more: g/kN
rated output = 32 + (1.6 * engine pressure ratio).
The corresponding CAEP/6 standards were derived by CAEP using the
following methodology:
Make the CAEP/6 standard 12 percent more stringent than
the CAEP/4 requirement at a pressure ratio of 30;
Retain the same percent reduction, i.e., 12 percent, for
pressure ratios below 30;
Retain the slope of the CAEP/4 standard for pressure
ratios of 30 to 62.5 for the CAEP/6 pressure ratios of 30 to 82.6;
Retain the slope of the CAEP/4 standard for pressure
ratios equal to or
[[Page 45023]]
greater than 62.5 for the CAEP/6 pressure ratios at or above 82.6.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Reverting to the CAEP/4 slope at a pressure ratio of 82.6
prevents the CAEP/6 standard from otherwise intersecting the older
CAEP/2 standard at this point and thereby actually making CAEP/6
less stringent than CAEP/2. It has no practical effect because
current engines or anticipated engine designs do not utilize such
high pressure ratios. Presently, there are no current engines with
pressure ratios above approximately 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting proposed Tier 6 NOX standards for these
higher thrust engines are presented in Figure 1 along with the most
recently adopted existing EPA NOX standards, which were
based on CAEP/4, for comparison.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY11.000
As a matter of convention, the relative stringency from one CAEP
standard to another is expressed relative to a pressure ratio of 30,
because the percentage reduction is usually inconsistent across all of
the possible pressure ratios, which otherwise makes a simple comparison
difficult. Using that convention, the proposed Tier 6 standards (CAEP/
6) are referred to as being 12 percent more stringent than the existing
EPA NOX Tier 4 standards (CAEP/4). The relative stringency
can also be illustrated at other pressure ratios. At pressure ratios
less than 30 the reductions are also 12 percent. At pressure ratios
above 30, however, the percent reduction decreases as the pressure
ratio is increased. Based on the figure, the percent reduction for
current technology engines ranges from about 8 to 12 percent.
b. Numerical Emission Limits for Lower Thrust Engines
The proposed Tier 6 NOX standards for newly-certified
gas turbine engines with rated thrusts between 26.7 and less than 89.0
kN are differentiated by both pressure ratio and rated thrust as shown
below.
For engines with a pressure ratio of 30 or less:
g/kN rated output = 38.5486 + (1.6823 * engine pressure ratio) -
(0.2453 * kN rated thrust) - (0.00308 * engine pressure ratio * kN
rated thrust).
For engines with a pressure ratio of more than 30 but less
than 82.6:
g/kN rated output = 46.1504 + (1.4285 * engine pressure ratio) -
(0.5298 * kN rated thrust) + (0.00642 * engine pressure ratio * kN
rated thrust).
In developing the corresponding NOX standards for low
thrust engines, CAEP recognized the technical challenges that
physically smaller-sized engines represent relative to incorporating
some of the lowest NOX technology, which is otherwise
available to their larger counterparts. These technical difficulties
are well documented and increase progressively as size is reduced (from
around 89 kN).\53\ For example, the relatively small combustor \54\
space and section height of these engines creates constraints on the
use of low NOX fuel-staged combustor concepts which
inherently require the availability of greater flow path cross-
sectional area than conventional combustors. Also, fuel-staged
combustors need more fuel injectors, and this need is not compatible
with the relatively smaller total fuel flows of lower thrust engines.
(Reductions in fuel flow per nozzle are difficult to attain without
having clogging problems due to the small sizes of the fuel metering
ports.) In addition, lower thrust engine combustors have an inherently
greater liner surface-to-combustion volume ratio, and this requires
increased wall cooling air flow. Thus, less air will be available to
obtain acceptable turbine inlet temperature distribution and for
emissions control.\55\ With these technological constraints in mind,
CAEP fashioned the CAEP/6 NOX standards across the range of
thrusts represented by low-thrust engines to become comparatively less
stringent,
[[Page 45024]]
i.e., CAEP/6 relative to CAEP/4, as the rated output and physical size
of the engines decrease. We agree with this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ ICAO/CAEP, ``Report of Third Meeting, Montreal, Quebec,
December 5-15, 1995,'' Document 9675, CAEP/3. A copy of this paper
can be found in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\54\ The combustor is a chamber where a mixture of fuel and air
is burned to form very hot, expanding gases. As these gases move
through the combustion chamber, the walls of the combustor are
cooled with dilution air to prevent thermal damage. Dilution air is
also used to tailor the gas' temperature profile as it exits the
combustor so that the final temperatures will not exceed the
allowable limit at the turbine inlet.
\55\ ICAO, ``Combined Report of the Certification and Technology
Subgroups,'' section 2.3.6.1, CAEP Working Group 3 (Emissions).
Presented by the Chairman of the Technology Subgroup, Third Meeting,
Bonn, Germany, June 1995. A copy of this paper can be found in
Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned, the proposed Tier 6 standards depend on an individual
engine's rated thrust and pressure ratio. With two variables in the
calculation, the standards cannot be represented in a simple figure,
i.e., no single line graph showing the standards for all engines within
the thrust range is possible as it was for higher thrust engines.
Regardless of this complexity, however, some general observations are
useful to characterize the proposed Tier 6 NOX standards for
lower thrust engines based on the engine size versus technological
challenge described in the previous paragraph.
Comparing the proposed lower and higher thrust standards at 89 kN,
which is the demarcation point between the two sets of standards, shows
that the standards for lower thrust engines are numerically equivalent
to the limit for higher thrust engines at each pressure ratio. This is
as expected because the engine sizes and ability to incorporate low-
NOX technologies are the same at 89.0 kN delineation point.
Again focusing only on 89 kN engines, the proposed Tier 6 standards
represent a 12 percent reduction from the existing EPA Tier 4 (CAEP/4
based standards) for pressure ratios of 30 or less as shown below in
Figure 2. This includes the region represented by almost all current
engine designs. At higher pressure ratios, the relative numerical
reduction is progressively less because the slope of the two standards
is essentially the same.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY11.001
At other thrust ratings the percent reduction between the proposed
Tier 6 and existing EPA NOX standards at any pressure ratio
becomes progressively smaller as thrust decreases. This is illustrated
in Figure 3 for a pressure ratio of 30. This pressure ratio was chosen
for the example because, as before, the relative stringency of CAEP
NOX standards is generally compared at this point as a
matter of convention. As shown in the figure for current engines, the
reduction ranges from 12 percent at the upper end of the thrust range
to 0 percent at the lower end of the range. The pattern is similar for
the other pressure ratios. Only the actual numerical value for
percentage reduction at 89 kN, as shown on the far right of the figure,
may vary by pressure ratio, as described at the beginning of this
paragraph. However, in the region of pressure ratios represented by
today's engines, the results are identical to those shown in the
figure, i.e., a 12 percent reduction at 89 kN decreasing to 0 percent
at 26.7 kN.
[[Page 45025]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY11.002
2. Tier 8 NOX Standards for Newly-Certified Engines
The second tier of proposed standards, i.e., Tier 8, are equivalent
to the NOX limits that were most recently recommended at
CAEP/8 in February 2010 for adoption by ICAO.\56\ The CAEP/8
recommended standards have a recommended effective date after December
31, 2013. As discussed further in section V. of today's notice, we
agree with CAEP that this provides engine manufacturers with adequate
lead time to respond to these more stringent NOX standards
considering the technical feasibility and cost associated with the
requirements. Therefore, we are proposing that this tier of proposed
standards would take effect on January 1, 2014, provided ICAO adopts
CAEP/8's recommended standards and effective date. If ICAO adopts
different standards or a different effective date, we would evaluate
whether to similarly adopt correspondingly different standards and
effective dates, or seek further public comment before doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ CAEP/7 did not adopt new aircraft engine NOX
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the Tier 6 NOX standards, the basic form of the
Tier 8 standards for turbofan engines is different for higher- and
lower-rated thrust engines. Higher output engines are defined as having
rated thrusts equal to or greater than 89 kN, while lower output
engines are defined as having rated thrusts less than 89 kN but greater
than 26.7 kN. The longer-term standards for each of these power
grouping are described separately below.
a. Numerical Emission Limits for Higher Thrust Engines
The proposed Tier 8 NOX standards for newly-certified
turbofan engines with rated thrusts of 89 N or more are differentiated
by pressure ratio as shown below.
For engines with a pressure ratio of 30 or less: g/kN
rated output = 7.88 + (1.4080* engine pressure ratio).
For engines with a pressure ratio of more than 30 but less
than 104.7: g/kN rated output = - 9.88+ (2.0 * engine pressure ratio).
For engines with a pressure ratio of 104.7 or more: g/kN
rated output = 32 + (1.6 * engine pressure ratio).
The corresponding CAEP/8 standards were derived by CAEP using the
following methodology:
Make the CAEP/8 standard 15 percent more stringent than
the CAEP/6 requirement at a pressure ratio of 30;
Retain the slope of the CAEP/6 standard for pressure
ratios below 30;
Retain the slope of the CAEP/6 standard for pressure
ratios of 30 to 82.6 for the CAEP/8 pressure ratios of 30 to 104.7;
Retain the slope of the CAEP/6 standard for pressure
ratios above 82.6 for the CAEP/8 pressure ratios equal to or greater
than 104.7.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Reverting to the CAEP/6 slope at a pressure ratio of 104.7
prevents the CAEP/8 standard from otherwise intersecting the older
CAEP/2 standard at this point and thereby actually making CAEP/8
less stringent than CAEP/2. It has no practical value because
current engines or anticipated engine designs do not utilize such
high pressure ratios. Presently, there are no current engines with
pressure ratios above approximately 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resulting proposed Tier 8 NOX standards for these
higher thrust engines are presented in Figure 4 along with the proposed
Tier 6 standards for comparison.
[[Page 45026]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY11.003
As noted previously, as a matter of convention the relative
stringency from one CAEP standard to another is generally expressed
relative to a pressure ratio of 30. Using that convention, the proposed
Tier 8 standards (CAEP/8) are referred to as being 15 percent more
stringent than the proposed Tier 6 NOX standards (CAEP/6).
The relative stringency can also be illustrated at other pressure
ratios. At pressure ratios less than 30 the reductions increase. At
pressure ratios above 30, however, the percent reduction decreases.
Based on the figure, the percent reduction for current technology
engines ranges from about 11 to 19 percent.
b. Numerical Emission Limits for Lower Thrust Engines
The proposed Tier 8 NOX standards for newly-certified
gas turbine engines with rated thrusts between 26.7 but less than 89.0
kN are differentiated by both pressure ratio and rated thrust as shown
below.
For engines with a pressure ratio of 30 or less:
g/kN rated output = 40.052 + (1.5681 * engine pressure ratio) -
(0.3615 * kN rated thrust) - (0.0018 * engine pressure ratio * kN rated
thrust).
For engines with a pressure ratio of more than 30 but less
than 104.7:
g/kN rated output = 41.9435 + (1.505 * engine pressure ratio) -
(0.55823 * kN rated thrust) + (0.005562 * engine pressure ratio * kN
rated thrust).
In developing the corresponding CAEP/8 NOX standards for
low thrust engines, CAEP recognized the technical challenges that
physically smaller-sized engines represent relative to incorporating
some of the lowest NOX technology, which is otherwise
available to their larger counterparts. These technical difficulties
were described in the previous section for the proposed Tier 6 low-
thrust engine standards.
Also as previously described, no single line graph showing the
standards for all engines within the thrust range is possible as it was
for higher thrust engines, because the equations have two variables.
However, some general observations are useful to characterize the
proposed Tier 8 NOX standards for lower thrust engines based
on the engine size versus technological challenge described in the
previous paragraph. First, the proposed Tier 8 NOX standards
for lower thrust engines are numerically equivalent to the limit for
higher thrust engines across all pressure ratios at the highest rating
of 89 kN, where the engine sizes and ability to incorporated low-
NOX technologies are comparable. This same characteristic
was observed for the proposed Tier 6 standards. Second, as shown below
in Figure 5 for 89 kN engines, at this thrust rating the proposed Tier
8 standards represents a 15 percent reduction from the proposed Tier 6
standards for a pressure ratio of 30. However, within the region of
pressure ratios for all current engine designs, the reductions range
from 19 to 23 percent.
[[Page 45027]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY11.004
Third, at other thrust ratings the percent reduction between the
proposed Tier 6 and Tier 8 standards at any pressure ratio becomes
progressively smaller as thrust decreases. This is illustrated in
Figure 6 for a pressure ratio of 30, following the convention described
above. Also as shown in the figure for current engines, the reduction
ranges from 15 percent at the upper end of the thrust range to 5
percent at the lower end of the range. While not depicted in a figure,
the pattern is similar for the other pressure ratios. However, the
actual numerical values for percentage reductions at both ends of the
thrust range, i.e., 26.7 to 89 kN, may vary by pressure ratio. In the
region of pressure ratios represented by today's engines, the results
are identical to those shown in Figure 6 at 26.7 kN, i.e., a 5 percent
reduction at all pressure ratios for that thrust rating. However,
percent reductions increase linearly up to a maximum 23 percent
reduction for 89 kN engines with pressure ratios of about 15.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JY11.005
[[Page 45028]]
B. Application of the Tier 6 NOX Standards to Newly-
Manufactured Engines
This section describes our proposal to apply the proposed Tier 6
NOX standards to newly-manufactured engines, and our
proposed amended temporary flexibilities for newly-manufactured engines
that may have significant problems complying with these requirements.
Also, consistent with CAEP/8, we are not proposing to apply the Tier 8
NOX standards to newly-manufactured engines at this time.
This section concludes with a description of future efforts to examine
such a possibility.
1. Phase-In of the Tier 6 NOX Standards for Newly-
Manufactured Engines
As described above, the proposed Tier 6 NOX standards
would apply to all engine types or models that receive a new type
certificate after the effective date of the final rule. We are also
proposing to phase-in these same NOX limits for newly-
manufactured engines for engine models (and their derivatives for
emissions certification purposes) that were originally certified to
less stringent requirements (i.e., Tier 2 or Tier 4) and were already
being produced for installation on new aircraft prior to the effective
date of the final rule.\58\ As a result, manufacturers would need to
bring newly-manufactured engines of these previously certified models
into compliance with the applicable Tier 6 standards by a future date
or cease production of those engine models.\59\ As we discussed and
described in our analysis of the need for a CAEP 6 production cutoff
during the CAEP process, establishing a date certain for compliance
with any emission standard is foundational to its basic design and
purpose and helps to ensure that the full benefits of newer, more
stringent requirements will be achieved in a reasonable time.\60\ We
are, however, proposing certain limited flexibilities for engines that
cannot be made compliant because of specific technical or economic
reasons, as discussed later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The requirement that newly-manufactured engines must meet
the CAEP 6 NOX standard by a date certain applies only to
engines that are intended to be installed on all new airframes. It
would not apply to engines produced as ``spares,'' which are
intended to be installed on existing airframes as replacements for
maintenance or other reasons. See section III.B.2. for more
information about new and spare engines.
\59\ After this date the production of any noncompliant engines
would cease because the FAA would discontinue issuing an
airworthiness approval tag (FAA Form 8130-3) to these engines.
\60\ ICAO, Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Eight Meeting, Montreal, 1 to 12 February 2010, Agenda 2:
Review of Technical Proposals Relating to Aircraft Engine Emissions,
Adoption of Production Cutoff for Emission Standards, WP/56,
Presented by the United States, December 12, 2009. A copy of this
document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed effective date of January 1, 2013 \61\ for the newly-
manufactured engine standards is consistent with the expected market
demand for these previously certified engine types. Historically,
engine manufacturers have often responded to the adoption of more
stringent NOX standards by bringing older engine types into
compliance with the newer requirements well before the required date in
anticipation of the likely market demand, or planning for the orderly
withdrawal of these engines from the marketplace. Information developed
during the ICAO process in 2008 and 2009 62 63 64 and our
more recent discussions with manufacturers indicate that: (1) All but a
few models are already compliant with CAEP/6 standards, (2) nearly
without exception, all current production models will meet the CAEP/6
requirements by the 2011 time frame, and (3) any noncompliant models
will be phased out of production because of low market demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The proposed regulatory text specifies that engine models
certified at or below the Tier 4 NOX standards may be
produced through December 31, 2012 without meeting the Tier 6
NOX standards. Therefore, the effective date of the
proposed standards for newly-manufactured engines is effectively
January 1, 2013.
