[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11355-11358]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04495]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0123; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-040-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, -B4-605R, B4-
622R, -F4-605R, F4-622R, and -C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model
A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of inner skin disbonding damage on
a rudder. This proposed AD would require repetitive ultrasonic
inspections for disbonding of certain rudders; an elasticity of
laminate checker inspection; a woodpecker or tap test inspection;
venting the core, if necessary; and repairing, if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct rudder disbonding, which could
affect the structural integrity of the rudder.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS,

Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0123; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0123;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-040-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0039, dated February 26, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    One A310 operator found substantial inner skin disbonding damage
on a rudder that was previously inspected in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310-55-2044. The
results of the subsequent investigation revealed that the most
probable cause of this damage was a blunt impact with no visible
damage from outside during the rudder handling. Damage like this
might grow with pressure variation during ground-air-ground cycles,
and tests performed with other rudders showed a rapid propagation of
damage during artificial pressure cycling.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the rudder.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert
Operators Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12 [dated December 13, 2012],
pending Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 27-21-21 PB401 revision to
update rudder handling procedures.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
ultrasonic test (UT) inspections of the affected rudders to detect
signs of disbonding and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s).

Required actions also include an elasticity of laminate checker
inspection to detect external and internal disbonding, and a woodpecker
or tap test inspection to detect external disbonding. You may examine
the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-* * *.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A55W002-12, dated
December 13, 2012. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Repair Approvals

    In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies
to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain
discrepancies are found, we typically include in the FAA AD a
requirement to accomplish the action using a method approved by either
the FAA or the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).
    We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries
do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do
recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become
aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were
previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval
Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs.
Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions
come from the airplane structural repair manual or DAH repair approval
statements that were not specifically developed to address the unsafe
condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that were not
specifically approved for a particular AD creates the potential for
doing repairs that were not developed to address the unsafe condition
identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the applicable service
information, which could result in the unsafe condition not being fully
corrected.
    To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed
to correct the unsafe condition, certain requirements of this proposed
AD specify that the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD.
This change is intended to clarify the method of compliance and to
provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are
specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In
addition, we use the phrase ``its delegated agent, or the DAH with the
State of Design Authority's design organization approval, as
applicable'' in this proposed AD to refer to a DAH authorized to
approve certain required repairs for this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $75,650, or $850 per product.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0123; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
040-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 14, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD, except airplanes on which modification 08827
has been embodied in production.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, -B4-605R,
B4-622R, -F4-605R, F4-622R, and -C4-605R Variant F airplanes,
certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (2) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55; Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of inner skin disbonding damage
on a rudder. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rudder
disbonding, which could affect the structural integrity of the
rudder.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Identification of Part Number

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, identify
the rudder assembly part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Alert
Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012. If
the part number or serial number cannot be determined, before
further flight, identify the part number and serial number in
accordance with a method approved by either the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or EASA (or its delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder
with EASA design organization approval, as applicable). For an
identification method to be approved, the identification method
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(h) Inspections

    If a rudder assembly part number starting with A55471500 is
found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
before further flight, do an ultrasonic (UT) inspection for damage
(e.g., disbonding and liquid ingress) of the rudder side panel along
the Z-profile and in the booster area, in accordance with Airbus
Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13,
2012. If any damage is found, before further flight, do the
inspections to confirm disbonding damage as specified in paragraph
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Alert
Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012.
    (1) Do an elasticity of laminate checker inspection to detect
external and internal disbonding of the rudder side panel along the
Z-profile and in the booster area.
    (2) Do a woodpecker or tap test inspection to detect external
disbonding of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the
booster area.

(i) Repair

    (1) If any disbonding is confirmed during any inspection
required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, before further
flight, repair as specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii)
of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) If disbonding is less than or equal to 50 millimeters (mm)
in width and less than or equal to 150 mm in length, before further
flight, vent the core, using a method approved by either the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or by the Design
Approval Holder with EASA design organization approval, as
applicable). Within 100 flight cycles after the UT inspection
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done, repair using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the
Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as
applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (ii) If disbonding is greater than 50 mm in width or greater
than 150 mm in length, before further flight, repair using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the
Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as
applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (2) If liquid ingress is confirmed during any inspection
required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2), before further flight,
repair, using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or
its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's
design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to
be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Inspection After Re-installation

    If any rudder has been inspected as specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-55-6043, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2007; or A310-
55-2044, Revision 01, dated

