Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0030-0108
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-12-15T05:00Z

Analysis
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
Prepared
for:

US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
Prepared
by:

Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
Final
Draft
Report
September
2003
i
Table
of
Contents
Introduction
......................................................................................................................
1
Assumptions
.....................................................................................................................
1
Methodology.....................................................................................................................
3
Findings
............................................................................................................................
6
Summary...........................................................................................................................
10
Appendix
A:
Results
from
Analysis
of
NOx
Stringency
Options........................................
A­
1
Appendix
B:
Example
Data...............................................................................................
B­
1
Table
of
Exhibits
Table
1:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
................................
6
Figure
1:
Effect
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
on
LTO
NOx
(
tons)
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin.....................................
7
Table
2:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
..........................
7
Figure
2:
Effect
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
on
LTO
NOx
(
tons)
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin...............................
8
Figure
3:
Additional
Percentage
Reductions
of
LTO
NOx
Due
to
Early
Implementation
of
Stringency
Options
for
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
.........................................................................................
9
Figure
4:
Additional
Reductions
(
tons)
of
LTO
NOx
for
30%
Stringency
Option
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Date
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
(
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin).................................................................
9
Appendix
Tables
and
Figures
Table
A­
1:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
................................
A­
1
Table
A­
2:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
percentage
reduction)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options.........
A­
1
Table
A­
3:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
..........................
A­
1
Table
A­
4:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
percentage
reduction)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options...
A­
2
Table
A­
5:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
Reduction
(
tons)
by
U.
S.
Major
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
...................
A­
2
ii
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Figure
A­
1:
Effect
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
on
LTO
NOx
(
tons)
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin.....................
A­
3
Figure
A­
2:
Effect
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
on
LTO
NOx
(
tons)
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin...............
A­
3
Figure
A­
3:
Percentage
Reduction
of
LTO
NOx
Emissions
Due
to
Stringency
Options
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
..
A­
4
Figure
A­
4:
Percentage
Reduction
of
LTO
NOx
by
Year
Due
to
Stringency
Options
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
..
A­
4
Figure
A­
5:
Reduction
(
tons)
of
LTO
NOx
Emissions
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
...........................................
A­
5
Figure
A­
6:
Comparison
of
the
Percentage
LTO
NOx
Reduction
in
2020
for
No
Compliance
Margin
and
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
...........................................................................................
A­
5
Table
A­
6:
Additional
LTO
NOx
Emissions
Reduction
(
tons)
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin.............................................................................................................
A­
6
Table
A­
7:
Additional
LTO
NOx
Emissions
Reduction
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
(
percentage
reduction)
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
.........................................................................................
A­
6
Figure
A­
7:
Additional
Percentage
Reductions
of
LTO
NOx
Due
to
Early
Implementation
of
Stringency
Options
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin....................................................................................
A­
7
Figure
A­
8:
Comparison
of
LTO
NOx
Reductions
(
tons)
for
10%
Stringency
Option
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Dates
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
(
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin).................................................................
A­
7
Figure
A­
9:
Additional
Reductions
(
tons)
of
LTO
NOx
for
30%
Stringency
Option
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Date
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
(
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin).................................................................
A­
8
Table
B­
1:
Data
from
JP
Airline­
Fleets
International
2001/
02,
36th
Edition,
U.
Klee
Editor,
Bucher
&
Co.,
Zurich
Switzerland........................................................
B­
1
Table
B­
2:
Data
from
Airport
Activity
Statistics
for
Certificated
Air
Carriers,
twelve
months
ending
December
31,
2000,
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation,
Bureau
of
Transportation
Statistics,
Office
of
airline
Information,
Table
7,
Washington,
D.
C.,
2001...................................................................................
B­
2
1
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Analysis
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
Introduction:
The
Sixth
Meeting
of
the
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization's
(
ICAO)
Committee
on
Aviation
Environmental
Protection
(
CAEP)
will
consider
various
options
for
increasing
the
stringency
of
NOx
emissions
standards.
This
study
is
a
preliminary
evaluation
of
the
potential
impact
in
the
U.
S.
of
these
options.
It
is
a
single
scenario
founded
on
a
set
of
assumptions
believed
to
be
reasonable.
It
does
not
attempt
to
analyze
all
possible
alternatives
or
to
be
directly
comparable
to
analyses
by
ICAO/
CAEP
study
groups.
Its
value
is
found
in
trends
and
relative
changes
and
not
in
the
quantitative
results.

The
scope
of
the
study
is
to
analyze
the
landing
and
takeoff
(
LTO)
NOx
emissions
reduction
of
major
U.
S.
commercial
airlines
(
specifically
members
of
the
Air
Transport
Association
(
ATA))
under
the
stringency
options.
The
study
includes
all
aircraft
that
generally
have
over
100
seats
(
e.
g.,
DC­
9s,
B­
737s,
MD­
80s,
MD­
90s,
and
larger)
and
excludes
"
regional"
aircraft
(
e.
g.,
Fokkers,
RJs,
J31s).
1
Assumptions:
 
Study
years
include
2010,
2015,
2020,
2025,
2030,
2035,
and
2040.

 
The
options
for
further
stringency
of
NOx
standards
include
5%,
10%,
15%,
20%,
25%,
and
30%.

 
Effective
date
of
these
options
for
new
NOx
certification
standards
is
2012.
Also,
assume
all
new
aircraft
added
to
the
fleet
after
this
date
meet
the
new
standards.
It
is
assumed
that
for
economic
reasons
(
e.
g.,
to
preserve
fleet
value)
airlines
would
not
purchase
engines
that
did
not
meet
the
new
requirements
even
though
the
rule
may
allow
engine
families
in
production
prior
to
the
effective
date
to
meet
the
old
standards.
Implementation
of
options
for
new
certification
standards
in
2008
was
evaluated
on
a
limited
data
set.