\62\ ICAO, Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Steering Group Meeting, Salvador, Brazil, 22 to 26 June
2009, Agenda 6: Emissions Technical-WG3, Production Cutoffs and
Associated Flexibilities for ICAO Engine Emission Standards, WP/39,
Presented by U.S. Representative, August 6, 2009. A copy of this
document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\63\ ICAO, Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Steering Group Meeting, Salvador, Brazil, 22 to 26 June
2009, Agenda Item 3: Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group
(FESG), CAEP/6 NOX Production Cutoff Cost Analysis, WP/
39, Presented by the FESG NOX Stringency Task Group,
February 6, 2009. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\64\ ICAO, Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Steering Group Meeting, Seattle, 22 to 26 September 2008,
Agenda Item 3: Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group
(FESG), Production Cutoff for NOX Standards, WP/6,
Presented by the FESG Rapporteurs, April 9, 2008. A copy of this
document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We think that the proposed five-year phase-in period from ICAO's
effective date of the CAEP/6 standards (corresponding to our proposed
Tier 6 NOX standards) for newly-certified engines is
adequate for manufacturers and their customers to respond to the new
requirements without disrupting their future planning and purchasing
decisions.65 66 This phase-in period for applying the Tier 6
NOX standards to newly-manufactured engines is identical to
the date for this same requirement that CAEP/8 has recommended to ICAO
for adoption.\67\ Therefore, we are proposing that all engines newly-
manufactured after December 31, 2012 must comply with the Tier 6
NOX standards. Again, if ICAO ultimately adopts a production
cutoff date that differs from this proposed date, we would evaluate
whether to adopt a correspondingly different date in the final rule or
to seek further public comment on the change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ The ICAO CAEP/6 NOX standards became effective
after December 31, 2007.
\66\ This period of time is also consistent with the phase-in
period associated with previous ICAO standards. CAEP's predecessor,
the Committee on Aircraft Engines Emissions, established the first
international emission standards with an effective date four years
after adoption, i.e., effectively a four year phase-in. CAEP2
included a phase-in period of 4 years for newly-manufactured
engines.
\67\ We expect that ICAO will formally adopt the CAEP/8
recommendations with an effective date in November 2011, which is
well before the projected effective date of our final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Exemption and Exceptions From the Tier 6 Production Cutoff
In conjunction with the implementation of the proposed Tier 6
NOX standards, we are proposing provisions which would allow
engine manufacturers to request an exemption exception from meeting the
Tier 6 NOX standards for newly-manufactured engines. These
proposed provisions would replace existing provisions addressing
exemptions, currently promulgated in section 87.7 of our aircraft
engine regulations. (Any exemptions previously issued under section
87.7 would not be affected by the proposed revisions.) This section of
the preamble describes these proposed exemption and exception
provisions, i.e., exemptions for engines installed in new aircraft and
exceptions for spare engines used in existing aircraft for maintenance
purposes. These provisions have largely been crafted to be consistent
with exemption provisions in the ICAO Environmental Technical Manual
(ETM).68 69 The provisions of the ETM guidance were
developed in the context of the CAEP/6 NOX
[[Page 45029]]
production cutoff deliberations leading up to the CAEP/8 meeting in
February 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Report of the Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1-12,
2010,'' CAEP/8-WP/80. A copy of this document is in docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\69\ Note that EPA has submitted a paper to amend the exemption
provisions included in this ETM to be consistent with this proposed
rule. See ICAO, ``Newly Produced Engine Exemptions for CAEP/6
NOX Production Cutoff,'' CAEP9--WG3-CTG-2--IP01,
September 23, 2010. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we are proposing to revise our regulations, the process for
evaluating any request for an exemption, i.e., petition, and any final
decision on its disposition would be unchanged. In this regard, the FAA
is the process owner under its enforcement authority contained in
section 232 of the Clean Air Act.\70\ The FAA must consult with EPA in
evaluating the merits of the request, and the EPA must formally concur
with any decision regarding the granting or denial of the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ EPA formally transferred the responsibility and authority
for the evaluation of requests for exemptions from the emission
standards to the Secretary of Transportation (DOT). See ``Control of
Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards
and Test Procedures;'' Final Rule, 47 FR 58462, December 30, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the existing regulations, the FAA, with EPA concurrence, may
exempt low-production volume engines from being fully compliant with
the emission standards. Several such short-term exemptions were granted
in the 1980s when emission standards were first applied. These
exemptions have since expired, and requests for new exemptions under
those provisions have not been submitted. We have determined that these
provisions, which were adopted in conjunction with revised emission
standards in 1982, are no longer of any utility.\71\ Therefore, we are
proposing to delete these provisions to avoid confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ U.S.EPA, ``Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and
Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures,'' Final
Rule, 47 FR 58462, December 30, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing to delete the existing provisions for
temporary exemptions based on flights for short durations and
infrequent intervals. These provisions are not necessary because our
standards apply to aircraft certificated by the FAA, and the FAA does
not address in the certification process whether an aircraft will be
used for short durations or infrequent intervals. Hence, the provisions
are of no utility.
The current regulations also provide for permanent exemptions based
on consideration of the certain factors specified in section 87.7(c).
We are proposing to replace these provisions with new regulatory text
consistent with the ETM that would provide for two separate types of
permanent exemptions: Exceptions for spare engines and exemptions for
engines on new aircraft. These are summarized below. (See Sec. 87.50
of the proposed regulations for additional details on these
exemptions.)
Finally, we are deleting the time-limited exemption provisions for
in-use engines that are contained in section 87.7(d). These provisions,
which were intended for when the standards of sections 87.11(a),
87.31(a), and 87.31(c) first took effect, are now obsolete.
a. New Provisions for Spare Engines
This proposed allowance, which is an exception to the standards as
described below, is intended to allow the production and sale of a
newly-manufactured engine for installation on an in-service aircraft,
i.e., a ``spare engine.'' It would not allow for installing such an
engine on a new aircraft. Spare engines are produced from time to time
in order to keep an aircraft in revenue service when the existing in-
service engine must be removed for maintenance or replacement purposes
as needed. Otherwise removing these aircraft from active service would
be very expensive and logistically difficult. Also, under our proposed
regulations, there would be no adverse environmental effect from
allowing the use of a spare engine as a direct replacement for an
existing engine, because a spare could be used only when the emissions
of the spare engine are equal to or lower than those of the engine it
is replacing, for all pollutants. Manufacturers would not be required
to obtain FAA or EPA approval before producing spare engines. However,
they would have to submit information about the production of spare
engines in an annual report to the EPA. Because manufacturers would not
be required to seek or obtain formal approval to produce spare engines,
this allowance is being referred to as an ``exception'' rather than an
``exemption''. This terminology would be consistent with current FAA
regulations. The permanent record for each engine excepted under this
provision would need to indicate that the engine is an excepted spare
engine and the engine itself would need to be labeled as ``EXCEPTED
SPARE.'' in accordance with FAA marking requirements of 14 CFR.
Exceptions for spare engines are not addressed in the existing
regulations because there is no production cutoff for the current Tier
4 NOX standards. Thus manufacturers have been allowed to
continue production of older engine designs under type certificates
first issued before the Tier 4 standards took effect (e.g., Tier 2).
However, our proposal to apply a Tier 6 NOX production
cutoff to all newly- manufactured engines means that if we did not also
propose this exception process, manufacturers would be prohibited from
producing Tier 4 spare engines under the existing type certificates. We
see no reason to change our policy of allowing manufacturers to produce
new engines for use as spares. The proposed regulatory provisions would
allow this practice to continue.
Under the proposed regulations, engines meeting the requirements
for spare engines could be produced and enter into commerce without
prior approval from EPA or FAA. (This allowance would also need to be
promulgated by the FAA.) It is important to note that while spare
engines would be excepted from the Tier 6 NOX standards
being proposed today, they would still need to be produced under an FAA
type certificate. (This FAA oversight would serve the same role as the
exemption approval step envisioned by ICAO in its ETM language for
spare engines.) We would expect little or no additional burden for
manufacturers, since we are not proposing new restrictions, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements other than the end of year
report. When combined with the proposed prohibition against using spare
engines to replace lower emitting engines, this program will ensure
that using a spare engine would not increase emissions, but would at
the same time allow the availability of spares for maintenance or
replacement as needed.
b. New Provisions for Engines Installed in New Aircraft
The primary purpose of allowing limited continued production of
Tier 4 engines is to provide for an orderly implementation of the Tier
6 NOX production cutoff. It addresses engines reaching the
end of their production cycles in the time frame when new emission
standards take effect. The typical production cycle would have annual
production volumes ramp up quickly, remain at relatively large volumes
for several or many years, and then fall off over a few more years.
When new emission standards are adopted in the middle of a production
cycle to take effect a few years later, manufacturers generally devote
technical resources to bring into compliance those engine models
expected to be produced in large numbers in the time frame when the new
standards are in effect. In contrast, they may plan not to invest in
upgrading the emissions of engine models that would be very near the
end of their normal production cycles when compliance with the new
standards becomes required. The actual length and shape of this tail of
production volumes can be affected by factors not fully
[[Page 45030]]
within the engine manufacturers' control, e.g., unexpected market
demand. Thus, exemptions may be justified if a manufacturer does not
complete the production cycle before the production cutoff date and
projected production volumes are not adequate to justify investing the
necessary resources to reduce emissions or there are other
technological issues.
Furthermore, in certain exceptional circumstances exemptions may
also be appropriate. These are ``hardship'' situations that may arise
as a result of unforeseen technical or economic circumstances or events
beyond control of the manufacturer. For example, this could vary from
unexpected problems with technology upgrade programs to labor
disruptions or natural events disrupting production or parts
availability.
Our regulations currently address these kinds of situations in
section 87.7(c), entitled ``Exemptions for New Engines in Other
Categories.'' Today's proposed amendments would replace this provision
with a new set of provisions addressing exemptions for new engines. We
invite public comment on any other ways to address the need for
flexibilities in the above circumstances.
i. Time Frame and Scope
The proposed regulations would allow manufacturers to request an
exemption for engines not meeting the Tier 6 NOX standards
so they may be installed in new aircraft. If granted, the exemption
would allow manufacturers to produce a limited number of newly-
manufactured engines, in a time period beginning after December 31,
2012 and going through December 31, 2016. The time period for any given
approved exemption could be shorter depending on the specifics of the
application but could not be longer. This exemption would be limited to
NOX emissions from engines that are covered by a valid type
certificate issued by FAA. The engines would be required to meet all
other applicable requirements. More specifically, an engine exempted
from the Tier 6 NOX standards would need to be covered by a
previously issued type certificate showing compliance with the Tier 4
NOX standards,\72\ as well as the current HC, CO, fuel
venting, and smoke standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Engines certified only for compliance with earlier
NOX standards would not be eligible for exemptions. This
is also consistent with the exemption language in the ICAO ETM. Note
that where such engines have emissions actually meeting the Tier 4
NOX standard, they may be recertified to the Tier 4
standards, but only before the effective date of the proposed
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Production Limit
In the proposed new regulatory language for exemptions, we are
proposing to use the general exemption language for exhaust emission
standards contained in part 87.7(c) of the current regulations. That
language states that the Secretary of the Department of Transportation
determines, with the EPA Administrator's concurrence, when the emission
standards do not apply to engines based on a number of specific
considerations such as adverse economic impact on the engine
manufacturer, aircraft manufacturer, or airline industry; in addition
to the effects on public health and welfare. We are also proposing to
make this language applicable only to the Tier 6 production cutoff,
which is consistent with the ETM guidance. No need has been identified
to apply such exemption language to the other regulated exhaust
pollutants, i.e., hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. The emission
standards for those pollutant species have remained unchanged for
nearly three decades and present no technical issues for modern
turbofan engines.\73\ If new emission standards for these pollutants
are considered in the future, the potential need for exemption
provisions will also be assessed at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ For example, the hydrocarbon exhaust emission standards
were adopted on December 30, 1982. See 47 FR 58462.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each request for exemption would be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis, using the information provided by the applicant and any other
relevant information that is available to FAA and EPA at the time. Any
approved exemption would include a specific limit on the number of such
engines based on that information and is not defined on a basis such as
type certificate. (See section III.B.b.iii. for a description of what
the request must contain.) The intent, of course, would be to exempt
the minimum number of engines that can be clearly justified, including
a consideration of the public health and welfare effects associated
with the exemptions.
We acknowledge that our proposal differs from the language
contained in the current ICAO ETM guidance, which would nominally allow
up to 75 engines per type certificate.\74\ To understand why we find
that a deviation from the ETM is appropriate in this instance, the
following explanation regarding the historical perspective on the
development of the ETM provision is helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ CAEP/8--WP/18, Environmental Technical Manual (ETM), Vol II
on the Use of Procedures in the Emission Certification of Aircraft
Engines, Appendix ``ICAO Emissions Environmental Technical Manual''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the CAEP/8 meeting in February 2010, ICAO had no specific
provisions regarding exemptions. The only language regarding exemptions
was contained in Annex 16 Volume II section 2.1.1 which rather
generically stated that:
In considering exemptions, certificating authorities should take
into account the probable number of such engines that will be
produced and their impact on the environment. When such an exemption
is granted, the certificating authority should consider imposing a
time limit on the production of such engines for installation on new
aircraft or on existing aircraft as spares.
When ICAO/CAEP began considering a production cut-off for the CAEP/
6 NOX standard, there was a consensus among the participants
in the technical working group that more specific provisions were
needed with respect to potential exemptions from that requirement.\75\
The provisions would help support an orderly transition in the
implementation of the production cut-off. Toward that end, the group
consulted periodically over several months to craft provisions
addressing number, time limit, and emission levels (impact on the
environment). The deliberations were complicated by the fact that the
language in Annex 16 simultaneously addressed both engines for new
production aircraft and spare engines for existing aircraft.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Report of the 6th Meeting,'' CAEP/8-WG3-WP7-03, Presented by
the Rapporteurs, London, UK, April 1-3, 2009. A copy of this
document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\76\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Draft Minutes of ETM/Annex 16 Ad-Hoc Group Telecon,'' May
26, 2009. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new production engines, agreement was reached relatively
quickly that exemptions should be available for up to four years after
the production cut-off becomes effective, and that any engine model for
which an exemption was requested should at a minimum comply with the
emission standards for all other regulated pollutants, including the
CAEP/4 NOX requirements. Similarly, it was readily agreed in
the technical working group that there would be no limit on the number
of spare engines because these units would essentially be installed in
[[Page 45031]]
place of in-use engines that are removed for maintenance or other
reasons.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Report of the Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1-12,
2010,'' CAEP/8-WP/80. A copy of this document is in docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, discussions and deliberations were more difficult with
regard to the number of potential exemptions for engines for new
production aircraft. This difficulty stemmed from the fact that the
ICAO Emissions Data Bank identified 20 unique engine models/sub models
that could have been affected by the production cutoff. Those models
had valid type certificates and, therefore, were considered to be ``in
production.'' \78\ During further discussions the engine manufacturers
clarified that most of these 20 were not in active production because
the airlines normally purchase new aircraft with engines meeting the
latest emission standards. Nonetheless, it was stated that if the
demand existed, 14 of these 20 models could potentially be produced
under the exemption provisions since they had valid type certificates
and met the previously mentioned exemption emission
requirements.79 80 81 82 After much deliberation, the
technical working group settled on a value of 75 engines per type
certificate over the four years for the ICAO ETM guidance based on the
information available at the time.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ U.S. EPA, ``Simplified Working Copy of ICAO EDB, Issue
16A,'' memorandum from Glenn Passavant, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Air Quality and Transportation, March 25, 2010.
A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\79\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Response to EPA Paper 14 and 16,'' WG-3 Flimsy 6-2, ICCAIA,
London, UK, April 13, 2009. A copy of this document is in docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\80\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Production Cut-Off for Engine NOX Standards,''
CAEP-SG/20082-WP/6, Presented by FESG, September 4, 2008. A copy of
this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\81\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), CAEP/6 NOX Productin Cut-Off Analysis,'' CAEP-SB/
20093-IP/19, Presented by FESG NOX Stringency Task Group,
June 2, 2009. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0687.
\82\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Production Cut-Off and Associated Flexibilities for ICAO
Engine Emission Standards,'' CAEP-SG/20093-WP/39, U.S. EPA, June 8,
2009. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0687.
\83\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Report of the Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1-12,
2010,'' CAEP/8-WP-80, Appendix B. A copy of this document is in
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This value and the maximum number of engines it could represent
were of immediate concern to EPA. First, in a hypothetical worst case,
it represented the potential for over 1000 exempt engines (500
aircraft) to enter the fleet over this time period based on the
information above. Assuming two engines per aircraft, this is
essentially equivalent to the number of civil aircraft shipped in a
single year.\84\ Second, it was unclear to us if that number of
potential exemptions, i.e., 75 per type certificate, was necessary.
