PUBLIC HEARING FOR AIRCRAFT ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Thursday, November 13, 2003 1201 Constitution Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C.

Environmental Protection Agency 1201 Constitution Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 2 PARTICIPANTS:

Don Zinger, Environmental Protection Agency Glenn Passavant, Environmental Protection Agency Mike Thrift, Environmental Protection Agency Bryan Manning, Environmental Protection Agency Amy Royden, STAPPA/ ALAPCO Russell Long, Blue Water Network Mark MacLeod, Environmental Defense Jake Schmidt, Center for Clean Air Policy Jack Saporito, Alliance of Residents Concerning O

Hare Nancy Young, Air Transport Association 3 AGENDA: PAGE EPA Opening Statement 4 Testimony 7 Royden  STAPPA/ ALAPCO Long  Blue Water Network 1 MacLeod  Environmental Defense 3 Schmidt  Center for Clean Air Policy 4 Saporito  Alliance of Residents Concerning O

Hare 5 Young  Air Transport Association 86 4 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 MR. ZINGER: If we could ask folks to take 2 their seat please and we

ll get started. 3 Good morning. I would like to welcome all of 4 you to this very impressive room. We certainly have 5 plenty of seats for all, so I would ask you if you 6 would like  it looks like you are all seated over in 7 this direction anyway so I think that works. 8 Welcome to today

s hearing. My name is Don 9 Zinger. I

m the acting chief of staff in the Office of 10 Air and Radiation and I will be serving as the 11 presiding officer for this hearing. 12 We will be hearing testimony today on a notice 13 of proposed rulemaking for amending the existing 14 emissions standards for oxides of nitrogen for new 15 commercial aircraft engines. The proposed regulations 16 being considered today were published in the Federal 17 Register on September 30, 2003. 18 The proposed emissions standards are 19 equivalent to the latest emissions standards of the 20 United Nations International Civil Aviation 21 5 Organization and thereby would bring the United States 1 aircraft standards into alignment with the 2 international standards. These standards would go into 3 effect in 2004 and would apply to aircraft engines with 4 rated thrusts greater than 26.7 kilonewtons that are 5 newly certified after the effective date of the 6 regulations. 7 Following this public hearing there will be an 8 opportunity for everyone to submit us written comments. 9 Representing EPA with me are Glenn Passavant 10 and Bryan Manning, both from the Office of 11 Transportation and Air Quality, and Mike Thrift from 12 the Office of General Counsel. 13 Before getting started with today

s testimony 14 I would like to take a few minutes to read a prepared 15 statement to outline how we will hold this hearing. 16 We are conducting this hearing in accordance 17 with Section 3.07( D)( 5) of the amended Clean Air Act 18 which requires EPA to provide interested persons with 19 an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views or 20 arguments in addition to an opportunity to make written 21 6 submissions. This hearing provides the opportunity for 1 such oral presentations. 2 The official record for this hearing will be 3 kept open until December 15, 2003, as provi not apply. 4 The presiding officer, however, is authorized to 5 strike statements from the record which are deemed 6 irrelevant or needlessly repetitious and to enforce 7 reasonable limits on the duration of the statement of 8 any witness. 9 Witnesses must state their name and 10 affiliation prior to making their statement. When a 11 witness has finished his or her presentation members of 12 this panel will have an opportunity to ask questions 13 related to the testimony. Witness are reminded that 14 any false statements or false responses to questions 15 may be a violation of the law. 16 Witnesses will have a chance later in the 17 hearing to provide rebuttal and supplemental testimony. 18 In addition, witnesses can submit rebuttal and 19 supplemental testimony until December 15th. 20 If any members of the audience wishing to 21 7 testify have not already signed up please submit your 1 name at the reception table over there at the entrance. 2 We will try to accommodate everyone who wants to 3 testify. Everyone attending should sign the register 4 whether or not you testify. 5 Finally, if you would like a transcript of the 6 proceedings you should make arrangements directly with 7 the court reporter during one of the breaks. 8 Before we begin testimony I want to ask if 9 there are any clarifying questions. Okay, I see none. 10 With that we will begin with our first 11 speaker. The first witness this morning is Ms. Amy 12 Royden who is representing STAPPA and ALAPCO. 13 Ms. Royden? Feel free to sit down at the 14 table. If we could also ask you to write your name on 15 the placard. That helps the court reporter get the 16 spelling correctly. 17 MS. ROYDEN: Okay. 18 MR. ZINGER: And we would ask that subsequent 19 witnesses also do the same. I think there is some 20 markers up there. 21 8 MS. ROYDEN: Good morning. My name is Amy 1 Royden and I

m a senior staff associate of STAPPA, the 2 State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 3 Administrators, and ALAPCO, the Association of Local 4 Air Pollution Control Officials, the two national 5 associations of air quality officials of the states, 6 territories and more than 165 major metropolitan areas 7 across the country. I appreciate this opportunity to 8 present STAPPA and ALAPCO

s testimony on EPA

s proposed 9 rule to amend the existing regulations for NOx 10 emissions from  and test procedure requirements for 11 new commercial aircraft to mirror those of the United 12 Nations International Civil Aviation Organization, 13 ICAO. 14 STAPPA and ALAPCO have long been concerned 15 with the significant and ever growing level of aviation 16 related emissions and, moreover, the associated adverse 17 health consequences that occur in numerous areas of the 18 country. While we remain confident that states and 19 localities will be able to implement measures to 20 effectively reduce emissions from ground access 21 9 vehicles and ground support equipment at airports, we 1 depend upon EPA for its leadership in regulating 2 emissions for aircraft. Particularly as the nation 3 prepares to implement the health based eight hour ozone 4 and PM 2.5 NAAQS, it is essential that we not squander 5 important opportunities for garnering much needed 6 emission reductions. 7 For this reason STAPPA and ALAPCO are 8 extremely disappointed in EPA

s recently proposed NOx 9 emission standards and test procedures for new 10 commercial aircraft. The proposed standards will do 11 nothing to reduce aircraft emissions because nearly all 12 currently certified or in production engine models 13 already meets or performs better than the ICAO 14 standards and manufacturers already adhere to the ICAO 15 test procedures. 16 In my comments today I will highlight the 17 importance of controlling NOx from aircraft and propose 18 a preferred approach for EPA and regulating NOx 19 emissions from aircraft. 20 As you know, NOx is a major contributor to 21 10 multiple environmental problems including ozone, fine 1 particles, acid rain, regional haze and the 2 nitrification of water bodies. Significant additional 3 reductions in emissions of this pollutant are needed to 4 adequately address these problems and to balance the 5 projected growth in activity in sectors that are 6 responsible for most NOx emissions. 7 In the U. S. NOx emissions from all sources 8 actually increased slightly, 2st significant sources of 9 NOx. With the introduction of the Tier II federal 10 motor vehicle standards NOx emissions from the typical 11 light duty vehicle will be 99 percent lower than those 12 from the uncontrolled 1960' s car. 13 The recently adopted 2007 standards will 14 require a 90 percent reduction in NOx from current 15 levels for heavy duty trucks and buses. The proposed 16 standards for heavy duty non road engines will reduce 17 new engine NOx by 90 percent from current levels 18 starting in 2011. Moreover, NOx emissions from power 19 plants in the Eastern U. S. are now controlled at 20 approximately 70 percent and will likely be controlled 21 11 even more stringently and year round as a result of 1 anticipated multi pollutant legislative proposals in 2 the near future. 3 Finally, as a result of the federal 4 transportation conformity process, ground 5 transportation programs in major urban areas will face 6 significant pressure to reduce NOx emissions. By 7 contrast, NOx emissions from aircraft are projected to 8 increase at a rapid rate into the future. Using recent 9 FAA growth projections, aircraft emissions are 10 projected to double by 2030. Currently NOx emissions 11 from major airports already are greater than emissions 12 from large stationary sources, such as refineries and 13 electrical generating facilities. For most states and 14 localities with major airports and seaports, aircraft 15 and international marine vessels are the only two 16 source sectors where emissions are projected to 17 increase in the future. 18 As described above, other major stationary and 19 mobile sources are expected to meet much more stringent 20 standards than what might be achieved by even the 21 12 deepest cuts being contemplated in CAEP 6, to say 1 nothing of the standards that EPA is proposing in its 2 rulemaking. Given the long life and slow turnover of 3 the aircraft fleet, the most stringent feasible 4 standards are needed now to help offset future growth. 5 6 In assessing the stringency of the standards 7 proposed by EPA and NPRM we note that the combined 8 effect of these standards with previously adopted 9 standards will achieve only about a 33 percent 10 reduction in NOx emissions from new engines models 11 relative to uncontrolled levels. By comparison, all 12 other emission sources are being controlled to well 13 over 50 percent and some as high as 95 percent. 14 We also note that the word

standard

as used 15 to describe the emission levels set by ICAO is a 16 misnomer. First, emission standards set by air 17 regulatory agencies for all other sources of air 18 pollutant emissions always define a technology forcing 19 performance level that is beyond what sources are 20 currently achieving, unlike wevels should be and what 21 13 technology would likely be able to achieve. 1 By contrast, the ICAO standards and the 2 aircraft engine standards proposed in this NPRM are not 3 technology forcing since by the date the standards are 4 adopted most engines in production already meet the 5 standards by significant margins. Today 85 percent of 6 existing engines already meet the standards adopted by 7 ICAO. 8 Second, the proposed NOx standards would not 9 apply to already certified, newly manufactured engines. 10 A primary consideration in standard setting by ICAO is 11 the number of in production and already certified 12 engines that would not meet the proposed standard. 13 CAEP 4 responded to the concern about potential impact 14 of new standards on the asset values of these extinct 15 fleet aircraft by only applying the new stringency 16 level to newly certified engines. Consequently, high 17 emitting engines can continue to be manufactured and 18 brought into service, further contributing to the long 19 term increase in aircraft emissions that is projected 20 to occur absent a more aggressive approach to 21 14 regulating the source. 1 This type of regulation is clearly 2 inconsistent with the approach used for other source 3 sectors and inadequate to meet the needs of state and 4 local air pollution control agencies in attaining the 5 federal ozone standards. Nearly all, 94 percent, 6 already certified engines currently meet or perform 7 better than the CAEP 4 NOx standard. 8 Furthermore, as noted in EPA

s NPRM, except 9 for aircraft engines, all current mobile source 10 programs under the Clean Air Act that involve new 11 emission standards apply to newly manufactured engines 12 or vehicles based on the certification model year, and 13 we question the logic of not following the same 14 approach here. At a minimum in its rule EPA should 15 identify a production cut off date for already 16 certified engines to prevent manufacturers from 17 offering these engines for sale unless the engines were 18 redesigned and recertified to meet the standard. 19 STAPPA and ALAPCO believe that at the very 20 least it is incumbent upon EPA to assess the viability 21 15 of setting standards for aircraft engines that reflect 1 the emission reductions that technologists will deliver 2 at a future implementation date. EPA should also 3 consider a certification process that accounts for 4 engine and airframe combinations. NASA is engaged in a 5 research and development program to develop an engine 6 that emits 70 percent less NOx than required by the 7 CAEP 2 standards. The goal is to achieve this 8 reduction without adversonable starting point for a 9 true technology based regulation. 10 Given the promising technological developments 11 occurring with aircraft, aerodynamic design and 12 stronger, lighter materials, there is tremendous 13 promise for more fuel efficient and lower emitting 14 aircraft in the future. EPA should consider ways to 15 regulate emissions from the aircraft rather than the 16 engine in order to encourage the ongoing development 17 and application of new airframe technology. 18 In conclusion, state air quality officials and 19 environmental commissioners have consistently 20 articulated to EPA, FAA and DOT that the federal 21 16 government needs to find a way to reduce aircraft 1 emissions in a manner that will ensure that they will 2 eventually start to decline compared to current levels. 3 The rule proposed by EPA in the NPRM falls far short 4 of putting us on a path to that goal and in fact will 5 guarantee that aircraft related emissions of NOx will 6 continue to increase significantly in the foreseeable 7 future. This leaves state and local agencies in the 8 unenviable position of having to extract further 9 emission reductions from other sectors in order to 10 offset increased emissions from the aviation sector. 11 The history of Clean Air Act implementation is 12 a testament to the fact that technological innovation 13 follows rather than precedes the adoption of stringent 14 emission reduction, emission control requirements. 15 This has been the case for emission control 16 technologies for both stationary and mobile sources. 17 Further, history has shown that the costs of these 18 control technologies almost always has been far lower 19 than suggested by initial estimates. In order to 20 achieve the emission reductions from aircraft engines 21 17 necessary to eventually reverse the trend of increasing 1 NOx emissions from this source EPA must establish 2 standards that promote and accelerate technological 3 innovation. 4 Consequently, STAPPA and ALAPCO believe that 5 the era of EPA adopting aircrashould be subject to the 6 same relative level of control as other major 7 industries. We recommend that in its final rule EPA 8 establish standards that meet the air quality needs of 9 the U. S. using the same technology forcing approach 10 that the agency has so successfully used for other 11 mobile sources. 12 In the coming weeks we will continue to 13 evaluate the agency

