Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0030-0043
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-10-03T04:00Z

DRAFT
DRAFT
FAA
Comments
on
EPA
Preliminary
Draft
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM)
on
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Aircraft
and
Aircraft
Emissions;
Emissions
Standards
and
Test
Procedures
GENERAL
FAA
strongly
supports
the
proposal
to
adopt
ICAO
NOx
standards
to
40
CFR
Part
87
as
they
appear
in
the
section
titled
Part
87
­­
Control
of
Air
pollution
From
Aircraft
and
Aircraft
Engines.

The
preamble
has
many
good
sections
with
appropriate
factual
references.
However,
as
currently
written,
it
raises
a
number
of
concerns.
The
greatest
concern
is
that
the
preamble
conveys
the
dual
message
that
the
proposed
NOx
standards
are
primarily
being
adopted
to
be
consistent
with
ICAO
standards
and
that
they
will
not
reduce
aircraft
emissions
since
manufacturers
are
already
adhering
to
the
ICAO
standards.
In
our
view,
the
overarching
message
that
should
be
conveyed
is
that
the
standards
represent
a
16
percent
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
compared
to
the
current
standards
and
were
developed
through
the
CAEP
process.
A
process
that,
by
necessity,
gives
due
consideration
to
technological
feasibility,
economic
reasonableness,
and
environmental
benefit
and
results
in
international
consistency.
In
addition:

·
There
are
a
number
of
sections
that
do
not
appear
relevant
to
the
NPRM
or
lack
factual
support
by
existing
studies.
·
At
times,
the
text
presents
a
confusing
picture
of
aviation's
emissions
contributions.
·
There
appears
to
be
a
commitment
to
future
NOx
standards
unilaterally
outside
ICAO
and
the
CAEP
process.
·
It
is
not
clear
why
"
lead
time"
is
an
issue.
EPA
has
had
since
1999
to
put
this
regulation
into
place.
·
Not
enough
account
is
given
to
the
changes
experienced
by
the
aviation
industry
since
September
11th,
1991,
with
the
dramatic
reductions
in
aviation
emissions
and
long­
term
restructuring
of
the
industry.

The
document
could
be
improved,
and
better
received
by
the
public,
by
providing
more
emphasis
and
explanation
to
ICAO/
CAEP
in
the
beginning
of
the
preamble,
including,
we
believe,
substantiating
CAEP
as
a
means
through
which
EPA
meets
its
obligations
under
the
CAA.
Second,
replacing
subjective
judgments
such
as
"
significant
sources"
with
objective
data
would
assist
the
reader.
More
references
and
factual
statistics
from
the
Intergonernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change's
report,
Aviation
and
the
Global
Atmosphere
should
be
encorporated
throughout.
Third,
less
emphasis
needs
to
be
given
to
future
regulations,
especially
if
they
are
out
of
context
with
the
current
CAEP
process
or
status.
It
would
be
more
appropriate
to
frame
a
discussion
of
future
action
by
providing
a
brief
overview
of
current
discussions
in
ICAO
(
as
was
cited
in
the
recent
GAO
report).
Finally,
the
statistics
about
the
growth
of
aviation
need
to
be
updated
and
how
such
data
is
intermixed
with
statistics
about
the
contribution
of
aviation
to
NOx
needs
to
be
made
clear
to
ensure
readers
get
a
factual,
data­
based
perspective
of
the
overall
contribution
of
aviation
to
NOx
emissions.
DRAFT
DRAFT
SPECIFIC
COMMENTS
TO
THE
PREAMBLE
Page
1,
para.
1,
third
sentence:
"...
is
proposing
new
emissions
standards
for
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx)
for
newly
certified
commercial
aircraft
gas
turbine
engines..."
and
second
paragraph,
continuing
to
page
2:
"
After
December
31,
2003,
the
proposed
NOx
standards
would
apply
to
newly
certified
gas
turbine
engines
­
those
engines
designed
and
certified
after
the
effective
date
of
the
proposed
regulations."
The
preamble
states
that
the
new
NOx
standards
will
apply
to
newly
certified
gas
turbine
engines,
however,
the
ICAO
standards
and
recommended
practices
and
the
language
that
is
drafted
in
the
proposed
amendments
to
40
CFR
Part
87.21,
Standards
for
Exhaust
Emissions
(
vi),
apply
to
"
engines
of
a
type
or
model
of
which
the
date
of
manufacture
of
the
first
individual
production
model
was
after
December
31,
2003."
Strictly
interpreted,
the
language
in
the
preamble
versus
that
in
the
regulation
may
be
making
a
distinction
between
the
date
of
certification
of
an
engine
and
the
date
of
manufacture
of
the
first
individual
production
model.
However,
the
date
of
manufacture
of
the
first
individual
production
model
is
generally
interpreted
to
mean
the
date
of
type
certification.
We
believe
that
this
should
be
explained
and
clarified
in
the
preamble
to
eliminate
any
possible
confusion.

