51556 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION comments on or before September 21, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AGENCY 2020. Bryan Manning, Office of Public Hearing: EPA will announce Transportation and Air Quality, 40 CFR Parts 87 and 1030 the public hearing date and location for Assessment and Standards Division [EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0276; FRL–10010–88– this proposal in a supplemental Federal (ASD), Environmental Protection OAR] Register document. Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: RIN 2060–AT26 identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– (734) 214–4832; email address: Control of Air Pollution From Airplanes OAR–2018–0276, at http:// [email protected]. and Airplane Engines: GHG Emission www.regulations.gov (our preferred SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Standards and Test Procedures method), or the other methods Table of Contents identified in the ADDRESSES section. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Once submitted, comments cannot be I. General Information Agency (EPA). edited or removed from the docket. The A. Does this action apply to me? B. Did EPA conduct a peer review before ACTION: EPA may publish any comment received Proposed rule. issuing this proposed rule? to its public docket. Do not submit to C. Executive Summary SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection EPA’s docket at https:// II. Introduction: Overview and Context for Agency (EPA) is proposing greenhouse www.regulations.gov any information This Proposed Action gas (GHG) emission standards you consider to be Confidential A. Summary of Proposed Rule applicable to certain classes of engines Business Information (CBI) or other B. EPA Statutory Authority and used by certain civil subsonic jet information whose disclosure is Responsibilities Under the Clean Air Act airplanes with a maximum takeoff mass restricted by statute. Multimedia C. Background Information Helpful to greater than 5,700 kilograms and by submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be Understanding This Proposed Action D. U.S. Airplane Regulations and the certain civil larger subsonic propeller- accompanied by a written comment. driven airplanes with turboprop engines International Community The written comment is considered the E. Consideration of Whole Airplane having a maximum takeoff mass greater official comment and should include Characteristics than 8,618 kilograms. These proposed discussion of all points you wish to III. Summary of the 2016 Findings standards are equivalent to the airplane make. The EPA will generally not IV. Summary of Advance Notice of Proposed CO2 standards adopted by the consider comments or comment Rulemaking and Comments Received International Civil Aviation contents located outside of the primary A. Summary Organization (ICAO) in 2017 and would submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or V. Details for the Proposed Rule A. Airplane Fuel Efficiency Metric apply to both new type design airplanes other file sharing system). For and in-production airplanes. The B. Covered Airplane Types and additional submission methods, the full Applicability standards proposed in this rule are the EPA public comment policy, C. GHG Standard for New Type Designs equivalent of the ICAO standards, information about CBI or multimedia D. GHG Standard for In-Production consistent with U.S. efforts to secure the submissions, and general guidance on Airplane Types highest practicable degree of uniformity making effective comments, please visit E. Exemptions From the Proposed GHG in aviation regulations and standards. https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ Rules The proposed standards would, if commenting-epa-dockets. F. Application of Rules for New Version of an Existing GHG-Certificated Airplane finalized, also meet the EPA’s obligation EPA solicits comments on all aspects under section 231 of the Clean Air Act G. Annual Reporting Requirement of the proposed standards. However, we H. Test and Measurement Procedures to adopt GHG standards for certain do not seek and do not intend to I. Controlling Two of the Six Well-Mixed classes of airplanes as a result of the respond to comments on any aspect of GHGs 2016 ‘‘Finding That Greenhouse Gas EPA’s 2016 Findings. VI. Aggregate GHG and Fuel Burn Methods Emissions From Aircraft Cause or The EPA is temporarily suspending and Results Contribute to Air Pollution That May its Docket Center and Reading Room for A. What methodologies did the EPA use for Reasonably Be Anticipated To Endanger public visitors, with limited exceptions, the emissions inventory assessment? B. What are the baseline CO emissions? Public Health and Welfare’’ (hereinafter to reduce the risk of transmitting 2 ‘‘2016 Findings’’)—for six well-mixed C. What are the projected effects in fuel COVID–19. Our Docket Center staff will burn and GHG emissions? GHGs emitted by certain classes of continue to provide remote customer VII. Technological Feasibility and Economic airplane engines. Airplane engines emit service via email, phone, and webform. Impacts only two of the six well-mixed GHGs, We encourage the public to submit A. Market Considerations CO2 and nitrous oxide (N2O). comments via https:// B. Conceptual Framework for Technology Accordingly, EPA is proposing to use www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a C. Technological Feasibility the fuel-efficiency-based metric delay in processing mail and faxes. D. Costs Associated With the Program E. Summary of Benefits and Costs established by ICAO, which reasonably Hand deliveries or couriers will be serves as a surrogate for controlling both VIII. Aircraft Engine Technical Amendments received by scheduled appointment IX. Statutory Authority and Executive Order the GHGs emitted by airplane engines, only. For further information and Reviews CO2 and N2O. updates on EPA Docket Center services, A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory DATES: please visit us online at https:// Planning and Review and Executive Comments: Written comments on this www.epa.gov/dockets. Order 13563: Improving Regulation and proposal must be received on or before The EPA continues to carefully and Regulatory Review October 19, 2020. Under the Paperwork continuously monitor information from B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the the Centers for Disease Control and Costs information collection provisions are Prevention (CDC), local area health C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) best assured of consideration if the departments, and our Federal partners D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Office of Management and Budget so that we can respond rapidly as E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (OMB) receives a copy of your conditions change regarding COVID–19. (UMRA)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51557

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Therefore, the EPA conducted peer These proposed standards would G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation reviews consistent with the Office of allow U.S. manufacturers of covered and Coordination With Indian Tribal Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) airplanes to remain competitive in the Governments Final Information Quality Bulletin for global marketplace. In the absence of H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 1 Children From Environmental Health Peer Review. Two different reports U.S. standards for implementing the Risks and Safety Risks used in support of this proposed action ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards, I. Executive Order 13211: Actions underwent peer review; a report U.S. civil airplane manufacturers could Concerning Regulations That detailing the technologies likely to be be forced to seek CO2 emissions Significantly Affect Energy Supply, used in compliance with the proposed certification from an aviation Distribution or Use standards and their associated costs 2 certification authority of another J. National Technology Transfer and and a report detailing the methodology country (not the Federal Aviation Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Administration (FAA)) in order to part 51 and results of the emissions inventory 3 K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions modeling. These reports were each market and operate their airplanes To Address Environmental Justice in peer-reviewed through external letter internationally. U.S. manufacturers Minority Populations and Low-Income reviews by multiple independent would be presumed to be at a significant Populations subject matter experts (including disadvantage if the U.S. fails to adopt standards that are at least as stringent as I. General Information experts from academia and other government agencies, as well as the ICAO standards for CO2 emissions. A. Does this action apply to me? independent technical experts).45 The The ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission This proposed action would affect peer review reports and the Agency’s Standards have been adopted by other companies that manufacture civil response to the peer review comments ICAO member states that certify subsonic jet airplanes that have a are available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– airplanes. The action to adopt in the maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) of OAR–2018–0276. U.S. GHG standards that match the ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards greater than 5,700 kilograms and civil C. Executive Summary subsonic propeller driven airplanes will help ensure international (e.g., turboprops) that have a MTOM 1. Purpose of the Proposed Regulatory consistency and acceptance of U.S. greater than 8,618 kilograms, including Action manufactured airplanes worldwide. the manufacturers of the engines used In August 2016, the EPA issued two One of the core functions of ICAO is findings regarding GHG emissions from on these airplanes. Affected entities to adopt Standards and Recommended aircraft engines (the 2016 Findings).7 include the following: Practices on a wide range of aviation- First, the EPA found that elevated related matters, including aircraft Examples of concentrations of GHGs in the Category NAICS potentially emissions. As a member State of the atmosphere endanger the public health code a affected entities ICAO, the United States seeks to secure and welfare of current and future the highest practicable degree of generations within the meaning of Industry ... 336412 Manufacturers of uniformity in aviation regulations and section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act new aircraft en- 6 standards. ICAO adopted airplane CO2 (CAA). Second, EPA found that gines standards in 2017. The adoption of Industry ... 336411 Manufacturers of emissions of GHGs from certain classes new aircraft these aviation standards into U.S. law of engines used in certain aircraft are will align with the ICAO standards. For contributing to the air pollution that a North American Industry Classification reasons discussed herein, the EPA is endangers public health and welfare System (NAICS). proposing to adopt standards for GHG under CAA section 231(a)(2)(A). This table lists the types of entities emissions from certain classes of Additional details of the 2016 Findings that EPA is now aware could potentially engines used on covered airplanes are described in Section III. As a result be affected by this action. Other types of (hereinafter ‘‘covered airplanes’’ or of the 2016 Findings, CAA sections entities not listed in the table might also ‘‘airplanes’’) that are equivalent in 231(a)(2)(A) and (3) obligate the EPA to be subject to these proposed regulations. scope, stringency and timing to the CO2 propose and adopt, respectively, GHG To determine whether your activities standards adopted by ICAO. standards for these covered aircraft are regulated by this action, you should engines. carefully examine the relevant 1 OMB, 2004: Memorandum for Heads of 2. Summary of the Major Provisions of applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 87 Departments and Agencies, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Available at the Proposed Regulatory Action and 1030. If you have any questions https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/ regarding the applicability of this action files/omb/memoranda/2005/m05-03.pdf. The EPA is proposing to regulate GHG 2 to a particular entity, consult the person ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology emissions from covered airplanes listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final Report, through the adoption of domestic GHG EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, September 30, INFORMATION CONTACT regulations that match international section. 2018. standards to control CO2 emissions. The For consistency purposes across the 3 U.S. EPA, 2020: Technical Report on Aircraft United States Code of Federal Emissions Inventory and Stringency Analysis, July proposed GHG standards are equivalent Regulations (CFR), the terms ‘‘airplane,’’ 2020, 52pp. to the CO2 standards adopted by ICAO ‘‘aircraft,’’ and ‘‘civil aircraft’’ have the 4 RTI International and EnDyna, Aircraft CO2 and will be implemented and enforced meanings found in title 14 CFR and are Cost and Technology Refresh and Aerospace in the U.S. The proposed standards Industry Characterization: Peer Review, June 2018, would apply to covered airplanes: Civil used as appropriate throughout the new 114pp. proposed regulation under 40 CFR part 5 RTI International and EnDyna, EPA Technical subsonic jet airplanes (those powered by 1030. Report on Aircraft Emissions Inventory and turbojet or turbofan engines and with a Stringency Analysis: Peer Review, July 2019, 157pp. B. Did EPA conduct a peer review before 6 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil 7 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas issuing this proposed rule? Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, Article Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air 37, 114 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/ Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To This regulatory action is supported by publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 influential scientific information. accessed March 16, 2020). FR 54422 (August 15, 2016).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51558 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

MTOM greater than 5,700 kilograms), as reference of the ICAO test procedures As a result of the 2016 findings,910 the well as larger civil subsonic propeller- for hydrocarbons (HC), carbon EPA is obligated under section 231(a) of driven airplanes (those powered by monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen the CAA to propose and issue emission turboprop engines and with a MTOM (NOX) and smoke to reference the most standards applicable to GHG emissions greater than 8,618 kilograms). The recent edition of the ICAO procedures. from the classes of engines used by timing and stringencies of the standards This update would improve clarity in covered aircraft included in the 2016 would differ depending on whether the the existing test procedures and Findings. As described later in further covered airplane is a new type design includes a minor change to the detail in Section III, we are proposing to (i.e., a design that has not previously composition of the test fuel used for regulate the air pollutant that is the been type certificated under title 14 engine certification. Further details on aggregate of the six well-mixed GHGs. CFR) or an in-production model (i.e., an this technical amendment can be found Only two of the six well-mixed GHGs— existing design that had been type in Section VIII. CO2 and N2O—have non-zero emissions certificated under title 14 CFR prior to for total civil subsonic airplanes and 3. Cost and Benefits the effective date of the GHG standards). U.S. covered airplanes. CO2 represents The standards for new type designs U.S. manufacturers have already 99 percent of all GHGs emitted from would apply to covered airplanes for developed or are developing both total U.S. civil airplanes and U.S. which an application for certification is technologies that will allow affected covered airplanes, and N2O represents 1 submitted to the FAA on or after airplanes to comply with the ICAO percent of GHGs emitted from total January 1, 2020 (January 1, 2023, for standards, in advance of EPA’s adoption airplanes and U.S. covered airplanes. new type designs that have a maximum of standards. Furthermore, based on the Promulgation of the proposed GHG takeoff mass (MTOM) of 60,000 manufacturers’ expectation that the emission standards for the certain kilograms MTOM or less and have 19 ICAO standards will be implemented classes of engines used by covered passenger seats or fewer). The in- globally, the EPA anticipates nearly all airplanes would fulfill EPA’s obligations production standards would apply to affected airplanes to be compliant by the under the CAA and is the next step for covered airplanes beginning January 1, respective effective dates for new type the United States in implementing the 2028. Additionally, consistent with designs and for in-production airplanes. ICAO standards promulgated in Annex ICAO standards, the EPA is proposing This includes the expectation that 16 under the Chicago Convention. We that, before the in-production standards existing in-production airplanes that are are proposing a new rule that controls otherwise apply in 2028, certain non-compliant will either be modified aircraft engine GHG emissions through modifications made to airplanes (i.e., and re-certificated as compliant or will the use of the ICAO regulatory metric changes that result in an increase in likely go out of production before the that quantifies airplane fuel efficiency. GHG emissions) would trigger a production compliance date of January The proposed rule would establish requirement to certify to the in- 1, 2028. For these reasons, the EPA is GHG standards applicable to U.S. production regulation beginning January not projecting emission reductions airplane manufacturers that are no less 1, 2023. associated with these proposed GHG stringent than the ICAO Airplane CO2 11 The EPA is proposing to adopt the regulations. We do, however, project a Emission Standards adopted by ICAO. ICAO CO2 metric, which measures fuel small cost associated with the proposed This proposed rule incorporates the efficiency, for demonstrating annual reporting requirement. For same compliance schedule as the ICAO compliance with the GHG emission further details on the benefits and costs _ standards. This metric is a mathematical associated with these proposed GHG Documents/7300 9ed.pdf (last accessed March 16, function that incorporates the specific 2020). standards, see Sections VI and VII, 9 air range (SAR) of an airplane/engine U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas respectively. Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air combination (a traditional measure of Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To airplane cruise performance in units of II. Introduction: Overview and Context Endanger Public Health and Welfare and Advance kilometer/kilogram of fuel) and the for This Proposed Action Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Final Rule, 81 FR reference geometric factor (RGF), a 54422 (August 15, 2016). This section provides a summary of 10 Covered airplanes are those airplanes to which measure of fuselage size. The metric is the proposed rule. This section the international CO2 standards and the proposed further discussed in Section V.A. describes the EPA’s statutory authority, GHG standards would apply: Subsonic jet airplanes with a maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater than To measure airplane fuel efficiency, the U.S. airplane engine regulations and the EPA is proposing to adopt the ICAO 5,700 kilograms and subsonic propeller-driven (e.g., the relationship with ICAO’s turboprop) airplanes with a MTOM greater than test procedures whereby the airplane/ international standards, and 8,618 kilograms. Section V describes covered and engine SAR value is measured at three consideration of the whole airplane in non-covered airplanes in further detail. ICAO, 2016: Tenth Meeting Committee on specific operating test points, and a addressing airplane engine GHG composite of those results is used in the Aviation Environmental Protection Report, Doc emissions. 10069, CAEP/10, 432 pp, Available at: http:// metric to determine compliance with www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx the proposed GHG standards. The test A. Summary of Proposed Rule (last accessed March 16, 2020). The ICAO CAEP/10 procedures are discussed in Section report is found on page 27 of the English Edition In February 2016, ICAO’s Committee 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. V.H. on Aviation Environmental Protection Consistent with the current annual 10069. (CAEP) agreed to international Airplane 11 ICAO’s certification standards and test reporting requirement for engine CO2 Emission Standards, which ICAO procedures for airplane CO2 emissions are based on emissions, the EPA is proposing to the consumption of fuel (or fuel burn) under approved in 2017. The EPA is proposing prescribed conditions at optimum cruise altitude. require the annual reporting of the to adopt GHG standards that are number of airplanes produced, airplane ICAO uses the term, CO2, for its standards and equivalent to the international Airplane procedures, but ICAO is actually regulating or characteristics, and test parameters. measuring the rate of an airplane’s fuel burn (fuel CO2 Emission Standards promulgated Further information on all aspects of the by ICAO in Annex 16.8 efficiency). For jet fuel, the emissions index or proposed GHG standards can be found emissions factor for CO2 is 3.16 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of fuel burn (or 3,160 grams of CO2 in Section V. 8 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil per kilogram of fuel burn). Thus, to convert an Finally, the EPA is proposing to Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. airplane’s rate of fuel burn to a CO2 emissions rate, update the existing incorporation by Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ this emission index needs to be applied.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51559

Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. The (see 42 U.S.C. 7571(b)). Section 232 then 1. International Regulations and U.S. proposed standards would apply to both directs the Secretary of Transportation Obligations new type designs and in-production to prescribe regulations to ensure The EPA has worked with the FAA airplanes. The in-production standards compliance with the EPA’s standards since 1973, and later with ICAO, to would have later applicability dates and (see 42 U.S.C. 7572). Finally, section develop domestic and international different emission levels than for the 233 of the CAA vests the authority to standards and other recommended standards for new type designs. The promulgate emission standards for practices pertaining to aircraft engine different emission levels for new type aircraft engines only in the Federal emissions. The Convention on designs and in-production airplanes Government. States are preempted from International Civil Aviation (commonly depend on the airplane size, weight, and adopting or enforcing any standard known as the ‘Chicago Convention’) was availability of fuel efficiency respecting emissions from aircraft or signed in 1944 at the Diplomatic technologies. aircraft engines unless such standard is Conference held in Chicago. The Apart from the proposed GHG identical to the EPA’s standards (see 42 Chicago Convention establishes the requirements, we are also proposing to U.S.C. 7573). legal framework for the development of update the engine emissions testing and international civil aviation. The primary measurement procedures applicable to C. Background Information Helpful To Understanding This Proposed Action objective is ‘‘that international civil HC, NOX, CO, and smoke in current aviation may be developed in a safe and Civil airplanes and associated engines regulations. The updates would orderly manner and that international are international commodities that are implement recent amendments to ICAO air transport services may be established manufactured and sold around the standards in Annex 16, Volume II, and on the basis of equality of opportunity world. The member States of ICAO and these updates would be accomplished and operated soundly and the world’s airplane and engine by incorporating provisions of the economically.’’ 12 In 1947, ICAO was manufacturers participated in the Annex by reference, as has historically established, and later in that same year deliberations leading up to ICAO’s been done. ICAO became a specialized agency of adoption of the international Airplane the United Nations (UN). ICAO sets B. EPA Statutory Authority and CO Emission Standards. However, 2 international standards for aviation Responsibilities Under the Clean Air Act ICAO’s standards are not directly safety, security, efficiency, capacity, and Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA applicable to and enforceable against environmental protection and serves as directs the Administrator of the EPA to, member States’ airplane and engine the forum for cooperation in all fields of from time to time, propose aircraft manufacturers. Instead, after adoption of international civil aviation. ICAO works engine emission standards applicable to the standards by ICAO, a member State with the Chicago Convention’s member the emission of any air pollutant from is required (as described later in Section States and global aviation organizations classes of aircraft engines which in the II.D.1) to adopt domestic standards at to develop international Standards and Administrator’s judgment causes or least as stringent as ICAO standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), contributes to air pollution that may apply them, as applicable, to subject which member States reference when reasonably be anticipated to endanger airplane and engine manufacturers in developing their domestic civil aviation public health or welfare. (See 42 U.S.C. order to ensure recognition of their regulations. The United States is one of 7571(a)(2)(A)). Section 231(a)(2)(B) airworthiness and type certificate by 193 currently participating ICAO directs the EPA to consult with the other civil aviation authorities. This 13 14 Administrator of the FAA on such member States. proposed rulemaking is a necessary step In the interest of global harmonization standards, and it prohibits the EPA from to meet this obligation for the United and international air commerce, the changing aircraft engine emission States. Chicago Convention urges its member standards if such a change would States to ‘‘collaborate in securing the significantly increase noise and D. U.S. Airplane Regulations and the highest practicable degree of uniformity adversely affect safety (see 42 U.S.C. International Community in regulations, standards, procedures 7571(a)(2)(B)(i)–(ii)). Section 231(a)(3) The EPA and the FAA work within and organization in relation to aircraft, provides that after we propose the standard-setting process of ICAO’s . . . in all matters which such standards, the Administrator shall issue CAEP to help establish international uniformity will facilitate and improve such standards ‘‘with such emission standards and related air navigation.’’ The Chicago modifications as he deems appropriate.’’ requirements, which individual member Convention also recognizes that member (see 42 U.S.C. 7571(a)(3)). The U.S. States adopt into domestic law and States may adopt national standards that Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has regulations. Historically, under this are more or less stringent than those held that this provision confers an approach, international emission agreed upon by ICAO or standards that unusually broad degree of discretion on standards have first been adopted by are different in character or comply with ICAO, and subsequently the EPA has the EPA to adopt aircraft engine the ICAO standards by other means. initiated rulemakings under CAA emission standards as the Agency Any member State that finds it section 231 to establish domestic determines are reasonable. Nat’l Ass’n impracticable to comply in all respects of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d standards that are at least as stringent as ICAO’s standards. After EPA 1221, 1229–30 (D.C. Cir. 2007) 12 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil (NACAA). promulgates aircraft engine emission Aviation, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/9, 114 pp. In addition, under CAA section 231(b) standards, CAA section 232 requires the Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ the EPA is required to ensure, in FAA to issue regulations to ensure Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last accessed March 16, consultation with the U.S. Department compliance with the EPA aircraft engine 2020). 13 Members of ICAO’s Assembly are generally of Transportation (DOT), that the emission standards when issuing termed member States or contracting States. These effective date of any standard provides airworthiness certificates pursuant to its terms are used interchangeably throughout this the necessary time to permit the authority under Title 49 of the United preamble. development and application of the States Code. This proposed rule 14 There are currently 193 contracting states according to ICAO’s website: https://www.icao.int/ requisite technology, giving appropriate continues this historical rulemaking MemberStates/Member%20States.English.pdf (last consideration to the cost of compliance approach. accessed March 16, 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51560 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