 
For
this
study,
NOx
emissions
are
calculated
using
U.
S.
Federal
Aviation
Administration's
(
FAA)
Emissions
and
Dispersion
Modeling
System
(
EDMS).
EDMS
requires
aircraft
type,
engine
type,
and
number
of
operations
to
compute
emissions.
The
aircraft
type
and
engine
type
during
the
baseline
period
are
based
on
air
carrier
fleets
as
they
existed
in
2000.
The
fleet
mix
is
adjusted
for
future
periods
by
retiring
older
aircraft,
replacing
these
aircraft
with
new
aircraft,
and
adding
additional
new
aircraft
for
capacity
growth.
This
way
a
new
fleet
mix,
specifying
aircraft
type,
engine
type,
and
number
of
aircraft,
is
defined
for
each
study
period.
The
number
of
operations
are
forecast
separately
and
then
allocated
according
to
each
aircraft's
representation
in
the
fleet.
Forecasting
fleet
size
(
as
a
surrogate
for
capacity)
and
1
Although
the
significant
growth
in
regional
jet
aircraft
activity
is
projected
to
continue,
larger
aircraft
are
still
expected
to
account
for
most
of
the
fuel
use
and
emissions
from
major
U.
S.
passenger
and
cargo
airlines.
Thus,
the
trends
shown
in
this
study
would
not
change
much
even
if
regional
aircraft
were
included.
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
2
operations
separately
allows
for
average
number
of
seats
per
aircraft
to
grow,
a
trend
that
has
occurred
recently
and
is
expected
to
continue
in
the
future.

 
Baseline
fleet
makeup
is
each
carrier's
fleet
as
it
existed
in
2000
(
from
JP
Airline­
Fleets
International
2001/
02,
36th
Edition,
U.
Klee
Editor,
Bucher
&
Co.,
Zurich
Switzerland.
See
Appendix
B
for
example
data.).

 
Baseline
fleet
use
is
calendar
year
2000
activity
(
departures
[
LTO]
by
airline
by
aircraft
model)
at
all
U.
S.
airports
(
from
Airport
Activity
Statistics
of
Certificated
Air
Carriers,
twelve
months
ending
December
31,
2000,
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation,
Bureau
of
Transportation
Statistics,
Office
of
Airline
Information,
Table
7,
Washington,
DC
2001.
See
Appendix
B
for
example
data.).
2
 
Air
travel
capacity
for
passenger
airlines
is
defined
as
the
size
of
the
fleet,
measured
by
the
number
of
available
seats.
To
derive
a
future
fleet
mix,
aircraft
are
added
to
a
baseline
fleet
to
replace
retired
aircraft
and
meet
growth
needs
so
that
the
total
number
of
seats
grows
at
the
forecast
capacity
growth
rate.
The
capacity
growth
rates
from
2000
to
2020
are
based
on
rates
forecast
by
CAEP's
Forecasting
and
Economic
Analysis
Sub­
Group
(
FESG)
(
from
Report
of
the
FESG/
CAEP/
6
Traffic
and
Fleet
Forecast,
May
2003).
To
derive
growth
rates
for
U.
S.
domestic
capacity,
global
domestic
rates
published
by
FESG
were
adjusted
to
reflect
the
ratio
of
North
American
rates
(
2.4%
2000­
2020)
to
global
rates
(
3.5%
2000­
2020).
This
ratio
[
2.4/
3.5
=
0.6857]
was
applied
to
average
annual
global
domestic
rates
resulting
in
the
following
U.
S.
growth
rates
1.5%
2000­
2005,
3.7%
2006­
2010,
3.4%
2011­
2015,
and
3.2%
2016­
2020.
FESG
forecasts
growth
in
revenue
passenger
kilometers
(
RPK)
as
a
measure
of
capacity.
This
study
assumed
growth
in
RPK
is
equivalent
to
growth
in
seats.
If
average
stage
length
increases
over
time,
as
some
analysts
assume,
fewer
seats
(
and
hence
fewer
aircraft)
would
be
required
to
meet
required
capacity,
and
hence,
growth
could
be
lower
than
assumed
in
this
study
 
Capacity
growth
for
passenger
airlines
from
2020
to
2040
is
assumed
to
continue
at
the
same
rate
as
forecast
for
2016
to
2020
(
i.
e.,
3.2%).

 
Aircraft
operations,
specifically
landing
and
takeoffs
(
LTO),
and
fleet
mix
are
the
basis
for
computing
emissions
as
noted
earlier.
Operations
growth
for
passenger
airlines
from
2001
to
2020
is
based
on
FAA
forecasts
(
2002
Terminal
Area
Forecast
(
April
2003
 
Table
S­
5),
www.
api.
faa.
gov/
taf02/
taf2002.
pdf).
Growth
rates
are
presented
separately
for
large
hub,
medium
hub,
small
hub,
and
non­
hub
towers.
To
derive
a
single
growth
rate
for
this
study,
large
hub
growth
was
weighted
at
80%
and
medium
hub
growth
weighted
at
20%,
which
approximates
current
major
carrier
operations.

2
After
9/
11/
2001
the
U.
S.
aircraft
fleet
changed
substantially
as
many
aircraft
were
grounded
to
match
fleet
capacity
to
significantly
reduced
demand.
In
some
cases
these
aircraft
will
reenter
the
fleet;
in
others
the
aircraft
will
be
permanently
retired.
Over
a
long
enough
period,
say
10
years,
these
changes
will
represent
"
noise"
in
the
overall
trends
of
fleet
makeup
and
capacity
growth.
The
data
used
to
develop
the
fleet
retirement
curves
by
the
Forecasting
and
Economic
Analysis
Sub­
Group
(
FESG)
(
see
discussion
of
retirement
curves
later
in
Methodology
section
of
this
study)
was
all
from
before
2001.
Also,
the
growth
forecasts
developed
by
FESG
use
2000
as
the
base
period
and
are
presented
in
5­
year
increments
(
2000­
2005,
2006­
2010,
2011­
2015,
and
2016­
2020).
The
2000­
2005
forecast
accounts
for
the
changes
due
to
9/
11,
showing
a
very
modest
1.5%
five­
year
growth.
For
these
reasons,
a
2000
base
period
was
used
for
fleet
makeup
and
activity
for
this
analysis.
Any
residual
anomalies
resulting
from
9/
11
are
expected
to
be
small
since
the
initial
forecast
year
in
this
study
is
2010.
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
3
The
result
is
1.24%
operations
growth
between
2000
and
2010
and
2.08%
growth
between
2010
and
2020
 
Operations
growth
for
passenger
airlines
from
2020
to
2040
is
assumed
to
continue
at
the
same
rate
as
forecast
for
2010
to
2020
(
i.
e.,
2.08%).