s proposal and develop written 14 technical comments for submittal by the deadline. 15 STAPPA and ALAPCO look forward to working with EPA 16 closely to address emissions from aircraft in a way 17 that will ensure appropriate and meaningful reductions. 18 I thank you for this opportunity to provide 19 the Association

s perspectives on this proposed 20 rulemaking. Thanks. 21 18 MR. ZINGER: Thank you very much. I have a 1 couple of clarifying questions and then we will see if 2 other panelists also do. 3 On page 3 of your testimony you mention that 4  you suggest that EPA identify a production cut off 5 date for already certified engines. Do you have a date 6 in mind that you would like to recommend to us? 7 MS. ROYDEN: Not at this time, but it is 8 something we will consider for inclusion in our written 9 comments and I

ll note that, that that what

s you are 10 interested in. 11 MR. ZINGER: Also on page 3 you bring up the 12 idea of a certification process that accounts for both 13 the engine and the airframe itself. Has your 14 organization looked at the legal authority that EPA 15 might have to do that? 16 MS. ROYDEN: No, we have not. 17 MR. ZINGER: Okay. Any other questions? 18 MR. MANNING: I just have one clarifying 19 question on page 3, the first paragraph. I think in 20 the middle it says,

Today 85 percent of existing 21 19 engines already meet the ICAO or the meet the standards 1 adopted by ICAO.

And then the next paragraph it says, 2

Nearly all, 94 percent, already certified engines 3 currently meet or perform better than the CAEP NOx 4 standard.

I think that

s right out of the Federal 5 Register notice, but I think I may know what the 6 difference is between those numbers, but if you could 7 clarify that might help. If you know. 8 MS. ROYDEN: I

ll have to get back to you on 9 that and consult with our technical committee about the 10 difference. But I will get back to you, Bryan. Sorry 11 about that. 12 MR. ZINGER: Okay, thank you very much. 13 MR. ROYDEN: Thank you. 14 MR. ZINGER: Our next witness is Mr. Russell 15 Long from the Blue Water Network. Russell could not be 16 with us today but he

s on the telephone. 17 Russell, can you hear us? 18 MR. LONG: Yes. Can you hear me okay? 19 MR. ZINGER: Yes. Amazing. 20 MR. LONG: Well, let me start by thanking the 21 20 agency for allowing me to participate by phone. It 1 saves me a trip across country. 2 My name is Russell Long and I

m the executive 3 director of Blue Water Network, a national 4 environmental organization with members in all 50 5 states. For eight years our work has largely focused 6 on emissions from mobile sources and fuels. I 7 appreciate the opportunity to comment on the aircraft 8 proposed rule today. Blue Wral aviation, air taxi and 9 military aircraft engines from regulation. The Clean 10 Air Act states that,

The administrators shall propose 11 emission standards applicable to the emission from any 12 class or classes of aircraft engines.

There is no 13 exemption in section 231 of the Clean Air Act for 14 general aviation and military aircraft engines. These 15 engine categories, therefore, need to be regulated. 16 In addition, emissions from these exempted 17 aircraft engines, that are between 1 to 26 percent of 18 emissions from all aircraft engines according to the 19 EPA, are significant, such that EPA cannot exempt them 20 from regulation without explaining the basis of its 21 21 decision. 1 Furthermore, the agency has failed to 2 appropriately address the extent to which these 3 categories add to the emissions inventory. EPA has at 4 the very least an affirmative obligation to properly 5 conduct a detailed inventory of the emissions from all 6 aircraft engines instead of citing unidentified 7 limitations on estimated current military aircraft 8 emissions. EPA indicates that emissions from general 9 aviation air taxi and military aircraft engines 10 represents between 1 and 26 percent of the total 11 inventory. Such a broad range of uncertainty fails to 12 satisfy even the most basic requirements for EPA to 13 conduct accurate assessments and inventories of 14 emissions that may significantly contribute to air 15 pollution. The Clean Air Act requires the agency to 16 assess and regulate any class or classes of emissions 17 generators and accurately control such, and without an 18 appropriate and accurate inventory it would appear to 19 be infeasible for the agency to take effective actions. 20 Our second area of concern pertains to the 21 22 scope of the regulation. The Clean Air Act states 1 that,

The administrators shall propose emission 2 standards applicable to the emission of any air 3 pollutant from aircraft engines which in his judgment 4 cause or contribute to air pollution which may 5 reasonably be anticipated to enhe agency failed to 6 regulate a number of pollutants that would fall under 7 this statute. 8 For example, the agency fails to regulate 9 particulate matter, a significant contributor to air 10 pollution in non attainment areas, especially in urban 11 areas with heavy aircraft traffic. This is a 12 particularly glaring oversight given that the agency 13 projects dramatic increases in air traffic over the 14 next several decades which will continue to increase 15 the rates of asthma, cancer and other respiratory 16 problems for millions of Americans who live in urban 17 areas that are not in attainment of the nation

s air 18 quality goals. 19 The agency must also establish a revised 20 hydrocarbon emissions standards, which substantially 21 23 contribute to ozone in non attainment areas, which adds 1 to the toxic exposure burden upon airport workers, 2 passengers and local residents exposed to such exhaust. 3 In addition, it is our understanding that 4 aviation gasoline is one of the last engine categories 5 still containing lead. The emissions of lead from such 6 engines, particularly around airports, is believed to 7 impact air and water quality, wildlife, and human 8 health, especially for people residing near the flight 9 paths of commercial jet operations. Such toxic 10 exposures also constitute a serious environmental 11 concern given that many people of color and low income 12 communities are adjacent to airports across the United 13 States. 14 Lead from aircraft also impacts aircraft 15 workers, maintenance personnel and aircraft passengers, 16 and it appears at greater frequency and at higher 17 levels in wetlands and other land areas adjacent to 18 airports than in other areas. 19 While Blue Water Network understands the need 20 for aviation gasoline like other fuels to include 21 24 octane enhancers, there are octane enhancers besides 1 lead that have done a more than adequate job for all 2 categories of vehicles without jeopardizing public 3 health or safety. Non oxygenated fuels used by many 4 refineries have proven themselves to be safe, reliable 5 and widely available for virtually every category of 6 vessel, vehicle and craft imaginable. Oxygenated fuels 7 are also considered safe for such categories, including 8 ethanol, which is also widely available today across 9 the nation. 10 Lead is one of the criteria air pollutants 11 which EPA has the affirmative obligation to regulate 12 and we believe the EPA must do so as part of this 13 rulemaking. 14 Our third comment involves the stringency of 15 control that EPA chose in the proposed regulations. 16 Congress required the agency to,

Issue proposed 17 emission standards applicable to any pollutant of 18 aircraft engines which endanger public health or 19 welfare and to hold public hearing with respect to such 20 standards in such air quality regions as are most 21 25 seriously affected by aircraft engines, aircraft 1 emissions.

The agency has an obligation to establish 2 standards that will not simply memorialize the status 3 quo mission standards of engines already in production, 4 but to accept public input by affected stakeholders and 5 based upon such input set meaningful standards that 6 will have the effect of reducing emissions for the 7 benefit of public health and welfare, especially in 8 regions that are most seriously affected by aircraft 9 emissions. 10 EPA

s admission that 94 percent of all 11 commercial engines currently in production already meet 12 or exceed the proposed standards and that EPA is 13

codifying current practice

is stark evidence of EPA

s 14 failure in regard to the establishment of meaningful 15 standards to protect public health and welfare. As a 16 result, the general public will be afforded little if 17 any environmental benefit from the proposed rule nor 18 will this rule contribute towards achieving the Clean 19 Air Act goal of healthful air quality for all 20 Americans. 21 26 The agency

s suggestion that it may choose to 1 establish more stringent standards at some pointr such 2 standards are proposed. Section 231( B) specifically 3 notes that aircraft engines

shall take effect after 4 such period as the administrator finds necessary, after 5 consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, to 6 permit the development and application of the requisite 7 technology.

Unfortunately the proposed rule ignores 8 the requirement for the development and application of 9 the requisite technology as evidenced by EPA

s own 10 admission that only 6 percent of commercial engines 11 currently fail to achieve the proposed standards. 12 Congress never intended for EPA to propose 13 standards that were without meaning. The statute 14 clearly indicates that any standard proposed must not 15 only be meaningful with respect to the public health 16 and welfare but it should also  it should only be 17 promulgated within a time frame sufficient for the 18

development and application

of newer technologies 19 that will benefit public health. 20 Blue Water Network argues that the standards 21 27 as proposed neither benefit public health to any 1 meaningful degree nor do they allow sufficient time for 2 manufacturers to achieve significant progress in 3 achieving the more stringent standards for which the 4 Clear Air Act calls. However, instead of developing 5 meaningful standards or providing sufficient time 6 frames of limitations EPA has simply codified what 7 amounts to little more than an anti backsliding 8 standard. Had Congress required a no backsliding 9 standard, in other words the establishment of standards 10 nearly codifying the emissions values engines are 11 already achieving, it would have been a very simple 12 matter for them to clarify this point in the Act. 13 Their failure to do so and their choices of the 14 phrases, the development of requisite technologies, 15 public hearings with respect to such standards, and the 16 need to

protect public health and welfare,

mean far 17 greater emissions reductions than contained in EPA

s 18 current proposal. 19 Furthermore, by adopting the virtually 20 identical emissions standards proposed by an 21 28 international body, ICAO, the CAEP 6 emissions 1 standards, EPA has shunted aside its obligation to meet 2 the Clean Air Act requirements to establish new 3 standards to protect air quality. Congress certainly 4 did not provide for the agency to defer to 5 international bodies where there are ineffectual 6 standards memorializing the status quo. The failure to 7 adopt genuine technology forcing standards for aircraft 8 operating in the U. S. places the agency in clear 9 violation of the Clean Air Act. 10 Finally, the EPA proposes to grandfather all 11 engine families who were previously in production prior 12 to the rulemaking, allowing indefinite continued 13 production of such families as the staff has commented. 14 EPA justifies this by arguing that emissions from such 15 engine families are small. However, Blue Water Network 16 is not aware of any agency precedent for such an 17 exemption. In fact, EPA admits in the preamble to the 18 proposed regulation that EPA has never exempted already 19 certified engines before. It would be arbitrary and 20 capricious to exempt already certified engines without 21 29 explaining why this rulemaking is different from 1 previous aircraft emissions rules or other rules which 2 did not carve out exemptions for already certified 3 engines. Nor do we agree that the impacts of 4 grandfathering already certified engines can be 5 characterized as insig upon the Clean Air Act we 6 believe that EPA must not and cannot permit the 7 grandfathering of such engine families. 8 In connection with the exemption, EPA requests 9 comments as to whether EPA should apply the proposal to 10 already certified engines at a date two, four and six 11 years after the implementation date for these new 12 designs. For the public to offer meaningful comment on 13 this issue, information on why such lead time is 14 necessary must be provided such that EPA and the public 15 could pick the shortest lead times. 16 Thank you very much. 17 MR. ZINGER: Thank you, Russell. 18 Do we have any questions from the panelists? 19 MR. PASSAVANT: Russell, this is Glenn 20 Passavant. Good morning, Russell. 21 30 MR. LONG: Unfortunately I can

t hear you very 1 well. 2 MR. PASSAVANT: How about if I speak right 3 into the mike. Is that better? 4 MR. LONG: It

