# Aircraft Engine NOx Emission Standards

Summary of Final Rulemaking

Briefing for Office of Management and Budget

March 5, 2012

## 2 

# Introduction

 

### This final rule updates our regulations to be consistent with newer International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

### standards, practices, and guidelines
 

### We have worked cooperatively with FAA at ICAO on all aspects of the draft final rule
 

### Our regulatory development included discussions with all 

### engine manufacturers, and outreach to Boeing, Airlines for America (U.S. a ir carriers), and the European Aviation Safety Agency (FAA’s European counterpart)

– FAA fully supports the final rule

– Engine manufacturers and the aerospace industry are supportive

– These parties are requesting a final rule ASAP to avoid any possible delay in implementing the rules by FAA
 

### The final rule is needed to remain consistent with U.S. treaty obligations and bilateral agreements

## 3 

# Background
- Scope of the Proposal

1. Adopt the existing ICAO NOx standard (Tier 6 standard) and ICAO’s corresponding Tier 6 production cutoff a. Include exemption and exception provisions to allow limited production of engines meeting the previous ICAO NOx standard (Tier 4 standard) b. Exemption provisions sunset after four years 

### 2. Adopt the more recent ICAO NOx standard (Tier 8 standard) 3. Incorporate other ICAO changes to recommended practices 4. Require aircraft engine certification data submission to EPA 5. Update regulatory structure and text of 40 CFR Part 87 The final rule mirrors the proposal with the exception of the exemption provisions noted in 1.a., which we will describe later in this briefing

## 4 

# Background
- NPRM Dates and Public Comments

 

### NPRM Published

- July 27, 2011
 

### Public hearing

- August 11, 2011 with one witness
 

### Public comment period

- closed September 30, 2011

– Received comments from 7 entities: Pratt and Whitney, GE, Rolls Royce, Williams International, Aerospace Industries Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association, Air Transport Association (now Airlines for America)

– Two significant comments (comments/responses fully discussed later)
 Need for expedited exemptions from the January 1, 2013 Tier 6 production cut

- off
 Leadtime for FAA to formally recognize conformity with new standards for existing engine models

## 5 

# Summary of FRM

– Standards

 

### Adopt ICAO NOx standards, practices, & production cut

- off as proposed

 

### Tier 6 NOx standard and production cut

- off

– NOx standard effective May 2012

 Actually enacted by ICAO effective end of 2007

 12% reduction from Tier 4

 Production cut

- off after December 31, 2012

 All production engines must meet Tier 6 NOx after that date

 

### Tier 8 NOx standard and other provisions

– NOx standard effective after December 31, 2013

 Consistent with ICAO agreement

 15% reduction from Tier 6

 

### Consistent with U.S. treaty obligations and bilateral agreements to align with ICAO

## 6 

# Summary of FRM: Exemptions 

# and Exceptions

 

### Adopts exemptions/exceptions as proposed with one modification to address industry comment below

 

### Starting Jan. 1, 2013, manufacturers will need an exemption or exception to make a new engine not meeting the Tier 6 NOx standards

— still must meet other standards, including Tier 4

– Exceptions for spare engines

- limited to in

- use fleet maintenance, repair, or replacement

– Time

- limited exemptions for new production engines (consistent with ICAO)

 Based on detailed justification for the period 2013

- 2016

- no exemptions after that time

 FAA is process owner, but EPA and FAA must jointly agree on the finding

## 7 

# Summary of FRM: Resolution of 

# Comment on Expedited Exemptions

– 

### Low

- volume, time

- limited exceptions for new production engines

 One domestic manufacturer requested ―one

- time, automatic‖ exemptions claiming:

– Inadequate leadtime to submit exemption request and for FAA/EPA to act without significantly disrupting contract delivery schedules

– Substantial adverse economic affects for engine manufacturer, aircraft manufacturer, and airlines

– Involves six engines for two models that are at end of production life

– Contracts for these engines were written years ago and they are destined for the Far East

– Deliveries scheduled for January 2013 through June 2013

## 8 

# Summary of FRM: Resolution of Comment on Expedited Exemptions 

# (cont’d)

 

### We find it is reasonable to provide low

- volume, time

- limited exceptions to accommodate these few engines

– Prevents significant economic disruption to the U.S. aviation industry (engine and aircraft manufacturers)

– Exceptions avoid lead time associated with formal exemption request and approval, and can be implemented without new FAA rulemaking

– Similar to past transitional provisions for very low

- production aircraft engines

– Exceptions are limited to six engines per engine manufacturer and expire after August 30, 2013

– Consistent with current U.S. bilateral agreements

## 9 

# Summary of FRM: Resolution of Comment on FAA Conformity 

# Determination

 Engine manufacturers concerned that inadequate time exists between EPA final rule and the date of the Tier 6 production cutoff

 FAA has told us there is a high risk of not completing their implementing final rule (following ours) in time to certify engines under their Part 34 regulations

 FAA has now developed an approach to certify engines based on new EPA Part 87, avoiding immediate need for revised Part 34

– They can do this because emission data for essentially all engine models used to obtain current type certificates also met Tier 6

– Maintains consistency with U.S. bilateral agreements

– FAA fully committed to ensure success of this program

 FAA tied the timeline for their approach to EPA FRM signature by May 31, 2012

 FAA believes the final rule is essential by the end of May to avoid risk of disrupting US commerce

## 10 

# Rulemaking Schedule Needs

 

### FAA and manufacturers asking for the final rule ASAP to ensure adequate lead time for FAA certification of existing engines and 

### avoid the potentially disruptive economic consequences of the January 1, 2013 production cutoff

 

### They have also asked for final rule to assist in product marketing by removing market uncertainty regarding compliance with all 

### international emission standards

 

### All issues raised in comment s have been resolved

 

### Both FAA and the aerospace industry support the final rule

 

### Prompt OMB review is needed to help achieve FAA and industry Tier 6 certification needs and maintain treaty/bilateral agreements