( 26 pag es)



### COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (CAEP) EIGHTH MEETING Montréal, 1 to 12 February 2010



### AGENDA ITEM 2 PART ONE

The attached constitutes the report on Agenda Item 2 and should be inserted at the appropriate place in the yellow report folder. CAEP/8

- WP/80 9 / 2 /10CAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 1 Agenda Item 2: Review of technical proposals relating to aircraft engine emissions 2 . 1 REPORT OF WG3

– EMISSIONS TECHNICAL 2 . 1 . 1 General Technical Issues 2 . 1 . 1 . 1 The Rapporteurs of Working Group 3 presented the group ’s report. Most of the work items were examined within the three Task Groups (Characterisation of Emissions (CETG) , Certification (CTG) and Long Term Technology Goals (LTTG)). Ad

- h oc groups were formed to address very specific topics . The remaining items w ere retained under the direction of WG 3 itself. Liaison with WG1, WG2, FESG, MODTF and SAE was carried out via focal points. 2 . 1 . 1 . 2 The group has been continuing its work to monitor and foster research to further characterise the air quality and global effects re sulting from the current and future aircraft exhaust emissions, including aviation’s contribution relative to other sources. As an input to the consideration of aviation’s contribution relative to other sources, the established WG3 Science Focal Points and CAEP Local Air Quality Research Focal Point provided a tutorial and some conclusions on source apportionment, specifically under what circumstances the apportionment of impact by mass emitted from sources (AIME) is valid for assessment of climate and air quality impacts from aircraft emissions. 2 . 1 . 1 . 3 The WG3 also continued to monitor trends in aviation kerosene fuel composition and assess consequences for emissions. It noted that no changes are required to the ICAO test fuel specification at this time. However, in light of the information collected on global kerosene fuel specification and the ICAO emissions test fuel a s well as the potential for a CO 2 Standard and the emergence of alternative fuels, it was highlighted that work should continue on fuels used in c ertification tests. The information provided by WG3 on fuel supply composition was complemented by studies on ultra

- low

- sul ph ur fuels by a member and an observer . 2 . 1 . 1 . 4 Working with other CAEP WGs and in support of MODTF analysis, WG3 developed databases and tec hnical inputs to support the assessment of associated trade

- offs in the CAEP/8 work programme. These inputs comprise of the following :

 technology responses to NO x stringency options ;

 assumptions on future technology improvements with respect to noise and e missions as input into MODTF for the ICAO Environmental Goals Assessment;

 a review of the current global fleet database (Campbell

- Hill) and the associated aircraft noise and emissions characteristics ;

 a Growth and Replacement Database, incorporating noise, NO x and fuel burn data, for use in populating the generic FESG future fleet forecast with actual airframe

engines ; and

 additional data on business jets and turboprops, accounting for the fact that available noise and emissions information was non

- certific ated data or simply unavailabl e.CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 2 Report on Agenda Item 2 2 . 1 . 2 One member and an observer presented the work on potential reductions in sulphur content in aviation fuels. These issues are being coordinated within States for possible update of fuel specification Standards out side of ICA O . Discussion and Conclusions 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 One member agreed with the WG3 C o - R apporteurs that resources are limited and WG3 especially may become overloaded with tasks. This was also discussed at the last Steering Group meeting where it was stressed that prioritization be done to address resource constraints . The member also mentioned that all efforts be made to keep abreast of technical work outside CAEP in order to avoid duplication of effort , but particularly for the area of alternative fuels . 2 . 1 . 2 . 2 The member also highlig hted the impor tance of continuing the PM work which will also be discussed in section 2.4 . 2 . 1 . 3 Proposed Changes to Annex 16, Volume II 2 . 1 . 3 . 1 The WG3 considered a number of proposals for the amendment of Annex 16, Volume II. Some of these proposals were a result of u pdates to SAE

- E31 documentation. 2 . 1 . 3 . 2 For reflectometers ’ S tandards, it was determined that there is no need to change or amend current wording in Annex 16. In order to harmonise Annex 16 Volume II with ARP 1179 rev. C on the use of filters, some guidance text for the ETM was proposed ( provided in Appendix B to th e report on this agenda item and discussed in section 2.1.3 related to ETM Volume II) . 2 . 1 . 3 . 3 In reviewing Annex 16, Volume II, Appendix 3, Attachment A, the group found inconsistencies with SAE ARP 1256C on t he operating temperatures of the Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer. SAE E