s a little better. 5 MR. PASSAVANT: I

ll get even closer then. 6 Russell, I just wanted to seek a clarification 7 on your one point about the stringency of the standard 8 where you are indicating that you felt that the agency 9 had not gone far enough on setting of the standard and 10 I  not having anything written in front of me I

m 11 trying to ascertain if your position or your comment is 12 that the agency should set a standard at some as of yet 13 undetermined level for some yet undetermined future 14 date and set that out there as a future standard for 15 the industry to work toward as a opposed to what we

ve 16 done, which is to more adopt current technology 17 standards. 18 MR. LONG: Yes, that

s correct. I think the 19 Act clearly calls for any standard that is proposed to 20 be meaningful and to provide sufficient time as all of 21 31 your other proposals have done in the past, for 1 industry to develop the requisite technology to achieve 2 those standards, and obviously codifying the status quo 3 satisfies neither condition. 4 MR. PASSAVANT: Russell, did you have any 5 specific time frames or percent reductions in mind when 6 formulating this idea? 7 MR. LONG: I may in our written comments 8 before December 15th, but at the current time I would 9 prefer not to go on record with any suggestions. 10 Though I think STAPPA

s comment was very interesting, 11 that NASA is working on reductions of NOx at a level of 12 70 percent, but obviously that

s not widely available 13 technology at the current time. So something short of 14 70 percent sounds as though it may be appropriate. 15 MR. PASSAVANT: Okay, Russell, one final thing 16 if I could please. Maybe this is a question  some 17 point you did not directly address. Maybe I would ask 18 you to address this in your written comments if you 19 choose to, and that is you were talking a little bit 20 about the carryover of current production engines into 21 32 the future and sort of in the context of the way the 1 certification program works, and in the rule we asked 2 for comment on that issue and also asked for comment on 3 the concept of averaging. You didn

t mention the 4 averaging here in your comments and I would appreciate 5 it if you have any thoughts on that that you might 6 share them in your written testimony. 7 MR. LONG: I heard your comment asking me to 8 say something about averaging. I didn

t hear the 9 previous one though. 10 MR. PASSAVANT: That

s the gist of what I 11 said, Russell, is if in your written comments you might 12 say something about averaging, if you felt that was 13 appropriate. 14 MR. LONG: Okay. We will do that. 15 MR. PASSAVANT: Thank you. 16 MR. MANNING: Russell, this is Bryan Manning. 17 The question I have is in the beginning of your 18 testimony I was sort of working to make sure the mike 19 worked over there. I couldn

t quite hear what you said 20 about the inventory, had some issues with inventories. 21 33 Could you elaborate or repeat a little bit of what you 1 said? 2 MR. LONG: Yes. The inventory for general 3 aviation, air taxi, and military aircraft engines EPA 4 has determined as being between 1 and 26 percent of 5 emissions from all aircraft engines. We believe that

s 6 significant. EPA first of all cannot exempt those 7 engines from regulation without explaining the basis of 8 its decision, but second EPA must determine with 9 greater accuracy what the actual amount is of that 10 inventory. The Act is very clear that the standards 11 must apply to those classes of engines and it

s very 12 difficult to determine first of all what the inventory 13 actually is when EPA apparently has not done a thorough 14 assessment. 15 MR. mments that you choose to provide. 16 MR. LONG: Okay, I certainly will. 17 MR. ZINGER: Thank you. 18 Our next witness is Mr. Mark MacLeod from 19 Environmental Defense. 20 MR. MacLEOD: Good morning. 21 34 MR. ZINGER: Good morning, Mark. If you could 1 again take one of those placards there and put that in 2 front. Thank you. 3 MR. MacLEOD: My handwriting will be exposed 4 to the world. 5 MR. ZINGER: We won

t comment on that. 6 MR. MacLEOD: Thank you. I

m Mark MacLeod 7 with Environmental Defense. I

m testifying today on 8 behalf of Environmental Defense, a non profit, non 9 governmental, and non partisan environmental 10 organization with 300,000 members nationwide. Since 11 1967 our organization has linked science, economics and 12 law in tackling environmental problems. Our core 13 mission includes protecting public health and the 14 environment by lowering airborne contaminants and 15 greenhouse gases. 16 Since the advent of the modern Clean Air Act 17 in 1970 EPA has led a nationwide effort to lower 18 harmful air pollutants. There have been some striking 19 successes. The phase out of lead in gasoline for 20 example has slashed lead emissions by 98 percent over 21 35 1970 levels, helped to dramatically curb public 1 exposure to a deleterious neurotoxin. This historic 2 success is one of many under the Clean Air Act that 3 EPA, the business community and citizens should be 4 proud of. 5 But important air quality challenges remain. 6 Nationwide monitoring indicates that 175 million people 7 living in 628 counties are exposed to levels of ground 8 level ozone or smog that exceed the national health 9 based standard. Elevated ozone concentrations have a 10 suite of adverse health affects, including decreased 11 lung function, particularly in children active 12 outdoors; hospital admissions and emergency room visits 13 for respiratory causes among children and adults with 14 preexisting respiratory disease such as asthma, 15 inflammation of the lungs, and possible long term 16 damage to the lungs. 17 State and local governments will need 18 vigorous federal clean air measures to lower smog 19 forming pollutants and to restore healthy air quality 20 to vast areas of the country. But EPA

s meager 21 36 proposal today will only make it more difficult for the 1 states to develop clean air plans. EPA

s proposal 2 misses an important opportunity to lower smog forming 3 NOx pollution. Indeed NOx emissions from aircraft are 4 rising and will continue to rise in the absence of 5 meaningful emissions standards. EPA must do its part 6 to put in place federal measures to lower NOx pollution 7 from aircraft and help stgenerally not regulated by 8 states and local clean air plans even though they may 9 be significant sources of pollution. Indeed a recent 10 analysis of airport related pollution found that 11 emissions inventories are seriously under reported and 12 state implementation plans fail at highlighting the 13 imperative for effective federal measures to address 14 this source category. And for a reference you can see 15 the NESCAUM and CCAP report reference in our written 16 comments. 17 Airports are in fact a significant source of 18 ozone forming pollution in numerous ozone non 19 attainment areas. For example, 22 of the largest 31 20 airports in the U. S. are located in ozone non 21 37 attainment areas, and according to air quality 1 monitoring data from 1997 to 1999 there 137 airports in 2 potential eight hour ozone non attainment areas. 3 Without rigorous technology forcing emission 4 standards that lower harmful NOOx emissions, NOOx 5 emissions from aircraft engines will likely rise over 6 the foreseeable future. The soon to be implemented 7 ICAO and EPA NOOx standards are meager and will not 8 meaningfully address the NOOx air pollution from 9 aircraft. 10 As was mentioned earlier, the General 11 Accounting Office February 2003 report, Aviation and 12 Environment, Strategic Framework Needed to Address 13 Challenges Posed by Aircraft Emission, found that while 14 new aircraft engines are more fuel efficient and emit 15 less carbon monoxide, they nevertheless emit more NOOx 16 than older models. GAO

s comparison of Boeing 737 17 series aircraft concluded that NOx emissions were 47 18 percent higher for newer engines than the older 19 engines. 20 The fact that newer engines discharge more NOx 21 38 pollution than older engines is an important point in 1 light of the EPA proposed standards. The proposed rule 2 explains that 94 percent of in production engine models 3 in the ICAO database already meet or perform better 4 than the proposed standard. This strongly suggests 5 that EPA

s proposed engine standard not only misses the 6 mark in lowering pollution but fails to provide the 7 anti backsliding protection against rising NOx expected 8 from new engines. 9 While the benefit to air quality due to the 10 increased fuel efficiency and decreased CO emissions is 11 important, the NOx pollution from aircraft must be 12 meaningfully addressed. The new ICAO standards and the 13 proposed EPA standards will not achieve this result. 14 In addition, the potential standard requiring an 15 additional 5 to 30 percent reduction that ICAO is 16 considering will still fail to return the NOx emissions 17 from newer aircraft back to existing pollution levels. 18 And we want to just reiterate that some states 19 are precluded from adopting emission standards for 20 aircraft. It

s imperative that the EPA adopt and 21 39 implement rigorous federal standards. Section 233 of 1 the Clean Air Act prevents states from adopting 2 standards and it is important that EPA take the 3 responsibility for lowering smog emission, smog forming 4 emissions from this source. This will not only help 5 the states achieve the health based standard, but 6 ensures that the responsibility of achieving the 7 nation

s health standards are borne equitably among all 8 contributing sources. 9 A recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News 10 by Representative Joe Barton pointed to the state

s 11 inability to regulate aircraft emissions in the Dallas 12 Fort Worth area as adding to the area

s difficulty in 13 complying with the ozone standard. 14 Environmental Defense requests that the EPA 15 improve aircraft emissions rules in the following ways: 16 As has been mentioned by a couple of other speakers 17 today, we believe that EPA

s aircraft emission 18 standards should be technology forcing and provide 19 clear and real emissions reductions in order to achieve 20 a downward trend in NOOx emissions. Near term 21 40 reductions in NOOx pollution may also be achieved with 1 existing technologies that improve efficiency without a 2 resulting NOx increase. For example, improving bypass 3 air ratio will simultaneously reduce NOx and fuel burn. 4 Enacting more stringent regulations will spur 5 technology development. Such improvements can be 6 achieved with more efficient aircraft engines and more 7 aerodynamic aircraft bodies, as mentioned by the NASA 8 proposals that were being discussed earlier. 9 The development of technology in airport 10 management improvements, we also encourage the 11 development of technology in airport management 12 improvements that will reduce aircraft, taxi and idling 13 times by making the on airport movement of aircraft 14 more efficient and should be pursued. 15 Because states are preempted from establishing 16 emission standards for aircraft, EPA should work with 17 the states and other stakeholders on additional policy 18 strategies that states can employ to lower NOx 19 pollution for aircraft. For example, local cap and 20 trade or airport bubble approaches have the potential 21 41 to limit airport related emissions, provide flexibility 1 in achieving reductions, and encourage the use and 2 development of cleaner technologies. In addition, 3 emission based fees such as increased or variable 4 landing fees are another potential useful tool for 5 lowering emissions. Programs to create incentives for 6 improving airlines overall operational and efficiency, 7 reducing taxi time, and reducing power output during 8 taxi, takeofreempted under the Clean Air Act that EPA 9 should help provide the policy foundation for these 10 programs. 11 A significant amount of air pollution from 12 airports is due to the suite of equipment, such as 13 ground support equipment. We urge the EPA to promptly 14 finalize the non road emission standards proposed in 15 April to help and expand the federal diesel retrofit 16 program in order to achieve significant lasting 17 reductions in these important sources of air pollution. 18 And one other note that unfortunately is not 19 in the written, a copy of my oral comments, is we 20 wanted to reiterate that there is incredibly long life 21 42 for these aircraft engines and so it really is 1 important that we establish low standards now because 2 these engines are likely to be around for a couple of 3 decades. And so we just want to reiterate that as 4 well. 5 We

ll be filing written comments on December 6 15th and elaborating on the points we

ve made today. 7 Thank you. 8 MR. ZINGER: Thank you, Mark, for those 9 comments. I just have one clarifying question on page 10 4 of your statement. You are talking about the 11 proposed standard requiring  I

m sorry, this is not 12 the proposed standard. These are the levels of 13 reduction that are being considered for CAEP 6. You 14 mentioned the 5 to 30 percent reduction would still 15 fail to return the NOx emissions from newer aircraft 16 even back to existing pollution levels. Could you just 17 elaborate on that a bit? 18 MR. MacLEOD: I will attempt to and we

ll 19 address it further in the written ones, but given the 20 GAO report showing that there

s a 47 percent increase 21 43 in higher  from newer engines to older engines, I 1 think the point we

re making there is even if you have 2 a 30 percent reduction off of that you

re still not  3 you know, your overall emissions is still increased 4 over time. 5 MR. ZINGER: Okay. 6 MR. MacLEOD: But I

ll elaborate on that in 7 our written comments. 8 MR. ZINGER: Thank you. Other questions? 9 MR. PASSAVANT: Mark, on that same point I was 10 a little  I understood the point about the GAO 11 report, but when there

