IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

State of California, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of New Jersey, State of New York, State of Oregon, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Vermont, State of Washington, District of Columbia,

Case No. 21-____ Petitioners,

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a), Circuit

Rule 15, and section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 7607(b)(1), California (by and through the California Attorney

General and the California Air Resources Board), Connecticut, Illinois,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon,

Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia

(“State Petitioners”) petition this Court to review the Environmental

Protection Agency’s final agency action entitled “Control of Air Pollution from Airplanes and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission Standards and

Test Procedures,” published at 86 Fed. Reg. 2,136 (Jan. 11, 2021). State

Petitioners seek a determination by the Court pursuant to section

307(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9), that this rule is unlawful and must be remanded to the agency.

2 Dated: January 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted, FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General

/s/ Theodore A.B. McCombs Robert W. Byrne Edward H. Ochoa Senior Assistant Attorneys General David A. Zonana Timothy Sullivan Supervising Deputy Attorneys General Theodore A.B. McCombs Deputy Attorney General 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 738-9003

Attorneys for the State of California, by and through Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the California Air Resources Board

FOR THE STATE OF FOR THE STATE OF ILLINOIS CONNECTICUT KWAME RAOUL WILLIAM TONG Attorney General Attorney General /s/ Daniel I. Rottenberg /s/ William E. Dornbos Matthew J. Dunn William E. Dornbos Chief, Environmental Enforcement/ Assistant Attorney General Asbestos Litigation Division Office of the Attorney General Daniel I. Rottenberg 165 Capitol Ave., Assistant Attorney General Hartford, CT 06106 Office of the Attorney General (860) 808-5250 69 W. Washington St., 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 814-3816

3

FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General MAURA HEALEY Attorney General /s/ Joshua M. Segal Joshua M. Segal /s/ Carol Iancu Special Assistant Attorney General Christophe Courchesne, Chief Office of the Attorney General Carol Iancu 200 St. Paul Place Assistant Attorneys General Baltimore, MD 21202 Environmental Protection Division (410) 576-6300 One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 (617) 963-2423 (617) 963-2428

FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

KEITH ELLISON GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General Attorney General

/s/ Peter N. Surdo /s/ Mark A. Fisher Peter N. Surdo Mark A. Fisher Special Assistant Attorney General Deputy Attorney General 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 Division of Law St. Paul, MN 55101-2127 Department of Law & Public Safety (651) 757-1061 25 Market Street, PO Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625-0093 (609) 376- 2740

4 FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General /s/ Matthew Eisenson Matthew Eisenson /s/ Paul Garrahan Gavin G. McCabe Paul Garrahan Assistant Attorneys General Attorney-in-Charge Anthony Dvarskas Steve Novick Chief Scientist Special Assistant Attorney Environmental Protection Bureau General Office of the Attorney General Natural Resources Section 28 Liberty Street, 19th Floor Oregon Department of Justice New York, NY 10005 1162 Court Street NE (212) 416-8459 Salem, OR 97301-4096 (503) 947-4593

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. JOSHUA D. SHAPIRO Attorney General Attorney General /s/ Nicholas F. Persampieri /s/ Ann R. Johnston Nicholas F. Persampieri Ann R. Johnston Assistant Attorney General Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Public Protection Division, 109 State Street Health Care Montpelier, VT 05609-1001 Section (802) 828-3171 Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General 1600 Arch St., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (267) 940-6696

5 FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT W. FERGUSON Attorney General KARL A. RACINE Attorney General /s/ Christopher H. Reitz Christopher H. Reitz /s/ Loren L. AliKhan Assistant Attorney General Loren L. AliKhan Office of the Attorney General Solicitor General P.O. Box 40117 Office of the Attorney General Olympia, WA 98504-0117 for the District of Columbia (360) 586-4614 400 6th St., NW, Suite 8100 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 727-6287

6 2136 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION not publicly available, e.g., confidential G. Test and Measurement Procedures AGENCY business information (CBI) or other H. Controlling Two of the Six Well-Mixed information whose disclosure is GHGs 40 CFR Parts 87 and 1030 restricted by statute. Certain other I. Response to Key Comments material, such as copyrighted material, V. Aggregate GHG and Fuel Burn Methods [EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0276; FRL-10018-45- and Results 0AR] is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy A. What methodologies did the EPA use for RIN 2060-AT26 the emissions inventory assessment? form. Publicly available docket B. What are the baseline GHG emissions? materials are available either Control of Air Pollution From Airplanes C. What are the projected effects in fuel electronically through http:!I burn and GHG emissions? and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Standards and Test Procedures VI. Technological Feasibility and Economic Air and Radiation Docket and Impacts AGENCY: Environmental Protection Information Center, EPA Docket Center, A. Market Considerations Agency (EPA). EPA/DC, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 B. Conceptual Framework for Technology ACTION: Final rule. Constitution Ave. NW, Room 3334, C. Technological Feasibility Washington, DC. Note that the EPA D. Costs Associated With the Program SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Docket Center and Reading Room were E. Summary of Benefits and Costs Agency (EPA) is adopting greenhouse closed to public visitors on March 31, VII. Aircraft Engine Technical Amendments gas (GHG) emission standards 2020, to reduce the risk of transmitting VIII. Statutory Authority and Executive Order applicable to certain classes of engines COVID-19. The Docket Center staff will Reviews used by certain civil subsonic jet continue to provide remote customer A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory airplanes with a maximum takeoff mass service via email, phone, and webform. Planning and Review and Executive greater than 5,700 kilograms and by Order 13563: Improving Regulation and The telephone number for the Public Regulatory Review certain civil larger subsonic propeller­ Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing driven airplanes with turboprop engines the telephone number for the Air Docket Regulation and Controlling Regulatory having a maximum takeoff mass greater is (202) 566-1742. For further Costs than 8,618 kilograms. These standards information on EPA Docket Center C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) are equivalent to the airplane carbon services and the current status, go to D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) dioxide (CO2) standards adopted by the https :Ilwww.epa.gov/dockets. E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act International Civil Aviation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (UMRA) Organization (!CAO) in 2017 and apply Bryan Manning, Office of F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism to both new type design airplanes and Transportation and Air Quality, G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation in-production airplanes. The standards Assessment and Standards Division and Coordination With Indian Tribal in this rule reflect U.S. efforts to secure (ASD), Environmental Protection Governments the highest practicable degree of Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of international uniformity in aviation Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: Children From Environmental Health regulations and standards. The Risks and Safety Risks (734) 214-4832; email address: I. Executive Order 13211: Actions standards also meet the EPA's obligation [email protected]. Concerning Regulations That under section 231 of the Clean Air Act SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (CAA) to adopt GHG standards for Table of Contents Distribution or Use certain classes of airplanes as a result of J. National Technology Transfer and the 2016 "Finding That Greenhouse Gas I. General Information Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Emissions From Aircraft Cause or A. Does this action apply to me? Part 51 Contribute to Air Pollution That May B. Did EPA conduct a peer review before K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger issuing this action? To Address Environmental Justice in Public Health and Welfare" (hereinafter C. Basis for Immediate Effective Date Minority Populations and Low-Income "2016 Findings")-for six well-mixed D. Judicial Review and Adminstrative Populations Reconsideration L. Congressional Review Act GHGs emitted by certain classes of E. Executive Summary airplane engines. Airplane engines emit II. Introduction: Overview and Context for I. General Information only two of the six well-mixed GHGs, This Action CO2 and nitrous oxide (N20). A. Summary of Final Rule A. Does this action apply to me? B. EPA Statutory Authority and Accordingly, EPA is adopting the fuel­ This action will affect companies that efficiency-based metric established by Responsibilities Under the Clean Air Act C. Background Information Helpful to manufacture civil subsonic jet airplanes !CAO, which will control both the GHGs Understanding This Action · that have a maximum takeoff mass emitted by airplane engines, CO2 and D. U.S. Airplane Regulations and the (MTOM) of greater than 5,700 kilograms N20. International Community and civil subsonic propeller driven DATES: This final rule is effective on E. Consideration of Whole Airplane airplanes (e.g., turboprops) that have a Characteristics January 11, 2021. The incorporation by III. Summary of the 2016 Findings MTOM greater than 8,618 kilograms, reference of certain publications listed IV. EPA's Final GHG Standards for Covered including the manufacturers of the in this regulation is approved by the Airplanes engines used on these airplanes. Director of the Federal Register as of A. Airplane Fuel Efficiency Metric Affected entities include the following: January 11, 2021. B. Covered Airplane Types and ADDRESSES: EPA has established a Applicability Examples of docket for this action under Docket ID C. GHG Standard for New Type Designs Category NAICS code a potentially D. GHG Standard for In-Production affected entities No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0276. All Airplane Types documents are listed on the http:// E. Exemptions From the GHG Standards Industry 336412 Manufacturers of www.regulations.gov website. Although F. Application of Rules for New Version of new aircraft en­ listed in the index, some information is an Existing GHG-Certificated Airplane gines. Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 2137

Examples of reports and the Agency's response to the nature of this action, good cause exists Category NAICS code a potentially peer review comments are available in to make this final rule effective affected entities Docket ID No. EP A-HQ-OAR-2018- immediately because the Agency seeks 0276. to provide regulatory certainty as soon Industry 336411 Manufacturers of as possible and no party will be harmed new aircraft. C. Basis for Immediate Effective Date by an immediate effective date since a North American Industry Classification This rule is subject to the rulemaking there is no need to provide a delay of System (NAICS) procedures in section 307(d) of the 30 days after publication for parties to Clean Air Act (CAA). See CAA section This table lists the types of entities adjust their behavior prior to the 307(d)(1)(F). Section 307(d)(1) of the effective date. Accordingly, the EPA is that EPA is now aware could potentially CAA states that: "The provisions of be affected by this action. Other types of making this rule effective immediately section 553 through 557 * * * of Title upon publication. entities not listed in the table might also 5 shall not, except as expressly provided be subject to these regulations. To in this subsection, apply to actions to D. Judicial Review and Administrative determine whether your activities are which this subsection applies." Thus, Reconsideration regulated by this action, you should section 553(d) of the Administrative Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section carefully examine the relevant Procedure Act (AP A), which requires 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 87 publication of a substantive rule to be action is available only by filing a and 1030. If you have any questions made "not less than 30 days before its petition for review in the United States regarding the applicability of this action effective date" subject to limited Court of Appeals for the District of to a particular entity, consult the person exceptions, does not apply to this Columbia Circuit by March 12, 2021. listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER action. In the alternative, the EPA Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the INFORMATION CONTACT section. concludes that it is consistent with APA requirements established by this final For consistency purposes across the section 553(d) to make this action rule may not be challenged separately in United States Code of Federal effective January 11, 2021. any civil or criminal proceedings Regulations (CFR), the terms "airplane," Section 553(d)(3) of the APA, 5 U.S.C. brought by the EPA to enforce the "aircraft," and "civil aircraft" have the 553(d)(3), provides that final rules shall requirements. meanings found in title 14 CFR 1.1 and not become effective until 30 days after Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA are used as appropriate throughout the publication in the Federal Register further provides that only an objection new regulation under 40 CFR part 1030. "except . . . as otherwise provided by to a rule or procedure which was raised the agency for good cause found and B. Did EPA conduct a peer review before with reasonable specificity during the published with the rule." "In issuing this action? period for public comment (including determining whether good cause exists, any public hearing) may be raised This regulatory action is supported by an agency should 'balance the necessity during judicial review. This section also influential scientific information. for immediate implementation against provides a mechanism for the EPA to Therefore, the EPA conducted peer principles of fundamental fairness reconsider the rule if the person raising reviews consistent with the Office of which require that all affected persons an objection can demonstrate to the Management and Budget's (OMB's) be afforded a reasonable amount of time Administrator that it was impracticable Final Information Quality Bulletin for to prepare for the effective date of its to raise such objection within the period Peer Review. 1 Two different reports ruling." Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. for public comment or if the grounds for used in support of this action Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 such objection arose after the period for underwent peer review; a report (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting United States public comment (but within the time detailing the technologies likely to be v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1105 (8th specified for judicial review) and if such used in compliance with the standards Cir. 1977)). The purpose of this objection is of central relevance to the and their associated costs 2 and a report provision is to "give affected parties a outcome of the rule. Any person seeking detailing the methodology and results of reasonable time to adjust their behavior to make such a demonstration should the emissions inventory modeling. 3 before the final rule takes effect." Id.; submit a Petition for Reconsideration to These reports were each peer-reviewed see also Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1104 the Office of the Administrator, U.S. through external letter reviews by (quoting legislative history). EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, multiple independent subject matter As discussed in the notice of 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, experts (including experts from proposed rulemaking, and below, the Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to academia and other government standards adopted here are meant to be both the person(s) listed in the agencies, as well as independent technology following standards that preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION technical experts).45 The peer review align with international standards that CONTACT section, and the Associate were previously adopted in 2017 by General Counsel for the Air and 1 0MB, 2004: Memorandum for Heads of ICAO. This means the rule reflects the Radiation Law Office, Office of General Departments and Agencies, Final Information performance and technology achieved Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Available at by existing airplanes. Moreover, the 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, https :I/www.whitehouse.gov!sites!whitehouse.govl EPA is not aware of any manufacturers Washington, DC 20460 files/omb!memoranda/2005/m05-03.pdf who would seek certification of any new 2 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology E. Executive Summary Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final type design airplanes in the near future, Report, EPA Contract Number EP-C-16-020, such that making the rule effective 1. Purpose of This Regulatory Action September 30, 2018. immediately upon publication could One of the core functions of the 'U.S. EPA, 2020: Technical Report on Aircraft disrupt their certification plans. The Emissions Inventory and Stringency Analysis, July International Civil Aviation EPA is determining that in light of the 2020, 52pp. . Organization (ICAO) is to adopt 4 RTI International an(i EnDyna, Aircraft CO2 Standards and Recommended Practices Cost and Technology Refresh and Aerospace 5 RTI International and EnDyna, EPA Technical Industry Characterization: Peer Review, June 2018, Report on Aircraft Emissions Inventory and on a wide range of aviation-related 114pp. Stringency Analysis: Peer Review, July 2019, 157pp. matters, including aircraft emissions. As 2138 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations a member State ofICAO, the United 231(a)(2)(A). Additional details of the kilogram of fuel) and the reference States seeks to secure the highest 2016 Findings are described in Section geometric factor (RGF), a measure of practicable degree of international III. As a result of the 2016 Findings, fuselage size. The metric is further uniformity in aviation regulations and CAA sections 231(a)(2)(A) and (3) discussed in Section IV.A. standards.6 ICAO adopted airplane CO2 obligate the EPA to propose and adopt, To measure airplane fuel efficiency, standards in 2017. The adoption of respectively, GHG standards for these the EPA is adopting the ICAO test these aviation standards into U.S. law covered aircraft engines. procedures whereby the airplane/engine will align with the ICAO standards. For SAR value is measured at three specific 2. Summary of the Major Provisions of operating test points, and a composite of reasons discussed herein, the EPA is This Regulatory Action adopting standards for GHG emissions those results is used in the metric to from certain classes of engines used on The EPA is regulating GHG emissions determine compliance with the GHG covered airplanes (hereinafter ''covered from covered airplanes through the standards. The test procedures are airplanes" or "airplanes") that are adoption of domestic GHG regulations discussed in Section IV.G. equivalent in scope, stringency and that match international standards to The EPA proposed an annual timing to the CO2 standards adopted by control CO2 emissions. The GHG reporting provision which would have ICAO. standards finalized in this action are required manufacturers of covered These standards will ensure control of equivalent to the CO2 standards adopted airplanes to submit to the EPA GHG emissions, maintain international by ICAO and will be implemented and information on airplane characteristics, uniformity of airplane standards, and enforced in the U.S. The standards emissions characteristics and allow U.S. manufacturers of covered apply to covered airplanes: Civil production volumes. Commenters raised airplanes to remain competitive in the subsonic jet airplanes (those powered by several issues such as duplicative global marketplace. In the absence of turbojet or turbofan engines and with a reporting burdens with FAA and ICAO, U.S. standards for implementing the MTOM greater than 5,700 kilograms), as risks to confidential business ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards, well as larger civil subsonic propeller­ information, and higher costs associated U.S. civil airplane manufacturers could driven airplanes (those powered by with the reporting requirement than turboprop engines and with a MTOM be forced to seek CO2 emissions EPA projections. The Agency is not certification from an aviation greater than 8,618 kilograms). The adopting the proposed annual reporting certification authority of another timing and stringencies of the standards provisions. Further information on country (not the Federal Aviation differ depending on whether the those comments and the EPA's response Administration (FAA)) in order to covered airplane is a new type design can be found in the Response to (i.e., a design that has not previously market and operate their airplanes Comments (RTC) document been type certificated under title 14 internationally. We anticipate U.S. accompanying this action. Further CFR) or an in-production model (i.e., an manufacturers would be at a significant information on all aspects of the GHG existing design that had been type disadvantage if the U.S. failed to adopt standards can be found in Section IV. certificated under title 14 CFR prior to Finally, as proposed, the EPA is ·standards that are harmonized with the the effective date of the GHG standards). updating the existing incorporation by ICAO standards for CO2 emissions. The The standards for new type designs reference of the ICAO test procedures ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards apply to covered airplanes for which an for hydrocarbons (HC), carbon have been adopted by other ICAO application for certification is submitted monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen member states that certify airplanes. The to the FAA on or after January 11, 2021 (NOx) and smoke to reference the most action to adopt in the U.S. GHG (January 1, 2023, for new type designs recent edition of the ICAO procedures. standards that match the ICAO Airplane that have a maximum takeoff mass This update will improve clarity in the CO2 Emission Standards will help (MTOM) of 60,000 kilograms MTOM or existing test procedures and includes a ensure international consistency and less and have 19 passenger seats or minor change to the composition of the acceptance of U.S. manufactured fewer). The in-production standards test fuel used for engine certification. airplanes worldwide. apply to covered airplanes beginning Further details on this technical In August 2016, the EPA issued two January 1, 2028. Additionally, amendment can be found in Section VII. findings regarding GHG emissions from consistent with ICAO standards, before aircraft engines (the 2016 Findings). 7 the in-production standards otherwise 3. Costs and Benefits First, the EPA found that elevated apply in 2028, certain modifications Given the significant international concentrations of GHGs in the made to airplanes (i.e., changes that market pressures to continually improve atmosphere endanger the public health result in an increase in GHG emissions) the fuel efficiency of their airplanes, and welfare of current and future will trigger a requirement to certify to U.S. manufacturers have already generations within the meaning of the in-production regulation beginning developed or are developing section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Second, January 1, 2023. Some minor technical technologies that will allow affected EPA found that emissions of GHGs from · corrections have been made to the airplanes to comply with the ICAO certain classes of engines used in certain proposed regulatory text in this action standards, in advance ofEPA's adoption aircraft are contributing to the air to further clarify that the standards do of standards. Many airplanes pollution that endangers public health not apply to in-service airplanes or manufactured by U.S. manufacturers and welfare under CAA section military airplanes. already met the ICAO standards at the The EPA is adopting the ICAO CO2 time of their adoption and thus already 6 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil metric, which measures fuel efficiency, meet the standards contained in this Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, Article 37, 114 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/ for demonstrating compliance with the action. Furthermore, based on the publications/Documents/7300_ 9ed. pdf (last GHG emission standards. This metric is manufacturers' expectation that the accessed October 27, 2020). a mathematical function that ICAO standards will be implemented 7 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas incorporates the specific air range (SAR) globally, the EPA anticipates nearly all Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To of an airplane/engine combination (a affected airplanes to be compliant by the Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 traditional measure of airplane cruise respective effective dates for new type FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). performance in units of kilometer/ designs and for in-production airplanes Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2139

(see Section IV.1.2 for further As a result of the 2016 Findings,9 10 apply to both new type designs and in­ information on affected airplanes). The the EPA is obligated under section production airplanes. The in-production EPA's business as usual baseline 231(a) of the CAA to issue emission standards have later applicability dates projects that even independent of the standards applicable to GHG emissions and different emission levels than do ICAO standards, nearly all airplanes from the classes of engines used by the standards for new type designs. The produced by U.S. manufacturers will covered aircraft included in the 2016 different emission levels for new type meet the ICAO in-production standards Findings. As described later in further designs and in-production airplanes in 2028. This result is not surprising, detail in Section III, we are regulating depend on the airplane size, weight, and given the significant market pressure on the air pollutant that is the aggregate of availability of fuel efficiency airplane manufacturers to continually the six well-mixed GHGs. Only two of technologies. the six well-mixed GHGs-C02 and N20 Apart from the GHG requirements, we improve the fuel efficiency of aircraft, are updating the engine emissions the significant annual research and -have non-zero emissions for total civil subsonic airplanes and U.S. covered testing and measurement procedures development expenditures from the airplanes. CO2 represents 99 percent of applicable to HC, NOx, CO, and smoke aircraft industry (much of which is all GHGs emitted from both total U.S. in current regulations. The updates will focused on fuel efficiency), and the civil airplanes and U.S. covered implement recent amendments to ICAO more than 50 year track record of the airplanes, and N20 represents 1 percent standards in Annex 16, Volume II, and industry in developing and selling of GHGs emitted from total airplanes these updates will be accomplished by aircraft which have shown continuous and U.S. covered airplanes. incorporating provisions of the Annex improvement in fuel efficiency. EPA's Promulgation of the GHG emission by reference, as has historically been assessment includes the expectation standards for the certain classes of done in previous EPA rulemakings.12 that existing in-production airplanes engines used by covered airplanes will that are non-compliant will either be B. EPA Statutory Authority and fulfill EPA's obligations under the CAA Responsibilities Under the Clean Air Act modified and re-certificated as and is the next step for the United States compliant, will likely go out of in implementing the ICAO standards Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA production before the production promulgated in Annex 16 under the directs the Administrator of the EPA to, compliance date of January 1, 2028, or Chicago Convention. We are issuing a from time to time, propose aircraft will seek exemptions from the GHG new rule that controls aircraft engine engine emission standards applicable to standard. For these reasons, the EPA is GHG emissions through the use of the the emission of any air pollutant from not projecting emission reductions ICAO regulatory metric that quantifies classes of aircraft engines which in the associated with these GHG regulations. airplane fuel efficiency. Administrator's judgment causes or However, the EPA does note that The rule will establish GHG standards contributes to air pollution that may consistency with the international applicable to U.S. airplane reasonably be anticipated to endanger standards will prevent backsliding by manufacturers that are no less stringent public health or welfare. (See 42 U.S.C. ensuring that all new type design and than the Airplane CO2 Emission 7571(a)(2)(A)). Section 231(a)(2)(B) in-production airplanes are at least as Standards adopted by ICA0.11 This rule directs the EPA to consult with the efficient as today's airplanes. For further incorporates the same compliance Administrator of the FAA on such details on the benefits and costs schedule as the ICAO Airplane CO2 standards, and it prohibits the EPA from associated with these GHG standards, Emission Standards. The standards will changing aircraft engine emission standards if such a change would see Sections V and VI, respectively. •U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas significantly increase noise and II. Introduction: Overview and Context Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air adversely affect safety (see 42 U.S.C. for this Action Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To 7571(a)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)). Section 231(a)(3) Endanger Public Health and Welfare and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaldng; Final Rule, 81 FR provides that after we propose This section provides a summary of 54422 (August 15, 2016). standards, the Administrator shall issue the final rule. This section describes the 1 °Covered airplanes are those airplanes to which such standards "with such EPA's statutory authority, the U.S. the international CO2 standards and the GHG modifications as he deems appropriate." airplane engine regulations and the standards apply: subsonic jet airplanes with a (see 42 U.S.C. 7571(a)(3)). The U.S. maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater than 5,700 relationship with ICAO's international kilograms and subsonic propeller-driven (e.g., Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has standards, and consideration of the turboprop) airplanes with a MTOM greater than held that this provision confers an whole airplane in addressing airplane 8,618 kilograms. Section IV describes covered and unusually broad degree of discretion on engine GHG emissions. non-covered airplanes in further detail. the EPA to adopt aircraft engine !CAO, 2016: Tenth Meeting Committee on emission standards that the Agency A. Summary of Final Rule Aviation Environmental Protection Report, Doc 10069, CAEP/10, 432 pp, Available at: http:// determines are reasonable. Nat'] Ass'n In February 2016, ICAO's Committee www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d {last accessed October 27, 2020). The !CAO CAEP/ 1221, 1229-30 (D.C. Cir. 2007) on Aviation Environmental Protection 10 report is found on page 27 of the English Edition (CAEP) agreed to international Airplane 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. (NACAA). CO2 Emission Standards, which ICAO 10069. In addition, under CAA section 231(b) 1 the EPA is required to ensure, in approved in 2017. The EPA is adopting 1 ICAO's certification standards and test GHG standards that are equivalent to the procedures for airplane CO2 emissions are based on consultation with the U.S. Department the consumption of fuel (or fuel burn) under of Transportation (DOT), that the international Airplane CO Emission 2 prescribed conditions at optimum cruise altitude. effective date of any standard provides Standards promulgated by ICAO in !CAO uses the term, CO2, for its standards and Annex 16.a procedures, but !CAO is actually regulating or the necessary time to permit the measuring the rate of an airplane's fuel burn (fuel development and application of the efficiency). For jet fuel, the emissions index or requisite technology, giving appropriate 8 !CAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil emissions factor for CO2 is 3.16 kilograms of CO2 Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. per kilogram of fuel burn (or 3,160 grams of CO2 consideration to the cost of compliance Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ per kilogram of fuel burn). Thus, to convert an Documents/7300_9ed.pdf(last accessed October 27, airplane's rate of fuel burn to a CO2 emissions rate, 12 Previous EPA rulemakings for aircraft engine 2020). this emission index needs to be applied. regulations are described later in section II.D.2. 2140 Federal Register/-Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations

