Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 1 of 164

EO12866_Aircraft Engine Emission Standards 2060-AO70 NPRM Rulemaking 

Document_2011/03/25

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 87 and 1068

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687; FRL-XXXX-X]

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 proposesseveral new NOxemission 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 2 of 164

subject to any exhaust emission standard toprovide 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, the United States will (1) further 

reduce emissions from mobile sources, (2) embrace the science and technology that have 

considered these issues on an international level, and (3) maintain consistency with these 

international efforts in accordance with the agreements of the ICAO. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 60 days after 

publication in the Federal Register.] 

Hearing: The public hearing will be held [insert dateno fewer than 15 days 

after publication andat least 30 days before end of comment period]at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, XXXBuilding, Room Number XXX,1201 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC20004, Telephone: (202) 564-1682. See 

section VIII for more information about public hearings. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0687, by one of the following methods:
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 3 of 164

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

 Email: A-and-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov.

 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, DC20460. 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, DC20503.

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 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 4 of 164

comment directly to EPA without going through 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 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPADocketCenter, 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 EPADocketCenter is 

202-566-1742
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 5 of 164

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Bryan Manning, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48130; telephone number: (734) 214-

4832; fax number: (734) 214-4816; email address:manning.bryan@epa.gov. 

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 NAICSa Codes SIC CodesbExamples of potentially affected entities

Industry .......... 336412 3724 Manufacturers of new aircraft engines

Industry .......... 336411 3721 Manufacturers of new aircraft 

aNorth 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 action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 87.1 (part 87). If you have any 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 6 of 164

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. NOxInventory 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?
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 7 of 164

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. NOxStandards 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 NOxStandards for Newly-Manufactured Engines

1. Phase-In of the Tier 6 NOx Standards for NewlyManufactured 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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 8 of 164

i. Time-Frame and Scope

ii. Production Limit

iii. Exemption Requests

iv. Foreign Aircraft

c. Voluntary Emission Offsets

3. Potential Phase-In of New Tier 8 NOx Standards for NewlyManufactured Engines

C. Application of Standards for Derivative Engines for Emissions 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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 9 of 164

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 10 of 164

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 engines1 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. Newlymanufactured engine standards are also sometimes referred to as “production cutoff”

standards.Second, we are proposing certain time-limited flexibilities, i.e., the potential for 

 

1 Turbofan and turbojet engines will be collectively referred to as turbofan engines hereafter for 

convenience. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 11 of 164

exemptions 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. 

We are also proposing a number of additional changes that would apply toa wider 

range of aircraft gas turbine engines2thanthose thatwould 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 emissions 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 wouldprovide 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 wouldbe 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 

 

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). 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 12 of 164

areonly 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 requirements, exemptions, and incorporation by 

reference.

Most of these proposed regulatory requirements have already been adoptedor 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 internationalstandards 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 herjudgment 

causes or contributes to air pollution thatmay 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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 13 of 164

§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 D.C. 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 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 

In addition, under CAA section 231(b)EPA is required to ensure, in consultation 

with the U.S. Departmentof 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

 

 

3The functions of the Secretary of Transportation under part B of title II of the Clean Air Act (§§ 231-234, 

42 U.S.C. 7571-7574) have been delegated to the Administrator of the FAA. 49 CFR 1.47(g).
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 14 of 164

It also describes DOT’s responsibility under the CAA to enforce the aircraft emission 

standards established by EPA.

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 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 website located 

at www.icao.int.

5 Members of ICAO’s Assembly are generally termed memberStates or contracting States. These terms are 

used interchangeably throughout this preamble.

6 There are currently 190 Contracting States according to ICAO website located at www.icao.int.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 15 of 164

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 practicesthat 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.7Second, States are required to recognize the airworthiness 

certificates of any State whose standards are at least as stringent as ICAO’s standards, 

thereby assuringthat aircraft of any member State will be permitted to operate in any

other member State. Third, and finally, to ensure that international commerceis 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 

 

7Article 33 ICAO, “Convention on International Civil Aviation,” Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 2006. 

Copies of this document can be obtained from the ICAO website located at www.icao.int.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 16 of 164

standards.8,9 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.

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 study groups, work groups, committees and other contributing 

memberships that 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 

 

8

ICAO, “Convention on International Civil Aviation,” Articles 87 and 88, Ninth Edition, Document 

7300/9, 2006. Copies of this document can be obtained from the ICAO website located at www.icao.int.

9

ICAO, “Convention on International Civil Aviation,” Article 38, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 2006. 

Copies of this document can be obtained from the ICAO website located at www.icao.int..
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 17 of 164

then becomes part of ICAO standards and recommended practices (Annex 16 to the 

Chicago Convention).10

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 

moreconsistent 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.) This included new NOx emission standards for newlymanufacturedcommercial turbofan engines (those engines built after the effective date of 

 

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.

11U.S. EPA, “Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Aircraft;” Final Rule, 38 FR 19088, July 17, 

1973.

12U.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 at 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 18 of 164

the regulations that were already certified to pre-existing standards)13 and for newlycertified commercialturbofan 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 commercialturbofan engines. Second, in our most 

recent rulemaking in 2005, we promulgated more stringent NOx emission standards for 

newly-certified commercialturbofan 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 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

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 

 

13This does not mean that in 2005 we promulgated requirements for the re-certification or retrofit of 

existing in-use engines.

14U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures;” Final Rule, 70 FR 2521, November 17, 2005.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 19 of 164

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.

17,18The 

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 

 

15 ICAO, Foreword of “Aircraft Engine Emissions,” International Standards and Recommended Practices, 

Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, Third Edition, July 2008. Copies of this document can be 

obtained from the ICAO website at www.icao.int.

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.

18ICAO, “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 website at 

www.icao.int.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 20 of 164

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.

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 

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 ozone.21Many commercial airports are located in urban 

areas and many of these areas have ambient pollutant levels above the National Ambient 

 

19 CAEP/7 did not address new aircraft engine emission standards.

20 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.

21Ground-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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 21 of 164

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 the health and welfare impacts of NOx and PM

emissions.

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, known as non-LTO emissions. Collectively, theemissions 

associated with all ground and flight operations are generally referred to as full flight 

emissions.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 22 of 164

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 turbineengine aircraft, both nationally and for selected ozone nonattainment areas (NAAs). 

These inventories reflect emissions during the land 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, and according to the 

EPA National Emissions Inventory for 2008, the contribution of commercial aviation 

NOx emissions is less than 1% of the total inventory for the United States. A summary

of the national inventory is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Current National NOX Emissions from Commercial Aircraft

 

22“Historical Assessment of Aircraft Emissions (1986-2008),” Eastern Research Group, March XX, 2001. 