s a standard in place if the 12 emissions of a new engine go up it either meets the 13 standards or it doesn

t meet the standards and you 14 can

t certify it if it doesn

t meet the standards. So 15 I was a little confused as to  I understood what 47 16 percent means but compared to what? It just sort seems 17 like this is sort of a moot point unless there

s 18 carryover for new standards as well, which there is 19 not, for new engines, which there is not under our 20 program. 21 44 MR. MacLEOD: Well, I think reading the bottom 1 of page 3 and the top of page 4 together as I 2 understand it and you can clarify, I think the point 3 we

re making is that the current suite of engines, the 4 pollution levels have increased over time and now the 5 proposed  as listed in the rule of proposal, the 6 proposed rule will  you know, 94 percent of the 7 current engines meet that. And so I guess what the 8 overall point is is that the overall  when you put 9 those two together emissions have increased over time 10 and all the rule is doing is sort of certifying the 11 existing state of technology. That

s not providing a 12 real reduction. 13 MR. PASSAVANT: It may be the use of the word 14 new is sort of a misnomer here if you

re talking about 15 a 737 engine but  16 MR. MacLEOD: Yes, sure. 17 MR. PASSAVANT:  it is true that as CO and 18 hydrocarbons tend to go down in engines that, all of 19 the things being equal, there

s a trade off where NOx 20 tends to go up, and that may be in fact what you see 21 45 here because we

ve had hydrocarbon standards for 1 engines before we had NOx standards. 2 MR. MacLEOD: Right. 3 MR. PASSAVANT: But nonetheless, the fact 4 remains that if there

s a standard in place a new 5 engine still has to meet it. 6 MR. MacLEOD: Right. 7 MR. PASSAVANT: Okay. Thank you. 8 MR. MANNING: A clarifying question. 9 ( Interruption to proceeding.) 10 MR. MANNING: A clarifying question on page 4, 11 Mark. It may be the same point Glenn

s trying to make 12  I

m not sure  but the first paragraph, the last 13 sentence, you talk about our standards,

fails to 14 provide even an anti backsliding protection against the 15 rising NOx expected from new engines.

16 MR. MacLEOD: Yes. 17 MR. MANNING: Getting away from the whole idea 18 of rising NOx or whatever, just  previous testimony 19 said that these standards were anti backsliding 20 standards and you

re saying that they don

t even do 21 46 that. Is that what you meant by that statement or is 1 the word new sort of  2 MR. MacLEOD: I think it may depend on what 3 your baseline is and so we

ll elaborate on that. But I 4 think that

s where the perspective changes on what you 5 consider the baseline to be. 6 MR. ZINGER: Okay, thank you, Mark. 7 MR. MacLEOD: Thank you. 8 MR. ZINGER: Our next witness is Mr. Jake 9 Schmidt from the Center for Clean Air Policy. 10 MR. SCHMIDT: I

ll recycle if that

s okay. 11 Good morning. My name is Jake Schmidt and I 12 thank you for this opportunity to comment on EPA

s 13 proposed aircraft engine emission standards. I am a 14 policy analyst at the Center for Clean Air Policy, 15 CCAP, where I serve as the lead on aviation emissions. 16 I am here today to provide some comments on behalf of 17 CCAP. 18 CCAP was founded in 1985 by a bipartisan group 19 of state governors to address the issue of acid rain. 20 We are an environmental think tank that seeks to 21 47 promote and implement innovative solutions to major 1 environmental and energy problems which balance both 2 environmental and economic interests. The Center

s 3 work is guided by the belief that market based 4 approaches to environmental problems offer the greatest 5 potential to reach common ground between these often 6 conflicting interests. Through efforts at the state, 7 federal, and international levels the Center emphasizes 8 the need for cost effective, pragmatic and 9 comprehensive long term solutions. For several years 10 we

ve been involved at both the national and 11 international levels on aviation emissions. 12 Analysis by the U. S. EPA shows that a wide 13 number of areas are expected to be designated as non 14 attainment for the eight hour ozone and fine 15 particulate matter standards. In particular, EPA 16 currently estimates that 290 counties nationwide are 17 expected to be in non attainment for eight hour ozone 18 standard and 129 counties will not meet the fine 19 particulate standard. As most of these areas are 20 located near major urban areas, some form of air travel 21 48 will serve many of these areas. Therefore, the impact 1 of this proposed rule on air quality is of concern to 2 CCAP and others. 3 CCAP is concerned with the current emission 4 levels of aircraft and the projected increase in 5 aircraft operations since these aircrafts operations 6 are usually centered around major urban areas with air 7 quality problems. Recent research conducted by the 8 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, 9 NESCAUM, at three airports in the Northeast shows that 10 airport related emissions for aircraft, ground service 11 equipment and auxiliary power units are large sources 12 of emissions compared to other sources in their 13 respective regions. Of these emission sources the 14 analysis showed that aircraft emissions account for 15 about 85 percent of emissions from these sources. 16 While it is fair to say that aircraft may 17 account for a slightly different percentage of airport 18 related emissions at each airport, it is also correct 19 to expect that aircraft are one of, it not the most, 20 dominant source of on airport emissions at airports 21 49 throughout the nation. 1 Future levels of projected aircraft operations 2 are also of concern. According to the Federal Aviation 3 Administration nationwide aircraft operations for air 4 carrier and air taxi/ commuter are projected to grow 5 substantially through 2014, 34 percent between 2003 and 6 2014. The analysis by NESCAUM showed that future 7 emissions at the studied airports could become as large 8 as major stationary sources in the region. While this 9 analysis did not account for recent changes resulting 10 within the industry from such activities as September 11 11th, it shows the potential magnitude of these sources 12 in the future. 13 CCAP appreciates the agency moving forward 14 with adoption of the ICAO standards being considered 15 today, but has concerns on several fronts. First, the 16 standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation 17 Organization, ICAO, and proposed by EPA are rate based. 18 While it is important to reduce the emissions 19 intensity of aircraft engines, a rate based standard 20 does not address aggregate emissions. Since the 21 50 environment and human health depend on emissions 1 loading, not emissions per some metric, this approach 2 is problematic. While an aggressive rate based 3 approach could lead to reductions in aggregate 4 emissions, the level proposed today appears not to 5 achieve such a threshold. A rough back of the envelope 6 calculation in essence could show that this proposal 7 will not lead to an aggregate reduction in emissions in 8 the future. 9 Second, the standards established by ICAO have 10 not typically been technology forcing as many folks 11 have mentioned today. The rule currently being 12 proposed is met by almost all of the engines currently 13 in production, 94 percent according to EPA estimates, 14 even the new NOx stringency standards under 15 consideration by ICAO in early 2004 are met by a number 16 of the current in production engines. 17 For example, the least stringent of the new 18 options, the negative 5 percent being considered by 19 ICAO, is met by 90 percent of the current engines in 20 production. The most stringent of the options, 21 51 negative 30 percent, is met by over 30 percent of the 1 current engines in production. Since the new options 2 being considered only apply to engines produced in the 3 future, in 2008 at the earliest the new options will 4 not apply to these engines. 5 Third, the standards being proposed for both 6 today and under consideration for future standards 7 apply only to newly designed and certificated engines. 8 Since aircraft are in the U. S. fleet for long periods 9 of time, for example 10 to 30 years, the new standards 10 will have a limited impact on overall emission levels 11 for quite some time. 12 Lastly, the standards being considered are 13 based upon the engine

s emissions characteristics and 14 therefore do not account for emissions attributable to 15 airframe design and condition. Likewise, the potential 16 emissions benefit of improved airframe designs are not 17 incorporated. Recent airframe designs being discussed 18 by major developers are showing the possibility of 19 dramatic improvements in airframe design that could 20 lead to substantial improvements in emissions. 21 52 The combination of these factors and the level 1 of the proposed standard gives us serious concern that 2 this proposal will lead to significant environmental 3 improvement and assist communities in meeting the 4 health based standards required by law. Furthermore, 5 as airports continue to operate and potentially expand, 6 pressures to dramatically reduce aircraft emissions are 7 likely to mount. In Europe serious concern is being 8 given to the possibility that the expansion of airports 9 or operations may be limited in the future due to 10 projected emissions increases from aircraft. This is a 11 distinct concern in the U. S. given the current and 12 projected levels of aircraft emissions. Getting ahead 13 of this concern xtremely important for the aviation 14 industry. 15 As we are currently celebrating the 100th 16 anniversary of the Wright Brothers flight now seems an 17 excellent time to reconsider how we address aviation

s 18 environmental impact. While we are here to discuss 19 emissions standards we should also keep in mind the 20 role of marked based measure. The great success of the 21 53 acid rain trading program shows the power of the market 1 to provide flexibility for meeting emissions objectives 2 and lowering the cost of complying with those 3 objectives. 4 A recent study by CCAP and NESCAUM evaluate a 5 number of marked based approaches, such as emissions 6 bubbles and emissions based landing fees, that could 7 provide useful models for marked based measures within 8 the sector. Some extremely intelligent engineers 9 design aircraft  literally rocket scientists. We 10 need to provide the proper signals and incentives for 11 these engineers to design the least environmentally 12 damaging aircraft and for airlines to purchase the most 13 environmentally friendly aircraft. 14 Thank you for your time and consideration of 15 my testimony. 16 MR. ZINGER: Thank you, Jake. Just a couple 17 of clarifying questions. On the second page of your 18 statement you mention that the proposed standards are 19 rate based. Do you have any suggestions for the agency 20 as to another basis that could be used to set emission 21 54 standards? 1 MR. SCHMIDT: To some extent the problem is 2 not necessarily  it

s a combination of rate based as 3 a problem and a combination of the level set out. I

d 4 be happy to provide some greater comments, and I 5 haven

t put much thought to that, but I

ll attempt to 6 do that in my written comments. I think the level  7 given  if the level of the rate based standard is 8 very aggressive essentially a rate based standard has 9 not much difference than an aggregate emissions cap, 10 but I think the level proposed here today given that 11 the majority of the engines already meet this will not 12 sort of achieve that given the projected increases in 13 emissions operation  or aircraft operations going 14 forward. But I

ll take that into my  15 MR. ZINGER: Okay. Similar to a previous 16 witness you also mentioned the concept of looking at 17 both the aircraft engine as well as the airframe and 18 combination and so I

ll ask you the same question. 19 Have you looked at whether EPA has the authority to set 20 a standard on that basis? 21 55 MR. SCHMIDT: No, we have not. We are not 1 lawyers so  but I

ll keep that in mind and see if 2 there

s something that we can provide in our written 3 comments. 4 MR. ZINGER: Okay, thank you. Other 5 questions? 6 MR. PASSAVANT: Jake, to follow up on  I 7 have different points on the same things Don touched 8 on. On the first one about the rate based, when you 9 were reading this and I was trying to assimilate it I 10 got the impression you were talking about a mass basis 11 as an approach to this as opposed to a rate basis. In 12 here it

s grams per kilonewtons or thrust and here you 13 could be thinking  were you thinking grams or grams 14 per landing/ take off cycle or  it

s just  that 15 wasn

t at all clear to me. Almost all of our standard 16  I think all of our standards are rated based as a 17 matter of fact as I think about it, grams per mile or 18 grams per kilometer type thing. So just if you could 19 give that a little more thought. 20 And the other thing was, and maybe this is a 21 56 better question for another group of folks, but 1 oftentimes when we see changes in  let

s talk about 2 motor vehicles, something that

s a little more  maybe 3 a little easier to draw a parallel to. A change in the 4 motor vehicle transmission design or the aerodynamics 5 of a motor vehicle, and that has a positive effect on 6 emissions, that happens independent of the design of 7 the engine. If you put a more efficient set of tires 8 on a car let

s say, okay, that gives you less rolling 9 resistance and you use less fuel you get less 10 emissions, okay. Here if you make changes in the 11 airplane that make the engine more efficient, which is 12 part of the big driving force behind doing this I

m 13 sure, would you not also see reductions in emissions 14 independent of what you did to the engine? 15 MR. SCHMIDT: Well, not being a rocket 16 scientist either I will not attempt to kill it too 17 much. I mean, my understanding is that there is 18 designs to the airframe that can allow you to use 19 different engines and that provides the opportunity to 20 reduce NOx and oftentimes can reduce fuel use and noise 21 57 emissions. It just sort of depends. But there can 1 alternatively be designs that don

t lead to that is 2 sort of my understanding. But  3 MR. PASSAVANT: Okay. I think your former 4 statement is correct, that if you had a revolutionary 5 airframe design you would come up with an engine for 6 that design. That could be lower noise, lower thrust, 7 lower emissions, et cetera, but I just to some degree 8 think that it

s  I didn

t want to be left with the 9 impression that there was sort of some kind of a tweak 10 you could make to an airframe that would reduce 11 emissions. I just  I don

t think it

s quite that 12 simple. Thanks. 13 MR. SCHMIDT: Well, I do think  I have seen 14 from other sources, and I

m trying to think of where, 15 but there is slight modifications you can make to the 16 airframe and it

s being used. Winglets have been used 17 by a number of air carriers to reduce fuel burn. And 18 so I think there is some after the fact things you can 19 do to the airframe. They are limited probably, but 20 it

s not  21 58 MR. PASSAVANT: Thank you. 1 MR. THRIFT: I have got one. So far everybody 2 that has commented has had something to say about the 3 limited scope of the rules applicability and I have one 4 question that I would address to all of you who have 5 commented so far on this issue, which is if EPA were to 6 consider expanding the scope of the rule would a 7 supplemental proposal be required or would any of those 8 changes be possibly a logical outgrowth of the proposal 9 such that they could be included in the final rule? 10 And that

s something that you all can address in your 11 written comments. 12 MR. ZINGER: Okay. Thank you, Jake. 13 Our next witness is Mr. Jack Saporito 14 representing the Alliance of Residents Concerning 15 O