p.
5,
paragraph
No.
2,
second
sentence:
"...
following
the
secondary
web
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
(
look
in
What's
New
or
under
the
specific
rulemaking
topic.)"
The
referenced
web
site
does
not
have
a
section
titled
"
What's
New",
so
we
suggest
that
the
information
in
parenthesis
be
deleted.

p.
15,
first
paragraph:
After
the
second
sentence,
it
would
be
helpful
to
add
language
to
the
effect
that,
"
CAEP
is
composed
of
various
Study
Groups,
Work
Groups,
Committees
and
other
contributing
memberships
that
include
atmospheric,
economic,
aviation,
environmental,
and
other
professionals
committed
to
ICAO's
previously
stated
position
regarding
aviation
and
the
environment,"
and
similar
supporting
text
to
substantiate
CAEP
as
a
legitimate
means
through
which
the
U.
S.
may
establish
appropriate
aircraft
emissions
regulations.

p.
15,
first
paragraph,
third
sentence:
"
At
CAEP
meetings,
the
United
States
is
represented
by
the
FAA,
which
plays
an
active
role
at
these
meetings
(
see
section
V
for
further
discussion
of
FAA's
role)
8,
and
footnote
No.
8
"
EPA
is
a
principal
participant
in
the
development
of
U.
S.
policy
in
ICAO/
CAEP..."
EPA's
important
role
in
ICAO/
CAEP
should
be
stated
in
the
body
of
the
text,
rather
than
footnoted.

p.
16,
first
partial
paragraph,
last
sentence:
"...
applies
to
new
engine
designs
certified
after
December
31,
2003."
requires
explanation
and
clarification
as
noted
in
the
comment
on
page
1,
para.
1,
second
sentence.

p.
18,
first
full
paragraph,
last
sentence
(
2):
"...
significant
sources
of
emissions
of
NOx..."
is
too
subjective
and
should
be
defined
more
specifically
by
referencing
or
quoting
various
current
studies
or
reports.
The
first
sentence
of
the
very
next
paragraph
indicates
that
aircraft
only
DRAFT
DRAFT
account
for
approximately
1
percent
of
total
U.
S.
mobile
source
NOx
ground
level
emissions
inventory.
These
statements
are
contradictory.

p.
18,
last
paragraph,
first
sentence
and
footnote
No.
14:
"...
aircraft
account
for
over
1
percent
of
the
total
U.
S.
mobile
source..."
This
statistic
needs
to
say
either
less
than,
or
approximately
1%.
Table
A­
4,
as
indicated
in
the
footnote,
states
that
aircraft
were
estimated
to
emit
175
thousand
short
tons
of
nitrogen
oxides
in
1999,
while
the
total
for
all
transportation
(
we
presume
that
is
what
is
meant
by
"
total
U.
S.
mobile
source
NOx
ground
level
emissions
inventory"
with
regard
to
the
Table)
was
25,393
short
tons;
175
/
25,393
x
100
=
0.69%.
Also,
clarification
or
consistent
language
with
reference
to
"
ground
level
emissions
inventory"
and
the
headings
in
Table
A­
4,
referenced
in
the
footnote,
should
be
made.

p.
18,
last
paragraph,
second
sentence
and
balance
of
text,
including
footnotes,
continuing
to
p.
20:
The
full
text
should
be
modified
so
as
not
to
mislead
the
reader
about
the
actual
contribution
of
commercial
aircraft
to
NOx.
For
instance,
as
stated
in
the
prior
statistics
above,
the
actual
contribution
of
aircraft
NOx
emissions
is
appreciably
minor
(
note,
approximately1%),
yet
mixing
statistics
about
the
growth
of
aircraft
NOx
emissions
due
to
dramatic
growth
in
the
commercial
aviation
industry
(
130,
50
to
110
percent,
etc.)
naturally
leads
the
reader
with
an
overestimate
of
the
contribution
of
aircraft
NOx
emissions
to
pollution
and
a
higher
sense
of
urgency
as
to
the
establishment
of
a
reduced
standard.
In
addition,
use
of
statistics
about
the
growth
of
commercial
aviation
developed
prior
to
the
events
of
September
11th,
1991,
and
current
market
conditions,
overestimate
the
growth
of
the
industry
considerably.
We
suggest
that
language
quantifying
aviation
NOx
emissions
relative
to
other
sources
be
adopted
from
alternative,
current
reports,
and
be
presented
distinctly
separate
from
projections
in
growth.
In
addition,
it
is
critical
that
projections
in
growth
for
the
industry
be
as
current
as
possible
and
should
include
data
from
FAA's
and
ICAO's
latest
forecasts.