A copy of this document can be found in public docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 23 of 164

Aircraft Category 2008 Total NOX (thousand tons)

Air Carrier 86

Commuter/Air Taxi 11

Total Commercial 97

This historical analysis also included an assessment of selected ozone 

nonattainment areas (NAAs). The top 25 ozone NAAs were identified based first in 

terms of NAAs with airports which had high commercial traffic volumes and then those 

with the largest population. There was some overlap, and this led to a total of 41 NAAs 

for the study. These 41 NAAs collectively include 200 airports, accounting for about 70 

percent of commercial air traffic operations. Current (2008) NOX emissions for these 41 

NAAs are shown in Table 2. The relative contribution of aircraft in any given NAA 

would vary based on activity in other transportation and industrial sectors.

Table 2: Current NOX Emissions in Selected Ozone Nonattainment Areas

Nonattainment Area 2008 Total NOX (tons)

Albuquerque, NM 382
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 24 of 164

Anchorage, AK 2562

Aspen 19

Atlanta, GA 5834

Baltimore, MD 1159

Boston-Lawrence-Worcester (eastern MA), MA 1907

Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth (southeast NH), NH 224

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 2039

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN 6024

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 1289

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH 712

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 3900

Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 2685

Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI 2328

El Paso, TX 224

Greater Connecticut, CT 413

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 3062

Indianapolis, IN 1093

Las Vegas, NV 2314

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA 6532

Louisville, KY-IN 1211

Memphis, TN-AR 2996

Milwaukee-Racine, WI 558

Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 2170

New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 10319

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NY-MD-DE 2432

Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 2307

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA 508

Providence (entire State), RI 240

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 593

Reno, NV 249

Riverside County (Coachella Valley), CA 75

Sacramento Metro, CA 608

Salt Lake City, UT 1250

San Diego, CA 1046

San Francisco Bay Area, CA 4447

San Joaquin Valley, CA 86

Seattle-Tacoma, WA 2242

St. Louis, MO-IL 813

Syracuse, NY 152

Washington, DC-MD-VA 3028

Table 3 shows how commercial aircraft operations are projected to rise in the 

future. As operations increase, the inventory impact of these aircraft on national and 

local NOX inventories and on ozone and PM levels will also increase.

Table 3: Current and Projected Commercial Aircraft Operations
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 25 of 164

Year Air Carrier 

Operations

(millions)

Commuter/

Air Taxi 

Operations

(millions)

Total 

Commercial 

Operations

(millions)

Total increase in 

commercial 

operations over 

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

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.23 Based on the data and methodology of the authors, this effect is 

caused primarily by two pathways:

 

23Barrett, 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 26 of 164

1. 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). 

2. Aviation NOx emissions promote ozone formation throughout the troposphere and 

hence increase 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 underestimated). 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, the existence of other research into this area, 

and the implications of these analyses on assessing the need for additional controls on 

aircraft engine emissions in the future.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 27 of 164

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 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 and/or maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS).24

1. Background on Ozone, PM and NOX

 

24 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 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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 28 of 164

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.25 

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.

 

25U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 29 of 164

b. What is Particulate Matter?

The discussion focuses on 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 

μm), 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 μm and less than or 

equal to 10 μm, or PM10-2.5). Ultrafine particles are a subset of fine particles, generally 

less than 100 nanometers (0.1 μm) 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, 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 30 of 164

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 through 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?
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 31 of 164

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.26, 

27People 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 

 

26U.S. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 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.

27U.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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 32 of 164

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 ozonerelated mortality should be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone 

exposure.28 Animal toxicological evidence indicates that with repeated exposure, ozone 

can 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.

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 

 

28National Research Council (NRC), 2008.Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits 

from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.A copy of this 

document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 33 of 164

Assessment for Particulate Matter (ISA).

29The ISA summarizes evidence associated with 

PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and ultrafine particles (UFPs), and concludes the following.

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.

30The 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 functiongrowth, increased 

respiratory symptoms, and asthma development.31 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 PM2.5and cardiovascular effects and mortality. Furthermore, the ISA 

 

29U.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 

30U.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.

31U.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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 34 of 164

concludes that the collective evidence supports likely causal associations between shortand 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.

32

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 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. 

 

32U.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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 35 of 164

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.33 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 following30-minute exposures of asthmatics to NO2 concentrations as low as 

0.26 ppm. In addition, small but significant increases in non-specific airway hyperresponsiveness were reported following 1-hour exposuresof asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO2. 

 

33U.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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 36 of 164

Second, exposure to NO2 has been found to enhance the inherentresponsiveness 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. 

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, 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 37 of 164

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 negatively affecting forest sustainability. Major effects include a decline in 

sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce (Picearubens) 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, 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 38 of 164

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.34

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.35 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). 

 

34U.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.

35U.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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 39 of 164

b. Visibility Effects

NOx emissions contribute to visibility impairment in the U.S. through the 

formation of secondary PM2.5.

36Visibility 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 2009PM ISA.37

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 

 

36U.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.

37U.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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 40 of 164

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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 41 of 164

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.38 However as of 2008, approximately 127 million people lived in counties that 

exceeded any NAAQS.39 These numbers do not include the people living in areas where 

there is a future risk of failing to maintain or attain the NAAQS. 

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 

 

38U. 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/. 

39U. 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 athttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2010/. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 42 of 164

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.40

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 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 wouldhave 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 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 

 

40U.S. EPA (2010), Fact Sheet Revisions to Ozone Standards. This document can be accessed 

electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/fs20100106std.pdf
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 43 of 164

2008 ozone standard of 0.075 ppm (75 ppb).41 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 μg/m3and 26 counties with a population of 

over 41 million may not attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m

3

.

42

 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, wouldalso benefit from any 

reductions in NOX ensuring long-term maintenance of the NAAQS.

There are currently no NO2 nonattainment areas. However, the NO2 standards 

were recently revised and a new 1-hour NO2 standard was promulgated.43 

Nonattainment area designations for the 1-hour NO2 standard are expectedto be finalized 

in 2012. These proposed aircraft NOx reductions would be useful to states in attaining or 

maintaining the NO2 standards.

III. Details of the Proposed Rule

 

41U.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.

42U.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.

43U.S. EPA, "Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide;" Final Rule, 75 FR 

6474, February 9, 2010.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 44 of 164

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).44 Each of the tiers would potentially apply to newly-certified 

engines. Newly-certified aircraft engines are those thatwould 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.

45

We are also proposing to apply the first tier of the two tiers of standards to newlymanufactured engines. Newly-manufactured aircraft enginesare 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 

 

44 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 V.A.2. for more information 

regarding noncommercial applications.

45 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. Copies of this document can be obtained from the ICAO website 

at www.icao.int.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 45 of 164

newly-certified engines, but at a later date or cease production.46 The end of this “phasein” period for the newly-manufactured engine standards is sometimesreferred 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.

Five other regulatory features are being proposed in today’s action. First, we are 

proposing to revise provisions addressingcertain 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 

reasons47. 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 sufficiently from its existing parent 

engine design, and must show compliance with the emissions standard for a newly 

 

46 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 website at www.icao.int. 

47 These apply only to the Tier 6 NOx standards as discussed below. We are not yet proposing a production 

cutoff for the Tier 8 NOx standard.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 46 of 164

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.