 
For
cargo
airlines,
the
number
of
aircraft
defines
capacity,
holding
the
mix
of
narrowbody
and
wide­
body
aircraft
constant.
For
an
individual
carrier,
aircraft
are
added
to
the
fleet
to
replace
retirements
and
meet
growth
needs
so
that
the
number
of
aircraft
grows
at
the
forecast
growth
rate.
Narrow­
body
and
wide­
body
fleets
are
evaluated
separately
to
keep
the
ratio
constant.
Cargo
capacity
growth,
in
number
of
aircraft,
is
from
FESG
(
Report
of
the
FESG/
CAEP/
6
Traffic
and
Fleet
Forecast,
May
2003).
Growth
in
capacity
and
operations
for
cargo
airlines
is
assumed
to
be
the
same.
FESG
forecasts
world
cargo
fleet
will
increase
by
3.6%
per
year
between
2002
and
2020
with
30%
of
the
fleet
new
aircraft
and
the
balance
converted
passenger
aircraft.
The
U.
S.
portion
of
the
fleet
is
assumed
to
be
30%
for
both
overall
growth
and
new
aircraft
requirements
based
on
U.
S.
share
of
world
freight
market
in
2001
(
Boeing
World
Air
Cargo
Forecast
(
http://
www.
boeing.
com/
commercial/
cargo/
appendix.
html).

 
Capacity
and
operations
growth
for
cargo
airlines
from
2020
to
2040
is
assumed
to
continue
at
the
same
rate
as
forecast
for
2002
to
2020
(
i.
e.,
3.6%).

 
Performance­
based
times­
in­
mode
for
each
aircraft/
engine
combination
at
maximum
takeoff
weight
as
used
in
EDMS
4.11
are
the
basis
for
calculating
emissions.

Passenger
Airlines:
Cargo
Airlines:
Alaska
Airlines
Atlas
Air
Aloha
Airlines
DHL
Airways
America
West
Airlines
Evergreen
International
Airline
American
Airlines
(
including
TWA)
FedEx
Corporation
American
Trans
Air
Polar
Air
Cargo
Continental
Airlines
United
Parcel
Service
Airline
Delta
Airlines
(
including
shuttle)
Hawaiian
Airlines
JetBlue
Airways
Midwest
Express
Airlines
Northwest
Airlines
Southwest
Airlines
United
Airlines
US
Airways
(
including
shuttle)

Methodology:
 
Aircraft
fleet
information
is
from
JP
Airline­
Fleets
International.
Information
on
aircraft
includes
Tail
Number
(
i.
e.,
N­
number),
Type
of
Aircraft,
Manufacturers
Serial
Number,
Month
and
Year
of
Manufacture,
Engine
Number
and
Type,
Remarks
(
including
information
on
orders),
Number
of
Seats,
Maximum
Take
Off
Weight,
and
Delivery
Date
(
see
Appendix
B
for
example
data).
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
4
 
Aircraft
are
sorted
by
Type,
Engine,
and
Month
and
Year
of
Manufacture.
Other
data
categories
are
occasionally
used
to
sort
data
further.
Number
of
seats
is
used
as
a
measure
of
capacity
for
passenger
aircraft.

 
Unique
"
aircraft
type,"
"
engine
type,"
and
"
number
of
seats"
(
for
passenger
airlines
only)
combinations
are
summarized
according
to
"
year
of
manufacture"
by
Narrow
Body
or
Wide
Body
designations.

 
Passenger
aircraft
are
assumed
to
be
retired
according
to
the
FESG
Passenger
Retirement
"
Survivor"
Curves
(
see
Revisions
to
FESG
Retirement
Forecast
Methodology
for
Passenger
Aircraft,
FESG
member,
August
21,
2002).
No
aircraft
are
retired
during
first
six
years
following
delivery
(
outside
of
useful
range
of
FESG
equation).
Retirement
curve
is
applied
for
years
7
to
35
then
all
remaining
passenger
carrier
aircraft
are
retired
at
the
end
of
year
35.
The
aircraft
retirements
are
calculated
yearly
from
2000
to
2040.

 
Cargo
aircraft
are
assumed
to
be
retired
after
35
years
for
general
freight
(
applied
to
Atlas,
Evergreen,
and
Polar)
and
after
45
years
for
express
freight
(
applied
to
DHL,
FedEx,
and
UPS),
as
recommended
by
FESG.

 
A
fleet
forecast
for
passenger
airlines
is
developed
by
adding
additional
aircraft
to
each
carrier's
fleet
to
maintain
an
annual
growth
in
total
seats
(
as
a
measure
of
capacity)
that
tracks
the
capacity
growth
rates
forecast
by
FESG.
Aircraft
are
added
only
for
new
models,
generally
those
aircraft
for
which
the
airline
already
has
future
orders
in
place.
Also,
an
attempt
is
made
to
keep
the
mix
of
aircraft
sizes
relatively
constant.
For
example,
a
major
passenger
airline
operates
both
B737s
and
B757s
in
the
Narrow
Body
classification
so
growth
for
each
type
was
assumed.