Hare. 16 MR. SAPORITO: My oral testimony varies 17 slightly from our written comments. 18 MR. ZINGER: Okay. 19 MR. SAPORITO: Good morning. Thank you for 20 inviting us here today. I am Jack Saporito, executive 21 59 director of the Alliance of Residents Concerning 1 O

Hare. 2 AReCO is a respected Chicago area organization 3 known globally and with many years experience that has 4 been at that vanguard of the airport and aircraft 5 public health, safety and environmental issues since 6 the mid 90' s. AReCO represents over 40 area 7 communities with municipal, family and professional 8 membership from across the country. AReCO is not your 9 typical environmental organization since most of our 10 board members are successful businesspeople, and while 11 AReCO concerned about the economic costs of public 12 health and environment and the other quality of life 13 problems, especially since quality of life issues are 14 one of the major reasons that businesses locate where 15 they do. 16 AReCO is also very concerned about public 17 health and environmental problems that harm airport 18 neighbors living 20 miles or more away from the 19 airports. Today I am representing many of over, well 20 over 700 groups and hundreds of cities and towns that 21 60 are concerned about airport and aircraft related 1 issues, many of whom along with several scientists 2 provided support for me to attend today. 3 Many of my colleagues and members that I 4 represent here for the national and international 5 organization are employed in the aerospace industry  6 pilots, air traffic controllers, employees of NASA and 7 Boeing, Williams Aviation Consultants, and many others 8 such as the well respective Baylor University School of 9 Aviation and Air Sciences. As a result we have a 10 strong working knowledge of the issues, bringing strong 11 factual evidence to the table. We have a vital 12 interest in ensuring that the environmental protection 13 process fully complies with full disclosure, all 14 environmental laws and regulations, and all other 15 aspects that will protect citizens

healthy, safety and 16 our environment and other quality of life issues. 17 As you know, airports  airport operations 18 emit extraordinary amounts and unusual types of serious 19 and deadly air, water, noise and ground pollution which 20 is mostly unregulated and grossly under reported for 21 61 various reasons. Airports and their aircraft are among 1 the worst polluters in the world, causing significant 2 damage not only with their extraordinary contribution 3 to climate change but also pandemic public health 4 problems caused by toxic pollution. It is important to 5 remember that airports and their aircraft are major 6 local point or area emission sources since over 90 7 percent of the aircraft emissions are emitted at or 8 relatively near the airport during the landing and 9 takeoff cycles, idling, taxiing. 10 Airports are basically major functioning  11 I

m sorry  they

re basically cities with mega 12 aircraft operations. They have all  for instance, 13 O

Hare Airport has a daily population of about 250,000 14 people plus tens of thousands of airport workers, 15 caterers, and whatever, and it has all the support 16 facilities you

d need for that. Major airports also 17 have on site incinerators to burn rubbish, 18 international rubbish. There

s 175,000 cars and trucks 19 and buses that go into O

Hare each day yet it

s located 20 on only four square miles of land in a densely 21 62 populated area. Accordingly, a new O

Hare peotone 1 study shows that 8.3 million people

s health is 2 affected by O

Hare operations, 5.5 million 3 significantly so. 4 It is unclear to me why the EPA is motivated 5 in this proceeding to set new NOx emission limits. Is 6 it for climate change problems, or for public health 7 reasons, or is it for both? As you may know, the U. S. 8 General Accounting Office looked at the issue regarding 9 climate change and found that in the United States 10 aviation emissions accounted for about 3 percent of the 11 greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to 12 the global warming phenomena. And actually that

s 13 astounding when you think of it. It

s only 8,600 14 aircraft here in the U. S. that are contributing to 15 that. While this percentage is relatively small, 16 aviation emissions are potentially significant for a 17 number of reasons and I

m going to quote from 18 Congressman Oberstar

s press release on this, the four 19 items. 20

Aircraft emissions are deposited directly 21 63 into the upper atmosphere and some of them have a 1 greater warming effect than gases emitted closer to the 2 earth, such as automobile exhaust. Two, the primary 3 gas emitted by jet aircraft engines is carbon dioxide, 4 which can survive in the upper atmosphere for up to 100 5 years.

6 That

s the end of the quote and I would like 7 to talk about NOx here. While the release of NOx by 8 aircraft is relatively small in the upper atmosphere, 9 because it lasts 25 times longer than ground based 10 emissions it basically equates to jet  commercial jet 11 aircraft are responsible for more than half of the man 12 made NOx burden in the upper atmosphere. 13 Back on the quote,

Number three, carbon 14 dioxide combined with other exhaust gases and 15 particulates emitted from jet engines could have two to 16 four times as great an impact on the atmosphere as 17 carbon dioxide emissions alone. And four, the growing 18 demand for jet service is likely to generate more 19 emissions that cannot be offset by reductions achieved 20 through technological improvements alone.

21 64 The GAO report recommended further research 1 into the impact of jet exhaust on the global atmosphere 2 to help guide the development of new engine aircraft 3 technology. It also called upon other governments to 4 reduce emissions through improved air traffic control 5 and regulatory and economic incentives, thus reducing 6 the number of flights. 7 Now many studies point to commercial jet 8 aircraft as a major if not the major cause of man made 9 climate change. As in the GAO report look for the 10 European Union  I

m sorry the European nations and 11 others to also demand the rationing of flights. 12 Regarding the proposed NOx standards and 13 public health, the EPA proposes to adopt into U. S. 14 regulations already existing international civil 15 aviation organization, ICAO aircraft engine NOx 16 standards. Note that engine design is driven by the 17 air transportation industry

s customer, those that buy 18 the jets, who are primarily interested in reduced fuel 19 costs per passenger mile. The next priority is the 20 noise level. Everything else, including NOx emissions, 21 65 is tertiary. 1 It will be argued by the industry that 2 reducing fuel consumption will reduce emissions, but 3 that is not systematically true since flights are 4 projected to massively increase, perhaps tripling in a 5 relatively short period of time as the Federal Aviation 6 Administration testified to Congress in July. I might 7 also add that we have internal documents from the FAA 8 and NASA that show that prior to September 11th they 9 were predicting flights to double by 2010 and every 10 eight to ten years thereafter until 2050 mainly as a  11 because of the economic globalization treaties that 12 will kick in around 28  2008. In fact, the EPA

s 13 proposed actions will not significantly change local 14 NOx and ozone containment concentrations from airports 15 with intended serious negative health impacts on 16 millions of people nor will it materially improve acid 17 rain conditions, particulates, water acidification, 18 weather changes, et cetera. This is too little, too 19 late, and that

s too bad. 20 The proposed NOx standards for engine 21 66 certification are already nine years old and will apply 1 only to newly certified engines after 2004. It will 2 not apply to any existing aircraft in the fleet, nor 3 will it apply to any newly manufactured aircraft using 4 already certified engines. Almost all, 94 percent of 5 the existing fleet engines, would already meet these 6 new standards. 7 Newer aircraft engines often spew out more NOx 8 than the older ones that they replace and the trend is 9 not improving primarily because the air transportation 10 industry has no  has little or no interest in the 11 issue. Fuel economy, bottom line profit, is the number 12 one motivator, not reducing toxic emissions into our 13 environment. 14 The EPA participates in ICAO

s standard 15 setting committees but the reality is that commercial 16 air interests and money provide the overwhelming basis 17 for the standards. Also, many of the members are third 18 world countries and cannot afford the needed standards, 19 especially since they buy our used aircraft when 20 they

re 20 to 30 years old. 21 67 We are also concerned about the United States

1 research pursuit directed at reduced NOx and emission 2 levels since, for instance, engine NOx reduction 3 research by the National Aeronautic and Space Agency, 4 NASA, has for all practical purposes ceased because of 5 minimization of funding. The new NOx standards, even 6 though they are directed at engine manufacturers for 7 say the next decade, mean no substantial overall fleet 8 impact will be seen for perhaps two to three decades 9 from now, partially because they do not push the 10 technology lever bar upward. 11 To give you a sense of a time line, even if we 12 had all the solutions today, and believe me they

re 13 decades away, it would take two to three decades before 14 the U. S. fleet would be adequately  would adequately 15 have those standards  met the new requirements. We 16 need also to be concerned about reducing NOx emissions 17 and unacceptable noise levels that with the current 18 engine technology and petroleum fuels that commercial 19 jet aviation are addicted to for the next four to five 20 decades increase hazardous and toxic air emissions, 21 68 therefore compounding the airport poisoning health 1 problems that are already pandemic in nature. 2 Data from both the State of Illinois and the 3 EPA agencies show that O

Hare

s aircraft alone already 4 emit more volatile organic chemicals  or compounds 5 than from all the Illinois generating power plants 6 combined, with carbon monoxide emissions as much as 60 7 percent of that total. Adding the associated ground, 8 mobile and stationary emissions would at least double 9 that. 10 Based on the data that AReCO has it appears 11 that also the other Clean Air Act criteria is also off 12 the charts. And it

s not only the amount of emissions, 13 it

s also other trigger effects like the synergistic 14 effects, atmospheric, solar decomposing, the 15 synergistic effects of over the 200 compounds or toxics 16 that we found being emitted from the airports. 17 Engine particulate standards beyond NOx drive 18 secondaries continue to be non existence, with the air 19 industry dominated ICAO totally unwilling to advance 20 beyond their now ancient smoke number standard that was 21 69 basically designed to hide the pollution from us. In 1 order to protect the American public the U. S. EPA must 2 officially adopt the position and action plan in this 3 proceeding to rectify this egregious situation. 4 Aviation related emissions are different than 5 any other type of polluter and it doesn

t take much. 6 A Los Angeles school district

s studies data found that 7 just small flight volumes of approximately 15 jet 8 operations a day causes a significant increase in 9 cancer risks among people living in the flight paths. 10 A prestigious eight state EPA NESCAUM study 11 found that collectively the aircraft alone at Boston

s 12 Logan, Bradley and Manchester airports emitted 35 tons 13 of NOx, 44 tons of CO, and 700 tons of hydrocarbon in 14 1999. The combined aircraft related benzine emissions 15 were 20 tons at the three airports in 1999. By 16 startling comparison aggregate benzine emissions from 17 the largest stationary sources in Massachusetts, 18 Kentucky  I

m sorry  Connecticut, and New Hampshire 19 combined total only 19  only 6 tons in 1996. 20 To make another point, O

Hare, Dallas, 21 70 Atlanta, and some of the other major airports have more 1 operations, flight operations than those three airports 2 combined and much larger aircraft, but I

m not 3 downplaying the significance of those three airports 4 and the pollution they cause. In fact, extrapolating 5 the study

s findings to Chicago O

Hare Airport and all 6 of its related aircraft operations demonstrate that 7 it

s not only one of the worst polluters in the state 8 of Illinois but among the worst, if not the worst, man 9 made air polluter in at least the United States. 10 Government and independent studies show that 11 there are strong correlations that O