(see 42 U.S.C. 7571(b)J. Section 232 then 1. International Regulations and U.S. with any international standard or directs the Secretary of Transportation Obligations procedure, or that determines it is to prescribe regulations to ensure The EPA has worked with the FAA necessary to adopt regulations or compliance with the EPA's standards since 1973, and later with !CAO, to practices differing in any particular (see 42 U.S.C. 7572). Finally, section develop domestic and international respect from those established by an 233 of the CAA vests the authority to standards and other recommended international standard, is required to promulgate emission standards for practices pertaining to aircraft engine give notification to !CAO of the aircraft engines only in the Federal emissions. The Convention on differences between its own practice Government. States are preempted from International Civil Aviation (commonly and that established by the international adopting or enforcing any standard known as the 'Chicago Convention') was standard.1B respecting emissions from aircraft or signed in 1944 at the Diplomatic ICAO's work on the environment aircraft engines unless such standard is Conference held in Chicago. The focuses primarily on those problems identical to the EPA's standards (see 42 Chicago Convention establishes the that benefit most from a common and u.s.c. 7573). legal framework for the development of coordinated approach on a worldwide international civil aviation. The primary basis, namely aircraft noise and engine C. Background Information Helpful to emissions. SARPs for the certification of Understanding This Action objective is "that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and aircraft noise and aircraft engine Civil airplanes and associated engines orderly manner and that international emissions are contained in Annex 16 to are international commodities that are air transport services may be established the Chicago Convention. To continue to manufactured and sold around the on the basis of equality of opportunity address aviation environmental issues, world. The member States of !CAO and and operated soundly and in 2004, !CAO established three the world's airplane and airplane engine economically." 13 In 1947, !CAO was environmental goals: (1) Limit or reduce manufacturers participated in the established, and later in that same year the number of people affected by deliberations leading up to ICAO's !CAO became a specialized agency of significant aircraft noise; (2) limit or adoption of the international Airplane the United Nations (UN). !CAO sets reduce the impact of aviation emissions CO2 Emission Standards. However, international standards for aviation on local air quality; and (3) limit or ICAO's standards are not directly safety, security, efficiency, capacity, and reduce the impact of aviation GHG applicable to nor enforceable against environmental protection and serves as emissions on the global climate. member States' airplane and engine the forum for cooperation in all fields of The Chicago Convention has a manufacturers. Instead, after adoption of international civil aviation. !CAO works number of other features that govern the standards by !CAO, a member State with the Chicago Convention's member international commerce. First, member is required (as described later in Section States and global aviation organizations States that wish to use aircraft in II.D.1) to adopt domestic standards at to develop international Standards and international transportation must adopt least as stringent as !CAO standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), emission standards that are at least as apply them, as applicable, to subject which member States reference when stringent as ICAO's standards if they airplane and airplane engine developing their domestic civil aviation want to ensure recognition of their manufacturers in order to ensure regulations. The United States is one of airworthiness certificates. Member recognition of their airworthiness and 193 currently participating !CAO States may ban the use of any aircraft type certificate by other member State's member States,1415 within their airspace that does not meet civil aviation authorities. This In the interest of global harmonization !CAO standards.17 Second, the Chicago rulemaking is a necessary step to meet and international air commerce, the Convention indicates that member this obligation for the United States. Chicago Convention urges its member States are required to recognize the States to "collaborate in securing the airworthiness certificates issued or D. U.S. Airplane Regulations and the highest practicable degree of uniformity rendered valid by the contracting State International Community in regulations, standards, procedures in which the aircraft is registered The EPA and the FAA work within and organization in relation to aircraft, provided the requirements under which the standard-setting process ofICAO's . . . in all matters which such the certificates were issued are equal to CAEP to help establish international uniformity will facilitate and improve or above ICAO's minimum standards.1a emission standards and related air navigation." The Chicago Third, to ensure that international requirements, which individual member Convention also recognizes that member commerce is not unreasonably States adopt into domestic law and States may adopt national standards that constrained, a member State that cannot regulations. Historically, under this are more or less stringent than those meet or deems it necessary to adopt approach, international emission agreed upon by !CAO or standards that regulations differing from the standards have first been adopted by are different in character or that comply international standard is obligated to !CAO, and subsequently the EPA has with the !CAO standards by other notify !CAO of the differences between initiated rulemakings under CAA means. Any member State that finds it impracticable to comply in all respects 16 ICAO, 2006: Doc 7300-Convention on section 231 to establish domestic International Civil Aviation, Ninth Edition, standards that are harmonized with 13 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at http:// ICAO's standards. After EPA Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_ promulgates aircraft engine emission Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ 9ed.pdf(last accessed October 27, 2020). standards, CAA section 232 requires the Documents/7300_9ed.pdf(last accessed October 27, 17ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil FAA to issue regulations to ensure 2020). Aviation, Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document 1• Members of ICAO's Assembly are generally 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ compliance with the EPA aircraft engine termed member States or contracting States. These publications/Documents/7300_ 9ed. pdf{last emission standards when issuing terms are used interchangeably throughout this accessed October 27, 2020). airworthiness certificates pursuant to its preamble. 1• ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil authority under Title 49 of the United 15 There are currently 193 contracting states Aviation, Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document according to ICAO's website: https:!/www.icao.int/ 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ States Code. This rule continues this MemberStates/Member%20States.English.pdf(last publications/Documents/7300_ 9ed.pdf (last historical rulemaking approach. accessed March 16, 2020). accessed October 27, 2020). Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 6 /Monday, January 11, 2021 /Rules and Regulations 2141 its domestic regulations and ICAO Group meetings, as well as the ICAO/ this stringency proposal and approved standards.19 CAEP triennial meetings, and only the test procedure amendments. At ICAO's CAEP, which consists of contributing technical expertise to the CAEP/4 meeting in 1998, the members and observers from States, CAEP's working groups. The EPA serves Committee adopted a similar 16 percent intergovernmental and non­ as an advisor to the U.S. member at the NOx reduction proposal, which ICAO governmental organizations annual ICAO/CAEP Steering Group and approved in 1998. Unlike the CAEP/2 representing the aviation industry and triennial ICAO/CAEP meetings, while standards, the CAEP/4 standards environmental interests, undertakes also contributing technical expertise to applied only to new type design engines ICAO's technical work in the CAEP's working groups and assisting after December 31, 2003, and not to in­ environmental field. The Committee is and advising the FAA on aviation production engines, leaving the CAEP/ responsible for evaluating, researching, emissions, technology, and 2 standards applicable to in-production and recommending measures to the environmental policy matters. In turn, engines. In 2004, CAEP/6 recommended ICAO Council that address the the FAA assists and advises the EPA on a 12 percent NOx reduction, which environmental impacts of international aviation environmental issues, ICAO approved in 2005,2s26 The CAEP/ civil aviation. CAEP's terms of reference technology and airworthiness 6 standards applied to new engine indicate that "CAEP's assessments and certification matters. designs certificated after December 31, proposals are pursued taking into CAEP's predecessor at ICAO, the 2007, again leaving the CAEP/2 account: Technical feasibility; Committee on Aircraft Engine Emissions standards in place for in-production environmental benefit; economic (CAEE), adopted the first international engines before January 1, 2013. In 2010, reasonableness; interdependencies of SARPs for aircraft engine emissions that CAEP/8 recommended a further measures (for example, among others, were proposed in 1981.23 These tightening of the NOx standards by 15 measures taken to minimize noise and standards limited aircraft engine percent for new engine designs emissions); developments in other emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon certificated after December 31, 2013,212s fields; and international and national monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen The Committee also recommended that programs." 20 The ICAO Council (NOx), The 1981 standards applied to the CAEP/6 standards be applied to in­ reviews and adopts the newly manufactured engines, which are production engines on or after January recommendations made by CAEP. It those engines built after the effective 1, 2013, which cut off the production of then reports to the ICAO Assembly, the , date of the regulations-also referred to CAEP/2 and CAEP/4 compliant engines highest body of the organization, where as in-production engines. In 1993, ICAO with the exception of spare engines; the main policies on aviation adopted a CAEP/2 proposal to tighten ICAO adopted these as standards in environmental protection are adopted the original NOx standard by 20 percent 2011.29 and translated into Assembly and amend the test procedures.24 These Resolutions. If ICAO adopts a CAEP 1993 standards applied both to newly 2s CAEP/5 did not address new airplane engine proposal for a new environmental certificated turbofan engines (those emission standards. standard, it then becomes part of ICAO engine models that received their initial 26 ICAO, 2017: Aircraft Engine Emissions, International Standards and Recommended standards and recommended practices type certificate after the effective date of Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex (Annex 16 to the Chicago the regulations, referred to as newly 16,Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, 174pp. ConventionJ.2122 certificated engines or new type design Available at https://www.icao.int/publications/ The FAA plays an active role in engines) and to in-production engines; Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, ICAO/CAEP; including serving as the 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on the stan'dards had different effective page 16 of the ICAO Products & Services English representative (member) of the United dates for newly certificated engines and Edition of the 2020 catalog, and it is copyright States at annual ICAO/CAEP Steering in-production engines. In 1995, CAEP/3 protected; Order No. AN16-2. Also see: ICAO, recommended a further tightening of the 2020: Supplement No. 7, August 2020, Annex 16 10 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Environmental Protection-Volume II-Aircraft Engine NOx standards by 16 percent and Emissions, Amendment 10 (20/7/20).76pp. Aviation, Article 38, Ninth Edition, Document additional test procedure amendments, 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ Available at https://www.icao.int/publications/ publications/Documents/7300_ 9ed.pdf (last but in 1997 the ICAO Council rejected catalogue/cat_ 2020_ Sup07_ en.pdf (last accessed accessed October 27, 2020). October 27, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16, Volume II, 20 ICAO: CAEP Terms of Reference. Available at 23 ICAO, 2017: Aircraft Engine Emissions: Amendment 10 is found on page 3 of Supplement http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/ Foreword, International Standards and No. 7-August 2020; English Edition, Order No. Pages/Caep.aspx#ToR (last accessed March 16, Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection, AN16-2/E/12. 2020). Annex 16, Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, "CAEP/7 did not address new aircraft engine 21 ICAO, 2017: Aircraft Engine Emissions, 174pp. Available at https:llwww.icao.int/ emission standards. International Standards and Recommended publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed 2•ICAO, 2010: Committee on Aviation Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex 16, March 16, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is Environmental Protection (CAEP), Report of the Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, 174 pp. found on page 16 of the ICAO Products & Services Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1-12, 2010, Available at http://www.icao.int/publicationsl English Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright CAEP/8-WP/80 Available in Docket EPA-HQ­ Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, protected; Order No. AN16-2. Also see: ICAO, OAR-2010-0687. 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on 2020: Supplement No. 7, August 2020, Annex 16 29 ICAO, 2017: Aircraft Engine Emissions, page 16 of the ICAO Products & Services English Environmental Protection-Volume II-Aircraft International Standards and Recommended Edition of the 2020 catalog, and it is copyright Engine Emissions, Amendment 10 (20/7/20).76pp. Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex 16, protected; Order No. AN16-2. Also see: ICAO, Available at https:l/www.icao.int/publications/ Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, Amendment 2020: Supplement No.7, August 2020, Annex 16 catalogue/cat_2020 _ Sup07_ en.pd[ (last accessed 9, 174 pp. CAEP/8 corresponds to Amendment 7 Environmental Protection-Volume II-Aircraft October 27, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16, Volume II, effective on July 18, 2011. Available at https:/1 Engine Emissions, Amendment 10 (20/7/20).76pp. Amendment 10 is found on page 3 of Supplement www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx Available at https :/lwww.icao.int/publications/ No. 7-August 2020; English Edition, Order No. (last accessed March 16, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 catalogue/cat_ 2020_ Sup07_ en.pdf (last accessed AN16-2/E/12. Volume II is found on page 16 of the ICAO Products October 27, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16, Volume II, 24 CAEP conducts its work triennially. Each & Services English Edition of the 2020 catalog, and Amendment 10 is found on page 3 of Supplement 3-year work cycle is numbered sequentially and it is copyright protected; Order No. AN16-2. Also No. 7-August 2020; English Edition, Order No. that identifier is used to differentiate the results see: ICAO, 2020: Supplement No. 7, August 2020, AN16-2/E/12. from one CAEP meeting to another by convention. Annex 16 Environmental Protection-Volume II­ 22 CAEP develops new emission standards based The first technical meeting on aircraft emission Aircraft Engine Emissions, Amendment 10 (20/7/ on an assessment of the technical feasibility, cost, standards was CAEP's predecessor, i.e., CAEE. The 20).76pp. Available athttps://www.icao.int/ and environmental benefit of potential first meeting of CAEP, therefore, is referred to as publications/catalogue/cat_ 2020_ Sup07_ en.pdf requirements. CAEP/2. Continued 2142 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations

At the CAEP/10 meeting in 2016, the commercial turbofan engil1es.s 7 In 2005, section 231 of the CAA to propose and Committee agreed to the first airplane we promulgated more stringent NOx issue emission standards applicable to CO2 emission standards, which ICAO emission standards for newly GHG emissions from the classes of approved in 2017. The CAEP/10 CO2 certificated commercial turbofan engines used by covered aircraft standards apply to new type design engines.sa That final rule brought the included in the 2016 Findings. airplanes for which the application for U.S. standards closer to alignment with When the EPA proposed the aircraft a type certificate will be submitted on ICAO CAEP/4 requirements that became GHG findings in 2015, we included an or after January 1, 2020, some modified effective in 2004. In 2012, we issued aircraft GHG emission standards in-production airplanes on or after more stringent two-tiered NOx emission advance notice of proposed rulemaking January 1, 2023, and all applicable in­ standards for newly certificated and in­ (henceforth the "2015 ANPR") 41 that production airplanes built on or after production commercial and non­ provided information on the January 1, 2028. commercial turbofan engines, and these international process for setting the NOx standards align with ICAO's CAEP/ ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. 2. EPA's Regulation of Aircraft Engine 6 and CAEP/8 standards that became Also, the 2015 ANPR described and Emissions and the Relationship to effective in 2013 and 2014, sought input on the potential use of International Aircraft Standards respectively.39 40 The EP A's actions to section 231 of the CAA to adopt and regulate certain pollutants emitted from implement the corresponding As required by the CAA, the EPA has aircraft engines come directly from the international Airplane CO2 Emission been engaged in reducing harmful air authority in section 231 of the CAA, and Standards domestically as a CAA pollution from airplane engines for over we have aligned the U.S. emissions section 231 GHG standard. 40 years, regulating gaseous exhaust requirements with those promulgated by emissions, smoke, and fuel venting from ICAO. All of these previous ICAO E. Consideration of Whole Airplane engines.so We have periodically revised emission standards, and the EPA's Characteristics these regulations. In a 1997 rulemaking, standards reflecting them, have In addressing CO2 emissions, ICAO for example, we made our emission generally been considered anti­ adopted an approach that measures the standards and test procedures more backsliding standards (most aircraft fuel efficiency from the perspective of consistent with those ofICAO's CAEP engines meet the standards), which are whole airplane design-an airframe and for turbofan engines used in commercial technology following. engine combination. Specifically, ICAO aviation with rated thrusts greater than The EPA and the FAA worked from adopted CO2 emissions test procedures 26.7 kilonewtons.31 These ICAO 2009 to 2016 within the ICAO/CAEP based on measuring the performance of requirements are generally referred to as standard-setting process on the the whole airplane rather than the 2 CAEP/2 standards.s The 1997 developi:p.ent of the international airplane engines alone.4 2 The ICAO rulemaking included new NOx emission Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. In standards account for three factors: standards for newly manufactured this action, we are adopting GHG Aerodynamics, airplane weight, and commercial turbofan engines 33 34 and standards equivalent to the ICAO engine propulsion technologies. These for newly certificated commercial Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. As airplane performance characteristics turbofan engines.35 36 It also included a stated earlier in this Section II, the determine the overall CO2 emissions. CO emission standard for in-production standards established in the United Rather than measuring a single chemical States need to be at least as stringent as compound, the ICAO CO2 emissions test (last accessed October 27, 2020). The ICAO Annex the ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission procedures measure fuel efficiency 16, Volume II, Amendment 10 is found on page 3 Standards in order to ensure global of Supplement No. 7-August 2020; English based on how far an airplane can fly on Edition, Order No. AN16-2/E/12. acceptance of FAA airworthiness a single unit of fuel at the optimum aou.s. EPA, 1973: Emission Standards and Test certification; Also, as a result of the cruise altitude and speed. Procedures for Aircraft; Final Rule, 38 FR 19088 2016 Findings, as described later in The three factors-and technology Uuly 17, 1973). Section IV, the EPA is obligated under categories that improve these factors­ 31 U.S. EPA, 1997: Control of Air Pollution from are described as follows: 43 Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards 37U.S. EPA, 1997: Control of Air Pollution from • Weight: Reducing basic airplane and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 62 FR 25355 (May Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards weight 44 via structural changes to 8, 1997). and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 62 FR 25355 (May 32 The full CAEP membership meets every three 8, 1997). years and each session is denoted by a numerical 3• U.S. EPA, 2005: Control of Air Pollution from 41 U.S. EPA, 2015: Proposed Finding that identifier. For example, the second meeting of Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft Cause or CAEP is referred to as CAEP/2, and CAEP/2 and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 70 FR 69664 Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be occurred in 1994. (November 17, 2005). Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare •• This does not mean that in 1997 we 39 U.S. EPA, 2012: Control of Air Pollution from and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 promulgated requirements for the re-certification or Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards FR 37758 Uuly 1, 2015). retrofit of existing in-use engines. and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 77 FR 36342 Uune 4z ICAO, 2016: Report of Tenth Meeting, 34 Those engioes built after the effective date of 18, 2012). Montreal, 1-12 February 2016, Committee on the regulations that were already certificated to pre­ 40 While ICAO's standards were not limited to Aviation Environmental Protection, Document existing standards are also referred to as in­ "commercial" airplane engines, our 1997 standards 10069, 432pp. Available at: https://www.icao.int/ production engines. were explicitly limited to commercial engines, as publications/Pageslcatalogue.aspx (last accessed 35 In the existing EPA regulations, 40 CFR part 87, our finding that NOx and carbon monoxide March 16, 2020). ICAO Document 10069 is found newly certificated aircraft engines are described as emissions from airplane engines cause or contribute on page 27 of the ICAO Products & Services English engines of a type or model of which the date of to air pollution which may reasonably be Edition 2020 Catalog, and it is copyright protected; manufacture of the first individual production anticipated to endanger public health or welfare Order No. 10069. See Appendix C (starting on page model was after the implementation date. Newly was so limited. See 62 FR 25358 (May 8, 1997). In 5C-1) of this report. manufactured aircraft engines are characterized as the 2012 rulemaking, we expanded the scope of that 43 ICAO, Environmental Report 2010-Aviation engines of a type or model for which the date of finding and of our standards pursuant to CAA and Climate Change, 2010, which is located at manufacturer of the individual engine was after the section 231(a)(2)(A) to include such emissions from http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/ implementation date. both commercial and non-commercial airplane Pages/EnvReport10.aspx (last accessed March 16, •• Those engine models that received their initial engines based on the physical and operational 2020). type certificate after the effective date of the similarities between commercial and 44 Although weight reducing technologies affect regulations are also referred to as new engine noncommercial civilian airplane and to bring our fuel burn, they do not affect the metric value for the designs. standards into full alignment with ICAO's. GHG standard. The standard is a function of Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2143 increase the commercial payload or Given both the absence of a statutory rulemaking for examples of airplanes extend range for the same amount of directive on what form a CAA section that correspond to the U.S. covered thrust and fuel burn; 231 standard must take (in contrast to, aircraft identified in the 2016 • Propulsion (thermodynamic and for example, CAA section 129(a)(4), Findings.49 The EPA did not at that time propulsion efficiency): Advancing the which requires numerical emissions make findings regarding whether other overall specific performance of the limitations for emissions of certain substances emitted from aircraft engines engine, to reduce the fuel burn per unit pollutants from solid waste incinerators) cause or contribute to air pollution of delivered thrust; and and the D.C. Circuit's 2007 NACAA which may reasonably be anticipated to • Aerodynamic: Advancing the ruling that section 231 of the CAA endanger public health or welfare. The airplane aerodynamics to reduce drag confers an unusually broad degree of EPA also did not make a cause or and its associated impacts on thrust. discretion on the EPA in establishing contribute finding regarding GHG As examples of technologies that airplane engine emission standards, the emissions from engines not used in U.S. support addressing aircraft engine CO2 EPA is controlling GHG emissions in a covered aircraft (i.e., those used in emissions accounting for the airplane as manner identical to how ICAO's smaller turboprops, smaller jet aircraft, a whole, manufacturers have already standards control CO2 emissions-with piston-engine aircraft, helicopters and achieved significant weight reduction a fuel efficiency standard based on the military aircraft). Consequently, the with the introduction of advanced characteristics of the whole airplane. 2016 Findings did not trigger the EPA's alloys and composite materials and While this standard incorporates authority or duty under the CAA to lighter weight control systems (e.g., fly­ characteristics of airplane design as regulate these other substances or by-wire) 45 and aerodynamic adopted by ICAO, the EPA is not aircraft types. improvements with advanced wingtip asserting independent regulatory The EPA explained that the collective devices such as winglets. authority over airplane design. GHG emissions from the classes of The EPA agrees with ICAO's approach engines used in U.S. covered aircraft III. Summary of the 2016 Findings to measure the fuel efficiency based on contribute to the national GHG emission the performance of the whole airplane. On August 15, 2016,46 the EPA issued inventories 50 and estimated global GHG Accordingly, under section 231 of the two findings regarding GHG emissions emissions.5152 53 54 The 2016 Findings CAA, the EPA is adopting regulations from aircraft engines. First, the EPA that are consistent with this approach. found that elevated concentrations of 49 81 FR 54423, August 15, 2016. We are also adopting GHG test GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the 5 01n 2014, classes of engines used in U.S. covered public health and welfare of current and airplanes contribute to domestic GHG inventories as procedures that are the same as the follows: 10 percent of all U.S. transportation GHG ICAO CO2 test procedures. (See Section future generations within the meaning emissions, representing 2.8 percent of total U.S. IV.G for details on the test procedures.) of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. The emissions. As stated earlier in Section II, section EPA made this finding specifically with U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA directs the respect to the same six well-mixed Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air GHGs-C0 , methane, N 0, Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Administrator of the EPA to, from time 2 2 Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 to time, propose aircraft engine hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). emission standards applicable to the and sulfur hexafluoride-that together U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse emission of any air pollutant from were defined as the air pollution in the Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19_90-2014, 1,052 pp., 2009 Endangerment Finding 47 under U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430-R- classes of aircraft engines which in the 16-002, April 2016. Available at: https:!I Administrator's judgment causes or section 202(a) of the CAA and that www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- contributes to air pollution that may together were found to constitute the greenho use-gas-emissions-an d-sinks-1990-2014 reasonably be anticipated to endanger primary cause of climate change. (last accessed March 16, 2020). public health or welfare. For a standard Second, the EPA found that emissions ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions Inventory for Aircraft Below !CAO CO2 Standard promulgated under CAA section of those six well-mixed GHGs from Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract Number 231(a)(2)(A) to be "applicable to" certain classes of engines used in certain EP-D-11-006, 38 pp. emissions of air pollutants from aircraft aircraft 48 cause or contribute to the air 51 In 2010, classes of engines used in U.S. covered pollution-the aggregate group of the airplanes contribute to global GHG inventories as engines, it could take many forms and follows: 26 percent of total global airplane GHG include multiple elements in addition to same six GHGs-that endangers public emissions, representing 2.7 percent of total global a numeric permissible engine exhaust health and welfare under CAA section transportation emissions and 0.4 percent of all rate. For example, EPA rules adopted 231(a)(2)(A). global GHG emissions. pursuant to CAA section 231 have The EPA identified U.S. covered U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas aircraft as subsonic jet aircraft with a Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air addressed fuel venting to prevent the Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To discharge of raw fuel from the engine maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 and have adopted test procedures for than 5,700 kilograms and subsonic FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). exhaust emission standards. See 40 CFR propeller-driven (e.g., turboprop) U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse aircraft with a MTOM greater than 8,618 Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., part 87, subparts Band G. U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430-R- kilograms. See Section IV of this final 16-002, April 2016. Available at: https:!! maximum takeoff mass (MTOM). Reductions in www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- airplane empty weight (excluding usable fuel and 46 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas greenho use-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 the payload) can be canceled out or diminished by Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air (last accessed March 16, 2020). a corresponding increase in payload, fuel, or both­ Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions when MTOM is kept constant. Section IV and VI Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 Inventory for Aircraft Below !CAO CO2 Standard provide a further description of the metric value FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract Number and the effects of weight reducing technologies. 47 U.S. EPA, 2009: Endangerment and Cause or EP-D-11-006, 38 pp. 45 Fly-by-wire refers to a system which transmits Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of signals from the cockpit to the airplane's control Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule, 74 Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III surfaces electronically rather than mechanically. FR 66496 (December 15, 2009). to the Fifth Assessment Report of the AirlineRatings.com, Available at https:/1 48 Certain aircraft in this context are referred to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change www.airlineratings.com/did-you-know/what-does­ interchangeably as "covered airplanes," "US [Edenhofer, 0., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. the-term-fly-by-wire-mean! (last accessed on March covered airplanes," or airplanes throughout this Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, 16, 2020). rulemaking. Continued 2144 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations accounted for the majority (89 percent) overall consumers of methane. 59 Under the longstanding EPA and FAA of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions.ss 56 Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, rulemaking approach to regulate As explained in the 2016 Findings,57 and sulfur hexafluoride are not products airplane emissions (as described earlier only two of the six well-mixed GHGs, of aircraft engine fuel combustion. in Section II.DJ, international emission CO2 and N20, are emitted from covered (Section IV.H discusses controlling two standards have been adopted by !CAO, aircraft. CO2 represents 99 percent of all of the six well-mixed GHGs-C02 and with significant involvement from the GHGs emitted from both total U.S. N20- in the context of the details of FAA and the EPA, and subsequently the aircraft and U.S. covered aircraft, and this rule.) EPA has undertaken rulemakings under N20 represents 1 percent of GHGs IV. EPA's Final GHG Standards for CAA section 231 to establish domestic emitted from total U.S. aircraft and U.S. Covered Airplanes standards that are harmonized with covered aircraft. 58 Modern aircraft are ICAO's standards. Then, CAA section This section describes the fuel 232 requires the FAA to issue S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. efficiency metric that will be used as a regulations to ensure compliance with Savolainen, S. Schleimer, C. van Stechow, T. measure of airplane GHG emissions, the the EPA standards. In 2015, EPA issued Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University size and types of airplanes that will be an advance notice of proposed Press, 1435 pp. affected, the emissions levels, and the 52 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse rulemaking 62 which noted EPA and Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., applicable test procedures. As explained FAA's engagement in !CAO to establish U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430-R- earlier in Section III and in the 2016 an international CO2 emissions standard 16-002, April 2016. Available at: https:!/ Findings,60 only two of the six well­ and EPA's potential use of section 231 www.epa.gov/ghgemissions!inventory-us­ mixed GHGs-C02 and N20-are greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 to adopt corresponding airplane GHG (last accessed March 16, 2020). emitted from covered aircraft. Both CO2 emissions standards domestically. This 53 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of and N20 emissions scale with fuel burn, rulemaking continues this statutory Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III thus allowing them to be controlled paradigm. to the Fifth Assessment Report of the through fuel efficiency. The rule will facilitate the acceptance Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The GHG emission regulations for this [Edenhofer, 0., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. of U.S. manufactured airplanes and Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, rule are being specified in a new part in airplane engines by member States and S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. title 40 of the CFR-40 CFR part 1030. airlines around the world. We anticipate Savolainen, S. Schleimer, C. van Stechow, T. The existing aircraft engine regulations that U.S. manufacturers would be at a Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University applicable to HC, NOx, CO, and smoke significant competitive disadvantage if Press, 1435 pp. remain in 40 CFR part 87. 54 the U.S. failed to adopt standards that The domestic inventory comparisons are for In order to promote international the year 2014, and global inventory comparisons are are aligned with the !CAO standards for harmonization of aviation standards and for the year 2010. The rationale for the different CO2 emissions. Member States may ban years is described in section IV.B.4 of the 2016 to avoid placing U.S. manufacturers at Findings, 81 FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). a competitive disadvantage that would the use of any airplane within their 55 Covered U.S. aircraft GHG emissions in the result if EPA were to adopt standards airspace that does not meet ICAO 2016 Findings were from airplanes that operate in standards.63 If the EPA were to adopt no and from the U.S. and thus contribute to emissions different from the standards adopted by ICAO, the EPA is adopting standards for standards or standards that were not as in the U.S. This includes emissions from U.S. stringent as ICAO's standards, U.S. civil domestic flights, and emissions from U.S. GHG emissions from certain classes of international bunker flights (emissions from the engines used on airplanes that match airplane manufacturers could be forced combustion of fuel used by airplanes departing the the scope, stringency, and timing of the to seek CO2 emissions certification from U.S., regardless of whether they are a U.S. flagged an aviation certification authority of carrier-also described as emissions from CO2 standards adopted by ICAO. The combustion of U.S. international bunker fuels). For EPA and the FAA worked within !CAO another country (other than the FAA) in example, a flight departing Los Angeles and to help establish the international CO2 order to market their airplanes for arriving in Tokyo, regardless of whether it is a U.S. emission standards, which under the international operation. flagged carrier, is considered a U.S. international Chicago Convention individual member Having invested significant effort and bunker flight. A flight from London to Hong Kong resources, working with FAA and the is not. States then adopt into domestic law and 56U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse regulations in order to implement and Department of State, to gain Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., enforce them against subject international consensus to adopt the U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430-R- manufacturers. A member State that first-ever CO2 standards for airplanes, 16-002, April 2016. Available at: https:!I the EPA believes that meeting the www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us­ adopts domestic regulations differing greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 from the international standard-in United States' obligations under the (last accessed March 16, 2020). either scope, stringency or timing-is Chicago Convention by aligning 57 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas obligated to notify ICAO of the domestic standards with the ICAO Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air differences between its domestic standards, rather than adopting more Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To stringent standards, will have Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 regulations and the !CAO standards.Bl FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). substantial benefits for future 5s U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas 59 Methane emissions are no longer considered to Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air be emitted from aircraft gas turbine engines burning 9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To jet fuel A at higher power settings. Modern aircraft publications!Documents/7300_ 9ed.pdf (last Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 jet engines are typically net consumers of methane accessed March 16, 2020). FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). (Santoni et al. 2011). Methane is emitted at low 62 U.S. EPA, 2015: Proposed Finding That U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse power and idle operation, but at higher power Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014, 1,052 pp., modes aircraft engines consume methane. Over the Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430-R- range of engine operating modes, aircraft engines Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and 16-002, April 2016. Available at: https:/1 are net consumers of methane on average. Welfare and Advance Notice of Proposed www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- 60 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas Rulemaking; Proposed Rule, BO FR 37758 (July 1, greenho use-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air 2015), (last accessed March 16, 2020). Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To 63 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 Aviation, Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/ Inventory for Aircraft Below !CAO CO2 Standard FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). 9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract Number 61 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil publications!Documents/7300_ 9ed.pdf (last EP-D-11-006, 38 pp. Aviation, Article 38, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/ accessed March 16, 2020). Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2145 international cooperation on airplane first enter into service by about 2020. aerodynamic technologies that emission standards, and such Thus, the additional emission contribute to a reduction in the airplane cooperation is the key for achieving reductions associated with the more CO2 emissions. In addition, the ICAO worldwide emission reductions. stringent alternatives are relatively metric system accommodates a wide Nonetheless, the EPA also analyzed the small because all but one of the affected range of technologies and designs that impacts of two more stringent airplanes either meet the stringency manufacturers may choose to alternatives, and the results of our levels or are expected to go out of implement to reduce CO2 emissions analyses are described in chapters 4, 5, production by the effective dates. In from their airplanes. However, because and 6 of the Technical Support addition, requiring U.S. manufacturers of an inability to define a standardized Document (TSD) which can be found in to certify to a different standard than empty weight across manufacturers and the docket for this rulemaking. The has been adopted internationally (even types of airplanes, the ICAO CO2 analyses show that one alternative one more stringent) could have emissions metric is based on the MTOM would result in limited additional costs, disruptive effects on manufacturers' of the airplane. This metric does not but no additional costs or GHG emission ability to market planes for international directly reward weight reduction reductions compared to the final operation. Consequently, the EPA did technologies because the MTOM of an standards. The other alternative would not choose to finalize either of these airplane will not be reduced when have further limited additional costs alternatives. weight reduction technologies are and some additional GHG emission A. Airplane Fuel Efficiency Metric applied so that cargo carrying capacity or range can be increased. Further, reductions compared to the final For the international Airplane CO2 standards, but the additional emission Emission Standards, ICAO developed a while weight reduction technologies can reductions are relatively small from this metric system to allow the comparison be used to improve airplane fuel alternative and do not justify deviating of a wide range of subsonic airplane efficiency, they may also be used to from the international standards and types, designs, technology, and uses. allow increases in payload,B4 disrupting international harmonization. While ICAO calls this a CO2 emissions equipment, and fuel load.65 Thus, even ICAO intentionally established its metric, it is a measure of fuel efficiency, though weight reducing technologies standards at a level which is technology which is directly related to CO2 emitted increase the airplane fuel efficiency, this following to adhere to its definition of by aircraft engines. The ICAO metric improvement in efficiency may not be technical feasibility that is meant to system was designed to differentiate reflected in operation. consider the emissions performance of between fuel-efficiency technologies of The ICAO metric system consists of a in-production and in-development airplanes and to equitably capture CO2 emissions metric (Equation IV-1) airplanes, including types that would improvements in propulsive and and a correlating parameter.BB

Equation IV-1: International CO2 Emissions Metric for airplanes

/CAO CO Metric 2 Emissions RGFD,24

The ICAO CO2 emissions metric uses of fuel burned per kilometer of flight; calculated at 3 gross weight fractions of an average of three Specific Air Range therefore, a lower metric value Maximum Takeoff Mass (MTOM): 69 (SAR) test points that is normalized by represents a lower level of airplane CO2 • High gross mass: 92% MTOM. a geometric factor representing the emissions (i.e., better fuel efficiency). · • Mid gross mass: Average of high physical size of an airplane. SAR is a The SAR data are measured at three gross mass and low gross mass. measure of airplane cruise performance, gross weight points used to represent a • Low gross mass: (0.45 * MTOM) + which measures the distance an range of day-to-day airplane operations (0.63 * (MTOMA0.924)). airplane can travel on a unit of fuel. (at cruise).67 For the ICAO CO2 The Reference Geometric Factor (RGF) Here the inverse of SAR is used (1/ emissions metric, (1/SARlavg 68 is is a non-dimensional measure of the SAR), which has the units of kilograms fuselage 70 size of an airplane

64 Payload is the weight of passengers, baggage, July 2020, Annex 16 Environmental Protection­ •• Annex 16 Vol. III Part II Chapter 2 sec. 2.3. and cargo. FAA Airplane Weight & Balance Volume ill-Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, Amendment ICAO, 2017: Annex 16 Volume ill-Environmental ·Handbook (Chapter 9, page 9-10, file page 82) 1 (20/7/20). 22pp. Available at https:/1 Protection-Aeroplane GO, Emissions, First https :Ilwww.faa.gov/regulations _policies/ www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_ 2020 _ Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/ handbooks manuals/aviation/media/FAA-H-8083- Sup06_en.pdf(last accessed October 27, 2020). The publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed 1.pdf (x)(last accessed on March 16, 2020). ICAO Annex 16, Volume III, Amendment 1 is found July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is 65 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology on page 2 of Supplement No. 6-July 2020, English found on page 16 of the English Edition of the 2020 Refresh and Indusby Characterization, Final Edition, Order No. AN16-3/E/01. catalog, and it is copyright protected; Order No. AN Report, EPA Contract Number EP-C-16-020, 16-3. Also see: ICAO, 2020, Supplement No. 6- 67 ICAO, 2016: Tenth Meeting Committee on September 30, 2018. July 2020, Annex 16 Environmental Protection­ Aviation Environmental Protection Report, Doc 66 Annex 16 Volume III Part II Chapter 2 sec. 2.2. Volume III-Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, Amendment ICAO, 2017: Annex 16 Volume III-Environmental 10069, CAEP/10, 432 pp, AN/192, Available at: 1 (20/7/20). 22pp. Available at https:II https:llwww.icao.int/publications/Pages/ Protection-Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First www.icao.int/publications/catalogue/cat_2020_ Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/ catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, 2020). The Sup06_en.pdf(last accessed October 27, 2020). The publications/Pageslcatalogue.aspx (last accessed ICAO Report of the Tenth Meeting report is found ICAO Annex 16, Volume III, Amendment 1 is found July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is on page 27 of the ICAO Products & Services English on page 2 of Supplement No. 6-July 2020, English found on page 16 of the English Edition of the 2020 Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; Edition, Order No. AN16-3/E/01. catalog, and it is copyright protected; Order No. AN Order No. 10069. 7 0 The fuselage is an aircraft's main body section. 16-3. Also see: ICAO, 2020, Supplement No. 6- 6B Avg means average. It holds crew, passengers, and cargo. 2146 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations normalized by 1 square meter, generally described earlier in Section II, the EPA 3. Exceptions considered to be the shadow area of the is fully discharging its obligations under Consistent with the applicability of airplane's pressurized passenger the CAA that were triggered by the 2016 the !CAO standards, the EPA is adopting compartment. n Findings. Once the EPA and the FAA applicability language that excepts the When the ICAO CO2 emissions metric fully promulgate the airplane GHG following airplanes from the scope of is correlated against MTOM, it has a emission standards and regulations for the standards: Amphibious airplanes, positive slope. The international their implementation and enforcement airplanes initially designed or modified Airplane CO2 Emission Standards use domestically, the United States and used for specialized operational the MTOM of the airplane as an already regulations will align with ICAO Annex requirements, airplanes designed with certificated reference point to compare 16 standards. an RGF of zero,75 and those airplanes airplanes. In this action, we are specifically designed or modified and adopting MTOM as the correlating Examples of covered airplanes under this GHG rule include smaller civil jet used for fire-fighting purposes. parameter as well. Airplanes in these excepted categories We are adopting ICAO's airplane CO airplanes such as the Cessna Citation 2 are generally designed or modified in emissions metric (shown in Equation CJ3+, up to and including the largest such a way that their designs are well IV-1) as the measure of airplane fuel commercial jet airplanes-the Boeing outside of the design space of typical efficiency as a surrogate for GHG 777 and the Boeing 747. Other examples passenger or freight carrying airplanes. emissions from covered airplanes of covered airplanes include larger civil For example, amphibious airplanes are, (hereafter known as the "fuel efficiency turboprop airplanes, such as the ATR 72 by necessity, designed with fuselages metric" or "fuel burn metric"). This is and the Viking Q400,73 74 The GHG rule that resemble boats as much as because the fuel efficiency metric does not apply to smaller civil jet airplanes. As such, their aerodynamic controls emissions of both CO2 and N20, airplanes (e.g., Cessna Citation M2), efficiency characteristics fall well the only two GHG emitted by airplane smaller civil turboprop airplanes (e.g., outside of the range. of airplanes used in engines (see Section IV.H for further Beechcraft King Air 350i), piston-engine developing the !CAO Airplane CO information). Consistent with ICAO, we 2 airplanes, helicopters, and military Emission Standards and our GHG rules. are also adopting MTOM as the airplanes. Airplanes designed or modified for correlating parameter to be used when 2. Applicability specialized operational requirements setting emissions limits. could include a wide range of activities, B. Covered Airplane Types and The rule applies to all covered but many are outside the scope of the Applicability airplanes, in-production, and new type 2017 !CAO Airplane CO2 standards. designs produced after the respective Airplanes that may be out of scope 1. Maximum Takeoff Mass Thresholds effective dates of the standards except as could include: This GHG rule applies to civil provided in IV.B.3. There are different • Airplanes that require capacity to subsonic jet airplanes (turbojet or regulatory emissions levels and/or carry cargo that is not possible by using turbofan airplanes) with certificated applicability dates depending on less specialized airplanes (e.g. civil MTOM over 5,700 kg (12,566 lbs.) and whether the covered airplane is in­ variants of military transports); 76 propeller-driven civil airplanes production before the applicability date • Airplanes that require capacity for (turboprop airplanes) over 8,618 kg or is a new type design. very short or vertical takeoffs and (19,000 lbs.). These applicability criteria landings; are the same as those in the ICAO The in-production standards are only • Airplanes that require capacity to applicable to previously type Airplane CO2 Emission Standards and conduct scientific, 77 research, or correspond to the scope of the 2016 certificated airplanes, newly-built on or humanitarian missions exclusive of Findings. The applicability of this rule after the applicability date (described in commercial service; or is limited to civil subsonic airplanes IV.D.l), and do not apply retroactively • Airplanes that require similar and does not extend to civil supersonic to airplanes that are already in-service. factors. airplanes. 72 Through this action, as For example, converting a passenger The EPA is finalizing the exceptions airplane built prior to the 2028 in­ to the rule as proposed. Comments on 71 Annex 16 Vol. ID Appendix 2. !CAO, 2017: production (and/or after 2023 if this issue and our responses can be Annex 16 Volume m-Environmental Protection­ applicable) applicability date into a found in the RTC document included in Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. freight airplane would not trigger the the docket for this rulemaking. Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ change criteria described later in section Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed July 15, 2020). 4. New Airplane Types and In­ IV.D.1.i (Changes for non-GHG The !CAO Annex 16 Volume ID is found on page Production Airplane Designations 16 of the English Edition 2020 catalog, and it is Certificated Airplane Types), which copyright protected; Order No. AN 16-3. Also see: apply only to newly produced airplanes The final rule recognizes differences !CAO, 2020, Supplement No. &-July 2020, Annex 16 Environmental Protection-Volume III-Aeroplane (airplanes receiving their first between previously type certificated CO2 Emissions, Amendment 1 (20/7/20). 22pp. airworthiness certificate) incorporating Available at https:l/www.icao.int/publications/ such modifications. 75 RGF refers to the pressurized compartment of catalogue/cat_ 2020_ Sup06_ en.pdf (last accessed an airplane, generally meant for passengers and/or October 27, 2020). The !CAO Annex 16, Volume III, cargo. If an airplane is unpressurized, the calculated Amendment 1 is found on page 2 of Supplement point plans to work with !CAO to develop emission RGF of the airplane is zero (0). These airplanes are No. &-July 2020, English Edition, Order No. standards on the international stage prior to very rare, and the few that are in service are used AN16-3/E/01. adopting them domestically. for special missions. An example is Boeing's 72 Currently, civilian supersonic airplanes are not 73 This was previously owned by Bombardier and Dreamlifter, in operation. The international standard did not was sold to Viking in 2018, November 8, 2018 76 This is not expected to include freight versions consider the inclusion of supersonic airplanes in (Forbes). of passenger airplanes such as the Boeing 767F, the standard. More recently, there has been 74 It should be noted that there are no US Boeing 747-8F, or Airbus A330F. Rather, this is renewed interest in the development of civilian domestic manufacturers that produce turboprops intended to except airplanes such as the Lockheed supersonic airplanes. This has caused !CAO to that meet the MTOM thresholds. These airplanes L-100 which is a civilian variant of the military C- begin considering how existing emission standards are given as examples but will be expected to be 130. should be revised for new supersonic airplanes. The certificated by their national aviation certification 77 For example, the NASA SOFIA airborne US is involved in these discussions and at this authority. astronomical observatory. Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2147 airplanes that are in production and New type designs are infrequent, and When a new requirement is applied to new type designs presented for original it is not unusual for new type designs an in-production airplane, there may be certification. to take 8-10 years to develop, from a real and immediate effect on the • In-production airplanes: Those preliminary design to entry into manufacturer's ability to continue to airplane types which have already service.83 The most recent new type build and deliver it in its certificated received a type certificate 78 from the designs introduced in service were the design configuration and to make FAA, and for which manufacturers Airbus A350 in 2015, 84 the Airbus A220 business decisions regarding future either have existing undelivered sales (formerly known as the Bombardier C­ production of that design configuration. orders or would be willing and able to Series) in 2016, 85 and the Boeing 787 in Manufacturers need sufficient notice to accept new sales orders. The term can 2011. 86, 87 However, it is unlikely more make design modifications that allow also apply to the individual airplane than one new type design will be for compliance to the new standards manufactured according to the approved presented for certification in the next and to have those modifications design type certificate, and for which an ten years.88 New type designs (and some certificated by their certification Airworthiness Certificate is required redesigns) typically yield large fuel burn authorities. In the United States, before the airplane is permitted to reductions-10 percent to 20 percent­ applying a new requirement to an in­ operate. 79 80 over the prior generation they replace production airplane means that a newly • New type designs: Airplane types (considered a step-change in fuel burn produced airplane subject to this rule for which original certification is improvement). As one might expect, that does not meet the GHG standards applied for on or after the compliance these significant fuel burn reductions do would likely be denied an airworthiness date of a rule, and which have never not happen frequently. Also, airplane certificate after January 1, 2028. As been manufactured prior to the development programs are expensive.89 noted above in IV.B.2, in-service compliance date of a rule. At !CAO, the difference between in­ airplanes are not subject to the !CAO Certificated designs may subsequently production airplanes and new type CO2 standards and likewise are not undergo design changes such as new designs has been used to differentiate subject to these GHG standards. wings, engines, or other modifications two different pathways by which fuel For new type designs, this rule has no that would require changes to the type efficiency technologies can be immediate effect on airplane production certificated design. These modifications introduced into civil airplane designs. or certification for the manufacturer. happen more frequently than The standards that a new type design applications for a new type design. For EPA Contract Number EP-C-12-011, March 17, must meet are those in effect when the example, a number of airplanes have 2015. undergone significant design changes manufacturer applies for type 82 Insofar as we are going through a wave of major certification. The applicable design (including the Boeing 747-8, Boeing 737 redesign and service entry now, prospects for Max, Airbus 320 Neo, Airbus A330 Neo, further step-function improvements will be low in standards at the time of application remain frozen over the typical 5-year and Boeing 777-X). As with a previous the coming 10-15 years. (!CF International, CO2 Analysis of CO,-Reducing Technologies for time frame provided by certification series ofredesigns from 1996-2006, Airplane, Final Report, EPA Contract Number EP­ which included the Boeing 777-200LR authorities for completing the type C-12-011, March 17, 2015.) certification process. Because of the in 2004, Boeing 777-300ER in 2006, 83 ICF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO2- Airbus 319 in 1996, and Airbus 330-200 Reducing Technologies for Airplane, Final Report, investments and resources necessary to EPA Contract Number EP-C-12-011, March 17, develop a new type design, in 1998, incremental improvements are 2015. expected to continue to be more manufacturers have indicated that it is 84 The Airbus A350 was announced in 2006 and important to have knowledge of the frequent than major design changes over received its type certification in 2014. The first the next decade-following these more model, the A350-900 entered service with Qatar level of future standards at least 8 years recent major programs (or more recent Airways in 2015. in advance of any new type design significant design changes).81 82 8 ' The Bombardier C-series was announced in entering service.90 Because standards 2005 and received its type certification in 2015. The are known early in the design and first model, the C100 entered service with Swiss 7 8 A type certificate is a design approval whereby Global Air Lines in 2016. certification process, there is more the FAA ensures that the manufacturer's designs 86 Boeing, 2011: Boeing Unveils First 787 to Enter flexibility in how and what technology meet the minimum requirements for airplane safety Service for Japan Airlines, December 14. Available can be incorporated into a new type and environmental regulations. According to ICAO at http:!!boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-12-14- Cir 337, a type certificate is "[a] document issued design. (See Section VI describing the Boeing-Unveils-First-787-to-Enter-Service-for-Japan­ Technology Response for more by a Contracting State to define the design of an Airlines (last accessed March 16, 2020). airplane type and to certify that this design meets information on this). 87 !CF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO,­ the appropriate airworthiness requirements of that To set standards at levels that State." A type certificate is issued once for each Reducing Technologies for Airplane, Final Report, new type design airplane and modified as an EPA Contract Number EP-C-12-011, March 17, appropriately reflect the feasibility to airplane design is changed over the course of its 2015. incorporate technology and lead time, production life. 88 Ibid. the level and timing of the standards are 79 ICAO, 2016: Tenth Meeting Committee on 89 Analysts estimate a new single aisle airplane different for in-production airplanes and Aviation Environmental Protection Report, Doc would have cost $10-12 billion to develop. The 10069, CAEP/10, 432 pp, AN/192, Available at: A380 and 787 are estimated to each have cost new type designs. This is discussed http://www.icao.int/publications!Pages! around $20 billion to develop; the A350 is further in Sections IV.C and IV.D below, catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, 2020). The estimated to have cost $15 billion, excluding engine describing standards for new type ICAO Report of the Tenth Meeting report is found development. Due to the large development cost of designs and in-production airplanes, on page 27 of the ICAO Products & Services English a totally new airplane design, manufacturers are Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; opting to re-wing or re-engine their airplane. Boeing Order No. 10069. is said to have budgeted $5 billion for the re-wing 90 ICAO policy is that the compliance date of an 80 In existing U.S. aviation emissions regulations, of the 777, and Airbus and Boeing have budgeted emissions standard must be at least 3 years after it in-production means newly-manufactured or built $1-2 billion each for the re-engine of the A320 and has been agreed to by CAEP. Adding in the 5-year after the effective date of the regulations-and the 737, respectively (excluding engine certification window, this means that the level of already certificated to pre-existing rules. This is development costs). Embraer has publicly stated the standard can be known 8 years prior to entry similar to the current ICAO definition for in­ that it will need to spend $1-2 billion to re-wing into service date for a new type design. production airplane types for purposes of the the EMB-175 and variants. (ICF International, CO2 Manufacturers also have significant involvement in international CO2 standard. Analysis of CO,-Reducing Technologies for the standard development process at !CAO, which 81 ICF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO2- Airplane, Final Report, EPA Contract Number EP­ begins at least 3 years before any new standard is Reducing Technologies for Airplane, Final Report, C-12-011, March 17, 2015.) agreed to. 2148 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations

and Section VI, discussing the surprised if the EPA had adopted there is no practical impact of changing technology response. criteria to identify airplanes covered by the effective date for the new type our GHG standards that resulted in C. GHG Standard for New Type Designs design standards from January 1, 2020, different coverage than that of ICAO's as proposed, to the effective date of this 1. Applicability Dates for New Type standards-either in terms of maximum rule January 11, 2021. Designs takeoff mass, passenger capacity, or The EPA recognizes that new The EPA is adopting GHG standards dates of applications for new original regulatory requirements have differing that apply to civil airplanes within the type certificates. Additionally, if the impacts on items that are already in scope of the international standards EPA diverged from ICAO's criteria for production and those yet to be built. adopted by !CAO in 2017 that meet CO 2 standards applicability, it would Airplane designs that have yet to maximum takeoff weight thresholds, have introduced unnecessary undergo original type certification can passenger capacity, and dates of uncertainty into the airplane type more easily be adapted for new applications for original type certification process. Also, as described regulatory requirements, compared with certificates. In this way, EPA's standards earlier for the 2016 Findings, covered airplanes already being produced align with ICAO's in defining those airplanes accounted for the majority (89 subject to older, existing design airplanes that are now subject to the percent) of total U.S. aircraft GHG standards. The agency has experience standards finalized in this action. emissions. ' adopting regulations that acknowledge Consequently, for subsonic jet airplanes In order to harmonize with the !CAO standards to the maximum extent these differences, such as in issuing over 5,700 kg MTOM and certificated emission standards for stationary with more than 19 passenger seats, and possible, the EPA proposed the same effective date as ICAO, January 1, 2020, sources of hazardous air pollutants for turboprop airplanes over 8,618 kg (which often impose more stringent MTOM, the regulations apply to all for defining those type certification applications subject to the standards, standards for new sources, defined airplanes for which application for an based on dates that precede dates of original type certificate is made to the noting in the NPRM that it was a date that had already passed. However, to final rule promulgation, than for FAA as the first certificating authority existing sources). See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. on or after January 11, 2021. For avoid potential concerns raised by commenters and because it does not 7412(a)(4), defining "new source" to subsonic jet airplanes over 5,700 kg mean a stationary source the MTOM and less than 60,000 kg MTOM affect harmonization with !CAO standards, we are adopting standards construction or reconstruction of which and a type certificated maximum is commenced after the EPA proposes passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or that are effective upon the effective date fewer, the regulations apply to all of this rule January 11, 2021. No regulations establishing an emission airplanes for which an original type airplane manufacturer has in fact yet standard. certification application was made to submitted an application for a new type 2. Regulatory limit for New Type the FAA as the first certificating design certification since January 1, Designs authority on or after January 1, 2023. 2020, no manufacturer will currently Consistency with international need to amend any already submitted The EPA is adopting the GHG standards is important for application to address the GHG emissions limit for new type designs manufacturers, as they noted in standards. Further, neither the EPA nor that is a function of the airplane comments to our ANPR in 2015 and in the FAA is aware of any anticipated certificated MTOM and consists of three their comments to this rulemaking. original new type design application to levels described below in Equation Airplane manufacturers and engine be submitted before the EPA's standards IV-2, Equation IV-3, and Equation manufacturers would have been are promulgated and effective. Thus, IV-4,91

Equation IV-2: New Type Designs with a MTOM less than or equal to 60 000 kg

Maximum permitted value = 10(-2.73780 + (0.681310 * log10(MTOM)) + (-0.0277861 * (1og10(MTOM))2))

Equation IV-3: New Type Designs with a MTOM greater than 60 000 kg, and less than or equal to 70 395 kg:

Maximum permitted value = 0.764

Equation IV-4: New Type Designs with a MTOM greater than 70 395 kg

Maximum permitted value= 10(-1.412742 + (-0.020517 * log10(MTOM))+ (o.0593831 * (log10(MTOM))2))

• 1 Annex 16 Vol. ill Part II Chapter 2 sec. 2.4.2 Edition of the 2020 catalog and it is copyright October 27, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16, Volume ill, (a), (b), and (c). ICAO, 2017: Annex 16 Volume m­ protected; Order No. AN 16-3. Also see: ICAO, Amendment 1 is found on page 2 of Supplement Environmental Protection-Aeroplane CO, 2020, Supplement No.6-July 2020, Annex 16 No. 6-July 2020, English Edition, Order No. Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http:// Environmental Protection-Volume ill-Aeroplane AN16-3/E/Ol. www.icao.int/publications/Pages!catalogue.aspx CO, Emissions, Amendment 1 (20/7/20). 22pp. (last accessed July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Available at https:!/www.icao.int/publications/ Volume ill is found on page 16 of the English catalogue/cat_2020 _Sup06 _ en.pdf (last accessed Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2149

Figure N-1 and Figure N-2 show the segments of the limit line. These plots (See Section V and VI for more numerical limits of the adopted new below show the airplane fuel efficiency information about this.) These final type design rules and how the airplane metric values as they were,modeled. GHG emission limits are the same as the types analyzed in Sections V and VI This includes all anticipated/modeled limits of the ICAO Airplane CO2 relate to this limit. Figure N-2 shows technology responses, improvements, Emission Standards. only the lower MTOM range of Figure and production assumptions in N-1 to better show the first two response to the market and this rule.

2ao -3'fu~ • MTQMi(ltlOC~S,

Figure IV-1 - Final New Type Design Rule 2150 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations

.:Q. ~• Cf­ ·~.9'·"··· ., ~!"

AD &of :MlPM;ciomht9}·

Figure IV-2 - Final New Type Design Rule - Zoomed in to highlights MTOM less than 100,000kg

After analyzing potential levels of the international standards, ICAO further airplanes (in-production and in­ standard, ICAO determined, based on realized that curve shapes of the data development airplanes 96),97 assessment of available data, that there differed for large and small airplanes Airplanes of less than 60 tons with 19 were significant performance (on MTOM versus metric value plots). or fewer passenger seats have additional differences between large and small Looking at the dataset, there was economic challenges to technology airplanes. Jet airplanes with an MTOM originally a gap in the data at 60 tons. 9 5 development compared with similarly less than 60 tons 92 are either business This natural gap allowed a "kink" point sized commercial airplanes. ICAO jets or regional jets. The physical size of (i.e., change in the slope of the standard) sought to reduce the burden on smaller airplanes presents scaling to be established between larger manufacturers of airplanes with 19 or challenges that limit technology commercial airplanes and smaller fewer seats, and thus ICAO agreed to improvements that can readily be made business jets and regional jets. The delay the applicability of the new type on larger airplanes. 93 This leads to designs for 3 years. In maintaining requiring higher capital costs to identification of this kink point provided flexibility at ICAO to consider consistency with the international implement the technology relative to the decision, the applicability dates adopted standards at appropriate levels for sale price of the airplanes.94 Business in this rule reflect this difference jets (generally less than 60 tons MTOM) airplanes above and below 60 tons. determined by ICAO (see Section VI for tend to operate at higher altitudes and The level adopted for new type further information). faster speeds than larger commercial designs was set to reflect the As described eariier in Section II, traffic. performance for the latest generation of consistency with the international Based on these considerations, when airplanes. The CO2 emission standards standards will facilitate the acceptance developing potential levels for the agreed to at ICAO, and the GHG of U.S. airplanes by member States and standards adopted here, are meant to be airlines around the world, and it will 02 In this rulemaking, 60 tons means 60 metric tons (or tonnes), which is equal to 60,000 kilograms technology following standards. This help to ensure that U.S. manufacturers (kg). 1 ton means 1 metric ton (or tonne), which is means the rule reflects the performance equal to 1,000 kg. and technology achieved by existing 9 6 In-development airplanes are airplanes that 93 ICF, 2018: Aircraft COz Cost and Technology were in-development when setting the standard at Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final !CAO but will be in production by the applicability Report, EPA Contract Number EP-G-16-020, 95 Initial data that were reviewed at !CAO did not dates. These could be new type designs (e.g. Airbus September 30, 2018. include data on the Bombardier C-Series {now the A350) or redesigned airplanes (e.g. Boeing 737Max). Airbus A220) airplane. Once data were provided for " 4 U.S., United States Position on the IGAO 97Note: Figure IV-1 and Figure IV-2 show the Aeroplane COz Emissions Standard, Montreal, this airplane, it was determined by !CAO that while metric values used in the EPA modeling for this Canada, CAEP10 Meeting, February 1-12, 2016, the airplane did cross the 60 tons kink point, this action. These values differ from those used at !CAO. Presented by United States, CAEP/10-WP/59. did not pose a problem for analyzing stringency The rationale for this difference is discussed below Available in the docket for this rulemaking, Docket options, because the airplane passes all options in section VI of this rule, and in chapter 2 of the EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0276. considered. TSD. Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 6 /Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 2151 will not be at a competitive with the in-production standard. This not automatically trigger the disadvantage compared with their earlier applicability date for in­ requirement to certify to the in­ international competitors. Consistency production airplanes, January 1, 2023, is production GHG rule. The fuselage with the international standards will the same as that adopted by ICAO and shortening of a certificated type design also prevent backsliding by ensuring is similarly designed to capture would not be expected to adversely that all new type design airplanes are at modifications to the type design of non­ affect the metric value, nor would it be least as efficient as today's airplanes. GHG certificated airplanes newly expected to increase the certificated manufactured (initial airworthiness MTOM. Manufacturers noted that ICAO D. CHG Standard for In-Production Airplane Types certificate) prior to the January 1, 2028, included criteria that would require production cut-off date. The January 1, manufactures to recertify if they made 1. Applicability Dates for In-Production 2028 production cut-off date was "significant" changes to their airplane. Airplane Types introduced by ICAO as an anti­ ICAO did not define a "significant The EPA is adopting the same backsliding measure that gives notice to change" to a type design. The EPA did compliance dates for the GHG rule as manufacturers that non-compliant not include this requirement because those adopted by ICAO for its CO2 airplanes will not receive airworthiness "significant change" is not a defined emission standards. Section IV.D.2 certification after this date. term in the certification process. below describes the rationale for these An application for certification of a However, it is expected that dates and the time provided to in­ modified airplane type on or after manufacturers will likely volunteer to production types. January 1, 2023, will trigger compliance certify to the in-production rule when All airplanes type certificated prior to with the in-production GHG emissions applying to the FAA for these types of January 11, 2021, and receiving its first limit provided that the airplane's GHG changes, in order to maximize certificate of airworthiness after January emissions metric value for the modified efficiencies in overall airworthiness 1, 2028, will be required to comply with version to be produced thereafter certification processes (i.e., avoid the the in-production standards. This GHG increases by more than 1.5 percent from need for iterative rounds of regulation will function as a production the prior version of the airplane type. As certification). This earlier effective date cutoff for airplanes that do not meet the with changes to GHG certificated for in-production airplane types is fuel efficiency levels described below. . airplane types, introduction of a expected to help encourage some earlier modification that does not adversely compliance for new airplanes. i. Changes for Non-GHG Certificated affect the airplane fuel efficiency Metric Airplane Types 2. Regulatory Limit for In-Production Value will not require demonstration of Type Designs After January 1, 2023, and until compliance with the in-production GHG January 1, 2028, an applicant that standards at the time of that change. The EPA is adopting an emissions submits a modification to the type Manufacturers may seek to certificate limit for in-production airplanes that is design of a non-GHG certificated any airplane type to this standard, even a function of airplane certificated airplane that increases the Metric Value if the criteria do not require compliance. MTOM and consists of three MTOM of the airplane type by greater than As an example, if a manufacturer ranges as described below in Equation 1.5% 98 will be required to demonstrate chooses to shorten the fuselage of a type IV-5, Equation IV-6, and Equation IV- that newly produced airplanes comply certificated airplane, such action will 7,99

Equation IV-5: In-production airplanes with a MTOM less than or equal to 60 000 kg:

Maximum permitted value = 10-2.57535 + (o.609766 * loglO(MTOM))+ (-0.0191302 * (log1o(MTOM))2)

Equation IV-6: In-production airplanes with a MTOM greater than 60 000 kg, and less than or equal to 70 107 kg Maximum permitted value = 0.797

Equation IV-7: In-production airplanes with a MTOM greater than 70 107 kg

Maximum permitted value = 10-1.39353 + (-0.020517 * loglO(MTOM))+ ( 0.0593831 * (log1o(MTOM))2)

9a Note that IV.D.1.i, Changes for non-GHG Environmental Protection-Aeroplane CO2 CO2 Emissions, Amendment 1 (20/7 /20). 22 pp. certified Airplane Types, is different than the No Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http:// Available at https :!/www.icao.int/publications! GHG Change Threshold described in IV.F.1 below. www.icao.int/publications!Pages!catalogue.aspx catalogue/cat_ 2020_ Sup06_ en.pdf (last accessed IV.F.1 applies only to airplanes that have previously (last accessed July 15, 2020). The !CAO Annex 16 October 27, 2020). The !CAO Annex 16, Volume III, been certificated to a GHG rule. IV.D.1.i only Volume III is found on page 16 of the English Amendment 1 is found on page 2 of Supplement applies only to airplane types that have not been Edition of the 2020 catalog, and it is copyright No. 6-July 2020, English Edition, Order No. certificated for GHG. protected; Order No. AN 16-3. Also see: !CAO, 99 Annex 16 Vol. III Part II Chapter 2 sec. 2.4.2(d), 2020, Supplement No. 6-July 2020, Annex 16 AN16-3/E/01. (e), and (fl. !CAO, 2017: Annex 16 Volume III- Environmental Protection-Volume III-Aeroplane 2152 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations

Figure IV-3 and Figure IV-4 show the segments of the limit line. These plots rule. (See Sections V and VI for more numerical limits of the adopted in­ below show the airplane CO2 metric information about this.) These GHG production rules and the relationship of values as they were modeled. This emission limits are the same as the the airplane types analyzed in Sections includes all anticipated/modeled limits of the ICAO Airplane CO2 V and VI to this limit. Figure IV-4 . technology responses, improvements, Emission Standards. shows only the lower MTOM range of and production assumptions in Figure IV-3 to better show the first two response to the market and the final

,. (.

•• =aca '~ Ji!'II. ··11 :I :H i -~,:~.r.'. '2 2 w~ '~ 240 ciOO'., ··400 MtoM.tlOtiJO;:.l.

Figure IV-3 - Final In-Production Standard Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2153

, ~·}''•••• ·- ~: .. ...\ .• ;'

1):,0'_,'+,:------;------. ,a: '2ct ,B a,r -'so 'im5 MT'11Mtlfllm "Ji

Figure IV-4 - Final In-Production Standard - zoomed in to highlights MTOM less than 100,000kg

As discussed in Section IV.C above, standard is, the more time that is in Section VI, the regulations reflect the kink point was included in the necessary to provide manufacturers to differences in economic feasibility for ICAO Aircraft CO2 standards at 60 tons modify production of their airplanes. introducing modifications to in­ to account for a change in slope that is ICAO determined that while the production airplanes and new type observed between large and small technology to meet the in-production designs. The standards adopted by airplanes. The flat section starting at 60 level is available in 2020 (the ICAO ICAO, and here, for in-production tons is used as a transition to connect standards new type design applicability airplanes were developed to reflect the curves for larger and smaller date), additional time beyond the new these differences. airplanes. type design applicability date was E. Exemptions From the GHG Standards While the same technology is necessary to provide sufficient time for considered for both new type design manufacturers to certify all of their On occasion, manufacturers may need and in-production airplanes, there will products. The EPA agrees that additional time to comply with a be a practical difference in compliance additional time for in-production standard. The reasons for needing a for in-production airplanes. airplanes beyond the new type design temporary exemption from regulatory Manufacturers will need to test and applicability date is necessary to allow requirements vary and may include certify each type design to the GHG sufficient time to certify airplanes to the circumstances beyond the control of the manufacturer. The FAA is familiar with standard prior to January 1, 2028, or else GHG standards. newly produced airplanes will likely be Section VI describes the analysis that these actions, as it has handled the denied an airworthiness certificate. In the EPA conducted to determine the similar engine emission standards under contrast, new type design airplanes have cost and benefits of adopting this its CAA authority to enforce the yet to go into production, but these standard. Consistent with the ICAO standards adopted by the EPA. The FAA airplanes will need to be designed to standard, this rule applies to all in­ has considerable authority under its comply with the standards for new type production airplanes built on or after authorizing legislation and its designs (for an application for a new_ January 1, 2028, and to all in-production regulations to deal with these events.10° Since requests for exemptions are type design certificate on or after airplanes that have any modification requests for relief from the enforcement January 11, 2021). This poses a that trigger the change criteria after challenge for setting the level of the in­ January 1, 2023. 100 Title 49 of the United States Code, sec. production standard because sufficient The levels of the in-production GHG 44701(±), vests power in the FAA Administrator to time needs to be provided to allow for standards are the same as ICAO's CO2 issue exemptions as long as the public interest the GHG certification process and the standards, and they reflect the emission condition is met, and, pursuant to sec. 232(a) of the CAA, the Administrator may use that power "in the engineering and airworthiness performance of current in-production execution of all powers and duties vested in him certifications needed for improvements. and in-development airplanes. As under this section" "to insure compliance" with The more stringent the in-production discussed in Section IV.B.4 above and emission standards. 2154 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations of these standards (as opposed to a parent airplane. For example, if the no CO2 emissions change thresholds request to comply with a different parent airplane is certificated to the in­ was developed for the !CAO Airplane standard than set by the EPA), this rule production CO2 emissions level, then all CO2 Emission Standards as to when new will continue the relationship between subsequent versions must also meet the metric values will need to be the agencies by directing any request for in-production CO2 emissions level. This certificated for changes. The EPA is exemption be filed with the FAA under would also apply to voluntary adopting these same thresholds in its its established regulatory paradigm. The certifications under ICAO's standards. If GHGrules. instructions for submitting a petition for a manufacturer seeks to certificate an in­ Under this rule, an airplane is exemption to the FAA can be found in production airplane type to the level considered a modified version of an 14 CFR part 11, specifically§ 11.63. applicable to a new type design, then existing GHG certificated airplane, and Section 11.87 lists the information that future versions of that airplane must therefore must recertify, if it must be filed in a petition, including a also meet the new type regulatory level. incorporates a change in the type design reason "why granting your petition is in Once certificated, subsequent versions that either (a) increases its maximum the public interest." Any request for of the airplane may not fall back to a takeoff mass, or (b) increases its GHG exemption will need to cite the less stringent regulatory CO2 level. emissions evaluation metric value by regulation that the FAA will adopt to To comport with ICAO's approach, if more than the no-fuel efficiency change carry out its duty of enforcing the the FAA finds that a new original type threshold percentages described below standard set by the EPA. A list of certificate is required for any reason, the and in Figure IV-5: 102 requests for exemption received by the airplane will need to comply with the regulatory level applicable to a new type • For airplanes with a MTOM greater FAA is routinely published in the than or equal to 5,700 kg, the threshold design. Federal Register. value decreases linearly from 1.35 to The primary criterion for any In this action, the EPA is adopting exemption filed with the FAA is provisions for new versions of existing 0.75 percent for an airplane with a whether a grant of exemption will be in GHG-certificated airplanes that are the MTOM of 60,000 kg. the public interest. The FAA will same as the ICAO requirements for the • For airplanes with a MTOM greater continue to consult with the EPA on all international Airplane CO2 Emission than or equal to 60,000 kg, the threshold petitions for exemption that the FAA Standards. These provisions will reduce value decreases linearly from 0.75 to receives regarding the enforcement of the certification burden on 0.70 percent for airplanes with a MTOM aircraft engine and emission standards manufacturers by clearly defining when of 600,000 kg. adopted under the CAA. a new GHG metric value must be • For airplanes with a MTOM greater established for the airplane. than or equal to 600,000 kg, the F. Application of Rules for New Version threshold value is 0.70 percent. of an Existing CHG-Certificated 1. No Fuel Efficiency Change Threshold Airplane for GHG-Certificated Airplanes 102 Annex 16, Volume III, Part 1, Chapter 1. ICAO, Under the international Airplane CO2 There are many types of modifications 2017: Annex 16 Volume III-Environmental Emission Standards, a new version of an that could be introduced on an airplane Protection-Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First design that could cause slight changes Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/ existing COrcertificated airplane is one publications/Pageslcatalogue.aspx (last accessed that incorporates modifications to the in GHG emissions (e.g. changing the July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is type design that increase the MTOM or fairing on a light,101 adding or changing found on page 16 of the English Edition of the 2020 increase its CO2 Metric Value more than an external antenna, changing the catalog, and it is copyright protected; Order No. AN emergency exit door configuration, etc.). 16-3. Also see: !CAO, 2020. Supplement No. 6- the No-COrChange Threshold July 2020, Annex 16 Environmental Protection­ (described in IV.F.1 below). ICAO's To reduce burden on both certification Volume III-Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, Amendment standards provide that once an airplane authorities and manufacturers, a set of 1 (20/7/20). 22 pp. Available at https:/1 is CO2 certificated, all subsequent www.icao.int/publications/catalogue!CA T_ 2020_ 101 A fairing is "a structure on the exterior of an Sup06_ en.pdf (last accessed October 28, 2020). The changes to that airplane must meet at aircraft or boat, for reducing drag." https:!I ICAO Annex 16, Volume III, Amendment 1 is found least the CO2 emissions regulatory level www.dictionary.com/browselfairing [last accessed on page 2 of Supplement No. 6-July 2020; English (or CO2 emissions standard) of the November 30, 2020). Edition, Order No. AN 16-3/E/01. Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2155