- 31 has been contacted and they have initiated work to revisit ARP 1256 and ARP 1179 with the aim to achieve a harmonized approach. This work will continue during CAEP/9 and no Annex 16 revi sions are related to this work at this time. For the time , being guidance material has been developed for the ETM with respect to the HC analyser. Therefore, no change in language in Annex 16 , Volume II is proposed. 2 . 1 . 3 . 4 An observer ha d requested a review of th e Annex 16 , Volume II humidity measurement requirements. Some initial work has been started but not yet finished. It is proposed to carry this work over to the CAEP/9 work programme. 2 . 1 . 3 . 5 The proposed changes to Annex 16, Volume II are summarized in the followi ng section and the ETM is covered in section 2.1.3

– D evelopment of Environmental Technical Manual (ETM) Volume II . Equivalent Procedures 2 . 1 . 3 . 6 CAEP/7 requested WG3 to consider harmonisation of the wording ―variations in procedures‖ within Annex 16 , Volume II an d ―equivalent procedures‖ in the ETM. While there was no clear definition from the review of historical records , the group concluded that the term ―variations in procedure‖ is effectively the same as ―equivalent procedure‖ which is defined in the ETM. Ther efore, the language has been made consistent and now refers to ―equivalent procedure‖ throughout Annex 16 , Volume II .CAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 3 Other amendments to Annex 16 and ETM 2 . 1 . 3 . 7 The co

- rapporteur of WG3 clarified to the group that a ny recommendation on a production cut

- off Stand ard based on CAEP/6 NO x Standard will need to be included in Annex 16 , Volume II. In order to implement a potential CAEP/6 NO x production cut

- off Annex 16, Vol . II, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.3.2 (d) needs to be amended to cover for the ceasing ―date of manufa cture of the individual production engine‖ which is subject to CAEP/8 discussions and agreement. Various amendments are proposed to link the Annex 16 requirements on this issue with the associated guidance in the ETM (discussed in section 2.1.3 related to ETM Volume II) . 2 . 1 . 3 . 8 In the same way, a ny potential increase in NO x stringency that may be agreed at CAEP/8 will need to be included in Annex 16 Volume II. Paragraph 2.3.2 Regulatory levels would be amended by a subparagraph. The structure of this paragraph is dependent on the agreed stringency option. However , it would be similar to subparagraph d) containing applicability dates and subsequent formulae. Editorial Corrections 2 . 1 . 3 . 9 Further edits with regard to typo graphical errors and moving of paragraphs to more appr opriate places were identified. Discussion and Conclusions 2 . 1 . 3 . 10 The meeting agreed to the proposed amendments and recommended that these be incorporated as part of the Annex 16, Volume I I amendments included in Appendix A to the report on this agenda item . 2 . 1 . 3 . 11 A me mber brought to the attention of the meeting an issue in the French version of Annex 16, Volume II. He further suggested that the term ―production cut

- off‖ be clarified so that it means ―engine production cut

- off‖. The meeting agreed to incorporate this cl arification in Annex 16 , Volume II as provided in Appendix A to this report. The meeting also agreed to his proposed French text for Annex 16, Volume II, Appendix B , page B

- 3 , para 1.5:

1.5 Les Etats contractants reconnaît ro nt la validité des d é rogations à une exigence de cessation de product ion de moteurs qui sont accordé es... 2 . 1 . 3 . 12 A member expressed c oncern on the provision that exemption from production cut

- off ―shall be reported by engine serial number and made available via an official public register‖. The W G3 representative explained that t ransparency in the process drove this requirement . One member clarified that process of granting exemption in her State involves issuing a notice in the F ederal R egister. Another member stressed the importance of transpare ncy. The meeting agreed t hat having this information publicly available is desirable . 2 . 1 . 4 Development of Environmental Technical Manual (ETM) Volume II 2 . 1 . 4 . 1 A WG3 representative presented the work on the development of a second Volume of the Environmental Technical Manual (ETM) for emissions, consistent and compatible with the approach taken for noise (Volume I).CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 4 Report on Agenda Item 2 Date of manufacture (Chapters 1 and 2) 2 . 1 . 4 . 2 The current Annex 16 , Vol ume II applicability requirements are related to the ―date of manufacture of the first indi vidual production engine‖, while for NO x production cut