p.
19,
last
sentence
continuing
on
p.
20:
"...
in
2010
commercial
aircraft
are
projected
to
contribute
as
much
as
10
percent
of
total
regional
mobile
source
NOx
emissions
in
at
least
two
of
the
cities
studied."
This
statistic
refers
to
regional
mobile
source
NOx
emissions,
however
the
supporting
documentation
in
footnote
No.
18
makes
reference
to
ozone
standards
to
which
the
preamble
has
not
yet
discussed
or
established
the
relationship
between
NOx
and
ozone.
Also,
more
accurate
and
current
supporting
documentation
needs
to
be
made
to
make
the
statistical
claim
regarding
the
growth
of
commercial
aviation,
as
stated
in
the
prior
comment.

p.
21,
last
paragraph,
continuing
on
p.
22:
Exact
studies
and
other
documentation
should
be
specifically
referenced
to
establish
the
relationship
between
NOx
and
human
health
and
the
environment.
It
would
be
appropriate
to
reference
the
Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change's
report
"
Aviation
and
the
Global
Atmosphere
as
a
supporting
document
for
this
information
and,
just
as
importantly,
noting
the
uncertainties
associated
with
our
current
understanding
of
aviation's
impact
on
air
quality,
and
variable
effects
that
NOx
has
on
the
atmosphere.

p.
23,
first
paragraph:
"
NOx
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
are
precursors
in
the
photochemical
reaction
which
forms
tropospheric
ozone."
Information
about
VOCs
is
not
seen
DRAFT
DRAFT
here
as
relevant
to
a
discussion
of
NOx
and
ozone
and
should
be
eliminated.
Information
from
current
studies
that
links
NOx
to
ozone
formation,
that
gives
estimates
of
the
rate
of
ozone
formation,
and
an
estimate
of
the
contribution
of
aircraft
emissions
to
ozone
formation
should
be
provided
and
referenced.

p.
26,
last
paragraph,
first
sentence:
"
NOx
emitted
at
low
altitude
is
also
a
precursor
in
the
formation
of
some
nitrate
particulate
matter
(
PM)
in
the
atmosphere
(
mostly
ammonium
nitrate).
25
Information
from
current
studies
that
links
NOx
to
PM
formation,
that
gives
estimates
of
the
rate
of
PM
formation,
and
an
estimate
of
the
contribution
of
aircraft
NOx
emissions
to
PM
should
be
provided
and
referenced.

p.
26,
last
paragraph,
second
sentence:
"
In
general,
nitrate
PM
is
a
significant
contributor
to
overall
ambient
PM
concentrations
in
many
parts
of
..."
Studies
should
be
identified
and
referenced
to
more
precisely
quantify
what
is
meant
by
"
a
significant
contributor,"
in
order
to
eliminate
subjectivity.
Scientific
data
should
then
be
provided
to
substantiate
and
specify
the
"
overall
health
and
welfare
concerns"
that
PM
and
nitrate
PM
pose.
In
addition,
footnote
No.
26
states
that
a
100
ton
reduction
in
NOx
results
in
a
4
ton
reduction
in
secondary
(
nitrate)
PM
reduction.
Read
conversely,
this
footnote
implies
that
NOx
contributes
4%
to
secondary
PM
formation,
of
which
should
be
pointed
out,
that
aircraft
emissions
are
only
a
partial
contributor.
Unless
we
are
mistaken,
the
data
cited
by
EPA
in
this,
and
prior
sections,
would
indicate
that
aircraft
contribute
1%
of
a
4%
contribution
of
NOx
to
secondary
PM.
In
other
words,
aircraft
emissions
only
account
for
0.04%
of
secondary
PM
p.
27,
first
full
paragraph,
third
sentence:
Same
sentence
and
comments
as
those
identified
for
Page
1,
para.
1,
third
sentence.