Third, from a broader perspective, while EPA regulations normally
include hardship type provisions, it is not normal for EPA to include
specific transitional exemptions of this magnitude in our regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See Table 5 of the most recent AIA statistical report
available at http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/Table 5.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we continued efforts to identify how many exemptions might
potentially be needed for the CAEP/6 production cutoff, three new
pieces of information became available during the development of this
proposed rule that were not considered during the deliberations leading
up to the ICAO decision for the ETM guidance. First, a review of
previously unavailable information on past exemption requests to FAA
under the previous less specific ICAO language indicated that of the
eight requests were granted since 1983, only three involved exemptions
during standards transition (two related to smoke for turboprop engines
and one related to NOX for a turbofan engine). These three
exemption petitions in combination ultimately affected less than 50
engines.\85\ Second, engine manufacturers indicated individually that
the potential need for exemptions was not as large as EPA understood
during the technical working group deliberations, and that absent
unforeseen events, a much smaller value was workable on a per
manufacturer basis as opposed to a per type certificate
basis.86 87 88 Third, our most recent discussions with the
engine manufacturers that are directly affected by the proposed Tier 6
NOX standards, i.e., CAEP/6 standards, concluded that only
one or two engine models may be candidates for exemptions. Those
discussions also concluded that the likely potential number of
justifiable exemptions would be less than 75 in total.\89\ Considering
all of these factors and the basic intent of the CAEP ETM exemption
provisions, we are proposing to adopt in our new regulatory text
addressing exemptions, language that reflects the essence of the
general exemption language for exhaust emission standards that is
embodied in current section 87.7(c) of the regulations. That provision
generally states that the FAA, with EPA's concurrence, may grant
exemptions to exhaust emission standards based on factors such as
adverse economic impact on the engine manufacturer, aircraft
manufacturer, or airline industry; in addition to the effects on public
health and welfare. We are also proposing include in this new
regulatory provision the key elements of the current 87.7(c) and
additional facets of the ETM language not captured in existing 87.7(c).
Like the ETM, we are proposing to apply this provision only to the Tier
6 production cutoff for four years, but importantly we are not
proposing a specific basis for the exemption, i.e., type certification
or type certificate holder, or numerical limit. We believe the proposed
approach addresses the intent of the ICAO guidance in addition to the
potential needs of the engine manufacturers, while minimizing the
potential for adverse environmental impacts from exemptions and
aligning with EPA's general approach with regard to exemptions and
hardship provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ U.S. EPA, ``Historical Exemptions from Gas Turbine Aircraft
Emission Standards,'' memorandum from Glenn Passavant, Assessment
and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality and Transportation,
March 28, 2011. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0687.
\86\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Response to EPA Paper 14 and 16,'' WG-3 Flimsy 6-2, ICCAIA,
London, UK, April 13, 2009. A copy of this document is in docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\87\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Production Cut-Off for Engine NOX Standards,''
CAEP-SG/20082-WP/6, Presented by FESG, September 4, 2008. A copy of
this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\88\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), CAEP/6 NOX Production Cut-Off Analysis,'' CAEP-
SB/20093-IP/19, Presented by FESG NOX Stringency Task
Group, June 2, 2009. A copy of this document is in docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\89\ U.S. EPA, ``Results of Discussions with Aviation Gas
Turbine Manufactures on the Potential Number of Exemptions from the
Tier 6 Production Cutoff for the Proposed Rulemaking on Aircraft
Engine Emission Standards,'' memorandum from Richard S. Wilcox,
Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality and
Transportation, May 19, 2011. A copy of this document is in docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge that our proposal in this respect differs from the
ETM guidance and that this, on its face, may be of concern to some. To
the extent this may occur, we point out that the ETM is guidance
material; not an ICAO standard or regulation of any type. So as a
general matter, consistency is not compelled when a deviation is
justified, and we are comfortable with our proposed exemption provision
for those reasons.
[[Page 45032]]
Even if the ETM guidance were wrongly considered an ICAO standard
of some kind, a justified deviation from such a provision is allowable
under the Chicago Convention (the basis of ICAO) and the World Trade
Organization's (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, Annex
3.90, 91 The Chicago Convention allows nations to adopt
their own unique standards that differ from the language in ICAO Annex
16, Standards and Recommended Practices, as previously described in
section I.C. The WTO Annex 3 also allows for exceptions `` * * * where
such international standards or relevant parts would be ineffective or
inappropriate, for instance, because of an insufficient level of
protection * * *.'' We believe our proposed deviation from the ETM,
assuming for argument's sake that it is a deviation from international
standards as contemplated by ICAO and the WTO Annex 3, is justified for
the reasons explained above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ ICAO, ``Convention on International Civil Aviation,''
Article 38, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 2006. Copies of this
document can be obtained from the ICAO Web site located at http://www.icao.int/icaonet/arch/doc/7300/7300_9ed.pdf.
\91\ WTO, ``Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade,'' Uruguay
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, April 15, 1994, pp. 117-
137. Copies of this document can be obtained from the WTO Web site
located at http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that the proposed exemption provision has no cost
associated with it for the government or industry, and there is no
difference in potential cost savings under either approach. Both are
designed to provide manufacturers with an opportunity to reduce costs
or other adverse effects should the need for exemptions arise.
Finally, we believe the current ETM guidance provision should be
revised to align with our proposed approach, and we will work through
the ICAO/CAEP process to amend the ETM guidance as appropriate.
iii. Exemption Requests
We are proposing a process for requesting exemptions (for engines
used on new aircraft) that would be more formal and structured than the
current process. We are proposing that manufacturers be required to
submit their request to the FAA, as currently required. The FAA will
then share the submittal with EPA and execute the consultation process.
To ensure that we have the information necessary to evaluate
exemption requests in this specific manner, the requests would need to
include the following details to describe the specific engine model for
which the manufacturer is requesting the exemption. The proposed
provisions contained in Sec. 87.50, which are summarized below, are
consistent with and in some areas expand on the provisions in the ETM:
General Information
Corporate name and an authorized representative's contact
information (including a signed statement verifying the information);
Description of the engines for which you are requesting
the exemption, including the engine model and sub-model names;
The number of engines that you would produce under the
exemption and the period during which you would produce them;
Identify the authorizing type certificate (type
certificate number and date);
Information about the aircraft in which the engines will
be installed, including the airframe models and expected first
purchasers/users of the aircraft, and the countries in which you expect
the aircraft to be registered (including an estimate of how many will
be registered in the U.S.); and
List of other certificating authorities from which you
have requested (or expect to request) exemptions, and a summary of each
request.
Justification and Impacts Assessment
A detailed description and assessment of the environmental
impact of granting the exemption;
Technical issues, from an environmental and airworthiness
perspective, which may have caused a delay in compliance with a
production cutoff, if any;
Any economic impacts on the manufacturer, operator(s), and
aviation industry at large; and
Projected future production volumes and plans for
producing a compliant version of the engine model in question.
Other Factors
Hardship: Impact of unforeseen technical circumstances,
business events, or other natural or manmade calamities beyond your
control, and
Equity issues in administering the production cutoff among
economically competing parties.
It is important that any action on a potential exemption request be
in the public interest; the fairly comprehensive list of application
information in the proposed regulations is intended to gather the
information needed for this assessment. We would expect to take a broad
perspective in evaluating what is or is not in the public interest.
This is why the manufacturer justifications would need to include a
quantified description of the environmental effects of granting the
exemption, as well as discussion of economic and technical issues
related to bringing the engine into compliance. The analysis of
environmental impacts would need to specify by how much the exempted
engines would exceed the standards, the in-use effects in terms of
lifetime tons of NOX, and estimate the emissions rates of
engines/aircraft that could potentially be used if the exemption was
not granted. Since exemptions granted under the proposed regulations
would apply only for NOX emissions, the analysis could also
include possible benefits regarding noise levels or reduced emissions
of pollutants other than NOX. Relevant economic impacts
could include effects on the engine manufacturer, airframe
manufacturer, airline(s), and the general public.
In the past, some manufacturers have requested exemptions based on
the largest number of engines they hoped to continue producing without
knowing how many they would actually be able to produce or who would
purchase them. The new exemption language calls for manufacturers to
target their requests more specifically based on likely production
needs and time periods. At any time before approval, manufacturers
could revise their requests to justify covering additional engines. We
would then review the revised request. For exemptions that have already
been approved, manufacturers could also request that additional engines
be added after providing the justification for the increase.
Manufacturers also would be required to notify the FAA if they
determine after submitting a request that the information is not
accurate, either from an error or from changing circumstances.
While we expect a manufacturer to have this specific information
when they submit a request, the regulations would allow us to process
exemption requests with somewhat less specific information. However, we
would expect this to apply only for unusual circumstances.
If, after consulting with FAA, we determine that the exemption
request is fully documented and approval would be in the public
interest, we would concur with approving the request if the FAA also
concluded that the request should be granted. Note that we could
approve the exemption for a smaller number of engines than the
manufacturer requested, or we could include certain other conditions.
In order to allow us to oversee these exempted engines,
manufacturers would
[[Page 45033]]
also be required to provide an annual report to EPA on exempt engines
similar to the information about spare exempt engines. The permanent
record for each engine exempted under this provision would need to
indicate that the engine is an exempted engine and the engine itself
would need to be labeled as ``EXEMPT NEW'' in accordance with FAA
marking requirements of 14 CFR.
iv. Coordination of Exemption Requests
The limit on the number of potentially exempt engines as described
in the ETM is intended to apply to overall worldwide production. Toward
that end, the ETM envisions collaboration and consultation among
certificating authorities and member states whenever any authority
receives an exemption request. Specifically, the ETM states:
Exemptions for new engines should be processed and approved by
the competent authorities for both the manufacture of the exempted
engines and the initial operator of the aircraft to which they are
to be fitted. Given the international nature of the aviation
enterprise, civil aviation authorities of member states should
attempt to collaborate and consult on the details of exemptions. In
the case where engine type certification is done through a
reciprocity agreement between or among member states, the states
involved should coordinate on the processing of exemptions and
concur before approval is granted.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Eighth Meeting, Montreal, 1 to 12 February 2010,'' CAEP/8-
WP/80, Agenda Item 2: Review of Technical Proposals Relating to
Aircraft Emissions, April 2, 2010. A copy of this document is in
docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
Working with the FAA, we would expect to conduct such collaboration
and consultation among the competent authorities whenever we receive an
exemption request. This would include consultation with other
certificating authorities as well as coordination with the competent
civil aviation authority of any country where the aircraft with the
exempted engines will be registered.
To facilitate this consultation and coordination we are proposing
that manufacturers also include in their requests a list of countries
in which the aircraft are expected to be registered. While not
specifically listed in the ETM, we believe that this information is
consistent with the ETM as it would be necessary to ensure proper
coordination. The ETM appears to presume that each member country will
recognize exemptions granted by other countries. This presumption seems
reasonable assuming that the exemption being granted is generally
consistent with the guidelines of the ETM and that the collaboration,
consultation and coordination called for in the ETM were conducted in
good faith. However, there should be no presumption that EPA would
agree to an exemption for an engine model if the aforementioned
collaboration, consultation, and coordination were not conducted. The
Clean Air Act (which provides EPA with its authority to establish
emission standards) includes no provisions that would allow any foreign
country or other certificating authority to exempt subject aircraft
engines, over the objection of FAA and EPA, from the applicable
standards EPA promulgates. Nevertheless, because our proposed
exemptions provisions are generally consistent with the procedures
called for in the ETM, assuming appropriate consultation and
coordination in accordance with the ETM and absent unforeseen
complications, it is reasonable to believe that FAA and EPA would not
object to exemptions for engines properly exempted by other countries
under those procedures. The FAA would still need to take the
certification action as called out in 14 CFR 91.203 and 14 CFR 21.183.
This, however, raises the question as to how we would respond to an
exemption request when another certificating authority did not consult
or coordinate on a previous request for the same engine model. A
related concern arises if a type certificate is sought under a
reciprocity agreement and the original exemption was not coordinated
with the United States. Such requests would likely be viewed as new
exemption requests if the anticipated collaboration, consultation, and
coordination had not occurred.
Thus to avoid these issues, in most cases, manufacturers may want
to work with all relevant certificating authorities at the same time as
well as the civil aviation authority of nation(s) where the aircraft
will be initially registered or operated if that nation requires a type
certificate issued under its own regulations to operate in its air
space consistent with international agreements.
c. Voluntary Emission Offsets
We are requesting comment on establishing a voluntary EPA program
by which manufacturers could receive emission credits for producing
cleaner engines, which they could use to offset higher emissions from
exempted engines. An example of such a program is summarized in a
memorandum to the docket,\93\ and a basic overview of how credits might
be generated is presented in the following paragraph. The types of
programs being considered would be developed, promulgated, and
administered solely by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ U.S. EPA, ``Draft Regulatory Text for Voluntary Offset
Program,'' Memorandum from Charles Moulis, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Air Quality and Transportation, June 2011. A
copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would expect manufacturers to be interested in generating
offsets for one of three purposes. First, manufacturers might choose to
generate offsets as part of their justifications for exemptions. For
example, where we determine that an exemption would not be in the
public interest because it would have an undue adverse effect on air
quality, a manufacturer might use offsets so that the combination of
the exemption and offsets would be more emission neutral. Second,
manufacturers might choose to generate offsets as part of a
justification for being allowed to exceed the numerical limit that FAA
and EPA are willing to approve in an exemption request. We are asking
for comment on this option, and could include it in the final rule
based on the comments and our assessment of the inputs and issues.
Third, provided a standard is promulgated to allow this, a manufacturer
might also be interested in generating offsets to bank for use for
exemptions of engines to be produced after the credit generating
engines are produced, or possibly against a future production cutoff.
This would also require a change to the proposed regulations, as well
as record support for such banking being appropriate under the relevant
standard.
Under this approach, generation of offsets would be voluntary and
would be open to all certifying engine manufacturers. One concept would
be to allow credits to be generated only from engine models that are
introduced after this rule and that had characteristic levels
significantly below the otherwise applicable standard (e.g., at least
10 percent below). It is a separate question, however, how to calculate
the credit. If we adopted a 10 percent threshold for eligibility, we
would probably also allow credits only to the degree which the
NOX characteristic level was more than 10 percent below the
standard. For example, an engine that was 15 percent below the standard
would generate credits equivalent to 5 percent of the standard. This
would ensure a net improvement in emissions. If we were to finalize
such a program, we could reserve the right to restrict the use of
credits so that they were used in a manner that ensured there was no
net adverse impact on air quality. Such a program would need to ensure
that
[[Page 45034]]
emission benefits from one aircraft model truly offset the higher
emissions from another model. For example, emissions from regional
aircraft may not be directly equivalent to emissions from aircraft
designed for longer cross-country or international flights. Equivalency
factors could be developed to account for differences in the number of
LTOs per year, the lifetime of the aircraft, and the number of LTOs per
mile. These factors could be developed based on the operation
characteristics from existing sources of information and would not
require the collection new operational data. Commenters are encouraged
to review additional information contained in the memorandum to the
public docket and provide input on the ideas, concepts, and options
presented therein in addition to those discussed above.
3. Potential Phase-In of New Tier 8 NOX Standards for Newly-
Manufactured Engines
We are not proposing to phase-in the proposed Tier 8 NOX
standards for newly-manufactured engines at this time, since such a
feature is not included in the CAEP/8 recommendation to ICAO. This
means that engine manufacturers may continue to produce Tier 6
compliant engines within already certified models after the proposed
Tier 8 standards become effective for newly-certified engine models. As
noted elsewhere, EPA is working within the ICAO/CAEP framework to
develop harmonized international standards for aircraft turbine
engines. At the February 2010 meeting of CAEP, where the CAEP/8
NOX standards were approved for recommendation to ICAO, the
committee decided to continue considering a related newly-manufactured
engine standard as a future work item at CAEP, pending new information
on technology and market responses.
We will continue our efforts to evaluate a newly-manufactured
engine standard as a complement to the Tier 8 NOX standards
as part of the future CAEP work programs. We believe that such a
requirement is a necessary component of any effective NOX
control strategy for aircraft turbine engines. It provides an orderly,
stable transition between emission requirements that is helpful for
product planning by engine and airframe manufacturers, and in making
purchasing decisions by their customers. It also ensures compliance
with any new emission standard in a reasonable period of time, thereby
providing the public with all the environmental benefits that a new
emission standard can provide. However, in order to maximize
consistency with the CAEP/8 NOX standard as currently
recommended to ICAO, our proposed Tier 8 standard does not contain a
production cutoff.
Assuming a CAEP/8 production cutoff is adopted at some time in the
future, we will re-examine the permanent exemption provisions to ensure
a timely and orderly phase-out of engine models that do not meet the
CAEP/8 NOX standards. We would expect this to be done as
part of future CAEP deliberations and through a notice and comment
rulemaking process to amend our own regulations.
C. Application of Standards for Derivative Engines
It is very common for a manufacturer to make changes to an
originally type certificated engine model that is in production while
keeping the same basic engine core and combustor design. In some cases
these modifications may affect emissions. As a result, the
certificating authority must decide whether the emission
characteristics of the modified design were significant enough from the
parent engine's certification basis that a demonstration of compliance
with newer emission standards is necessary, or if the changes were
minor relative to the parent engine's emission certification basis so
that it is considered a derivative version of the original model with
no emissions changes. This may be further complicated because of the
common practice of making iterative changes over time, that leaves open
the question as to when the cumulative changes reach a point where a
new demonstration of compliance is warranted.