Figure IV-5: No Fuel Efficiency Change Thresholds for GHG Certificated Airplanes (ICAO Adopted No COz Emissions Change Thresholds)

The threshold is dependent on Under this rule, when a change is compliance with the standard. Some airplane size because the potential fuel made to an airplane type that does not commenters pointed out that this efficiency changes to an airplane are not exceed the no-change threshold, the fuel language was different than the constant across all airplanes. For efficiency metric value will not change. description adopted by ICAO. To be example, a change to the fairing There will be no method to track these consistent with ICAO, this language has surrounding a wing light, or the changes to airplane types over time. If been corrected. addition of an antenna to a small an airplane type has, for example, a 10 Under this rule, a manufacturer that business jet, may have greater impacts percent compliance margin under the introduces modifications that reduce on the airplane's metric value than a rule, then ff small adverse change less GHG emissions can request voluntary similar change would on a large twin than the threshold may not require the recertification from the FAA. There will aisle airplane. re-evaluation of the airplane metric be no required tracking or accounting of These GHG changes will be assessed value. However, if the compliance GHG emissions reductions made to an on a before-change and after-change margin for a type design is less than the airplane unless it is voluntarily re­ basis. If there is a flight test as part of No Fuel Efficiency Change threshold certificated. the certification, the metric value (MV) and the proposed modification results The EPA is adopting, as part of the change will be assessed based on the in a change to the metric value that is GHG rules, the no-change thresholds for change in calculated metric value of less than the no fuel efficiency change modifications to airplanes discussed flights with and without the change. threshold, then the airplane retains its above, which are the same as the A modified version of an existing original metric value, and the provisions in the international standard. GHG certificated airplane will be subject We believe that these thresholds will to the same regulatory level as the compliance margin to the regulatory limit remains the same. The proposal maintain the effectiveness of the rule airplane.from which it was modified. A while limiting the burden on manufacturer may also choose to stated that if the margin to the standard was less than the No Fuel Efficiency manufacturers to comply. The voluntarily comply with a later or more regulations reference specific test and stringent standard.1oa Change Threshold that the plane would still be required to demonstrate other criteria that were adopted internationally in the ICAO standards 10s ETM Vol. III sec. 2.2.3. !CAO, 2018: setting process. Environmental Technical Manual Volume III­ Doc 9501-Environmental Technical Manual Procedures for the CO,, Emissions Certification of Volume III-Procedures for the CO2 Emissions G. Test and Measurement Procedures Aeroplanes, First Edition, Doc 9501, 64 pp. Certification of Aeroplanes, 2nd Edition, 2020. 90 Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ pp. Available at https:llwww.icao.int/publications/ The international certification test Pages/aatalogue.aspx (last accessed July 15, 2020). catalogue/aat_ 2020 _sup06 _en.pdf (last accessed procedures have been developed based The !CAO Environmental Technical Manual October 28, 2020). The !CAO Environmental Volume III is found on page 77 of the English Technical Manual Volume III, 2nd Edition is found upon industry's current best practices Edition of the 2020 catalog, and it is copyright on page 3 of Supplement No. 6-July 2020, English for establishing the cruise performance protected; Order No. 9501-3. Also see: !CAO, 2020: Edition, Order No. 9501-3. of their airplanes and on input from 2156 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations certification authorities. These H. Controlling Two of the Six Well­ rules that harmonize with the ICAO CO2 procedures include specifications for Mixed GHGs standard-by adopting an aircraft airplane conformity, weighing, fuel As described earlier in Section N.A engine GHG 110 standard that employs a specifications, test condition stability and IV.G, we are adopting the ICAO test fuel efficiency metric that will also scale criteria, required confidence intervals, procedures and fuel efficiency with both CO2 and N20 emissions. The measurement instrumentation required, metric.107 The ICAO test procedures for aircraft engine GHG standard will and corrections to reference conditions. the international Airplane CO2 Emission control both CO2 and N20 emissions, In this action, we are incorporating by Standards measure fuel efficiency (or without the need for adoption of engine reference the test procedures for the fuel burn), and !CAO uses fuel exhaust emissions rates for either CO2 or ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. efficiency in the metric [or equation) for N20. However, the air pollutant Adoption of these test procedures will determining compliance. As explained regulated by these standards will remain maintain consistency among all ICAO earlier in Section III and in the 2016 the aggregate of the six well-mixed GHGs. 111 member States. Findings,108 only two of the six well­ Airplane flight tests, or FAA approved mixed GHGs-C02 and N20-are I. Response to Key Comments performance models, will be used to emitted from covered aircraft. Although The EPA received numerous determine SAR values that form the there is not a standardized test comments on the proposed rulemaking basis of the GHG metric value. Under procedure for directly measuring which are presented in the Response to the adopted rule, flight testing to airplane CO2 or N20 emissions, the test Comments document along with the determine SAR values shall be procedure for fuel efficiency scales with EPA's responses to those comments. conducted within the approved normal the limiting of both CO2 and N20 Below is a brief discussion of some of operating envelope of the airplane, emissions, as they both can be indexed the key comments received. when the airplane is steady, straight, on a per-unit-of-fuel-burn basis. level, and trim, at manufacturer-selected Therefore, both CO2 and N20 emissions 1. Stringency of the Standards speed and altitude.1 0 4 The rule will are controlled as airplane fuel burn is Several commenters stated that the provide that flight testing must be limited.1 0 9 Since limiting fuel burn is proposed rulemaking satisfies the conducted at the ICAO~defined the only means by which airplanes requirements in the CAA, is consistent reference conditions where possible,105 control their GHG emissions, the fuel­ with the precedent for setting airplane and that when testing does not align burn-based metric (or fuel-efficiency­ emission standards in coordination with with the reference conditions, based metric) reasonably serves as a ICAO, and is supported by the corrections for the differences between means for controlling both CO2 and administrative record for this test and reference conditions shall be N20. rulemaking. The establishment of applied.106 Since CO2 emissions represent nearly aircraft engine GHG standards that We are incorporating by reference, in all GHG emissions from airplanes and match the ICAO airplane CO2 standards 40 CFR 1030.23(d), certain procedures ICAO's CO2 test procedures measure into U.S. law is consistent with the found in ICAO Annex 16, Volume III. fuel efficiency by using a fuel­ authority given to the EPA under efficiency-based metric, we are adopting section 231 of the CAA, and it clearly

104 It is expected that manufacturers will chocise meets the criteria for adoption of aircraft conditions that result in the highest SAR value for 101JCAO's certification standards and procedures engine standards specified in section a given certification mass. Manufacturers may for airplane CO2 emissions are based on the 231. In addition, the proposed GHG choose other than optimum conditions to determine consumption of fuel (or fuel burn). !CAO uses the term CO2 for its standards and procedures, but standards align with the following SAR; however, doing so will be at their detriment. CAEP terms of reference (described 105 Annex 16, Vol. III, sec. 2.5. !CAO, 2017: ICAO is actually regulating or measuring the rate of Annex 16 Volume III-Environmental Protection­ an airplane's fuel burn (or fuel efficiency). As earlier in section 11.D.1) that were Aeroplane CO, Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. described earlier, to convert an airplane's rate of assessed for the international airplane Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ fuel burn (for jet fuel) to a CO2 emissions rate, a 3.16 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of fuel burn emission CO2 standards: Technical feasibility, Pageslcatalogue.aspx (last accessed July 15, 2020). environmental benefit, economic The !CAO Annex 16 Volume III is found on page index needs to be applied. 16 ofEnglish Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright 10a U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas reasonableness, and interdependencies protected; Order No. AN 16-3. Also see: !CAO, Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air of measures (i.e., measures taken to 2020, Supplement No. 6-July.2020, Annex 16 Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To minimize noise and emissions). These Environmental Protection-Volume III-Aeroplane Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 CAEP terms of reference are consistent CO2 Emissions, Amendment 1 (20/7/20) 22 pp. FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/ 109 For jet fuel, the emissions index or emissions with the criteria the EPA must adhere to cataloguelcat_2020 _sup06 _ en.pdf (last accessed factor for CO2 is 3.16 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram under section 231(b) of the CAA that October 27, 2020). The !CAO Annex 16, Volume III, of fuel burn (or 3, 160 grams of CO2 per kilogram requires the EPA to allow enough lead Amendment 1, is found on page 2 of Supplement of fuel burn). For jet fuel, the emissions index for time "to permit the development and No. 6-July'2020, English Edition, Order No. AN nitrous oxide is 0.1 grams of nitrous oxide per 16-3/E/01. kilogram of fuel burn (which is significantly less application of the requisite technology, 106 Annex 16, Vol. III, Appendix 1. !CAO, 2017: than the emissions index for CO2), Since CO2 and giving appropriate consideration to the Annex 16 Volume III-Environmental Protection­ nitrous oxide emissions are indexed to fuel burn, cost of compliance within such Aeroplane CO, Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. they are both directly tied to fuel burn. Controlling period"-when adopting aircraft engine Available at: http://www.icao.int/publicationsl CO2 emissions means controlling fuel burn, and in emission standards. Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed July 15, 2020). turn this leads to limiting nitrous oxide emissions. The !CAO Annex 16 Volume III is found on page Thus, controlling CO2 emissions scales with In addition, these commenters 16 of English Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright limiting nitrous oxide emissions. expressed that the EPA adopting protected; Order No. AN 16-3. Also see: !CAO, SAE, 2009, Procedure for the Calculation of 2020, Supplement No. 6-July 2020, Annex 16 Airplane Emissions, Aerospace Information Report, 110 See section II.E (Consideration of Whole Environmental Protection-Volume III-Aeroplane AIR5715, 2009-07 (pages 45-46). The nitrous oxide Airplane Characteristics) of this rule for a CO2 Emissions, Amendment 1 (20/7/20) 22 pp. emissions iodex is from this report. discussion on regulating emissions from the whole Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/ !CAO, 2016: ICAO Environmental Report 2016, airplane. cataloguelcat_ 2020_ sup06_ en.pdf (last accessed Aviation and Climate Change, 250 pp. The CO2 111 Although compliance with the final GHG October 27, 2020). The !CAO Annex 16, Volume III, emissions index is from this report. Available at standard will be measured in terms of fuel Amendment 1, is found on page 2 of Supplement https:l/www.icao.int/environmental-protection/ efficiency, the EPA considers the six well-mixed No. 6-July 2020, English Edition, Order No. AN Documents!ICA0%20Environmental%20Report . GHGs to be the regulated pollutant for the purposes 16-3/E/01. %202016.pdf (last accessed March 16, 2020). of the final standard. Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2157 standards that match !CAO standards is technology following standards to make status to factors such as cost, safety, and vital to competitiveness of the U.S. sure the rulemaking will result in noise in determining what standards are industry and certainty in the regulatory needed reductions in GHG emissions. reasonable for aircraft engines. Rather, landscape. This approach provides In response to these comments, we the EPA has greater flexibility under international harmonization regulatory refer to Section II.B and the introductory section 231 in determining what uniformity throughout the world. paragraphs of Section IV which present standard is most reasonable for aircraft Adopting !CAO standards will protect our reasons for finalizing GHG engines, and the EPA is not required to U.S. jobs and strengthen the American standards that are aligned with the achieve a technology-forcing result. aviation industry by ensuring the international CO2 standards. Section Moreover, in light of the United States' worldwide acceptance of U.S. 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA directs the ratification of the Chicago Convention, manufactured airplanes. Adopting more Administrator of the EPA to, from time EPA has historically given significant stringent standards would place U.S. to time, propose aircraft engine weight to uniformity with international airplane manufacturers at a competitive emission standards applicable to the requirements as a factor in setting disadvantage compared to their emission of any air pollutant from aircraft engine standards. The fact that international competitors. Reciprocity classes of aircraft engines which in the most airplanes already meet the and consistency are essential, Administrator's judgment causes or standards does not in itself mean that specifically the worldwide mutual contributes to air pollution that may the standards are inappropriate, recognition of the sufficiency ofICAO's reasonably be anticipated to endanger provided the agency has a reasonable standards and the avoidance of any public health or welfare. Section basis after considering all the relevant unnecessary difference from those 231(a)(3) provides that after we propose factors for setting the standards at a standards in each Member State's law. standards, the Administrator shall issue level that results in no actual emission Aviation is a global industry, and such standards "with such reductions. By the same token, the EPA airplanes are assets that can fly modifications as he deems appropriate." believes a technology-forcing standard anywhere in the world and cross Section 231(b) requires that any would not be precluded by section 231, international borders. Within this emission standards "take effect after in light of section 231(b)'s forward­ context, alignment of domestic and such period as the Administrator finds looking language. However, the EPA international standards levels the necessary . . . to permit the would, after consultation with the playing field for the aviation industry, development and application of the Secretary of Transportation, need to and it makes sure that financial requisite technology, giving appropriate provide manufacturers sufficient lead resources can be focused on consideration to the cost of compliance time to develop and implement improvement for the benefit of the during such period." The U.S. Court of requisite technology. Also, there is an environment (including investments Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has held added emphasis on the consideration of creating CO2 emissions reductions via that these provisions confer an safety in section 231 (see, e.g., sections carrying out the non-airplane­ unusually broad degree of discretion on 231(a)(2)(B)(ii) ("The Administrator technology elements of ICAO's basket of the EPA to adopt aircraft engine shall not change the aircraft engine measures). In addition, reciprocity and emission standards as the Agency emission standards if such change consistency of international standards determines are reasonable. Nat'] Ass'n would [* * *] adversely affect safety"), decrease administrative complexity for of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 42 U.S.C. 7571(a)(2)(B)(ii), and 231(c) airplane manufacturers and air carriers. 1221, 1229-30 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (" Any regulations in effect under this Some commenters stated that aligning (NACAA). As described in the 2005 EPA section [* * *] shall not apply if with !CAO standards ensures that U.S. rule on aircraft engine NOx standards,112 disapproved by the President, after manufacturers' airplanes are available to while the statutory language of section notice and opportunity for public U.S. air carriers, while encouraging 231 is not identical to other provisions hearing, on the basis of a finding by the global competition and enabling U.S. air in title II of the CAA that direct the EPA Secretary of Transportation that any carriers to obtain airplanes and airplane to establish technology-based standards such regulation would create a hazard to engines at competitive prices. for various types of engines, the EPA aircraft safety"), 42 U.S.C. 7571(c). In contrast, several commenters stated interprets its authority under section Thus, it is reasonable for the EPA to give that the EPA' s lack of consideration of 231 to be somewhat similar to those greater weight to considerations of feasible standards that result in GHG provisions that require us to identify a safety in this context than it might in emission reductions is unlawful and reasonable balance of specified balancing emissions reduction, cost, and arbitrary, and that the EPA should adopt emissions reduction, cost, safety, noise, energy factors under other title II more stringent standards. Under the and other factors. See, e.g., Husqvarna provisions. authority that the EPA is provided in AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2001) In order to promote international Clean Air Act section 231, the EPA is (upholding the EPA's promulgation of cooperation on GHG emissions obligated to account for the danger to technology-based standards for small regulation and international public health and welfare of the non-road engines under section harmonization of aviation standards and pollutant and the technological 213(a)(3) of the CAA). However, we are to avoid placing U.S. manufacturers at feasibility to control the pollutant. All not compelled under section 231 to a competitive disadvantage that likely in-production and new type design obtain the "greatest degree of emission would result if the EPA were to adopt airplanes will meet the standards reduction achievable" as per sections standards different from the standards because existing non-compliant 213 and 202(a)(3)(A) of the CAA, and so adopted by !CAO, as discussed further airplanes are anticipated to end the EPA does not interpret the Act as above, the EPA is adopting standards for production by 2028, the applicability requiring the agency to give subordinate GHG emissions from certain classes of date for in-production airplanes. More engines used on airplanes that match stringent standards are feasible for in­ 112 U.S. EPA, 2005: Control of Air Pollution from the stringency of the CO2 standards Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards production and new type design and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 70 FR 69664 adopted by !CAO. This rule will airplanes, and the EPA should adopt (November 17, 2005). See page 69676 of this facilitate the acceptance of U.S. technology-forcing instead of Federal Register notice. manufactured airplanes and airplane 2158 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations engines by member States and airlines efficiency for airplanes), as described Boeing provided a list of historical around the world. In addition, requiring later in section V. examples where they say the EPA U.S. manufacturers to certify to different delayed aircraft engine emission or more stringent standards than have 2. Timing of the Standard-Extension of In Production Applicability Date for standards, adopted standards after !CAO been adopted internationally could have Some Freight Airplanes implementation dates, or granted disruptive effects on manufacturers' exemptions.113 Boeing characterizes the ability to market planes for international Some commenters requested that the examples of exemptions as the most operation. Having invested significant EPA deviate from the !CAO standards relevant to their current situation with effort and resources, working with the (and the EPA proposed implementation the 767F. However, neither Boeing nor FAA and the Department of State, to dates) and delay the 2028 in-production other commenters provided any gain international consensus within applicability date for a class of information or rationale to justify why !CAO to adopt the first-ever widebody purpose-built (or dedicated) the exemption provisions proposed in international CO2 standards for freighters such as the Boeing 767F and part 1030.10, which point to the FAA's airplanes, the EPA believes that meeting Airbus A330-220F. These commenters existfng exemption process, would be the United States' obligations under the requested that the in-production insufficient to resolve their concerns. Chicago Convention by aligning applicability date for purpose-built Thus, there is not a sufficient basis for domestic standards with the !CAO freight airplanes with MTOMs between the EPA to conclude that the exemption standards, rather than adopting more 180,000 kg and 240,000 kg be extended provisions would not resolve this issue stringent standards, will have by 10 years, from January 1, 2028 to for the commenters. substantial benefits for future January 1, 2038. As we noted at the beginning of international cooperation on airplane Boeing argued that significant Section IV and above in IV.J.1, there are emission standards, and such unexpected economic factors arising significant benefits to industry and cooperation is the key for achieving after the !CAO CO2 standard was future international cooperation to worldwide. emission reductions. This established, including the COVID-19 adopting standards that to the highest EPA rule to promulgate airplane GHG pandemic, have affected and continue to practicable degree match !CAO standards equivalent to international severely affect Boeing, its supply chain, standards, in terms of scope, timing, standards is consistent with U.S. and its customers, and warrant stringency, etc. If less stringent or obligations under !CAO. By issuing additional time for Boeing to upgrade or delayed standards were adopted, it standards that meet or exceed the replace the 767F in a practicable and would have a disruptive impact on the minimum stringency levels of !CAO economically feasible manner, manufacturers' ability to market their standards, we satisfy these obligations. · consistent with the !CAO terms of airplanes internationally. Boeing Also, these final standards are the reference and the mandatory factors in recognized this disruption in their first-ever airplane GHG standards and CAA section 231(b). Additional details proposed addition to the regulatory text, test procedures for U.S. manufacturers, on these comments can be found in the 1030.l(a)(8)(ii), where they stated the and international regulatory uniformity Response to Comments document under airworthiness certificate would be and certainty are key elements for these section 6.2.1. limited to U.S. domestic operation. manufacturers as they become familiar The EPA recognizes the significant Commenters did not provide any with adhering to these standards and financial hardships the aviation rationale, or make any statements, about test procedures. Consistency with the industry is experiencing as a result of this suggested revision to limit the international standards will prevent the COVID-19 pandemic. The operation of these freighters to the U.S., backsliding by ensuring that all new challenges the industry now faces were nor did they state why such an type design and in-production airplanes not anticipated when the standards operational requirement would be in are at least as efficient as today's were agreed by !CAO in 2017. However, EPA's purview. To include limits as this airplanes. CAEP meets triennially, and !CAO recognized that unexpected on an airworthiness certificate would in the future, we anticipate ICAO/CAEP hardships may arise in the future and seem to impose operational restrictions considering more stringent airplane CO2 included language to allow certification on air carriers. Imposing a restriction standards. The U.S. Interagency Group authorities to grant exemptions when it such as that suggested by Boeing would on International Aviation (!GIA) may be appropriate to provide relief be unprecedented for the EPA, and it is facilitates coordinated from the standards. not clear how it could be accomplished. recommendations to the Secretary of Consistent with !CAO, the EPA Further, such a significant change was State on issues pertaining to proposed to include exemption not proposed for comment by interested international aviation (and !CAO/ provisions (40 CFR 1030.10 of the parties. Operational restrictions would CAEP), and the FAA is the chair of regulations) by pointing to the FAA's typically be the purview of the FAA !GIA. Representatives of domestic states, existing exemption process to provide under its enabling legislation. NGOs, and industry can participate in relief when unforeseen circumstances or Finally, although Boeing's request !GIA to provide input into future hardships result in the need for purported to also cover an Airbus standards for ICAO/CAEP. U.S. additional time to comply with the GHG airplane of the same weight class, the manufacturers will be prepared for any standards. These provisions are similar EPA received no comments from Airbus future standard change due to their to those exemption provisions that have seconding the request, and therefore it experience with the first-ever standards. been in 40 CFR part 8 7 of the does not appear that the problem Moreover, the manufacturers regulations for decades. Manufacturers identified by Boeing is universal to all anticipation of future !CAO standards will be able to apply to the FAA for airplanes of the same class that may be will be another factor for them to exemptions in accordance with the put into freighter service. consider in continually improving the regulations of 14 CFR part 11, and the fuel efficiency of their airplanes in FAA will consult with the EPA on each 11• Boeing stated that the EPA granted addition to the business-as-usual market exemption application prior to granting exemptions, but the FAA granted the exemptions forces (i.e., in addition to business-as­ relief from certification to the GHG after consultation with the EPA, as EPA is not usual continually improving fuel standards. authorized under the CAA to grant exemptions. Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2159