As discussed further below, with the exception of the annual reporting 

requirement discussed 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 manneronce ICAO completes its process. We anticipate that our final standards 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 47 of 164

would generally conform to ICAO’s final standards, once adopted. This wouldbetter 

enablethe 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 standardswerewell documented by our own analyses and CAEP as 

described later in this section and in section V., Regulatory Impacts. 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 regardingleadtime,

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 48 of 164

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 49 of 164

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 NOxstandards 

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 26.7kN.

48

 (See section III.B for a discussion of how 

these standards would apply for newly-manufactured engines that are not considered to 

 

48 There are no gaseous emission standards, e.g., NOx, for gas turbine engines with maximum rated thrusts 

equal to or less than 26.7kN. These engines are, however, subject to smoke and fuel venting standards.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 50 of 164

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.

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 

demonstratecompliance with these internationalstandards, or are already planning to do 

so for upcoming engine designs. Based on this, and on our evaluation of the necessary

leadtime, 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 higherand lower-rated thrust engines. Higher output engines are defined as having rated thrusts 

equal to or greater than 89kN, while lower output engines are defined as having rated 

thrusts less than 89kN but greater than 26.7kN. The proposed Tier 6 NOxstandards for 

each of these power grouping are described separately below.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 51 of 164

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;
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 52 of 164

• Retain the slope of the CAEP/4 standard for pressure ratios equal toor greater than62.5 

for the CAEP/6 pressure ratios at or above 82.6.49

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 NOxstandards, 

which were based on CAEP/4, for comparison. 

 

49 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 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 53 of 164

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 

NOxTier 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 

Figure 1: Proposed Tier 6 NOx Standards for 

Higher Thrust Engines

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10 30 50 70 90

Pressure Ratio (PR)

g/kN Thrust

Existing Standard

Proposed Tier 6

8% Reduction

Current Engine PRs

12% Reduction
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 54 of 164

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 89.0kN 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 55 of 164

available to their larger counterparts. These technical difficulties are well documented 

and increase progressively as size is reduced (from around 89kN).50 For example, the 

relatively small combustor51 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.52 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, i.e., CAEP/6 relative to 

 

50ICAO/CAEP, “Report of Third Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, December 5-15, 1995,” Document 9675, 

CAEP/3.

51 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.

52 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 56 of 164

CAEP/4, as the rated output and physical size of the engines decrease. We agree with 

this approach.

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 89kN, which is the 

demarcation point between the two sets of standards, shows that the standards for lower 

thrust engines arenumerically 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 89.0kN delineation point. 

Again focusing only on 89kN engines, the proposed Tier 6 standards represent a 

12 percent reduction from the existing EPA CAEP/4-based standards (Tier 4) 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 57 of 164

reduction is progressively less because the slope of the two standards is essentially the 

same. 

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 

Figure 2: Proposed Tier 6 NOx Standards for 

Lower Thrust Engines Rated at 89.0 kN

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10 20 30 40 50 60

Pressure Ratio (PR)

g/kN Thrust

Existing Standard

Proposed Tier 6

12% Reduction

Current Engine PRs
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 58 of 164

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 89kN, 

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 89kN decreasing to 0 percent at 26.7kN.

2. Tier 8 NOx Standards for Newly-Certified Engines

Figure 3: Proposed Tier 6 NOx Standards for 

Lower Thrust Engines At Pressure Ratio 30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20 40 60 80 100

Thrust (kN)

g/kN Thrust

Existing Standard

Proposed Tier 6

0% Reduction

at 26.7kN

12% Reduction

at 89kN

Current Engine Thrusts
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 59 of 164

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 2010for adoption by

ICAO.53 The CAEP/8 recommended standards have a recommended effective date 

afterDecember 31, 2013. As discussed further in section V. of today’s notice, we agree 

with CAEP that this provides engine manufacturers with adequate leadtime 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 standardsand effective dates,or seek further public comment before doing so. 

As with the Tier 6 NOx standards, the basic form of the Tier 8 standards for 

turbofanengines is different for higher- and lower-rated thrust engines. Higher output 

engines are defined as having rated thrusts equal to or greater than 89kN, while lower 

output engines are defined as having rated thrusts less than 89kN but greater than 26.7kN. 

The longer-term standards for each of these power grouping are described separately

below.

 

53 CAEP/7 did not adopt new aircraft engine NOx standards.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 60 of 164

a. Numerical Emission Limits for Higher Thrust Engines

The proposed Tier 8 NOx standards for newly-certified turbofanengines 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;
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 61 of 164

• 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 104.7.54

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. 

 

54 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.

Figure 4: Proposed Tier 8 NOx Standards for 

Higher Thrust Engines

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10 30 50 70 90

Pressure Ratio (PR)

g/kN Thrust

Proposed Tier 6

Proposed Tier 8

Current Engine PRs

19% Reduction

15% Reduction

11% Reduction
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 62 of 164

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 89.0kN 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:
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 63 of 164

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 89kN, 

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 89kN engines, at this thrust rating the proposed Tier 8 

standards represents a 15 percent reduction from the proposed Tier 6 standards for a 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 64 of 164

pressure ratio of 30. However, within the region of pressure ratios for all current engine 

designs, the reductions range from 19 to 23 percent. 

 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 

Figure 5: Proposed Tier 8 NOx Standards for 

Lower Thrust Engines Rated at 89.0 kN

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10 20 30 40 50 60

Pressure Ratio

g/kN Thrust

Proposed Tier 6

Proposed Tier 8

Current Engine PRs

15% Reduction

23% Reduction

19% Reduction
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 65 of 164

pressure ratios. However, the actual numerical values for percentage reductions at both 

ends of the thrust range, i.e., 26.7 to 89kN, may varyby pressure ratio. In the region of 

pressure ratios represented by today’s engines, the results are identical to those shown in 

Figure 6 at 26.7kN, 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 

89kN engines with pressure ratios of about 15.

B. Application of the Tier 6 NOxStandards to Newly-Manufactured Engines

Figure 6: Proposed Tier 8 NOx Standards for 

Lower Thrust Engines at Pressure Ratio 30

40

50

60

70

80

90

20 40 60 80 100

Thrust (kN)

g/kN Thrust

Proposed Tier 6

Proposed Tier 8

Current Engine Thrusts

15% Reduction at

89 kN

5% Reduction 

at 26.7 kN
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 66 of 164

This section describes our proposal toapply the proposed Tier 6 NOx standards to 

newly-manufactured engines, and our proposed amendedtemporary 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 orTier 4)and were 

already being produced for installation on new aircraft prior to the effective date of the 

final rule.

55

 As a result, manufacturers would need to bring newly-manufactured engines 

of these previously certified models into compliance with the applicable Tier 6 standards 

 

55 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.b. for more information about new and spare engines.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 67 of 164

by a future date or cease production of those engine models.56As 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.57We 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. 

The proposed effective date of January 1, 201358for 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 

 

56 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. 

57 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.