with any international standard or its domestic regulations and ICAO also contributing technical expertise to procedure, or that determines it is standards.18 CAEP’s working groups and assisting necessary to adopt regulations or ICAO’s CAEP, which consists of and advising FAA on aviation practices differing in any particular members and observers from states, emissions, technology, and respect from those established by an intergovernmental and non- environmental policy matters. In turn, international standard, is required to governmental organizations the FAA assists and advises the EPA on give notification to ICAO of the representing the aviation industry and aviation environmental issues, differences between its own practice environmental interests, undertakes technology and airworthiness and that established by the international ICAO’s technical work in the certification matters. standard.15 environmental field. The Committee is CAEP’s predecessor at ICAO, the ICAO’s work on the environment responsible for evaluating, researching, Committee on Aircraft Engine Emissions focuses primarily on those problems and recommending measures to the (CAEE), adopted the first international that benefit most from a common and ICAO Council that address the SARPs for aircraft engine emissions that coordinated approach on a worldwide environmental impacts of international were proposed in 1981.22 These basis, namely aircraft noise and engine civil aviation. CAEP’s terms of reference standards limited aircraft engine emissions. SARPs for the certification of indicate that ‘‘CAEP’s assessments and emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon aircraft noise and aircraft engine proposals are pursued taking into monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen emissions are contained in Annex 16 to account: Technical feasibility; (NOX). The 1981 standards applied to the Chicago Convention. To continue to environmental benefit; economic newly manufactured engines, which are address aviation environmental issues, reasonableness; interdependencies of those engines built after the effective in 2004, ICAO established three measures (for example, among others, date of the regulations—also referred to environmental goals: (1) Limit or reduce measures taken to minimize noise and as in-production engines. In 1993, ICAO the number of people affected by emissions); developments in other adopted a CAEP/2 proposal to tighten significant aircraft noise; (2) limit or fields; and international and national the original NOX standard by 20 percent reduce the impact of aviation emissions programs.’’ 19 The ICAO Council and amend the test procedures.23 These on local air quality; and (3) limit or reviews and adopts the 1993 standards applied both to newly reduce the impact of aviation GHG recommendations made by CAEP. It certificated turbofan engines (those emissions on the global climate. then reports to the ICAO Assembly, the engine models that received their initial The Chicago Convention has a highest body of the organization, where type certificate after the effective date of number of other features that govern the main policies on aviation the regulations, referred to as newly international commerce. First, member environmental protection are adopted certificated engines or new type design States that wish to use aircraft in and translated into Assembly engines) and to in-production engines; international transportation must adopt Resolutions. If ICAO adopts a CAEP the standards had different effective emission standards that are at least as proposal for a new environmental dates for newly certificated engines and stringent as ICAO’s standards if they standard, it then becomes part of ICAO in-production engines. In 1995, CAEP/3 want to ensure recognition of their standards and recommended practices recommended a further tightening of the (Annex 16 to the Chicago airworthiness certificates. Member NOX standards by 16 percent and 20 21 States may ban the use of any aircraft Convention). additional test procedure amendments, within their airspace that does not meet The FAA plays an active role in but in 1997 the ICAO Council rejected ICAO standards.16 Second, the Chicago ICAO/CAEP, including serving as the this stringency proposal and approved Convention indicates that member representative (member) of the United only the test procedure amendments. At States are required to recognize the States at annual ICAO/CAEP Steering the CAEP/4 meeting in 1998, the Group meetings, as well as the ICAO/ airworthiness certificates issued or Committee adopted a similar 16 percent CAEP triennial meetings, and rendered valid by the contracting State NO reduction proposal, which ICAO contributing technical expertise to X in which the aircraft is registered approved in 1998. Unlike the CAEP/2 CAEP’s working groups. The EPA serves provided the requirements under which standards, the CAEP/4 standards as an advisor to the U.S. member at the the certificates were issued are equal to applied only to new type design engines annual ICAO/CAEP Steering Group and or above ICAO’s minimum standards.17 after December 31, 2003. In 2004, CAEP/ triennial ICAO/CAEP meetings, while Third, to ensure that international 6 recommended a 12 percent NOX commerce is not unreasonably reduction, which ICAO approved in 18 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil 24 25 constrained, a member State that cannot Aviation, Article 38, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/ 2005. The CAEP/6 standards applied meet or deems it necessary to adopt 9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ regulations differing from the publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last 22 ICAO, 2017: Aircraft Engine Emissions: international standard is obligated to accessed March 16, 2020). Foreword, International Standards and 19 ICAO: CAEP Terms of Reference. Available at Recommended Practices, Environmental Protection, notify ICAO of the differences between http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/ Annex 16, Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, Pages/Caep.aspx#ToR (last accessed March 16, 174pp. Available at https://www.icao.int/ 15 ICAO, 2006: Doc 7300-Convention on 2020). publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed International Civil Aviation, Ninth Edition, 20 ICAO, 2017: Aircraft Engine Emissions, March 16, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is Document 7300/9, 114 pp. Available at http:// International Standards and Recommended found on page 16 of the ICAO Products & Services www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_ Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex 16, English Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright 9ed.pdf (last accessed March 16, 2020). Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, 174 pp. protected; Order No. AN16–2. 16 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Available at http://www.icao.int/publications/ 23 CAEP conducts its work triennially. Each 3- Aviation, Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/ Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, year work cycle is numbered sequentially and that 9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on identifier is used to differentiate the results from publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf(last page 16 of the ICAO Products & Services English one CAEP meeting to another by convention. The accessed March 16, 2020). Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; first technical meeting on aircraft emission 17 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Order No. AN16–2. standards was CAEP’s predecessor, i.e., CAEE. The Aviation, Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/ 21 CAEP develops new emission standards based first meeting of CAEP, therefore, is referred to as 9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ on an assessment of the technical feasibility, cost, CAEP/2. publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last and environmental benefit of potential 24 CAEP/5 did not address new airplane engine accessed March 16, 2020). requirements. emission standards.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51561

to new engine designs certificated after requirements are generally referred to as regulate certain pollutants emitted from December 31, 2007. In 2010, CAEP/8 CAEP/2 standards.31 The 1997 aircraft engines come directly from the recommended a further tightening of the rulemaking included new NOX emission authority in section 231 of the CAA, and NOX standards by 15 percent for new standards for newly manufactured we have aligned the U.S. emissions engine designs certificated after commercial turbofan engines 32 33 and requirements with those promulgated by December 31, 2013.26 27 The Committee for newly certificated commercial ICAO. All of these previous emission also recommended that the CAEP/6 turbofan engines.34 35 It also included a standards have generally been standards be applied to in-production CO emission standard for in-production considered anti-backsliding standards engines, which cut off the production of commercial turbofan engines.36 In 2005, (most aircraft engines meet the CAEP/4 compliant engines with the we promulgated more stringent NOX standards), which are technology exception of spare engines; ICAO emission standards for newly following. adopted these as standards in 2011.28 certificated commercial turbofan The EPA and FAA worked from 2009 At the CAEP/10 meeting in 2016, the engines.37 That final rule brought the to 2016 within the ICAO/CAEP Committee agreed to the first airplane U.S. standards closer to alignment with standard-setting process on the CO2 emission standards, which ICAO ICAO CAEP/4 requirements that became development of the international approved in 2017. The CAEP/10 CO2 effective in 2004. In 2012, we issued Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. In standards apply to new type design more stringent two-tiered NOX emission this action, we are proposing to adopt airplanes for which the application for standards for newly certificated and in- GHG standards equivalent to the ICAO a type certificate will be submitted on production commercial and non- Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. As or after January 1, 2020, some modified commercial turbofan engines, and these stated earlier in this Section II, the in-production airplanes on or after NOX standards align with ICAO’s CAEP/ standards established in the United January 1, 2023, and all applicable in- 6 and CAEP/8 standards that became States need to be at least as stringent as production airplanes built on or after effective in 2013 and 2014, the ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission January 1, 2028. respectively.38 39 The EPA’s actions to Standards in order to ensure global 2. EPA’s Regulation of Aircraft Engine acceptance of FAA airworthiness Emissions and the Relationship to and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 62 FR 25355 (May certification. Also, as a result of the 8, 1997). 2016 Findings, as described later in International Aircraft Standards 31 The full CAEP membership meets every three Section V, the EPA is obligated under As required by the CAA, the EPA has years and each session is denoted by a numerical identifier. For example, the second meeting of section 231 of the CAA to propose and been engaged in reducing harmful air CAEP is referred to as CAEP/2, and CAEP/2 issue emission standards applicable to pollution from airplane engines for over occurred in 1994. GHG emissions from the classes of 40 years, regulating gaseous exhaust 32 This does not mean that in 1997 we engines used by covered aircraft promulgated requirements for the re-certification or emissions, smoke, and fuel venting from included in the 2016 Findings. engines.29 We have periodically revised retrofit of existing in-use engines. 33 Those engines built after the effective date of When the EPA proposed the aircraft these regulations. In a 1997 rulemaking, the regulations that were already certificated to pre- GHG findings in 2015, we included an for example, we made our emission existing standards are also referred to as in- aircraft greenhouse gas emission standards and test procedures more production engines. standards advance notice of proposed 34 consistent with those of ICAO’s CAEP In the existing EPA regulations, 40 CFR part 87, rulemaking (henceforth the ‘‘2015 for turbofan engines used in commercial newly certificated aircraft engines are described as engines of a type or model of which the date of ANPR’’) 40 that provided information on aviation with rated thrusts greater than manufacture of the first individual production the international process for setting the 26.7 kilonewtons.30 These ICAO model was after the implementation date. Newly ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. manufactured aircraft engines are characterized as Also, the 2015 ANPR described and 25 ICAO, 2017: Aircraft Engine Emissions, engines of a type or model for which the date of International Standards and Recommended manufacturer of the individual engine was after the sought input on the potential use of Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex implementation date. section 231 of the CAA to adopt and 16,Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, 174pp. 35 Those engine models that received their initial implement the corresponding Available at https://www.icao.int/publications/ type certificate after the effective date of the international Airplane CO2 Emission Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, regulations are also referred to as new engine 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume II is found on designs. Standards domestically as a CAA page 16 of the ICAO Products & Services English 36 U.S. EPA, 1997: Control of Air Pollution from section 231 GHG standard. Section IV Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards provides a summary of the ANPR Order No. AN16–2. and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 62 FR 25355 (May comments that we received. 26 CAEP/7 did not address new aircraft engine 8, 1997). emission standards. 37 U.S. EPA, 2005: Control of Air Pollution from E. Consideration of Whole Airplane 27 ICAO, 2010: Committee on Aviation Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards Characteristics Environmental Protection (CAEP), Report of the and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 70 FR 69664 Eighth Meeting, Montreal, February 1–12, 2010, (November 17, 2005). In addressing CO2 emissions, ICAO CAEP/8–WP/80 Available in Docket EPA–HQ– 38 U.S. EPA, 2012: Control of Air Pollution from adopted an approach that measures the OAR–2010–0687. Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards fuel efficiency from the perspective of 28 ICAO, 2017: Aircraft Engine Emissions, and Test Procedures; Final Rule, 77 FR 36342 (June International Standards and Recommended 18, 2012). whole airplane design—an airframe and Practices, Environmental Protection, Annex 16, 39 While ICAO’s standards were not limited to engine combination. Specifically, ICAO Volume II, Fourth Edition, July 2017, Amendment ‘‘commercial’’ airplane engines, our 1997 standards adopted CO2 emissions test procedures 9, 174 pp. CAEP/8 corresponds to Amendment 7 were explicitly limited to commercial engines, as based on measuring the performance of effective on July 18, 2011. Available at https:// our finding that NOX and carbon monoxide the whole airplane rather than the www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx emissions from airplane engines cause or contribute (last accessed March 16, 2020). The ICAO Annex to air pollution which may reasonably be 16 Volume II is found on page 16 of the ICAO anticipated to endanger public health or welfare noncommercial civilian airplane and to bring our Products & Services English Edition 2020 catalog was so limited. See 62 FR 25358 (May 8, 1997). In standards into full alignment with ICAO’s. and is copyright protected; Order No. AN16–2. the 2012 rulemaking, we expanded the scope of that 40 U.S. EPA, 2015: Proposed Finding that 29 U.S. EPA, 1973: Emission Standards and Test finding and of our standards pursuant to CAA Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Aircraft Cause or Procedures for Aircraft; Final Rule, 38 FR 19088 section 231(a)(2)(A) to include such emissions from Contribute to Air Pollution that May Reasonably Be (July 17, 1973). both commercial and non-commercial airplane Anticipated to Endanger Public Health and Welfare 30 U.S. EPA, 1997: Control of Air Pollution from engines based on the physical and operational and Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards similarities between commercial and FR 37758 (July 1, 2015).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51562 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

airplane engines alone.41 The ICAO Accordingly, under section 231 of the respect to the same six well-mixed standards account for three factors: CAA, the EPA is proposing regulations GHGs—CO2, methane, N2O, Aerodynamics, airplane weight, and that are consistent with this approach. hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, engine propulsion technologies. These We are proposing GHG test procedures and sulfur hexafluoride—that together airplane performance characteristics that are the same as the ICAO CO2 test were defined as the air pollution in the determine the overall CO2 emissions. procedures. (See Section V.H for details 2009 Endangerment Finding under Rather than measuring a single chemical on the proposed test procedures.) section 202(a) of the CAA and that compound, the ICAO CO2 emissions test As stated earlier in Section II, section together were found to constitute the procedures measure fuel efficiency 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA directs the primary cause of climate change. based on how far an airplane can fly on Administrator of the EPA to, from time Second, the EPA found that emissions a single unit of fuel at the optimum to time, propose aircraft engine of those six well-mixed GHGs from cruise altitude and speed. emission standards applicable to the certain classes of engines used in certain The three factors—and technology emission of any air pollutant from aircraft 46 cause or contribute to the air categories that improve these factors— classes of aircraft engines which in the pollution—the aggregate group of the are described as follows: 42 Administrator’s judgment causes or same six GHGs—that endangers public • Weight: Reducing basic airplane contributes to air pollution that may health and welfare under CAA section 43 weight via structural changes to reasonably be anticipated to endanger 231(a)(2)(A). increase the commercial payload or public health or welfare. For a standard The EPA identified U.S. covered extend range for the same amount of promulgated under CAA section thrust and fuel burn; 231(a)(2)(A) to be ‘‘applicable to’’ aircraft as subsonic jet aircraft with a • Propulsion (thermodynamic and emissions of air pollutants from aircraft maximum takeoff mass (MTOM) greater propulsion efficiency): Advancing the engines, it could take many forms and than 5,700 kilograms and subsonic overall specific performance of the include multiple elements in addition to propeller-driven (e.g., turboprop) engine, to reduce the fuel burn per unit a numeric permissible engine exhaust aircraft with a MTOM greater than 8,618 of delivered thrust; and rate. For example, EPA rules adopted kilograms. See Section V of this • Aerodynamic: Advancing the pursuant to CAA section 231 have proposed rule for examples of airplanes airplane aerodynamics to reduce drag addressed fuel venting to prevent the that correspond to the U.S. covered and its associated impacts on thrust. discharge of raw fuel from the engine aircraft identified in the 2016 47 As examples of technologies that and have adopted test procedures for Findings. The EPA did not at that time support addressing aircraft engine CO2 exhaust emission standards. See 40 CFR make findings regarding whether other emissions accounting for the airplane as part 87, subparts B and G. substances emitted from aircraft engines a whole, manufacturers have already Given both the absence of a statutory cause or contribute to air pollution achieved significant weight reduction directive on what form a CAA section which may reasonably be anticipated to with the introduction of advanced 231 standard must take (in contrast to, endanger public health or welfare. The alloys and composite materials and for example, CAA section 129(a)(4), EPA also did not make a cause or lighter weight control systems (e.g., fly- which requires numerical emissions contribute finding regarding GHG by-wire) 44 and aerodynamic limitations for emissions of certain emissions from engines not used in U.S. improvements with advanced wingtip pollutants from solid waste incinerators) covered aircraft (i.e., those used in devices such as winglets. and the D.C. Circuit’s 2007 NACAA smaller turboprops, smaller jet aircraft, The EPA agrees with ICAO’s approach ruling that section 231 of the CAA piston-engine aircraft, helicopters and to measure the fuel efficiency based on confers an unusually broad degree of military aircraft). the performance of the whole airplane. discretion on the EPA in establishing The EPA explained that the collective airplane engine emission standards, the GHG emissions from the classes of 41 ICAO, 2016: Report of Tenth Meeting, EPA proposes to control GHG emissions Montreal, 1–12 February 2016, Committee on engines used in U.S. covered aircraft Aviation Environmental Protection, Document in a manner identical to how ICAO’s contribute to the national GHG emission 10069, 432pp. Available at: https://www.icao.int/ standards control CO2 emissions—with inventories 48 and estimated global GHG publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed a fuel efficiency standard based on the March 16, 2020). ICAO Document 10069 is found characteristics of the whole airplane. on page 27 of the ICAO Products & Services English 46 Certain aircraft in this context are referred to Edition 2020 Catalog, and it is copyright protected; While this proposed standard interchangeably as ‘‘covered airplanes,’’ ‘‘US Order No. 10069. See Appendix C (starting on page incorporates characteristics of airplane covered airplanes,’’ or airplanes throughout this 5C–1) of this report. design as adopted by ICAO, the EPA is notice of proposed rulemaking. 42 ICAO, Environmental Report 2010—Aviation not asserting independent regulatory 47 81 FR 54423, August 15, 2016. 48 and Climate Change, 2010, which is located at authority over airplane design. In 2014, classes of engines used in U.S. covered http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/ airplanes contribute to domestic GHG inventories as Pages/EnvReport10.aspx (last accessed March 16, III. Summary of the 2016 Findings follows: 10 percent of all U.S. transportation GHG 2020). emissions, representing 2.8 percent of total U.S. 45 43 Although weight reducing technologies affect On August 15, 2016, the EPA issued emissions. fuel burn, they do not affect the metric value for the two findings regarding GHG emissions U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas proposed GHG standard. The standard is a function from aircraft engines. First, the EPA Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air of maximum takeoff mass (MTOM). Reductions in Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To airplane empty weight (excluding usable fuel and found that elevated concentrations of Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 the payload) can be canceled out or diminished by GHGs in the atmosphere endanger the FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). a corresponding increase in payload, fuel, or both— public health and welfare of current and U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse when MTOM is kept constant. Section V and VII future generations within the meaning Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp., provide a further description of the metric value of section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. The U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R– and the effects of weight reducing technologies. 16–002, April 2016. Available at: https:// 44 Fly-by-wire refers to a system which transmits EPA made this finding specifically with www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- signals from the cockpit to the airplane’s control greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 surfaces electronically rather than mechanically. 45 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas (last accessed March 16, 2020). AirlineRatings.com, Available at https:// Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions www.airlineratings.com/did-you-know/what-does- Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2 Standard the-term-fly-by-wire-mean/ (last accessed on March Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract Number 16, 2020). FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). EP–D–11–006, 38 pp.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51563