p.
28,
second
paragraph,
in
its
entirety:
This
paragraph
does
not
reflect
ICAO's
commitment
to
aviation
and
the
environment
in
setting
aircraft
emissions
standards;
the
processes,
resources,
science,
and
credibility
of
the
standards
established
through
ICAO;
and
the
fact
that
EPA
and
FAA
are
major
contributors
in
establishing
the
international
standards.
It
is
pre­
mature
to
expect
or
imply
a
commitment
to
more
stringent
NOx
standards.
Instead,
EPA
should
identify
its
continued
commitment,
through
CAEP,
in
evaluating
the
technology,
benefits,
and
feasibility
of
further
reducing
the
NOx
standards.
Once
established
through
CAEP,
we
believe
these
standards
should
then
serve
the
purpose
of
EPA's
obligation
under
the
CAA
to
establish
emissions
standards
for
the
United
States.
More
accurately,
ICAO,
FAA,
EPA,
and
the
international
community
of
experts
are
conducting
further
analysis
of
technology,
economics,
and
benefits
to
determine
if
the
NOx
standards
can
be
further
reduced
and
to
what
levels.
We
recognize
EPA's
authority
to
"
revise
emission
standards
from
time
to
time,"
but
EPA
must
reflect
that,
in
this
instance,
much
of
the
available
science
and
expertise
reside
within
the
international
community
of
ICAO,
and
that
EPA
needs
to
consider
(
and
give
credibility
to)
CAEP
as
a
means
of
fulfilling
its
obligations
under
the
CAA,
obligations
to
the
international
community,
and
those
to
the
aviation
industry
by
adopting
ICAO
standards
in
a
timely
fashion.
It
would
be
more
appropriate
to
state
that,
once
ICAO
adopts
standards,
EPA
would
likely
consider
similar
standards
in
the
interest
of
international
consensus
and
harmonization
and
to
reduce
the
impact
of
emissions
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
DRAFT
DRAFT
p.
29,
first
paragraph:
This
entire
paragraph
should
be
deleted
in
lieu
of
the
previous
comment.

p.
30,
section
c),
last
sentence:
The
ICAO
NOx
standards
became
effective
July
19,
1999,
and
applicable
as
of
November
4,
1999.
December
31,
2003
is
the
date
at
which
engines
of
a
type
or
model
of
the
first
individual
production
model
is
produced
must
meet
the
standard.

p.
30,
section
i,
Rationale
of
Proposed
NOx
Standards
for
Newly
Certified
Mid­
and
High­
Thrust
Engines
and
p.
32,
section
ii,
Rationale
of
Proposed
NOx
Standards
for
Newly
Certified
Low­
Thrust
Engines:
These
sections
are
appreciably
similar
and,
after
the
comments
to
the
sections
on
pages
31
and
35
are
addressed,
should
be
consolidated
to
eliminate
redundancy.

p.
30,
last
paragraph
continuing
onto
p.
31:
ICAO,
through
the
international
community
and
with
the
participation
of
EPA,
adopted
the
CAEP/
4
standard
on
February
26,
1999.
This
standard
was
established
through
several
years
of
international
coordination
during
which,
again,
EPA
played
a
significant
part.
It
makes
no
sense
to
argue
there
is
not
sufficient
lead
time
to
require
more
stringent
emission
standards
than
the
CAEP/
4
emissions
standards
by
January
2004.
First,
the
ICAO
standard
was
adopted
three
years
ago,
which
means
EPA
has
had
sufficient
time
to
issue
an
NPRM
to
adopt
the
international
standards.
Second,
no
decision
will
be
made
at
CAEP
untill
next
year
and
any
new
ICAO
standard
will
not
be
applicable
several
years
from
now.

p.
31,
first
paragraph
(
partial),
fourth
sentence:
"
At
this
time,
there
is
not
sufficient
lead
time
to
require
more
stringent
emission
standards..."
should
be
eliminated
pursuant
to
the
comments
and
discussion
under
p.
28,
second
paragraph.

p.
35,
first
full
paragraph,
second
sentence:
"
Currently,
there
is
not
sufficient
lead
time
to
require
more
stringent
emission
standards..."
should
be
eliminated
pursuant
to
the
comments
and
discussion
under
p.
28,
second
paragraph
and
p.
30,
last
paragraph
continuing
onto
p.
31.

p.
35,
section
IV.
A.
2
and
p.
41,
section
IV.
A.
3"
Future
NOx
Standards...":
These
two
sections
are
appreciably
similar
and
should
be
combined
to
reduce
redundancy
in
the
preamble.
Regarding
the
current
growth
of
aviation
emissions
in
the
first
three
paragraphs,
refer
to
prior
comments
under
p.
18,
last
paragraph,
second
sentence
and
balance
of
text,
including
footnotes,
continuing
to
p.
20.
It
is
also
important
to
remember
that
the
ongoing
change
in
growth
of
aviation
is
not
simply
from
the
number
of
operations,
but
at
a
structural
level
in
the
types
of
aircraft
(
smaller
regional
jets
growing
by
a
factor
of
6
in
last
5
years)
being
operated.