Hare airport and 12 its aircraft operations is a major contributor in full 13 or in part towards the deaths of hundreds of people 14 each year from cancer alone. Besides the significant 15 impacts that aircraft have on our upper atmosphere, 16 locally the emissions from airports and aircraft 17 operations pose a significant health threat and have 18 been linked to conditions including cancer, asthma, 19 brain tumors, emphysema, heart disease, leukemia, 20 Hodgkin

s disease, kidney damage and scores of others. 21 71 Evidence shows emissions from airports and aircraft 1 expose an extremely large number of people living and 2 working in distances greater than 20 miles away from an 3 airport. A study commissioned by four local 4 communities found that O

Hare Airport emitted over 200 5 toxins and showed that O

Hare represented unacceptable 6 cancer risks for a 32 mile radius around the airport. 7 Over 70 percent of our nation

s population 8 lives within 20 miles of a major airport. I

d like to 9 repeat that. It bears repeating. Over 70 percent of 10 our nation

s population lives within 20 miles of a 11 major airport. 12 We firmly believe that O

Hare is a major 13 reason that the Chicago area has some of the highest 14 cancers and other airport poisoning disease rates in 15 America. And just to show the problem of cities, there 16 are three other major airports located within 20, 25 17 miles of O

Hare and that situation is no different than 18 most major cities  Washington, LA, New York. 19 What is needed are comprehensive and 20 aggressive solutions. One, the EPA should establish 21 72 the NOX regulations to a much tougher level, one that 1 might be acceptable if say 90 percent of the fleet 2 could not meet it. This same standard should 3 additionally be applied retroactively to all existing 4 aircraft with a phase in period linearly with 5 increasing stringency for about the next 20 years. 6 Two, the air industry should be forced to 7 contribute, perhaps through passenger facility charges, 8 at least $ 10 million a year to the EPA and NASA for 9 engine research directed at emission reductions. 10 Three, the U. S. EPA should immediately change 11 regulations to cause all airports to be considered 12 consolidated sources of NOx and other criteria and 13 toxic pollutant emissions. This aggregation should 14 include all fleet, mobile and area sources and aircraft 15  and sources of airport and aircraft related sources, 16 both on and off airport property, as well as aircraft 17 operations generally below 3,000 meter altitude. 18 Four, EPA and the Federal Aviation 19 Administration should petition and demand that ICAO 20 include significant voting representation of 21 73 environmental interests within their committee on 1 aviation environmental protection, CAEP committees, 2 otherwise U. S. funding will be appropriately reduced. 3 Five, this procedure should require that all 4 new aircraft engine certifications include measurements 5 and characterizations of PM10 and PM2.5 particulate 6 matter emissions in each of the five major operating 7 modes starting in the year 2004. 8 Six, further this proceeding should require 9 that all existing engines be similarly measured and 10 characterized for particulate matter over the next 11 three years. 12 Seven, all airport expansion projects from 13 here forward involving an operational increase shall 14 have environmental evaluations and effective mitigation 15 of the consolidated airport, aircraft operations 16 producing particulate matter of at least 2.5 air 17 quality degradations estimated using, amongst other 18 metrics, either aircraft engine measurements or default 19 maximum expected values established by the EPA and 20 using dispersion analysis models and techniques 21 74 appropriate to the geographical and meteorological 1 airport conditions rather than just the FAA mandated 2 model. 3 Eight, in the next proceeding, EPA, FAA, along 4 with Congress should establish airport based incentive 5 landing fees proportional to the amount of pollutants 6 an aircraft emits at that facility, in the total five 7 operating modes, where such fees are of an amount 8 guaranteed to materially prompt both the airlines and 9 airports to reduce pollutant emissions. These 10 incentive fees should be placed in a trust fund 11 directed strictly at the environmental  strictly at 12 environmental improvements administered by the EPA with 13 an independent fund disbursal oversight board which 14 includes significant environmental interest 15 representation. 16 I would like to finish with what we believe is 17 one of the top stumbling blocks to protecting the 18 majority of Americans who are harmed by airport and 19 aircraft operations. One of the many purposely oft 20 repeated air industry distortions is that airports in 21 75 general, and Chicago

s O

Hare Airport specifically, are 1 the primary economic engines of cities future growth or 2 new growth. However, as pointed out in the report I 3 gave, A Vicious Circle, the primary indicating numbers 4 do not bear that out. Furthermore, the ill advised 5 plans that are going forward to massively expand 6 existing airports will basically provide only temporary 7 jobs for construction while eliminating perhaps 8 millions of new potential  new jobs and businesses 9 that would be created by building a national, world 10 class, high speed rail system with sophisticated inter 11 modal operations. 12 We stand with the GAO in opposing such massive 13 expansion of existing facilities and with them on their 14 major solutions to long term capacity needs which are, 15 one, take the issue away from the FAA and make this a 16 transportation issue, not just an aviation issue; two, 17 put back the operational and management controls, the 18 removal of which started the massive delays we saw back 19 in 2000; three, build a national weigh port system and; 20 four, build a world class national high speed rail 21 76 system. 1 Finally, airports and major urban populated 2 areas are indeed incompatible, not necessarily because 3 of some inherent incompatibility but rather because 4 both the regulators, the FAA, EPA, Congress, the 5 President, have not yet properly set the necessary 6 protective rules in place and the airports and airlines 7 have not properly characterized their emissions or the 8 technology needed. 9 There are also other solutions, such as 10 building new environmentally friendly airport designs, 11 developing new fuel sources, et cetera. However, again 12 they are so futuristic. What they

re doing now is  13 what they have on the table now is to fly, lift off a 14 plane with one fuel and change over in flight for 15 another. And there

s various fuel combinations. Some 16 of the problems they

re having right now is that they 17 freeze just around zero. But the technology that

s 18 needed, that they

re really looking at, are hydrogen, 19 which Boeing and Airbus just put on a shelf because 20 there

s problems with holding capacity. The tanks 21 77 would be bigger than the airplanes. Another one that 1 they

re looking at which is very futuristic but I

ve 2 seen the test on is laser, flying airplanes by laser. 3 But we

re talking way in the future. 4 This is America and we need to set the 5 protection bar higher, not adopt one that

s set for 6 developing nations

pocketbooks or just for airline 7 profit maximization. We need to protect America first. 8 Thank you. 9 MR. ZINGER: Thank you, Mr. Saporito. We 10 appreciate your comments. 11 Early in your statement you asked the question 12 of whether EPA was proposing this NOx standard for 13 climate change purposes or for health purposes and I 14 would just like to respond to that, that the primary 15 reason is to protect public health, to reduce NOx 16 because of its contribution to forming ozone which is a 17 national air quality criteria pollutant. So that is 18 the primary reason. 19 We do appreciate your comments related to 20 climate change, but I did want to make that point. 21 78 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you. 1 MR. ZINGER: Another question, on item number 2 3 of your list of eight suggestions  let me find it 3 here. You suggest that EPA change the regulations to 4 consolidate all sources of pollution at an airport. I 5 was just wondering if you could elaborate on what the 6 implications of that are and what the purpose would be 7 if we were to do that. 8 MR. SAPORITO: There are various polluters at 9 airports. United is one polluter, American is another 10 polluter, the city of Chicago and the airport owner is 11 another polluter. The de icing company that they hire 12 is another polluter. There is various sources and it

s 13 not  the problem with us finding out how much an 14 airport pollutes  and the aircraft are another 15 polluter. They

re considered a car basically. The 16 problem with us getting a hold of the actual numbers of 17 the polluters is finding out who they are, how much 18 they pollute, and putting it all together. 19 The traffic that

s backed up on a Monday 20 morning or Friday night all the way downtown Chicago by 21 79 O

Hare Airport, that

s pollution caused by the airport. 1 And while some might say, well, why are you 2 considering something like that, well that

s used  3 that number is used in productivity levels. They 4 actually count the number  the amount of time that

s 5 lost because O

Hare Airport is a productivity. So I 6 believe that that should also be included. 7 I hope I

ve answered your question. I don

t 8 know. Is that  9 MR. ZINGER: I think so. I mean  10 MR. SAPORITO: There are many sources of 11 pollution and they

re not all considered one. They

re 12 all considered somebody else

s pollution and that

s the 13 problem. 14 MR. ZINGER: Okay. So I can see that one 15 benefit would be to have a more comprehensive inventory 16 of where the pollution comes from. 17 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. 18 MR. ZINGER: I guess I was also asking if you 19 had in mind that it would follow that somehow we would 20 address those pollution sources in some comprehensive 21 80 fashion, like I think it had been suggested by a 1 previous witness that there could be an airport bubble 2 or a cap and trade system over the entire airport as 3 opposed to identifying and controlling individually the 4 sources of pollution. So I was just questioning 5 whether you had that concept in mind or something else. 6 MR. SAPORITO: A cap and trade bubble is good 7 if you

re going to cap the number of flights, but I 8 don

t see that happening from a financial aspect. The 9 problem is cap and trade probably will not work because 10 it

s the aircraft that are generating all the other 11 pollution sources besides themselves. If you put in 12 one flight you

re probably talking 200 vehicles or more 13 just to service that one flight  people driving in, 14 buses, the buggies, and all the pollution it creates 15 plus the water pollution. I mean really if you start 16 thinking about it, just bringing in one flight creates 17 a whole source of pollution not only in the bubble but 18 people are going downtown. So I

m not sure cap and 19 trade would work unless you capped the number of 20 flights and then start from there. 21 81 MR. ZINGER: Okay. Thank you. 1 Other questions? 2 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you. 3 MR. PASSAVANT: Yes, sir. On page 1 of your 4 statement you make the statement that 90 percent of 5 aircraft emissions are emitted at or relatively near 6 the airport during the landing/ takeoff cycle. I don

t 7 think that

s our understanding at all of the actual 8 machinations of aircraft. In fact, most is at 9 altitude, what we would call at altitude. I

m curious 10 as to where you might have derived that. 11 MR. SAPORITO: This goes back a number of 12 years. However  and I don

t know the studies. I

d 13 have to go back and try to find them. It showed that 7 14 percent of the emissions  I

m sorry 7 percent of the 15 fuel was actually burned in flight. The rest of it was 16 getting up there and getting down, and that

s where the 17 major resources are and that happens at the airport. 18 MR. PASSAVANT: If you can find that and 19 provide that to us that would be very helpful. 20 MR. SAPORITO: Sure. This is a hunt. 21 82 MR. PASSAVANT: Good luck. 1 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you. 2 MR. PASSAVANT: And maybe if you could just 3 take a quick moment and on the bottom of what would be, 4 I guess it would be page 4, your first point, you seem 5 to be, if I

m reading this correctly, suggesting that 6 we set a standard that

s much more stringent than 7 what

s been proposed.

EPA should establish the NOx 8 regulations at a much tougher level, one that might be 9 acceptable if 90 percent of existing fleet engines 10 could not meet it.

11 So alluding to our little chart you would say 12 move the line down so that only 10 percent of existing 13 engines could meet it, and if I

m reading this 14 correctly, phase it out?

This standard should be 15 applied retroactively to all existing fleet engines.