 
A
fleet
forecast
for
cargo
airlines
is
developed
by
adding
additional
aircraft
to
each
carrier's
fleet
to
maintain
annual
growth
in
the
fleet
size
that
tracks
the
FESG
forecast.
Because
cargo
airlines
have
larger
aircraft
on
order
than
those
being
retired/
replaced,
the
average
aircraft
size
is
increasing.
For
example,
several
carriers
are
retiring
B727s
and
adding
B757s,
1st
generation
747s
are
being
replaced
with
larger
B747­
400s,
and
DC­
10s
and
1st
generation
747s
are
being
replaced
with
A300­
600s.
In
addition,
several
cargo
airlines
that
have
relied
on
Narrow
Body
aircraft
in
the
past
have
Wide
Body
aircraft
on
order.
The
increase
in
average
cargo
aircraft
size
is
consistent
with
trends
seen
in
the
industry
and
expected
to
continue.

 
For
2000,
LTOs
from
Airport
Activity
Statistics
are
allocated
to
the
various
aircraft/
engine
combinations
represented
in
the
fleet.
For
example,
Airport
Activity
Statistics
reports
a
major
passenger
airline
making
176,539
departures
in
B727­
200s
during
2000.
These
departures
were
allocated
between
the
airline's
B727s
with
JT8D­
15
engines
having
149
seats
and
those
B727s
with
JT8D­
15
engines
having
157
seats
according
to
the
number
of
each
type
in
this
airline's
fleet
(
45
with
149
seats
and
6
with
157
seats).
The
same
methodology
would
have
been
applied
if
these
aircraft
had
different
types
of
engines.

 
The
forecast
operations
for
passenger
airlines
in
future
years
are
assumed
to
increase
according
to
the
FAA
Terminal
Area
Forecast
rates.
These
operations
are
allocated
to
individual
aircraft/
engine
combinations
according
to
their
representation
in
the
fleet
for
a
given
year.
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
5
 
The
forecast
operations
for
cargo
airlines
are
assumed
to
grow
3.6%
per
year
(
Report
of
the
FESG/
CAEP/
6
Traffic
and
Fleet
Forecast,
May
2003).
These
operations
are
allocated
to
individual
aircraft/
engine
combinations
according
to
their
representation
in
a
given
year's
fleet
with
30%
of
the
added
aircraft
new
and
the
balance
converted
passenger
aircraft.

 
The
resulting
fleet
mix
for
each
study
year
with
appropriately
allocated
LTOs
is
used
as
the
basis
for
an
EDMS
4.11
run
to
calculate
NOx
emissions.
Performance­
based
values
for
times­
in­
mode
at
maximum
takeoff
weight
are
used
for
each
aircraft/
engine
combination
with
a
26­
minute
taxi
time.

 
The
2000
baseline
fleet
mix
and
2000
baseline
operations
result
in
66,931
tons
NOx
emissions.

Methodology
to
evaluate
NOx
stringency
options.
 
No
changes
to
engine
type
are
assumed
for
an
airline's
current
fleet
or
any
aircraft
now
on
order.
Firm
orders
generally
do
not
extend
beyond
2005.
New
aircraft
added
for
growth
or
replacement
are
of
the
same
aircraft
and
engine
model
until
new
stringency
options
are
implemented.

 
For
new
aircraft
added
for
growth
or
to
replace
retirements
after
2012,
the
study
assumes
the
engines
meet
the
allowable
NOx
emissions
rate
(
g/
kN)
according
to
the
specific
stringency
option
being
evaluated.
Information
on
where
engines
currently
perform
in
relation
to
stringency
options
was
based
on
the
evaluation
of
in­
production
aircraft/
engine
combinations
by
WG3
(
see
Standards
Task
Group
of
CAEP
Working
Group
3,
In­
Production
Aircraft/
Engine
Combinations
 
NOx
Emissions
Margins
to
CAEP/
4
Standard
and
Options
Being
Considered
by
WG3,
January
31,
2003,
file:
"
STG5­
Final
Options
Spreadsheet
31
Jan
03_
rev7DATA").
If
an
engine
does
not
meet
the
allowable
NOx
emissions
rate
of
an
option,
it
was
assumed
that
the
engine
was
changed
to
meet
the
option.

 
For
study
periods
beyond
the
effective
date
of
the
rule
(
i.
e.,
2015,
2020,
2025,
2030,
2035,
and
2040)
all
new
engines
added
to
the
fleet
are
assumed
to
meet
the
options
for
new
certification
standards
exactly
(
i.
e.,
a
0%
certification
margin).

 
To
calculate
NOx
reduction
due
to
new
stringency
options,
the
emissions
calculated
by
EDMS
were
reduced
by
the
amount
necessary
for
an
aircraft/
engine
combination
to
meet
the
allowable
NOx
rate.
For
example,
assume
an
airline
added
a
B737­
800
with
a
CFM56­
7B26
engine
to
its
fleet
after
2012,
which
is
subject
to
the
options
for
new
NOx
standards.
NOx
emissions
would
be
calculated
by
EDMS
for
the
number
of
forecast
LTOs.
The
characteristic
NOx
of
the
B737­
800/
CFM56­
7B26
exceeds
the
allowable
NOx
under
all
stringency
options.
For
the
5%
option,
it
exceeds
the
allowable
NOx
by
4.7%,
for
the
10%
option
by
9.9%,
and
so
on
up
to
the
30%
option
where
it
exceeds
the
allowable
NOx
by
40.4%
(
see
"
STG5­
Final
Options
Spreadsheet
31
Jan
03_
rev7DATA").
The
emissions
calculated
by
EDMS
would
be
reduced
by
these
factors
to
determine
the
expected
emissions
under
the
options
for
new
ICAO
NOx
standards.
The
resulting
emissions
are
then
summed
for
all
aircraft
in
the
airline's
fleet
and
then
for
all
airlines
to
arrive
at
the
total
emissions
for
major
U.
S.
passenger
and
cargo
airlines
for
each
study
year.
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
6
 
The
impact
of
a
2.5%
certification
margin
to
the
options
was
also
evaluated.
(
see
FESG
Cost­
Benefit
Analysis
of
NOx
Stringency
Options:
Aircraft
Engine
Technical
Issues,
presented
to
ICAO/
CAEP
Working
Group
3
by
Chair
FESG
NOx
Emission
Modeling
Task
Group,
Berlin,
Germany,
September
24­
26).
This
assumes
engine
manufacturers
go
beyond
the
options
for
a
compliance
standard
to
ensure
all
engines
can
meet
the
standard.
As
indicated
above,
for
the
5%
option
(
with
no
certification
margin)
the
characteristic
NOx
of
the
B737­
800/
CFM56­
7B26
exceeds
the
allowable
NOx
by
4.7%,
for
the
10%
option
by
9.9%,
and
for
the
30%
option
by
40.4%.
To
evaluate
a
compliance
margin
of
2.5%,
these
factors
were
increased
by
2.5%
­­
e.
g.,
7.2%
for
5%
option,
12.4%
for
10%
option,
and
42.9%
for
30%
option.
The
emissions
calculated
by
EDMS
would
be
reduced
by
these
factors
to
determine
the
expected
emissions
under
the
options
for
new
ICAO
NOx
standards.