p.
37,
first
full
paragraph
continuing
through
p.
40:
"
EPA,
therefore,
is
considering
more
stringent
future
standards,
beyond
today's
proposed
standards."
and
p.
39,
first
paragraph,
fourth
sentence:
"
If
not,
we
would
plan
to
seek
additional
emissions...
or
soon
begin
taking
action
independently
in
the
U.
S.
(
e.
g.,
initiate
EPA
rulemaking
for
more
stringent
standards..."
Only
some
of
the
text
in
this
section
regarding
CAEP
and
its
process
is
appropriate
and
supportable
by
FAA.
We
believe
that
EPA
should
continue
with
its
valuable
commitment
to
CAEP
and
that
the
CAEP
is
the
appropriate
process
through
which
EPA
should
continue
to
meet
DRAFT
DRAFT
its
obligations
under
the
CAA.
However,
FAA
takes
great
exception
to
the
notion
that
EPA
would
take
unilateral
action
to
reduce
NOx
standards
outside
the
international
community
as
stated
in
the
prior
comments
under
p.
30,
last
paragraph
continuing
onto
p.
31.
Consider
deleting
the
last
sentence
on
p.
37,
which
continues
through
page
38,
and
replace
it
with
the
following,
or
equivalent,
text:

The
ICAO
CAEP
working
groups
are
currently
assessing
the
technological
feasibility,
economic
reasonableness,
and
environmental
benefit
of
imposing
more
stringent
landing
and
takeoff
cycle
NOx
emissions
standards
for
aircraft
engines
beyond
that
which
will
become
effective
in
2004.
Options
being
considered
range
from
5%
to
30%
more
stringent
with
an
effective
date
as
early
as
2008
to
2012.
Activity
is
also
underway
to
identify
and
assess
the
potential
for
long­
term
technology
goals
to
be
established
for
further
emissions
reductions.
The
aim
of
the
goal
setting
activity
is
to
complement
the
ICAO
CAEP
standard
setting
process
with
information
to
aid
the
engine
and
airframe
manufacturer's
design
process.
The
goals
are
expected
to
take
into
account
the
results
of
recently
completed
emissions
reduction
technology
programs
such
as
those
conducted
by
NASA
and
the
European
Commission
and
the
timeline
necessary
to
carry
those
technologies
from
the
research
phase
through
commercialization.

p.
41,
section
IV.
A.
3:
See
prior
comments
under
p.
35,
section
IV.
A.
2
and
p.
41,
section
IV.
A.
3"
Future
NOx
Standards...".

p.
42
section
B.
Already
Certified,
Newly
Manufactured
Engines,
continuing
through
p.
48:
The
FAA
does
not
have
sufficient
lead
time
to
check
the
data
presented
in
the
text
and
footnotes
to
ensure
its
accuracy.

p.
42,
footnote
No.
44
continues
on
p.
43:
We
are
searching
databases
to
determine
the
fraction
of
U.
S.
LTOs
from
in­
production
aircraft
with
these
engines,
etc.
and
hope
to
provide
this
information
if
we
find
that
it
is
accurate
enough
to
present
to
the
public.

p.
51,
section
3.
Request
for
Comment
on
Applying
the
Proposed
NOx
standards
to
Already
Certified
Engines
and
continuing
through
p.
52:
We
suggest
that
this
first
paragraph
be
eliminated,
and
that
the
section
begin
with
the
second
paragraph
on
p.
52.
Information
regarding
application
of
standards
to
already
certified
engines
might
be
more
appropriate
as
text
in
support
of
that
beginning
on
p.
52,
in
the
second
paragraph
of
the
section.

p.
58,
section
V.
Coordination
with
FAA:
Lead
time
for
coordination
with
FAA
in
drafting
the
preamble
has
not
been
fully
provided
by
EPA.
ICAO
adopted
the
NOx
standard
in
February
1999,
with
an
implementation
date
of
December
31,
2002.
We
find
it
disturbing
that
EPA
has
taken
this
long
to
draft
the
NPRM
and
fear
that,
as
a
result
of
the
delay
and
time
it
takes
to
formally
propose
and
adopt
regulations,
FAA
will
be
forced
to
adopt
regulations
in
14
CFR
Part
34
retroactively.
DRAFT
DRAFT
p.
60
through
63,
section
VI:
We
recommend
deleting
the
section
on
the
EPA/
FAA
stakeholders
process.
It
is
not
an
alternative
to
the
proposed
NOx
stringency
standards
and
does
not
affect
them.
Moreover,
the
section
contains
a
number
of
inaccuracies
which
collectively
convey
some
faulty
impressions
of
the
stakeholder
process.