16 So essentially you would make this an in use standard 17 as well? 18 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. 19 MR. PASSAVANT: Okay. Thank you. 20 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you. 21 83 MR. ZINGER: Okay. 1 MR. MANNING: A question on the last page. 2 You may have touched upon this already, but the first 3 paragraph, the last page, you talk about building a 4 national weigh port system. 5 MR. SAPORITO: Yes. A weigh port system would 6 solve a lot of our capacity problems right now at 7 airports and bring in  it would open up the slots for 8 the money makers, the long distance flights. And what 9 that is is building  when we say four to six, the GAO 10 says up to ten airports far enough away from the urban 11 population, environmentally buffered, and strictly 12 zoned to limit urban sprawl. And what we would do 13 there is to send it transfer traffic. 14 O

Hare has 54 to 56 percent of the passengers 15 coming in there are just transferring. It

s basically 16 wearing down the carpet and getting on another plane 17 and they could be getting on a plane somewhere else 18 that

s mainly an airport for that purpose. And I don

t 19 know how much mail and cargo, but I assume  and 20 freight  I assume it

s a lot, but I don

t know the 21 84 numbers on that. 1 The other reduction would be high speed rail. 2 About 50 percent of the flights more or less are 500 3 miles or less around airports in the U. S. and they 4 could be going more efficiently on high speed rail 5 rather than on  by air. 6 And I think what would most interesting and 7 beneficial for the air transportation industry would be 8 to link these all up as a world class inter modal 9 operations, high speed rail to the airports and 10 possibly giving them either ownership or some kind of a 11 share in the running, or operation, or tickets. I 12 believe that that

s the future anyhow. 13 I think Europe, a lot of Europe is doing it. 14 If I

m not mistaken Germany, Italy and others are 15 already saying you can

t fly regionally. It has to be 16 by rail. Lufthansa I think was ordered to. 17 Does that answer  18 MR. MANNING: Okay. 19 MR. ZINGER: Thank you very much. 20 MR. SAPORITO: Thank you very much. 21 85 MR. ZINGER: Our next witness is Nancy Young 1 from the Air Transport Association. 2 MS. YOUNG: Good morning. My name is Nancy 3 Young and I

m the managing director of environmental 4 programs for the Air Transport Association of America, 5 ATA. 6 As you may know, ATA is the principal trade 7 and service organization of the major scheduled air 8 carriers in the United States. Accordingly, we

re 9 interested in this rulemaking under discussion today as 10 it will effect the aircraft available to our carriers, 11 ensuring that those aircraft have enhanced NOx 12 performance while also ensuring that the United States 13 regulations on aircraft engine emissions are fully 14 consistent with the international standards established 15 by the International Civil Aviation Organization or 16 ICAO. 17 ATA strongly supports the proposal put forward 18 by EPA. While ATA is preparing detailed comments for 19 submission within the formal comment period for this 20 rulemaking, we wanted to take this opportunity to share 21 86 some of the reasons that we support the proposal. 1 First and foremost we support the proposal 2 because it

s based on sound technical grounds. EPA 3 proposes to codify into United States law the NOx 4 certification standard adopted by the ICAO in 1999. As 5 the record for this rulemaking demonstrates, that 6 certification standard was subject to rigorous study by 7 ICAO and its Committee on Aviation Environmental 8 Protection, CAEP. 9 CAEP

s studies focused on three fundamental 10 criteria  what NOx certification standard would be 11 technologically feasible, environmentally beneficial 12 and economically reasonable. These criteria are the 13 right technical criteria for aircraft engine emission 14 standards. In addition, they are fully consistent with 15 the mandates of the United States Clean Air Act with 16 respect to aircraft engine emission standards. 17 Confirming technological feasibility is a must 18 in setting aircraft engine emission standards. That is 19 because the aircraft must be airworthy, safe and fully 20 operable under flight conditions without comprise as a 21 87 first order of business. Accordingly, whether an 1 emission standard is technologically feasible depends 2 not on just whether it can be achieved in a laboratory 3 or even on one aircraft type, but whether it can be 4 achieved on a range of actual aircraft engine and 5 airframe combinations that are certified as airworthy, 6 safe and fully operable under flight conditions, again 7 without comprise. 8 The ICAO standard that EPA proposes to codify 9 ensures these things and therefore is the right 10 standard for the United States and the traveling 11 public. In addition, beyond ensuring feasibility the 12 standard also provides significant environmental 13 benefit. The standard at issue provides a 16 percent 14 reduction in NOx emissions beyond the current 15 standards, and the current NOx engine emission standard 16 which were codified into U. S. law in 1997 brought a 20 17 percent reduction in NOx emissions from previous 18 standards. 19 For those stakeholders interested only in NOx 20 reduction the benefits of this rulemaking may not seem 21 88 like enough. However, we cannot and should not be 1 looking at just NOx alone. At the same time 2 improvements are being made in NOx the manufacturers 3 and the airlines continue to make progress across the 4 spectrum of environmental parameters applicable to 5 aircraft engines. 6 For example, since 1975 we

ve made 125 percent 7 gain in fuelistration statistics. Also since 1975 8 we

ve reduced the population exposed to significant 9 levels of aircraft noise under what

s referred to as 10 the 65 D& L Standard. Within the United States we

ve 11 reduced this from over 7 million to fewer than 500,000 12 people today, all the while tripling our enplanements. 13 We

ve also achieved continued reductions in carbon 14 monoxide smoke and unburned hydrocarbons. 15 With these advances across environmental 16 parameters, as I noted we should not look at NOx alone 17 but also we cannot. The complicated physics in 18 aircraft engines demands that no single parameter be 19 considered to the exclusion of others. That is because 20 there are demonstrated interrelationships and trade 21 89 offs between various parameters. For example, 1 increasing the pressure ratio for aircraft engines 2 reduces fuel burn and resulting carbon dioxide by 3 improving thermal efficiency. However, such an 4 increase also increases NOx production, and depending 5 on the degree of the pressure ratio change may also 6 affect noise. These and other interrelationships need 7 to be considered and addressed as we seek continued 8 improvements across the spectrum of environmental 9 parameters. 10 So in addition to demonstrating that the 11 standard under consideration is technologically 12 feasible and environmentally beneficial, ICAO also 13 found that it

s economically reasonable. That, too, is 14 important as a legal matter as the Clean Air Act 15 directs that the cost of engine emission standards be 16 taken into account. But it

s also important as a 17 matter of economic stability, not just for the aviation 18 industry but also for the United States economy in 19 general. 20 I will not belabor the point, but most 21 90 certainly air transportation powers our national 1 economy. This was made readily apparent by the events 2 of 9/ 11 and the continued economic downturn since. As 3 a sound economy benefits us all, and also is strongly 4 correlated with better environmental performances, 5 performance across all sectors, economic reasonableness 6 makes for both good economic as well as good 7 environmental policy. 8 While the first reason ATA supports the 9 proposed NOx standard is that it is technically sound. 10 A close second is the fact that it would ensure that 11 the United States regulations on NOx from aircraft 12 emissions, engines, remain consistent with the 13 standards established by ICAO. As the preamble to the 14 proposed rule points out, consistency of United States 15 engine certification standards with ICAO standards is 16 critical to the acceptance of U. S. certified aircraft 17 worldwide. 18 Put in practical terms, based on our treaty 19 obligations under the Chicago Cfly internationally 20 without undue restriction by other countries. And 21 91 although we are focusing on the NOx standard here what 1 is at stake is far greater  that is the continued 2 viability of a proven United Nations body, ICAO, to 3 establish worldwide consensus standards on the myriad 4 of safety, security, environmental air traffic 5 management and other parameters that allow 6 international aviation to function. 7 By having key aircraft and engine standards 8 established by ICAO the global community has devised a 9 way for aircraft to fly from country to country without 10 having to do the impossible  change aircraft engines 11 or other vital parts in mid air to satisfy what surely 12 would be varying standards at each destination. To the 13 extent we can honor this system by adopting the ICAO 14 standards into our own law we should as it makes 15 international travel possible and better overall as the 16 rest world, too, must adhere to the standards. 17 The NOx standard is certainly a standard we 18 should honor as the United States played a key role in 19 its development at ICAO and supported its adoption 20 there. 21 92 And here I must add a bit of constructive 1 criticism to my testimony. While we support EPA

s 2 proposal to adopt the ICAO standard we believe it 3 should have been  it would have been better had the 4 United States done so sooner. As the proposed rule 5 points out, ICAO adopted the standard in 1999. Given 6 market forces upon its adoption the manufacturers began 7 in earnest to comply with the standard, even though it 8 will not become effective under the ICAO mandate until 9 January 1, 2004. As ATA has repeatedly requested since 10 1999 to show its commitment to such ICAO standards, but 11 also to show a more orderly progress in the United 12 States standards, EPA should have taken steps to adopt 13 this rule immediately. 14 As EPA notes in the proposed rule, ICAO

s 15 Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection is now 16 assessing another NOx engine emission standard. ATA 17 supports the work that ICAO, CAEP are doing to analyze 18 potential options for another standard because we want 19 to continue to improve the NOx profiles of our aircraft 20 on a go forward basis. We urge the United States to 21 93 work within this process to ensure that the next 1 standard, like the one under consideration today, is 2 technologically feasible, environmentally beneficial, 3 and economically reasonable while taking into account 4 and avoiding undue environmental trade offs. 5 Thank you for this opportunity for me to 6 provide testimony today. 7 MR. ZINGER: Thank you, Nancy. A couple of 8 questions. Most of the previous witnesses have 9 mentioned as a point of criticism that this proposal 10 does not require existing engines, those that are 11 already certified, to meet the new NOx standard. I 12 wonder if ATA has any comments that you would like to 13 make either today or in your written submission letter 14 on that point. 15 MS. YOUNG: I

ll make two comments today, that 16 we certainly are going to expand our comments for 17 purposes of the December 15th deadline. One, the way 18 the proposal puts it it is really a question about in 19 production aircraft that have already  engines that 20 are already certified should those be affected. I mean 21 94 there are actually two sets we

d be interested in. One 1 that the question isn

t posed at, which is the existing 2 fleet, we absolutely oppose anything that retroactively 3 applies to the existing fleet. 4 But then with respect to the aircraft engines 5 that are in production, the two points I would make  6 one, when ICAO sets the standard, because there are so 7 few engine manufacturers and all of us have to operate 8 internationally, immediately the manufacturers begin to 9 conform their behavior basically. They do the best 10 that they can do to make  to meet the standard. 11 And so there really is a market based driven 12 production cutoff for in production aircraft. And 13 that

s really then borne out historically. By the 14 time, you know  by the time a new standard is 15 implemented, as this one will be on January 1, 2004, 16 most of the aircraft engines meet it. That

s exactly 17 what

s happened and that

s exactly what people are 18 complaining about. 19 ICAO actually adopted this standard or it was 20 adopted by CAEP in 1998. So really since 1998, because 21 95 the action in 1999 was just confirmatory, we

ve all 1 known that this standard was going to go into effect 2 and we did what we needed to do to come into 3 compliance. 4 So I guess point number one is the market 5 driven behavior obviates the need for a production 6 cutoff. But  and on number two, we haven

t really 7 studied a production cutoff for this particular rule in 8 the United States yet. ICAO is looking at that 9 question right now and is doing a study on that that 10 will be produced at CAEP 6, and that shows that there 11 are only a couple of engines left that don

t meet it. 12 So, you know, we

re looking at that data to 13 see what position we should take, but I don

t think 14 we

re talking about a significant set of aircraft 15 engines. 16 MR. ZINGER: Okay. Thank you for that. 17 MS. YOUNG: Does that answer your question? 18 MR. ZINGER: Yes. Yes, I think it does. Let 19 me just pursue that a little further. If in fact as 20 you and other witnesses have pointed out most of the 21 96 engines already meet the standard then that could be 1 turned into an argument that it doesn

t necessarily 2 matter if EPA were to codify the standard as applying 3 to all engines that are produced after say 2004, that 4 they would have to meet the standard. 5 So, I mean, this is probably more of a comment 6 than a question. You can certainly respond if you 7 would like. 8 MS. YOUNG: To the extent that there are any 9 engines that aren

t meeting it now, I mean this is a 10 substantive difference between the proposal that you 11 would put on the table and one that would say that 12 production engines that don

t meet the standard, you 13 know, can

t be produced. 14 MR. ZINGER: I think I was just following up 15 on the point that as soon as ICAO adopts the standards 16 all of the manufacturers take steps to try to meet that 17 as quickly as possible, presumably with all the engines 18 that they are producing at that time. And so it just 19 seems to follow that it really doesn

t have much of an 20 effect if EPA were to adopt it as applying to all 21 97 engines that are produced after the effective date 1 because they

re all going to be there anyway. 2 And I

m just trying to understand  I think 3 that

s the point some of the other witnesses were 4 making, and again I think this is more in terms of a 5 comment but certainly if you have a response to that we 6 would be  we would like to hear it. 7 MS. YOUNG: The standards should apply to 8 aircraft that