Findings:
Table
1
below
summarizes
NOx
emissions
(
in
tons)
of
the
U.
S.
aircraft
fleet
by
study
year
by
stringency
option
for
all
major
U.
S.
passenger
and
cargo
airlines.
This
same
data
is
shown
graphically
in
Figure
1.
Table
2
presents
the
same
information
assuming
a
2.5%
compliance
margin
with
accompanying
Figure
2.
Appendix
A
presents
tables
also
showing
percent
reduction
for
each
study
year
and
stringency
option
for
both
0%
and
2.5%
compliance
margins.

Table
1:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
(
2012
implementation
date)

NOx
Stringency
Options
Year
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

2010
87,196
87,196
87,196
87,194
87,191
87,189
87,186
2015
97,797
97,543
97,183
96,454
95,280
93,883
92,235
2020
110,190
109,614
108,833
107,211
104,627
101,555
97,935
2025
123,636
122,735
121,538
119,042
115,052
110,315
104,737
2030
138,002
136,803
135,214
131,871
126,514
120,140
112,625
2035
154,205
152,704
150,714
146,523
139,793
131,765
122,282
2040
173,395
171,594
169,199
164,181
156,116
146,479
135,078
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
7
Figure
1:
Effect
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
on
LTO
NOx
(
tons)
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
(
2012
implementation
date)

Year
Table
2:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
(
2012
implementation
date)

NOx
Stringency
Options
with
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
Year
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

2010
87,196
87,196
87,195
87,193
87,191
87,188
87,185
2015
97,797
97,421
96,896
96,082
94,800
93,349
91,688
2020
110,190
109,336
108,203
106,372
103,573
100,377
96,734
2025
123,636
122,300
120,577
117,747
113,426
108,497
102,886
2030
138,002
136,225
133,933
130,132
124,324
117,684
110,122
2035
154,205
151,983
149,112
144,340
137,033
128,655
119,107
2040
173,395
170,731
167,276
161,570
152,805
142,740
131,256
70,000
90,000
110,000
130,000
150,000
170,000
190,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
Baseline
5%
Option
10%
Option
15%
Option
20%
Option
25%
Option
30%
Option
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
8
Figure
2:
Effect
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
on
LTO
NOx
(
tons)
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
(
2012
implementation
date)

Effect
of
Early
Implementation
on
Stringency
Option:

To
test
the
effect
of
implementing
the
new
NOx
stringency
options
in
2008
instead
of
2012
a
single
major
passenger
airline
was
analyzed.
The
particular
airline
was
selected
because
it
is
large
(
one
of
the
top
U.
S.
airlines
for
number
of
revenue
passengers
and
departures),
operates
throughout
the
U.
S.,
has
a
mix
of
narrow­
body
and
wide­
body
aircraft,
and
its
average
fleet
age
falls
in
the
middle
of
U.
S.
passenger
airlines.
Figure
3
shows
how
the
benefit
of
early
implementation
changes
over
time
for
each
option.
Due
to
a
significant
number
of
retirements
from
this
airline's
fleet
between
2010
and
2015,
which
were
replaced
by
new
aircraft
that
meet
new
NOx
standards,
the
percentage
benefit
peaks
in
2015.
This
effect
would
be
minor
if
all
airlines
were
analyzed
together.
Figure
4
shows
how
the
effect
of
implementation
date
diminishes
over
time.
The
30%
stringency
option
is
used
since
the
effect
is
relatively
small,
particularly
at
the
lower
stringency
options.
70,000
90,000
110,000
130,000
150,000
170,000
190,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
5%
option
10%
Option
15%
Option
20%
Option
25%
Option
30%
Option
Baseline
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
9
Figure
3:
Additional
Percentage
Reductions
of
LTO
NOx
Due
to
Early
Implementation
of
Stringency
Options
for
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
(
2008
implementation
date)

Figure
4:
Additional
Reductions
(
tons)
of
LTO
NOx
for
30%
Stringency
Option
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Date
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
(
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin)
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%

2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Percent
additional
benefit
5%
Option
10%
Option
15%
Option
20%
Option
25%
Option
30%
Option
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
24,000
26,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
2012
Implementation
2008
Implementation
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
10
Summary:
The
results
of
this
study
demonstrate
that
all
six
NOx
stringency
options
would
decrease
the
growth
in
NOx
emissions
from
major
U.
S.
passenger
and
cargo
airlines.
Significant
reductions
of
emissions
relative
to
the
baseline
are
projected
beginning
in
2025
for
some
stringency
options.
There
are
expected
to
be
limited
additional
NOx
emission
reductions
from
an
early
implementation
date.
In
addition,
there
is
not
projected
to
be
much
of
a
difference
in
emissions
between
a
0%
and
2.5%
compliance
margin
for
the
stringency
options.