- off requirements the date of manufacture refers to ―date of issue of the document attesting that the individual.....engine....conforms to the requirements of the type‖. Explanatory information on this tex t and agreed interpretation has been incorporated into the ETM as provided in Appendix B to the report in this agenda item . Applicability of Certification Requirements (Chapter 2) 2 . 1 . 4 . 3 Based on principles that take into account past and current certification pr actice, guidance has been developed on how to treat the changes in an engine design which have no or very little effect on emission levels. It also includes guidance on when new emissions levels would need to be determined, when a new certification test wo uld be required, and whether the certification basis from the parent product would be retained or, due to substan tial modifications, the latest S tandard applied. Process and criteria for NO x production cut - off exemptions (Chapter 2) 2 . 1 . 4 . 4 Significant discussions on a potential CAEP/6 production cut

- off requirement have taken place since SG2009 in order to harmonise the approach on a global basis. The agreed guidance on the process and evaluation criteria for applications associated with NO x production cut

- off exe mptions has been prepared for the ETM. Validation of emissions sampling rakes (Chapter 2) 2 . 1 . 4 . 5 ETM guidance has been agreed clarifying the Annex 16 , Volume II provision that ―the applicant shall provide evidence to the certificating authority, by means of a de tailed traverse, that the proposed probe design and position does provide a representative sample for each prescribed power setting‖ requirement. Status of supersonic engine emissions requirements (Chapter3) 2 . 1 . 4 . 6 WG3 has clarified their current position on this issue, which had previously been presented to CAEP/7, via the inclusion of text within the ETM . Smoke emission evaluation (Appendix 2) 2 . 1 . 4 . 7 ETM guidance has been agreed specifically referring to the use of a specific filter as best practice . Instrumentation an d measurement techniques for gaseous emissions (Appendix 3) 2 . 1 . 4 . 8 ETM guidance has been agreed for Annex 16, Volume II, Appendix 3 on instrumentation and measurement techniques for gaseous emissions. This work included the need to clarify the post processing of measured emissions data taken during a certification test. In coordination with SAE E

- 31, the group has also begun to develop guidance associated with the Attachments to Annex 16, Volume II, Appendix 3 which contain the specifications for all gaseous emiss ions analysers.CAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 5 Outstanding issues for CAEP/9 2 . 1 . 4 . 9 Several ongoing issues that have not been completed are expected to be carried over into the CAEP/9 work programme. These include evaluation of Optical Smoke Meters (OSM) for use in certification tests, and dev elopment of further guidance on Annex 16, Volume II, Appendix 3 Attachments. Discussion and Conclusions 2 . 1 . 4 . 10 The meeting noted the group’s efforts in completing the ETM Volume II. Recalling past discussions at CAEP/7 where it was agreed to delay publication of the emissions ETM in anticipation of a revised version of Volume I of the ETM, it was agreed that, assuming finalization of the noise ETM in Agenda Item 4, both volumes of the ETM can be recommended for publi cation now. The proposed emission s ETM is attach ed as Appendix B to r eport on this agenda item. 2 . 1 . 4 . 11 A member pointed out that even within ― spare ‖ and ― new ‖ engine categories, there may be some overlap on the definitions which may lead to double

- counting. The WG3 representative explained that these categorie s have been defined rigorously in the ETM and no such issues are foreseen. The difference in ― spare ‖ and ― new ‖ is based on whether they increase the number of engines in operation or not . The intent of spare engines is not to increase the number of engines in operation. 2 . 1 . 4 . 12 Another member inquired into an effective cap per engine type (around 75) for exempted engines as described in the proposed text . The WG3 representative answered that this explains normal practice and is not a ―hard‖ cap. He explained that i t is the same case for the time limit of 4 years for new engines after the implementation date of production cut

- off. Overall it is a guidance document and as such is provided to States for their use at their discretion. The cap and time limit does not imp act the engines produced to maintain in

- service fleets. 2 . 1 . 4 . 13 The Secretary noted that the exact title of the Environmental Technical Manual and its two volumes will need to take into account harmonization with other ICAO publications and editorial practice. The meeting requested the Secretariat to finalize the exact title during the publication process. 2 . 1 . 5 Recommendation 2 . 1 . 5 . 1 In light of the foregoing discussions the meeting developed the following recommendation: Recommendation 2/ 1

— Publication of Environmental

Tech nical Manual, Volume II That the Environmental Technical Manual, Volume I I , contained in Appendix B to the report on this agenda item , be publis hed as soon as possible . 2 . 2 CONSIDERATION OF CAEP/6 NO X PRODUCTION CUT - OFF 2 . 2 . 1 Based on a decision by CAEP/7 and at W G3’s request FESG conducted an economic assessment of introducing a production cut

