( 4 pages)

CAEP.8.WP.056.2.en.doc 

### COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CAEP) EIGHTH MEETING Montréal, 1 to 12 February 2010 Agenda Item 2: Review of technical proposals rel ating to aircraft engine emissions

ADOPTION OF PRODUCTION CUT - OFF FOR EMISSION STANDARDS

(Presented by the United States) SUMMARY CAEP/8 is invited to agree that a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NOx emission Standard s and the associated exemptio n provisions developed in the revised ETM and Annex 16, Volume II should be adopted, and then implemented on the earliest practical ICAO effective date. U ltimately , a CAEP/6 production cut - off provides certainty that non - compliant engines will eventually no longer be produced

– but with the flexibility of exemptions allowing for time adjustments to ensure we lessen economic impacts. A production cut - off take s full advantage of the CAEP/6 NOx Standards environmental benefits, ensure s no backsliding, and co mmunicate s to the public the aviation sector’s commitment to improving its environmental performance. Action by the CAEP is in paragraph 3 . 1 . BACKGROUND 1 . 1 Originally the CAEP/2 emission Standard s incorporated, in addition to a future effective date for in clusion in the relevant ICAO annexes, a later production cut - off to ensure that appropriate emission control technologies were incorporated into all new engine designs and in - production engines by a certain date. Subsequently, CAEP/4 and CAEP/6 NOx Standa rd s were adopted without such a production cut - off. The lack of a production cut - off at CAEP/6 was based on the view that market forces were sufficient to bring non - compliant engines into compliance with the new requirements (voluntary compliance). As a r esult, engines that do not meet current emission requirements have continued to be