In the past, these determinations were made for turbofan engines by
an engineering evaluation that was performed by the engine manufacturer
and then approved by the FAA. As part of the ICAO/CAEP deliberations
leading up to the February 2010 CAEP/8 meeting, a new standardized
guidance was agreed upon as described in the ETM. The guidance, which
the U.S. fully supported, includes specific criteria that can be used
to determine when a design modification requires a new demonstration of
compliance with newer emission standards, or when a modification was
simple enough to be considered a no emissions change.
We are proposing to include the ETM language in our regulations.
This addresses a longstanding need to provide consistent standards for
the decision process regarding derivative engines and applicable
emission standards. The definition of ``derivative engines for
emissions certification purposes,'' along with the criteria for making
this determination, will provide engine manufacturers and the
regulators with more certainty regarding emission standard requirements
for future modifications made to certificated models. Finally, it will
make the decision criteria enforceable. To ensure that the numerical
decision criteria can be administered to allow for the consideration of
unusual circumstances or special information, we are also proposing
that the FAA have some flexibility to make adjustments to the specific
criteria based on good engineering judgment. In summary, if the FAA
determines that an engine model is sufficiently similar to its parent
engine so as to meet the criteria established in the proposed part
87.48, the manufacturer may demonstrate certification compliance and
continue production of the engine model to the same extent as allowed
for the original engine model. However, if the FAA determines that an
engine model is not a derivative for emission certification purposes,
the manufacturer would be required to demonstrate compliance with the
most recent emissions standards. This determination will be made using
numerical criteria consistent with ICAO provisions, and will apply to
modified engine models if it is: (1) Derived from an original engine
that had received a U.S. certification, (2) the original engine was
certified under title 14 of the CFR, and (3) one of the following
conditions is met:
(1) The FAA determined that a safety issue exists that requires an
engine modification; or
(2) Emissions from the derivative engines are equivalent to or
lower than the original engine.
The proposed regulations specify that to show emissions
equivalency, the engine manufacturer must demonstrate that the
difference between emission rates of a derivative engine and the
original engine are within the following allowable ranges, unless
otherwise adjusted using good engineering judgment as determined by the
FAA:
3.0 g/kN for NOX.
1.0 g/kN for HC.
5.0 g/kN for CO.
2.0 SN for smoke.
Engine models represented by characteristic levels at least five
percent below all applicable standards would be allowed to demonstrate
equivalency by engineering analysis. In all other cases, the
manufacturer would be required to test the new engine model to show
that its emissions met the equivalency criteria.
[[Page 45035]]
D. Annual Reporting Requirements
In May of 1980, ICAO's Committee on Aircraft Engine Emissions
(CAEE) recognized that certain information relating to environmental
aspects of aviation should be organized into one document. This
document became ICAO's ``Annex 16 to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, International Standards and Recommended Practices,
Environmental Protection'' and was split into two volumes--Volume I
addressing Aircraft Noise topics and Volume II addressing Aircraft
Engine Emissions. Annex 16 has continued to grow and today Annex 16
Volume II includes a list of mandatory requirements to be satisfied in
order for an aircraft engine to meet the ICAO emission standards.\94\
These requirements include information relating to engine
identification and characteristics, fuel usage, data from engine
testing, data analysis, and the results derived from the test data.
Additionally, this list of aircraft engine requirements is supplemented
with voluntarily reported information which has been assembled into an
electronic spreadsheet entitled ``Emissions Databank'' (EDB) \95\ for
turbofan engines with maximum thrust ratings greater than 26.7 kN in
order to aid with emission calculations and analysis as well as help
inform the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ ICAO, ``Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil
Aviation, Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft Engine
Emissions,'' Part III, Chapter 2, Section 2.4. A copy of this
document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\95\ United Kingdom, Civil Aviation Authority, ``ICAO Emissions
Databank.'' Available at the Civil Aviation Authority Web site
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to understand how current gaseous emission standards are
affecting the current fleet, we need to have access to timely,
representative emissions data of the engine fleet at the requisite
model level. The EDB is a useful tool for providing a general overview
of the aircraft fleet, as it contains information on engine exhaust
emissions and performance tests. However, it is not updated on a
consistent basis, it contains a varying amount of voluntarily reported
data from each manufacturer, and it does not specifically list every
engine sub-model.\96\ It also does not contain information on smaller
thrust category turbofans or turboprops, and contains no information on
past or recent engine production volumes. We need this data to conduct
accurate emission inventories and develop appropriate policy.
Accordingly, we do not consider the EBD to be a sufficient tool upon
which to base policy decisions or adopt future standards. Furthermore,
in the context of EPA's standards-setting role under the Clean Air Act
with regard to aircraft engine emissions, it is consistent with our
policy and practice to ask for timely and reasonable reporting of
emission certification testing and other information that is relevant
to our mission.\97\ Under the Clean Air Act, we are authorized to
require manufacturers to establish and maintain necessary records, make
reports, and provide such other information as we may reasonably
require discharge our functions under the Act. (See 42 U.S.C.
7414(a)(1).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Under the proposed regulations, a grouping of engines with
an essentially identical emission-related design would be defined to
be an ``engine sub-model''. Engines with slightly different designs
would be defined to be an ``engine model''.
\97\ The FAA already requires much of the information EPA is
seeking through the certification process, but is unable to share it
because of confidentiality agreements with engine manufacturers.
Also, that information is part of a much larger submission, making
it difficult to extract the specific reporting elements for EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we are proposing to require that any engine manufacturer
submit a production report directly to EPA \98\ with specific
information for each individual engine sub-model that: (1) Is designed
to propel subsonic aircraft, (2) is subject to our exhaust emission
standards, and (3) has received a U.S. type certificate. More
specifically, the scope of the proposed production report would include
turbofan engines as described above with maximum rated thrusts greater
than 26.7 kN, i.e., those subject to gaseous emission and smoke
standards. In addition, it would include turbofans with maximum rated
thrusts less than or equal to 26.7 kN and all turboprop engines, i.e.,
those only subject to smoke standards. We are also proposing that this
specific exhaust emission related information be reported to us in a
timely manner, which will allow us to conduct proper emissions
inventory analyses of the existing fleet and to ensure that any public
policy we create based on this information will be well informed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ The proposed report would be submitted only to EPA. No
separate submission or communication of any kind is required for the
FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to have each affected engine manufacturer report a
reduced number of specific data elements to us as compared to those
already reported voluntarily and periodically by most engine
manufacturers to the EDB. We feel that this minimizes the reporting
burden for each manufacturer while still providing us with sufficient
information to perform our job. All of the specific reporting items we
are proposing are the same as requested for the EDB, with the exception
of total annual engine production volumes, information on type
certificates, and the emission standards to which the engine sub-model
was certified.
This information will be used in conjunction with the
NOX and CO2 emission data already required to be
submitted to us under part 87.64 for purposes of greenhouse gas (GHG)
reporting to establish our own independent engine exhaust emissions
database. We would expect most manufacturers generally to add the
proposed information items to the annual GHG report. We want to
clarify, however, that comments are invited only on the proposed
incremental data reporting elements that comprise the production
report. No changes are being proposed to the contents of the GHG
report.
The proposed incremental reporting elements for each affected gas
turbine engine sub-model are listed below. The reporting elements of
the existing GHG report are also identified for completeness.
Company corporate name as listed on the engine type
certificate (GHG);
Calendar year for which reporting (GHG);
Complete sub-model name (This will generally include the
model name and the sub-model identifier, but may also include an engine
type certificate family identifier) (GHG);
The type certificate number, as issued by the FAA (Specify
if the sub-model also has a type certificate issued by a certificating
authority other than the FAA) (GHG);
Date of issue of type certificate and/or exemption, i.e.
month and year (GHG);
Emission standards to which the engine is certified, i.e.,
the specific Annex 16, Volume II, edition number and publication date
in which the numerical standards first appeared.
If this is a derivative engine for emissions certification
purposes, identify the original certificated engine model.
Engine sub-model that received the original type
certificate for the engine type certificate family;
Production volume of the sub-model for the previous
calendar year, or if zero, state that the engine model is not in
production and list the date of manufacture (month and year) of the
last engine produced;
Regarding the above production volume report, specify (if
known) the number of engines that are intended for use on new aircraft
and the number
[[Page 45036]]
intended for use as certified (non-exempt) spare engines on in-use
aircraft;
Reference pressure ratio (GHG);
Combustor description (type of combustor where more than
one type available on an engine);
Engine maximum rated thrust output, in kilonewtons (kN))
or kilowatts (kW) (depending on engine type) (GHG);
Unburned hydrocarbon (HC) mass (g) total (weighted) and
over each segment of the Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO), i.e. Take-
off, Climb, Approach, Taxi/Ground Idle; \99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See Regulation Part 87-Control of Air Pollution from
Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, Subpart E, Sec. 87.42 Certification
report to EPA for definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unburned hydrocarbon (HC) characteristic level (i.e. mass
of hydrocarbons over LTO cycle/Rated Thrust (Dp/Foo)); \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Dp/Foo: total gross emissions of each gaseous pollutant
(mass)/rated thrust (g/kN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon monoxide (CO) mass (g) total (weighted) and over
each segment of the entire Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO) (i.e. Take-
off, Climb, Approach, Taxi/Ground Idle);
Carbon monoxide (CO) characteristic level (i.e. mass of CO
over LTO cycle/Rated Thrust (Dp/Foo));
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) mass (g) total (weighted)
and over each segment of the entire Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO)
(i.e. Take-off, Climb, Approach, Taxi/Ground Idle) (GHG);
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) characteristic level
(i.e. mass of NOX over LTO cycle/Rated Thrust (Dp/Foo))
(GHG);
Smoke number total and over each segment of the entire
Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO) (i.e. Take-off, Climb, Approach, Taxi/
Ground Idle);
Smoke number characteristic level;
Carbon dioxide (CO2) mass (g) total (weighted)
and over each segment of the entire Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO),
(i.e. Take-off, Climb, Approach, Taxi/Ground Idle (GHG));
Number of tests run per sub-model (GHG);
Number of engines tested per sub-model (GHG);
Fuel flow (grams/second) total (weighted) and over each
segment of the Landing and Take-off Cycle (LTO) (i.e. Take-off, Climb,
Approach, Taxi/Ground Idle) (GHG); and
Any additional remarks to the EPA.
The proposed annual report would be submitted for each calendar
year in which a manufacturer produces any turbofan engine subject to
emission standards as previously described. These reports would be due
by February 28 of each year, starting with the 2014 calendar year, and
cover the previous calendar year. This report would be sent to the
Designated EPA Program Officer. Where information provided for any
previous year remains valid and complete, the engine manufacturer may
report the production figures and state that there are no changes
instead of resubmitting the original information. To facilitate and
standardize reporting, we expect to specify a particular format for
this reporting in the form of a spreadsheet or database template that
we provide to each manufacturer. As noted previously, we intend to use
the proposed reports to help inform any further public policy
approaches regarding aircraft engine emissions that we consider,
including possible future emissions standards, as well as help provide
transparency to the general public. Subject to the applicable
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7414(c), 18 U.S.C. 1905, and 40 CFR part 2,
all data received by the Administrator that is not confidential
business information may be posted on our Web site and would be updated
annually. By collecting and publically posting this information on
EPA's Web site, we will be able to calculate turbine exhaust emission
rates and demonstrate to the public how the fleet meets the current
emission requirements. We believe that this information will also be
useful to the general public to help inform public knowledge regarding
aircraft exhaust emissions. We ask for comment on our proposed plan to
post this information on our Web site and whether any of it should be
omitted as confidential business information. Such confidential
information would be retained by EPA. For guidance on how to preserve a
claim of confidentiality and on how EPA would treat submitted
information covered by such a claim, please see our earlier discussion
in section VII. of this notice regarding how a public commenter on the
proposed rule should submit information that the submitter considers to
be confidential business information. We have assessed the potential
reporting burden associated with the proposed annual reporting
requirement. That assessment is presented in sections V. and IX.B. of
this notice.
E. Proposed Standards for Supersonic Aircraft Turbine Engines
We are proposing CO and NOX emission standards for
turbine engines that are used to propel aircraft at sustained
supersonic speeds, i.e., supersonic aircraft to complement our existing
HC standard for these engines. These proposed standards were originally
adopted by ICAO in the 1980s, and our adoption of NOX and CO
standards for commercial engines in 1997 omitted coverage of these
pollutants for supersonic commercial engines that were then in use. The
lack of EPA CO and NOX standards for engines used by
supersonic aircraft has had no practical effect, because no such
engines have been certified by the FAA. Also, none of the engines used
on these aircraft are currently in production. (See section III.G. for
a brief discussion of potential revised emission standards for future
engine designs that may be used on supersonic aircraft.) However, to
meet U.S. treaty obligations under the Convention on International
Civil Aviation as previously described in section I.C., we believe it
is necessary and appropriate to propose these conforming standards.
Therefore, the proposed standard simply aligns EPA standards with the
rest of the world.
F. Amendments to Test and Measurement Procedures
We are proposing to incorporate by reference into the 40 CFR 87.60
regulatory text, amendments to ICAO's International Standards and
Recommended Practices for aircraft engine emissions testing and
certification. These amendments to Annex 16, Volume II are mainly
intended to ensure that the provisions reflect current certification
practices. The amendments make clarifications or add flexibilities for
engine manufacturers. They are described separately below for the
amendments that have already been adopted by ICAO 101 102
and those that have been recommended by CAEP for adoption by ICAO.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ A strikeout and highlighted version of the amendments is
contained in Attachment A to ICAO state letter AN 1/61.2, AN 1/62.2-
07/32 entitled, ``Proposed Amendment to International Standards and
Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex 16 to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume II Aircraft
Engine Emissions, May 27, 2007. A copy of this document is in docket
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\102\ ICAO, ``International Standards and Recommended Practices,
Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Environmental Protection, Volume II Aircraft Engine Emissions,''
Third Edition, July 2008, International Civil Aviation Organization.
This document contains the full text of ICAO standards and practices
and is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\103\ ICAO, ``Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP), Report of the Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1-12,
2010,'' CAEP/8-WP/80. A copy of this document is in docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendments that have already been adopted by ICAO are:
Standardizing of the terminology relating to engine
thrust/power;
[[Page 45037]]
Clarifying the need to correct measured results to
standard reference day and reference engine conditions;
Allowing a certificating authority to approve the use of
test fuels other than those specified during certification testing;
Allowing materials other than stainless steel in the
sample collection equipment; and
Clarifying the appropriate value of fuel flow to be used
at each LTO test point.
The amendments that have been recommended for adoption by ICAO are:
Clarifying exhaust nozzle terminology for exhaust
emissions sampling; and
Allowing an equivalent procedure for gaseous emission and
smoke measurement if approved by the certificating authority.
The test procedure amendments that ICAO has already adopted became
applicable on November 20, 2008. The amendments that have been
recommended to ICAO are expected to be adopted prior to the date of the
final action on today's proposed rule. Manufacturers are either already
voluntarily complying with these changes or will be even in the absence
of a final rule. Our adoption of these test procedure amendments is,
therefore, unlikely to require new action by manufacturers beyond what
they are already undertaking to meet ICAO's adopted and recommended
amendments.
G. Possible Future Revisions to Emission Standards for New Technology
Turbine Engines and Supersonic Aircraft Turbine Engines
As a general matter, emission standards not only apply to all
conventional turbofan aircraft engines greater than 26.7 kNs, but also
to all aircraft engines designed for applications that otherwise would
have been fulfilled by turbofan aircraft engines. The high price of jet
fuel, current emphasis on fuel economy, and need to reduce emissions
have renewed interest in open rotor propulsion designs for future
aircraft gas turbine engines. Essentially, the fan of an open rotor
engine is not contained within an engine nacelle as it is with a
conventional turbofan engine. This design has also been referred to as
an unducted fan, propfan, or ultra-high bypass engine. At least two
engine manufacturers are actively pursuing such designs for
certification in the later part of this decade.
It now appears that certain aspects of EPA's gas turbine engine
emission standards may be incompatible with these new designs. For
example, the current landing and takeoff cycle for emissions
certification is based on conventional engine designs where a
significant amount of thrust is generated by an idling engine.
Specifically, idle emissions are measured and calculated at seven
percent of the engine's rated thrust. However, the fan/prop blades of
an open rotor engine may be variable in pitch and this may allow the
blades to be ``feathered'' at idle. In that position, the blades are
rotated so very little thrust is generated as the engine idles and
generates emissions. Also, future aircraft using these engine designs
may fly at somewhat slower speeds. This might affect the time these
aircraft spend during the climbout mode of the landing and takeoff
cycle. Therefore, the traditional landing and takeoff cycle used in
turbofan engine emissions certification may need to be revised in the
future to accommodate open rotor engines.
We will be working within CAEP to evaluate the differences between
conventional turbine engine and open rotor engine technologies, and to
revise the emission standards and test procedures as appropriate for
these latter engines. If any changes are required, EPA will undertake
rulemaking to revise our regulations accordingly.