49 50 51 52 emissions. The 2016 Findings CO2 and N2O, are emitted from covered The states and environmental accounted for the majority (89 percent) aircraft. CO2 represents 99 percent of all organizations commented that the U.S. of total U.S. aircraft GHG emissions.53 54 GHGs emitted from both total U.S. aircraft sector is the single largest GHG As explained in the 2016 Findings,55 aircraft and U.S. covered aircraft, and emissions source yet to be regulated only two of the six well-mixed GHGs, N2O represents 1 percent of GHGs among the domestic transportation emitted from total U.S. aircraft and U.S. sectors. They indicated that the EPA 49 In 2010, classes of engines used in U.S. covered covered aircraft.56 Modern aircraft are should adopt airplane GHG emission airplanes contribute to global GHG inventories as overall consumers of methane.57 follows: 26 percent of total global airplane GHG standards that materially reduce GHG emissions, representing 2.7 percent of total global Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, emissions from the U.S. airplane sector transportation emissions and 0.4 percent of all and sulfur hexafluoride are not products in the near- to mid-term, beyond the global GHG emissions. of aircraft engine fuel combustion. expected ‘‘business-as-usual’’ U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas (Section V.I discusses controlling two of Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air improvement absent GHG emission Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To the six well-mixed GHGs—CO2 and standards. These commenters stated that Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 N2O— in the context of the details of the the airplane GHG emission standards FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). proposed rule.) should be technology-forcing standards. U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp., IV. Summary of Advance Notice of The airplane manufacturers, aircraft U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R– Proposed Rulemaking and Comments engine manufacturers, and airlines 16–002, April 2016. Available at: https:// Received commented that the U.S. should adopt www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- airplane GHG emission standards that greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 A. Summary (last accessed March 16, 2020). are equivalent to ICAO/CAEP’s ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions As described earlier in Section II, the standards. These commenters indicated Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2 Standard 2015 ANPR 58 discussed the issues that aviation is a global industry which Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract Number arising from the ICAO/CAEP requires common, world-wide EP–D–11–006, 38 pp. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of proceedings for the international standards. Airplanes are uniquely Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. The mobile assets that are designed to fly to the Fifth Assessment Report of the ANPR requested public comment on a anywhere in the world, and consistency Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change variety of issues to help ensure amongst national rules makes sure there [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, transparency and to obtain views on is a level playing field globally for the S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. airplane engine GHG emission aviation industry. In addition, they Savolainen, S. Schlo¨mer, C. von Stechow, T. standards that the EPA might asserted that the CAEP terms of Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 1435 pp. potentially adopt under the CAA section reference for adopting airplane emission 50 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 231. This section provides a summary of standards (which include technical Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp., the ANPR comments that the EPA feasibility, environmental benefit, and U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R– received in 2015. economic reasonableness 59), as 16–002, April 2016. Available at: https:// All major stakeholders (airplane www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- described earlier in Section II.D.1, line greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 manufacturers, engine manufacturers, up with the criteria for adopting such (last accessed March 16, 2020). airlines, states, and environmental standards under section 231 of the CAA. 51 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of organizations) expressed their support Therefore, the U.S. should align with Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III for the United States’ efforts in ICAO/ to the Fifth Assessment Report of the those terms and criteria in continuing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change CAEP for the adoption of the their efforts in the ICAO/CAEP [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. international Airplane CO2 Emission proceedings and in subsequently Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, Standards, as well as the subsequent adopting the ICAO/CAEP Airplane CO2 S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. EPA adoption of a domestic GHG Savolainen, S. Schlo¨mer, C. von Stechow, T. Emission Standards domestically. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University standard. All of the comments received on the Press, 1435 pp. 2015 ANPR are located in the docket for 52 The domestic inventory comparisons are for Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To the 2016 Findings under Docket ID No. the year 2014, and global inventory comparisons are Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 for the year 2010. The rationale for the different FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0828. See the years is described in section V.B.4 of the 2016 56 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas ANPR phase of that docket. Findings, 81 FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air 53 Covered U.S. aircraft GHG emissions in the Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To V. Details for the Proposed Rule 2016 Findings were from airplanes that operate in Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 and from the U.S. and thus contribute to emissions FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). For the proposed rule, this section in the U.S. This includes emissions from U.S. U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse describes the fuel efficiency metric that domestic flights, and emissions from U.S. Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp., would be used as a measure of airplane international bunker flights (emissions from the U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R– GHG emissions, the size and types of combustion of fuel used by airplanes departing the 16–002, April 2016. Available at: https:// U.S., regardless of whether they are a U.S. flagged www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- airplanes that would be affected, the carrier—also described as emissions from greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 emissions levels, the applicable test combustion of U.S. international bunker fuels). For (last accessed March 16, 2020). procedures, and the associated reporting example, a flight departing Los Angeles and ERG, 2015: U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions requirements. As explained earlier in arriving in Tokyo, regardless of whether it is a U.S. Inventory for Aircraft Below ICAO CO2 Standard flagged carrier, is considered a U.S. international Thresholds, Final Report, EPA Contract Number bunker flight. A flight from London to Hong Kong EP–D–11–006, 38 pp. 59 CAEP’s terms of reference indicate that is not. 57 Methane emissions are no longer considered to ‘‘CAEP’s assessments and proposals are pursued 54 U.S. EPA, 2016: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse be emitted from aircraft gas turbine engines burning taking into account: technical feasibility; Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, 1,052 pp., jet fuel A at higher power settings. Modern aircraft environmental benefit; economic reasonableness; U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R– jet engines are typically net consumers of methane interdependencies of measures (for example, among 16–002, April 2016. Available at: https:// (Santoni et al. 2011). Methane is emitted at low others, measures taken to minimize noise and www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- power and idle operation, but at higher power emissions); developments in other fields; and greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2014 modes aircraft engines consume methane. Over the international and national programs.’’ ICAO: CAEP (last accessed March 16, 2020). range of engine operating modes, aircraft engines Terms of Reference. Available at http:// 55 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas are net consumers of methane on average. www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/ Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air 58 80 FR 37758 (July 1, 2015). Caep.aspx#ToR (last accessed March 16, 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51564 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Section III and in the 2016 Findings,60 FAA’s engagement in ICAO to establish differentiating from the international only two of the six well-mixed GHGs— an international CO2 standard and standards and disrupting international CO2 and N2O—are emitted from covered EPA’s potential use of section 231 to harmonization. ICAO intentionally aircraft. Both CO2 and N2O emissions adopt corresponding airplane GHG established its standards at a level scale with fuel burn, thus allowing them emissions standards domestically. This which is technology following, to to be controlled through fuel efficiency. proposed rulemaking continues this adhere to its definition of technical We are proposing that the GHG statutory paradigm. feasibility that is meant to consider the emission regulations for this proposed The proposed rule, if adopted, would emissions performance of in-production facilitate the acceptance of U.S. rule would be specified in a new part in and in-development airplanes, manufactured airplanes and airplane title 40 of the CFR—40 CFR part 1030. including types that would first enter engines by member States and airlines The existing aircraft engine regulations into service by about 2020. Thus, the applicable to HC, NO , CO, and smoke around the world. We anticipate U.S. X additional emission reductions would remain in 40 CFR part 87. manufacturers would be at a significant In order to promote international competitive disadvantage if the U.S. associated with the more stringent harmonization of aviation standards and fails to adopt standards that are aligned alternatives are relatively small because to avoid placing U.S. manufacturers at with the ICAO standards for CO2 all but one of the affected airplanes a competitive disadvantage that likely emissions. Member States may ban the either meet the stringency levels or are would result if EPA were to adopt use of any airplane within their airspace expected to go out of production by the standards different from the standards that does not meet ICAO standards.63 If effective dates. In addition, requiring adopted by ICAO, the EPA is proposing the EPA were to adopt no standards or U.S. manufacturers to certify to a to adopt standards for GHG emissions standards that were not as stringent as different standard than has been from certain classes of engines used on ICAO’s standards, U.S. civil airplane adopted internationally (even one more airplanes that match the scope, manufacturers could be forced to seek stringent) could have disruptive effects stringency, and timing of the CO2 CO2 emissions certification from an on manufacturers’ ability to market standards adopted by ICAO. The EPA aviation certification authority of planes for international operation. and the FAA worked within ICAO to another country (other than the FAA) in Consequently, the EPA is not proposing order to market their airplanes for help establish the international CO2 either of these alternatives. emission standards, which under the international operation. Chicago Convention individual member Having invested significant effort and A. Airplane Fuel Efficiency Metric States then adopt into domestic law and resources, working with FAA and the Department of State, to gain For the international Airplane CO2 regulations in order to implement and Emission Standards, ICAO developed a enforce them against subject international consensus to adopt the metric system to allow the comparison manufacturers. A member State that first-ever CO2 standards for airplanes, of a wide range of subsonic airplane adopts domestic regulations differing the EPA believes that meeting the types, designs, technology, and uses. from the international standard—in United States’ obligations under the either scope, stringency or timing—is Chicago Convention by aligning While ICAO calls this a CO2 emissions obligated to notify ICAO of the domestic standards with the ICAO metric, it is a measure of fuel efficiency, differences between its domestic standards, rather than adopting more which is directly related to CO2 emitted stringent standards, will have regulations and the ICAO standards.61 by aircraft engines. The ICAO metric Under the longstanding EPA and FAA substantial benefits for future system was designed to differentiate rulemaking approach to regulate international cooperation on airplane between fuel-efficiency technologies of airplane emissions, international emission standards, and such airplanes and to equitably capture cooperation is the key for achieving emission standards have been adopted improvements in propulsive and worldwide emission reductions. by ICAO, with significant involvement aerodynamic technologies that Nonetheless, the EPA also analyzed the from the FAA and the EPA, and contribute to a reduction in the airplane impacts of two more stringent subsequently the EPA has undertaken CO emissions. In addition, the alternatives, and the results of our 2 rulemakings under CAA section 231 to analyses are described in chapters 4, 5, international metric system establish domestic standards that are the and 6 of the Draft Technical Support accommodates a wide range of same as or at least as stringent as ICAO’s Document (TSD) which can be found in technologies and designs that standards. Then, CAA section 232 the docket for this rulemaking. The manufacturers may choose to requires the FAA to issue regulations to analyses show that one alternative implement to reduce CO2 emissions ensure compliance with the EPA would result in limited additional costs, from their airplanes. However, because standards. In 2015, EPA issued an but no additional GHG emission of an inability to define a standardized advance notice of proposed reductions compared to the proposed empty weight across manufacturers and rulemaking 62 which noted EPA and standards. The other alternative would types of airplanes, the metric is based have further limited additional costs on the MTOM of the airplane. This 60 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air and some additional GHG emission metric does not directly reward weight Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To reductions compared to the proposed reduction technologies because the Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 standards, but the additional emission MTOM of an airplane will not be FR 54422 (August 15, 2016). reductions are relatively small from this reduced when weight reduction 61 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil Aviation, Article 38, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/ alternative and do not justify technologies are applied so that cargo 9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ carrying capacity or range can be publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf (last Rulemaking; Proposed Rule, 80 FR 37758 (July 1, increased. Further, while weight accessed March 16, 2020). 2015). 62 U.S. EPA, 2015: Proposed Finding That 63 ICAO, 2006: Convention on International Civil reduction technologies can be used to Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Aviation, Article 33, Ninth Edition, Document 7300/ improve airplane fuel efficiency, they Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be 9, 114 pp. Available at http://www.icao.int/ may also be used to allow increases in Anticipated To Endanger Public Health and publications/Documents/7300_9ed.pdf(last Welfare and Advance Notice of Proposed accessed March 16, 2020).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51565

payload,64 equipage, and fuel load.65 efficiency, this improvement in The ICAO metric system consists of a Thus, even though weight reducing efficiency frequently would not be CO2 emissions metric (Equation V–1) technologies increase the airplane fuel reflected in operation. and a correlating parameter.66

71 The ICAO CO2 emissions metric uses certificated reference point to compare to civil supersonic airplanes. Through an average of three Specific Air Range airplanes. In this action, we propose to this action, as described earlier in (SAR) test points that is normalized by use MTOM as the correlating parameter Section II, the EPA is fully discharging a geometric factor representing the as well. its obligations under the CAA that were physical size of an airplane. SAR is a We are proposing to adopt ICAO’s triggered by the 2016 Findings. Once measure of airplane cruise performance, airplane CO2 emissions metric (shown EPA and FAA fully promulgate the which measures the distance an in Equation V–1) as the measure of airplane GHG emission standards airplane can travel on a unit of fuel. airplane fuel efficiency as a surrogate for domestically, the United States Here the inverse of SAR is used (1/ GHG emissions from covered airplanes regulations will align with ICAO Annex SAR), which has the units of kilograms (hereafter known as the ‘‘fuel efficiency 16 standards. of fuel burned per kilometer of flight; metric’’ or ‘‘fuel burn metric’’). This is Examples of covered airplanes under therefore, a lower metric value because the fuel efficiency metric the proposed GHG rules include smaller represents a lower level of airplane CO2 controls emissions of both CO2 and N2O, civil jet airplanes such as the Cessna emissions (i.e., better fuel efficiency). the only two GHG emitted by airplane Citation CJ3+, up to and including the The SAR data are measured at three engines (see Section V.I for further largest commercial jet airplanes—the gross weight points used to represent a information). Consistent with ICAO, we Boeing 777 and the Boeing 747. Other range of day-to-day airplane operations are also proposing to adopt MTOM as a examples of covered airplanes include 67 (at cruise). correlating parameter to be used when larger civil turboprop airplanes, such as (1/SAR) 68 is calculated at 3 gross avg setting emissions limits. the ATR 72 and the Viking Q400.72 73 weight fractions of Maximum Take Off The proposed GHG rules would not Mass (MTOM): 69 B. Covered Airplane Types and • High gross mass: 92% MTOM Applicability apply to smaller civil jet airplanes (e.g., • Cessna Citation M2), smaller civil Mid gross mass: Average of high 1. Maximum Takeoff Mass Thresholds gross mass and low gross mass turboprop airplanes (e.g., Beechcraft • Low gross mass: (0.45 * MTOM) + The proposed GHG rule would apply King Air 350i), piston-engine airplanes, (0.63 * (MTOM∧0.924)) to civil subsonic jet airplanes (turbojet helicopters, and military airplanes. The Reference Geometric Factor (RGF) or turbofan airplanes) with certificated 2. Applicability is a non-dimensional measure of the MTOM over 5,700 kg (12,566 lbs.) and fuselage size of an airplane normalized propeller-driven civil airplanes The proposed rule would apply to all by 1 square meter, generally considered (turboprop airplanes) over 8,618 kg covered airplanes, in-production and to be the shadow area of the airplane’s (19,000 lbs.). These applicability criteria new type designs, produced after the pressurized passenger compartment.70 are the same as those in the ICAO respective effective dates of the When the ICAO CO2 emissions metric Airplane CO2 Emission Standards and standards except as provided in V.B.3. is correlated against MTOM, it has a correspond to the scope of the 2016 There are different regulatory emissions positive slope. The international Findings. The applicability of the levels and/or applicability dates Airplane CO2 Emission Standards use proposed rule is limited to civil depending on whether the covered the MTOM of the airplane as an already subsonic airplanes and does not extend airplane is in-production before the

64 Payload is the weight of passengers, baggage, https://www.icao.int/publications/Pages/ 71 Currently, civilian supersonic airplanes are not and cargo. catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, 2020). The in operation. The international standard did not FAA Airplane Weight & Balance Handbook ICAO Report of the Tenth Meeting report is found consider the inclusion of supersonic airplanes in (Chapter 9, page 9–10, file page 82) https:// on page 27 of the ICAO Products & Services English the standard. More recently, there has been Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_ renewed interest in the development of civilian manuals/aviation/media/FAA-H-8083-1.pdf (x)(last Order No. 10069. 68 supersonic airplanes. This has caused ICAO to accessed on March 16, 2020). Avg means average. 69 begin considering how existing emission standards 65 Annex 16 Vol. III Part II Chapter 2 sec. 2.3. ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology ICAO, 2017: Annex 16 Volume III—Environmental should be revised for new supersonic airplanes. The Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final US is involved in these discussions and at this Report, EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, Protection—Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/ point plans to work with ICAO to develop emission September 30, 2018. publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed standards on the international stage prior to 66 Annex 16 Volume III Part II Chapter 2 sec. 2.2. July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is adopting them domestically. ICAO, 2017: Annex 16 Volume III—Environmental found on page 16 of English Edition 2020 catalog 72 This was previously owned by Bombardier and Protection—Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First and is copyright protected; Order No. AN 16–3. was sold to Viking in 2018, November 8, 2018 Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/ 70 Annex 16 Vol. III Appendix 2. ICAO, 2017: (Forbes). publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed Annex 16 Volume III—Environmental Protection— 73 It should be noted that there are no US July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. found on page 16 of English Edition 2020 catalog Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ domestic manufacturers that produce turboprops and is copyright protected; Order No. AN 16–3. Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed July 15, 2020). that meet the MTOM thresholds. These airplanes 67 . ICAO, 2016: Tenth Meeting Committee on The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is found on page are given as examples but will be expected to be Aviation Environmental Protection Report, Doc 16 of English Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright certificated by their national aviation certification 10069, CAEP/10, 432 pp, AN/192, Available at: protected; Order No. AN 16–3. authority.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.000 51566 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

applicability date or is a new type The EPA requests comments on Max, Airbus 320 Neo, Airbus A330 Neo, design. proposed exceptions for specialized and Boeing 777–X). As with a previous The proposed in-production operational requirements. Some series of redesigns, which included the standards would only be applicable to exceptions are based on the use of the Boeing 777–200LR in 2004, 777–300ER previously type certificated airplanes, airplane after civil certification (e.g., use in 2006, Airbus 319 in 1996, and Airbus newly-built on or after the applicability for firefighting). The EPA requests 330–200 in 1998, incremental date (described in V.D.1), and would not comment on the proposed definitions of improvements are expected to continue apply retroactively to airplanes that are these excepted airplanes. to be more frequent than major design already in-service. 4. New Airplane Types and In- changes over the next decade— following these more recent major 3. Exceptions Production Airplane Designations programs.80 81 Consistent with the applicability of The proposed rule recognizes New type designs are infrequent, and the ICAO standards, the EPA is differences between previously type it is not unusual for new type designs proposing applicability language that certificated airplanes that are in to take 8–10 years to develop, from excepts the following airplanes: production and new type designs preliminary design to entry into Amphibious airplanes, airplanes presented for original certification. service.82 The most recent new type • initially designed or modified and used In-production airplanes: Those designs introduced in service were the for specialized operational airplane types which have already Airbus A350 in 2015,83 the Airbus A220 requirements, airplanes designed with received a Type Certificate 77 from the (formerly known as the Bombardier C- an RGF of zero,74 and those airplanes FAA, and for which manufacturers Series) in 2016,84 and the Boeing 787 in specifically designed or modified and either have existing undelivered sales 2011.85 86 However, it is unlikely more used for fire-fighting purposes. orders or would be willing and able to than one new type design will be Airplanes in these categories proposed accept new sales orders. The term can presented for certification in the next to be excepted are generally designed or also apply to the individual airplane ten years.87 New type designs (and some modified in such a way that their manufactured according to the approved redesigns) typically yield large fuel burn designs are well outside of the design design Type Certificate, and for which reductions—10 percent to 20 percent space of typical passenger or freight an Airworthiness Certificate is required over the prior generation they replace carrying airplanes. For example, before the airplane is permitted to (considered a step-change in fuel burn amphibious airplanes are by necessity operate.78 79 • improvement). As one might expect, designed with fuselages that resemble New type designs: Airplane types these significant fuel burn reductions do boats as much as airplanes. As such, for which original certification is not happen frequently. Also, airplane their aerodynamic efficiency applied for (to the FAA) on or after the development programs are expensive.88 characteristics fall well outside of the compliance date of a rule, and which have never been manufactured prior to 80 range of airplanes used in developing ICF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO2- the compliance date of a rule. the ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Reducing Technologies for Airplane, Final Report, Certificated designs may subsequently EPA Contract Number EP–C–12–011, March 17, Standards and our proposed GHG rules. 2015. Airplanes designed or modified for undergo design changes such as new wings, engines, or other modifications 81 Insofar as we are going through a wave of major specialized operational requirements redesign and service entry now, prospects for could include a wide range of activities, that would require changes to the type further step-function improvements will be low in but all of them require performance that certificated design. These modifications the coming 10–15 years. (ICF International, CO2 was outside of the scope considered happen more frequently than the Analysis of CO2-Reducing Technologies for application for a new type design. For Airplane, Final Report, EPA Contract Number EP– during the development of the ICAO C–12–011, March 17, 2015.) example, a number of airplanes have 82 standards. Such airplanes could include ICF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO2- • airplanes that required capacity to undergone significant design changes Reducing Technologies for Airplane, Final Report, carry cargo that is not possible by using (including the Boeing 747–8, Boeing 737 EPA Contract Number EP–C–12–011, March 17, 2015. less specialized airplanes (e.g. civil 83 The Airbus A350 was announced in 2006 and 75 77 A Type Certificate is a design approval variants of military transports); received its type certification in 2014. The first • whereby the FAA ensures that the manufacturer’s airplanes that required capacity for designs meet the minimum requirements for model, the A350–900 entered service with Qatar very short or vertical take-offs and airplane safety and environmental regulations. Airways in 2015. landings; According to ICAO Cir 337, a Type Certificate is 84 The Bombardier C-series was announced in • ‘‘[a] document issued by a Contracting State to 2005 and received its type certification in 2015. The airplanes that required capacity to first model, the C100 entered service with Swiss 76 define the design of an airplane type and to certify conduct scientific, research, or that this design meets the appropriate airworthiness Global Air Lines in 2016. humanitarian missions exclusive of requirements of that State.’’ A Type Certificate is 85 Boeing, 2011: Boeing Unveils First 787 to Enter commercial service; or issued once for each new type design airplane, and Service for Japan Airlines, December 14. Available • airplanes that required similar modified as an airplane design is changed over the at http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-12-14- Boeing-Unveils-First-787-to-Enter-Service-for-Japan- factors. course of its production life. 78 ICAO, 2016: Tenth Meeting Committee on Airlines (last accessed March 16, 2020). 86 Aviation Environmental Protection Report, Doc ICF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO2- 74 RGF refers to the pressurized compartment of 10069, CAEP/10, 432 pp, AN/192, Available at: Reducing Technologies for Airplane, Final Report, an airplane, generally meant for passengers and/or http://www.icao.int/publications/Pages/ EPA Contract Number EP–C–12–011, March 17, cargo. If an airplane is unpressurized, the calculated catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, 2020). The 2015. RGF of the airplane would be zero (0). These ICAO Report of the Tenth Meeting report is found 87 Ibid. airplanes are very rare, and the few that are in on page 27 of the ICAO Products & Services English 88 Analysts estimate a new single aisle airplane service are used for special missions. An example Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; would have cost $10–12 billion to develop. The is Boeing’s Dreamlifter. Order No. 10069. A380 and 787 are estimated to each have cost 75 This is not expected to include freight versions 79 In existing U.S. aviation emissions regulations, around $20 billion to develop; the A350 is of passenger airplanes such as the Boeing 767F, in-production means newly-manufactured or built estimated to have cost $15 billion, excluding engine Boeing 747–8F, or Airbus A330F. Rather, this is after the effective date of the regulations—and development. Due to the large development cost of intended to except airplanes such as the Lockheed already certificated to pre-existing rules. This is a totally new airplane design, manufacturers are L–100. similar to the current ICAO definition for in- opting to re-wing or re-engine their airplane. Boeing 76 For example, the NASA SOFIA airborne production airplane types for purposes of the is said to have budgeted $5 billion for the re-wing astronomical observatory. international CO2 standard. of the 777, and Airbus and Boeing have budgeted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51567