International Civil Aviation Organization 

### WORKING PAPER CAEP/8 - WP/56 15/12/09 English onlyCAEP/8 - WP/56 - 2 -

produced and introduced into the fleet after the CAEP/6 NOx Standard s became effective on January 1, 2008 (the ICAO effective date). 1 1 . 2 At the first m eeting of the CAEP Steer ing Group for the CAEP/8 cycle in Zurich, Switzerland (November 26 - 30, 2007) the U.S. recommend ed that CAEP assess a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NOx Standards during the CAEP/8 cycle (CAEP - SG/20071 - WP/26) . The CAEP Steering Group requested that the F orecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group (FESG) and Working Group 3 conduct appropriate analyses and report to the 2008 Steering Group meeting (CAEP - SG/20071 - SD/4). 1 . 3 FESG presented the result of the analyses at the second meeting of the CAEP Steering Group meeting in Seattle, Washington (September 22 - 26, 2008), (CAEP - SG/20082 - WP/6). FESG presented information showing that two non - compliant engine families remained in production at very low sales volumes and would soon be out of production. Accordingl y, FESG reported that the environmental benefit from implementing a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NOx Standard would be negligible. CAEP - SG/20082 - SD/1 and CAEP - SG/20082 - SD/4 document the discussions that took place regarding this issue. Due to the con cerns of some CAEP members, the Steering Group directed FESG and the Modelling and Database Task Force (MODTF) to further analyze the costs and benefits associated with a CAEP/6 NOx emission Standard production cut - off. 1 . 4 At the Working Group 3 (WG3) meeting in London, United Kingdom (April 1 - 3, 2009) the U.S. EPA submitted CAEP - WG3 - WP6 - 14 that invited the Group to recommend that the Steering Group consider recommending that CAEP adopt a CAEP/6 NOx Standard production cut - off at the 8 th meeting of CAEP in Feb ruary 2010. Additionally, the U.S. EPA submitted CAEP - WG3 - WP6 - 16 regarding potential revisions to the existing exemption provisions of Annex 16, Volume II. Also, the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA) present ed a flimsy asserting that ―[f]or CAEP/6 ICCAIA can state with confidence that it is highly likely that all commercial engines in production by the end of 2010 will meet CAEP/6 NOx Standard s. ‖ 1 . 5 At the last CAEP Steering Group meeting in Salvador, Brazil ( June 22 - 26, 2009), Working Group 3 reported (CAEP - SG/20093 - WP/18 and CAEP - SG/20093 - SD/4) that additional work had been initiated to provide guidance on the process and criteria for granting exemptions against CAEP NOx production cut - off requirements. The U .S. presented CAEP - SG/20093 - WP/39 recommending that at CAEP/8, CAEP adopt a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NOx Standard and develop production cut - off associated flexibilities in the form of exemption provisions. Also at this meeting, CAEP - SG/20093 - IP/ 19 was submitted discussing FESG’s estimate of the cost and environmental benefit resulting from a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NOx Standard. FESG found that it would not result in any significant environmental benefit, and if exemptions are granted, the costs would be negligible. Also, the Steering Group stated (CAEP - SG/20093 - SD/2) that ―although there was no objection in principle from the [Steering Group] members for a production cut - off of CAEP/6 NOx Standards production cut - off, there were so me outstanding issues. CAEP SG agreed to address appropriately the issues related to exemptions and timing for the earliest implementation to allow for recommending to the ICAO Council at CAEP/8 the adoption of such a cut - off...‖ 1 . 6 At the WG3 meeting in Mont réal, Canada (September 28 - October 2, 2009) the Certification Task Group (CTG) Environmental Technical Manual (ETM) ad - hoc group submitted CAEP8 - WG - WP7 - 14 that contained an updated version of the ETM on the process and criteria for the exemptions to the N Ox production cut - off requirements. These provisions were approved by WG3, and
1 The effective date for the CAEP/6 NOx Standards in Annex 16, Volume II is after December 31, 2007.CAEP/8 - WP/56 - 3 - two papers (CAEP/8 - WP/17 and CAEP/8 - WP/18) from the Working Group referencing the Group’s approval of these exemption provisions via revisions to Annex 16, Volume II and guidanc e material in the Emissions Environmental Technical Manual is expected at CAEP/8. 2 . DISCUSSION 2 . 1 Below are additional points worth noting regarding a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NOx Standard. We believe it is necessary that once we have established a t echnology - following (as opposed to technology - forcing) Standard , we should consider its application in the form of a production cut - off in order to take advantage of its environmental benefits, ensure no backsliding, and communicate to the public the aviat ion sector’s commitment to improving its environmental performance. We believe it is important for the regulatory framework to offer certainty . 2 . 2 T h e production cut - off is not new. All NOx stringency Standard s through CAEP/2 included a production cut - off as part of the Standard . It was only in CAEP/4 that a new NOx stringency did not include such consideration. By recommending a production cut - off at the CAEP/6 stringency level, we are returning to past practice. 2 . 3 W e realize that there may be concern by s ome over the possibility of economic costs for some manufacturers and operators. However, such issues w ould be addressed with exemptions to allow for the continued support of existing aircraft types . This would include, for example, exemption provision s for spares; that would be used as replacements for engines and for maintenance purposes, and production of a small volume of non - compliant new engines over a certain period . Additionally, engines built for military applications would not be covered by the cut - off. 2 . 4 W e also realize that there may be concern by some that adopting a CAEP/6 production cut - off may be inconsistent with CAEP’s terms of reference ( technical feasibili ty, economic reasonableness, environmental benefit , and potential interdependence ). 2 . 5 With regard to technological feasibility, we have already agreed to the CAEP/6 Standard . It is technology - following. It would never have been set if it was not technologically feasible. W ith regard to economic reasonableness, we believe that the exem ptions develope d by WG3 will fully mitigate this concern. CAEP/8 - WP/17 and CAEP/8 - WP/18 states the Group’s approval of the exemptions as listed, and as described earlier, FESG in paragraph 3.2 of CAEP - SG/20093 - IP/19 states that this proposal will not resul t in any significant costs in the event that exemptions are offered. With regard to environmental benefit, the production cut - off provides certainty of meeting the Standard . In the short term, we would see a small benefit, but this would grow over time. With regard to interdependencies

– this was also addressed when ICAO set the CAEP/6 NOx Standard

– so it is not an issue for a production cut - off . 2 . 6 We believe that ultimately a CAEP/6 production cut - off provides certainty that non compliant engines will ev entually no longer be produced

– but with the flexibility of exemptions allowing for time adjustments to ensure we lessen economic impacts. 2 . 7 In addition, the statement from the ICCAIA flimsy described above in paragraph 1.4 make s it clear that within three years after the implementation date of newly certified engines (after December 31, 2007 for CAEP/6 Standard s), industry will have completely responded to the market demand for CAEP/6 - compliant engines. Given these circu mstances, a production cut - off for C AEP/6CAEP/8 - WP/56 - 4 -

NOx Standard s would appropriately codify current practice into Annex 16, Volume II. While plans are in place for all commercial engines in production to meet CAEP/6 NOx Standard s early in the next decade , as of today , not all production models meet the CAEP/6 NOx emission Standard s. Applying a production cut - off ensures progress in reducing aircraft engine NOx emissions. 3 . ACTION BY THE CAEP 3 . 1 The CAEP is invited to:

a ) agree that a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NOx emission Standards and the associ ated exemption provisions developed in the revised ETM and Annex 16, Volume II should be adopted, and then implemented on the earliest practical ICAO effective date by which the CAEP Secretariat can obtain Council approval and incorporate into the Annex.

— END

—