There may also be changes in the emission standards and test
procedures for engines used to power future supersonic transport
aircraft designs. The emission standards for these engines were
originally developed in the early 1970s in response to the
Aerospatiale-BAC Concorde. Since that time, there have been varying
levels of interest in developing a new generation of supersonic
transport. As a result, the current CAEP work program is evaluating the
status of supersonic aircraft engine development and the potential need
for new emission standards and test procedures.\104\ Our recent
discussions with engine manufacturers indicate that no substantive work
is being undertaken at this time, however. We will continue to work
within CAEP on this issue and undertake rulemaking to revise the
regulations for supersonic aircraft engines as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ The CAEP Working Group 3 has taken the position that
engine development programs for future supersonic aircraft
applications should be focused on achieving the emission standards
that are applicable to subsonic aircraft engines. Past supersonic
aircraft engines required the use of afterburner technology to
achieve supersonic speeds. Future supersonic aircraft are expected
to use engines without that technology, making them more similar to
their subsonic counterparts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comments on the status and timing of open rotor and
future engine designs for supersonic aircraft, and how the aircraft
engine emission standards and test procedures may need to be modified
to accommodate these types of engines.
IV. Description of Other Revisions to the Regulatory Text
In addition to the proposed changes discussed above, we are
proposing a number of other changes to the regulatory program. Most of
these changes are designed to bring the program into conformity with
current technology and current technical or policy practice. Each of
these is discussed below.
A. Applicability Issues
This section discusses how the proposed rule relates to engines
used in military and noncommercial civilian aircraft. We do not believe
the proposed changes would have practical significance for current
engine models because the changes align with manufacturers' current
practice in certifying their engines.
1. Military Engines
We do not intend our proposal to have any impact on engines
installed on military aircraft. Military aircraft are not required to
have FAA standard airworthiness certificates and our 1997 endangerment
finding for NOX and CO emissions and resulting standards did
not cover military aircraft (see 62 FR at 25359). As such, engines used
in military aircraft are not required to meet EPA emission standards,
since our current regulations define ``aircraft'' subject to our rules
as any airplane for which a U.S. standard airworthiness certificate (or
foreign equivalent) is issued. (See 40 CFR 87.1(a) of the existing
regulations.) Currently, manufacturers certificate some engine models
used in military aircraft with the FAA (with respect to emissions),
because these engine models also have commercial applications and have
to be certificated for such use. Our proposed new standards and
requirements would continue to apply only to engines for which standard
airworthiness certificates are issued, and it is not our intent to
interfere with current practice with regard to engine models with joint
commercial/military applications to the extent such engines are used in
military aircraft. Although civilian aircraft applications of all such
engines would be subject to the new standards and production cutoff, we
are proposing to include a statement in the regulations to clarify that
the proposed production
[[Page 45038]]
cutoff would not apply for previously certificated engines that are
installed and used in military aircraft.
2. Noncommercial Engines
The current section 87.21(d) specifies that gaseous emission
standards apply to engines used in commercial applications with rated
thrusts greater than 26.7 kN. These are engines intended for use by an
air carrier or a commercial operator as defined in the Chapter I, Title
49 of the United States Code and Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Therefore, engines of equivalent thrust ratings that are
used in aircraft certificated by the FAA that are used in non-revenue,
general aviation service are not required to comply with our current
HC, CO, and NOX exhaust emission standards in Sec.
87.21(d). They are subject, however, to the current standards for smoke
and fuel venting.
We are proposing to apply the proposed gaseous emission standards
for commercial engines to their noncommercial civilian counterparts
that are required to obtain standard airworthiness certificates. There
are a couple of reasons for this proposed action. First, the ICAO Annex
16 standards and recommended practices apply equally to commercial and
noncommercial engines, and our rules' current failure to reflect this
means that our requirements do not fully conform to ICAO's standards.
Second, manufacturers already emissions certify engines that are used
in non-revenue, general aviation service to these standards. Therefore,
this proposal simply incorporates the status quo.
In order to make EPA standards conform to ICAO's, we need to, in
addition to promulgating the necessary regulatory amendments, update
the underlying finding regarding the need to limit gaseous emissions
from commercial and non-commercial civilian aircraft, pursuant to CAA
section 231(a)(2)(A). In 1997, our analysis and finding, and hence our
regulations, were limited to commercial aircraft emissions. (See 62 FR
at 25358.) Today, we are proposing to expand that analysis and finding
to include gaseous emissions from both commercial and non-commercial
civilian aircraft engines with rated thrusts greater than 26.7 kN.
These noncommercial and commercial engines have a great deal in
common. First, they each use the same thermodynamic engine cycle (i.e.,
a gas (air) compressor, fuel combustor, and expansion turbine), engine
design, and technology. That means they emit the same pollutants, i.e.,
HC, CO, and NOX. Second, they are each used in the same
manner, i.e., landing and takeoff operations from airports in the U.S.,
including commercial airports in ozone and CO nonattainment areas. That
means their emissions are geographically, spatially, and temporally
similar, and that they collectively contribute to ozone and CO air
pollution in nonattainment areas and are projected to continue to do
so. Third, noncommercial engines are usually the same engine model and
sometimes sub-model as engines used in commercial operations, which
makes distinguishing between commercial and noncommercial engines
somewhat artificial. These attributes, taken together, demonstrate that
engines used in noncommercial service have the same effect on the
environment as their commercial counterparts. Therefore, the
Administrator is proposing to find that commercial and noncommercial
applications for turbofan and turbojet engines with rated thrusts
greater than 26.7 kN collectively cause or contribute to the same air
pollution as their commercial counterparts. Our emissions assessment
supporting this conclusion is contained in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ U.S. EPA, ``Proposed Finding for Commercial and
Noncommercial Turbofan and Turbojet Aircraft Emissions,'' memorandum
from John Mueller, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, May 2011. A copy of this document is
in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Non-Substantive Revisions
We are also taking the opportunity to revisit the clarity of other
regulatory provisions in part 87. Many of these provisions were first
written 30 or 40 years ago with little or no change since then. We are
proposing changes to the text related to some of these provisions to
better organize, clarify, and update the regulations. Our goal is to
revise the regulations in part 87 to properly organize the content of
the regulation, use clearer language to describe the applicable
requirements, clarify some definitions, and clear up a variety of terms
and current practices that have not been adequately addressed.
Except as discussed in previous sections, the proposed changes to
part 87 are not intended to significantly change the certification and
compliance program. We are not reopening for comment the substance of
any part of the program that remains unchanged substantively.
Specifically, for those instances where we propose to move a provision
to a different section or reword a provision in clearer language, we do
not consider those changes to be substantive. It is also important to
note that the changes to the regulation apply starting with the date
that the final rule takes effect.
In particular, it is worth emphasizing that while we are restating
the HC, CO, and smoke standards, as they would apply to Tier 6 and
later NOX standard-subject engines, in a new part 87.23, we
are not proposing them as new standards or otherwise reopening them for
comment. The HC, CO, and smoke standards in the proposed part 87.23 are
identical to the existing standards of part 87.21 and are being copied
into the new section merely for clarity to readers.
The proposed rule includes the following definitions and other
minor changes in addition to those changes described earlier in this
section or in section III.:
The definition of the term ``aircraft'' is being revised to be
consistent with its meaning under FAA regulations in 14 CFR 1.1. The
existing part 87 definition limits ``aircraft'' to be only those craft
issued an airworthiness certificate. This was done as a way to specify
the applicability of the standards. However, this can cause confusion
in a variety of ways. For example, this departs from the plain meaning
of ``aircraft,'' as well as from the meaning given under the Clean Air
Act and Title 49 of the United States Code. The proposed definition
aligns with these statutory definitions. The changed wording is
intended to clarify the existing policy without changing it.
Text specifying general applicability is being added to part 87.3
to be consistent with the new definition of ``aircraft'' and maintain
the effective applicability of the existing regulations, which uses
narrow definitions to limit applicability. For example, the existing
regulations limit the applicability of the standards by defining
``aircraft'' to only include fixed-wing airplanes with airworthiness
certificates. They exclude non-propulsion engines from the definition
of ``aircraft engine'' and turboshaft engines from the definition of
``aircraft gas turbine engine.'' We believe it is more appropriate to
explicitly exclude these engines in an applicability section than to
rely on readers finding these exclusions in the definitions section. We
are also renaming part 87.3 as ``General applicability and
requirements'' and reorganizing the content for clarity. Finally, we
are replacing the existing regulatory text related to Federal
preemption for exempted engines in part 87.7(f) with a codification of
the statutory preemption language in part 87.3 and an explanatory note
that the statutory preemption applies to
[[Page 45039]]
exempted engines because they are certified to prior-tier standards.
ICAO Annex 16 is being incorporated by reference for test
procedures. This involves a broader reference to Annex 16, with less
content repeated in part 87. However, this does not substantively
change the test procedures that apply since the existing procedures are
based directly on Annex 16. As part of this change, we are adding the
ICAO definition of ``characteristic level'' to properly describe how
manufacturers demonstrate that they meet applicable standards.
Definitions are being added for ``date of introduction,'' ``date of
manufacture,'' and ``derivative engine for emissions certification
purposes,'' and the definition of ``engine model'' is being revised, to
more carefully describe when new emission standards apply to specific
aircraft engines. These definitions are generally consistent with the
most common understandings of these terms by industry and FAA, and with
the CAEP/8 recommendation for adoption by ICAO. Except for engines
subject to exemptions, there will be no more engines required to be
certified to the standards specified in part 87.21, so changing the
definition of ``engine model'' will not change the requirements for
engines certified to the Tier 4 or earlier standards. For the benefit
of the reader, we are also reprinting the following definitions that
remain unchanged, without requesting comment on those definitions:
Aircraft engine
Aircraft gas turbine engine
Class TP
Class TF
Class T3
Class T8
Class TSS
Commercial aircraft gas turbine engine
Fuel venting emissions
Specific provisions are being added to define and require the use
of ``good engineering judgment.'' This applies for instances where the
regulation cannot spell out every technical detail of how a
manufacturer should comply with the regulation. For example, the
proposed regulations would rely on good engineering judgment being used
on the engineering analysis of emissions equivalency for derivative
engines (part 87.48(b)(2)), and for applying the turbofan test
procedures to turboprop engines (part 87.60(a)). The general approach
for implementing good engineering judgment is to allow manufacturers to
exercise well substantiated and explained technical judgment subject to
potential EPA and FAA review (as appropriate). The consequences of
disagreements with a manufacturer's decision would depend on whether we
believe the manufacturer made the decision in good faith. Where the
manufacturer makes its decision in good faith, EPA or FAA could require
a different approach for future work if we believe it would represent
better engineering judgment. We believe these provisions reflect the
spirit of the approach being used today to interpret the applicable
regulations.
Provisions are being added specifying rounding practices for rated
output, rated pressure ratio, and calculated emission standards;
generally specifying that they be expressed to at least three
significant figures. These specifications are consistent with how
manufacturers are generally certifying engines today. Defining how to
round these values would prevent manufacturers in the future from
effecting small changes in the level of the emission standards to which
they certify their engines. This is because standards are calculated
using the numerical values of the rated output and rated pressure
ratio. Without these specifications, manufacturers could subject
themselves to a slightly less stringent standard by selectively
rounding or truncating an engine model's rated output to be low and its
rated pressure ratio to be high, or by strategically rounding the
calculated standard itself. While this has not been an issue in the
past, it is important to maintain a level playing field for all
manufacturers as standards become more stringent. We do not expect any
more engines type-certificated to the standards specified in part
87.21, so the specified procedures for rounding these values will not
change the requirements for engines certified to the Tier 4 or earlier
standards.
Definitions are being added for ``turbofan engine,'' ``turbojet
engine,'' ``turboprop engine,'' ``turboshaft engine,'' ``supersonic,''
and ``subsonic'' to avoid any uncertainty about how the standards apply
to different types of engines. The proposed definitions are intended to
reflect the plain meaning of these terms.
The proposed regulations include the following additional
amendments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of
Regulation cite amendment Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
87.1.......................... Add definition of The characteristic
``characteristic level is established
level''.. by ICAO Annex 16 as
a means of
calculating a
statistical
adjustment to
measured emission
results to take into
account the level of
uncertainty
corresponding to the
number of tests run
for a given
pollutant.
87.1.......................... Remove These terms will no
definitions for longer be used in
``emission part 87. There will
measurement be no more engines
system'', certified to the
``power standards specified
setting'', in Sec. 87.21, so
``sample removing these
system'', definitions will not
``shaft power'', change the
``taxi/idle requirements for
(in)'', and engines certified to
``taxi/idle the Tier 4 or
(out)''. earlier standards.
87.1.......................... Revise definition The new language
of ``exhaust references the
emissions'' and emission testing
``smoke''. procedures, since
that is the
practical meaning of
these terms in part
87. This clarifies,
for example, that
emissions from the
nozzle of an
aircraft or aircraft
engine count as
exhaust emissions
only if they are
measured using the
specified test
procedures. There
will be no more
engines certified to
the standards
specified in Sec.
87.21, so revising
these definitions
will not change the
requirements for
engines certified to
the Tier 4 or
earlier standards.
87.1.......................... Define ``new'' The regulations also
instead of refer to new
defining ``new turboprop engines
aircraft turbine and new engines used
engine''. for supersonic
aircraft, so it is
appropriate to
define the adjective
as it relates to
these different
kinds of engines.
This approach does
not change the
meaning of the
applicable terms and
therefore has no
bearing on the
requirements that
applied under the
standards specified
in Sec. 87.21.
[[Page 45040]]
87.1.......................... Revise the The editorial changes
definition of do not involve any
``standard day substantive change
condition'': (1) in the specified
remove the conditions.
reference to the
1976 U.S.
Standard
Atmosphere, (2)
correct a
typographical
error in the
humidity
specification,
and (3) change
the atmospheric
pressure units
from Pa to kPa.
87.2.......................... Remove FAA from This is intended to
the list of not involve a change
acronyms in Sec. in emission
87.2 and add standards or
it to the set of implementation.
defined terms in
Sec. 87.1.
87.3.......................... Add provisions The broad statement
describing the in Sec. 87.3 is
scope of not intended to
applicability of conflict with the
part 87. applicability
statements in
individual subparts,
since those
additional
statements indicate
that certain
requirements in part
87 apply more
narrowly. All
applicability
statements in the
proposed rule are
intended to be
consistent with
current policy.
87.3.......................... Remove the This change more
provision carefully tracks the
related to statutory provisions
preemption of related to
state standards preemption.
for exempted
aircraft and
replace it with
the preemption
provision in the
Clean Air Act.
87.5.......................... Move the This provision, and
provisions the similar
related to provision from Sec.
special test 87.3(a), should be
procedures to described together
Sec. 87.60. in the context of
the testing
requirements in
subpart G.
87.21......................... Identify the This corrects a
specific date typographical error
when the smoke from the Federal
standard started Register.
to apply for
turbofan engines
with rated
output less than
26.7 kilonewtons.
87.21......................... Revise paragraph This change is
(f) to correctly strictly editorial.
reference the
regulatory
sections that
describe the
applicable test
procedures.
87.60......................... Revise the There will be no more
description of engines certified to
test procedures the standards
to rely broadly specified in Sec.
on the 87.21, so any
procedures changes to the test
specified in procedures will not
ICAO Annex 16. change the
This includes a requirements for
variety of engines certified to
recent changes the Tier 4 or
to the Annex 16 earlier standards.
procedures. Moreover, engine
manufacturers are
expected to perform
all their testing
based on the current
test procedures from
ICAO Annex 16,
regardless of the
standards that
apply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Clarifying Language for Regulatory Text
The proposed regulations incorporate the changes described in this
preamble. The following table highlights and clarifies several
provisions that may not be obvious to the reader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation cite Note
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
87.1, Definition of ``aircraft''. This definition would revert to the
normal FAA definition of aircraft,
rather than the much narrower
current definition in part 87. To
understand this change, the
proposed definition needs to be
considered along with the proposed
changes to applicability in
87.3(a).
87.1, Definition of ``date of This is generally the same
manufacture''. definition as given in ICAO Annex
16. However, our definition
addresses certain specific
circumstances that could possibly
occur, but that are not addressed
by the Annex. For example, our
definition would provide a date of
manufacture for an engine not
previously documented by a
manufacturer.
87.1, Definition of ``derivative It is important to consider this
engine for emissions definition in combination with the
certification purposes''. definition of ``engine type
certificate family''.
87.1 Definition of ``engine A manufacturer or FAA may further
model''. divide an engine model into sub-
models. Engines from an engine
model must be contained within a
single engine type certificate
family. Where FAA determines that
engines are not sufficiently
similar to be included under a
single type certificate, they will
not be considered to be the same
engine model for purposes of part
87.
87.1, Definition of ``military In Sec. 87.23(d) we clarify that
aircraft'' and 87.23(d). the production cutoff does not
apply for military aircraft
engines (even if they have been
certificated). In Sec. 87.1, we
define military aircraft to mean
``aircraft owned by, operated by,
or produced for sale to the armed
forces or other agency of the
Federal government responsible for
national security (including but
not limited to the Department of
Defense).'' For example, aircraft
owned by the U.S. Coast Guard
would be military aircraft.