- off date for the engines to which the NO x Standards developed at CAEP/6 applied. The FESG analysis estimate d the non

- recurring cost s of making affected enginesCAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 6 Report on Agenda Item 2 compliant wit h a production cut

- off to the CAEP/6 NO x S tandard. This effect was estimated to be approximately US $100 million in 2008 US dollars. In the event that the decision is made to bring the affected engines into compliance, recurring cost s would arise. A broad analysis of recurring costs, based on the analysis of the NO x stringency options performed for CAEP/6 suggests that these may be higher by factors of between 4 and 9, depending on whether loss of resale value is included. In the case where airlines would n ot be able to acquire additional engines for spares, these costs could be significant, with serious implications for the continued operation and resale value of the affected aircraft. In these circumstances a 9 fold factor giving an overall cost of US $ 900 m illion provides a minimum estimate of these costs. At the same time , the environmental benefits will remain small. 2 . 2 . 2 A member recalled that the CAEP/2 emission Standards incorporated a later production cut - off to ensure that appropriate emission control technologies were incorporated int o all new engine designs and in

- product ion engines by a certain date. Subsequently, CAEP/4 and CAEP/6 NO x Standard s were adopted without such a production cut

- off . 2 . 2 . 3 The member recalled that the Steering Group in Salvador s tated that ―although there was no objection in principle from the [Steering Group] members for a CAEP/6 NO x Standards production cut - off, there were some outstanding issues. CAEP SG agreed to address appropriately the issues related to exemptions and timin g for the earliest implementation to allow for recommending to the ICAO Council at CAEP/8 the adoption of such a cut

- off.‖ Subsequently, the ETM A d

- hoc group within WG3 submitted an updated version of the ETM on the process and criteria for the exemptions to the NO x production cut - off requirements. The approval of these exemption provisions via revisions to Annex 16, Volume II and gui dance material in the ETM Volume II is expected a s a result of CAEP/8. 2 . 2 . 4 The member invited CAEP/8 to agree that a production cut - off for the CAEP/6 NO x emission Standards and the associated exemption provisions developed in the revised ETM and Annex 16, Volume II should be adopted, and then implemented on the earliest practical ICAO effective date. Ultimately, a CAEP/6 productio n cut - off provides certainty that non

- compliant engines will eventually no longer be produced

– but with the flexibility of exemptions allowing for time adjustments to lessen economic impacts. A production cut

- off takes full advantage of the CAEP/6 NO x Sta ndards environmental benefits, ensures no backsliding, and communicates to the public the aviation sector’s commitment to improving its environmental performance. 2 . 2 . 5 An observer presented a proposed method to show compliance with the CAEP/6 Standard before th e imposition of production cut

- off for NO x Standard. For the most recent production cut off in 2000, certificating authorities accepted data and analysis that had been submitted and approved in accordance with previous amendments of ICAO Annex, 16 Volume I I as evidence of compliance with the latest Standard. However , the criteria for demonstration of compliance should be more clearly described in Annex 16, Volume II. 2 . 2 . 6 In order to minimize administrative costs and avoid delays in demonstrating compliance with requirements for continued production, use of existing approved certification data and analysis should be allowed to demonstrate compliance with the CAEP/6 Standard, even if the data and analysis were obtained under a previous amendment of the procedures described in the Annex. Publication of explicit advice on the applicability of existing certification test data and analysis, either in the Annex or the ETM , would be helpful to manufacturers and certificating authorities. The observer proposed to add a pa ragraph to the ETM Vol ume II where guidance is provided to the relevant I CAO Annex 16 provisions.CAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 7 2 . 2 . 7 The meeting agreed to the addition of this proposed text to the section in ICAO Environmental Technical Manual (ETM), Vol ume II where guidance is provi ded to 2.1.1.1 of ICAO Annex 16. The agreed text is incorporated in Appendix B to the report under this agenda item. 2 . 2 . 8 In another presentation, the same observer proposed that in order to allow sufficient time for member States that issue type certificates for avia tio n to fully adopt the CAEP/6 Production Cut

- off Standards, and for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance, where necessary, the implementation date should be set for 31 December 2012. 2 . 2 . 9 Discussion and Conclusions 2 . 2 . 9 . 1 One member expressed his concern with a po tential CAEP/6 production cut

- off when , in his view, FESG ha d identified that market forces had already responded to the Standard with very few exceptions and that it wa s not cost effective. Effective exemption provisions for in