58 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 new-manufactured engines is effectively January 1, 2013.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 68 of 164

marketplace. Information developed during the ICAO process in 2008 and 

200959,60,61and 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, and3) any noncompliant models will be phased out of production because of low 

market demand. 

We think thatthe proposed five-year phase-in period from ICAO’seffective date of 

the CAEP/6 standards (corresponding to ourproposed Tier 6 NOx standards) for newlycertified engines is adequate for manufacturers and their customers to respond to the new 

requirements without significantly disrupting their future planning and purchasing 

decisions.62,63 This phase-in period for applying the Tier 6 NOx standards to newly-

 

59 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. 

60 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.

61

 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.

62 The ICAO CAEP/6 NOx standards became effective after December 31, 2007.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 69 of 164

manufactured engines is identical to the date for this same requirement that CAEP/8 has

recommended to ICAO for adoption.64 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.

2. Exemption 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 exemption 

from meeting the Tier 6 NOxstandards. 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 preambledescribes these 

proposed exemption provisions that will be implemented consistent with international 

 

63 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.

64 We expect that ICAO will formally adopt the CAEP/8 recommendations in early 2011, which is well 

before the projected effective date of our final rule.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 70 of 164

guidance as provided in the ICAO Environmental Technical Manual (ETM).65,66The 

provisions of the ETM guidance were crafted in the context of the CAEP/6 NOx 

production cutoff deliberations leading up to the CAEP/8 meeting in February 2010.

While we are proposing to revise our regulations, the process for evaluating any

request for an exemption and any final decision on its disposition would be unchanged. 

In this regard, the FAA is the process owner under its authority contained in section 232 

ofthe Clean Air Act. The FAA must consult with EPA in evaluating the merits of any

request, and the EPA must formally concur with any decision regarding the granting or 

denial of the request. 

Under the existing regulations, theFAA, with EPA concurrence, may exempt lowproduction volume engines from being fully compliant with the emission 

standards.67Several such short-term exemptions were granted in the 1980s when emission 

standards were first applied. These exemptions have since expired, and requests for new 

 

65 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.

66 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. 

67An exemption allows an engine manufacturer to produce an engine that does not meet current NOx 

emission standards, even though the current NOx standard would otherwise apply. Such engines would 

need to meet the current emission standards for other pollutants. Exempted engines must also meet a less 

stringent NOx emission standard. Exempted engines must therefore still get FAA certification. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 71 of 164

exemptions under those provisions have not been submitted. We have determined that 

this provision, which was adopted in conjunction with the original emissions 

requirements, is no longer of any utility, and needs to be deleted to avoid confusion with 

current standards. We are also proposing to delete the existing provisions for temporary

exemptions based on flights for short durations and infrequent intervals. These 

provisionsare 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, which are operational rather than 

certification limitations.

The current regulations also provide for permanent exemptions based on 

consideration of the certain factors specified in §87.7(c). We are proposing to replace 

these provisionswith 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 §87.50 of 

the proposed regulations for additional details on these exemptions.)

Finally, we are deleting the exemption provisions in §87.7(d). These provisions, 

which were intended for when the standards of §§87.11(a), 87.31(a), and 87.31(c) took 

effect, are now obsolete.

a. New Provisions for Spare Engines
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 72 of 164

This proposed exception to the production limits is intended to allow 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, thus they are considered “excepted” rather than 

exempted. Manufacturers would have to submit information about the spare eingines 

produced in an annual report to the EPA. 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 currentTier 4 NOx standards. Thus manufacturers 

have been allowed to continue production of older engine designs under type certificates 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 73 of 164

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 exemption 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 marking requirement would need to be promulgated by the FAA for 14 CFR 

Part 45.) 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 74 of 164

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 bringing 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 within the engine 

manufacturers’ control, e.g., unexpected market demand. Thus, exemptions may be 

needed if a manufacturer does not complete the production cycle before the production 

cutoff date and projected production volumes are not adequate to justify resource 

investment to reduce emissions or there are other technological issues.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 75 of 164

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 sections 87.7(c) and 

(d), entitled, respectively, “Exemptions for New Engines in Other Categories,” and 

“Time Limited Exemptions for In Use Engines.” Today’s proposed amendments would 

replace these provisions 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 to be installed in new aircraft. If granted, 

the exemption would allow manufacturers to produce a limited number of newlymanufactured engines, in a time period beginning after December 31, 2012 and ending 

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 76 of 164

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 issuedtype certificate showing compliance with 

the Tier 4 NOx standards,68 as well as the current HC, CO, fuel venting, and smoke 

standards.

ii. Production Limit 

We are proposing that the number of engines eligible for exemptions would be 

limited to what is justified by the circumstances at the time of application, and limited by

the guidance provided in the ICAO ETM, currently 75 engines per type certificate. 

Approved exemptions would be tailored to include specific limits based in part on the 

information presented in the manufacturer’s exemption request. 

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:

 

68 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 NOx they may be recertified to the Tier 4 standards, but only before the 

effective date of the proposed regulations.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 77 of 164

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.72 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.73

 

72 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.

73 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-OAR2010-0687.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 78 of 164

For both new production and spare engines, agreement was reached relatively

quickly that exemptions to be available should be four years after the production cut-off 

becomes effective, and that any engine model for which an exemption was requested 

must at a minimum comply with the emission standards being affected by the cut-off. In 

this case engines would have to meet at least 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 during the four-year period since these would essentially be 

installed for in use engines removed for maintenance or replacement, as needed.

74

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.”75 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 

 

74 ICAO, “Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), Eighth Meeting, Montreal, 1 to 12 

February 2010,” CAEP/8-WP/80, Appendix B, April 2, 2010. A copy of this document is in docket 

number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.

75 U.S. EPA, “Simplified Working Copy of ICAO EDB, Issue 16A,” Glenn Passavant, Assessment and 

Standards Division, March 25, 2010. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-

0687.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 79 of 164

meeting the latest emission standards. However, it was stated that if the demand existed, 

14 of these 20 models could be produced under the exemption provisions since they had 

valid type certificates and met the previously mentioned exemption emission 

requirements.76,77,78,79 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.80

This value was of concern to EPA and the maximum number of engines it could 

represent. Our assessment of a reasonable limit for potential exemptions from the 

CAEP/6 standards began with the underlying conditions that may support the need for 

such provisions. In this regard, it is often the case that the engine modifications needed 

to meet more stringent standards and subsequent recertification are often an expensive 

 

76 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.

77 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.

78 ICAO, “Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), CAEP/6 NOxProductin 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.

79 ICAO, “Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), Production Cut-Off and Associated 

Flexibilities for ICAO Engine Emission Standards,” CAEP-SB/20093-WP/39, U.S.EPA, June 8, 2009. A 

copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.

80 ICAO, “Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), Eighth Meeting, Montreal, 1 to 12 

February 2010,” CAEP/8-WP/80, Appendix B, April 2, 2010. A copy of this document is in docket 

number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 80 of 164

undertaking. When future sales are projected to be larger in number, manufacturers have 

argued that economics favor a return on investment and that market forces dictate that 

they make the investment to so that they have fully compliant engines to meet customer 

demands.82,83 In these cases exemptions would probably not be necessary. However, 

when an engine model has low expected future sales, i.e., near the end of its production 

life, then the economics involved in transitioning to a new emission standard are less 

attractive and the market forces argument is less compelling. In such cases, limited 

exemptions may be appropriate. 