87.1, Definition of ``production The production cutoff date for the
cutoff date''. Tier 6 NOX standards is December
31, 2012.
87.1, Definition of ``spare Newly manufactured spare engines
engine''. may be excepted under Sec. 87.50.
87.1, Definitions of tiers....... As specified in the definitions of
``Tier 0'' through ``Tier 8'',
tiers apply only for NOX
standards. Tiers do not apply for
HC, CO, and smoke standards
because these continue to apply,
independent of the NOX standards.
87.23(d)(2)...................... The allowance to continue
production of Tier 6 engines after
the Tier 8 standards start to
apply is not necessary for engines
with rated pressure ratio at or
above 104.7 because the Tier 6 and
Tier 8 standards are numerically
identical at these thrust levels.
[[Page 45041]]
87.42(c)(1)...................... Sec. 87.42 requires that a
manufacturer report the engines it
produces by sub-model. The
manufacturer must specify the
manufacturer's unique sub-model
name, which will generally include
a model name and a sub-model name.
It may also include a family name.
87.50............................ This provision specifies that EPA
must provide written concurrence
for exemptions.
87.50(a)(1)(iv)(F)............... This provision states that
manufacturers requesting
exemptions should describe equity
issues. As an example of equity
issues related to an exemption
request, a manufacturer might
provide a rationale for granting
the exemption when another
manufacturer has a compliant
engine and does not need an
exemption, taking into account the
implications for operator fleet
composition, commonality, and
related issues in the absence of
the engine model in question.
87.50(a)(6)...................... This provision requires
manufacturers to promptly notify
the FAA if new or changed
information could have affected
approval of an exemption. For
corrections to an exemption
request that would not affect the
approval of the exemption,
manufacturers may include the
updated information in the annual
report described in Sec.
87.50(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Technical Feasibility, Cost Impacts, Emission Benefits
During the CAEP process, the technical feasibility and cost of
compliance of the CAEP/6 and CAEP/8 NOX standards were
thoroughly assessed and documented.106 107 EPA participated
in these analyses and supported the results. Generally, CAEP considered
certain factors as pertinent to the cost estimates of a technology
level for engine changes, and these factors or technology levels are
described below. The first technology level was regarded as a minor
change, and it could include modeling work, minor design changes, and
additional testing and re-certification of emissions. The second
technology level was considered a scaled proven technology. At this
level an engine manufacturer applies its best-proven, combustion
technology that was already certified in at least one other engine type
to another engine type. This second technology level would include
substantial modeling, design, combustion rig testing, modification and
testing of development engines, and flight testing. The third
technology level was regarded as new technology or current industry
best practice, and it was considered where a manufacturer has no proven
technology that can be scaled to provide a solution and some technology
acquisition activity is required. (One or more manufacturers have
demonstrated the necessary technology, while the remaining
manufacturers would need to acquire the technology to catch up.) Since
the effective date for the CAEP/6 NOX standard was January
1, 2008 and nearly all in-production engines currently meet this
standard, we will limit our discussion below of applying these
technology levels to engines that need to comply with the CAEP/8
NOX standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ CAEP/6 NOX standards: CAEP Forecasting and
Economic Analysis Support Group, Economic Analysis of NOX
Emissions Stringency Options, CAEP/6-IP/13 (Information Paper 13),
January 15, 2004. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
\107\ CAEP/8 NOX standards: CAEP Working Group 3, NOX
Stringency Technology Response Assessment, CAEP-SG/20082-WP/18
(Working Paper 18), September 25, 2008. CAEP Forecasting and
Economic Analysis Support Group, Economic Assessment of the NOX
Stringency Scenarios, CAEP/8-IP/14, November 30, 2009. Modeling Task
Force, MODTF NOX Stringency Assessment, CAEP/8-IP/13, December 11,
2009. United States, Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management
Tool for Economics (APMT-Economics) and Its Application in the CAEP/
8 NOX Stringency Analysis, CAEP/8-IP/29, January 6, 2010. A copy of
these documents are in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the CAEP reports, the CAEP/8 NOX standard
for higher thrust engines, i.e., 89.0 kN or more would apply to a total
of 15 engine types. For these types the following technology level
response was anticipated: six types would require no change, one type
would need the first technology level change, five would require the
second technology level, and three would need the third technology
level. For lower thrust engines, i.e., greater than 26.7 but less than
89.0 kN, CAEP listed a total of 13 engine types in their analysis of
the CAEP/8 NOX standard. The following technology level
response was estimated for these types: 11 types would require no
change, 1 type would need the first technology level change, and 1 type
would require a second technology.
Regarding the costs of this specific proposal, aircraft turbofan
engines are designed and built for use on aircraft that are sold and
operated throughout the world. As a result, engine manufacturers
respond to this market reality by designing and building engines that
conform to ICAO international standards and practices. This normal
business practice means that engine manufacturers are compelled to make
the necessary business decisions and investments to maximize their
international markets even in the absence of U.S. regulations that
would otherwise codify ICAO standards and practices. Indeed, engine
manufacturers have developed or are already developing improved
technology in response to ICAO standards that match the standards
proposed here. Also, the proposed recommended practices, e.g., test
procedures, needed to demonstrate compliance are being adhered to by
manufacturers during current engine certification tests, or will be
even in the absence a final rule. Therefore, EPA believes that today's
proposed standards and practices that conform with ICAO standards and
practices will impose no real additional burden on engine
manufacturers. This finding regarding no incremental burden, is also
consistent with past EPA rulemakings that adopted ICAO requirements.
((See 62 FR 25356 (May 8, 1997) and 70 FR 69664 (November 11, 2005)).
In fact, engine manufacturers have suggested that certain benefits
accrue for compliant products when the U.S. adopts ICAO standards and
practices, but have not provided detailed information regarding these
benefits. Primarily, such action makes FAA certification more
straightforward and transparent. That in turn is advantageous when
marketing their products to potential customers, because compliance
with ICAO standards is an important consideration in purchasing
decisions. It simply removes any question that their engines comply
with international requirements. There will be some cost, however,
associated with our proposed annual reporting requirement for emission
related information. (See section III.D. for a description of the
proposed reports.) There are a total of 10 engine manufacturers that
would be affected. Eight of these produce turbofan engines with rated
thrusts greater than 26.7 kN, which are already voluntarily reported to
the ICAO-related Emissions Databank (EDB). We expect the incremental
reporting burden for these
[[Page 45042]]
manufacturers to be very small because we: (1) Have significantly
reduced the number of reporting elements from those requested in the
EDB, and (2) are adding only three basic reporting categories to those
already requested by the EDB. Also, four of the eight manufacturers
make smaller turbofan and turboprop engines that will be reporting for
the first time. This will add a small incremental burden for these four
manufacturers that otherwise already voluntarily report to the EDB.
There are also two engine manufacturers that only produce turbofan
engines with rated thrusts less than or equal to 26.7 kN and they will
be reporting for the first time. For these two manufacturers we believe
that the reporting burden will be small because all of the information
we are proposing to require should be readily available, and these
manufacturers have a very limited number of engine models.
We have estimated the annual burden and cost to be six hours and
$365 per manufacturer. With 10 manufacturers submitting reports, the
total burden of this reporting requirement is estimated to be 60 hours,
for a total cost of $3,646.
Turning to emission benefits, CAEP's assessments indicated that the
CAEP/8 NOX standards would provide global NOX
reductions, which would translate to emission reductions in the U.S.
The global LTO NOX reductions were estimated to be about 5.5
percent in 2026 and 7 percent in 2036 relative to the baseline.\108\
According to an analysis conducted for comparable percent
NOX reductions in the U.S., it was estimated that this would
translate to LTO NOX reductions in the U.S. of about 5,200
tons in 2020 and 8,700 tons in 2030,\109\ and the cumulative LTO
NOX reductions from 2014 to 2030 (2014 is the implementation
date of the CAEP/8 NOX standards) were projected to be about
100,000 NOX tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ CAEP Rapporteurs of Modeling Task Force and Forecasting
and Economic Analysis Support Group, Environmental and Economic
Assessment of the NOX Stringency Scenarios, CAEP/8-WP/15,
December 2, 2009.
\109\ ``Historical Assessment of Aircraft Landing and Take-off
Emissions (1986-2008),'' Eastern Research Group, May 2011. A copy of
this document can be found in public docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Coordination With FAA
The requirements contained in this action are being proposed after
consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Section
231(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires EPA to ``consult with the
Administrator of the [FAA] on aircraft engine emission standards'' 42
U.S.C. 7571(a)(2)(B)(i), and section 231(a)(2)(B)(ii) indicates that
EPA ``shall not change the aircraft engine emission standards if such
change would significantly increase noise. * * * '' 42 U.S.C.
7571(a)(2)(B)(ii). Section 231(b) of the CAA states that ``[a]ny
regulation prescribed under this section (and any revision thereof)
shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds
necessary (after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation) to
permit the development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.'' 42 U.S.C. 7571(b). Section 231(c) provides that any
regulation under section 231 ``shall not apply if disapproved by the
President * * * on the basis of a finding by the Secretary of
Transportation that any such regulation would create a hazard to
aircraft safety.'' 42 U.S.C. 7571(c). Under section 232 of the CAA, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) has the responsibility to enforce
the aircraft emission standards established by EPA under section
231.\110\ As in past rulemakings and pursuant to the above referenced
sections of the CAA, EPA has coordinated with the FAA, i.e., DOT, with
respect to today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ The functions of the Secretary of Transportation under
part B of title II of the Clean Air Act (Sec. Sec. 231-234, 42
U.S.C. 7571-7574) have been delegated to the Administrator of the
FAA. 49 CFR 1.47(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, FAA is the official U.S. delegate to ICAO. FAA agreed to
the amendments at ICAO's Sixth and Eighth Meetings of the Committee on
Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP/6) after advisement from
EPA.\111\ FAA and EPA were both members of the CAEP's Working Group 3
(among others), whose objective was to evaluate emissions technical
issues and develop recommendations on such issues for CAEP/6 and CAEP/
8. After assessing emissions test procedure amendments and new
NOX standards, Working Group 3 made recommendations to CAEP
on these elements. These recommendations were approved by CAEP/6
meetings prior to their adoption by ICAO in 2004. Similarly, the more
recent Working Group 3 recommendations were approved by CAEP/8 and
subsequently recommended to ICAO for adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ The Sixth Meeting of CAEP (CAEP/6) occurred in Montreal,
Quebec from February 2 through 12 in 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as discussed above, FAA will have the duty to enforce
today's requirements. As a part of these duties, the FAA witnesses the
emission tests or delegates aspects of that responsibility to the
engine manufacturer, which is then monitored by the FAA.
VII. Public Participation
We request comment on this proposal, however, we are not reopening
for comment the substance of any part of the program that remains
substantially unchanged as described in section IV.B. The remainder of
this section describes how you can participate in this process.
How do I submit comments?
We are opening a formal comment period by publishing this document.
We will accept comments during the period indicated in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. If you have an interest in
the proposed emission control program described in this document, we
encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking.
Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. Commenters are
especially encouraged to provide specific suggestions for any changes
to any aspect of the regulations that they believe need to be modified
or improved. You should send all comments, except those containing
proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES located at
the beginning of this document) before the end of the comment period.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or information that is
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in
section VIII.B.
How should I submit CBI to the agency?
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through the electronic public docket, http://www.regulations.gov, or by e-mail. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Assessment and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any
part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD
ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
[[Page 45043]]
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI
on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that
it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included
in the public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions
about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the
beginning of this document.
Will there be a public hearing?
We will hold a public hearing on August 11, 2011. The hearing will
start at 9:30 am local time and continue until everyone has had a
chance to speak.
If you would like to present testimony at the public hearing, we
ask that you notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. You should
estimate the time you will need for your presentation and identify any
needed audio/visual equipment. We suggest that you bring copies of your
statement or other material for the EPA panel and the audience. It
would also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other
materials before the hearing.
We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based
on the notifications we receive. This schedule will be available on the
morning of the hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time
for anyone else in the audience who wants to give testimony.
We will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of
evidence won't apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the
hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days to
allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make
arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court
reporter.
Comment Period
The comment period for this rule will end on September 26, 2011.
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Describe any assumptions that you used.
Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support
your views.
If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived
at your estimate.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer alternatives.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
VIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
The statutory authority for today's proposal is provided by
sections 114, 231-234 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 7414, 7571-7574 and 7601(a). See section II. of today's rule for
discussion of how EPA meets the CAA's statutory requirements.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' This action
proposes the adoption of new aircraft engine emissions regulations and
as such, requires consultation and coordination with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). OMB has determined that this action
raises `` * * * novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the EO.'' Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket for this action.
As discussed further in section V., we do not attribute any costs
to the compliance with today's proposed regulations that conform with
ICAO standards and recommended practices. Aircraft turbofan engines are
international commodities. As a result, engine manufacturers respond to
this market reality by designing and building engines that conform to
ICAO international standards and practices. Therefore, engine
manufacturers are compelled to make the necessary business decisions
and investments to maximize their international markets even in the
absence of U.S. action. Indeed, engine manufacturers have or are
already responding, or will in the future, to ICAO requirements that
match the standards and practices proposed here. Therefore, EPA
believes that today's proposed requirements that conform with ICAO
standards and practices will impose no real additional burden on engine
manufacturers. This finding is also consistent with past EPA
rulemakings that adopted ICAO requirements.
There is, nonetheless, a small burden associated with the proposed
reporting requirements, as discussed in section IX.B.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR Number 2427.01.
Manufacturers keep substantial records to document their compliance
with emission standards. We need to be able to access this data to
conduct accurate emission inventories, understand how emission
standards affect the current fleet, and develop appropriate policy in
the form of future emission standards. Most manufacturers are already
accustomed to reporting much of this information to ICAO. We are,
therefore, proposing to require that engine manufacturers send this
information to EPA on an annual basis. We also propose to require
manufacturers to send us their annual production volumes, which is the
only item we would treat as confidential business information. Under
the Clean Air Act, we are authorized to require manufacturers to
establish and maintain necessary records, make reports, and provide
such other information as we may reasonably require to execute our
functions under the Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(1). We would expect most
manufacturers generally to add the proposed information items to the
annual report they are already required to submit with information
about NOX
[[Page 45044]]
and CO2 emission levels. See section III.D. for a more
complete description of the proposed annual reporting requirement.
We have estimated the total annual burden of the proposed reporting
requirement to be 60 hours, and the total cost to be $3,646. The annual
burden and cost per respondent is estimated to be 6 hours and $365.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in
40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public
docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0687. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB.
See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to
submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after July 27, 2011, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 26,
2011. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by SBA size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field. The following Table 4
provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories
potentially affected by this regulation.
Table 4--Primary Potentially Affected SBA Small Business Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \a\
Industry codes Defined by SBA as a small business if: \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers of new aircraft engines............ 336412 < 1,000 employees.
Manufacturers of new aircraft.................... 336411 < 1,500 employees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of
employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered ``small entities'' for purposes of a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
governmental jurisdictions and small organizations as described above
will not be impacted. We have determined that the estimated effect of
the proposed rule's reporting requirement is to affect one small entity
turbofan engine manufacturer with costs less than one percent of
revenues. This one company represents all of the small businesses
impacted by the proposed regulations. An analysis of the impacts of the
proposed rule on small businesses has been prepared and placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ ``Small Business Impact Memo, Proposed Aircraft Engine
Emission Standards--Determination of No SISNOSE,'' EPA memo from
Solveig Irvine to Alexander Cristofaro, November, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
As discussed in section IV, today's proposed action will establish
consistency between U.S. and existing international emission standards.
The engine manufacturers are already developing the technology to meet
the existing ICAO standards, and we do not believe it is appropriate to
attribute the costs of that technology to this proposed action. Thus,
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The provisions of
this proposal apply to the manufacturers of aircraft and aircraft
engines, and as such would not affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. As discussed earlier, section 233
of the CAA preempts states from adopting or enforcing aircraft engine
emission standards that are not identical to our standards. This rule
proposes to revise the Code of Federal Regulations to more accurately
reflect the statutory preemption established by the Clean Air Act. This
rule does not impose any new preemption of State and local law. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
These rules regulate aircraft manufacturers and aircraft engine
[[Page 45045]]
manufacturers. We do not believe that Tribes own any of these
businesses nor are there other implications for Tribes. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from Tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because the Agency does not believe the environmental
health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. See section II.B.2. for a discussion
of the health impacts of NOX emissions.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to aircraft
emissions.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. These proposed aircraft engine
emissions regulations are not expected to result in any changes to
aircraft fuel consumption.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards for testing
emissions for aircraft gas turbine engines. EPA proposes to use test
procedures contained in ICAO's International Standards and Recommended
Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16, along with the
modifications contained in this rulemaking.\113\ These procedures are
currently used by all manufacturers of aircraft gas turbine engines
(with thrust greater than 26.7 kN) to demonstrate compliance with ICAO
emissions standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices
Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, ``Aircraft Engine
Emissions,'' Second Edition, July 1993--Amendment 3, March 20, 1997.