December 3, 2007; as applicable; and has been removed and re-
installed on any airplane after this inspection, that rudder must be
re-inspected as required by paragraph (g) of this AD; and all
applicable actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD
must be done.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, a rudder assembly having a part number starting with
A55471500, unless it has been inspected as required by paragraph (h)
of this AD, and all applicable actions required by paragraph (i) of
this AD have been done.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it
to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable). You
are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is
returned to service.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0039, dated February 26,
2013; for related information, which can be found in the AD docket
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04495 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 129 (Friday, July 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36241-36243]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14495]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 129 / Friday, July 9, 2021 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0498; Project Identifier 2019-SW-072-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal Model Cabri G2 helicopters with
any metal bushing installed on the main rotor (M/R) swashplate guide
bellcrank. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks
discovered on the M/R scissor link during scheduled maintenance on
several helicopters. This proposed AD would require removing all metal
bushings from service, visually inspecting the lug bore area and
depending on the inspection results, removing certain parts from
service and installing certain part-numbered plastic bushings. This
proposed AD would also prohibit installing any metal bushing on any
helicopter. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 23,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal, Basile Ginel, 1070, rue du
Lieutenant Parayre, A[eacute]rodrome d'Aix-en-Provence, 13290 Les
Milles, France; telephone 33-04-42-39-10-88; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web https://www.guimbal.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0498; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Mail Stop: Room 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0498; Project Identifier
2019-SW-072-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section,
Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA,
1600 Stewart Ave., Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0185, dated July 30, 2019 (EASA
AD 2019-0185), to correct an unsafe condition for
H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal Model Cabri G2 helicopters. EASA
advises that during scheduled maintenance on several helicopters,
cracks were found on the M/R scissor link due to corrosion. EASA states
this corrosion was caused by stress induced by the mounting of the
metal bushing inside the lug hole. EASA further states metal bushings
are also installed on the M/R swashplate guide bellcrank, where similar
cracking may occur. This condition, if not addressed,

could result in failure of the M/R swashplate guide bellcrank and
reduced control of the helicopter. Accordingly, EASA AD 2019-0185
requires replacing any part-numbered metal bushing with plastic bushing
part number (P/N) HG22-1001. EASA AD 2019-0185 also prohibits
installing any part-numbered metal bushing on the M/R swashplate guide
bellcrank other than P/N HG22-1001 on any helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other helicopters of the same type designs.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 17-003, Revision D,
dated August 27, 2019 (SB 17-003 Rev D). This service information
specifies disconnecting the bellcrank installed on the swashplate guide
by removing the bolts that connect the bellcrank to the swashplate
guide, removing any existing bushings, and visually inspecting the lug
bore area for corrosion or cracks. This service information also
specifies if there is any corrosion or cracks, reporting the
information to HG support, installing the new plastic bushings,
reinstalling the bellcrank, applying a specified torque, and installing
cotter pins.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 17-003, Revision
C, dated July 12, 2019 (SB 17-003 Rev C). SB 17-003 Rev C specifies the
same procedures as SB 17-003 Rev D, except SB 17-003 Rev D updates the
reference to EASA AD 2019-0185.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require, within 50 hours time-in-service or
2 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
disconnecting the bellcrank from the swashplate guide, removing each
bolt and using a certain tool, removing certain parts from service.
This proposed AD would also require visually inspecting the lug bore
area for corrosion and cracks and depending on the inspection results,
removing certain parts from service, or repairing the area using an
FAA-approved method, installing certain part-numbered plastic bushings,
coating the area with a compound, reinstalling certain parts, applying
a specified torque, and installing cotter pins.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2019-0185 applies to all Model Cabri G2 helicopters,
whereas this proposed AD would only apply to Model Cabri G2 helicopters
with any metal bushings installed and without HG modification 16-009.
The service information required by the EASA AD requires contacting
H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal for corrective actions when
corrosion or cracks are found in the lug bore area whereas this AD
requires removing the swashplate guide from service or repairing it
using an FAA-approved method.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 32 helicopters
of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the
following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs
are estimated at $85 per work-hour.
    Disconnecting the bellcrank, removing each metal bushing and
visually inspecting for corrosion and cracks would take about 0.5 work-
hours for an estimated cost of $43 per inspection cycle.
    Installing each plastic bushing, coating with compound, re-
installing the bellcrank, and applying torque would take about 0.5
work-hours and parts would cost about $10 for an estimated cost of $53
per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal: Docket No. FAA-2021-0498;
Project Identifier 2019-SW-072-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by August 23, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal (HG) Model
Cabri G2 helicopters, certificated in any category, with any metal
bushings installed on the main rotor (M/R) swashplate guide
bellcrank and without plastic bushing part number HG22-1001 or HG
modification 16-009.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6700, Rotorcraft
Flight Control.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the M/R scissor
link. The FAA is issuing this AD to replace the metal bushings
installed on the M/R swashplate guide bellcrank with plastic
bushings. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
failure of the M/R swashplate guide bellcrank and reduced control of
the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 2 months, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD:
    (i) Disconnect the bellcrank from the swashplate guide by
removing each bolt and, ensuring that the bellcrank remains attached
to the flight control rod, remove each metal bushing from service
using a bushing disassembly tool.
    (ii) Visually inspect the lug bore area for any corrosion and
any cracks. If there is any corrosion or any cracks, before further
flight, remove the swashplate guide from service or repair it using
an FAA-approved method. If there is no corrosion and no cracks,
install plastic bushing part number HG22-1001, coat plastic bushing
with isolation compound, re-install the bellcrank, torque each bolt
to 7.5 Nm-9 Nm (5.5 ft-lbs-6.6 ft-lbs), and install cotter pins.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any
metal bushing on any helicopter.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600
Stewart Ave., Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Guimbal Service Bulletin SB 17-003, Revision C, dated July
12, 2019, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For service
information identified in this AD, contact
H[eacute]licopt[egrave]res Guimbal, Basile Ginel, 1070, rue du
Lieutenant Parayre, A[eacute]rodrome d'Aix-en-Provence, 13290 Les
Milles, France; telephone 33-04-42-39-10-88; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>web https://www.guimbal.com. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0185, dated July 30, 2019. You
may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
in Docket No. FAA-2021-0498.