To help inform us regarding situations such as those described above, we looked 

at past production histories and projected future orders of engine models, focusing on the 

years associated with the production cutoff wherever possible.84 We utilized the 

ASCEND Database85 to conduct this analysis. ASCEND contains information on past 

production volumes and projected production volumes for future years based on either 

 

82 ICAO, “Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), Response to U.S. EPA Papers 14 and 

16” WP3 Flimsy 6-2, ICCAIA, April 1-3, 2009. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQOAR-2010-0687.

83 ICAO, “Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), NOx Production Cut-Off 

Considerations,” ICCAIA, January 9, 2009. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0687.

84 U.S. EPA, “Engine Exemption Allowable Limit Assessment,” Memorandum from Brad Nordman to 

Glenn Passavant, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, April 

2011. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.

85 ASCEND Online (www.ascendworldwide.com) is a database that includes comprehensive transaction 

data, orders and deliveries, and airline fleet histories
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 81 of 164

actual orders for aircraft or potential new orders. The results of this analysis supported a 

limit for potential exemptions from the CAEP/6 standards that was much less than the 

ETM guidance of 75 engines per type certificate, and that a number closer to 100 engines 

per type certificate holder was likely to be adequate. 

In addition, two new pieces of information became available during the 

development of this proposed rule that were unavailable during the deliberations leading 

up to the ICAO decision for the ETM guidance. First, a review of information on past 

exemption requests to FAA indicated that of the eight requests 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.86Second, 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.87,88,89

 

86U.S. FAA, "Historical Exemptions from Gas Turbine Aircraft Engine Emission Standards," Electronic 

spreadsheet from Edward McQueen, Office of Environment and Energy, September 22, 2010.An extract 

from this spreadsheet addressing the pertinent issue is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.

87 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 82 of 164

Our subsequent discussions with engine manufacturers also resulted in the 

conclusion that the expectation was that fewer engines than the ICAO guidance suggested 

would be the subject of exemption requests. For the proposed Tier 8 NOx standards, 

while we are not proposing requirements on manufactured engines at this time, any 

numerical limit associated with those standards would need to be evaluated based on 

information available at the time. 

As a result of these varying predictions by ICAO members and subsequent 

conversations with manufacturers, we are proposing an exemption limit that is consistent 

with ETM guidance but allows U.S. authorities the flexibility to consider all factors that 

affect the application for exemption. The goal will to be to exempt as few engines as 

possible under the circumstances presented at the time of petition for exemption. We 

believe this approach addresses the intent of the ICAO guidance and the potential need of 

the 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. 

 

88 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.

89 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 83 of 164

iii. Exemption Requests

We are proposing a process for requesting exemptions (for engines used on new 

aircraft) that would include more information 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 provisions 

required under the Clean Air Act. 

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 §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;
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 84 of 164

•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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 85 of 164

•Projected future production volumes and plans for producing a compliant version of the 

engine model in question.

•Hardship: Impact of unforeseen technical circumstances, business events. Or other 

natural or manmade calamities beyond your control, and

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. While 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 86 of 164

include effectson 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. 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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 87 of 164

In order to allow us to oversee these exempted engines, manufacturers would be 

required to provide an annual report to EPA on exempt engines similar to the information 

about excepted spare 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. Foreign Aircraft

We are proposing that manufacturers also include in their requests a list of 

countries in which the aircraft are expected to be registered (i.e., “flagged”), as 

previously noted. 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 with other countries in which these aircraft are expected to be registered. 

This coordination is necessary because many countries require FAA certification even for 

aircraft that will never operate in the U.S. Normally, we would not expect that we would 

approve an exemption for engines used on aircraft that would be registered in countries 

opposing the exemption.

c. Voluntary Emission Offsets
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 88 of 164

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 docket93, 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.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 anundue 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 limitof 75 exempted engines per 

manufacturer. Note that since this is not specifically allowed in the proposed regulations, 

we would need to amend the proposedregulations as part of the final rule to allow this 

option. 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, a 

 

93U.S. EPA, “Draft Regulatory Text for Voluntary Offset Program,” Memorandum from Charles Moulis, 

Assessment and Standards Division, to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687, November XX, 2010.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 89 of 164

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.

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 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 years, 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 90 of 164

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.

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 newlymanufactured 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 8NOx standards as part of the future CAEP work programs. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 91 of 164

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 

emissionstandard can provide. However, in order to maximize consistency with the 

CAEP/8 NOxstandard 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 92 of 164

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 93 of 164

determination, will provide engine manufacturers and 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 in 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 engines so as to meet the criteria established in proposed §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 an derivative for emissions 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 U.S. certification, (2) the original 

engine was certificated to the requirements of 14 CFR, and (3) the 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 94 of 164

engine and the original engine are within the following allowable ranges, unless 

otherwise adjusted using good engineering judgment, as determined by the FAA:

± 3.0g/kNfor NOx.

± 1.0g/kN for HC.

± 5.0g/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. 

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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 95 of 164

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.

94These 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)95for 

turbofan engines with maximum thrust ratings greater than 26.7 kNin order to aid with 

emission calculations and analysis as well as help inform the general public. 

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 

 

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

95United Kingdom, Civil Aviation Authority, “ICAO Emissions Databank.” Available at the Civil 

Aviation Authority website www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=702.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 96 of 164

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 accurateemission 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 Actwith regard to aircraft 

engine emissions, it is consistent with ourpolicy and practice to ask for timely and 

reasonable reporting of emission certification testing and other informationthat is relevant 

to ourmission.

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 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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 97 of 164

Therefore, we are proposing to require that any engine manufacturer submit a 

production report directly to EPA98with specific informationfor each individual engine 

sub-model that: 1) is designed topropel 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. 

We are proposing to have each affected enginemanufacturer report a reduced 

number of specific data elements to us as compared to those already reported voluntarily

and periodicallyby 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 

 

98 The proposed report would be submitted only to EPA. No separate submission or communication of any 

kind is required for the FAA. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 98 of 164

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 CO2emission 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-modelare 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 submodel identifier, but may also include an engine type certificate family identifier) 

(GHG);
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 99 of 164

•The type certificate number, as issued by theFAA(Specify if the sub-model also has a 

type certificate issued by a certificating authority other than theFAA) (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 intended for use as 

excepted 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);
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 100 of 164

•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

•Unburned hydrocarbon characteristic level (i.e. mass of hydrocarbons over LTO cycle / 

Rated Thrust (Dp/Foo);100

•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;

 

99 See Regulation Part 87-Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines, Subpart E, §87.42 

Certification report to EPA for definitions.