Given that no information was even in advance of member States' occurred in February 2016. However, provided to show why the proposed adoption into domestic regulations. due to the commercial sensitivity of the exemptions would be insufficient, that Therefore, the EPA expects that the final data used in the analysis, much of the the would-be affected airplane GHG standards will not impose an underlying information is not available manufacturers do not seem to be additional burden on manufacturers. In to the public. For the U.S. domestic universally in favor of or need a 10-year keeping with the ICAO/CAEP need to GHG standards, however, we are making compliance extension, and that consider technical feasibility in our analysis, data sources, and model significant challenges and adverse standard setting, the ICAO Airplane CO2 assumptions transparent to the public so impacts would arise if timely Emission Standards reflect all stakeholders affected by the final harmonization with international demonstrated technology that will be standards can understand how the standards did not occur, the EPA is available in 2020. agency derives its decisions. Thus, the finali~ing the standards and timing As described below, the analysis for EPA has conducted an independent proposed in the NPRM. The EPA, in the final GHG standards considered impact analysis based solely on publicly consultation with the FAA, believes that individual airplane types and market available information and data sources. the exemption process should provide forces. We have assessed GHG emission An EPA report detailing the an appropriate avenue for reductions needed for airplane types (or methodology and results of the manufacturers to seek relief. airplane models) to meet the final GHG emissions inventory analysis 115 was standards compared to the peer-reviewed by multiple independent V. Aggregate GHG and Fuel Burn improvements that are driven by market subject matter experts, including experts Methods and Results competition and are expected to occur from academia and other government This section describes the EPA's in the absence of any standard (business agencies, as well as independent emission impacts analysis for the final as usual improvements). A summary of technical experts.116 standards. This section also describes . these results is described later in this The methodologies the EPA uses to the assumptions and data sources used section. Additional details can be found assess the impacts of the final GHG to develop the baseline GHG emissions in chapter 5 of the accompanying TSD standards are summarized in a flow inventories and the potential for the final standards. chart shown in Figure V-1. This section consequences of the final standards on A. What methodologies did the EPA use describes the impacts of the final GHG aviation emissions. Consistent with for the emissibns inventoiy assessment? standards. Essentially, the approach is Executive Order 12866, we analyzed the to compare the GHG emissions of the impacts of alternatives (using similar The EPA participated in ICAO/ business as usual baseline in the methodologies), and the results for these CAEP's standard-setting process for the absence of standards with those alternatives are described in chapters 4 international Airplane CO2 Emission emissions under the final GHG and 5 of the Technical Support Standards. CAEP provided a summary standards. Document (TSD). of the results from this analysis in the report of its tenth meeting, 114 which 2020). The summary of technological feasibility and As described earlier in Section II, the cost information is located in Appendix C (starting manufacturers of affected airplanes and 114 ICAO, 2016: Doc 10069-Report of the Tenth on page 5C-1) of this report. engines have already developed or are Meeting, Montreal,1-12 February 2016, Committee 11s U.S. EPA, 2020: Technical Report on Aircraft developing technologies that meet the on Aviation Environmental Protectio!l, CAEP 10, Emissions Inventory and Stringency Analysis, July 2017 ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission 432 pp., pages 271 to 308, is found on page 27 of 2020, 52 pp. the ICAO Products & Services English Edition 2020 11• RTI International and EnDyna, EPA Technical Standards. The EPA expects that the Catalog and is copyright protected. For purchase Report on Aircraft Emissions Inventory and manufacturers will comply with the available at: https:l/www.icao.int/publications/ Stringency Analysis: Peer Review, July 2019, 157 ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards Pageslcatalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, pp. 2160 Federal Register/ Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations EPA Emissions Inventory and Stringency Analysis Flaw Chart Diagram

Stringency& TechnofOl!Y Response S readsheet

PIANO Alrcra.ft Performance Models & Oatabas~s 'i ,..,, Flight______Simulation Module .,1

Figure V-1 EPA Regulatory Analysis Flow Chart

The first step of the EPA analysis is PIAN0.118 A brief account of the database 120 (also known as ASCEND to create a baseline, which is methods, assumptions, and data sources Online Fleets Database-hereinafter constructed from the unique airport used is given below, and more details "ASCEND"). origin-destination (OD) pairs and can be found in chapter 4 of the TSD. The EPA then linked the 2015 FAA airplane combinations in the 2015 base 1. Fleet Evolution Module operations data to the T AF and year. As described further in the next ASCEND-based growth and retirement section, these base year operations are To develop the baseline, the EPA used rates by matching the airport and then evolved to future year operations, FAA 2015 operations data as the basis airplane parameters. Where the OD-pair 2016-2040, by emulating the market from which to project future fleet and airplane match between the driven fleet renewal process to define operations out to 2040. The year-to-year operations data and the TAF, then the the baseline (without the final GHG activity growth rate was determined by exact TAF year-on-year growth rates regulatory requirements). The same the FAA 2015-2040 Terminal Area were applied to grow 2015 base year method then is applied to define the Forecast 119 (TAFJ based on airport OD­ activities to future years. For cases fleet evolution under the final GHG pairs, route groups (domestic or without exact matches, growth rates standards, except that different potential international), and airplane types. The from progressively more aggregated technology responses are defined for the retirement rate of a specific airplane is levels were used to grow the future year determined by the age of the airplane 121 airplanes impacted by the final GHG activities. and the retirement curve of its standards. Specifically, they are either The retirement rate was based on the associated airplane type. Retirement modified to meet the standards or exact age of the airplane from ASCEND curves of major airplane types are removed from production. Once the for airplanes with a known tail number. derived statistically based on data from When the airplane tail number was not flight activities for all analysis scenarios the FlightGlobal Fleets Analyzer are defined by the fleet evolution known, the aggregated retirement rate of module, then fuel burn and GHG 117 the next level matching fleet (e.g., 118 PIANO is the Aircraft Design and Analysis airplane type or category as defined by emissions are modelled for all the Software by Dr. Dimitri Simas, Lissys Limited, UK, scenarios with a physics-based airplane 1990-present; Available at www.piano.aero (last performance model known as accessed March 16, 2020). PIANO is a commercially 120 FlightGlobal Fleets Analyzer is a subscription available airplane design and performance software based oulioe data platform providing suite used across the industry and academia. comprehensive and authoritative source of global 117 To convert fuel burn to CO2 emissions, we 119 FAA 2015-2040 Terminal Area Forecast, tbe airplane fleet data (also known as ASCEND used tbe conversion factor of 3.16 kg/kg fuel for CO2 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) is the official FAA database) for manufacturers, suppliers and emissions, and to convert to tbe six well-mixed forecast of aviation activity for U.S. airports. It Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) providers. GHG emissions, we used 3.19 kg/kg fuel for CO2 contains active airports in tbe National Plan of https:l/signin.cirium.com (last accessed December equivalent emissions. Our method for calculatiog Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) iocluding FAA­ 16, 2019). CO2 equivalent emissions is based on SAE AIR towered airports, Federal contract-towered airports, 121 For example, in tbe absence of exact airplane non-Federal towered airports, and non-towered match, tbe aggregated growth rate of airplane 5715, 2009: Procedures for the Calculation of airports. Forecasts are prepared for major users of . category is used; io case of no exact OD-pair match, Aircraft Emissions and the EPA publication: the National Airspace System iocludiog air carrier, tbe growtb rate of route group is used. Outside tbe Emissions Factors for Greenbouse Gas Inventories, air taxi/commuter, general aviation, and military. U.S. the non-US flights were modelled with global EPA, last modified 4, April 2014, https:II The forecasts are prepared to meet the budget and average growtb rates from !CAO for passenger and www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/ plaoning needs of tbe FAA and provide ioformation freighter operations and from the Bombardier documents/emission-factors_ 2014.pdf (last for use by state and local authorities, the aviation forecast for business jets. See chapter 5 of the TSD accessed March 16, 2020). iodustry, and the public. for details. Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2161

ASCEND) was used to calculate the contrast to how ICAO used the Constant To simplify the computation, we retirement rates for future years. Technology Assumption, as a made the following modeling Combining the growth and retirement simplification, the EPA is using this as assumptions: (1) Assume airplanes fly rates together, we calculate the future a worst case scenario in our sensitivity great circle distance (which is the year growth and replacement (G&R) studies to provide an estimate of the shortest distance along the surface of the market demands. These future year G&R range of uncertainty to our main earth between two airports) for each market demands are aligned to each analysis in extreme cases. origin-destination (OD) pair. (2) Assume base year flight, and the future year The EPA fleet evolution model still air flights and ignore weather or jet flights are allocated with available G&R focuses on U.S. aviation, including both stream effects. (3) Assume no delays in airplanes 122 using an equal-product domestic and international flights (with takeoff, landing, en route, and other market-share selection process.1 2 3 The U.S. international flights defined as flight-related operations. (4) Assume a market demand allocation is made flights departing from the U.S. but load factor of 75 percent maximum based on ASK (Available Seat landing outside the U.S.), This is the payload capacity for all flights except Kilometer) for passenger operations, same scope of operations used for the for business jet where 50 percent is ATK (Available Tonne Kilometer) for EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas assumed. (5) Use the PIANO default freighter operations, and number of Emissions and Sinks.126 However, reserve fuel rule 12a for a given airplane operations for business jets. because aviation is an international type. (6) Assume a one-to-one For the 2015 base-year analysis, the industry and manufacturers of covered relationship between metric value baseline (no regulation) modelling airplanes sell their products globally, improvement and fuel burn includes continuous (2016-2040) the analysis also covers the global fleet improvement for airplanes with better annual fuel efficiency improvements. evolution and emissions inventories for fuel-efficiency technology insertions (or The modelling tracks the year airplanes reference (but at a much less detailed technology responses). enter the fleet and applies the type­ level for ·traffic growth and fleet Given the flight activities defined by specific fuel efficiency improvement 1 2 4 evolution outside of the U.S.). the fleet evolution module in the via an annual adjustment factor based The fleet evolution modelling for the previous section, we generated a unit on the makeup of the fleet in a flight matrix to summarize all the particular year. Since there is final regulatory scenarios defines available G&R airplanes for various PIANO outputs of fuel burn, flight uncertainty associated with the fuel­ distance, flight time, emissions, etc. for efficiency improvement assumption, the market segments based on the technology responses identified by ICF, all flights uniquely defined by a analysis also includes a sensitivity combination of departure and arrival scenario without this assumption in the a contractor for the EPA, as described later in Section VI.127 airports (OD-pairs), airplane types, and baseline. This sensitivity scenario engine types. This matrix includes applied the ICAO ConstantTechnology 2. Full Flight Simulation Module millions of flights and forms the basis Assumption to the baseline, which PIANO version 5.4 was used for all for our analysis (including the meant that no technology improvements sensitivity studies). were projected beyond what was known the emissions modelling. PIANO v5.4 in 2016. Specifically, current airplane (2017 build) has 591 airplane models 3. Emissions Module (including many project airplanes still types were assumed to have the same The GHG emissions calculation metric value in 2040 as they did in under development, e.g., the B777-9X) and 56 engine types in its airplane and involves summing the outputs from the 2016. ICAO used this simplifying first two modules for every flight in the assumption because they conducted engine databases. PIANO is a physics­ based airplane performance model used database. This is done globally, and their stringency analysis on comparative then the U.S. portion is segregated from basis and did not attempt to include widely by industry, research institutes, non-governmental organizations and the global dataset. The same calculation future emission trends in their is done for the baseline and the final stringency analysis. ICAO stated that its government agencies to model airplane performance metrics such as fuel GHG standard. When a surrogate analysis was ". . .not suitable for airplane is used to model an airplane application to any other purpose of any consumption and emissions characteristics based on specific that is not in the PIANO database, or kind, and any attempt at such when a technology response is required application would be in error." 125 In airplane and engine types. We use it to model airplane performance for all for an airplane to pass a standard level, an adjustment factor is also applied to 122 The airplane G&R database contains all the phases of flight from gate to gate EPA-known in-production and in-development including taxi-out, takeoff, climb, model the expected performance of the airplanes that ar.e projected to grow and replace the cruise, descent, approach, landing, and intended airplane and technology global base-year fleet over the 2015-2040 analysis taxi-in in this analysis. responses. period. This airplane G&R database, the annual The differences between the final continuous improvements, and the technology responses are available in the 2018 ICF Report. GHG standards and the baseline provide Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, quantitative measures to assess the 12• The EPA uses equal product market share (for 2020). The summary of technological feasibility and all airplane present in the G&R database), but cost information is located in Appendix C (starting emissions impacts of the final GHG attention has been paid to make sure that competing on page 5G-1) of this report. In particular, see standards. A brief summary of these manufacturers have reasonable representative paragraph 2.3 for the caveats, limitations and results is described in the next two products in the G&R database. context of the ICAO analysis. sections. More details can be found in 12• ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO, Cost ond Technology 12su.s. EPA, 2018: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 1,184 pp., chapter 5 of the TSD. Report, EPA Contract Number EP-G-16-020, U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430-R- September 30, 2018. · 18-003, April 2018. Available at: https:II 12a For typical medium/long-haul airplanes, the 12s ICAO, 2016: Doc 10069-Report of the Tenth www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/invento,y-us­ default reserve settings are 200 NM diversion, 30 Meeting, Montreal,1-12 February 2016, Committee greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2016 minutes hold, plus 5 % contingency on mission on Aviation Environmental Protection, CAEP 10, (last accessed March 16, 2020). fuel. Depending on airplane types, other reserve 432 pp., pages 271 to 308, is found on page 27 of 121 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO, Cost and Technology rules such as U.S. short-haul, European short-haul, the ICAO Products & Services English Edition 2020 Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final National Business Aviation Association­ Catalog and is copyright protected. For purchase Report, EPA Contract Number EP-G-16-020, Instrument Flight Rules (NBAA-IFR) or Douglas available at: https:llwww.icao.int/publications/ September 30, 2018. rules are used as well. 2162 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 6 /Monday, January 11, 2021 /Rules and Regulations

B. What are the baseline CHG analyzing additional baseline/scenarios assumption. More detailed breakdowns emissions? that reflect a business-as-usual for the passenger, freighter, and continually improving baseline with business market segments can be found The commercial aviation marketplace respect to fleet fuel efficiency. We also in chapter 5 of the TSD. It is worth is continually changing, with new evaluated a baseline scenario that is noting that the U.S. domestic market is origin-destination markets and new, fixed to reflect 2016 technology levels relatively mature, with a lower growth more fuel-efficient airplanes growing in (i.e., no continual improvement in fuel­ rate than those for most international number and replacing existing airplanes efficient technology), and this baseline markets. The forecasted growth rate for in air carrier (or airline) fleets. This scenario is consistent with the approach the U.S. domestic market combined behavior introduces uncertainty to the used by ICA0.131 with the Continuous Improvement future implications of this rulemaking. For the EPA analysis, the baseline Assumption results in a low GHG Since there is uncertainty, multiple GHG emissions are assessed for 2015, emissions growth rate in 2040 for the baseline/scenarios may be analyzed to 2020, 2023, 2025,2028, 2030,2035,and U.S. domestic market. However, it explore a possible range of implications 2040. The projected baseline GHG should be noted that this is one set of of the rule. emissions for all U.S. flights (domestic assumptions combined with a market - For the analysis in this rulemaking and international) are shown in Figure forecast. Actual air traffic and emissions and consistent with our regulatory V-2 and Figure V-3, both with and growth may vary as a result of a variety impact analyses for many other mobile without the continuous (2016-2040) of factors. source sectors,129,130 the EPA is fuel-efficiency improvement BILLING CODE 6560-50-P Total u .. s. CO2 Equivalent (Mt)

2035 2040

2020 2023 2025 2028 2030 2035 A 174.. 16 184.74 204.83 21. 1'.1 220.13 225.83 236.0 244.6 B 17'4.16 195.3 206:08 .213.0 223.31 230.33 247.86 287Jl2

Figure V-2 - Main Analysis Baselines With and Without an Adjustment for Projected Continuous Improvement for the U.S. Total Aviation C02-eq Emissions in Megatonne (Mt)132

129 U.S. EPA, 2016: Regulatory Impact Analysis: 131 A comparison of the EPA and ICAO modeling 5715, 2009: Procedures for the Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency approaches and results is available in chapter 5 and Aircraft Emissions and the EPA publication: Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines 6 of the TSD. Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories, and Vehicles-Phase 2, EPA-420-R-16-900, 132 To convert fuel burn to CO2 emissions, we EPA, last modified 4, April 2014. https:I/ August 2016. used the conversion factor of 3.16 kg/kg fuel for CO2 www.epa.gov/sites/productionlfilesl2015-0 7 I 1 30 U.S. EPA, 2009: Regulatory Impact Analysis: emissions, and to convert to the six well-mixed documents/emission-factors_ 2014.pdf (last Control of Emissions of Air Poilution from Category GHG emissions, we used 3.19 kg/kg fuel for CO2 accessed March 16, 2020). 3 Marine Diesel Engines, EPA-420-R-09-019, equivalent emissions. Our method for calculating December 2009. CO2 equivalent emissions is based on SAE AIR Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 6 I Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 2163

Domestic U~ S. CO2 Equivalent (Mt)

110

:2015 2020 2023 .2035 2040 A 106.15 116.. 35 120.25 122 .. 62 '1:26.24 1.28.31 130 .. 9 133.17

B 106.16 11 18~64 120.88 123.. 6 127.94 130.79 138.. 52 . 147.31

Figure V-3 Main Analysis Baselines With and Without an Adjustment for Projected Continuous Improvement for the U.S. Domestic Aviation C02-eq Emissions in Megatonne (Mt)

Conceptually, the difference between creates a baseline using a Constant other purpose of any kind, and any the EPA and ICAO analysis baselines is Technology Assumption that freezes the attempt at such application would be in illustrated in Figure V-4. The solid line airplane technology going forward. This error." 1 34 To understand the true represents the historical growth of means that the in-production airplanes meaning of the analysis and make well­ emissions from the dawn of the jet age after that date will be built with no informed policy decisions, one must in 1960s to the present (2016). In this changes indefinitely into the future, i.e. consider the underlying assumptions time, air traffic and operations have the baseline assumes airplanes will have carefully. For example, if the EPA were increased and offset the technology the same metric value in 2040 as they to use the ICAO Constant Technology improvements. The long-dashed line did in 2016. The dot-dot-dash Assumption in our main analysis, the (__ ) and dot-dash-dot(_ . _) lines (_ . _J line compares this Constant impact of the rulemaking would be represent different assumptions used by Technology Assumption to the solid overestimated, i.e., these results would the EPA and ICAO to create baseline historical emissions growth. !CAO used not be able to differentiate the effect of future inventories to compare the this simplifying assumption because the standards from the expected benefits of potential standards. The two they conducted their stringency analysis business as usual improvements. baselines start in 2016, but their on comparative basis and did not different assumptions lead to very attempt to include future emission different long-term forecasts. The EPA trends in their stringency analysis. 134 ICAO, 2016: Doc 10069-Report of the Tenth method (long dash) uses the input from Comparative basis means ICAO looked Meeting, Montreal,1-12 February 2016, Committee an independent analysis conducted by at the difference in emission reductions on Aviation Environmental Protection, CAEP 10, ICF 133 to develop a Projected 432pp., pages 271 to 308, is found on page 27 of between stringency options in isolation the ICAO Products & Services English Edition 2020 Continuous Improvement baseline to and did not attempt to factor in future Catalog and is copyright protected. For purchase model future improvements similar to business as usual improvements or fleet available at: https:l/www.icao.int/publications! historical trends. The ICAO method changes. The projected benefits of any Pages!catalogue.aspx [last accessed March 16, standards will be different depending 2020). The summary of technological feasibility and 3 cost information is located in Appendix C (starting " ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology upon the baseline that is assumed. Note Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final on page 5C-1) of this report. In particular, see Report, EPA Contract Number EP-G-16-020, that ICAO stated that its analysis was paragraph 2.3 for the caveats, limitations and September 30, 2018. ". . . not suitable for application to 'any context of the ICAO analysis. 2164 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations ,. .. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _... • 1 Constant Technology ! I L!~~~~~t.i~~:.~~~ .. -.l .. -. -·-· -. -.- . -· -. , I ! Constant Technology i , • ! Assumption: 2016 i I , • L--·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·~ I ·' .... ------, ., ······~ I Projected Continuous I .I ., ...... ,; l Improvement: 2016 J . , ..•·/ •······ ------~ I ·..···/ ··•····· .s . ...~·-~ , .... •.••...... : . : C . .}"7_ •• •· : Uncertainty Around : I «:.···· ! Continuous Improvement : i . , I : Cl) ...... C 0 'iii I ·eCl) w l!) :::c: l!) Historical Improvement: 1960-2016

..

1960 2016 Time

Figure V-4 Illustration of different baselines relative to historical GHG emissions inventory