This
study
is
a
single
scenario
based
on
a
set
of
assumptions
believed
to
be
reasonable.
It
does
not
attempt
to
analyze
all
possible
alternatives
or
to
be
directly
comparable
to
analyses
conducted
by
ICAO/
CAEP
study
groups.
Its
value
is
found
in
trends
and
relative
changes
and
not
in
the
quantitative
results.
A­
1
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Appendix
A:
Results
from
Analysis
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
Table
A­
1:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
(
2012
implementation
date)

NOx
Stringency
Options
Year
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

2010
87,196
87,196
87,196
87,194
87,191
87,189
87,186
2015
97,797
97,543
97,183
96,454
95,280
93,883
92,235
2020
110,190
109,614
108,833
107,211
104,627
101,555
97,935
2025
123,636
122,735
121,538
119,042
115,052
110,315
104,737
2030
138,002
136,803
135,214
131,871
126,514
120,140
112,625
2035
154,205
152,704
150,714
146,523
139,793
131,765
122,282
2040
173,395
171,594
169,199
164,181
156,116
146,479
135,078
Table
A­
2:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
percentage
reduction)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
(
2012
implementation
date)

Percentage
Reduction
Relative
to
Baseline
Forecast
Year
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

2010
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%

2015
0.00%
0.26%
0.63%
1.37%
2.57%
4.00%
5.69%

2020
0.00%
0.52%
1.23%
2.70%
5.05%
7.84%
11.12%

2025
0.00%
0.73%
1.70%
3.72%
6.94%
10.77%
15.29%

2030
0.00%
0.87%
2.02%
4.44%
8.32%
12.94%
18.39%

2035
0.00%
0.97%
2.26%
4.98%
9.35%
14.55%
20.70%

2040
0.00%
1.04%
2.42%
5.31%
9.97%
15.52%
22.10%

Table
A­
3:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
(
2012
implementation
date)

NOx
Stringency
Options
with
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
(
tons)
Year
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

2010
87,196
87,196
87,195
87,193
87,191
87,188
87,185
2015
97,797
97,421
96,896
96,082
94,800
93,349
91,688
2020
110,190
109,336
108,203
106,372
103,573
100,377
96,734
2025
123,636
122,300
120,577
117,747
113,426
108,497
102,886
2030
138,002
136,225
133,933
130,132
124,324
117,684
110,122
2035
154,205
151,983
149,112
144,340
137,033
128,655
119,107
2040
173,395
170,731
167,276
161,570
152,805
142,740
131,256
A­
2
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Table
A­
4:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
(
percentage
reduction)
of
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
(
2012
implementation
date)

Percentage
Reduction
Relative
to
Baseline
Forecast
(
2.5%
Compliance
Margin)
Year
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

2010
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%

2015
0.00%
0.38%
0.92%
1.75%
3.06%
4.55%
6.25%

2020
0.00%
0.77%
1.80%
3.46%
6.01%
8.91%
12.21%

2025
0.00%
1.08%
2.47%
4.76%
8.26%
12.24%
16.78%

2030
0.00%
1.29%
2.95%
5.70%
9.91%
14.72%
20.20%

2035
0.00%
1.44%
3.30%
6.40%
11.14%
16.57%
22.76%

2040
0.00%
1.54%
3.53%
6.82%
11.88%
17.68%
24.30%

Table
A­
5:
LTO
NOx
Emissions
Reduction
(
tons)
by
U.
S.
Major
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
to
Stringency
Options
(
2012
implementation
date)

NOx
Emission
Reductions
(
tons)
Year
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

2010
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
254
614
1,342
2,517
3,914
5,562
2020
0
576
1,357
2,979
5,563
8,635
12,255
2025
0
901
2,098
4,594
8,584
13,321
18,900
2030
0
1,199
2,788
6,131
11,488
17,862
25,376
2035
0
1,500
3,490
7,681
14,412
22,440
31,923
2040
0
1,802
4,197
9,214
17,280
26,916
38,317
A­
3
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Figure
A­
1:
Effect
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
on
LTO
NOx
(
tons)
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
(
2012
implementation
date)

Figure
A­
2:
Effect
of
NOx
Stringency
Options
on
LTO
NOx
(
tons)
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
(
2012
implementation
date)

70,000
90,000
110,000
130,000
150,000
170,000
190,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
5%
option
10%
Option
15%
Option
20%
Option
25%
Option
30%
Option
Baseline
70,000
90,000
110,000
130,000
150,000
170,000
190,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
Baseline
5%
Option
10%
Option
15%
Option
20%
Option
25%
Option
30%
Option
A­
4
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Figure
A­
3:
Percentage
Reduction
of
LTO
NOx
Emissions
Due
to
Stringency
Options
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
(
2012
implementation
date)

Figure
A­
4:
Percentage
Reduction
of
LTO
NOx
by
Year
Due
to
Stringency
Options
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
(
2012
implementation
date)

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%

2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Percentage
of
NOx
Reduction
5%
Option
10%
Option
15%
Option
20%
Option
25%
Option
30%
Option
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

Option
Percentage
of
NOx
Reduction
Percentage
NOx
Reduction
in
2015
Percentage
NOx
Reduction
in
2020
Percentage
NOx
Reduction
in
2025
Percentage
NOx
Reduction
in
2030
Percentage
NOx
Reduction
in
2035
Percentage
NOx
Reduction
in
2040
A­
5
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Figure
A­
5:
Reduction
(
tons)
of
LTO
NOx
Emissions
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
(
2012
implementation
date)

Figure
A­
6:
Comparison
of
the
Percentage
LTO
NOx
Reduction
in
2020
for
No
Compliance
Margin
and
a
2.5%
Compliance
Margin
for
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
and
Cargo
Airlines
(
2012
implementation
date)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
NOx
Reduction
(
tons)
5%
Option
10%
Option
15%
Option
20%
Option
25%
Option
30%
Option
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%