Copies of this document can be obtained from ICAO (http://www.icao.int).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such
standards should be used in this regulation.
J. EO 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 87
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Aircraft,
Incorporation by reference.
40 CFR Part 1068
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Warranties.
Dated: July 6, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 87--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM AIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT
ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 87 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Revise Sec. 87.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 87.1 Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply to this part. The definitions
apply to all subparts. Any terms not defined in this section have the
meaning given in the Clean Air Act. The definitions follow:
Act means the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq).
Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and any other officer or employee of the
Environmental Protection Agency to whom authority involved may be
delegated.
Aircraft has the meaning given in 14 CFR 1.1, which defines
aircraft to mean a device used or intended to be used for flight in the
air. Note that under Sec. 87.3, the requirements of this part
generally apply only to propulsion engines used on certain airplanes
for which U.S. airworthiness certificates are required.
Aircraft engine means a propulsion engine which is installed in or
which is manufactured for installation in an aircraft.
Aircraft gas turbine engine means a turboprop, turbofan, or
turbojet aircraft engine.
Characteristic level has the meaning given in Appendix 6 of ICAO
Annex 16 (as of July 2008). The characteristic level is a calculated
emission level for each pollutant based on a statistical assessment of
measured emissions from multiple tests.
Class TP means all aircraft turboprop engines.
Class TF means all turbofan or turbojet aircraft engines or
aircraft engines designed for applications that otherwise would have
been fulfilled by turbojet and turbofan engines except engines of class
T3, T8, and TSS.
Class T3 means all aircraft gas turbine engines of the JT3D model
family.
Class T8 means all aircraft gas turbine engines of the JT8D model
family.
Class TSS means all aircraft gas turbine engines employed for
[[Page 45046]]
propulsion of aircraft designed to operate at supersonic flight speeds.
Commercial aircraft engine means any aircraft engine used or
intended for use by an ``air carrier,'' (including those engaged in
``intrastate air transportation'') or a ``commercial operator''
(including those engaged in ``intrastate air transportation'') as these
terms are defined in subtitle 7 of title 49 of the United States Code
and title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Commercial aircraft gas turbine engine means a turboprop, turbofan,
or turbojet commercial aircraft engine.
Date of introduction or introduction date means the date of
manufacture of the first individual production engine of a given engine
model or engine type certificate family to be certificated. This does
not include test engines or other engines not placed into service.
Date of manufacture means the date on which a manufacturer is
issued documentation by FAA (or other competent authority for engines
certificated outside the United States) attesting than the given engine
conforms to all applicable requirements. This date may not be earlier
that the date on which assembly of the engine is complete. Where the
manufacturer does not obtain such documentation from FAA (or other
competent authority for engines certificated outside the United
States), date of manufacture means the date of final assembly of the
engine.
Derivative engine for emissions certification purposes means an
engine that has the same or similar emissions characteristics as an
engine covered by a U.S. type certificate issued under 14 CFR part 33.
These characteristics are specified in Sec. 87.48.
Designated EPA Program Officer means the Director of the Assessment
and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105.
DOT Secretary means the Secretary of the Transportation and any
other officer or employee of the Department of Transportation to whom
the authority involved may be delegated.
Engine means an individual engine. A group of identical engines
together make up an engine model or sub-model.
Engine model means an engine manufacturer's designation for an
engine grouping of engines and/or engine sub-models within a single
engine type certificate family, where such engines have similar design,
including being similar with respect to the core engine and combustor
designs.
Engine sub-model means a designation for a grouping of engines with
essentially identical design, especially with respect to the core
engine and combustor designs and other emission-related features.
Engines from an engine sub-model must be contained within a single
engine model. For purposes of this part, an original engine model
configuration is considered a sub-model. For example, if a manufacturer
initially produces an engine model designated ABC and later introduces
a new sub-model ABC-1, the engine model consists of two sub-models: ABC
and ABC-1.
Engine type certificate family means a group of engines (comprising
one or more engine models, including sub-models and derivative engines
for emissions certification purposes of those engine models) determined
by FAA to have a sufficiently common design to be grouped together
under a type certificate.
EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Except means to routinely allow engines to be produced and sold
that do not meet (or do not fully meet) otherwise applicable standards.
(Note that this definition applies only with respect to spare engines
and that the term ``except'' has its plain meaning in other contexts.)
Excepted engines must conform to regulatory conditions specified for an
exception in this part and other applicable regulations. Excepted
engines are deemed to be ``subject to'' the standards of this part even
though they are not required to comply with the otherwise applicable
requirements. Engines excepted with respect to certain standards must
comply with other standards from which they are not excepted.
Exempt means to allow (through a formal case-by-case process)
engines to be produced and sold that do not meet (or do not fully meet)
otherwise applicable standards. Exempted engines must conform to
regulatory conditions specified for an exemption in this part and other
applicable regulations. Exempted engines are deemed to be ``subject
to'' the standards of this part even though they are not required to
comply with the otherwise applicable requirements. Engines exempted
with respect to certain standards must comply with other standards as a
condition of the exemption.
Exhaust emissions means substances emitted to the atmosphere from
exhaust discharge nozzles, as measured by the test procedures specified
in subpart G of this part.
FAA means the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration.
Fuel venting emissions means raw fuel, exclusive of hydrocarbons in
the exhaust emissions, discharged from aircraft gas turbine engines
during all normal ground and flight operations.
Good engineering judgment involves making decisions consistent with
generally accepted scientific and engineering principles and all
relevant information, subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.5.
ICAO Annex 16 means Volume II of Annex 16 to the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (incorporated by reference in Sec. 87.8).
In-use aircraft gas turbine engine means an aircraft gas turbine
engine which is in service.
Military aircraft means aircraft owned by, operated by, or produced
for sale to the armed forces or other agency of the Federal government
responsible for national security (including but not limited to the
Department of Defense).
New means relating to an aircraft or aircraft engine that has never
been placed into service.
Operator means any person or company that owns or operates an
aircraft.
Production cutoff date or date of the production cutoff means the
date on which interim phase-out allowances end.
Rated output (rO) means the maximum power/thrust available for
takeoff at standard day conditions as approved for the engine by FAA,
including reheat contribution where applicable, but excluding any
contribution due to water injection, expressed in kilowatts or
kilonewtons (as applicable) and rounded to at least three significant
figures.
Rated pressure ratio (rPR) means the ratio between the combustor
inlet pressure and the engine inlet pressure achieved by an engine
operating at rated output, rounded to at least three significant
figures.
Round means to round numbers according to NIST SP 811 (March 2008),
unless otherwise specified.
Smoke means the matter in exhaust emissions that obscures the
transmission of light, as measured by the test procedures specified in
subpart G of this part.
Smoke number means a dimensionless value quantifying smoke
emissions calculated in accordance with ICAO Annex 16.
Spare engine means an engine installed (or intended to be
installed) on an in-service aircraft to replace an existing engine and
that is excepted as described in Sec. 87.50(c).
Standard day conditions means the following ambient conditions:
temperature = 15 [deg]C, specific humidity = 0.00 kg H2O/kg
dry air, and pressure = 101.325 kPa.
[[Page 45047]]
Subsonic means relating to aircraft that are not supersonic
aircraft.
Supersonic means relating to aircraft that are certificated to fly
faster than the speed of sound.
Tier 0 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 0
NOX standards specified in Sec. 87.21.
Tier 2 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 2
NOX standards specified in Sec. 87.21.
Tier 4 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 4
NOX standards specified in Sec. 87.21.
Tier 6 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 6
NOX standards specified in Sec. 87.23.
Tier 8 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 8
NOX standards specified in Sec. 87.23.
Turbofan engine means a gas turbine engine designed to create its
propulsion from exhaust gases and from air that bypasses the combustion
process and is accelerated in a ducted space between the inner (core)
engine case and the outer engine fan casing.
Turbojet engine means a gas turbine engine that is designed to
create all of its propulsion from exhaust gases.
Turboprop engine means a gas turbine engine that is designed to
create most of its propulsion from a propeller driven by a turbine,
usually through a gearbox.
Turboshaft engine means a gas turbine engine that is designed to
drive a rotor transmission system or a gas turbine engine not used for
propulsion.
U.S.-registered aircraft means an aircraft that is on the U.S.
Registry.
We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.
3. Revise Sec. 87.2 to read as follows:
Sec. 87.2 Abbreviations.
The abbreviations used in this part have the following meanings:
% percent
[deg] degree
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
G gram
HC hydrocarbon(s)
kN kilonewton
kW kilowatt
LTO landing and takeoff
NOX oxides of nitrogen
rO rated output
rPR rated pressure ratio
SN smoke number
4. Revise Sec. 87.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 87.3 General applicability and requirements.
(a) The regulations of this part apply to engines on all aircraft
that are required to be certificated by FAA under 14 CFR part 33 except
as specified in this paragraph (a). These regulations do not apply to
the following aircraft engines:
(1) Reciprocating engines (including engines used in ultralight
aircraft).
(2) Turboshaft engines such as those used in helicopters.
(3) Engines used only in aircraft that are not airplanes. For
purposes of this paragraph (a)(4), ``airplane'' means a fixed-wing
aircraft that is heavier than air.
(4) Engines not used for propulsion.
(b) Under section 232 of the Act, the Secretary of Transportation
issues regulations to ensure compliance with the standards and related
requirements of this part (42 U.S.C. 7572).
(c) The Secretary of Transportation shall apply these regulations
to aircraft of foreign registry in a manner consistent with obligations
assumed by the United States in any treaty, convention or agreement
between the United States and any foreign country or foreign countries.
(d) No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt or
attempt to enforce any aircraft or aircraft engine standard respecting
emissions unless the standard is identical to a standard applicable to
such aircraft under this part (including prior-tier standards
applicable to exempt engines).
Sec. 87.5--[Removed]
5. Remove Sec. 87.5.
6. Revise Sec. 87.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 87.6 Aircraft safety.
The provisions of this part will be revised if at any time the DOT
Secretary determines that an emission standard cannot be met within the
specified time without creating a hazard to aircraft safety.
Sec. 87.7--[Removed]
7. Remove Sec. 87.7.
8. Revise Sec. 87.8 to read as follows:
Sec. 87.8 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must
publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must
be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building,
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202-1744, and is available from the sources
listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) International Civil Aviation Organization, Document Sales Unit,
999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7, (514) 954-
8022, http://www.icao.int, or [email protected].
(1) Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Environmental Protection, Volume II--Aircraft Engine Emissions, Third
Edition, July 2008. [Update for CAEP8 changes]; IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 87.2, 87.40, 87.42(d) and (f), and 87.60(a) and (b).
(2) [Reserved]
(c) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau
Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, (301) 975-6478, http://www.nist.gov, or [email protected]. Anyone may also purchase copies of
these materials from the Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
20402, (202) 512-0916, http://www.gpo.gov, or [email protected].
(1) NIST Special Publication 811, 1995 Edition, Guide for the Use
of the International System of Units (SI), Barry N. Taylor, Physics
Laboratory; IBR approved for Sec. 87.2.
(2) [Reserved]
Subpart C--[Amended]
9. Amend Sec. 87.21 as follows:
a. By revising the section heading.
b. By adding introductory text.
c. By revising paragraphs (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(iv), (d)(1)(vi)
introductory text, (e)(1), and (f).
Sec. 87.21 Exhaust emission standards for Tier 4 and earlier engines.
This section describes the emission standards that apply for Tier 4
and earlier engines that apply for aircraft engines manufactured before
[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] and certain engines exempted
under Sec. 87.50. Note that the tier of standards identified for an
engine relates to NOX emissions and that the specified
standards for HC, CO, and smoke emissions apply independent of the
changes to the NOX emission standards.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The following Tier 0 emission standard applies for engines of
a type or model of which the date of manufacture of the first
individual production model
[[Page 45048]]
was on or before December 31, 1995 and for which the date of
manufacture of the individual engine was on or before December 31,
1999.
Oxides of Nitrogen: (40 + 2(rPR)) grams/kilonewton rO.
(iv) The following Tier 2 emission standard applies for engines of
a type or model of which the date of manufacture of the first
individual production model was after December 31, 1995 or for which
the date of manufacture of the individual engine was after December 31,
1999:
Oxides of Nitrogen: (32 + 1.6(rPR)) grams/kilonewton rO.
* * * * *
(vi) The following Tier 4 emission standards apply for engines of a
type or model of which the date of manufacture of the first individual
production model was after December 31, 2003:
(e) * * *
(1) Class TF of rated output less than 26.7 kilonewtons
manufactured on or after August 9, 1985:
SN = 83.6(rO)-0.274 (rO is in kilonewtons) not to exceed
a maximum of SN = 50.
* * * * *
(f) The standards in this section refer to a composite emission
sample measured and calculated in accordance with the procedures
described in subpart G of this part.
10. Add a new Sec. 87.23 to read as follows:
Sec. 87.23 Exhaust emission standards for Tier 6 and Tier 8 engines.
This section describes the emission standards that apply for Tier 6
and Tier 8 engines. The standards of this section apply for aircraft
engines manufactured on or after [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
except where we specify that they apply differently by year, or where
the engine is exempt from one or more standards of this section. Except
as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, these standards apply
based on the date the engine is manufactured. Where the standard is
specified by a formula, calculate and round the standard to three
significant figures or to the nearest 0.1 g/kN (for standards at or
above 100 g/kN). Engines comply with an applicable standard if the
testing results show that the engine type certificate family's
characteristic level does not exceed the numerical level of that
standard, as described in Sec. 87.60. The tier of standards identified
for an engine relates to NOX emissions and that the
specified standards for HC, CO, and smoke emissions apply independent
of the changes to the NOX emission standards.
(a) New turboprop aircraft engines with rated output at or above
1,000 kilowatts must comply with a smoke standard of 187 [middot]
rO-0.168.
(b) New supersonic engines must comply with the standards shown in
the following table:
Table to Sec. 87.23(b)--Smoke and Gaseous Emission Standards for New Supersonic Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated output Smoke number HC (g/kN rated output) NOX (g/kN rated output) CO (g/kN rated output)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rO < 26.7 kN........ ............... 140 [middot] 0.92rPR... 36+2.42 [middot] rPR... 4550 [middot] rPR-1.03
rO > 26.7 kN........ 83.6 [middot] 140 [middot] 0.92rPR... 36+2.42 [middot] rPR... 4550 [middot] rPR-1.03
rO-0.274 or
50, whichever
is smaller.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) New turbofan or turbojet aircraft engines that are installed in
subsonic aircraft must comply with the following standards:
(1) The applicable smoke, HC, and CO standards are shown in the
following table:
Table to Sec. 87.23(c)(1)--Smoke, HC, and CO Standards for New
Subsonic Turbofan or Turbojet Engines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaseous emission standards (g/kN
rated output)
Rated output (kN) Smoke standard ---------------------------------
HC CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rO < 26.7 kN......... 83.6 [middot]
rO-0.274 or
50, whichever
is smaller.
rO >= 260.7 kN....... 83.6 [middot] 19.6........... 118.
rO-0.274 or
50, whichever
is smaller.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The Tier 6 NOX standards apply as described in this
paragraph (c)(2). See paragraph (d) of this section for provisions
related to models introduced before these standards started to apply
and engines determined to be derivative engines for emissions
certification purposes under the requirements of this part.
Table to Sec. 87.23(c)(2)--Tier 6 NOX Standards for New Subsonic
Turbofan or Turbojet Engines With Rated Output Above 26.7 kN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NOX emission
If the rated pressure ratio is . and the rated standard (in g/kN
. . output (in kN) is rated output) is .
. . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rPR <= 30....................... 26.7 < rO <= 89... 38.5486 + 1.6823
[middot] rPR -
0.2453 [middot]
rO-0.00308
[middot] rPR
[middot] rO
rO > 89........... 16.72 + 1.4080
[middot] rPR
30 < rPR < 82.6................. 26.7 < rO <= 89... 46.1600 + 1.4286
[middot] rPR -
0.5303 [middot]
rO + 0.00642
[middot] rPR
[middot] rO
rO > 89........... -1.04 + 2.0
[middot] rPR
rPR = 82.6........... all............... 32 + 1.6 [middot]
rPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The Tier 8 NOX standards apply as described in this
paragraph (c)(3) beginning January 1, 2014. See paragraph (d) of this
section for provisions related to models introduced before January 1,
2014 apply and engines determined to be derivative engines for
emissions certification purposes under the requirements of this part.
[[Page 45049]]
Table to Sec. 87.23(c)(3)--Tier 8 NOX Standards for New Subsonic
Turbofan or Turbojet Engines With Rated Output Above 26.7 kN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NOX emission
If the rated pressure ratio is . and the rated standard (in g/kN
. . output (in kN) is rated output) is .
. . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rPR <= 30....................... 26.7 < rO <= 89... 40.052 + 1.5681
[middot] rPR -
0.3615 [middot]
rO-0.0018
[middot] rPR
[middot] rO
rO > 89........... 7.88 + 1.4080
[middot] rPR
30 < rPR < 104.7................ 26.7 < rO <= 89... 41.9435 + 1.505
[middot] rPR -
0.5823 [middot]
rO + 0.005562
[middot] rPR
[middot] rO
rO > 89........... -9.88 + 2.0
[middot] rPR
rPR >= 104.7.................... all............... 32 + 1.6 [middot]
rPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) This paragraph specifies phase-in provisions that allow
continued production of certain engines after the Tier 6 and Tier 8
standards begin to apply.
(1) Engine type certificate families certificated with
characteristic levels at or below the Tier 4 NOX standards
of Sec. 87.21 (as applicable based on rated output and rated pressure
ratio) and introduced before [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] may
be produced through December 31, 2012 without meeting the Tier 6
NOX standards of paragraph (c)(2) of this section. This also
applies for engines that are covered by the same type certificate and
are determined to be derivative engines for emissions certification
purposes under the requirements of this part. Note that after this
production cutoff date for the Tier 6 NOX standards, such
engines may be produced only if they are covered by an exemption under
Sec. 87.50. This production cutoff does not apply to engines installed
(or delivered for installation) on military aircraft.
(2) Engine type certificate families certificated with
characteristic levels at or below the Tier 6 NOX standards
of paragraph (c)(2) of this section with an introduction date before
January 1, 2014 may continue to be produced. This also applies for
engines that are covered by the same type certificate and are
determined to be derivative engines for emissions certification
purposes under the requirements of this part.
11. Add a new subpart E containing Sec. Sec. 87.40, 87.42, 87.46,
and 87.48 to part 87 to read as follows:
Subpart E--Certification Provisions
Sec.
87.40 General certification requirement.
87.42 Production report to EPA.
87.46 Recordkeeping.
87.48 Derivative engines for emissions certification purposes.
Sec. 87.40 General certification requirement.
Manufacturers of engines subject to this part must meet the
requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
applicable.
Sec. 87.42 Production report to EPA.
Engine manufacturers must submit an annual production report as
specified in this section. This requirement applies for engines
produced on or after January 1, 2013.
(a) You must submit the report for each calendar year in which you
produce any engines subject to emission standards under this part. The
report is due by February 28 of the following calendar year. If you
produce exempted engines, you may submit a single report with
information on both exempted and non-exempted engines.
(b) Send the report to the Designated EPA Program Officer.
(c) In the report, specify your corporate name and the year for
which you are reporting. Include information as described in this
section for each engine sub-model subject to emission standards under
this part. List each engine sub-model produced or certificated during
the calendar year, including the following information for each sub-
model:
(1) The complete sub-model name, including any applicable model
name, sub-model identifier, and engine type certificate family
identifier.
(2) The certificate under which it was produced. Identify all the
following:
(i) The type certificate number. Specify if the sub-model also has
a type certificate issued by a certificating authority other than FAA.
(ii) Your corporate name as listed in the certificate.
(iii) Emission standards to which the engine is certificated.
(iv) Date of issue of type certificate (month and year).
(v) Whether or not this is a derivative engine for emissions
certification purposes. If so, identify the original certificated
engine model.
(vi) The engine sub-model that received the original type
certificate for an engine type certificate family.
(3) The calendar-year production volume of engines from the sub-
model that are covered by an FAA type certificate, or state that the
engine model is no longer in production and list the date of
manufacture (month and year) of the last engine produced. Specify the
number of these engines that are intended for use on new aircraft and
the number that are intended for use as non-exempt engines on in-use
aircraft.
(4) The number of engines tested and the number of test runs for
the applicable type certificate.
(5) The applicable test data and related information specified in
Part III, Section 2.4 of ICAO Annex 16 (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 87.8), except as otherwise allowed by this paragraph. Include the
percent of standard for the applicable standard, and for NOX
include percent of standard for all the NOX standards
specified in Sec. Sec. 87.21 and 87.23. Specify thrust in kW for
turboprop engines. You may omit the following items specified in Part
III, Section 2.4 of ICAO Annex 16:
(i) Fuel specifications including fuel specification reference and
hydrogen/carbon ratio.
(ii) Methods used for data acquisition, correcting for ambient
conditions, and data analysis.
(iii) Intermediate emission indices and rates, however you may not
omit the final characteristic level for each regulated pollutant in
units of g/kN or g/kW.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Include the following signed statement and endorsement by an
authorized representative of your company: ``We submit this report
under 40 CFR 87.42. All the information in this report is true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge.
(f) Where information provided for the previous year remains valid
and complete, you may report your production volumes and state that
there are no changes, without resubmitting the other information
specified in this section.
Sec. 87.46 Recordkeeping.
(a) You must keep a copy of any reports or other information you
submit to us for at least three years.
(b) Store these records in any format and on any media, as long as
you can promptly send us organized, written records in English if we
ask for them. You must keep these records readily
[[Page 45050]]
available. We may review them at any time.
Sec. 87.48 Derivative engines for emissions certification purposes.
(a) General. A type certificate holder may request from the FAA a
determination that an engine model is considered a derivative engine
for emissions certification purposes. This would mean that the engine
model is determined to be similar in design to a previously
certificated engine (the ``original'' engine) for purposes of
compliance with exhaust emission standards (gaseous and smoke). In
order for the engine model to be considered a derivative engine for
emission purposes under this part, it must have been derived from an
original engine that was certificated to the requirements of 14 CFR
part 33, and one of the following conditions must be met:
(1) The FAA determined that a safety issue exists that requires an
engine modification.
(2) Emissions from the derivative engines are determined to be
similar. In general, this means the emissions must meet the criteria
specified in paragraph (b) of this section. FAA may adjust these
criteria in unusual circumstances, consistent with good engineering
judgment.
(b) Emissions similarity. (1) The type certificate holder must
demonstrate that the proposed derivative engine model's emissions meet
the applicable standards and differ from the original model's emission
rates only within the following ranges:
(i) 3.0 g/kN for NOX.
(ii) 1.0 g/kN for HC.
(iii) 5.0 g/kN for CO.
(iv) 2.0 SN for smoke.
(2) If the characteristic level of the original certificated engine
model (or any other sub-models within the emission type certificate
family tested for certification) before modification is at or above 95%
of the applicable standard for any pollutant, you must measure the
proposed derivative engine model's emissions for all pollutants to
demonstrate that the derivative engine's resulting characteristic
levels will not exceed the applicable emission standards. If the
characteristic levels of the originally certificated engine model (and
all other sub-models within the emission type certificate family tested
for certification) are below 95% of the applicable standard for each
pollutant, then, you may use engineering analysis to demonstrate that
the derivative engine will not exceed the applicable emission
standards, consistent with good engineering judgment. The engineering
analysis must address all modifications from the original engine,
including those approved for previous derivative engines.
(c) Continued production allowance. Where we allow continued
production of an engine model after new standards begin to apply, you
may also produce engine derivatives if they conform to the
specifications of this section.
(d) Non-derivative engines. If the FAA determines that an engine
model does not meet the requirements for a derivative engine for
emissions certification purposes, the type certificate holder is
required to demonstrate that the engine complies with the emissions
standards applicable to a new engine type.
12. Add a new subpart F containing Sec. 87.50 to part 87 to read
as follows:
Subpart F--Exemptions and Exceptions
Sec. 87.50 Exemptions and exceptions.
This section specifies provisions related to exempting/excepting
engines from some or all of the standards and requirements of this part
87. Exempted/excepted engines must conform to regulatory conditions
specified for an exemption in this section and other applicable
regulations. Exempted/excepted engines are deemed to be ``subject to''
the standards of this part even though they are not required to comply
with the otherwise applicable requirements. Engines exempted/excepted
with respect to certain standards must comply with other standards.
Exemption requests under this section must be approved by the FAA, with
the written concurrence of EPA, to be effective. Exceptions do not
require a case-by-case FAA approval.
(a) Engines installed in new aircraft. Type certificate holders may
request an exemption to produce a limited number of newly manufactured
engines through December 31, 2016, to be installed in new aircraft as
specified in this paragraph (a). This exemption is limited to
NOX emissions from engines that are covered by a valid type
certificate issued by FAA.
(1) Submit your request for an exemption before producing the
engines to be exempted to the FAA who will provide a copy to the
Designated EPA Program Officer. Exemption by an authority outside the
United States does not satisfy this requirement. All requests must
include the following:
(i) Your corporate name and an authorized representative's contact
information.
(ii) A description of the engines for which you are requesting the
exemption including the type certificate number and date it was issued
by the FAA. Include in your description the engine model and sub-model
names and the types of aircraft in which the engines are expected to be
installed. Specify the number of engines that you would produce under
the exemption and the period during which you would produce them.
(iii) Information about the aircraft in which the engines will be
installed. Specify the airframe models and expected first purchasers/
users of the aircraft. Identify all countries in which you expect the
aircraft to be registered. Specify how many aircraft will be registered
in the United States and how many will be registered in other
countries; you may estimate this if it is not known.
(iv) A justification of why the exemption is appropriate.
Justifications must include a description of the environmental impact
of granting the exemption. Include other relevant information such as
the following.
(A) Technical issues, from an environmental and airworthiness
perspective, which may have caused a delay in compliance with a
production cutoff.
(B) Economic impacts on the manufacturer, operator(s), and aviation
industry at large.
(C) Environmental effects. This should consider the amount of
additional air pollutant emissions that will result from the exemption.
This could include consideration of items such as:
(1) The amount that the engine model exceeds the standard, taking
into account any other engine models in the engine type certificate
family covered by the same type certificate and their relation to the
standard.
(2) The amount of the applicable air pollutant that would be
emitted by an alternative engine for the same application.
(3) The impact of changes to reduce the applicable air pollutant on
other environmental factors, including emission rates of other air
pollutants, community noise, and fuel consumption.
(4) The degree to which the adverse impact would be offset by
cleaner engines produced in the same time period (unless we decide to
consider earlier engines).
(D) Impact of unforeseen circumstances and hardship due to business
circumstances beyond your control (such as an employee strike, supplier
disruption, or calamitous events).
(E) Projected future production volumes and plans for producing a
[[Page 45051]]
compliant version of the engine model in question.
(F) Equity issues in administering the production cutoff among
economically competing parties.
(G) List of other certificating authorities from which you have
requested (or expect to request) exemptions, and a summary of the
request.
(H) Any other relevant factors.
(v) A statement signed by your authorized representative attesting
that all information included in the request is accurate.
(2) In consultation with the EPA, the FAA may specify additional
conditions for the exemption. The FAA may also require additional
information pursuant to 14 CFR Parts 11 and 34, as applicable to
exemption requests made to the FAA.
(3) You must submit the annual report specified in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(4) The permanent record for each engine exempted under this
paragraph (a) must indicate that the engine is an exempted new engine.
(5) Engines exempted under this paragraph (a) must be labeled with
the following statement: ``EXEMPT NEW''.
(6) You must notify the FAA if you determine after submitting your
request that the information is not accurate, either from an error or
from changing circumstances. If you believe the new or changed
information could have affected approval of your exemption (including
information that could have affected the number of engines we exempt),
you must notify the FAA promptly. The FAA will consult with EPA as
needed to address any concerns related to this new or corrected
information.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Spare engines. Newly manufactured engines meeting the
definition of ``spare engine'' are excepted as follows:
(1) This exception allows production of a newly manufactured engine
for installation on an in-service aircraft. It does not allow for
installation of a spare engine on a new aircraft.
(2) Each spare engine must be identical to a sub-model previously
certificated to meet all requirements applicable to Tier 4 engines or
later requirements.
(3) Spare engines excepted under this paragraph (c) may be used
only where the emissions of the spare engines are equal to or lower
than those of the engines they are replacing, for all pollutants.
(4) No prior approval is required to produce spare engines. Engine
manufacturers must include information about their production of spare
engines in the annual report specified in paragraph (d) of this section
(5) The permanent record for each engine excepted under this
paragraph (c) must indicate that the engine was produced as an excepted
spare engine.
(6) Engines excepted under this paragraph (c) must be labeled with
the following statement: ``EXCEPTED SPARE''.
(d) Annual reports. If you produce engines with an exemption/
exception under this section, you must submit an annual report with
respect to such engines.
(1) You must send the Designated EPA Program Officer a report
describing your production of exempted/excepted engines for each
calendar year in which you produce such engines by February 28 of the
following calendar year. You may include this information in the
certification report described in Sec. 87.42. Confirm that the
information in your initial request is still accurate, or describe any
relevant changes.
(2) Provide the information specified in this paragraph (d)(2). For
purposes of this paragraph (d), treat spare engine exceptions separate
from other new engine exemptions. Include the following for each
exemption/exception and each engine model and sub-model:
(i) Engine model and sub-model names.
(ii) Serial number of each engine.
(iii) Use of each engine (for example, spare or new installation).
(iv) Types of aircraft in which the engines were installed (or are
intended to be installed for spare engines).
(v) Serial number of the new aircraft in which engines are
installed (if known), or the name of the air carriers (or other
operators) using spare engines.
(3) Include information in the report only for engines having a
date of manufacture within the specific calendar year.
Subpart G--Test Procedures
13. The heading for subpart G is revised as set forth above.
14. Revise Sec. 87.60 to read as follows:
Sec. 87.60 Testing engines.
(a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in Appendix 3,
Appendix 5, and Appendix 6 of ICAO Annex 16 (incorporated by reference
in Sec. 87.8), as applicable, to demonstrate whether engines meet the
gaseous emission standards specified in subpart C of this part. Measure
the emissions of all regulated gaseous pollutants. Similarly, use the
equipment and procedures specified in Appendix 2 and Appendix 6 of ICAO
Annex 16 to determine whether engines meet the smoke standard specified
in subpart C of this part. The compliance demonstration consists of
establishing a mean value from testing some number of engines, then
calculating a ``characteristic level'' by applying a set of statistical
factors that take into account the number of engines tested. Round each
characteristic level to the same number of decimal places as the
corresponding emission standard. For turboprop engines, use the
procedures specified for turbofan engines, consistent with good
engineering judgment.
(b) Use a test fuel meeting the specifications described in
Appendix 4 of ICAO Annex 16 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 87.8).
The test fuel must not have additives whose purpose is to suppress
smoke, such as organometallic compounds.
(c) Prepare test engines by including accessories that are
available with production engines if they can reasonably be expected to
influence emissions. The test engine may not extract shaft power or
bleed service air to provide power to auxiliary gearbox-mounted
components required to drive aircraft systems.
(d) Test engines must reach a steady operating temperature before
the start of emission measurements.
(e) In consultation with the EPA, the FAA may approve alternate
procedures for measuring emissions as specified in this paragraph (e).
This might include testing and sampling methods, analytical techniques,
and equipment specifications that differ from those specified in this
part. Manufacturers and operators may request this approval by sending
a written request with supporting justification to the FAA and to the
Designated EPA Program Officer. Such a request may be approved only if
one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The engine cannot be tested using the specified procedures.
(2) The alternate procedure is shown to be equivalent to or better
(e.g., more accurate or precise) than the specified procedure.
(f) The following landing and take-off (LTO) cycles apply for
emission testing and calculating weighted LTO values:
[[Page 45052]]
Table to Sec. 87.60(f)--LTO Test Cycles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turboprop Subsonic Turbofan Supersonic Turbofan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mode Percent of Time in mode Percent of Time in mode Percent of Time in mode
rated output (minutes) rated output (minutes) rated output (minutes)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take-off................................................ 100 0.5 100 0.7 100 1.2
Climb................................................... 90 2.5 85 2.2 65 2.0
Descent................................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 15 1.2
Approach................................................ 30 4.5 30 4.0 34 2.3
Taxi/ground idle........................................ 7 26.0 7 26.0 5.8 26.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Engines comply with an applicable standard if the testing
results show that the engine type certificate family's characteristic
level does not exceed the numerical level of that standard, as
described in Sec. 87.60.
Sec. 87.61 [Removed]
15. Remove Sec. 87.61
Sec. 87.62 [Removed]
16. Remove Sec. 87.62.
Sec. 87.64 [Revised]
17. Remove and reserve paragraph (a).
Sec. 87.71 [Removed]
18. Remove Sec. 87.71.
Subpart H [Removed]
19. Remove subpart H.
PART 1068--GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR ENGINE PROGRAMS
20. The authority citation for part 1068 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart A--[Amended]
21. Amend Sec. 1068.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1068.1 Does this part apply to me?
* * * * *
(b) This part does not apply to any of the following engine or
vehicle categories:
(1) Light-duty motor vehicles (see 40 CFR part 86).
(2) Heavy-duty motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, except as
specified in 40 CFR part 86.
(3) Aircraft engines, except as specified in 40 CFR part 87.
(4) Land-based nonroad compression-ignition engines we regulate
under 40 CFR part 89.
(5) Small nonroad spark-ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR
part 90.
(6) Marine spark-ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 91.
(7) Locomotive engines we regulate under 40 CFR part 92.
(8) Marine compression-ignition engines we regulate under 40 CFR
parts 89 or 94.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-17660 Filed 7-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P