BILLING CODE 656D-50-C !CAO standards, which match the final ICAO's (further detail on the differences C. What are the projected effects in fuel standards, demonstrate technological in the. analyses and the sensitivity burn and GHG emissions? feasibility. Thus, we do not project a studies is provided in the TSD). These cost or benefit for the final GHG sensitivity studies show that the no EPA's analysis projects that the final standards (further discussion on the cost-no benefit conclusion is quite GHG standards will not result in rationale for no expected reductions and robust. For example, even ifwe assume reductions in fuel burn and GHG . no costs is provided later in this section no continuous improvement, the emissions beyond the baseline. This and Section VI). projected GHG emissions reductions for result makes sense because all of the The EPA projected reduction in GHG the final standards will still be zero airplanes in the G&R fleet either will emissions is different from the results of since all the non-compliant airplanes meet the standard level associated with the !CAO analysis mentioned in V.A, (A380 137 and 767 freighters) are the final GHG standards or are expected which bounds the range of analysis to be out of production by the time the exploration given the uncertainties end of production oftbe A380 and 767 compared standards take effect, according to our toICAO. involved with predicting the 1 135 37 On February 14, 2019, Airbus made an technology responses. In other words, implications of this rule. The agency has announcement to end A380 production by 2021 the existing or expected fuel efficiency conducted sensitivity studies around after Emirates airlines reduced its A380 order by 39 technologies from airplane and engine our main analysis to understand the and replaced tbem witb A330 and A350. (The manufacturers that were the basis of the 1 Airbus press release is available at: https:!I differences 36 between our analysis and www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases!en/2019/ 02/airbus-and-emirates-reach-agreement-on-a380- 135 ICF, 2018: Aircraft COi Cost and Technology 136 The differences in tbe analyses include fleet-sign-new-widebody-orders.html, last accessed Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final different assumptions. Our analysis assumes on February 10, 2020). EPA's analysis was Report, EPA Contract Number EP-G-16-020, continuous improvement and ICAO's analysis does conducted prior to Airbus's announcement, so tbe September 30, 2018. not. Also, we make different projections about tbe analysis does not consider tbe impact oftbe A380 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 6 /Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 2165 projected to be out of production by VI. Technological Feasibility and described in the following paragraphs­ 2028 (according to ICF analysis), the Economic Impacts and in further detail in chapter 2 of the final standard effective year. We note This section describes the TSD for this rulemaking. that in their public comments on the technological feasibility and costs of the A. Market Considerations proposal Boeing, along with Fedex, GE, airplane GHG rule. This section Prior to describing our technological and the Cargo Airline Association, describes the agency's methodologies feasibility and cost analysis, potential expressed that there would continue to for assessing technological feasibility market impacts of the final GHG and estimated costs of the final be a low volume demand for the B767 regulations are discussed in this section. standards. Consistent with Executive freighter beyond January 1, 2028. These As described earlier, airplanes and Order 12866, we analyzed the commenters did not indicate the airplane engines are sold around the number of 767F's that would be technological feasibility and costs of world, and international airplane alternatives (using similar produced after 2028. The EPA did not emission standards help ensure the methodologies), and the results for these change the analysis to adjust the worldwide acceptability of these alternatives are described in chapter 6 of baseline to include continued products. Airplane and airplane engine production of the 767F beyond 2028 the TSD. The EPA and the FAA participated in manufacturers make business decisions because insufficient information to and respond to the international market the !CAO analysis thatinformed the characterize this scenario was provided. adoption of the international Airplane by designing and building products that Furthermore, we analyzed a CO2 Emission Standards. A summary of conform to ICAO's international sensitivity case where A380 and 767 that analysis was published in the standards. However, ICAO's standards need to be implemented domestically freighters comply with the standards in report of ICAO/CAEP's tenth for products to prove such conformity. 2028 and continue production until meeting,139 which occurred in February 2016. However, due to the commercial Domestic action through EPA 2030 and not make any improvement rulemaking and subsequent FAA between 2015 and 2027, the GHG sensitivity of much of the underlying data used in the !CAO analysis, the rulemaking enables U.S. manufacturers emissions reductions will still be an to obtain internationally recognized order of magnitude lower than the ICAO !CAO-published report (which is publicly available) provides only FAA certification, which for the results since all emissions reductions adopted GHG standards will ensure type limited supporting data for the ICAO will come from just 3 years' worth of certification consistent with the production (2028 to 2030) of A380 and analysis. The EPA TSD for this rulemaking compares the ICAO analysis requirements of the international 767 freighters. Considering that both to the EPA analysis. Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. This airplanes are close to the end of their For the purposes of evaluating the is important, as compliance with the production life cycle by 2028 and low final GHG regulations based on publicly international standards (via FAA type market demands for them, these limited available and independent data, the certification) is a critical consideration emissions reductions may not be EPA had an analysis conducted of the ~n airlines' purchasing decisions. By realized if the manufacturers are granted technological feasibility and costs of the 1mplementmg the requirements that exemptions. Thus, the agency analysis international Airplane CO2 Emission conform to !CAO requirements in the results in a no cost-no benefit Standards through a contractor (ICF) United States, we will remove any conclusion that is reasonable for the study.140 141 The results, developed by question regarding the compliance of final GHG standards. the contractor, include estimates of airplanes certificated in the United technology responses and non-recurring States. The rule will facilitate the In summary, the !CAO Airplane CO2 acceptance of U.S. airplanes and Emission Standards, which match the costs for the domestic GHG standards which are equivalent to the ' airplane engines by member States and final EPA GHG standards, were airlines around the world. Conversely, international Airplane CO2 Emission predicated on technologies that U.S. manufacturers will be at a Standards. Technologies and costs manufacturers of affected airplanes and competitive disadvantage compared needed for airplane types to meet the engines had already demonstrated to be with their international competitors final GHG regulations were analyzed safe and airworthy to the advanced without this domestic action. and compared to the improvements that technology readiness level 8 13a when In considering the aviation market it are anticipated to occur in the absence they were adopted in 2017. The EPA is important to understand that the ' of regulation. The methods used in and international Airplane CO2 Emission expects that the manufacturers will the results from the analysis are comply with the !CAO Airplane CO2 Standards were predicated on ~emonstrating technological feasibility; Emission Standards even before member 139 ICAO, 2016: Report of Tenth Meeting, States' adoption into domestic Montreal, 1-12 February 2016, Committee on 1.e., that manufacturers have already regulations. Therefore, the EPA expects Aviation Environmental Protection, Document developed or are developing improved 1006_9, CA~~/10, 432pp, is found on page 27 of the technology that meets the 2017 ICAO that the final airplane GHG standards English Edition of the ICAO Products & Services will not impose an additional burden on CO2 standards, and that the new 2020 Catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. technology will be integrated in manufacturers. 10069. For purchase available at: https:!! www.icao.int/publications!Pages/catalogue.aspx airplanes throughout the fleet in the (last accessed March 16, 2020). The sunnnary of time frame provided before the ending production in 2021. The early exit of A380, technological feasibility and cost information is implementation of the standards' compared to the modeled scenarios, fits the general lo~ated in Appendix C (starting on page 5C-1) of trend of reduced demands for large quad engine this report. effective date. Therefore, as described in airplanes projected by the ICF technology responses 1 • 0 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology Section V.C, the EPA projects that these and is consistent with our conclusion of no cost and Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final final standards will impose no no benefit for this rule. Report, EPA Contract Number EP-C-16-020 additional burden on manufacturers. 138 As described later in section VI.B for September 30, 2018. ' While recognizing that the Technology Readiness Level 8 (TRI.BJ, this refers to 141 ICF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO,­ international agreement was predicated having been proven to be "actual system completed Reducmg Technologies for Aircraft, Final Report, and 'flight qualified' through test and EPA Contract Number EP-C-12-011, March 17, on demonstrated technological demonstration.'' 2015. feasibility, without access to the 2166 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations underlying ICAO/CAEP data it is Readiness Level 145 (TRL) 8 by 2016 or standard (business as usual informative to evaluate individual shortly thereafter (per CAEP member improvements) compared against airplane models relative to the guidance; approximately 2017), and technology improvements/responses equivalent U.S. regulations. Therefore, expected to be available for application needed to comply with the final the technologies and costs needed for in the short term (approximately 2020) standard. ICF's approach is appropriate airplane types to meet the rule were over a sufficient range of newly for the EPA-final GHG standard because compared to the improvements that are certificated airplanes.146 This means it is based on more up-to-date inputs expected to occur in the absence of that the analysis that informed the and assumptions. standards (business as usual international standard considered the C. Technological Feasibility improvements). A summary of these emissions performance of in-production results is described later in this section. and on-order or in-development 147 1. Technology Principles and airplanes, including types that first Application B. Conceptual Framework for enter into service by about 2020. (ICAO/ i. Short- and Mid-Term Methodology Technology CAEP's analysis was completed in 2015 As described in the 2015 ANPR, the for the February 2016 ICAO/CAEP ICF analyzed the feasible EPA contracted with ICF to develop meeting.) technological improvements to new in­ estimates of technology improvements In assessing the airplane GHG rule, production airplanes and the potential and responses needed to modify in­ the 2018 ICF updated analysis, which GHG emission reductions they could production airplanes to comply with the was completed a few years after the generate. For this analysis, ICF created international Airplane CO2 Emission ICAO analysis, was able to use a a methodological framework to assess Standards. ICF conducted a detailed different approach for technology the potential impact of technology literature search, performed a number of responses. ICF based these responses on introduction on airplane GHG emissions interviews with industry leaders, and technology available at TRL8 by 2017 for the years 2015-2029 (upcoming did its own modeling to estimate the and projected continuous improvement short and mid-term). This framework cost of making modifications to in­ of CO2 metric values for in-production included five steps to estimate annual production airplanes.142 Subsequently, and in-development (or on-order) metric value (baseline metric values for this rulemaking, the EPA contracted airplanes from 2010 to 2040 based on were generated using PIANO data 14B) with ICF to update its analysis (herein the incorporation of these technologies improvements for technologies that are referred to as the "2018 ICF updated onto these airplanes over this same being or will be applied to in­ analysis").143 It had been three years timeframe. Also, ICF considered the end production airplanes. First, ICF since the initial 2015 ICF analysis was of production of airplanes based on the identified the technologies that could completed, and the EPA had ICF update expected business-as-usual status of reduce GHG emissions of new in­ the assessment to ensure that the airplanes (with the continuous production airplanes. Second, ICF analysis included in this rulemaking improvement assumptions). This evaluated each technology for the reflects the current status of airplane approach is described in further detail amount of potential GHG reduction and GHG technology improvements. later in Section VI.C. The ICF approach the mechanisms by which this Therefore, ICF's assessment of differed from ICAO's analysis for years reduction could be achieved. These first technology improvements was updated 2016 to 2020 and diverged even more two steps were analyzed by airplane since the 2015 ANPR was issued.144 for years 2021 and after. Since ICF was category. Third and fourth, the able to use the final effective dates in The long-established ICAO/CAEP technologies were passed through their analysis of the final airplane GHG terms of reference were taken into technical success probability and standard (for new type design airplanes account when deciding the international commercial success probability 2020, or 2023 for airplanes with less Airplane CO2 Emission Standards, screenings, respectively. Finally, than 19 seats, and for in-production principal among these being technical individual airplane differences were feasibility. For the ICAO CO2 airplanes 2028), ICF was able to assessed within each airplane category certification standard setting, technical differentiate between airplane GHG to generate GHG emission reduction technology improvements that would feasibility refers to any technology projections by technology by airplane expected to be demonstrated to be safe occur in the absence of the final model-at the airplane family level (e.g., and airworthy proven to Technology 737 family). ICF refers to their 145 TRL is a measure of Technology Readiness methodological framework for Level. CAEP has defined TRL8 as the "actual projection of the metric value 142 !CF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of COr system completed and 'flight qualified' through test Reducing Technologies for Aircraft, Final Report, and demonstration." TRL is a scale from 1 to 9, improvement or reduction as the EPA Contract Number EP-C--12-011, March 17, TRL1 is the conceptual principle, and TRL9 is the expected value methodology. The 2015. "actual system 'flight proven' on operational expected value methodology is a 143 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology flight." The TRL scale was originally developed by projection of the annual fuel efficiency Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final NASA. ICF International, CO2 Analysis of CO2- Report, EPA Contract Number EP-C-16-020, Reducing Technologies for Aircraft, Final Report, metric value improvement 149 from September 30, 2018. EPA Contract Number EP-C--12-011, see page 40, 144 As described earlier in section IV, the ICAO March 17, 2015. 14 a To generate metric values, the 2015 ICF test procedures for the international airplane CO2 146 ICAO, 2016: Report of the Tenth Meeting, analysis and 2018 !CF updated analysis used standards measure fuel efficiency (or fuel burn). Montreal, 1-12 February 2016, Committee on PIANO (Project Interactive Analysis and Only two of the six well-mixed GHGs-C02 and Aviation Environmental Protection, Document Optimization) data so that their analyses results can N20 are emitted from airplanes. The test procedures 10069, CAEP10, 432pp, is found on page 27 of the be shared publicly. Metric values developed for fuel efficiency scale with the limiting of both English Edition of the ICAO Products & Services utilizing PIANO data are similar to !CAO metric CO2 and N20 emissions, as they both can be 2020 Catalog and is copyright protected: Order No. values. PIANO is the Aircraft Design and Analysis indexed on a per-unit-of-fuel-burn basis. Therefore, 10069. For purchase available at: https:// Software by Dr. Dimitri Simas, Lissys Limited, UK, both CO2 and N20 emissions can be controlled as www.icao.int/publications/Pages!catalogue.aspx 1990-present; Available at www.piano.aero (last airplane fuel burn is limited. Since limiting fuel (last accessed March 16, 2020). The statement on accessed March 16, 2020). PIANO is a commercially burn is the only means by which airplanes control technological feasibility is located in Appendix C available aircraft design and performance software their GHG emissions, the fuel burn (or fuel (page 5C-15, paragraph 6.2.1) of this report. suite used across the industry and academia. efficiency) reasonably serves as a surrogate for 147 Aircraft that are currently in-development but 149 Also referred to as the constant annual controlling both CO2 and N20. were anticipated to be in production by about 2020. improvement in CO2 metric value. Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 /Rules and Regulations 2167

2015-2029 for all the technologies that scale of 1 to 5 for each technical factor about fifty aerodynamic and engine would be applied to each airplane (or (chapter 2 of the TSD describes these technologies they evaluated to account business as usual improvement in the technical factors in detail). Second, a for the improvements to the metric absence of a standard). long-term market prospect index was value for the final standard (for in­ As a modification to the 2015 ICF generated on a scale of 1 to 5 based on production and in-development analysis, the 2018 ICF updated analysis estimates of the amount of potential airplanes 152). extended the metric value research and development (R&D) put A short list of the aerodynamic and improvements at the airplane family into various technologies for each engine technologies that were level (e.g., 737 family) to the more airplane type. Third, the long-term considered to improve the metric value specific airplane variant level (e.g., 737- market prospect index for each airplane of the rule is provided below. Chapter 700, 737-800, etc.). Thus, to estimate type was combined with its respective 2 of the TSD provides a more detailed whether each airplane variant complied fuel burn reduction prospect index to description of these technologies. with the final GHG standard, ICF generate an overall index score for its • Aerodyn.amic technologies: The projected airplane family metric value metric value improvements. A low airframe technologies that accounted for reductions to a baseline (or base year) overall index score indicates that the the improvements to the metric values metric value of each airplane variant. airplane type will have a reduced from airplanes included aerodynamic ICF used this approach to estimate annual metric value reduction (the technologies that reduce drag. These metric values for 125 airplane models metric value decreases yearly at a technologies included advance wingtip allowing for a comparison of the slower rate relative to an extrapolated devices, adaptive trailing edge, laminar estimated metric value for each airplane short- and mid-term annual metric value flow control, and riblet coatings. model to the level of the final GHG improvement), and a high overall index • Engine technologies: The engine standard at the time the standard goes score indicates an accelerated annual technologies that accounted for into effect. metric value improvement (the metric reductions to the metric values from In addition, ICF projected which value decreases yearly at a quicker rate airplanes included architecture and airplane models will end their relative to an extrapolated short- and cooling technologies. Architecture production runs (or production cycle) mid-term annual metric value technologies included ultra-high bypass prior to the effective date of the final improvement). Further details of the engines and the fan drive gear, and GHG standard. These estimates of long-term methodology are provided in cooling technologies included production status, at the time the chapter 2 of the TSD. compressor airfoil coating and turbine standard will go into effect, further 2. What technologies did the EPA air cooling. informed the projected response of consider to reduce GHG emissions? airplane models to the final standard. 3. Technology Response and Further details of the short- and mid­ ICF identified and analyzed seventy Implications of the Final Standard term methodology are provided in different aerodynamic, weight, and The EPA does not project that the chapter 2 of the TSD. engine (or propulsion) technologies for GHG rule will cause manufacturers to fuel burn reductions. Although weight­ make technical improvements to their ii. Long-Term Methodology reducing technologies affect fuel burn, airplanes that would not have occurred To project metric value improvements they do not affect the metric value for in the absence of the rule. The EPA for the long-term, years 2030-2040, ICF the GHG rule.151 Thus, ICF's assessment projects that the manufacturers will generated a different methodology of weight-reducing technologies was not meet the standards independent of the compared with the short- and mid-term included in this rule, which excluded EPA standards, for the following reasons methodology. The short- and mid-term about one-third of the technologies (as was described earlier in Section evaluated by ICF for fuel burn methodology is based on forecasting VI.A): reductions. In addition, based on the metric value improvements contributed • Manufacturers have already methodology described earlier in by specific existing technologies that are developed or are developing improved Section VI.C, ICF utilized a subset of the implemented, and ICF projects that technology in response to the ICAO about the 2030 timeframe a new round standards that match the final GHG airframe technologies as described below: (Engine) of technology implementation will sealing, propulsive efficiency, thermal efficiency, regulations; begin that leads to developing a reduced cooling, and reduced power extraction and • ICAO decided on the international different method for predicting metric (Airframe) induced drag reduction and friction drag Airplane CO2 Emission Standards, value improvements for the long term. reduction. Second, each of the technology factors were scored on the following three scoring which are equivalent to the final GHG For 2030 or later, ICF used a parametric dimensions that will drive the overall fuel burn standards, based on proven technology approach to project annual metric value reduction effectiveness in the outbound forecast by 2016/2017 that was expected to be improvements. This approach included years: Effectiveness of technology in reducing fuel available over a sufficient range of in­ three steps. First, for each airplane type, burn, likelihood of technology implementation, and production and on-order airplanes by level of research effort required. Third, the scoring technical factors were identified that of each of the technical factors on the three approximately 2020. Thus, most or drive fuel burn and metric value dimensions were averaged to derive ao overall fuel nearly all in-production and on-order improvements in the long-term (i.e., burn reduction prospect index. airplanes already meet the levels of the propulsive efficiency, friction drag 151 The metric value does not directly reward final standards; reduction), and the fuel burn reduction weight reduction technologies because such technologies are also used to allow for increases in • Those few in-production airplane prospect index 150 was estimated on a payload, equipage aod fuel load. Thus, reductions models that do not meet the levels of the in empty weight cao be caoceled out or diminished final GHG standards are at the end of 150 The fuel burn reduction prospect index is a by increases in payload, fuel, or both; aod, this their production life and are expected to projected ranking of the feasibility and readiness of varies by operation. Empty weight refers to technologies (for reducing fuel burn) to be operating empty weight. It is the basic weight of an go out of production in the near term or implemented for 2030 aod later. There are three airplaoe including the crew, all fluids necessary for main steps to determine the fuel burn reduction operation such as engine oil, engine coolant, water, 152 Airplanes that are currently in-development prospect index. First, the technology factors that unusable fuel aod all operator items aod equipment but will be in production by the applicability dates. mainly contribute to fuel burn were identified. required for flight, but excluding usable fuel and These could be new type designs or redesigned These factors included the following engine and the payload. airplanes. 2168 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations seek an exemption from the final costs, it is informative to describe the elements were scaled to the other standards; and elements of these costs. airplane size categories (from the • These few in-production airplane baseline single-aisle airplane category). 1. Non-Recurring Costs models anticipated to go out of Fifth, we estimated the NRC costs for production are being replaced or are Non-recurring cost (NRC) consists of single-aisle airplane and applied the expected to be replaced by in­ the cost of engineering and scaled costs to the other airplane size development airplane models (airplane integration,154 testing (flight and ground categories.156 Sixth, we compiled models that have recently entered testing) and tooling, capital equipment, technology supply curves by airplane service or will in the next few years) in and infrastructure. As described earlier model, which enabled us to rank the near term-and these in­ for the technology improvements and incremental technologies from most cost development models have much responses, ICF conducted a detailed effective to the least cost effective. For improved metric values compared to the literature search, conducted a number of determining technical responses by in-production airplane model they are interviews with industry leaders, and these supply curves, it was assumed replacing. did its own modeling to estimate the that the manufacturer invests in and Based on the approach described NRC of making modifications to in­ incorporates the most cost-effective above in Sections VI.C.1 and VI.C.2, ICF production airplanes. The EPA used the technologies first and go on to the next assessed the need for manufacturers to information gathered by ICF for most cost-effective technology to attain develop technology responses for in­ assessing the cost of individual the metric value improvements needed production and in-development technologies, which were used to build to meet the standard. Chapter 2 of the airplane models to meet the final GHG up NRC for incremental improvements TSD provides a more detailed standards (for airplane models that were (a bottom-up approach). These description of this NRC methodology for projected to be in production by the improvements are for Oto 10 percent technology improvements and results. improvements in the airplane CO2 effective dates of the final standards and 2. Certification Costs would be modified to meet these metric value, and this magnitude of standards, instead of going out of improvements is typical for in­ Following this final rulemaking for production). After analyzing the results production airplanes (the focus of our the GHG standards, the FAA will issue a rulemaking to enforce compliance to of the approach/methodology, ICF analysis). In the initial 2015 ICF these standards, and any potential estimated that all airplane models (in­ analysis, ICF developed NRC estimates certification costs for the GHG standards production and in-development for technology improvements to in­ will be estimated by FAA and attributed airplane models) will meet the levels of production airplanes, and in the 2018 to the FAA rulemaking. However, it is the final standard or be out of ICF updated analysis these estimates informative to discuss certification production by the time the standard have been brought up to date. The costs. became effective. Thus, a technology technologies available to make improvements to airplanes are briefly As described earlier, manufacturers response is not necessary for airplane have already developed or are models to meet the final rule. This listed earlier in Section VI.C.2. The methodology for the development developing technologies to respond to result confirms that the international ICAO standards that are equivalent to Airplane CO2 Emission Standards are of the NRC for in-production airplanes consisted of six steps. First, the final standards, and they will technology following standards, and comply with the !CAO standards in the that the EP A's final GHG standards as technologies were categorized either as minor performance improvement absence of U.S. regulations. Also, this they will apply to in-production and in­ rulemaking will potentially provide for development airplane models will also packages (PIPs) with Oto 2 percent (or less than 2 percent) fuel burn a cost savings to U.S. manufacturers be technology following.153 since it will enable them to domestically For the same reasons, a technology improvements or as larger incremental updates with 2 to 10 percent certify their airplane (via subsequent response is not necessary for new type FAA rulemaking) instead of having to design airplanes to meet the GHG rule. improvements. Second, the elements of non-recurring cost were identified (e.g., certify with foreign certification The EPA is currently not aware of a authorities (which will occur without specific model of a new type design engineering and integration costs), as described earlier. Third, these elements this EPA rulemaking). If the final GHG airplane that is expected to enter service standards, which match the !CAO after 2020. Additionally, any new type of non-recurring cost are apportioned by incremental technology category for standards, are not adopted in the U.S., design airplanes introduced in the the U.S. civil airplane manufacturers future will have an economic incentive single-aisle airplanes (e.g., for the category of an airframe minor PIP, 85 will have to certify to the !CAO to improve their fuel burn or metric standards at higher costs because they value at the level of or less than the rule. percent of NRC is for engineering of integration costs, 10 percent is for will have to move their entire D. Costs Associated With the Program testing, and 5 percent is for tooling, certification program(s) to a non-U.S. certification authority.157 Thus, there This section provides the elements of capital equipment, and infrastructure). 155 Fourth, the NRC are no new certification costs for the the cost analysis for technology rule. However, it is informative to improvements, including certification 154 Engineering and Integration includes the costs, and recurring costs. As described, engineering and Research & Development [R&D) testing, and 5 percent is for tooling, capital above, the EPA does not anticipate new needed to progress a technology from its current equipment, and infrastructure. technology costs due to the GHG rule. level to a level where it can be integrated onto a 156 Engineering and integration costs and tooling, While recognizing that the GHG rule production airframe. It also includes all airframe capital equipment, and infrastructure costs were does not have non-recurring costs and technology integration costs. scaled by airplane realized sale price from the ·155 For the incremental technology category of an single-aisle airplane category to the other airplane (NRC), certification costs, or recurring engine minor PIP, 35 percent ofNRC is for categories. Testing costs were scaled by average engineering of integration costs, 50 percent is for airplane operating costs. 153 As described earlier, this result is different testing, and 15 percent is for tooling, capital 157 In addition, European authorities charge fees from the !CAO analysis, which did not use equipment, and infrastructure. For the category of to airplane manufacturers for the certification of continuous improvement CO2 metric values nor a large incremental upgrade, 55 percent ofNRC is their airplanes, but FAA does not charge fees for production end dates for products. for engineering of integration costs, 40 percent is for certification. Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2169 describe the elements of the certification reduction in the amount of fuel Volume II Uuly 2017). Further technical cost, which include obtaining an consumed. If technologies add updates and corrections were approved airplane, preparing an airplane, significant recurring costs to an at the CAEP/11 meeting in February performing the flight tests, and airplane, operators (e.g., airlines) will 2019 and included in Amendment 10 processing the data to generate a likely reject these technologies. Uuly 20, 2020). The EPA played an certification test report (i.e., test E. Summary of Benefits and Costs active role in the CAEP process during instrumentation, infrastructure, and the development of these revisions and program management). ICAO intentionally established its concurred with their adoption. Thus, we The ICAO certification test standards, which match the final are updating the incorporation by procedures to demonstrate compliance standards, at a level which is technology reference in§ 87.8(b) of our regulations with the international Airplane CO2 following to adhere to its definition of to refer to the new Fourth Edition of Emission Standards-incorporated by technical feasibility that is meant to ICAO Annex 16, Volume II Uuly 2017), reference in this rulemaking-were consider the emissions performance of Amendment 10 Uuly 20, 2020), based on the existing practices of in-production and in-development replacing the older Third Edition. airplane manufacturers to measure airplanes, including types that would Most of these ICAO Annex 16 updates airplane fuel burn (and to measure high­ first enter into service by about 2020. and corrections to the test and speed cruise performance).15a Therefore, Independent of the ICAO standards measurement procedures were editorial some manufacturers already have or nearly all airplanes produced by U.S. in nature and merely served to clarify will have airplane test data (or data from manufacturers will meet the ICAO in­ the procedures rather than change them high-speed cruise performance production standards in 2028 due to in any substantive manner. modelling) to certify their airplane to business-as-usual market forces on Additionally, some updates served to the standard, and they will not need to continually improving fuel efficiency. correct typographical errors and conduct flight testing for certification to The cumulative fuel efficiency incorrect formula formatting. However, the standard. Also, these data will improvement of the global airplane fleet there is one change contained in these already be part of the manufacturers' was 54 percent between 1990 and 2019, ICAO Annex 16 updates that warrants fuel burn or high-speed performance and over 21 percent from 2009 to 2019, additional discussion here: a change to models, which they can use to which was an average annual rate of 2 the certification test fuel specifications. demonstrate compliance with the percent.159 Business-as-usual Fuel specification bodies establish international Airplane CO2 Emission improvements are expected to continue limits on jet fuels properties for Standards. In the absence of the in the future. The manufacturers commercial use so that aircraft are safe standard, the relevant CO2 or fuel burn anticipation of future ICAO standards and environmentally acceptable in data will be gathered during the typical will be another factor for them to operation. For engine emissions or usual airplane testing that the consider in continually improving the certification testing, the ICAO fuel manufacturer regularly conducts for fuel efficiency of their airplanes. Thus, specification prior to CAEP10 was a non-GHG standard purposes (e.g., for all airplanes either meet the stringency minimum 1 percent volume of the overall development of the airplane levels, are expected to go out of naphthalene content and a maximum and to demonstrate its airworthiness). In production by the effective dates or will content of 3.5 percent (1.0-3.5%). addition, such data for new type design seek exemptions from the GHG However, the ASTM International airplanes (where data has not been standard. Therefore, there will be'no specification is 0.0-3.0 percent collected yet) will be gathered in the costs and no additional benefits from naphthalene, and an investigation found absence of a standard. Also, the EPA is complying with these final standards­ that it is challenging to source fuels for not making any attempt to quantify the beyond the benefits from maintaining engine emissions certification testing costs associated with certification by the consistency or harmonizing with the that meet the minimum 1 % naphthalene FAA. international standards and preventing level. In many cases, engine backsliding by ensuring that all new manufacturers were forced to have fuels 3. Recurring Operating Costs type design and in-production airplanes custom blended for certification testing For the same reasons there are no are at least as fuel efficient as today's purposes at a cost premium well above NRC and certification costs for the rule airplanes. that of commercial jet fuel. as discussed earlier, there will be no Additionally, such custom blended recurring costs (recurring operating and VII. Aircraft Engine Technical fuels needed to be ordered well in maintenance costs) for the rule; Amendments advance and shipped by rail or truck to however, it is informative to describe The EPA, through the incorporation the testing facility. In order to elements of recurring costs. The by reference ofICAO Annex 16, Volume potentially alleviate the cost and elements of recurring costs for II, Third Edition Uuly 2008), requires logistical burden that the naphthalene incorporating fuel saving technologies the same test and measurement specification of certification fuel will include additional maintenance, procedures as ICAO for emissions from presented, CAEP undertook an effort to material, labor, and tooling costs. Our aircraft engines. See our regulations at analyze and consider whether it would analysis shows that airplane fuel 40 CFR 87.8(b)(1). At the CAEP/10 be appropriate to align the ICAO Annex efficiency improvements typically result meeting in February 2016, several minor 16 naphthalene specification for in net cost savings through the technical updates and corrections to the certification fuel with that of in-use test and measurement procedures were commercial fuel. 158 ICAO, 2016: Report of Tenth Meeting, approved and ultimately included in a Prior to the CAEP10 meeting, Montreal, 1-12 February 2016, Committee on technical experts (including the EPA) Aviation Environmental Protection, Document Fourth Edition of ICAO Annex 16, 10069, CAEP/10, 432pp, is found on page 27 of the reviewed potential consequences of a English Edition of the ICAO Products & Services 150 ATAG, 2020: Tracking Aviation Efficiency, test fuel specification change and 2020 Catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. How is the aviation sector performing in its drive concluded that there would be no effect 10069. See Appendix C of this report. For purchase to improve fuel efficiency, in line with its short-term available at: https:l/www.icao.int/publicationsl goal? Fact Sheet #3, January 2020. Available at on gaseous emissions levels and a Pages!catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, https:llaviationbenefits.org/downloadslfact-sheet-3· negligible effect on the 'Smoke Number' 2020). tracking-aviation-efficiency/. (SN) level as long as the aromatic and 2170 Federal Register /Vol. 86, No. 6 /Monday, January 11, 2021 /Rules and Regulations hydrogen content remains within the B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing responsibilities among the various current emissions test fuel specification Regulation and Controlling Regulatoiy levels of government. Costs limits. ICAO subsequently adopted the G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation ASTM International specification of This action is expected to be an and Coordination With Indian Tribal 0.0-3.0 percent naphthalene for the Executive Order 13771 regulatory Governments engine emissions test fuel specification action. Sections I.C.3. and VI.E. of this This action does not have tribal and no change to the aromatic and preamble summarize the cost and hydrogen limits, which was benefits of this action. The supporting implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action regulates the incorporated into the Fourth Edition of information is available in the Final manufacturers of airplanes and aircraft !CAO Annex 16, Volume II, (July 2017). Technical Support Document and the docket. engines and will not have substantial The EPA is adopting, through the direct effects on one or more Indian incorporation of the Annex revisions in C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) tribes, on the relationship between the 40 CFR 87.8(b), the new naphthalene The EPA proposed a reporting Federal Government and Indian tribes, specification for certification testing requirement, along with an associated or on the distribution of power and into U.S. regulations. This change will Information Collection Request (ICR), in responsibilities between the Federal have the benefit of more closely aligning the NPRM. However, the EPA is not Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the certification fuel specification for adopting the proposed reporting Executive Order 13175 does not apply naphthalene with actual in-use requirement, and therefore not to this action. commercial fuel properties while submitting a final ICR to 0MB for H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of reducing the cost and logistical burden approval. Thus, this action does not Children From Environmental Health associated with certification fuel impose any new information collection Risks and Safety Risks procurement for engine manufacturers. burden under the PRA. This action is not subject to Executive As previously mentioned, all the other D. Regulatoiy Flexibility Act (RFA) Order 13045 because it is not changes associated with updating the I certify that this action will not have economically significant as defined in incorporation by reference of ICAO a significant economic impact on a Executive Order 12866, and because the Annex 16, Volume II, are editorial or substantial number of small entities EPA does not believe the environmental typographical in nature and merely under the RF A. In making this health or safety risks addressed by this intended to clarify the requirements or determination, the impact of concern is action present a disproportionate risk to correct mistakes and typographical any significant adverse economic children. errors in the Annex. impact on small entities. An agency may I. Executive Order 13211: Actions VIII. Statutory Authority and Executive certify that a rule will not have a Concerning Regulations That Order Reviews significant economic impact on a Significantly Affect Energy Supply, substantial number of small entities if Distribution or Use Additional information about these the rule relieves regulatory burden, has statutes and Executive orders can be no net burden or otherwise has a This action is not a "significant found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws­ positive economic effect on the small energy action" because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. entities subject to the rule. Among the potentially affected entities supply, distribution or use of energy A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatoiy (manufacturers of covered airplanes and and has not otherwise been designated Planning and Review and Executive engines for those airplanes), there is one by OIRA as a significant energy action. Order 13563: Improving Regulation and small business potentially affected by These airplane GHG regulations are not Regulatoiy Review this action. This one small business is expected to result in any changes to a manufacturer of aircraft engines. airplane fuel consumption beyond what This action is a significant regulatory However, we did not project any costs would have otherwise occurred in the action that was submitted to the Office associated with this action. We have absence of this rule, as discussed in of Management and Budget (0MB) for therefore concluded that this action will Section V.C. review. The 0MB has determined that have no net regulatory burden for all J. National Technology Transfer and this action raises ". . . novel legal or directly regulated small entities. Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR policy issues arising out of legal Part 51 mandates, the President's priorities, or E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) the principles set forth in this Executive Section 12(d) of the National Order." This action addresses novel This action does not contain an Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law policy issues due to it being the first unfunded mandate of $100 million or 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) ever GHG standards promulgated for more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. directs EPA to use voluntary consensus airplanes and airplane engines. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The standards in its regulatory activities Accordingly, the EPA submitted this unless to do so would be inconsistent action to the 0MB for review under E.O. action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or with applicable law or otherwise 12866 and E.O. 13563. Any changes the private sector. impractical. Voluntary consensus made in response to 0MB standards are technical standards (e.g., recommendations have been F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism materials specifications, test methods, documented in the docket. Sections This action does not have federalism sampling procedures, and business I.C.3 and VI.E of this preamble implications. It will not have substantial practices) that are developed or adopted summarize the cost and benefits of this direct effects on the states, on the by voluntary consensus standards action. The supporting information is relationship between the National bodies. NTTAA directs agencies to available in the docket. Government and the states, or on the provide Congress, through 0MB, distribution of power and explanations when the Agency decides Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2171 not to use available and applicable reference the use of test procedures Volumes II and III, along with the voluntary consensus standards. This contained in ICAO's International modifications contained in this action involves technical standards. Standards and Recommended Practices rulemaking. This includes the following In accordance with the requirements Environmental Protection, Annex 16, standards and test methods: of 1 CFR 51.5, we are incorporating by