At ICAO, the difference between in- Technology Response for more January 1, 2020, no manufacturer would production airplanes and new type information on this). currently need to amend any already designs has been used to differentiate To set standards at levels that submitted application to address the two different pathways by which fuel appropriately reflect the feasibility to GHG standards. Neither the EPA nor the efficiency technologies can be incorporate technology and lead time, FAA is aware of any anticipated original introduced into civil airplane designs. the level and timing of the proposed new type design application expected to When a new requirement is applied to standards would be different for in- be submitted before the EPA’s standards an in-production airplane, there may be production airplanes and new type are promulgated and effective that a real and immediate effect on the designs. This is discussed further in would need amendment to reflect the manufacturer’s ability to continue to Sections V.C and V.D below, describing GHG standards. Therefore, no airplane build and deliver it in its certificated standards for new type designs and in- manufacturer is expected to be design configuration and to make production airplanes, and Section VII, adversely affected by adoption of the business decisions regarding future discussing the technology response. same applicability dates as ICAO’s production of that design configuration. applicability dates for new type design Manufacturers need sufficient notice to C. GHG Standard for New Type Designs certification applications, including the make design modifications that allow 1. Applicability Dates for New Type January 1, 2020, date. for compliance and to have those Designs The EPA recognizes that new modifications certificated by their regulatory requirements have differing The EPA is proposing that the GHG certification authorities. In the United impacts on items that are already in States, applying a new requirement to standards would apply to the same production and those yet to be built. an in-production airplane means that a airplanes as those identified as within Airplane designs that have yet to newly produced airplane subject to this the scope of the international standards undergo original type certification can rule that does not meet the GHG adopted by ICAO in 2017, in terms of more easily be adapted for new standards would likely be denied an maximum take-off weight thresholds, regulatory requirements, compared with airworthiness certificate after January 1, passenger capacity, and reference to airplanes already being produced 2028. As noted above in V.B.2, in- dates of applications for original type subject to older, existing design service airplanes are not subject to the certificates. In this way, EPA’s standards standards. The agency has experience would align with ICAO’s in defining ICAO CO2 standards and likewise adopting regulations that acknowledge would not be subject to these proposed those airplanes that will become subject these differences, such as in issuing GHG standards. to our standards. Consequently, for emission standards for stationary For new type designs, this proposed subsonic jet airplanes over 5,700 kg sources of hazardous air pollutants rule would have no immediate effect on MTOM and certificated with more than (which often impose more stringent airplane production or certification for 19 passenger seats, and for turboprop standards for new sources, defined the manufacturer. The standards that a airplanes over 8,618 kg MTOM, the based on dates that precede dates of new type design must meet are those in proposed regulations would apply to all final rule promulgation, than for effect when the manufacturer applies for airplanes for which application for an existing sources). See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. type certification. The applicable design original type certificate is made to the 7412(a)(4), defining ‘‘new source’’ to standards at the time of application FAA on or after January 1, 2020. For mean a stationary source the remain frozen over the typical 5-year subsonic jet airplanes over 5,700 kg construction or reconstruction of which time frame provided for completing the MTOM with 19 passenger seats or is commenced after the EPA proposes type certification process. Because of fewer, the proposed regulations would regulations establishing an emission the investments and resources necessary apply to all airplanes for which an standard. In addition, the EPA has to develop a new type design, original type certification application previously, for the Tier 4 NOX aircraft manufacturers have indicated that it is was made to the FAA on or after January engine standards, defined the scope of important to have knowledge of the 1, 2023. aircraft engines that were to become level of future standards at least 8 years Consistency with international subject to the standards based on a date in advance of any new type design standards is important for that preceded the effective date of the entering service.89 Because standards manufacturers, as they noted in final standards, while at the same time are known early in the design and comments to our ANPR in 2017, and to providing that the standards applied as certification process, there is more propose criteria to identify those prescribed after the effective date of the flexibility in how and what technology airplanes to be covered by our standards rule. See, e.g., 40 CFR 87.23(d)(1)(vi) can be incorporated into a new type that differ from those covered by ICAO’s and (vii). design. (See Section VII describing the standards—either in terms of maximum Here, the U.S. airplane manufacturers take-off mass, passenger capacity, or that would be subject to these GHG $1–2 billion each for the re-engine of the A320 and dates of applications for new original standards participated in the the 737, respectively (excluding engine type certificates—would not be development of them at ICAO and have development costs). Embraer has publicly stated expected by airplane manufacturers and been aware of and supported ICAO’s use that it will need to spend $1–2 billion to re-wing engine manufacturers, and would of the January 1, 2020, date for new type the EMB–175 and variants. (ICF International, CO2 Analysis of CO2-Reducing Technologies for introduce unnecessary uncertainty into design certificate applications as Airplane, Final Report, EPA Contract Number EP– the airplane type certification process. triggering applicability of the C–12–011, March 17, 2015.) The EPA understands that by international standards, knowing for 89 ICAO policy is that the compliance date of an adopting the same effective date as several years that any as-yet emissions standard must be at least 3 years after it has been agreed to by CAEP. Adding in the 5-year ICAO, January 1, 2020, for defining undetermined new designs would have certification window, this means that the level of those type certification applications to comply with the international the standard can be known 8 years prior to entry subject to the standards, we are standards in order to be marketable into service date for a new type design. employing a date that has already internationally. Consequently, EPA Manufacturers also have significant involvement in the standard development process at ICAO, which passed. Since no airplane manufacturer proposes that adoption of the January 1, begins at least 3 years before any new standard is has in fact yet submitted an application 2020, date to define which future new agreed to. for a new type design certification since type design certification applications

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51568 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

would need to meet the GHG standards need for the United States to file a would be a function of the airplane is reasonable and in harmony with the difference with ICAO as would be certificated MTOM and consist of three 2017 ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission required under the Chicago Convention. levels described below in Equation V– Standards. Adoption of the same dates 90 2. Regulatory Limit for New Type 2, Equation V–3, and Equation V–4. for new type design certification Designs applications, as well as for maximum take-off mass thresholds and passenger The EPA proposes that the GHG capacity cutoffs, will also prevent any emissions limit for new type designs

Figure V–1 and Figure V–2 show the segments of the limit line. These plots rules. (See Section VI and VII for more numerical limits of the proposed new below show the airplane fuel efficiency information about this.) These proposed 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 VI and VII This includes all anticipated/modeled limits of the ICAO Airplane CO2 relate to this limit. Figure V–2 shows technology responses, improvements, Emission Standards. only the lower MTOM range of Figure and production assumptions in V–1 to better show the first two response to the market and the proposed

90 Annex 16 Vol. III Part II Chapter 2 sec. 2.4.2 Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http:// Volume III is found on page 16 of English Edition (a), (b), and (c). ICAO, 2017: Annex 16 Volume III— www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. Environmental Protection—Aeroplane CO2 (last accessed July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 AN 16–3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.001 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51569

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.002 51570 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

When 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 95).96 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). passenger seats or fewer have additional differences between large and small Looking at the dataset, there was economic challenges to technology airplanes. Airplanes with an MTOM less originally a gap in the data at 60 tons.94 development compared with similar 91 than 60 tons are either business jets or This natural gap allowed a ‘‘kink’’ point sized commercial airplanes. ICAO regional jets. The physical size of (i.e., change in the slope of the proposed sought to reduce the burden on smaller airplanes presents scaling standard) to be established between manufacturers of airplanes with 19 seats challenges that limit technology larger commercial airplanes and smaller or fewer, and thus ICAO agreed to delay improvements that can readily be made business jets and regional jets. The the applicability of the new type designs on larger airplanes.92 This leads to for 3 years. In maintaining consistency requiring higher capital costs to introduction of this kink point provided flexibility at ICAO to consider standards with the international decision, the implement the technology relative to the applicability dates in this proposed rule at appropriate levels for airplanes above sale price of the airplanes.93 Business reflect this difference determined by and below 60 tons. jets (generally less than 60 tons MTOM) ICAO (see Section VII for further tend to operate at higher altitudes and The level proposed to apply to new information). faster speeds than larger commercial type designs was set to reflect the As described earlier 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 would facilitate the developing potential levels for the agreed to at ICAO, and the GHG acceptance of U.S. airplanes by member standards proposed here, are meant to States and airlines around the world, 91 In this rulemaking, 60 tons means 60 metric tons (or tonnes), which is equal to 60,000 kilograms be technology following standards. This and it would ensure that U.S. (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 95 In-development airplanes are airplanes that 92 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology were in-development when setting the standard at Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final ICAO but will be in production by the applicability Report, EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, dates. These could be new type designs (e.g. Airbus 94 Initial data that were reviewed at ICAO did not September 30, 2018. A350) or redesigned airplanes (e.g. Boeing 737Max). include data on the Bombardier C-Series airplane. 93 U.S., United States Position on the ICAO 96 Note: Figure V–1 and Figure V–2 show the Once data were provided for this airplane, it was Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standard, Montre´al, metric values used in the EPA modeling for this Canada, CAEP10 Meeting, February 1–12, 2016, determined by ICAO that while the airplane did action. These values differ from those used at ICAO. Presented by United States, CAEP/10–WP/59. cross the 60 tons kink point, this did not pose a The rationale for this difference is discussed below Available in the docket for this proposed problem for analyzing stringency options, because in section VII of this proposed rule, and in chapter rulemaking, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0276. the airplane passes all options considered. 2 of the Draft TSD.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.003 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51571

manufacturers would not be at a i. Changes for Non-GHG Certificated Value would not be required to comply competitive disadvantage compared Airplane Types with this GHG rule at the time of that with their international competitors. After January 1, 2023, and until change. Manufacturers may seek to Consistency with the international January 1, 2028, an applicant that certificate any airplane to this standard, standards would also place an anti- submits a modification to the type even if the criteria do not require backsliding cap on future emissions of design of a non-GHG certificated compliance. airplanes by ensuring that all new type airplane that increases the Metric Value As an example, if a manufacturer design airplanes are at least as efficient of the airplane 97 would be required to chooses to shorten the fuselage of a type as today’s airplanes. demonstrate compliance with the in- certificated airplane, such action would The EPA requests comment on all production rule. This proposed earlier not automatically trigger the aspects of the proposed new type design applicability date for in-production requirement to certify to the in- rule, including the level of the standard, airplanes, of January 1, 2023, is the production GHG rule. The fuselage timing, and differentiation between same as that adopted by ICAO and is shortening of a certificated type design airplane categories. similarly designed to capture would not be expected to adversely modifications to the type design of a affect the metric value, nor would it be D. GHG Standard for In-Production non-GHG certificated airplanes newly expected to increase the certificated Airplane Types manufactured prior to the January 1, MTOM. Again, a manufacturer may 1. Applicability Dates for In-Production 2028, production cut-off date. The choose to recertificate this change in Airplane Types January 1, 2028 production cut-off date type design for GHG compliance. was introduced by ICAO as an anti- This earlier effective date for in- The EPA is proposing the same backsliding measure that gives notice to production airplanes is expected to help compliance dates for the proposed GHG manufacturers that non-compliant encourage some earlier compliance for rule as those adopted by ICAO for its airplanes will not receive airworthiness new airplanes. However, it is expected CO2 emission standards. Section V.D.2 certification after this date. that manufacturers would likely below describes the rationale for these An application for certification of a volunteer to certify to the in-production proposed dates and the time provided to modified airplane on or after January 1, rule when applying to the FAA for these in-production types. 2023, would trigger compliance with the types of changes. All airplanes type certificated prior to in-production GHG emissions limit 2. Regulatory Limit for In-Production January 1, 2020, and newly built after provided that the airplane’s GHG Type Designs January 1, 2028, would be required to emissions metric value for the modified comply with the proposed in- version increases by more than 1.5 The EPA proposes that the emissions production rule. This proposed GHG percent from the prior version of the limit for in-production airplanes be a regulation would function as a airplane. As with changes to GHG function of airplane certificated MTOM production cutoff for airplanes that do certificated airplanes, introduction of a and consist of three MTOM ranges as not meet the fuel efficiency levels modification that does not adversely described below in Equation V–5, described below. affect the airplane fuel efficiency Metric Equation V–6, and Equation V–7.98

Figure V–3 and Figure V–4 show the production rules and the relationship of VI and VII to this limit. Figure V–4 numerical limits of the proposed in- the airplane types analyzed in Sections shows only the lower MTOM range of

97 Note that V.D.1.i, Changes for non-GHG only to airplane types that have not been www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx certified Airplane Types, is different than the No certificated for GHG. (last accessed July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 GHG Change Threshold described in V.F.1 below. 98 Annex 16 Vol. III Part II Chapter 2 sec. 2.4.2 Volume III is found on page 16 of English Edition V.F.1 applies only to airplanes that have previously (d), (e), and (f). ICAO, 2017: Annex 16 Volume III— 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. been certificated to a GHG rule. V.D.1.i only applies Environmental Protection—Aeroplane CO2 AN 16–3. Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http://

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.004 51572 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Figure V–3 to better show the first two technology responses, improvements, GHG emission limits are the same as the segments of the limit line. These plots and production assumptions in limits of the ICAO Airplane CO2 below show the airplane CO2 metric response to the market and the proposed Emission Standards. values as they were modeled. This rules. (See Sections VI and VII for more includes all anticipated/modeled information about this.) These proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.005 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51573

As discussed in Section V.C above, a manufacturers to modify production of adopted by ICAO, and proposed here, kink point was added at 60 tons to their airplanes. ICAO determined that for in-production airplanes were accommodate a change in slope while the technology to meet the developed to reflect these differences. observed between large and small proposed in-production level is The EPA requests comment on all airplanes. The flat section starting at 60 available in 2020 (the new type design aspects of the proposed in-production tons is used as a transition to connect applicability date), additional time rule, including the level, timing, and the curves for larger and smaller beyond the new type design differentiation between airplane airplanes. applicability date was necessary to categories. While the same technology is provide sufficient time for considered for both new type design manufacturers to certify all of their E. Exemptions From the Proposed GHG and in-production airplanes, there products. The EPA agrees that Rules additional time is appropriate. would be a practical difference in On occasion, manufacturers may need Section VII describes the analysis that compliance for in-production airplanes. additional time to comply with a the EPA conducted to determine the Manufacturers would need to test and standard. The reasons for needing a cost and benefits of adopting this certify each type design to the GHG temporary exemption from regulatory standard. Consistent with the ICAO standard prior to January 1, 2028, or else requirements vary and may include standard, this proposed rule would newly produced airplanes would likely circumstances beyond the control of the apply to all in-production airplanes be denied an airworthiness certificate. manufacturer. The FAA is familiar with built on or after January 1, 2028, and to In contrast, new type design airplanes these actions, as it has handled the all in-production airplanes that have have yet to go into production, but these similar engine emission standards under any modification that trigger the change airplanes would need to be designed to its CAA authority to enforce the criteria after January 1, 2023. comply with the standards for new type standards adopted by the EPA. The FAA designs (for an application for a new The proposed levels of the in- has considerable authority under its type design certificate on or after production GHG standards are the same authorizing legislation and its January 1, 2020). This poses a challenge as ICAO’s CO2 standards, and they regulations to deal with these events.99 for setting the level of the in-production reflect the emission performance of standard, because sufficient time needs current in-production and in- 99 Title 49 of the United States Code, sec. to be provided to allow for the GHG development airplanes. As discussed in 44701(f), vests power in the FAA Administrator to certification process and the engineering Section V.B.4 above and in Section VII, issue exemptions as long as the public interest and airworthiness certifications needed the regulations reflect differences in condition is met, and, pursuant to sec. 232(a) of the CAA, the Administrator may use that power ‘‘in the for improvements. The more stringent economic feasibility for introducing execution of all powers and duties vested in him the in-production standard is, the more modifications to in-production airplanes under this section’’ ‘‘to insure compliance’’ with time that is necessary to provide and new type designs. The standards emission standards.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.006 51574 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Since requests for exemptions are is CO2 certificated, all subsequent an external antenna, changing the requests for relief from the enforcement changes to that airplane must meet at emergency exit door configuration, etc.). of these standards (as opposed to a least the regulatory level of the parent To reduce burden on both certification request to comply with a different airplane. For example, if the parent authorities and manufacturers, a set of standard than set by the EPA), this rule airplane is certificated to the in- no CO2 emissions change thresholds would continue the relationship production level, then all subsequent was developed for the ICAO Airplane between the agencies by proposing that versions must also meet the in- CO2 Emission Standards as to when new any request for exemption be filed with production level. This would also apply metric values would need to be the FAA under its established regulatory to voluntary certifications under ICAO’s certificated for changes. The EPA paradigm. The instructions for a standards. If a manufacturer seeks to proposes to adopt these same thresholds submitting a petition for exemption to certificate an in-production airplane in its GHG rules. the FAA can be found in 14 CFR part type to the level applicable to a new Under this proposal, an airplane 11, specifically § 11.63. Section 11.87 type design, then future versions of that would be considered a modified version lists the information that must be filed airplane must also meet the same of an existing GHG certificated airplane, in a petition, including a reason ‘‘why regulatory level. Once certificated, and therefore have to recertify, if it granting your petition is in the public subsequent versions of the airplane may incorporates a change in the type design interest.’’ Any request for exemption not fall back to a less stringent that either (a) increases its maximum would need to cite the regulation that regulatory GHG level. the FAA will adopt to carry out its duty If the FAA finds that a new original take-off mass, or (b) increases its GHG of enforcing the standard set by the type certificate is required for any emissions evaluation metric value by EPA. A list of requests for exemption reason, the airplane would need to more than the no-fuel efficiency change received by the FAA is routinely comply with the regulatory level threshold percentages described below 101 published in the Federal Register. applicable to a new type design. and in Figure V–5: The primary criterion for any The EPA is proposing provisions for • For airplanes with a MTOM greater exemption filed with the FAA is versions of existing GHG-certificated than or equal to 5,700 kg, the threshold whether a grant of exemption would be airplanes that are the same as the ICAO value decreases linearly from 1.35 to in the public interest. The FAA will requirements for the international 0.75 percent for an airplane with a continue to consult with EPA on all Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. MTOM of 60,000 kg. petitions for exemption that the FAA These provisions would reduce the • receives regarding the enforcement of For airplanes with a MTOM greater certification burden on manufacturers than or equal to 60,000 kg, the threshold aircraft engine and emission standards by clearly defining when a new metric adopted under the CAA. value decreases linearly from 0.75 to value must be established for the 0.70 percent for airplanes with a MTOM F. Application of Rules for New Version airplane. of 600,000 kg. of an Existing GHG-Certificated 1. No Fuel Efficiency Change Threshold • For airplanes with a MTOM greater Airplane for GHG-Certificated Airplanes than or equal to 600,000 kg, the Under the international Airplane CO2 There are many types of modifications threshold value is 0.70 percent. Emission Standards, a new version of an that could be introduced on an airplane existing CO2-certificated airplane is one design that could cause slight changes 101 Annex 16, Volume III, Part 1, Chapter 1. ICAO, that incorporates modifications to the in GHG emissions (e.g. changing the 2017: Annex 16 Volume III—Environmental type design that increase the MTOM or 100 Protection—Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First fairing on a light, adding or changing Edition, 40 pp. Available at: http://www.icao.int/ increase its CO2 Metric Value more than publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed the No-CO2-Change Threshold 100 A fairing is ‘‘a structure on the exterior of an July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is (described in V.F.1 below). ICAO’s aircraft or boat, for reducing drag.’’ https:// found on page 16 of English Edition 2020 catalog standards provide that once an airplane www.dictionary.com/browse/fairing. and is copyright protected; Order No. AN 16–3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51575

The threshold is dependent on Under this proposed rule, when a above, which are the same as the airplane size, because the potential fuel change is made to an airplane type that provisions in the international standard. efficiency changes to an airplane are not does not exceed the no-change We believe that these thresholds would constant across all airplanes. For threshold, the fuel efficiency metric maintain the effectiveness of the rule example, a change to the fairing value would not change. There would while limiting the burden on surrounding a wing light, or the be no method to track these changes to manufacturers to comply. The proposed addition of an antenna to a small airplane types over time. This feature of regulations reference specific test and business jet, may have greater impacts the proposed rule would not remove the other criteria that were adopted on the airplane’s metric value than a requirement for a manufacturer to internationally in the ICAO standards similar change would on a large twin demonstrate that the airplane type setting process. aisle airplane. would still meet the rule after a given G. Annual Reporting Requirement These GHG changes would be change. If an airplane type has, for assessed on a before-change and after- example, a 10 percent compliance As described later in this section, the change basis. If there is a flight test as margin under the rule, then a small EPA proposes to collect information part of the certification, the metric value adverse change less than the threshold about airplane GHG emissions and (MV) change could be assessed based on may not require the re-evaluation of the related parameters to help inform the the change in calculated metric value of airplane metric value. However, if the development of future policy, flights with and without the change. compliance margin for a type design is assessments of emissions inventories, A modified version of an existing less than the no GHG change criteria, a and specific technologies. GHG certificated airplane would be manufacturer would be required to In May of 1980, ICAO’s CAEE subject to the same regulatory level as prove that it meets the rule to certify the recognized that certain information the airplane from which it was adverse change. relating to environmental aspects of modified. A manufacturer may also Under the proposed rule, a aviation should be organized into one choose to voluntarily comply with a manufacturer that introduces document. This document became later or more stringent standard.102 modifications that reduce GHG ICAO’s ‘‘Annex 16 to the Convention on emissions can request voluntary International Civil Aviation, 102 ETM Vol. III sec. 2.2.3. ICAO, 2018: recertification from the FAA. There International Standards and Environmental Technical Manual Volume III— would be no required tracking or Recommended Practices, Environmental Procedures for the CO2 Emissions Certification of Aeroplanes, First Edition, Doc 9501, 64 pp. accounting of GHG emissions Protection’’ and was split into two Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ reductions made to an airplane unless it volumes—Volume I, addressing Aircraft Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed July 15, 2020). is voluntarily re-certificated. Noise, and Volume II, addressing The ICAO Environmental Technical Manual The EPA proposes to adopt as part of Aircraft Engine Emissions. Annex 16 Volume III is found on page 77 of the English Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; the GHG rules the no-change thresholds has continued to grow since its Order No. 9501–3. for modifications to airplanes discussed inception, and today Annex 16 Volume