5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

Option
Percentage
Reduction
Compared
to
Baseline
Compliance
meets
requirement
Compliance
with
margin
of
2.5%
A­
6
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Table
A­
6:
Additional
LTO
NOx
Emissions
Reduction
(
tons)
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
Additional
NOx
Reduction
for
Single
Airline
due
to
Earlier
Implementation
(
tons)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2010
0.0
54.6
114.9
194.8
319.5
458.0
634.1
2015
0.0
67.8
142.9
241.8
395.9
567.7
787.6
2020
0.0
62.5
131.8
223.1
365.4
524.3
728.2
2025
0.0
57.0
120.0
203.4
333.7
479.6
667.6
2030
0.0
51.0
107.4
181.8
297.7
428.0
597.3
2035
0.0
40.8
85.9
145.7
239.1
343.1
476.2
2040
0.0
27.4
57.7
97.9
160.7
231.1
322.1
Table
A­
7:
Additional
LTO
NOx
Emissions
Reduction
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
(
percentage
reduction)
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
Percentage
Benefit
Due
to
Earlier
Implementation
of
Stringency
Options
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2010
0.0%
0.4%
0.8%
1.3%
2.2%
3.1%
4.3%
2015
0.0%
0.4%
0.9%
1.5%
2.4%
3.5%
4.9%
2020
0.0%
0.3%
0.7%
1.2%
2.0%
2.9%
4.2%
2025
0.0%
0.3%
0.6%
1.0%
1.6%
2.5%
3.6%
2030
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.8%
1.3%
2.0%
3.0%
2035
0.0%
0.2%
0.3%
0.6%
1.0%
1.5%
2.2%
2040
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.6%
0.9%
1.3%
A­
7
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Figure
A­
7:
Additional
Percentage
Reductions
of
LTO
NOx
Due
to
Early
Implementation
of
Stringency
Options
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin
(
2008
implementation
date)

Figure
A­
8:
Comparison
of
LTO
NOx
Reductions
(
tons)
for
10%
Stringency
Option
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Date
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
(
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin)
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%

2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Percent
additional
benefit
5%
Option
10%
Option
15%
Option
20%
Option
25%
Option
30%
Option
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
2012
Implementation
2008
Implementation
A­
8
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Figure
A­
9:
Additional
Reductions
(
tons)
of
LTO
NOx
for
30%
Stringency
Option
Due
to
Early
Implementation
Date
for
a
Single
Major
U.
S.
Passenger
Airline
(
Assuming
No
Compliance
Margin)

10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
22,000
24,000
26,000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
NOx
Emissions
(
tons)
2012
Implementation
2008
Implementation
B­
1
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Appendix
B:
Example
Data
Tables
from
Key
References
Table
B­
1:
Data
from
JP
Airline­
Fleets
International
2001/
02,
36th
Edition,
U.
Klee
Editor,
Bucher
&
Co.,
Zurich
Switzerland
FL_
LINK
REG
TYPE
SERIAL
YEAR
POWERED
REMARKS
NUM_
SEATS
MTOW
DELDATE
Tail
Number
Type
of
Aircraft
MFG
serial
#
Month
&
Year
of
Manufacture
Engine
Type
lsf
­
leased
from
lst
­
leased
to
wfu
­
withdrawn
from
use
oo
­
on
order
Maximum
Take­
Off
Weight
Month
&
year
of
delivery
2508
N803DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48474
0091
3
PW
PW4460
803
260
280320
0392
2508
N801DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48472
0092
3
PW
PW4460
801
269
280320
0392
2508
N802DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48473
0092
3
PW
PW4460
802
269
280320
0492
2508
N804DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48475
0092
3
PW
PW4460
804
260
280320
0592
2508
N805DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48476
0092
3
PW
PW4460
805
260
280320
1192
2508
N806DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48477
0092
3
PW
PW4460
806
260
280320
1192
2508
N807DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48478
0092
3
PW
PW4460
807
260
280320
1292
2508
N808DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48479
0093
3
PW
PW4460
808
269
280320
1093
2508
N809DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48480
0093
3
PW
PW4460
809
269
280320
1193
2508
N810DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48565
0093
3
PW
PW4460
810
269
280320
0394
2508
N811DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48566
0093
3
PW
PW4460
811
269
280320
0394
2508
N813DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48600
0094
3
PW
PW4460
813
269
280320
1096
2508
N812DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48601
0094
3
PW
PW4460
812
/
The
Centennial
Spirit
269
280320
0496
2508
N814DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48623
0096
3
PW
PW4460
814
269
280320
0996
2508
N815DE
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
11
48624
0098
3
PW
PW4460
815
269
280320
0298
2508
N901DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49532
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
901
cvtd
MD­
82
142
67812
0387
2508
N902DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49533
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
902
cvtd
MD­
82
142
67812
0387
2508
N903DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49534
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
903
cvtd
MD­
82
142
67812
0387
2508
N904DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49535
0287
2
PW
JT8D­
219
904
cvtd
MD­
82
142
67812
0387
2508
N905DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49536
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
905
cvtd
MD­
82
142
67812
0487
2508
N906DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49537
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
906
cvtd
MD­
82
142
67812
0487
2508
N907DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49538
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
907
cvtd
MD­
82
142
67812
0587
2508
N908DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49539
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
908
cvtd
MD­
82
142
67812
0587
2508
N909DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49540
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
909
142
67812
1287
2508
N910DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49541
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
910
142
67812
1287
2508
N911DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49542
1187
2
PW
JT8D­
219
911
142
67812
1287
2508
N912DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49543
0087
2
PW
JT8D­
219
912
142
67812
1287
2508
N913DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49544
0188
2
PW
JT8D­
219
913
142
67812
0288
2508
N914DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49545
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
914
142
67812
0288
2508
N915DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49546
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
915
142
67812
0388
2508
N917DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49573
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
917
142
67812
0588
2508
N918DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49583
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
918
142
67812
0588
2508
N919DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49584
0488
2
PW
JT8D­
219
919
142
67812
0588
2508
N916DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49591
0288
2
PW
JT8D­
219
916
142
67812
0388
2508
N920DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49644
0488
2
PW
JT8D­
219
920
142
67812
0688
2508
N921DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49645
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
921
142
67812
0688
2508
N922DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49646
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
922
142
67812
0688
2508
N923DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49705
0688
2
PW
JT8D­
219
923
142
67812
0788
2508
N924DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49711
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
924
142
67812
0788
2508
N925DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49712
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
925
142
67812
0888
2508
N926DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49713
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
926
142
67812
1088
2508
N927DA
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49714
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
927
142
67812
1188
2508
N928DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49715
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
928
142
67812
1188
2508
N929DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49716
0088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
929
142
67812
1188
2508
N930DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49717
1088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
930
142
67812
1188
2508
N931DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49718
1088
2
PW
JT8D­
219
931
142
67812
1288
2508
N932DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49719
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
932
142
67812
0389
2508
N933DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49720
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
933
142
67812
0389
2508
N934DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49721
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
934
142
67812
0389
2508
N935DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49722
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
935
142
67812
0389
2508
N936DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49723
0289
2
PW
JT8D­
219
936
142
67812
0489
2508
N937DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49810
0489
2
PW
JT8D­
219
937
142
67812
0589
2508
N938DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49811
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
938
142
67812
0589
2508
N939DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49812
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
939
142
67812
0589
2508
N940DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49813
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
940
142
67812
0689
2508
N941DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49814
0689
2
PW
JT8D­
219
941
142
67812
0789
2508
N942DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49815
0689
2
PW
JT8D­
219
942
142
67812
0789
2508
N943DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49816
0689
2
PW
JT8D­
219
943
142
67812
0889
2508
N944DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49817
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
944
142
67812
0889
2508
N945DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49818
0789
2
PW
JT8D­
219
945
142
67812
0889
2508
N946DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49819
0889
2
PW
JT8D­
219
946
142
67812
0989
2508
N947DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49878
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
947
142
67812
1289
2508
N948DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49879
0089
2
PW
JT8D­
219
948
142
67812
1289
2508
N949DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49880
0090
2
PW
JT8D­
219
949
142
67812
0290
2508
N950DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49881
0090
2
PW
JT8D­
219
950
142
67812
0290
2508
N951DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49882
0190
2
PW
JT8D­
219
951
142
67812
0290
2508
N952DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49883
0290
2
PW
JT8D­
219
952
142
67812
0390
2508
N953DL
Boeing
(
Douglas)
MD­
88
(
DC­
9­
88)
49884
0090
2
PW
JT8D­
219
953
142
67812
0390
B­
2
Prepared
for
US
EPA
by
the
Environmental
Consulting
Group,
LLC
September
2003
Table
B­
2:
Data
from
Airport
Activity
Statistics
of
Certificated
Air
Carriers,
twelve
months
ending
December
31,
2000,
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation,
Bureau
of
Transportation
Statistics,
Office
of
Airline
Information,
Table
7,
Washington,
DC
2001
Airport
Activity
Statistics
­
TABLE
7
12
Months
Ended
December
31,
2000
@
50
U.
S.
STATES
Area/
Community/
Airport
Name
Airline
Aircraft
Scheduled
Departures
Nonscheduled
Departures
Total
Departures
Departures
Scheduled
$
SUMMARY
BY
CARRIER,
ALL
COMMUNITIES,
ALL
AREAS
AIR
TRANSPORT