Standard or test method Regulation Summary

ICAO 2017, Aircraft Engine Emissions, Annex 40 CFR 87.1, 40 CFR 87.42(c), and 40 CFR Test method describes how to measure gas­ 16, Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, as 87.60(a) and (b). eous and smoke emissions from airplane amended by Amendment 10, July 20, 2020. engines. ICAO 2017, Aeroplane C~ Emission,, Annex 16, 40 CFR 1030.23(d), 40 CFR 1030.25(d), 40 Test method describes how to measure the Volume Ill, First Edition, July 2017, as CFR 1030.90(d), and 40 CFR 1030.105. fuel efficiency of airplanes. amended by Amendment 1, July 20, 2020.

The material from the !CAO Annex 40 CFR Part 1030 IBR approved for§§ 87.1, 87.42(c), and 16, Volume II is an updated version of Environmental protection, Air 87.60(a) and (b). the document that is already pollution control, Aircraft, Greenhouse (ii) Amendment 10 to Annex 16, incorporated by reference in 40 CFR gases, Incorporation by reference. Volume II, to the Convention on 87.1, 40 CFR 87.42(c), and 40 CFR International Civil Aviation, effective 87.60(a) and (b). Andrew Wheeler, July 20, 2020 (ICAO Annex 16, Volume Administrator. II). IBR approved for§§ 87.1, 87.42(c), The referenced standards and test and 87.60(a) and (b). methods may be obtained through the For the reasons set forth in the International Civil Aviation preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR chapter * * * * * Organization, Document Sales Unit, 999 I as follows: • 3. Add part 1030 to read as follows: University Street, Montreal, Quebec, PART 87-CONTROL OF AIR Canada H3C 5H7, (514) 954-8022, PART 1030-CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM AIRCRAFT AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM www.icao.int, or [email protected]. AIRCRAFT ENGINES ENGINES INSTALLED ON AIRPLANES K. Executive Order 12898: Federal • 1. The authority citation for part 87 Scope and Applicability Actions To Address Environmental continues to read as follows: Justice in Minority Populations and 1030.1 Applicability. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 1030.5 State standards and controls. Low-Income Populations 1030.10 Exemptions. • 2. Section 87.8 is amended by revising The EPA believes that this action does paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read as Subsonic Airplane Emission Standards and not have disproportionately high and follows: Measurement Procedures adverse human health or environmental 1030.20 Fuel efficiency metric. effects on minority populations, low­ § 87 .8 Incorporation by reference. 1030.23 Specific air range (SAR). income populations and/or indigenous (a) Certain material is incorporated by 1030.25 Reference geometric factor (RGF). peoples, as specified in Executive Order reference into this part with the 1030.30 GHG emission standards. approval of the Director of the Federal 1030.35 Change criteria. 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 1030. 98 Confidential business information. It provides similar levels of Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 environmental protection for all affected CFR part 51. To enforce any edition Reference Information populations without having any other than that specified in this section, 1030.100 Abbreviations. disproportionately high and adverse the Environmental Protection Agency 1030.105 Definitions. must publish a document in the Federal human health or environmental effects 1030.110 Incorporation by reference. Register and the material must be Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. on any population, including any available to the public. All approved minority or low-income population. material is available for inspection at Scope and Applicability L. Congressional Review Act U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, §1030.1 Applicability. This action is subject to the CRA, and 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, (a) Except as provided in paragraph the EPA will submit a rule report to Washington, DC 20004, www.epa.gov/ (c) of this section, when an aircraft each House of the Congress and to the dockets, (202) 202-1744, and is engine subject to 40 CFR part 87 is Comptroller General of the United available from the sources listed in this installed on an airplane that is States. This action is not a "major rule" section. It is also available for described in this section and subject to as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). inspection at the National Archives and title 14 of the Code of Federal Records Administration (NARA). For Regulations, the airplane may not List of Subjects information on the availability of this exceed the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) standards of this part when original 40 CFR Part 87 material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ nara.gov or go to www.archives.gov/ civil certification under title 14 is Environmental protection, Air federal-register/cfr!ibr-locations.html. sought. pollution control, Aircraft, (b) * * * (1) A subsonic jet airplane that has­ Incorporation by reference. (1) Annex 16 to the Convention on (i) A type certificated maximum International Civil Aviation, passenger seating capacity of 20 seats or Environmental Protection, as follows: more; (i) Volume II-Aircraft Engine (ii) A maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) Emissions, Fourth Edition, July 2017. greater than 5,700 kg; and 2172 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations

(iii)'An application for original type (iii) For which an application for have determined may cause a significant certification that is submitted on or after certification that is submitted on or after increase in the fuel efficiency metric January 11, 2021. January 1, 2023; and value. (2) A subsonic jet airplane that has­ (iv) For which the first certificate of (5) Airplanes designed with a (i) A type certificated maximum airworthiness is issued for an airplane reference geometric factor of zero. passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or built with the modified design. (6) Airplanes designed for, or fewer; (6) A subsonic jet airplane that has­ modified and used for, firefighting. (ii) A MTOM greater than 5,700 kg, (i) A MTOM greater than 5,700 kg; (7) Airplanes powered by piston but not greater than 60,000 kg; and and engines (iii) An application for original type (ii) Its first certificate of airworthiness certification that is submitted on or after issued on or after January 1, 2028. § 1030.5 State standards and controls. January 1, 2023. (7) A propeller-driven airplane that No State or political subdivision of a (3) A propeller-driven airplane that has- State may adopt or attempt to enforce has- (i) A MTOM greater than 8,618 kg; any airplane or aircraft engine standard (i)A MTOM greater than 8,618 kg; and with respect to emissions unless the (ii) Its first certificate of airworthiness and standard is identical to a standard that issued on or after January 1, 2028. applies to airplanes under this part. (ii) An application for original type (b) An airplane that incorporates certification that is submitted on or after modifications that change the fuel § 1030.1 o Exemptions. January 1, 2020. efficiency metric value of a prior version (4) A subsonic jet airplane- Each person seeking relief from of airplane may not exceed the GHG compliance with this part at the time of (i) That is a modified version of an standards of this part when certification airplane whose original type certificated certification must submit an application under 14 CFR is sought. The criteria for for exemption to the FAA in accordance version was not required to have GHG modified airplanes are described in emissions certification under this part; with the regulations of 14 CFR parts 11 § 1030.35. A modified airplane may not and 38. The FAA will consult with the (ii) That has a MTOM greater than exceed the metric value limit of the 5,700 kg; EPA on each exemption application prior version under § 1030.30. request before the FAA takes action. (iii) For which an application for the (c) The requirements of this part do modification in type design is submitted not apply to: Subsonic Airplane Emission Stanaards on or after January 1, 2023; and (1) Subsonic jet airplanes having a and Measurement Procedures (iv) For which the first certificate of MTOM at or below 5,700 kg. airworthiness is issued for an airplane (2) Propeller-driven airplanes having § 1030.20 Fuel efficiency metric. built with the modified design. a MTOM at or below 8,618 kg. For each airplane subject to this part, (5) A propeller-driven airplane- (3) Amphibious airplanes. including an airplane subject to the (i) That is a modified version of an (4) Airplanes initially designed, or change criteria of§ 1030.35, a fuel airplane whose original type certificated modified and used, for specialized efficiency metric value must be version was not required to have GHG operations. These airplane designs may calculated in units of kilograms of fuel emissions certification under this part; include characteristics or configurations consumed per kilometer using the (ii) That has a MTOM greater than necessary to conduct specialized following equation, rounded to three 8,618 kg; operations that the EPA and the FAA decimal places:

Fuel Efficiency metric value

Where: (2) Low gross mass: (0.45 * MTOM) + § 1030.25 Reference geometric factor SAR = spElcific air range, determined in (0.63 * (MTOM -0.924)). (RGF). accordance with§ 1030.23. (3) Mid gross mass: Simple arithmetic For each airplane subject to this part, RGF = reference geometric factor, determined determine the airplane's in accordance with§ 1030.25. average of high gross mass and low gross mass. nondimensional reference geometric § 1030.23 Specific air range (SAR). factor (RGF) for the fuselage size of each (c) Calculate the average of the three airplane model, calculated as follows: (a) For each airplane subject to this 1/SAR values described in paragraph (b) (a) For an airplane with a single deck, part the SAR of an airplane must be of this section to calculate the fuel determine the area of a surface determined by either: efficiency metric value in§ 1030.20. Do (expressed in mA2) bounded by the (1) Direct flight test measurements; or not include auxiliary power units in any maximum width of the fuselage outer (2) Using a performance model that is: 1/SAR calculation. mold line projected to a flat plane (i) Validated by actual SAR flight test (d) All determinations under this parallel with the main deck floor and data; and section must be made according to the the forward and aft pressure bulkheads (ii) Approved by the FAA before any procedures applicable to SAR in except for the crew cockpit zone. SAR calculations are made. Paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 ofICAO Annex (b) For an airplane with more than (b) For each airplane model, establish 16, Volume III and Appendix 1 ofICAO one deck, determine the sum of the a 1/SAR value at each of the following Annex 16, Volume III (incorporated by areas (expressed in mA2) as follows: reference airplane masses: reference in§ 1030.110). (1) The maximum width of the (1) High gross mass: 92 percent fuselage outer mold line, projected to a maximum takeoff mass (MTOM). flat plane parallel with the main deck Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations 2173 floor by the forward and aft pressure (c) Determine the non-dimensional §1030.30 GHG emission standards. bulkheads except for any crew cockpit RGF by dividing the area defined in (a) The greenhouse gas emission zone. paragraph (a) or (bl of this section by 1 standards in this section are expressed (2) The maximum width of the mA2. (d) All measurements and as maximum permitted values fuel fuselage outer mold line at or above calculations used to determine the RGF efficiency metric values, as calculated each other deck floor, projected to a flat of an airplane must be made according under § 1030.20. plane parallel with the additional deck to the procedures for determining RGF (bl The fuel efficiency metric value floor by the forward and aft pressure in Appendix 2 ofICAO Annex 16, may not exceed the following, rounded bulkheads except for any crew cockpit Volume III (incorporated by reference in to three decimal places: zone. § 1030.110).

For airplanes defined in . with MTOM . .. the standard is . . .

(1) Section 1030.1 (a)(1) and (2) 5,700 < MTOM < 60,000 kg ...... 10(-2.73780 + (0.681310 • log10{MTOM)) + (-0.0277861 • (log10(MTOM))/\2)) (2) Section 1030.1 (a)(3) ...... 8,618 < MTOM < 60,000 kg ...... 10(-2.73780 + {0.681310 • log10{MTOM)) + (-0.0277861 • (log10(MTOM))/\2)) (3) Section 1030.1(a)(1) and (3) 60,000 < MTOM < 70,395 kg ...... 0.764 (4) Section 1030.1 (a)(1) and (3) MTOM > 70,395 kg ...... 10(-1.412742 + (-0.020517 • log10{MTOM)) + {0.0593831 • {log10{MTOM))/\2)) (5) Section 1030.1 (a)(4) and (6) 5,700 < MTOM < 60,000 kg ...... 10(-2.57535 + (0.609766 • log10{MTOM)) + (-0.0191302 • {log10(MTOM))/\2)) (6) Section 1030.1 (a)(5) and (7) 8,618 < MTOM < 60,000 kg ...... 10(-2.57535 + (0.609766 • log10{MTOM)) + (-0.0191302 • {log10{MTOM))/\2)) (7) Section 1030.1(a)(4) through (7) ...... 60,000 < MTOM < 70,107 kg ...... 0.797 (8) Section 1030.1(a)(4) through (7) ...... MTOM > 70,107 kg ...... 10(-1.39353 + (-0.020517 • log10(MTOM)) + (0.0593831 • (log10(MTOM))/\2))

§ 1030.35 Change criteria. incorporates any modification that Airplane has the meaning given in 14 (a) For an airplane that has increases the fuel efficiency metric CFR 1.1, an engine-driven fixed-wing demonstrated compliance with value by more than 1.5 per cent from the aircraft heavier than air, that is § 1030.30, any subsequent version of prior version of the airplane. supported in flight by the dynamic that airplane must demonstrate reaction of the air against its wings. compliance with § 1030.30 if the § 1030.98 Confidential business Exempt means to allow, through a information. subsequent version incorporates a formal case-by-case process, an airplane modification that either increases- The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 to be certificated and operated that does (1) The maximum takeoff mass; or apply for information you consider not meet the applicable standards of this (2) The fuel efficiency metric value by confidential. · part. more than: Reference Information Greenhouse Gas (GHG) means an air (i) For airplanes with a MTOM greater pollutant that is the aggregate group of than or equal to 5,700 kg, the value § 1030.100 Abbreviations. six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, decreases linearly from 1.35 to 0.75 The abbreviations used in this part nitrous oxide, methane, percent for an airplane with a MTOM of have the following meanings: hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, 60,000 kg. and sulfur hexafluoride. (ii).For airplanes with a MTOM TABLE 1 TO§ 1030.100 ICAO Annex 16, Volume III means greater than or equal to 60,000 kg, the Volume III of Annex 16 to the value decreases linearly from 0.75 to EPA ...... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Convention on International Civil 0.70 percent for airplanes wi\h a MTOM FAA ...... U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Aviation (see§ 1030.110). GHG ...... greenhouse gas. of 600,000 kg. IBR ...... incorporation by reference. Maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) is (iii) For airplanes with a MTOM ICAO ...... International Civil Aviation Organization. the maximum allowable takeoff mass as greater than or equal to 600,000 kg, the MTOM ..... maximum takeoff mass. stated in the approved certification basis value is 0.70 percent. RGF ...... reference geometric factor. for an airplane type design. Maximum (bl For an airplane that has SAR ...... specific air range. takeoff mass is expressed in kilograms. demonstrated compliance with Performance model is an analytical § 1030.30, any subsequent version of § 1030.105 Definitions. tool (or a method) validated using that_ airplane that incorporates The following definitions in this corrected flight test data that can be modifications that do not increase the section apply to this part. Any terms not used to determine the specific air range MTOM or the fuel efficiency metric defined in this section have the meaning values for calculating the fuel efficiency value in excess of the levels shown in given in the Clean Air Act. The metric value. paragraph (a) of this section, the fuel definitions follow: Reference geometric factor is a non­ efficiency metric value of the modified Aircraft has the meaning given in 14 dimensional number derived from a airplane may be reported to be the same CFR 1.1, a device that is used or two-dimensional projection of the as the value of the prior version. intended to be used for flight in the air. fuselage. (c) For an airplane that meets the Aircraft engine means a propulsion Round has the meaning given in 40 criteria of§ 1030.1(a)(4) or (5), after engine that is installed on or that is CFR 1065.1001. January 1, 2023 and until January 1, manufactured for installation on an Specific air range is the distance an 2028, the airplane must demonstrate airplane for which certification under airplane travels per unit of fuel compliance with § 1030.30 if it 14 CFR is sought. consumed. Specific air range is 2174 Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 6/Monday, January 11, 2021/Rules and Regulations expressed in kilometers per kilogram of other than that specified in this section, (bl International Civil Aviation fuel. the Environmental Protection Agency Organization, Document Sales Unit, 999 Subsonic means an airplane that has must publish a document in the Federal University Street, Montreal, Quebec, not been certificated under 14 CFR to Register and the material must be Canada H3C 5H7, (514) 954-8022, exceed Mach 1 in normal operation. available to the public. All approved www.icao.int, or [email protected]. Type certificated maximum passenger material is available for inspection at (1) ICAO Annex 16, Volume III, seating capacity means the maximum EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Annex 16 to the Convention on number of passenger seats that may be Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, International Civil Aviation, installed on an airplane as listed on its Washington, DC 20004, www.epa.gov/ Environmental Protection, Volume III­ type certificate data sheet, regardless of dockets, (202) 202-1744, and is Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, as follows: the actual number of seats installed on · available from the sources listed in this (i) First Edition, July 2017. IBR an individual airplane. section. It is also available for approved for §§ 1030.23(d) and inspection at the National Archives and 1030.25(d). § 1030.11 O Incorporation by reference. Records Administration (NARA). For (ii) Amendment 1, July 20, 2020. IBR approved for §§ 1030.23(d) and (a) Certain material is incorporated by information on the availability of this reference into this part with the 1030.25(d). material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ (2) [Reserved] approval of the Director of the Federal nara.gov or go to: www.archives.gov/ Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 federal-registerlcfr/ibr-locations.html. [FR Doc. 2020-28882 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am] CFR part 51. To enforce any edition BILLING CODE 656D-50-P CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that pursuant to Circuit Rule 15(a), a copy of the foregoing Petition for Review was served on January 15, 2021 by first class mail, postage prepaid on the following:

Andrew Wheeler, Administrator Office of the Administrator (1101A) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Correspondence Control Unit Office of General Counsel (2311) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Jeffrey A. Rosen Acting Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530

/s/ Charlette Sheppard CHARLETTE SHEPPARD

7