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.007 51576 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

II includes a list of reporting Information Collection Request would include subsonic jet powered requirements for an aircraft engine to Supporting Statement.105) airplanes with certificated MTOM over comply with the ICAO emission In order to assess the GHG emission 5,700 kg and turboprop powered standards.103 These requirements impacts of the proposed standards and airplanes with certificated MTOM over include information relating to engine to inform future actions, the EPA needs 8,618 kg. We are also proposing that this identification and characteristics, fuel to understand how the proposed GHG information be reported to us in a timely usage, data from engine testing, data standards affect the in-production fleet. manner, which would allow us to analysis, and the results derived from Thus, we need access to timely, ensure that any public policy that we the test data. Additionally, this list of representative emissions data of the create based on this information will be aircraft engine requirements is fleet at the requisite model level. The well informed. EPA needs information on technology, supplemented with voluntarily reported The proposed reporting elements for performance parameters, and emissions information which has been assembled each affected airplane sub-model are data to conduct accurate technology into an electronic spreadsheet, entitled listed below. assessments, compile airplane emission • Company corporate name as listed ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions inventories, and develop appropriate Databank (EDB),104 in order to aid with on the airplane type certificate; policy. While the FAA would have • Calendar year for which reporting; criteria pollutant emission calculations access to technical information during • Complete airplane sub-model name and analysis as well as help inform the certification, the EPA would not be able (this would generally include the model general public. to access this information provided to name and the sub-model identifier, but The new international Airplane CO2 FAA, and these circumstances reinforce may also include a type certificate Emission Standards adopted by ICAO in the need for the EPA reporting family identifier); 2017 are prescribed in ICAO Annex 16, requirement. • The airplane type certificate Volume III titled, Aeroplane CO2 Having the information updated each number, as issued by the FAA (specify Emissions. Building on the precedent year would allow the EPA to assess if the sub-model also has a type from ICAO Annex 16 Volume I and II technology trends. It would also assist certificate issued by a certificating and the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions the EPA to stay abreast of any authority other than the FAA); Databank, ICAO is planning to develop developments in the characteristics of • Date of issue of airplane type a similar public database of voluntarily the industry. The EPA would begin to certificate and/or exemption (i.e. month reported information related to the collect data as airplanes start to become and year); certificated. The EPA does not expect a • international Airplane CO2 Emission Number of engines on the airplane; Standards, and this database is referred full dataset on all in-production • Company corporate name, as listed airplanes until shortly after the in- to as the ICAO CO Certification on the engine type certificate; 2 production applicability date of January Database (CO DB). The information • Complete engine sub-model name 2 1, 2028. In the context of EPA’s requested by ICAO to go in the CO DB (this would generally include the model 2 standard-setting role under the CAA will include only information that is not name and the sub-model identifier, but with regard to aircraft engine emissions, may also include an engine type considered by industry to be it is consistent with our policy and commercially sensitive. This means that certificate family identifier); practice to ask for timely and reasonable • Company corporate name as listed the ICAO CO2DB will include only reporting of emission certification information to identify the airplane type on the propeller type certificate—as testing and other information that is applicable; (manufacturer, engine type(s), MTOM, relevant to our mission.106 Under the • etc.), the regulatory limit, and certified Complete propeller sub-model CAA, we are authorized to require name (this would generally include the emissions metric value (and only where manufacturers to establish and maintain voluntarily reported by manufacturers). model name and the sub-model necessary records, make reports, and identifier, but may also include This will not include the individual provide such other information as we propeller an engine type certificate components of the metric equation (e.g. may reasonably require to discharge our family identifier); RGF or SAR values described in functions under the Act. (See 42 U.S.C. • Date of application for certification Equation V–1). (Note later in this 7414(a)(1).) to airplane GHG standards; section (V.G.1) we describe the manner We are proposing to require that • Emission standard to which the in which the EPA treats information that airplane manufacturers submit an airplane is certificated (i.e., the specific has been claimed to be confidential annual production report directly to the Annex 16, Volume III, edition number EPA 107 with specific information for business information. Further and publication date in which the each individual airplane sub-model that information is also included in the numerical standards first appeared); (1) is designed to operate at subsonic • If this is a modified airplane for 103 speeds, (2) is subject to EPA’s GHG ICAO, Annex 16 to the Convention on emissions certification purposes, International Civil Aviation, Environmental emission standards, and (3) has received identify the original certificated airplane Protection, Volume II, Aircraft Engine Emissions, a type certificate. More specifically, the model; Part III, Chapter 2, Section 2.4. ICAO, 2017: Annex scope of the proposed production report 16 Volume II—Environmental Protection—Aircraft • Production volume of the airplane Engine Emissions, Fourth Edition, Incorporating sub-model for the previous calendar Amendments 1–9, 174 pp. Available at: http:// 105 Draft ICR Supporting Statement 2626.01, www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx available in the public Docket. year, or if zero, state that the airplane (last accessed July 15, 2020). The ICAO Annex 16 106 The FAA already requires much of the model is not in production and list the Volume II is found on page 16 of English Edition information EPA is seeking through the certification date of manufacture (month and year) of 2020 catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. process but is unable to share it because of the last airplane produced; AN 16–2. confidentiality agreements with engine • Number of exempt airplanes 104 manufacturers. Also, that information is part of a The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 108 hosts the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank much larger submission, making it difficult to produced, if applicable; on behalf of ICAO. Available at: https:// extract the specific reporting elements for EPA. www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/environment/ 107 The proposed report would be submitted only 108 Airplanes produced under an exemption icao-aircraft-engine-emissions-databank (last to EPA. No separate submission or communication would still be required to report all information for accessed March 16, 2020). of any kind is required for the FAA. all fields. In the case new type designs that are built

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51577

• Certificated MTOM; U.S.C. 1905, and 40 CFR part 2, all data conducted within the approved normal • GHG Emissions Metric Value; received by the Administrator that is not operating envelope of the airplane, • Regulatory level; confidential business information may when the airplane is steady, straight, • Margin to regulatory level; be posted on our website and would be • level, and trim, at manufacturer-selected RGF. updated annually. By collecting and speed and altitude.109 The rule would The EPA is proposing to collect publicly posting this information on provide that flight testing must be additional elements or information EPA’s website, we believe that this conducted at the ICAO-defined beyond what ICAO will request for the information would be useful to the reference conditions where possible,110 voluntary CO2DB. These additional general public to help inform public and that when testing does not align elements are the RGF and annual knowledge regarding airplane GHG with the reference conditions, production volume. From the list above, emissions. corrections for the differences between the ICAO CO2DB will only include the We have assessed the potential airplane identification information, reporting burden associated with the test and reference conditions shall be 111 MTOM, and Metric Value. ICAO limited proposed annual reporting requirement. applied. the information in the public CO2DB for That assessment is presented in We are proposing to incorporate by the following reasons: (a) To recognize Sections VII.D.4 and IX.C of this reference, in proposed § 1030.23(d), the concerns of manufacturers to proposed rule. certain procedures found in ICAO exclude commercially sensitive 1. Confidentiality Annex 16, Volume III. information and (b) to expedite manufacturers’ voluntary submissions In general, emission data and related I. Controlling Two of the Six Well-Mixed for populating the dataset. These technical information collected under GHGs reasons would not pertain to the EPA CAA section 114 cannot be treated as reporting requirement because (a) the confidential business information (CBI). As described earlier in Section V.A EPA’s CBI regulations would prevent Consistent with governing EPA and V.H, we are proposing to adopt the the disclosure of confidential business regulations, however, where ICAO test procedures and fuel efficiency 112 information (see V.G.1 below), and (b) manufacturers show what information metric. The ICAO test procedures for the EPA reporting of information would they consider confidential by marking, the international Airplane CO2 Emission be required, preventing delays in circling, stamping or some other Standards measure fuel efficiency (or manufacturers’ submissions. The EPA method, and if the EPA determines that fuel burn), and ICAO uses fuel requests comment on the scope of this the information is confidential, the EPA efficiency in the metric (or equation) for proposed information request including would store said information as CBI determining compliance. As explained any concerns related to reporting any of pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 and 40 CFR earlier in Section III and in the 2016 this information. The EPA also requests 1068.10. If manufacturers send the EPA Findings,113 only two of the six well- comment on whether we should require information without marking it is CBI, mixed GHGs—CO2 and N2O—are reporting of additional information. the EPA may make it available to the emitted from covered aircraft. Although The proposed annual report would be public without further notice to the there is not a standardized test submitted for each calendar year in manufacturer. Although CBI procedure for directly measuring which a manufacturer produces any determinations are usually made on a airplane CO2 or N2O emissions, the test airplane subject to emission standards case-by-case basis, the EPA has issued as previously described. These reports guidance on what constitutes emission 109 It is expected that manufacturers will choose would be due by February 28 of each data that cannot be considered CBI (56 conditions that result in the highest SAR value for year, starting with the 2020 calendar FR 7042, February 21, 1991). a given certification mass. Manufacturers may choose other than optimum conditions to determine year, and cover the previous calendar H. Test and Measurement Procedures SAR; however, doing so will be at their detriment. year. This report would be sent to the 110 The international certification test Annex 16, Vol. III, sec. 2.5. ICAO, 2017: Designated EPA Program Officer. Where Annex 16 Volume III—Environmental Protection— procedures have been developed based information provided for any previous Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. year remains valid and complete, the upon industry’s current best practices Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed July 15, 2020). manufacturer would be allowed to for establishing the cruise performance of their airplanes and on input from The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is found on page report the production figures and to 16 of English Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright state that there are no changes instead certification authorities. These protected; Order No. AN 16–3. of resubmitting the original information. procedures include specifications for 111 Annex 16, Vol. III, Appendix 1. ICAO, 2017: To facilitate and standardize reporting, airplane conformity, weighing, fuel Annex 16 Volume III—Environmental Protection— specifications, test condition stability Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First Edition, 40 pp. we expect to specify a particular format Available at: http://www.icao.int/publications/ for this reporting in the form of a criteria, required confidence intervals, Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed July 15, 2020). spreadsheet or database template that measurement instrumentation required, The ICAO Annex 16 Volume III is found on page we would provide to each manufacturer. and corrections to reference conditions. 16 of English Edition 2020 catalog and is copyright In this action, we are proposing to protected; Order No. AN 16–3. As noted previously, we intend to use 112 incorporate by reference the test ICAO’s certification standards and procedures the proposed reports to help inform any for airplane CO2 emissions are based on the further public policy approaches procedures for the ICAO Airplane CO2 consumption of fuel (or fuel burn). ICAO uses the regarding airplane GHG emissions that Emission Standards. Adoption of these term CO2 for its standards and procedures, but ICAO is actually regulating or measuring the rate of we consider, including possible future test procedures would maintain consistency among all ICAO member an airplane’s fuel burn (or fuel efficiency). As emissions rules, as well as to help described earlier, to convert an airplane’s rate of States. provide transparency to the general fuel burn (for jet fuel) to a CO2 emissions rate, a 3.16 Airplane flight tests, or FAA approved public. Subject to the applicable kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of fuel burn emission index needs to be applied. requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7414(c), 18 performance models, would be used to determine SAR values that form the 113 U.S. EPA, 2016: Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or Contribute To Air and fixed (or changed) in the same year, separate basis of the GHG metric value. Under Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To lines should be used to record the exempt and the proposed rule, flight testing to Endanger Public Health and Welfare; Final Rule, 81 complaint configurations and metric values. determine SAR values shall be FR 54422 (August 15, 2016).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51578 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

procedure for fuel efficiency scales with VI. Aggregate GHG and Fuel Burn A. What methodologies did the EPA use the limiting of both CO2 and N2O Methods and Results for the emissions inventory assessment? emissions, as they both can be indexed on a per-unit-of-fuel-burn basis. This section describes the EPA’s The EPA participated in ICAO/ CAEP’s standard-setting process for the Therefore, both CO2 and N2O emissions emission impacts analysis for the can be controlled as airplane fuel burn proposed standards. This section also international Airplane CO2 Emission is limited.114 Since limiting fuel burn is describes the assumptions and data Standards. CAEP provided a summary the only means by which airplanes sources used to develop the baseline of the results from this analysis in the control their GHG emissions, the fuel- GHG emissions inventories and the report of its tenth meeting,117 which burn-based metric (or fuel-efficiency- potential consequences of the proposed occurred in February 2016. However, based metric) reasonably serves as a standards on aviation emissions. due to the commercial sensitivity of the surrogate for controlling both CO2 and Consistent with Executive Order 12866, data used in the analysis, much of the N2O. we analyzed the impacts of alternatives underlying information is not available Since CO2 emissions represent nearly (using similar methodologies), and the to the public. For the U.S. domestic all GHG emissions from airplanes and results for these alternatives are GHG standards, however, we are making ICAO’s CO2 test procedures measure described in chapters 4 and 5 of the our analysis, data sources, and model fuel efficiency by using a fuel- Draft Technical Support Document assumptions transparent to the public so efficiency-based metric, we propose to (TSD). all stakeholders affected by the harmonize with the ICAO CO2 proposed standards can understand how As described earlier in Section II, the the agency derives its decisions. Thus, standard—by proposing to adopt an manufacturers of affected airplanes and 115 the EPA has conducted an independent aircraft engine GHG standard that engines have already developed or are also employs a fuel efficiency metric impact analysis based solely on publicly developing technologies that meet the that will also scale with both CO and available information and data sources. 2 2017 ICAO Airplane CO Emission N O emissions. The proposed aircraft 2 An EPA report detailing the 2 Standards. The EPA expects that the engine GHG standard would control methodology and results of the manufacturers will comply with the both CO and N O emissions, without emissions inventory analysis 118 was 2 2 ICAO Airplane CO Emission Standards the need for adoption of engine exhaust 2 peer-reviewed by multiple independent even in advance of member States’ emissions rates for either CO or N O. subject matter experts, including experts 2 2 adoption into domestic regulations. However, the air pollutant regulated by from academia and other government Therefore, the EPA expects that the these standards would remain the agencies, as well as independent proposed GHG standards would not, aggregate of the six well-mixed technical experts.119 beyond limited reporting costs, impose GHGs.116 an additional burden on manufacturers. The methodologies the EPA uses to assess the impacts of the proposed GHG 114 For jet fuel, the emissions index or emissions In keeping with the ICAO/CAEP need to consider technical feasibility in standards are summarized in a flow factor for CO2 is 3.16 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram chart shown in Figure VI–1. This of fuel burn (or 3,160 grams of CO2 per kilogram standard setting, the ICAO Airplane CO2 of fuel burn). For jet fuel, the emissions index for Emission Standards reflect section describes the impacts of the nitrous oxide is 0.1 grams of nitrous oxide per proposed GHG standards. Essentially, kilogram of fuel burn (which is significantly less demonstrated technology that will be available in 2020. the approach is to compare the GHG than the emissions index for CO2). Since CO2 and emissions of the business as usual nitrous oxide emissions are indexed to fuel burn, As described below, the analysis for they are both directly tied to fuel burn. Controlling baseline in the absence of standards CO2 emissions means controlling fuel burn, and in the proposed GHG standards considered with those emissions under the turn this leads to limiting nitrous oxide emissions. individual airplane types and market proposed GHG standards. Thus, controlling CO2 emissions would scale with forces. We have assessed GHG emission limiting nitrous oxide emissions. reductions needed for airplane types (or SAE, 2009, Procedure for the Calculation of 117 ICAO, 2016: Doc 10069—Report of the Tenth Airplane Emissions, Aerospace Information Report, airplane models) to meet the proposed Meeting, Montreal,1–12 February 2016, Committee AIR5715, 2009–07 (pages 45–46). The nitrous oxide GHG standards compared to the on Aviation Environmental Protection, CAEP 10, emissions index is from this report. improvements that are driven by market 432pp., pages 271 to 308, is found on page 27 of ICAO, 2016: ICAO Environmental Report 2016, competition and are expected to occur the ICAO Products & Services English Edition 2020 Catalog and is copyright protected. For purchase Aviation and Climate Change, 250 pp. The CO2 in the absence of any standard (business emissions index is from this report. Available at available at: https://www.icao.int/publications/ https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/ as usual improvements). A summary of Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, Documents/ these results is described later in this 2020). The summary of technological feasibility and ICAO%20Environmental%20Report%202016.pdf section. Additional details can be found cost information is located in Appendix C (starting (last accessed March 16, 2020). in chapter 5 of the accompanying Draft on page 5C–1) of this report. 115 See section II.E (Consideration of Whole 118 U.S. EPA, 2020: Technical Report on Aircraft Airplane Characteristics) of this proposed rule for TSD for the proposed standards. Emissions Inventory and Stringency Analysis, July a discussion on regulating emissions from the 2020, 52pp. whole airplane. efficiency, the EPA considers the six well-mixed 119 RTI International and EnDyna, EPA Technical 116 Although compliance with the proposed GHG GHGs to be the regulated pollutant for the purposes Report on Aircraft Emissions Inventory and standard would be measured in terms of fuel of the proposed standard. Stringency Analysis: Peer Review, July 2019, 157pp.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51579

The first step of the EPA analysis is PIANO.121 A brief account of the database 123 (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 Draft EPA then linked the 2015 FAA airplane combinations in the 2015 base TSD. operations data to the TAF and year. As described further in the next 1. Fleet Evolution Module ASCEND-based growth and retirement section, these base year operations are rates by matching the airport and then evolved to future year operations, To develop the baseline, the EPA used airplane parameters. Where the OD-pair 2016–2040, by emulating the market FAA 2015 operations data as the basis and airplane match between the driven fleet renewal process to define to project future fleet operations out to operations data and the TAF, then the the baseline (without the proposed GHG 2040. The year-to-year activity growth exact TAF year-on-year growth rates regulatory requirements). The same rate was determined by the FAA 2015– were applied to grow 2015 base year method then is applied to define the 2040 Terminal Area Forecast 122 (TAF) activities to future years. For cases fleet evolution under the proposed GHG based on airport OD-pairs, route groups without exact matches, growth rates standards, except that different potential (domestic or international), and airplane from progressively more aggregated technology responses are defined for the types. The retirement rate of a specific levels were used to grow the future year 124 airplanes impacted by the proposed airplane is determined by the age of the activities. airplane and the retirement curve of its GHG standards. Specifically, they are The retirement rate was based on the associated airplane type. Retirement either 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 120 the next level matching fleet (e.g., 121 PIANO is the Aircraft Design and Analysis airplane type or category as defined by emissions are modelled for all the Software by Dr. Dimitri Simos, 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 123 FlightGlobal Fleets Analyzer is a subscription available airplane design and performance software based online data platform providing suite used across the industry and academia. comprehensive and authoritative source of global 120 To convert fuel burn to CO2 emissions, we 122 FAA 2015–2040 Terminal Area Forecast, the airplane fleet data (also known as ASCEND used the 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 the six well-mixed forecast of aviation activity for U.S. airports. It Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul (MRO) providers. https://signin.cirium.com (last accessed December GHG emissions, we used 3.19 kg/kg fuel for CO2 contains active airports in the National Plan of equivalent emissions. Our method for calculating Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) including FAA- 16, 2019). towered airports, Federal contract-towered airports, 124 For example, in the absence of exact airplane CO2 equivalent emissions is based on SAE AIR non-Federal towered airports, and non-towered match, the aggregated growth rate of airplane 5715, 2009: Procedures for the Calculation of airports. Forecasts are prepared for major users of category is used; in case of no exact OD-pair match, Aircraft Emissions and the EPA publication: the National Airspace System including air carrier, the growth rate of route group is used. Outside the Emissions Factors for Greenhouse 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:// The forecasts are prepared to meet the budget and average growth rates from ICAO for passenger and www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/ planning needs of the FAA and provide information 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 Draft accessed March 16, 2020). industry, and the public. TSD for details.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.008 51580 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