    Issued on June 10, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-14495 Filed 7-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14393-14394]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5619]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0248; FRL-8866-4]

Notice of Receipt of Requests for Amendments To Delete Uses in
Certain Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of requests for amendments by registrants to delete
uses in certain pesticide registrations. Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA
provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time
request that any of its pesticide registrations be amended to delete
one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the
request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any request in the
Federal Register.

DATES: The deletions are effective September 12, 2011, unless the
Agency receives a written withdrawal request on or before September 12,
2011. The Agency will consider a withdrawal request postmarked no later
than September 12, 2011. Comments must be received on or before April
15, 2011 for registrations for which the registrant requested a waiver
of the 180-day comment period.
    Users of these products who desire continued use on crops or sites
being deleted should contact the applicable registrant on or before
September 12, 2011. Comments must be received on or before April 15,
2011 for registrations for which the registrant requested a waiver of
the 180-day comment period.

ADDRESSES: Submit your withdrawal request, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0248, by one of the
following methods:
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Green, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use
pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0248. Publicly available docket materials are available
either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if
only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility's telephone number is
(703) 305-5805.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from
registrants to delete uses in certain pesticide registrations. These
registrations are listed in Table 1 of this unit by registration
number, product name,

active ingredient, and specific uses deleted. The following requests
have a 30-day comment period.

               Table 1--Requests for Amendments To Delete Uses in Certain Pesticide Registrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA Registration No.               Product name            Active ingredient        Delete from label
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
264-330............................  TEMIK brand 15G Aldicarb  Aldicarb................  Use on Coffee.
                                      Pesticide.
352-604............................  DuPont Tanos............  Famoxadone & Cymoxanil..  Leaf Petioles subgroup
                                                                                4B.
8536-12............................  Methyl Bromide 99.5%....  Methyl Bromide..........  Soil fumigation uses.
81964-1............................  Acephate Technical......  Acephate................  Residential Turf, home
                                                                                gardens, ornamentals,
                                                                                flowers, shrubs &
                                                                                trees.
81964-2............................  Acephate 75% SP.........  Acephate................  Residential Turf, home
                                                                                gardens, ornamentals,
                                                                                flowers, shrubs &
                                                                                trees.
81964-3............................  Acephate 90% SP.........  Acephate................  Residential Turf, home
                                                                                gardens, ornamentals,
                                                                                flowers, shrubs &
                                                                                trees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following request has a 180-day comment period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA Registration No.               Product name            Active ingredient        Delete from label
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63838-4............................  BCDMH Tabs..............  2,4-Imidazolidnedione, 1- Once through cooling
                                                                bromo-3 chloro-5,5-       water, pool & spa, and
                                                                dimethyl.                 food contact pulp &
                                                                                paper uses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Users of these products who desire continued use on crops or sites
being deleted should contact the applicable registrant before September
12, 2011 to discuss withdrawal of the application for amendment.
Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2011 for registrations
for which the registrant requested a waiver of the 180-day comment
period. This 180-day or 30-day period will also permit interested
members of the public to intercede with registrants prior to the
Agency's approval of the deletion.
    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit, in
sequence by EPA company number.

  Table 2--Registrants Requesting Amendments To Delete Uses in Certain
                         Pesticide Registrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         EPA  Company  No.                Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
264...............................  Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander
                                     Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research
                                     Triangle Park, NC 27709.
352...............................  E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.,
                                     Inc., Attn: Manager, U.S.--
                                     Registration, DuPont Crop
                                     Protection, 1007 Market Street,
                                     Wilmington, DE 19898-0001.
8536..............................  Soil Chemicals Corporation, dba/
                                     Cardinal Professional Products,
                                     P.O. Box 782, 8770 Hwy. 25,
                                     Hollister, CA 95024-0782.
63838.............................  EnviroTech Chemical Services, Inc.,
                                     500 Winmoore Way, Modesto, CA
                                     95358.
81964.............................  ChemStarr LLC, 21 Hubble, Irvine, CA
                                     92618.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be amended to delete one or more uses. The FIFRA further provides that,
before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of
any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the Administrator
may approve such a request.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for use deletion must
submit the withdrawal in writing to Christopher Green using the methods
in ADDRESSES. The Agency will consider written withdrawal requests
postmarked no later than September 12, 2011. Comments must be received
on or before April 15, 2011 for registrations for which the registrant
requested a waiver of the 180-day comment period.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    The Agency has authorized the registrants to sell or distribute a
product under the previously approved labeling for a period of 18
months after approval of the revision, unless other restrictions have
been imposed, as in special review actions.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 2, 2011.
Michael Hardy,
Acting, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-5619 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Analysis of NOx Stringency Options Prepared for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effect of Early Implementation on Stringency Option:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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