WG3 - Flimsy 6 - 2



### ICAO COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION WORKING GROUP 3 – EMISSIONS TECHNICAL

London, England April 1 - 3, 2009 Response to U.S. EPA Papers 14 and 16 (Presented by ICCAIA)

1. Introduction ICCAIA would first of all like to thank the U.S. EPA for once again participating directly i n the CAEP Working Group 3 meeting. This enables more direct contact on issues both important to the Agency and important to the manufacturers. This paper is written in respons e to several issues with regards to the 3 working papers submitted to the 6 th meeting of CAEP Working Group 3 during the CAEP8 cycle. 2. WP14 Production Cut - Offs for NOx Standards At the September 2008 Steering Group Meeting in Seattle, the meeting agree d to proceed with further studies of a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NOx standards in FESG and MODTF (CAEP - SG/20082_SD/4). These studies would focus on the anal ys is of costs and benefits of a CAEP/6 NOx production cut - off. In the current EPA paper they suggest various reasons why they wish to push for production cut - off regulations for aviation with the following paragraph being one of the main reasons: “In domestic U.S. programs, for mobile sources (except aircraft), manufacturers must recertify th eir product lines each year, thus creating some form of a production cut - off on the first year of a new emission standard. To accommodate reasonable business practice, the U.S. EPA has incorporated various provisions to Summary This working paper responds to the issues brought to CAEP WG3 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Working Papers 14 and 16. ICCAIA is pleased that the U.S. EPA are once again directl y involved in the CAEP process and within CAEP work on anal ys is on whether there is a need for production cut - offs for NOx standards. I CCAIA believes the evidence presented within CAEP proves that market forces do indeed show that the manufacturers voluntarily compl y with new CAEP NOx standards. For CAEP6 I CCAIA can state with confidence that it is highly likel y that all commercial engines in production by the end of 2010 will meet the CAEP6 NOx standards. ICCAIA recommends that any analysis for the requirement for producti on cut - off provisions for any future CAEP8 standard should not be considered in advance of any CAEP8 standard setting procedure be completed. ICCAIA supports the work to include suitable exemption text and guidance in Annex 16 and the ETM and recommends t hat CAEP WG3 support the inclusion of this work in the future work programme.WG3 - Flimsy 6 - 2

ensure an orderl y product phase - in and phase - out (e.g., annual % phase - in/phase - out requirements b y models or production), but in no case are previously certified engine families grandfathered into the new program indefinitely . Such provisions are very workable in other sectors, but may be less attractive in the aviation sector. As discussed in CAEP - SG/20071 - WP/26, ultimately , for the U.S. and the nations of many participating CAEP members, the aviation sector stands as the onl y source that is allowed to indefinitely

produce existing engines that do not meet the latest emission standards.” IC CAIA wish to state a few points with regards to this statement: - (i) It has been proven within CAEP that market forces mean that aircraft engine manufacturers have voluntary complied with CAEP NOx standard s within a suitable timeframe from when the regulations were first agreed. (ii) Aircraft engines are covered b y airworthiness regulations throughout their life and an y changes to such engines have to get approval from the airworthiness authorities. It is noted that there are virtually no examples where an aircraft engine has been re - certificated with inferior NOx emissions after the original certification date. (iii) Furthermore CAEP has accepted advice on the minor affect of in - service deterioration CAEP - WG3 - CETG - WP 5 - 6 on NOx emissions. (iv) Finally

at this meeting a paper is being presented, that has been accepted by the EPA on applicability of emissions standards for engines that covers the issue of post certification changes CAEP - WG3 - CTG6 - WP6 - Att A. EPA makes various further claims that engine manufacturers do not voluntary compl y with CAEP NOx standards and the EPA states, “For the same reasons, a production cut - off should be considered for the CAEP/8 NOx stringency increase. Although CAEP - SG/20082 - WP6, Production Cu t- Off for Engine NOx Standards (Presented b y FESG Rapporteurs, September 4, 2008), asserts that market forces have worked in the absence of a production cut - off, we believe there is still much to gain by considering and possibly

adopting a production cut - o ff provision. Ultimately , a production cut - off may best ensure that backsliding does not occur and that the emission reduction benefits expected from the new standards are achieved.” In the recommendations EPA suggest production cut - off standards “8 ye ars ” after the agreement on NOx regulations. On the one hand this paragraph accepts the FESG assertion that market forces are working, and yet on the other hand it still wishes to push for production cut - off rules for CAEP8. (a) ICCAIA expects the continued wor k of the FESG will maintain that a production cut - off provision for the CAEP6 standard is not required due to market forces providing the incentive. (b) ICCAIA asks that the meeting note that ICCAIA member companies have alway s voluntaril y met and often better ed the “8 years” criterion used in the EPA Working Paper in the past. (c) ICCAIA suggests that any discussion on CAEP8 production cut - off regulations be referred directl y to SG, but I CCAIA wish to note that imposition of this work during this cycle is inapprop riate, as FESG will not have time to consider this in their anal ys is.WG3 - Flimsy 6 - 2

(d) ICCAIA recommends that an y work on CAEP8 production cut - off considerations does not start until some time into the CAEP9 cycle, and ICCAIA further notes that its membership does not bel ieve there is a necessity to complete such work as history has shown that manufacturers voluntarily comply with CAEP NOx standards. 3. WP16 Exemption Working Paper ICCAIA supports the work to include suitable exemption text and guidance in Annex 16 and the ETM. This is primarily covered in the work of the ad - hoc group on Annex 16 and ETM referenced in CAEP - WG3 - CTG6 - WP5, and I CCAIA thanks the EPA for becoming involved in this ad - hoc group. IC CAIA does not believe that just including such provisions in the CAEP recommendations should be some kind of green light for production cut - off regulations for the reasons stated in section 3. EPA makes the following very good points that ICCAIA supports: - “The language for these allowances, which is contained in 2.1. 1.1 of Volume II, can be interpreted and implemented in a variety of ways. The U.S. has applied this allowance in its regulations (40 CFR 87.7) to create three broad categories for potential exemptions from U.S. emissions standards: (1) temporary exemptio ns, (2) very low production exemptions, and (3) hardship exemptions. The temporary exemptions address situations such as aircraft manufactured in the U.S. that are being exported. The exemption for very low production models allows for consideration of e xemptions of a total production for U.S. civil aviation of up to 200 units covered b y the same ty

pe certificate after January 1, 1984. The hardship provision potentially allows exemptions based on other factors. The term “exemption” is not defined in U.S . aircraft regulations, but the regulatory exemptions are drafted such that exempted aircraft engines are exempted only from emission standards while remaining subject to the regulations overall.” “Reciprocity. The language related to exemptions does not address whether exemptions issued by

one certificating authority should necessarily be accepted by other authorities. Whether or not such reciprocity is assumed directl y affects the need for the Annex to include detailed provisions related to exemptions in this area. In creased specificity of the Annex would likely increase the likelihood that reciprocity

would be seen as appropriate. Some degree of reciprocity is already covered under existing bilateral agreements. Greater specificity in these provision s would promote a harmonized approach to granting exemptions and thus reinforce the utility of current reciprocity

agreements.” 5. Recommendations ICCAIA recommends that any analysis for the requirement for production cut off provisions for any future CAEP8 standard should not be considered in advance of any CAEP8 standard setting procedure be completed. ICCAIA supports the work to include suitable exemption text and guidance in Annex 16 and the ETM and recommends that CAEP WG3 support the inclusion o f this work.