- service aircraft are also necessary to ensure that low

- volume high

- cost markets, especially in remote area s , are not impacted. He also expressed the hope that acceptance of this proposal does not introduce a trend towards conservatism in the development of future Standards. 2 . 2 . 9 . 2 Several members pointed out that this production cut

- off should be understood as only applying to CAEP/6 Standard and not for any future Standards. The meeting agreed that any future proposal for production cut

- offs would need to be considered on a case

- by

- case b asis. 2 . 2 . 9 . 3 There was general support for the production cut

- off proposal and also the applicability date of 31 December 2012. In light of th is general support, the meeting recommended that a production cut - off for CAEP/6 NO x Standards be applied by 31 December 2012 and the associated exemption provisions developed in the revised ETM and Annex 16, Volume II be updated . 2 . 2 . 9 . 4 The meeting recommended that the provisions for a production cut

- off based on CAEP/6 NO x Standard be incorporated as part of the Annex 16, Volume I I amendments as indicated in Appendix A to the report on this agenda item. 2 . 3 CONSIDERATION OF NEW NO X STRINGENCY OPTIONS 2 . 3 . 1 The FESG and MODTF C o - Rapporteurs presented an overview of the assessment of the environmental benefits and economic costs of stringency scenarios to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO x ) relative to the ICAO CAEP/6 S tandard. They briefly discusse d the models, databases, methods and assumptions used by MODTF and FESG to conduct the environmental benefit and economic cost assessments. 2 . 3 . 2 As part of the NO x stringency assessment framework, WG3 provided 10 scenarios for modelling, as shown in the following Table 1.CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 8 Report on Agenda Item 2 Table 1. NO x Stringency Scenarios NOx Stringency Scenario Small Engines Large Engines

[26.7 kN / 89 kN Foo] 1 , 2 OPR 3 >30 Slope 4 1

- 5% /

- 5%

- 5% 2 2

- 10% /

- 10%

- 10% 2.2 3

- 10% /

- 10%

- 10% 2 4

- 5% /

- 15%

- 15% 2.2 5

- 15% /

- 15%

- 15% 2.2 6
- 5% /

- 15%

- 15% 2 7

- 15% /

- 15%

- 15% 2 8

- 10% /

- 20%

- 20% 2.2 9

- 15% /

- 20%

- 20% 2.2 10

- 20% /

- 20%

- 20% 2.2 2 . 3 . 3 The 10 stringency scenario s were analyzed for each of 3 future years, 2016, 2026 and 2036. The assessment framework also called for two stringency introduction dates, 31 December 2012 and 31 December 2016. 2 . 3 . 4 The emissions reduction results from the MODTF assessment and the FESG asses sment of the cost impact we re presented , as follows, along with a discussi on on environmental trade

- offs. Table 2 - Cost Results NOx Stringency Scenarios Low Cost Estimate ($M)

3% discount, 2016, LRV 5 High Cost Estimate ($M) 3% discount, 2016, LRV 1

- 5 $ 1,922 $ 2,500 6
- 7 $ 6,412 $ 9,470 8

- 10 $ 10,878 $ 21,507 2 . 3 . 5 Finally the cost

- effectiveness results were presented as costs per tonne of NO x reduction during the ICAO Landing Take Off (LTO) cycle, including the ranki ng of the stringency scenarios.

1 Foo

– Thrust rating. For engine emissions purposes, the maximum power/thrust available for takeoff under normal operating conditions at ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) sea level static conditions without the use of water injection as approved by the cert ificating authority. Thrust is expressed in kilonewtons (kN). 2 Incremental stringency options defined for small engines with thrust ratings (Foo) comprised between 26.7 kN and 89 kN. 3 OPR

– Overall Engine Pressure Ratio. The engine pressure ratio is de fined as the ratio of the mean total pressure at the last compressor discharge plane of the compressor to the mean total pressure at the compressor entry plane, when the engine is developing its takeoff thrust rating (in ISA sea

- level static conditions). 4 Slope of the line of the NOx stringency options at engine pressure ratio (PR) greater than 30. 5 LRV

– Loss in Resale Value.CAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 9 Tabl e 3

– Cost - Effectiveness Ranking, Large Engines Ranking Stringency Reference NOx Reduction % / Slope of Dp/Foo 1 NS01, NS02, NS03, NS04, NS05