100Dp/Foo : total gross emission of each gaseous pollutant (mass) / rated thrust (g/kN).
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 101 of 164

•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 wouldbe 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 

2014calendar year, and cover the previous calendar year.This report wouldbe sent to the 

Designated EPA Program Officer. Where information provided for anyprevious year 

remains valid and complete, the engine manufacturermay 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 intendto 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 102 of 164

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 website and would be 

updated annually. By collecting and publically posting this information on EPA’s 

website, 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 websiteand 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.A. of 

this notice.E. Proposed Standards for Supersonic Aircraft Turbine Engines
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 103 of 164

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 104 of 164

practices. The amendments make clarifications or add flexibilities for engine 

manufacturers. They aredescribed separatelybelow for the amendments that have already 

been adopted by ICAO101,102 and those that have been recommended by CAEP for 

adoption by ICAO.103

The amendments that have already been adopted by ICAO are:

• Standardizing of the terminology relating to engine thrust/power;

• Clarifying the need to correct measured results to standard reference day andreference 

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.

 

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.

103ICAO, “Agenda Item 2,” Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), Montreal, 1 to 

February 2010, CAEP/8-WP/80. A copy of this document is in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 105 of 164

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 

are,therefore,unlikely 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 106 of 164

turbine engines. Essentially, the fan of an open rotor engine is not contained within 

anengine 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 2018 timeframe.

It now appears that certain aspects of EPA’sgas 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 turbofanengine emissions certification may

need to be revised in the future to accommodateopen 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 107 of 164

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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 108 of 164

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 109 of 164

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 C.F.R. § 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 cutoff would not apply for previously certificated engines that are 

installed and used in military aircraft.

cutoff2. Noncommercial Engines

The current section 87.21(d) specifies that gaseous emission standards apply to 

enginesused 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 110 of 164

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 withourcurrent HC, CO, and NOxexhaust emission standards in 

§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 doing this. 

First, the ICAO Annex 16 standards and recommended practicesapply 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 EPAstandards 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 111 of 164

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 nonattainment concentrations and are projected to continue to do so. 

Third, noncommercial engines are usually the same engine model and sometimes submodel 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 commercial and 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 26.7kN collectively cause or 

contribute to the same air pollution as their commercial counterparts. Our emissions 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 112 of 164

assessment supporting this conclusion is contained in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking.105

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 

 

105U.S. EPA, “Assessment of Turbofan and Turbojet Aircraft Emissions,” memorandum from John 

Mueller, Assessment and Standards Division, to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687,December XX, 2010.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 113 of 164

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 part87.21 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 114 of 164

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 nonpropulsion 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 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 115 of 164

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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 116 of 164

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

(§87.48(b)(2)), and for applying the turbofan test procedures to turboprop engines 

(§87.60(a)). The general approach for implementing goodengineeringjudgment is to 

allow manufacturers to exercise some 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 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 117 of 164

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:

Regulation 

cite

Description of Amendment Notes

87.1 Add definition of 

“characteristic level”.

The characteristic level is established 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 118 of 164

given pollutant.

87.1 Remove definitions for

“emission measurement 

system”, “power setting”, 

“sample system”, “shaft 

power”, “taxi/idle (in)”, and 

“taxi/idle (out).”

These terms will no longer be used in part 87. 

There will be no more engines certified to the 

standards specified in §87.21, so removing these 

definitions will not change the requirements for 

engines certified to the Tier 4 or earlier standards.

87.1 Revise definition of “exhaust 

emissions” and “smoke”.

The new language references the emission testing 

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 §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” instead of 

defining “new aircraft turbine 

engine”.

The regulations also refer to new turboprop 

engines and new engines used 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 §87.21.

87.1 Revise the definition of 

“standard day condition”: (1) 

remove the 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.

The editorial changes do not involve any 

substantive change in the specified conditions.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 119 of 164

87.2 Remove FAA from the list of 

acronyms in §87.2 and add it 

to the set of defined terms in 

§87.1.

This is intended to not involve a change in 

emission standards or implementation.

87.3 Add provisions describing the 

scope of applicability of part 

87. 

The broad statement in §87.3 is not intended to 

conflict with the 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 provision related 

to preemption of state 

standards for exempted 

aircraft and replace it with the 

preemption provision in the 

Clean Air Act.

This change more carefully tracks the statutory 

provisions related to preemption.

87.5 Move the provisions related 

to special test procedures to 

§87.60.

This provision, and the similar provision from 

§87.3(a), should be described together in the 

context of the testing requirements in subpart G.

87.21 Identify the specific date 

when the smoke standard 

started to apply for turbofan 

engines with rated output less 

than 26.7 kilonewtons.

This corrects a typographical error from the 

Federal Register.

87.21 Revise paragraph (f) to 

correctly reference the 

regulatory sections that 

describe the applicable test 

procedures.

This change is strictly editorial.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 120 of 164

87.60 Revise the description of test 

procedures to rely broadly on 

the procedures specified in 

ICAO Annex 16. This 

includes a variety of recent 

changes to the Annex 16 

procedures.

There will be no more engines certified to the 

standards specified in §87.21, so any changes to 

the test procedures will not change the 

requirements for engines certified to the Tier 4 or 

earlier standards. 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 

manufacture”

This is generally the same 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 

engine for emissions 

certification purposes”

It is important to consider this definition in combination with 

the definition of “engine type certificate family”.

87.1 Definition of “engine A manufacturer or FAA may further divide an engine model 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 121 of 164

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 

aircraft” and 87.23(d).

In §87.23(d) we clarify that the production cutoff does 

not apply for military aircraft engines (even if they have 

been certificated). In §87.1, we define military aircraftto 

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 

cutoff date”

The production cutoff date for the Tier 6 NOx standards is 

December 31, 2012.

87.1, Definition of “spare 

engine”

Newly manufactured spare engines may be excepted under 

§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.

87.42(c)(1) §87.42 requires that 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)(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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 122 of 164

information in the annual report described in §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.106,107EPA 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 

 

106 CAEP/6 NOx standards: CAEP Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group, Economic Analysis 

of NOx Emissions StringencyOptions, 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 123 of 164

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 needed to comply with the CAEP/8 NOx standard. 

At the time of the CAEP reports, the CAEP/8 NOx standard for higher thrust 

engines, i.e., 89.0kN or more would apply to a total of 15 engine types. For these types

the following technology level response was anticipated: 6 types would require no 

change, 1 type would need the first technology level change, 5 would require the second 

technology level, and 3 would need the third technology level. For lower thrust engines, 

i.e., greater that 26.7 but less than 89.0kN, 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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 124 of 164

Regarding the costs of this specific proposal, aircraft turbofan engines are 

designed and build 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 62FR25356 (May 8, 1997) and 70FR69664 

(November 11, 2005)). 