ASCEND) was used to calculate the their products globally, the analysis also Given the flight activities defined by retirement rates for future years. covers the global fleet evolution and the fleet evolution module in the Combining the growth and retirement emissions inventories for reference (but previous section, we generated a unit rates together, we calculate the future at a much less detailed level for traffic flight matrix to summarize all the year growth and replacement (G&R) growth and fleet evolution outside of PIANO outputs of fuel burn, flight market demands. These future year G&R the U.S.). distance, flight time, emissions, etc. for market demands are aligned to each The fleet evolution modelling for the all flights uniquely defined by a base year flight, and the future year proposed regulatory scenarios defines combination of departure and arrival flights are allocated with available G&R available G&R airplanes for various airports (OD-pairs), airplane types, and airplanes 125 using an equal-product market segments based on the engine types. This matrix includes market-share selection process.126 The technology responses identified by ICF, market demand allocation is made millions of flights and forms the basis a contractor for EPA, as described later for our analysis (including the based on ASK (Available Seat in Section VII.130 Kilometer) for passenger operations, sensitivity studies). ATK (Available Tonne Kilometer) for 2. Full Flight Simulation Module 3. Emissions Module freighter operations, and number of PIANO version 5.4 was used for all operations for business jets. the emissions modelling. PIANO v5.4 The GHG emissions calculation For the 2015 base-year analysis, the (2017 build) has 591 airplane models involves summing the outputs from the baseline (no regulation) modelling (including many project airplanes still first two modules for every flight in the includes continuous (2016–2040) under development, e.g., the B777–9X) database. This is done globally, and annual fuel efficiency improvements. and 56 engine types in its airplane and then the U.S. portion is segregated from The modelling tracks the year airplanes engine databases. PIANO is a physics- the global dataset. The same calculation enter the fleet and applies the type- based airplane performance model used is done for the baseline and the specific fuel efficiency improvement 127 widely by industry, research institutes, proposed GHG standard. When a via an annual adjustment factor based non-governmental organizations and surrogate airplane is used to model an on the makeup of the fleet in a government agencies to model airplane airplane that is not in the PIANO particular year. Since there is performance metrics such as fuel database, or when a technology uncertainty associated with the fuel- consumption and emissions response is required for an airplane to efficiency improvement assumption, the characteristics based on specific pass a standard level, an adjustment analysis also includes a sensitivity airplane and engine types. We use it to factor is also applied to model the scenario without this assumption in the model airplane performance for all expected performance of the intended baseline.128 The EPA fleet evolution phases of flight from gate to gate airplane and technology responses. model focuses on U.S. aviation, including taxi-out, takeoff, climb, including both domestic and The differences between the proposed cruise, descent, approach, landing, and GHG standards and the baseline provide international flights (with U.S. taxi-in in this analysis. international flights defined as flights quantitative measures to assess the To simplify the computation, we departing from the U.S. but landing emissions impacts of the proposed GHG made the following modeling outside the U.S.). This is the same scope standards. A brief summary of these assumptions: (1) Assume airplanes fly of operations used for the EPA Inventory results is described in the next two great circle distance (which is the of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and sections. More details can be found in shortest distance along the surface of the Sinks.129 However, because aviation is chapter 5 of the Draft TSD. earth between two airports) for each an international industry and origin-destination (OD) pair. (2) Assume manufacturers of covered airplanes sell B. What are the baseline CO2 emissions? still air flights and ignore weather or jet The commercial aviation marketplace 125 The airplane G&R database contains all the stream effects. (3) Assume no delays in EPA-known in-production and in-development takeoff, landing, enroute, and other is continually changing, with new airplanes that are projected to grow and replace the flight-related operations. (4) Assume a origin-destination markets and new, global base-year fleet over the 2015–2040 analysis load factor of 75 percent maximum more fuel-efficient airplanes growing in period. This airplane G&R database, the annual number and replacing existing airplanes continuous improvements, and the technology payload capacity for all flights except responses are available in the 2018 ICF Report. for business jet where 50 percent is in air carrier (or airline) fleets. This 126 EPA uses equal product market share (for all assumed. (5) Use the PIANO default behavior introduces uncertainty to the airplane present in the G&R database), but attention reserve fuel rule 131 for a given airplane future implications of this rulemaking. has been paid to make sure that competing type. (6) Assume a one-to-one Since there is uncertainty, multiple manufacturers have reasonable representative products in the G&R database. relationship between metric value baseline/scenarios may be analyzed to 127 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology improvement and fuel burn explore a possible range of implications Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final improvement for airplanes with better of the proposed rule. Report, EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, fuel-efficiency technology insertions (or For the analysis in this proposed September 30, 2018. technology responses). 128 Note that the ICAO analysis did not use a rulemaking and consistent with our continuous improvement assumption, but instead regulatory impact analyses for all other 130 technology was assumed to stay at its current state. ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology Specifically, current airplane types would have the Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final sectors, the EPA is analyzing additional same metric value in 2040 as they did in 2016, Report, EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, baseline/scenarios that reflect a unless they were changed to meet the ICAO CO2 September 30, 2018. business-as-usual continually improving standards. 131 For typical medium/long-haul airplanes, the baseline with respect to fleet fuel 129 U.S. EPA, 2018: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse default reserve settings are 200 NM diversion, 30 Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2016, 1,184 pp., minutes hold, plus 5% contingency on mission efficiency. We also evaluated a baseline U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 430–R– fuel. Depending on airplane types, other reserve scenario that is fixed to reflect 2016 18–003, April 2018. Available at: https:// rules such as U.S. short-haul, European short-haul, technology levels (i.e., no continual www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us- National Business Aviation Association— improvement in fuel-efficient greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2016 Instrument Flight Rules (NBAA–IFR) or Douglas (last accessed March 16, 2020). rules are used as well. technology), and this baseline scenario

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51581

is consistent with the approach used by fuel-efficiency improvement with the Continuous Improvement ICAO.132 assumption. More detailed breakdowns Assumption results in a low GHG For the EPA analysis, the baseline for the passenger, freighter, and emissions growth rate in 2040 for the GHG emissions are assessed for 2015, business market segments can be found U.S. domestic market. However, it 2020, 2023, 2025, 2028, 2030, 2035, and in chapter 5 of the Draft TSD. It is worth should be noted that this is one set of 2040. The projected baseline GHG noting that the U.S. domestic market is assumptions combined with a market emissions for all U.S. flights (domestic relatively mature, with a lower growth forecast. Actual air traffic and emissions and international) are shown in Figure rate than those for most international growth may vary as a result of a variety VI–2 and Figure VI–3, both with and markets. The forecasted growth rate for of factors.133 without the continuous (2016–2040) the U.S. domestic market combined

132 A comparison of the EPA and ICAO modeling emissions, and to convert to the six well-mixed Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories, approaches and results is available in chapter 5 and GHG emissions, we used 3.19 kg/kg fuel for CO2 EPA, last modified 4, April 2014. https:// 6 of the Draft TSD. equivalent emissions. Our method for calculating www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/ CO equivalent emissions is based on SAE AIR 133 To convert fuel burn to CO emissions, we 2 documents/emission-factors_2014.pdf (last 2 5715, 2009: Procedures for the Calculation of accessed March 16, 2020). used the conversion factor of 3.16 kg/kg fuel for CO2 Aircraft Emissions and the EPA publication:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.009 51582 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Conceptually, the difference between start in 2016, but their different changes indefinitely into the future. The the EPA and ICAO baselines is assumptions lead to very different long- dot-dot-dash (_. . _) line compares this illustrated in Figure VI–4. The solid line term forecasts. The EPA method (long Constant Technology Assumption to the represents the historical growth of dash) uses the input from an solid historical emissions growth. Thus, emissions from the dawn of the jet age independent analysis conducted by the projected benefits of any standards in 1960s to the present (2016). In this ICF 134 to develop a Projected will be different depending upon the time, air traffic and operations have Continuous Improvement baseline to baseline that is assumed. We believe all increased and offset the technology model future improvements similar to _ these baselines are valid relative to their improvements. The long-dashed line ( historical trends. The ICAO method assumptions. To understand the true _) and dot-dash-dot (_. _) lines represent creates a baseline using a Constant meaning of the analysis and make well- different assumptions used by the EPA Technology Assumption that freezes the informed policy decisions, one must and ICAO to create baseline future airplane technology going forward. This consider the underlying assumptions inventories to compare the benefits of means that the in-production airplanes potential standards. The two baselines at that date will be built with no carefully.

134 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology Report, EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final September 30, 2018.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.010 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51583

C. What are the projected effects in fuel airplane and engine manufacturers that understand the differences 136 between burn and GHG emissions? were the basis of the ICAO standards, our analysis and ICAO’s (further detail Based on the technology response which match the proposed standards, on the differences in the analyses and described in Section VII.C and the demonstrate technological feasibility. the sensitivity studies is provided in the baseline Continuous Improvement Thus, we do not project a cost (except Draft TSD). These sensitivity studies Assumption, the proposed GHG for limited reporting costs as described show that the no cost-no benefit standards are not expected to result in in Section VII) or benefit for the conclusion is quite robust. For example, reductions in fuel burn and GHG proposed GHG standards (further even if we assume no continuous emissions beyond the baseline. This discussion on the rationale for no improvement, the projected GHG result makes sense because all of the expected reductions and no costs is emissions reductions for the proposed airplanes in the G&R fleet either will provided later in this section and standards would still be zero since all meet the standard level associated with Section VII). the non-compliant airplanes (A380 and the proposed GHG standards or are 767 freighters) are assumed to be out of The projected zero reduction in GHG expected to be out of production by the production by 2028 (according to ICF emissions is quite different from the time the standards take effect, according analysis), the proposed standard results of the ICAO analysis mentioned to our NPRM technology responses.135 effective year. Furthermore, even if we In other words, the existing or expected in VI.A, which bounds the range of analysis exploration given the fuel efficiency technologies from 136 The differences in the analyses include uncertainties involved with predicting different assumptions. Our analysis assumes 135 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology the implications of this proposed rule. continuous improvement and ICAO’s analysis does Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final The agency has conducted sensitivity not. Also, we make different projections about the Report, EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, end of production of the A380 and 767 compared September 30, 2018. studies around our main analysis to to ICAO.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP20AU20.011 51584 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

assume A380 and 767 freighters will feasibility and costs of alternatives market impacts of the proposed GHG continue production till 2030 and not (using similar methodologies), and the regulations are discussed in this section. making any improvement between 2015 results for these alternatives are As described earlier, airplanes and and 2027, the GHG emissions described in chapter 6 of the Draft TSD. airplane engines are sold around the reductions will still be an order of The EPA and FAA participated in the world, and international airplane magnitude lower than the ICAO results ICAO analysis that informed the emission standards help ensure the since all emissions reductions will come adoption of the international Airplane worldwide acceptability of these from just 3 years’ worth of production CO2 Emission Standards. A summary of products. Airplane and airplane engine (2028 to 2030) of A380 and 767 that analysis was published in the manufacturers make business decisions freighters.137 Considering that both report of ICAO/CAEP’s tenth and respond to the international market airplanes are close to the end of their meeting,138 which occurred in February by designing and building products that production life cycle by 2028 and low 2016. However, due to the commercial conform to ICAO’s international market demands for them, these limited sensitivity of much of the underlying standards. However, ICAO’s standards emissions reductions may not be data used in the ICAO analysis, the need to be implemented domestically realized at all if the manufacturers are ICAO-published report (which is for products to prove such conformity. granted exemptions. Thus, the agency publicly available) provides only Domestic action through EPA analysis results in a no cost-no benefit limited supporting data for the ICAO rulemaking and subsequent FAA conclusion that is reasonable for the analysis. The EPA Draft TSD for this rulemaking enables U.S. manufacturers proposed GHG standards. At the same proposed rulemaking compares the to obtain internationally recognized time, we note that this is distinct from ICAO analysis to the EPA analysis. FAA certification, which for the the ICAO analysis, which did not use For the purposes of evaluating the proposed GHG standards would ensure production end dates for airplanes nor proposed GHG regulations based on type certification consistent with the a continually improving baseline. publicly available and independent requirements of the international In summary, the ICAO Airplane CO2 data, the EPA had an analysis Airplane CO2 Emission Standards. This Emission Standards, which match the conducted of the technological is important, as compliance with the proposed GHG standards, were feasibility and costs of the international international standards (via FAA type predicated on demonstrating Airplane CO2 Emission Standards certification) is a critical consideration technological feasibility; i.e. that through a contractor (ICF) study.139 140 in airlines’ purchasing decisions. By manufacturers of affected airplanes and The results, developed by the implementing the requirements that engines have already developed or are contractor, include estimates of conform to ICAO requirements in the developing technologies that meet the technology responses and non-recurring United States, we would remove any 2017 ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission costs for the proposed domestic GHG question regarding the compliance of Standards. The EPA expects that the standards, which are equivalent to the airplanes certificated in the United manufacturers will comply with the international Airplane CO2 Emission States. The proposed rule, if adopted, ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards Standards. Technologies and costs would facilitate the acceptance of U.S. even in advance of member States’ needed for airplane types to meet the airplanes and airplane engines by adoption into domestic regulations. proposed GHG regulations were member States and airlines around the Therefore, the EPA expects that the analyzed and compared to the world. Conversely, U.S. manufacturers proposed airplane GHG standards improvements that are anticipated to would be at a competitive disadvantage would not, beyond limited reporting occur in the absence of regulation. In compared with their international costs, impose an additional burden on addition, costs were evaluated for EPA’s competitors without this domestic manufacturers. proposed annual reporting requirement action. that was described earlier in Section In considering the aviation market, it VII. Technological Feasibility and V.G. The methods used in and the is important to understand that the Economic Impacts results from the analysis are described international Airplane CO2 Emission This section describes the in the following paragraphs—and in Standards were predicated on technological feasibility and costs of the further detail in chapter 2 of the Draft demonstrating technological feasibility; proposed airplane GHG rule. This TSD for this proposed rulemaking. i.e., that manufacturers have already section describes the agency’s A. Market Considerations developed or are developing improved methodologies for assessing technology that meets the 2017 ICAO technological feasibility and estimated Prior to describing our technological CO2 standards, and that the new costs of the proposed standards. feasibility and cost analysis, potential technology will be integrated in Consistent with Executive Order 12866, airplanes throughout the fleet in the we analyzed the technological 138 ICAO, 2016: Report of Tenth Meeting, time frame provided before the Montreal, 1–12 February 2016, Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection, Document implementation of the standards’ 137 On February 14, 2019, Airbus made an 10069, CAEP/10, 432pp, is found on page 27 of the effective date. Therefore, as described in announcement to end A380 production by 2021 English Edition of the ICAO Products & Services Section VI.C, the EPA projects that these after Emirates airlines reduced its A380 order by 39 2020 Catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. proposed standards would impose no and replaced them with A330 and A350. (The 10069. For purchase available at: https:// Airbus press release is available at: https:// www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx additional burden on manufacturers www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2019/ (last accessed March 16, 2020). The summary of beyond the proposed reporting 02/airbus-and-emirates-reach-agreement-on-a380- technological feasibility and cost information is requirement. fleet--sign-new-widebody-orders.html, last accessed located in Appendix C (starting on page 5C–1) of While recognizing that the on February 10, 2020). EPA’s analysis was this report. 139 international agreement was predicated conducted prior to Airbus’s announcement, so the ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology analysis does not consider the impact of the A380 Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final on demonstrated technological ending production in 2021. The early exit of A380, Report, EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, feasibility, without access to the compared to the modeled scenarios, fits the general September 30, 2018. underlying ICAO/CAEP data it is 140 trend of reduced demands for large quad engine ICF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO2– informative to evaluate individual airplanes projected by the ICF technology responses Reducing Technologies for Aircraft, Final Report, and is consistent with our conclusion of no cost and EPA Contract Number EP–C–12–011, March 17, airplane models relative to the proposed no benefit for this rule. 2015. equivalent U.S. regulations. Therefore,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51585

the technologies and costs needed for shortly thereafter (per CAEP member that would be needed to comply with airplane types to meet the proposed rule guidance; approximately 2017), and the proposed standard. ICF’s approach were compared to the improvements expected to be available for application is appropriate for the EPA-proposed that are expected to occur in the absence in the short term (approximately 2020) GHG standard because it is based on of standards (business as usual over a sufficient range of newly more up-to-date inputs and improvements). A summary of these certificated airplanes.’’ 145 This means assumptions. results is described later in this section. that the analysis that informed the international standard considered the C. Technological Feasibility B. Conceptual Framework for emissions performance of in-production 1. Technology Principles and Technology and on-order or in-development 146 Application As described in the 2015 ANPR, the airplanes, including types that would i. Short- and Mid-Term Methodology EPA contracted with ICF to develop first enter into service by about 2020. estimates of technology improvements (ICAO/CAEP’s analysis was completed ICF analyzed the feasible and responses needed to modify in- in 2015 for the February 2016 ICAO/ technological improvements to new in- production airplanes to comply with the CAEP meeting.) production airplanes and the potential international Airplane CO2 Emission In assessing the airplane GHG rule GHG emission reductions they could Standards. ICF conducted a detailed proposed in this action, the 2018 ICF generate. For this analysis, ICF created literature search, performed a number of updated analysis, which was completed a methodological framework to assess interviews with industry leaders, and a few years after the ICAO analysis, was the potential impact of technology did its own modeling to estimate the able to use a different approach for introduction on airplane GHG emissions cost of making modifications to in- technology responses. ICF based these for the years 2015–2029 (upcoming production airplanes.141 Subsequently, responses on technology that would be short and mid-term). This framework for this proposed rulemaking, the EPA available at TRL8 by 2017 and assumed included five steps to estimate annual contracted with ICF to update its continuous improvement of CO2 metric metric value (baseline metric values analysis (herein referred to as the ‘‘2018 values for in-production and in- were generated using PIANO data 147) ICF updated analysis’’).142 It had been development (or on-order) airplanes improvements for technologies that are three years since the initial 2015 ICF from 2010 to 2040 based on the being or will be applied to in- analysis was completed, and the EPA incorporation of these technologies onto production airplanes. First, ICF had ICF update the assessment to ensure these airplanes over this same identified the technologies that could that the analysis included in this timeframe. Also, ICF considered the end reduce GHG emissions of new in- proposed rulemaking reflects the of production of airplanes based on the production airplanes. Second, ICF current status of airplane GHG expected business-as-usual status of evaluated each technology for the technology improvements. Therefore, airplanes (with the continuous amount of potential GHG reduction and ICF’s assessment of technology improvement assumptions). This the mechanisms by which this improvements was updated since the approach is described in further detail reduction could be achieved. These first 2015 ANPR was issued.143 later in Section VII.C. The ICF approach two steps were analyzed by airplane The long-established ICAO/CAEP differed from ICAO’s analysis for years category. Third and fourth, the terms of reference were taken into 2016 to 2020 and diverged even more technologies were passed through account when deciding the international for years 2021 and after. Since ICF was technical success probability and Airplane CO2 Emission Standards, able to use the proposed effective dates commercial success probability principal among these being technical in their analysis of the proposed screenings, respectively. Finally, feasibility. ‘‘For the ICAO CO2 airplane GHG standard (for new type individual airplane differences were certification standard setting, technical design airplanes 2020, or 2023 for assessed within each airplane category feasibility refers to any technology airplanes with less than 19 seats, and for to generate GHG emission reduction expected to be demonstrated to be safe in-production airplanes 2028), ICF was projections by technology by airplane and airworthy proven to Technology able to differentiate between airplane model—at the airplane family level (e.g., Readiness Level 144 (TRL) 8 by 2016 or GHG technology improvements that 737 family). ICF refers to their would occur in the absence of the methodological framework for 141 proposed standard (business as usual ICF International, 2015: CO2 Analysis of CO2– projection of the metric value Reducing Technologies for Aircraft, Final Report, improvements) compared against improvement or reduction as the EPA Contract Number EP–C–12–011, March 17, technology improvements/responses 2015. expected value methodology. The 142 ICF, 2018: Aircraft CO2 Cost and Technology expected value methodology is a and demonstration.’’ TRL is a scale from 1 to 9, Refresh and Industry Characterization, Final TRL1 is the conceptual principle, and TRL9 is the projection of the annual fuel efficiency Report, EPA Contract Number EP–C–16–020, ‘‘actual system ‘flight proven’ on operational metric value improvement 148 from September 30, 2018. flight.’’ The TRL scale was originally developed by 2015–2029 for all the technologies that 143 As described earlier in section V, the ICAO NASA. ICF International, CO2 Analysis of CO2- would be applied to each airplane (or test procedures for the international airplane CO2 Reducing Technologies for Aircraft, Final Report, standards measure fuel efficiency (or fuel burn). EPA Contract Number EP–C–12–011, see page 40, 147 Only two of the six well-mixed GHGs—CO2 and March 17, 2015. To generate metric values, the 2015 ICF N2O are emitted from airplanes. The test procedures 145 ICAO, 2016: Report of the Tenth Meeting, analysis and 2018 ICF updated analysis used for fuel efficiency scale with the limiting of both Montreal, 1–12 February 2016, Committee on PIANO (Project Interactive Analysis and CO2 and N2O emissions, as they both can be Aviation Environmental Protection, Document Optimization) data so that their analyses results can indexed on a per-unit-of-fuel-burn basis. Therefore, 10069, CAEP10, 432pp, is found on page 27 of the be shared publicly. Metric values developed both CO2 and N2O emissions can be controlled as English Edition of the ICAO Products & Services utilizing PIANO data are similar to ICAO metric airplane fuel burn is limited. Since limiting fuel 2020 Catalog and is copyright protected: Order No. values. PIANO is the Aircraft Design and Analysis burn is the only means by which airplanes control 10069. For purchase available at: https:// Software by Dr. Dimitri Simos, Lissys Limited, UK, their GHG emissions, the fuel burn (or fuel www.icao.int/publications/Pages/catalogue.aspx 1990-present; Available at www.piano.aero (last efficiency) reasonably serves as a surrogate for (last accessed March 16, 2020). The statement on accessed March 16, 2020). PIANO is a commercially controlling both CO2 and N2O. technological feasibility is located in Appendix C available aircraft design and performance software 144 TRL is a measure of Technology Readiness (page 5C–15, paragraph 6.2.1) of this report. suite used across the industry and academia. Level. CAEP has defined TRL8 as the ‘‘actual 146 Aircraft that are currently in-development, but 148 Also referred to as the constant annual system completed and ‘flight qualified’ through test were anticipated to be in production by about 2020. improvement in CO2 metric value.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51586 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