*
DC­
8­
63
3,095
3,095
*
DC­
8­
71
5,959
5,959
*
DC­
8­
62
436
436
DC­
8­
62
980
980
All
Types
10,470
10,470
AIR
WISCONSIN

DO­
328
54,881
54,881
BAE­
146­
300
46,593
46,593
CAN
RJ­
100
ER
12,270
12,270
All
Types
113,744
113,744
122,129
AIRTRAN
AIRWAYS

B­
717­
200
23,126
23,126
B­
737­
100/
200
8,844
8,844
DC­
9­
30
69,687
69,687
All
Types
101,657
101,657
106,142
ALASKA

MD­
80
51,698
125
51,823
737­
800/
900
23
23
B­
737­
400
71,281
57
71,338
B­
737­
300
17,083
8
17,091
B­
737­
200C
18,246
15
18,261
All
Types
158,308
228
158,536
165,435
ALLEGIANT
AIR

DC­
9­
50
1,882
1,415
3,297
DC­
9­
30
701
436
1,137
DC­
10­
10
30
30
All
Types
2,583
1,881
4,464
2,554
ALOHA

B­
737­
700
963
963
B­
737­
100/
200
29,969
24,323
54,292
B­
737­
200C
9,806
984
10,790
*
B­
737­
200C
10,344
2,349
12,693
*
B­
737­
100/
200
254
254
All
Types
51,336
27,656
78,992
48,450
AMERICA
WEST

B­
757­
200
19,323
65
19,388
A­
320­
200
60,999
63
61,062
A­
319
19,663
10
19,673
B­
737­
300
78,521
8,723
87,244
B­
737­
100/
200
25,512
25,512
All
Types
204,018
8,861
212,879
212,692
AMERICAN

FOKKER
100
111,800
111,800
737­
800/
900
38,797
15
38,812
B­
757­
200
89,648
8,285
97,933
B­
767­
200
19,413
3
19,416
B­
767­
300
22,603
2
22,605
MD­
80
375,328
4,144
379,472
A­
300­
600
21,447
1
21,448
B­
727­
200
62,383
8,983
71,366
MD­
11
2,029
2,029
B­
777
5,656
4
5,660
DC­
9­
87
8,358
8,358
MD­
90
8,887
8,887
DC­
10­
10
1,176
1,176
DC­
10­
30
1,960
1,960
All
Types
769,485
21,437
790,922
800,906
AMERICAN
EAGLE

EMBRAER­
135
37,569
37,569
EMBRAER­
145
105,594
105,594
SF­
340
230,773
230,773
ATR­
42
37,342
15
37,357
ATR­
72
47,969
13
47,982
All
Types
459,247
28
459,275
499,826
AMERICAN
TRANS

B­
727­
200
22,578
4,552
27,130
L­
1011/
100/
20
3,599
2,628
6,227
L­
1011­
500
189
812
1,001
B­
757­
200
13,069
1,433
14,502
SF­
340
3,672
3,672
JETSTREAM
31
6,389
6,389
All
Types
49,496
9,425
58,921
50,210