In fact, engine manufacturers have suggested that certain benefits accrue 

for compliant products when the U.S. adoptions ICAO standards and practices, but have 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 125 of 164

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 26.7kN, which are already voluntarily

reported to the ICAO-related Emissions Databank (EDB). We expect the incremental 

reporting burden for these manufacturers to be very small because we: 1) have 

significantlyreduced the number of reporting elements from those requested in the EDB, 

and 2) are adding onlythree basic reporting categories to those already requested by the 

EDB. Also, four of the eightmanufacturers 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 26.7kNand 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 126 of 164

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 a 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. According to an analysis 

we had conducted for the U.S., it was estimated that this would translate to LTO NOx 

reductions in the U.S. of about 0.7 percent in 2020 and 1.1 percent in 2030,108 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 17,000 NOx tons. 

VI. Coordination with FAA

 

108 U.S. EPA, Historical Assessment of Aircraft Emissions, Prepared by Eastern Research Group under 

Contract to E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., November XX, 2010. A copy of this document is in docket 

number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 127 of 164

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 231.109 As in past rulemakings and pursuant to the 

 

109The functions of the Secretary of Transportation under part B of title II of the Clean Air Act (§§ 231-234, 

42 U.S.C. 7571-7574) have been delegated to the Administrator of the FAA. 49 CFR 1.47(g).
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 128 of 164

above referenced sections of the CAA, EPA has coordinated with the FAA, i.e., DOT,

with respect to today's action.

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.110 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. 

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. 

 

110 The Sixth Meeting of CAEPd;eete (CAEP/6) occurred in Montreal, Quebec from February 2 through 12 

in 2004.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 129 of 164

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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 130 of 164

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, 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 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 131 of 164

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 [Insert dateno fewer than 15 days before and 

at least 30 days before end of comment period]at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, XXXBuilding, Room Number XXX, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC20004, Telephone: (202) 564-1682. The hearing will start at XX:XX

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 132 of 164

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 [Insert date 60days after date 

publication].

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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 133 of 164

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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 134 of 164

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. 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 

requirementsthat conform with ICAO standards and practices will impose no real 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 135 of 164

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 136 of 164

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 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 theproposed 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, DC20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 137 of 164

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Insert date of publication in the Federal 

Register], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 138 of 164

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 SBA Small Business Categories Potentially Affected by This 

Regulation

Industry NAICSa

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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 139 of 164

analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule on small businesses has been prepared and 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking.111

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 

 

111 “Small Business Impact Memo, Proposed Aircraft Engine Emission Standards – Determination of No 

SISNOSE,” EPA memo from Solveig Irvine to Alexander Cristofaro, November, 2010. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 140 of 164

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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 141 of 164

These rules regulate aircraft manufacturers and aircraft engine 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 because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Furthermore, the Agency does not have reason to 

believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. EPA believes that the NOx emission reductions (NOx is 

a precursor to the formation of ozone and PM) from this rulemaking will further improve 

air quality and will further improve children’s health. 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
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 142 of 164

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 No. 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,Annex16, 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 143 of 164

along with the modifications contained in this rulemaking.112 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.

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. 

 

112ICAO 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 (www.icao.int).
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 144 of 164

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: 

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 145 of 164
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 146 of 164

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 §87.1 to read as follows:

§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 §87.1, 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 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 147 of 164

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 that 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 §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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 148 of 164

design to be grouped together under a type certificate. EPA means the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

Exempt means to allow engines to be produced 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 §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.

Roundmeans 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.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 149 of 164

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, as described in §87.50(c) of this part.

Standard day conditions means the following ambient conditions: temperature =15 

°C, specific humidity = 0.00 kg H2O/kg dry air, and pressure =101.325 kPa.

Subsonic means relating to aircraft that are not supersonic aircraft. 

Supersonic means relating to aircraft that are certificatedto 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 §87.21.

Tier 2 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 2 NOx standards 

specified in §87.21.

Tier 4 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 4 NOx standards 

specified in §87.21.

Tier 6 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 6 NOx standards 

specified in §87.23.

Tier 8 means relating to an engine that is subject to the Tier 8 NOx standards 

specified in §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 §87.2 to read as follows:

§87.2 Abbreviations.

The abbreviations used in this part have the following meanings:

% Percent

° Degree

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 150 of 164

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 §87.3 to read as follows:

§87.3General 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 Transportationshall 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). 

§87.5—[Removed]

5. Remove §87.5.

6. Revise §87.6 to read as follows:

§87.6Aircraft safety.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 151 of 164

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.

§87.7—[Removed]

7. Remove §87.7.

8. Revise §87.8 to read as follows:

§87.8 Incorporation by reference.

Documents listed in this section have been incorporated by reference into this part. The 

Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference as prescribed in 

5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and 

Radiation Docket and InformationCenter, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, 

EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460 or 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.

(a) ICAO material. This paragraph (a) lists material from the International Civil Aviation 

Organization that is incorporated by reference. Anyone may purchase copies of these 

materials from the International Civil Aviation Organization, Document Sales Unit, 999 

University Street, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaH3C 5H7. Table 1 follows:

(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 §§87.2, 87.40, 87.42(d) and (f), and 87.60(a) 

and (b).

(2) [Reserved]

(b) NIST material. This paragraph (b) lists material from the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology that we have incorporated by reference. Anyone may purchase 

copies of these materials from the Government Printing Office, Washington, DC20402 or 

download them free from the Internet at www.nist.gov. 

(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 §87.2.

(2) [Reserved]

Subpart C—[Amended]

9. Amend §87.21 as follows:

a. By revising the section heading.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 152 of 164

b. By adding introductory text.

c. By revising paragraphs (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(iv),(d)(1)(vi) introductory text, (e)(1), and (f).

§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 §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 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/kilonewtonrO.

(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/kilonewtonrO.

* * * * *

(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 §87.23 to read as follows:

§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 exempted or excepted from one or more 

standards of this section. Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, these 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 153 of 164

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 

§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•rO-0.168.

(b) New supersonic engines must comply with the standards shown in the following 

table:

Table 1 to §87.23– 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•0.92rPR 36+2.42•rPR 4550•rPR-1.03

rO> 26.7 kN 83.6•rO-0.274 or 50, 

whichever is smaller

140•0.92rPR 36+2.42•rPR 4550•rPR-1.03

(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:
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 154 of 164

Table 2 to §87.23 – Smoke, HC, and CO Standards 

for New Subsonic Turbofan or Turbojet Engines

Rated Output 

(kN)

Smoke 

Standard

Gaseous Emission Standards 

(g/kN rated output)

HC CO

rO< 26.7 kN 83.6•rO-0.274 or 50, 

whichever is smaller

— —

rO> 26.7 kN 83.6•rO-0.274 or 50, 

whichever is smaller

19.6 118

(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 3 to §87.23– Tier 6 NOx Standards for New 

Subsonic Turbofan or Turbojet Engines with Rated Output Above 26.7 kN

If the rated pressure 

ratio is...

and the rated output 

(in kN) is...