business as usual improvement in the scale of 1 to 5 for each technical factor they evaluated to account for the absence of a standard). (chapter 2 of the Draft TSD describes improvements to the metric value for As a modification to the 2015 ICF these technical factors in detail). the proposed standard (for in- analysis, the 2018 ICF updated analysis Second, a long-term market prospect production and in-development extended the metric value index was generated on a scale of 1 to airplanes 151). improvements at the airplane family 5 based on estimates of the amount of A short list of the aerodynamic and level (e.g., 737 family) to the more potential research and development engine technologies that were specific airplane variant level (e.g., 737– (R&D) put into various technologies for considered to improve the metric value 700, 737–800, etc.). Thus, to estimate each airplane type. Third, the long-term of the proposed rule is provided below. whether each airplane variant complied market prospect index for each airplane Chapter 2 of the Draft TSD provides a with the proposed GHG standard, ICF type was combined with its respective more detailed description of these projected airplane family metric value fuel burn reduction prospect index to technologies. reductions to a baseline (or base year) generate an overall index score for its • Aerodynamic technologies: The metric value of each airplane variant. metric value improvements. A low airframe technologies that accounted for ICF used this approach to estimate overall index score would indicate that the improvements to the metric values metric values for 125 airplane models the airplane type will have a reduced from airplanes included aerodynamic allowing for a comparison of the annual metric value reduction (the technologies that reduce drag. These estimated metric value for each airplane metric value decreases yearly at a technologies included advance wingtip model to the level of the proposed GHG slower rate relative to an extrapolated devices, adaptive trailing edge, laminar standard at the time the standard would flow control, and riblet coatings. short- and mid-term annual metric value • go into effect. improvement), and a high overall index Engine technologies: The engine In addition, ICF projected which score would indicate an accelerated technologies that accounted for airplane models would end their annual metric value improvement (the reductions to the metric values from production runs (or production cycle) metric value decreases yearly at a airplanes included architecture and prior to the effective date of the quicker rate relative to an extrapolated cooling technologies. Architecture proposed GHG standard. These short- and mid-term annual metric value technologies included ultra-high bypass estimates of production status, at the improvement). Further details of the engines and the fan drive gear, and time the standard would go into effect, long-term methodology are provided in cooling technologies included further informed the projected response chapter 2 of the Draft TSD. compressor airfoil coating and turbine of airplane models to the proposed air cooling. standard. Further details of the short- 2. What technologies did the EPA consider to reduce GHG emissions? 3. Technology Response and and mid-term methodology are provided Implications of the Proposed Standard in chapter 2 of the Draft TSD. ICF identified and analyzed seventy The EPA does not project that the different aerodynamic, weight, and ii. Long-Term Methodology proposed GHG rule would cause engine (or propulsion) technologies for manufacturers to make technical To project metric value improvements fuel burn reductions. Although weight- improvements to their airplanes that for the long-term, years 2030–2040, ICF reducing technologies affect fuel burn, would not have occurred in the absence generated a different methodology they do not affect the metric value for of the rule. The EPA projects that the compared with the short- and mid-term the proposed GHG rule.150 Thus, ICF’s methodology. The short- and mid-term manufacturers would meet the proposed assessment of weight-reducing methodology is based on forecasting standards independent of the EPA technologies was not included in this metric value improvements contributed standards, for the following reasons (as proposed rule, which excluded about by specific existing technologies that are was described earlier in Section VII.A): one-third of the technologies evaluated implemented, and ICF projects that • Manufacturers have already by ICF for fuel burn reductions. In about the 2030 timeframe a new round developed or are developing improved addition, based on the methodology of technology implementation would technology in response to the ICAO described earlier in Section VII.C, ICF begin that leads to developing a standards that match the proposed GHG utilized a subset of the about fifty different method for predicting metric regulations; aerodynamic and engine technologies • value improvements for the long term. ICAO decided on the international For 2030 or later, ICF used a parametric Airplane CO2 Emission Standards, (Airframe) induced drag reduction and friction drag which are equivalent to the proposed approach to project annual metric value reduction. Second, each of the technology factors improvements. This approach included were scored on the following three scoring GHG standards, based on proven three steps. First, for each airplane type, dimensions that will drive the overall fuel burn technology by 2016/2017 that was technical factors were identified that reduction effectiveness in the outbound forecast expected to be available over a sufficient years: Effectiveness of technology in reducing fuel range of in-production and on-order drive fuel burn and metric value burn, likelihood of technology implementation, and improvements in the long-term (i.e., level of research effort required. Third, the scoring airplanes by approximately 2020. Thus, propulsive efficiency, friction drag of each of the technical factors on the three most or nearly all in-production and on- dimensions were averaged to derive an overall fuel order airplanes already meet the levels reduction), and the fuel burn reduction burn reduction prospect index. 149 of the proposed standards; prospect index was estimated on a 150 The metric value does not directly reward • Those few in-production airplane weight reduction technologies because such 149 The fuel burn reduction prospect index is a technologies are also used to allow for increases in models that do not meet the levels of the projected ranking of the feasibility and readiness of payload, equipage and fuel load. Thus, reductions proposed GHG standards are at the end technologies (for reducing fuel burn) to be in empty weight can be canceled out or diminished of their production life and are expected implemented for 2030 and later. There are three by increases in payload, fuel, or both; and, this to go out of production in the near term; main steps to determine the fuel burn reduction varies by operation. Empty weight refers to prospect index. First, the technology factors that operating empty weight. It is the basic weight of an and mainly contribute to fuel burn were identified. airplane including the crew, all fluids necessary for These factors included the following engine and operation such as engine oil, engine coolant, water, 151 Airplanes that are currently in-development airframe technologies as described below: (Engine) unusable fuel and all operator items and equipment but will be in production by the applicability dates. sealing, propulsive efficiency, thermal efficiency, required for flight, but excluding usable fuel and These could be new type designs or redesigned reduced cooling, and reduced power extraction and the payload. airplanes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51587

• These few in-production airplane reporting requirement. While elements were scaled to the other models anticipated to go out of recognizing that the proposed GHG rule airplane size categories (from the production are being replaced or are does not have non-recurring costs baseline single-aisle airplane category). expected to be replaced by in- (NRC), certification costs, or recurring Fifth, we estimated the NRC costs for development airplane models (airplane costs, it is informative to describe the single-aisle airplane and applied the models that have recently entered elements of these costs. scaled costs to the other airplane size 155 service or will in the next few years) in 1. Non-Recurring Costs categories. Sixth, we compiled the near term—and these in- technology supply curves by airplane development models have much Non-recurring cost (NRC) consists of model, which enabled us to rank improved metric values compared to the the cost of engineering and incremental technologies from most cost in-production airplane model they are integration,153 testing (flight and ground effective to the least cost effective. For replacing. testing) and tooling, capital equipment, determining technical responses by Based on the approach described and infrastructure. As described earlier these supply curves, it was assumed above in Sections VII.C.1 and VII.C.2, for the technology improvements and that the manufacturer would invest in ICF assessed the need for manufacturers responses, ICF conducted a detailed and incorporate the most cost-effective to develop technology responses for in- literature search, conducted a number of technologies first and go on to the next production and in-development interviews with industry leaders, and most cost-effective technology to attain airplane models to meet the proposed did its own modeling to estimate the the metric value improvements needed GHG standards (for airplane models that NRC of making modifications to in- to meet the standard. Chapter 2 of the were projected to be in production by production airplanes. The EPA used the Draft TSD provides a more detailed the effective dates of the proposed information gathered by ICF for description of this NRC methodology for standards and would be modified to assessing the cost of individual technology improvements and results. meet these standards, instead of going technologies, which were used to build 2. Certification Costs out of production). After analyzing the up NRC for incremental improvements (a bottom-up approach). These results of the approach/methodology, After the EPA issues the final improvements would be for 0 to 10 ICF estimated that all airplane models rulemaking for the proposed GHG percent improvements in the airplane (in-production and in-development standards, the FAA would issue a CO metric value, and this magnitude of airplane models) would meet the levels 2 rulemaking to enforce compliance to improvements is typical for in- of the proposed standard or be out of these standards, and any potential production airplanes (the focus of our production by the time the standard certification costs for the GHG standards analysis). In the initial 2015 ICF would become effective. Thus, a would be attributed to the FAA analysis, ICF developed NRC estimates technology response is not necessary for rulemaking. However, it is informative for technology improvements to in- airplane models to meet the proposed to discuss certification costs. rule. This result confirms that the production airplanes, and in the 2018 ICF updated analysis these estimates As described earlier, manufacturers international Airplane CO2 Emission have already developed or are Standards are technology-following have been brought up to date. The technologies available to make developing technologies to respond to standards, and that the EPA’s proposed ICAO standards that are equivalent to GHG standards as they would apply to improvements to airplanes are briefly listed earlier in Section VII.C.2. the proposed standards, and they will in-production and in-development comply with the ICAO standards in the airplane models would also be The methodology for the development 152 of the NRC for in-production airplanes absence of U.S. regulations. Also, this technology following. proposed rulemaking would potentially For the same reasons, a technology consisted of six steps. First, technologies were categorized either as provide for a cost savings to U.S. response is not necessary for new type manufacturers since it would enable design airplanes to meet the GHG rule minor performance improvement packages (PIPs) with 0 to 2 percent (or them to domestically certify their proposed in this action. The EPA is airplane (via subsequent FAA currently not aware of a specific model less than 2 percent) fuel burn improvements or as larger incremental rulemaking) instead of having to certify of a new type design airplane that is with foreign certification authorities expected to enter service after 2020. updates with 2 to 10 percent improvements. Second, the elements of (which would occur without this EPA Additionally, any new type design rulemaking). If the proposed GHG airplanes introduced in the future non-recurring cost were identified (e.g., engineering and integration costs), as standards, which match the ICAO would have an economic incentive to standards, are not adopted in the U.S., improve their fuel burn or metric value described earlier. Third, these elements of non-recurring cost are apportioned by the U.S. civil airplane manufacturers at the level of or less than the proposed would have to certify to the ICAO rule. incremental technology category for single-aisle airplanes (e.g., for the standards at higher costs because they D. Costs Associated With the Program category of an airframe minor PIP, 85 would have to move their entire certification program(s) to a non-U.S. This section provides the elements of percent of NRC is for engineering of the cost analysis for technology integration costs, 10 percent is for testing, and 5 percent is for tooling, engineering of integration costs, 50 percent is for improvements, including certification testing, and 15 percent is for tooling, capital costs, and recurring costs. As described, capital equipment, and 154 equipment, and infrastructure. For the category of above, the EPA does not anticipate new infrastructure). Fourth, the NRC a large incremental upgrade, 55 percent of NRC is technology costs due to the proposed for engineering of integration costs, 40 percent is for 153 Engineering and Integration includes the testing, and 5 percent is for tooling, capital GHG rule; however, there would be engineering and Research & Development (R&D) equipment, and infrastructure. some costs associated with our annual needed to progress a technology from its current 155 Engineering and integration costs and tooling, level to a level where it can be integrated onto a capital equipment, and infrastructure costs were 152 As described earlier, this result is different production airframe. It also includes all airframe scaled by airplane realized sale price from the from the ICAO analysis, which did not use and technology integration costs. single-aisle airplane category to the other airplane 154 continuous improvement CO2 metric values nor For the incremental technology category of an categories. Testing costs were scaled by average production end dates for products. engine minor PIP, 35 percent of NRC is for airplane operating costs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51588 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

certification authority.156 Thus, there recurring costs. The elements of VIII. Aircraft Engine Technical are no new certification costs for the recurring costs for incorporating fuel Amendments proposed rule. However, it is saving technologies would include The EPA, through the incorporation informative to describe the elements of additional maintenance, material, labor, by reference of ICAO Annex 16, Volume the certification cost, which include and tooling costs. Our analysis shows II, Third Edition (July 2008), requires obtaining an airplane, preparing an that airplane fuel efficiency the same test and measurement airplane, performing the flight tests, and improvements typically result in net procedures as ICAO for emissions from processing the data to generate a cost savings through the reduction in aircraft engines. See our regulations at certification test report (i.e., test the amount of fuel consumed. If 40 CFR 87.8(b)(1). At the CAEP/10 instrumentation, infrastructure, and technologies add significant recurring meeting in February 2016, several minor program management). costs to an airplane, operators (e.g., technical updates and corrections to the The ICAO certification test airlines) would likely reject these test and measurement procedures were procedures to demonstrate compliance technologies. approved and ultimately included in a with the international Airplane CO2 Fourth Edition of ICAO Annex 16, Emission Standards—incorporated by 4. Reporting Requirement Costs Volume II (July 2017). The EPA played reference in this proposed rulemaking— There would be some costs for the an active role in the CAEP process were based on the existing practices of during the development of these airplane manufacturers to measure proposed annual reporting requirement for GHG emissions-related information. revisions and concurred with their airplane fuel burn (and to measure high- adoption. Thus, we are proposing to speed cruise performance).157 Therefore, (See Section V.G for a description of the reports.) There is a total of 10 civil update the incorporation by reference in some manufacturers already have or § 87.8(b) of our regulations to refer to airplane manufacturers that would be would have airplane test data (or data the new Fourth Edition of ICAO Annex affected. It is expected that these from high-speed cruise performance 16, Volume II (July 2017), replacing the manufacturers will voluntarily report to modelling) to certify their airplane to older Third Edition. the standard, and they would not need the ICAO-related CO2 Certification Most of these ICAO Annex 16 updates to conduct flight testing for certification Database (CO2DB). We expect the and corrections to the test and to the standard. Also, these data would incremental reporting burden for these measurement procedures were editorial already be part of the manufacturers’ manufacturers to be small because we in nature and merely served to clarify fuel burn or high-speed performance would be adding only 2 basic reporting the procedures rather than change them models, which they can use to categories to those already requested by in any substantive manner. demonstrate compliance with the the CO2DB, as described earlier in Additionally, some updates served to international Airplane CO2 Emission Section V.G. Also, the reporting burden correct typographical errors and Standards. In the absence of the would be small because all of the incorrect formula formatting. However, standard, the relevant CO2 or fuel burn information we would be requiring will there is one change contained in these data would be gathered during the be readily available—since it would be ICAO Annex 16 updates that warrants typical or usual airplane testing that the gathered for non-GHG standard additional discussion here: A change to manufacturer regularly conducts for purposes (as noted earlier in this the certification test fuel specifications. non-GHG standard purposes (e.g., for Section VII). Fuel specification bodies establish the overall development of the airplane We have estimated the annual burden limits on jet fuels properties for and to demonstrate its airworthiness). In commercial use so that aircraft are safe addition, such data for new type design and cost would be about 6 hours and $543 per manufacturer. With ten and environmentally acceptable in airplanes (where data has not been operation. For engine emissions collected yet) would be gathered in the manufacturers submitting reports, the total burden for manufacturers of this certification testing, the ICAO fuel absence of a standard. Also, the EPA is specification prior to CAEP10 was a proposed reporting requirement (for not making any attempt to quantify the minimum 1 percent volume of three years) 158 would be estimated to be costs associated with certification by the naphthalene content and a maximum 180 hours, for a total cost of $16,290. FAA. content of 3.5 percent (1.0–3.5%). 3. Recurring Operating Costs E. Summary of Benefits and Costs However, the ASTM International specification is 0.0–3.0 percent For the same reasons there are no Should the proposed airplane GHG naphthalene, and an investigation found NRC and certification costs for the emission standards, which match the that it is challenging to source fuels for proposed rule as discussed earlier, there ICAO Airplane CO2 Emission Standards, engine emissions certification testing would be no recurring costs (recurring be finalized, all U.S. airplane models that meet the minimum 1% naphthalene operating and maintenance costs) for the (in-production and in-development level. In many cases, engine proposed rule; however, it is airplane models) should be in manufacturers were forced to have fuels informative to describe elements of compliance with the proposed custom blended for certification testing standards, by the time the standards purposes at a cost premium well above 156 In addition, European authorities charge fees to airplane manufacturers for the certification of would become applicable. Therefore, that of commercial jet fuel. their airplanes, but FAA does not charge fees for there would only be limited costs from Additionally, such custom blended certification. the proposed annual reporting fuels needed to be ordered well in 157 ICAO, 2016: Report of Tenth Meeting, requirement and no additional benefits advance and shipped by rail or truck to Montreal, 1–12 February 2016, Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection, Document from complying with these proposed the testing facility. In order to 10069, CAEP/10, 432pp, is found on page 27 of the standards—beyond the benefits from potentially alleviate the cost and English Edition of the ICAO Products & Services maintaining consistency or harmonizing logistical burden that the naphthalene 2020 Catalog and is copyright protected; Order No. with the international standards. specification of certification fuel 10069. See Appendix C of this report. For purchase presented, CAEP undertook an effort to available at: https://www.icao.int/publications/ Pages/catalogue.aspx (last accessed March 16, 158 Information Collection Requests (ICR) for analyze and consider whether it would 2020). reporting requirements are renewed triennially. be appropriate to align the ICAO Annex

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51589

16 naphthalene specification for response to OMB recommendations CAA, we are authorized to require certification fuel with that of in-use have been documented in the docket. manufacturers to establish and maintain commercial fuel. Sections I.C.3 and VII.E of this preamble necessary records, make reports, and Prior to the CAEP10 meeting, summarize the cost and benefits of this provide such other information as we technical experts (including the EPA) action. The supporting information is may reasonably require to discharge our reviewed potential consequences of a available in the docket. functions under the Act. (See 42 U.S.C. test fuel specification change and 7414(a)(1).) B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing concluded that there would be no effect Respondents/affected entities: Regulation and Controlling Regulatory on gaseous emissions levels and a Airplane manufacturers. Costs negligible effect on the ‘Smoke Number’ Respondent’s obligation to respond: (SN) level as long as the aromatic and This action is expected to be an Mandatory, under the authority of 42 hydrogen content remains within the Executive Order 13771 regulatory U.S.C. 7414(a)(1). current emissions test fuel specification action. Sections I.C.3. and VII.E. of this Estimated number of respondents: limits. ICAO subsequently adopted the preamble summarize the cost and Ten. ASTM International specification of benefits of this action. The supporting Frequency of response: Annual. 0.0–3.0 percent naphthalene for the information is available in the docket. Total estimated burden: 60 hours (per engine emissions test fuel specification C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR and no change to the aromatic and 1320.3(b). hydrogen limits, which was The information collection activities Total estimated cost: $5,430 (per incorporated into the Fourth Edition of in this proposed rule have been year), includes $0 annualized capital or ICAO Annex 16, Volume II, (July 2017). submitted for approval to the Office of operation & maintenance costs. The EPA is proposing, through the Management and Budget (OMB) under An agency may not conduct or incorporation of the Annex revisions in the PRA. The Information Collection sponsor, and a person is not required to § 87.8(b), to adopt the new naphthalene Request (ICR) document that the EPA respond to, a collection of information specification for certification testing prepared has been assigned EPA ICR unless it displays a currently valid OMB into U.S. regulations. This proposed number 2626.01. You can find a copy of control number. The OMB control change will have the benefit of more the ICR in the docket for this rule, and numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 closely aligning the certification fuel it is briefly summarized here. CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. specification for naphthalene with In order to understand how the Submit your comments on the actual in-use commercial fuel properties proposed GHG standards are affecting Agency’s need for this information, the while reducing the cost and logistical the in-production fleet, we need access accuracy of the provided burden burden associated with certification fuel to timely, representative emissions data estimates and any suggested methods procurement for engine manufacturers. of the fleet at the requisite model level. for minimizing respondent burden to As previously mentioned, all the other The EPA needs the information on the EPA using the docket identified at changes associated with updating the technology, performance parameters, the beginning of this rule. The EPA will incorporation by reference of ICAO and emissions data to conduct accurate respond to any ICR-related comments in Annex 16, Volume II, are editorial or technology assessments, compile the final rule. Additionally, written typographical in nature and merely airplane emission inventories, and comments and recommendations for the intended to clarify the requirements or develop appropriate policy. The ICAO proposed information collection should correct mistakes and typographical CO2DB (discussed in Section V.G) will be sent within 30 days of publication of errors in the Annex. only include the airplane identification this notification to www.reginfo.gov/ IX. Statutory Authority and Executive information, MTOM, and Metric Value. public/do/PRAMain. Find this Order Reviews The EPA proposes to collect additional particular information collection by elements or information beyond what selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Additional information about these ICAO will request for the voluntary statutes and Executive orders can be Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or CO2DB. These additional elements by using the search function. found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- would be the RGF and the annual regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. production volume. In general, we D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory would expect the manufacturers to I certify that this action will not have Planning and Review and Executive claim this additional information as a significant economic impact on a Order 13563: Improving Regulation and confidential business information (CBI), substantial number of small entities Regulatory Review and under such circumstances we under the RFA. In making this would treat it accordingly under 40 CFR This action is a significant regulatory determination, the impact of concern is part 2 and 40 CFR 1068.10. The EPA action that was submitted to the Office any significant adverse economic does not expect a full dataset on all in- of Management and Budget (OMB) for impact on small entities. An agency may production airplanes until shortly after review. The OMB has determined that certify that a rule will not have a the in-production applicability date of this proposed action raises ‘‘. . . novel significant economic impact on a January 1, 2028. In the context of EPA’s legal or policy issues arising out of legal substantial number of small entities if standard-setting role under the CAA mandates, the President’s priorities, or the rule relieves regulatory burden, has with regard to aircraft engine emissions, the principles set forth in this Executive no net burden or otherwise has a it is consistent with our policy and Order.’’ This proposed action addresses positive economic effect on the small practice to ask for timely and reasonable novel policy issues due to the entities subject to the rule. Among the reporting of emission certification international nature of civil aviation and potentially affected entities testing and other information that is the development of related emissions (manufacturers of covered airplanes and relevant to our mission.159 Under the standards. Accordingly, the EPA confidentiality agreements with engine submitted this proposed action to the 159 The FAA already requires much of the manufacturers. Also, that information is part of a OMB for review under E.O. 12866 and information EPA is seeking through the certification much larger submission, making it difficult to E.O. 13563. Any changes made in process but is unable to share it because of extract the specific reporting elements for EPA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51590 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

engines for those airplanes) there is one G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation any changes to airplane fuel small business potentially affected by and Coordination With Indian Tribal consumption beyond what would have this proposed action. This one small Governments otherwise occurred in the absence of business is a manufacturer of aircraft This action does not have tribal this proposed rule, as discussed in engines. The costs we are projecting implications as specified in Executive Section VI.C. associated with this proposal is that Order 13175. This proposed action J. National Technology Transfer and associated with the annual reporting would regulate the manufacturers of Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR requirement discussed in Section IX.C. airplanes and aircraft engines and Part 51 However, that reporting requirement would not have substantial direct effects would apply to the manufacturers of on one or more Indian tribes, on the Section 12(d) of the National covered airplanes, not to the relationship between the Federal Technology Transfer and Advancement manufacturers of aircraft engines. Thus, Government and Indian tribes, or on the Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law the reporting burden would not impact distribution of power and 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) the one small business potentially responsibilities between the Federal directs EPA to use voluntary consensus affected by these proposed regulations. Government and Indian tribes. Thus, standards in its regulatory activities We have therefore concluded that this Executive Order 13175 does not apply unless to do so would be inconsistent action will have no net regulatory to this action. with applicable law or otherwise burden for all directly regulated small impractical. Voluntary consensus entities. H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of standards are technical standards (e.g., Children From Environmental Health materials specifications, test methods, E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Risks and Safety Risks sampling procedures, and business (UMRA) This action is not subject to Executive practices) that are developed or adopted This action does not contain an Order 13045 because it is not by voluntary consensus standards unfunded mandate of $100 million or economically significant as defined in bodies. NTTAA directs agencies to more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. Executive Order 12866, and because the provide Congress, through OMB, 1531–1538, and does not significantly or EPA does not believe the environmental explanations when the Agency decides uniquely affect small governments. The health or safety risks addressed by this not to use available and applicable action imposes no enforceable duty on action present a disproportionate risk to voluntary consensus standards. This any state, local or tribal governments or children. action involves technical standards. the private sector. In accordance with the requirements I. Executive Order 13211: Actions F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to Concerning Regulations That incorporate by reference the use of test This action does not have federalism Significantly Affect Energy Supply, procedures contained in ICAO’s implications. It will not have substantial Distribution or Use International Standards and direct effects on the states, on the This action is not a ‘‘significant Recommended Practices Environmental relationship between the National energy action’’ because it is not likely to Protection, Annex 16, Volumes II and Government and the states, or on the have a significant adverse effect on the III, along with the modifications distribution of power and supply, distribution or use of energy. contained in this rulemaking. This responsibilities among the various These proposed airplane GHG includes the following standards and levels of government. regulations are not expected to result in test methods:

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. 87.60(a) and (b). eous and smoke emissions from airplane engines. ICAO 2017, Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, Annex 40 CFR 1030.23(d), 40 CFR 1030.25(d), 40 Test method describes how to measure the 16, Volume III, First Edition, July 2017. CFR 1030.90(d), and 40 CFR 1030.105. fuel efficiency of airplanes.

The material from the ICAO Annex K. Executive Order 12898: Federal List of Subjects 16, Volume II is an updated version of Actions To Address Environmental 40 CFR Part 87 the document that is already Justice in Minority Populations and incorporated by reference in 40 CFR Low-Income Populations Air pollution control, Aircraft, 87.1, 40 CFR 87.42(c), and 40 CFR The EPA believes that this action does Environmental protection, Incorporation 87.60(a) and (b). For both this document not have disproportionately high and by reference. and ICAO Annex 16, Volume III, we adverse human health or environmental 40 CFR Part 1030 intend to include in the final rule any effects on minority populations, low- amendments adopted subsequent to the income populations and/or indigenous Air pollution control, Aircraft, referenced 2017 publications. peoples, as specified in Executive Order Environmental protection, Greenhouse The referenced standards and test 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). gases, Incorporation by reference. methods may be obtained through the It provides similar levels of International Civil Aviation environmental protection for all affected Andrew Wheeler, Organization, Document Sales Unit, 999 populations without having any Administrator. University Street, Montreal, Quebec, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects For the reasons set forth above, EPA Canada H3C 5H7, (514) 954–8022, proposes to amend 40 CFR chapter I as www.icao.int, or [email protected]. on any population, including any minority or low-income population. follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51591

PART 87—CONTROL OF AIR 1030.98 Confidential business information. (ii) An original certificate of POLLUTION FROM AIRCRAFT AND Reference Information airworthiness issued on or after January AIRCRAFT ENGINES 1, 2028. 1030.100 Abbreviations. (7) A propeller-driven airplane that ■ 1. The authority citation for part 87 1030.105 Definitions. 1030.110 Incorporation by reference. has— continues to read as follows: (i) A MTOM greater than 8,618 kg; Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. and Scope and Applicability (ii) An original certificate of ■ 2. Section 87.8 is amended by revising airworthiness issued on or after January paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read as § 1030.1 Applicability. 1, 2028. follows: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) An airplane that incorporates § 87.8 Incorporation by reference. (c) of this section, when an aircraft modifications that change the fuel efficiency metric value of a prior version (a) Certain material is incorporated by engine subject to 40 CFR part 87 is of airplane may not exceed the GHG reference into this part with the installed on an airplane that is standards of this part when certification approval of the Director of the Federal described in this section and subject to under 14 CFR is sought. The criteria for Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 title 14 of the Code of Federal modified airplanes are described in CFR part 51. To enforce any edition Regulations, the airplane may not § 1030.35. A modified airplane may not other than that specified in this section, exceed the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) exceed the metric value limit of the the Environmental Protection Agency standards of this part when certification prior version under § 1030.30. must publish a document in the Federal under title 14 is sought. (c) The requirements of this part do Register and the material must be (1) A subsonic jet airplane that has— not apply to: available to the public. All approved (i) A type certificated maximum passenger seating capacity of 20 seats or (1) Subsonic jet airplanes having a material is available for inspection at MTOM at or below 5,700 kg. U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket more; (ii) A maximum take-off mass (2) Propeller-driven airplanes having Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, a MTOM at or below 8,618 kg. 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, (MTOM) greater than 5,700 kg; and (iii) An application for original type (3) Amphibious airplanes. Washington, DC 20004, www.epa.gov/ (4) Airplanes initially designed, or certification that is submitted on or after dockets, (202) 202–1744, and is modified and used, for specialized January 1, 2020. available from the sources listed in this operations. These airplane designs may (2) A subsonic jet airplane that has— section. It is also available for include characteristics or configurations (i) A type certificated maximum inspection at the National Archives and necessary to conduct specialized passenger seating capacity of 19 seats or Records Administration (NARA). For operations that the EPA and the FAA fewer; information on the availability of this have determined may cause a significant (ii) A MTOM greater than 5,700 kg, material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ increase in the fuel efficiency metric but not greater than 60,000 kg; and nara.gov or go to http:// value. www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ (iii) An application for original type (5) Airplanes designed with a ibr-locations.html. certification that is submitted on or after reference geometric factor of zero. (b) * * * January 1, 2023. (6) Airplanes designed for, or (1) Annex 16 to the Convention on (3) A propeller-driven airplane that modified and used for, firefighting. International Civil Aviation, has— Environmental Protection, Volume II— (i) A MTOM greater than 8,618 kg; § 1030.5 State standards and controls. Aircraft Engine Emissions, Fourth and No State or political subdivision of a Edition, July 2017 (ICAO Annex 16, (ii) An application for original type State may adopt or attempt to enforce Volume II). IBR approved for §§ 87.1, certification that is submitted on or after any airplane or aircraft engine standard 87.42(c), and 87.60(a) and (b). January 1, 2020. with respect to emissions unless the * * * * * (4) A subsonic jet airplane that is a standard is identical to a standard that ■ 3. Add part 1030 to read as follows: modified version of an airplane whose applies to airplanes under this part. original type certificated version was PART 1030—CONTROL OF not required to have GHG emissions § 1030.10 Exemptions. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM certification under this part and has— Each person seeking relief from ENGINES INSTALLED ON AIRPLANES (i) A MTOM greater than 5,700 kg; compliance with this part at the time of and certification must submit an application Scope and Applicability (ii) An application for certification for exemption to the FAA in accordance Sec. that is submitted on or after January 1, with the regulations of 14 CFR parts 11 1030.1 Applicability. 2023. and 38. The FAA will consult with the 1030.5 State standards and controls. (5) A propeller-driven airplane that is EPA on each exemption application 1030.10 Exemptions. a modified version of an airplane whose request before the FAA takes action. Subsonic Airplane Emission Standards and original type certificated version was Subsonic Airplane Emission Standards Measurement Procedures not required to have GHG emissions and Measurement Procedures 1030.20 Fuel efficiency metric. certification under this part and has— 1030.23 Specific air range (SAR). (i) A MTOM greater than 8,618 kg; § 1030.20 Fuel efficiency metric. 1030.25 Reference geometric factor (RGF). and For each airplane subject to this part, 1030.30 GHG emission standards. (ii) An application for certification including an airplane subject to the 1030.35 Change criteria. that is submitted on or after January 1, change criteria of § 1030.35, a fuel Reporting and Recordkeeping 2023. efficiency metric value must be 1030.90 Airplane production report to the (6) A subsonic jet airplane that has— calculated, using the following EPA. (i) A MTOM greater than 5,700 kg; equation, rounded to three decimal 1030.95 Recordkeeping. and places:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51592 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

Fuel Efficiency metric value = (1/ of this section to calculate the fuel flat plane parallel with the main deck SAR)avg/(RGF∧0.24) efficiency metric value in § 1030.20. Do floor by the forward and aft pressure Where the specific air range (SAR) is not include auxiliary power units in any bulkheads except for any crew cockpit determined in accordance with 1/SAR calculation. zone. § 1030.23, and the reference geometric (d) All determinations under this (2) The maximum width of the factor is determined in accordance with section must be made according to the fuselage outer mold line at or above § 1030.25. The fuel efficiency metric procedures applicable to SAR in each other deck floor, projected to a flat value is expressed in units of kilograms Paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of Annex 16, plane parallel with the additional deck of fuel consumed per kilometer. Volume III and Appendix 1 of Annex floor by the forward and aft pressure 16, Volume III (incorporated by bulkheads except for any crew cockpit § 1030.23 Specific air range (SAR). reference in § 1030.110). zone. (a) For each airplane subject to this (c) Determine the non-dimensional part the SAR of an airplane must be § 1030.25 Reference geometric factor RGF by dividing the area defined in (RGF). determined by either— paragraph (a) or (b) of this section by 1 (1) Direct flight test measurements. For each airplane subject to this part, m∧2. (2) Using a performance model that is: determine the airplane’s (d) All measurements and (i) Validated by actual SAR flight test nondimensional reference geometric calculations used to determine the RGF data; and factor (RGF) for the fuselage size of each of an airplane must be made according (ii) Approved by the FAA before any airplane model, calculated as follows: to the procedures for determining RGF SAR calculations are made. (a) For an airplane with a single deck, in Appendix 2 of ICAO Annex 16, (b) For each airplane model, establish determine the area of a surface Volume III (incorporated by reference in ∧ a 1/SAR value at each of the following (expressed in m 2) bounded by the § 1030.110). reference airplane masses: maximum width of the fuselage outer (1) High gross mass: 92 percent mold line projected to a flat plane § 1030.30 GHG emission standards. maximum takeoff mass (MTOM). parallel with the main deck floor and (a) The greenhouse gas emission (2) Low gross mass: (0.45 * MTOM) + the forward and aft pressure bulkheads standards in this section are expressed (0.63 * (MTOM∧0.924)). except for the crew cockpit zone. as maximum permitted values fuel (3) Mid gross mass: Simple arithmetic (b) For an airplane with more than efficiency metric values, as calculated average of high gross mass and low one deck, determine the sum of the under § 1030.20. gross mass. areas (expressed in m∧2) as follows: (b) The fuel efficiency metric value (c) Calculate the average of the three (1) The maximum width of the may not exceed the following, rounded 1/SAR values described in paragraph (b) fuselage outer mold line, projected to a to three decimal places:

For airplanes defined in . . . With MTOM . . . The standard is . . .

(¥2.73780 ∂ (0.681310 * log (MTOM)) ∂ (¥0.0277861 * (log (MTOM))∧2)) (1) Section 1030.1(a)(1) and (2) ..... 5,700 < MTOM ≤ 60,000 kg ...... 10 10 10 (¥2.73780 ∂ (0.681310 * log (MTOM)) ∂ (¥0.0277861 * (log (MTOM))∧2)): (2) Section 1030.1(a)(3) ...... 8,618 < MTOM ≤ 60,000 kg ...... 10 10 10 (3) Section 1030.1(a)(1) and (3) ..... 60,000 < MTOM ≤ 70,395 kg ...... 0.764 (¥1.412742 ∂ (¥0.020517 * log (MTOM)): ∂ (0.0593831 * (log (MTOM))∧2)) (4) Section 1030.1(a)(1) and (3) ..... MTOM > 70,395 kg ...... 10 10 10 (¥2.57535 ∂ (0.609766 * log (MTOM)) ∂ (¥0.0191302 * (log (MTOM))∧2)) (5) Section 1030.1(a)(4) and (6) ..... 5,700 < MTOM ≤ 60,000 kg ...... 10 10 10 (¥2.57535 ∂ (0.609766 * log (MTOM)) ∂ (¥0.0191302 * (log (MTOM))∧2)): (6) Section 1030.1(a)(5) and (7) ..... 8,618 < MTOM ≤ 60,000 kg ...... 10 10 10 (7) Section 1030.1(a)(4) through (7) 60,000 ≤ MTOM < 70,107 kg ...... 0.797 (¥1.39353 ∂ (¥0.020517 * log (MTOM)) ∂ (0.0593831 * (log (MTOM))∧2)) (8) Section 1030.1(a)(4) through (7) MTOM > 70,107 kg ...... 10 10 10

§ 1030.35 Change criteria. (b) For an airplane that has Reporting and Recordkeeping (a) For an airplane that has demonstrated compliance with § 1030.90 Airplane production report to the demonstrated compliance with § 1030.30, any subsequent version of EPA. § 1030.30, any subsequent version of that airplane that incorporates Manufacturers of airplanes subject to that airplane must demonstrate modifications that do not increase the § 1030.1 must submit an annual report compliance with § 1030.30 if the MTOM or the fuel efficiency metric as specified in this section. subsequent version incorporates a value in excess of the levels shown in (a) You must submit the report for modification that either increases— paragraph (a) of this section, the fuel each calendar year in which you (1) The maximum take-off mass; or efficiency metric value of the modified produce any airplanes that are subject to (2) The fuel efficiency metric value by airplane may be reported to be the same GHG emission standards under this more than: as the value of the prior version. part. The report is due by the following (i) For airplanes with a MTOM greater February 28. Include exempted than or equal to 5,700 kg, the value (c) For an airplane that meets the criteria of § 1030.1(a)(4) or (5), after airplanes in your report. decreases linearly from 1.35 to 0.75 (b) Send the report to the Designated January 1, 2023 and until January 1, percent for an airplane with a MTOM of EPA Program Officer. 60,000 kg. 2028, the airplane must demonstrate (c) In the report, identify your (ii) For airplanes with a MTOM compliance with § 1030.30 if it corporate name as listed on the airplane greater than or equal to 60,000 kg, the incorporates any modification that type certificate and the year for which value decreases linearly from 0.75 to increases the fuel efficiency metric you are reporting. 0.70 percent for airplanes with a MTOM value by more than 1.5 per cent from the (d) Identify the complete name for of 600,000 kg. prior version of the airplane. each of your airplane sub-models and (iii) For airplanes with a MTOM include the following information for greater than or equal to 600,000 kg, the each airplane sub-model that is covered value is 0.70 percent. by an FAA type certificate:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:16 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules 51593

(1) Type certificate number from the records in English if we ask for them. Maximum take-off mass (MTOM) is FAA. Also identify type certificates You must keep these records readily the maximum allowable take-off mass as issued by any organization other than available. We may review them at any stated in the approved certification basis the FAA. Identify the issue date of each time. for an airplane type design. Maximum type certificate (month and year). take-off mass is expressed in kilograms. (2) Submission date for the § 1030.98 Confidential business Performance model is an analytical information. application to certify to the GHG tool (or a method) validated using emission standards in § 1030.30. The provisions of 40 CFR 1068.10 corrected flight test data that can be (3) Edition number and publication apply for information you consider used to determine the specific air range date of the applicable standards under confidential. values for calculating the fuel efficiency Annex 16, Volume III. Reference Information metric value. (4) For modified airplanes under Reference geometric factor is a non- § 1030.35, the most recently certificated § 1030.100 Abbreviations. dimensional number derived from a version. The abbreviations used in this part two-dimensional projection of the (5) Maximum take-off mass and have the following meanings: fuselage. reference geometric factor. Round has the meaning given in 40 (6) The number of installed engines TABLE 1 TO § 1030.100 CFR 1065.1001. for each airplane. Include the following Specific air range is the distance an information for each engine: EPA ... U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- airplane travels per unit of fuel (i) The corporate name as listed on the cy. consumed. Specific air range is engine type certificate. FAA ... U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. expressed in kilometers per kilogram of (ii) The complete name for each of GHG .. greenhouse gas. fuel. engine model. IBR .... incorporation by reference. Subsonic means an airplane that has (7) Include the following information ICAO .. International Civil Aviation Organiza- not been certificated under 14 CFR to from the propeller type certificate, if tion. exceed Mach 1 in normal operation. MTOM maximum take-off mass. Type certificated maximum passenger applicable: RGF ... reference geometric factor. (i) The corporate name as listed on the SAR ... specific air range. seating capacity means the maximum propeller type certificate. number of passenger seats that may be (ii) The complete name for each installed on an airplane as listed on its § 1030.105 Definitions. propeller model. type certificate data sheet, regardless of (8) Fuel efficiency metric value and The following definitions in this the actual number of seats installed on the calculated GHG emission standard. section apply to this part. Any terms not an individual airplane. (9) Identify the number of airplanes defined in this section have the meaning We (us, our) means the Administrator produced during the reporting period. If given in the Clean Air Act. The of the Environmental Protection Agency the number is zero, identify the date of definitions follow: and any authorized representatives. manufacture for the last airplane you Aircraft has the meaning given in 14 produced and state whether the airplane CFR 1.1, a device that is used or § 1030.110 Incorporation by reference. is out of production. intended to be used for flight in the air. (a) Certain material is incorporated by (10) For airplanes exempted under Aircraft engine means a propulsion reference into this part with the § 1030.10, identify the approval date for engine that is installed on or that is approval of the Director of the Federal the exemption and the number of manufactured for installation on an Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 exempt airplanes. airplane for which certification under CFR part 51. To enforce any edition (e) Include the following signed 14 CFR is sought. other than that specified in this section, statement and endorsement by an Airplane has the meaning given in 14 the Environmental Protection Agency authorized representative of your CFR 1.1, an engine-driven fixed-wing must publish a document in the Federal company: ‘‘We submit this report under aircraft heavier than air, that is Register and the material must be 40 CFR 1030.90. All the information in supported in flight by the dynamic available to the public. All approved this report is true and accurate to the reaction of the air against its wings. material is available for inspection at best of my knowledge.’’ Designated EPA Program Officer EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, (f) Where information provided for means the Director, Compliance Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, the previous year remains valid and Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20004, www.epa.gov/ complete, you may report your Agency, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann dockets, (202) 202–1744, and is production volumes and state that there Arbor, MI 48105; complianceinfo@ available from the sources listed in this are no changes, without resubmitting epa.gov. section. It is also available for the other information specified in this Exempt means to allow, through a inspection at the National Archives and section. formal case-by-case process, an airplane Records Administration (NARA). For to be certificated and operated that does information on the availability of this § 1030.95 Recordkeeping. not meet the applicable standards of this material at NARA, email fedreg.legal@ (a) You must keep a copy of any part. nara.gov or go to: www.archives.gov/ reports or other information you submit Greenhouse Gas (GHG) means an air federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. to us for at least three years. If you use pollutant that is the aggregate group of (b) International Civil Aviation the same emissions data or other six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, Organization, Document Sales Unit, 999 information to support a new nitrous oxide, methane, University Street, Montreal, Quebec, certification, the three-year period hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, Canada H3C 5H7, (514) 954–8022, restarts with each year that you and sulfur hexafluoride. www.icao.int, or [email protected]. continue to rely on the information. ICAO Annex 16, Volume III means (1) Annex 16 to the Convention on (b) Store these records in any format Volume III of Annex 16 to the International Civil Aviation, and on any media, as long as you can Convention on International Civil Environmental Protection, Volume III— promptly send us organized, written Aviation. Aeroplane CO2 Emissions, First Edition,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2 51594 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 162 / Thursday, August 20, 2020 / Proposed Rules

July 2017 (ICAO Annex 16, Volume III). IBR approved for §§ 1030.23(d) and (2) [Reserved] 1030.25(d). [FR Doc. 2020–16271 Filed 8–19–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:11 Aug 19, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\20AUP2.SGM 20AUP2 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2