s certified, newly certified aircraft 9 engines. That

s what the ICAO provision is and we 10 support the United States complying with what ICAO has 11 endorsed and the United States supported in the process 12 five years  or seven years ago or whatever it was. 13 MR. ZINGER: Okay. Thank you. 14 MS. YOUNG: My math is bad. 15 MR. ZINGER: One other, I guess, request. If 16 you do have comments to make on this we

ve also  I 17 guess one of the benefits of going  you have some 18 benefits and disadvantages of going last as the 19 witness. We

ve had a chance to hear a number of the 20 other people and therefore I

m asking some questions 21 98 related to what they have commented on as well. 1 We

ve heard a number of witnesses point out 2 that the standards that we are proposing are not 3 technology forcing, and I understand from your 4 statement some of the reasons why you think  5 MS. YOUNG: Which I would be glad to elaborate 6 on. 7 MS. ZINGER: Let me just ask a hypothetical 8 scenario. Does ATA envision in the future the 9 possibility of ICAO or CAEP or EPA establishing a 10 technology, a true technology forcing aircraft engine 11 standard that could have mechanisms built into it that 12 would be acceptable to ATA? And let me elaborate on 13 this. If it were possible to establish the standard at 14 some future date and then build into that some kind of 15 a checkpoint or technology review that prior to the 16 effective date all the affected parties, including the 17 engine manufacturers obviously, would present the 18 results of how much progress they

ve made to that 19 point, and the deciding parties, whether it

s a CAEP or 20 EPA or some other body would then make the decision on 21 99 whether to continue to work toward the effective date 1 and the level of stringency that had been proposed 2 earlier and so it would give some possibility of the 3 industry, both the engine manufacturers as well as the 4 airlines, to see how the technology is in fact being 5 developed and have the possibility of revising those  6 either the standard, the stringency or the effective 7 date based on the progress that

s been made to date. 8 MS. YOUNG: That

s a long question there, Don. 9 MR. ZINGER: Yes, it is. 10 MS. YOUNG: I have two responses to that. 11 One, I mean I

ll never say never to anything. If the 12 world changes significantly we are always looking for 13 ways to flow with those changes, but we absolutely 14 oppose the setting of technology forcing standards in 15 this context and that would include with the type of 16 hypothetical. We could come up with lots of 17 hypotheticals that you gave that there would be a weigh 18 point at which some body of people would sit down and 19 revisit that standard. 20 One of the reasons why is because you

re 21 100 postulating setting up future NOx standards, even with 1 a way point setting it sort of in a vacuum, and one of 2 the things that ATA has proposed for several years in 3 the research fora, in the regulatory fora at ICAO, et 4 cetera, is looking at standards more in terms of the 5 interrelationships and trying to do standard setting in 6 a way where you

re looking at NOx, and you

re looking at 7 CO, and you

re looking at COs, and you

re looking at the 8 other parameters and you

re trying to set standards 9 where you

re taking each of those into account. 10 So the hypothetical that you postulate, even 11 though it would allow a chance in some time in the 12 future to take a look at how we

re doing relative to 13 it, it would have been set in a vacuum without respect 14 to how we may be doing on those other parameters and 15 there

s a lot of give and take there. 16 The other thing, unfortunately the 17 manufacturers are not testifying today, think they 18 could do a better job of talking about the investment 19 in new technology that costs millions and millions and 20 billions of dollars and how the potential for waste if 21 101 we set again, in what I view is a vacuum, a standard 1 that everybody in off with other environmental 2 standards, and then you

ve spent billions of dollars on 3 something that you might have better spent your money 4 on another way. And I don

t mean, you know, for 5 corporate coffers because none of us are making any 6 money on this now. 7 My other answer  so a categorical no to the 8 hypothetical you posed. My other answer is I think 9 we

ve devised, and in large part with some of the good 10 ideas of the various stakeholders in this room, 11 including you all, an alternative in the ICAO process, 12 and that is a long term technology goals approach where 13 you look at and set standards as we do now with respect 14 to what is certifiable on an aircraft so that the 15 traveling public knows that it

s safe to get on that 16 aircraft and they know there are standards that are 17 going to support that. 18 But you have another set of issues that you 19 approach as long term technology goals, and you pull 20 together through a long term technology goal process 21 102 information like the NASA stretch goals, which by the 1 way are stretch goals and I would never want to have to 2 apply those to a standard setting process, but you can 3 take those NASA stretch goals, you can take the 4 European goals, you can take the Japanese and Russian 5 goals, you can take what information you can glean from 6 the engine and airframe manufacturers about even if you 7 can

t do it regulatorily what can you do about engine 8 and airframe combinations. How much  if we can make 9 the airframe lighter how much emissions benefit are we 10 going to get? Maybe we don

t standards that way in the 11 United States. It doesn

t mean we can

t think about it 12 in terms of a long goal. 13 So we put those into the long term technology 14 goals process, and as has been proposed at ICAO you 15 begin a regular review of that process, and the very 16 vetting of those processes with the various 17 stakeholders helps you sort of true up the information 18 that you have and as some would argue is a vehicle for 19 moving the ball forward on the various parameters over 20 time. And right now the long term technology goals 21 103 concept is being  is focusing on NOx, but it was 1 agreed very early in that process that it had to 2 include the various parameters and think about 3 interrelationships to be a really successful thing. 4 So I would say that is a better approach to 5 dealing with how can we bring the research and sort of 6 get great minds thinking about this stuff more. That

s 7 a better approach. 8 MR. ZINGER: Thank you. Other questions? 9 MR. PASSAVANT: That was a nice, long eloquent 10 answer to the question. 11 MS. YOUNG: It was a long question. 12 MR. PASSAVANT: It does seem to miss the 13 point, though, and this is a point that I think came up 14 in Mr. Long

s testimony so I would like to  15 unfortunately I don

t think he

s on the line any 16 longer. He  in his testimony it was his belief that 17 the statute called for the agency to set a standard out 18 there with lead time and identifying or pushing toward 19 requisite technology, sort of like Don laid out a 20 moment ago. 21 104 And that was a  that was a  that was a 1 specified procedure with an outcome where you indicated 2 a process and a process that doesn

t have an outcome 3 necessarily other than more process. 4 MS. YOUNG: Right. 5 MR. PASSAVANT: And there is really I think 6 the fundamental rub between the two ideas, both of 7 which  8 MS. YOUNG: I actually disagree with that. 9 MR. PASSAVANT: Okay. Well, please explain 10 why. 11 MS. YOUNG: Had the EPA proposed this in 1999 12 when ICAO adopted it it could have said in 1999 you

ve 13 got to meet the standard by 2004 and this is the lead 14 time that is needed, and it would have fit very well 15 into what has happened. We

ve used the lead time that 16 you guys would have otherwise provided us by 17 regulation. 18 So I think what ICAO has done, and what the 19 Clean Air Act asks for, and what EPA is now doing is 20 perfectly consistent under the law. If EPA had done 21 105 what it had done earlier there would be less room in 1 this room for people to complain about it. 2 MR. PASSAVANT: There may be  let me just 3 say two things. First of all, there still may be a 4 conundrum between what the statute calls for and what 5 you

re suggesting. But I appreciate your point that 6 you just made by making

99 versus 2004 and it might be 7 instructive for the record to show between the 1999 8 ICAO date and the 2003 ICAO date how much progress has 9 actually been made in terms of pulling down the average 10 emission levels. That actually could be very 11 instructive I think in resolving this discussion. 12 MS. YOUNG: All right. But I also add that 13 the Clean Air Act does not in the case of aircraft 14 engine emissions, as in other places in the Clean Air 15 Act, it does not call for a technology forcing 16 standard. When Congress has mandated a technology 17 forcing standard it has said so, using not necessarily 18 those exact words but words akin to that. And so I 19 think a clear distinction under the law can be made. 20 MR. PASSAVANT: Well, I won

t go there for the 21 106 point of this discussion, but I would just ask if you 1 would do that. 2 The other thing that I think would be useful, 3 and I don

t  and this may not be useful to ask you to 4 do this now, but for the record virtually every other 5 commentor today expressed displeasure over the lack of 6 environmental benefits associated with what we were 7 doing. You claim in your testimony that there are 8 environmental benefits. 9 MS. YOUNG: I took it right out of the 10 preamble. 11 MR. PASSAVANT: Well, I

m not asking you  12 that

s not what I

m asking you for. What I

m shooting 13 for here is to say if you think what they

re saying is 14 wrong and then I would appreciate an explanation as to 15 how that  how your conclusion is different than their 16 conclusion based upon what is essentially the same 17 information. 18 MS. YOUNG: My conclusion is taken right from 19 testimony, that the standards have ratcheted down the 20 NOx that is allowed over time. My other point is we 21 107 also have to continue to make improvements on the 1 various environmental parameters, and that we do. So 2 while the NOx benefits may not seem significant when 3 you talk 16 percent change or whatever, I understand. 4 If you

re a state that has to in your state 5 implementation plan meet the ozone standard and you

re 6 trying to get every NOx emission reduction you can, 7 it

s not very satisfactory. I understand that 8 pressure, but I think the record speaks for itself and 9 that there are reductions, number one, but number two 10 that we are dealing with a variety of parameters that 11 we have to continue to reduce and aircraft don

t have 12 some of the same control technology options that 13 stationary sources have. So I think we have a very 14 good environmental record. 15 And one of the other things that has not come 16 up today, you know, the airline industry does not 17 shrink from its responsibility to continue to have 18 environmental performance. One of the things that 19 hasn

t come up today is where NOx is relative to other 20 transportation sources. We account for .75 percent of 21 108 the total NOx emissions from transportation sources. 1 By comparison highway vehicles count for 77 percent of 2 the total NOx emissions from transportation and 3 railroad account for 11.5 percent. So we are getting 4 reductions but also we

re a relatively small source. 5 And I understand growth in aviation shows that 6 there are going to be more flights and more emissions 7 overall, so we need to continue to improve our 8 performance and that

s why there are new standards and 9 we

re continuing to work to go beyond those if we can. 10 MR. PASSAVANT: A final questionuse I think 11 what people are doing is they

re focusing on where the 12 line is on the chart and looking where the 13 certification levels are and saying there

s no change. 14 And I think you

re suggesting that in fact there has 15 been change over the last four or five years, and I 16 think that

s instructive for people to see that. 17 MS. YOUNG: Okay. Well, we will provide more 18 detail in our written comments. 19 MR. PASSAVANT: The final thing would be just 20 to follow up on the first point Don made about 21 109 something that I refer to as the derivative engine 1 issue, this is the engines that are now certified for 2 the future. This is an economic issue as well as it is 3 an environmental issue. It would be interesting  I 4 think it would be instructive for us to have a better 5 understanding as to what is the normal anticipated life 6 cycle for an engine. You might not be the right person 7 to answer this, Nancy, because you

re an ATA person and 8 not an IA person. But in other words, if the agency 9 were to take this comment and say, well, maybe there 10 should be a cut off date or maybe there should be a cut 11 off date plus two years, or a phase out, or something 12 like that, what is a reasonable economic model to use 13 to look at that and say at what point in time is an 14 engine, is it reasonable from an economic basis to 15 phase out the production of an engine, in addition to 16 the environmental side, that there

s a big economic 17 issue there as well. 18 MS. YOUNG: Right. I am not qualified to 19 answer that but we will put that question to our 20 carriers. 21 110 MR. PASSAVANT: I know there

s an AIA 1 representative in the audience. Maybe he can respond 2 to it as well. 3 Thank you. 4 MR. ZINGER: Thank you. Oh, I

m sorry. Any 5 other questions? Glenn? No. 6 Okay. Thank you very much. 7 MS. YOUNG: Thank you very much. 8 MR. ZINGER: Okay. That concludes the people 9 who had signed up to testify, but let me ask is there 10 anyone else in the audience who would like to provide 11 comments at this time? No. 12 I would remind everyone that as we had said 13 before the written comments we would ask for those to 14 be submitted to EPA by December 15th. So I would like 15 to thank again all of the people who came today, the 16 witnesses in particular who traveled here and took the 17 time to provide what I thought were very useful 18 comments. So thank you very much and also to those who 19 attended as observers as well. Thank you and I declare 20 the hearing closed. 21 111 ( Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m, the hearing was 1 adjourned.) 2 * * * * * 3