The NOx emission standard (in g/kN rated output) is....

rPR< 30 26.7 <rO< 89 38.5486 + 1.6823•rPR - 0.2453•rO - 0.00308•rPR•rO 

rO> 89 16.72 + 1.4080•rPR 

30 <rPR< 82.6 26.7 <rO< 89 46.1600 + 1.4286•rPR - 0.5303•rO + 0.00642•rPR•rO 

rO> 89 –1.04 + 2.0•rPR 

rPR> 82.6 all 32 + 1.6•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 and engines determined to be derivative engines 

for emissions certification purposes under the requirements of this part..
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 155 of 164

Table 4 to §87.23– Tier 8 NOx Standards for New 

Subsonic Turbofan or Turbojet Engines with Rated Output Above 26.7 kN

If the rated pressure 

ratio is...

and the rated output 

(in kN) is...

The NOx emission standard (in g/kN rated output) is....

rPR< 30 26.7 <rO< 89

40.052 + 1.5681•rPR - 0.3615•rO - 0.0018•rPR•rO

rO> 89

7.88 + 1.4080•rPR

30 <rPR< 104.7 26.7 <rO< 89

41.9435 + 1.505•rPR - 0.5823•rO + 0.005562•rPR•rO

rO> 89

–9.88 + 2.0•rPR

rPR> 104.7 all

32 + 1.6•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 certificatefamilies certificated with characteristic levels at or below 

the Tier 4 NOx standards of §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 to engines 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 or exception 

under §87.50. This production cutoff does not apply to engines installed (or delivered 

for installation) on military aircraft.

(2) Engine type certificatefamilies certificated with characteristic levels at or below 

the Tier 6 NOx standards of paragraph (c)(2) of this sectionwith an introduction date 

before January 1, 2014 may continue to be produced. This also applies to engines 

determined to be derivative engines for emissions certification purposes under the 

requirements of this part.

11. Add a new subpart E containing §§87.40, 87.42, 87.44, 87.46, and 87.48 to part 87 to 

read as follows:

Subpart E —Certification Provisions
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 156 of 164

Sec.

87.40 General certification requirement.

87.42 Certification report to EPA.

87.44 Reporting CO2 emissions.

87.46 Recordkeeping.

87.48 Derivative engines for emissions certification purposes.

§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. 

§87.42 Productionreport to EPA.

Engine manufacturers must submit an annual productionreport 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 and/or excepted engines, you may

submit a single reportwith information on both certificated engines, both exempted and

excepted.

(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-modelthat 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 157 of 164

aircraft and the number that are intended for use, as certificated (non-exempt or 

excepted) spare 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 §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 §§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.

§87.46Recordkeeping.

(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 available. We may review them at any time. 

§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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 158 of 164

would mean that the engine model is determined to be similar in design for the purposes 

of smoke and exhaust emissions evaluations. In order to be considered a derivative 

engine for emissions purposes under this part, it must have been:

(1) derived from an engine certificated to the requirements of 14 CFR part 33 and this 

part; and

(2) demonstrate that it meets the emissions criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. The criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this section may be adjusted by the 

FAA based on unusual circumstances when the type certificate holder has made 

determinations consistent with good engineering judgment. 

(b) Emissions similarity. 

(1) The type certificate holder must demonstrate that the proposed derivative engine’s 

emissions meet the applicable standards, and differ from the originally certificated engine 

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 originally certificated engine before modification is at 

or above 95% of the applicable standard for any pollutant, the type certificate holder must 

measure the proposed derivative for all pollutants to demonstrate that the derivative 

engine’s resulting characteristic levels will not exceed the applicable emission standards. 

If the characteristic level of the originally certificated engine before modification is

below 95% of the applicable standard for any pollutant, then consistent with good 

engineering judgment, the type certificate holder may use engineering analysis to 

demonstrate that the derivative engine will not exceed the applicable emission standards.

(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 §87.50 to part 87 to read as follows:
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 159 of 164

Subpart F —Exemptions 

§87.50 Exemptions and Exceptions.

This section specifies provisions related to exempting engines from some or all of the 

standards and requirements of this part 87.Exempted engines must conform to regulatory

conditions specified for an exemption in this section and other applicable regulations. 

Exempted and 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 with respect to certain standards must comply with other standards as 

a condition of the exemption. EPA will participate in this approval process by engaging 

in consultations with FAA and providing written concurrence for engines that qualify for 

an exemption under the provisions of this section. 

(a) Engines installed in new aircraft. After December 12, 2012, a type certificate 

holder may request an exemption to produce a limited number of engines that 

comply with the Tier 6 standards of this part through December 31, 2016, for 

installation on new aircraft as specified in this paragraph. This exemption is limited 

to NOx emissions from engines that have been issued a type certificate by the FAA. 

The limits on number of engines exempted during this time period will be determined 

using accepted international guidance for Tier 6 standards with consideration for 

unusual circumstances.

(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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 160 of 164

(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 compliant 

version of the engine model in question.

(F) List of other certificating authorities from which you have requested (or 

expect to request) exemptions, and a summary of the request.

(G) Any other relevant factors.

(v) A statement signed by your authorized representative attesting that all 

information included in the request is accurate.

(2) Additional information may be required by the FAA 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 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 161 of 164

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 that meet the definition of “spare 

engine” are excepted from the production requirements as follows: 

(1) This provision allows production of a newly manufactured engine for installation 

on an in-service aircraft. It does not allow the 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) Each engine excepted under this paragraph may be used only where, for all 

pollutants, the emissions of the spare engine are equal to or lower than those of the 

engine it is replacing..

(4) No prior approval is required to produce a spare engine. Manufacturers must 

include information about the production of spares in the annual report required 

under paragraph (d) of this section.

(5) The permanent record for each engine excepted under this paragraph must 

indicate that the engine was produced as an excepted spare engine.

(6) Engines excepted under this paragraph must be labeled with the following 

statement: “EXCEPTED SPARE”.

(d) Annual reports. If you produce engines under an exemption granted under this 

section, or spare engines excepted 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 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 §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 exemptions separate from other new engine 

exemptions. Include the following for each exemption 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).
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 162 of 164

(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 §87.60 to read as follows:

§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 §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 §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 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. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 163 of 164

(2) The alternate procedure is shown to be equivalent to or better than the specified 

procedure.

(f) The following landing and take-off (LTO) cycles apply for emission testing and 

calculating weighted LTO values:

Table 1 to §87.60 – LTO Test Cycles

Mode

Turboprop Subsonic Turbofan Supersonic Turbofan

Percent of 

Rated Output

Time in 

Mode 

(minutes)

Percent of 

Rated Output

Time in 

Mode 

(minutes)

Percent of 

Rated Output

Time in 

Mode 

(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 §87.60.

§§87.61-87.63—[Removed]

15. Remove §§87.61-87.63.

16. Amend §87.64 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§87.64 Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring gaseous exhaust 

emissions.

(a) [Reserved.]

* * * * *

§§87.65-87.71—[Removed]

17. Remove §§87.65-87.71.

Subpart H—[Removed]

18. Remove subpart H.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 164 of 164

PART 1068--GENERAL COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS FOR ENGINE 

PROGRAMS

19. The authority citation for part 1068 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A—[Amended]

20. Amend §1068.1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§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.

* * * * *