- 5% / 2.0,

- 10% / 2.2,

- 10% / 2.0,

- 15% / 2.2 2 NS06, NS07

- 15% / 2.0 3 NS08, NS09, NS10

- 20% / 2.2

Table 4

– Cost - Effectiveness Ranking, Small Engines Ranking Stringency Reference NOx Reduction % 1 NS01, NS04, NS06

- 5% /

- 5%,

- 5% /

- 15% 2 NS08

- 10% /

- 20% 3 NS02, NS03

- 10% /

- 10% 4 NS10

- 20% /

- 20% 5 NS09

- 15% /

- 20% 6 NS05, NS07

- 15% /

- 15% 2 . 3 . 6 Cost Results 2 . 3 . 6 . 1 Cost s were estimated for each stringency scenario for the two implementation dates for small and large engine categories separately, with a range of values for a number of key assumptions, including non

- recurring costs, fuel burn penalty, fuel price, loss of resale value (LRV) and a variety of discount rates. As summarized in Table 2, total cost s for small and large engines combined are broadly similar for stringency scenarios 1 through 5, but for scenarios 6 through 10 costs increase steeply, driven by no n - recurring costs for engines driven by need of a major technology response. While efforts were made to comprehensively quantify all cost s , some costs were not included. For example, increased industry operational costs in scenarios involving higher fuel b urn were partially itemized to include fuel costs and costs associated with loss in paylo ad for payload limited flights. 2 . 3 . 7 E nvironmental T rade - offs 2 . 3 . 7 . 1 An important part of the NO x stringency assessment is the consideration of environmental trade

- offs between th e various NO x stringency scenarios, fuel burn, and noise. WG3 recommended a fuel burn penalty range of between 0% and 0.5% for engine families requiring a major (MS3) modification. MODTF included the maximum of 0.5% penalty in its modelling and calculation s. Figures 8 and 9 provide the maximum potential fuel burn penalty for the full

- flight case, presented in terms of total fuel and percent, respectively. These are MODTF consensus results calculated with AEDT and confirmed by other CAEP approved models . In accordance with WG3 recommendations for the stringency scenarios assessed , the MS3 fuel burn penalty only applies to large engines and only for some engines in scenarios 6 through 10. The maximum potential annual fuel burn penalty ranges from about 28,000 metric tonnes to 1.1 Mt (1.1 x 10 6 metric tonnes), or from 0.01% to 0.19% relative to the baseline no stringency case. This translated into additional annual CO 2 emissions of between 88,000 metric tonnes and 3.5 Mt. In accordance with WG3 recommendations t he minimum fuel burn penalty is zero. 2 . 3 . 7 . 2 WG1 recommended a noise penalty range of between 0 decibel (dB) and 0.5 dB per certification point for 10% of engines requiring a major (MS3) modification, i.e. 10% of all engines. As with fuel burn, the MS3 noise pena lty only applies to large engines and only for scenarios 6 through 10.CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 10 Report on Agenda Item 2 The effect of the MS3 noise penalty on the 55, 60 and 65 DNL 6 contour area expressed as a percentage change was in the worst case less than 0.12%. Based on these findings, MODTF conclud ed that the analysis indicates there is no noise trade - off associated with any of the CAEP/8 NO x stringency scenarios. This conclusion has been verified at the global, regional and airport levels. 2 . 3 . 8 C ost - effectiveness R esults 2 . 3 . 8 . 1 The cost

- effectiveness results a re dominated by large engines, which account for approximately 99% of the benefits. Scenarios 1 through 5 are the most cost effective, all providing relatively low cost per tonne of NO x reduced. For scenarios 6 and 7, cost per tonne of NO x reduced increase d by a factor of 3 to 4, using a 3% discount rate. Scenarios 8, 9 and 10 result in a further doubling of cost per tonne of NO x reduced. Cost

- effectiveness rankings for large and small engines are shown in Tables 3 and 4 , respectively. Although the analysis concentrates on NO x reduction up to 3,000 ft, stringencies also have an effect on climb/cruise NO x emissions. If these were taken into account, the total reduction achieved would increase by an approximate factor of 7 to 8, and the costs per tonne would d iminish accordingly. 2 . 3 . 8 . 2 The early implementation date of 2012 gives overall lower values for the costs per tonne of NO x reduced. This is enabled by an extra four years of NO x reduction compared to 2016 implementation, coupled with roughly the same costs for b oth implementation dates. This implies that an early implementation year would be more cost effective. However, in the approach used, it is assumed that the non

- recurring costs for the technology responses start four years in advance of implementation (fro m 2009). This may mean that in practice a somewhat later date than 2012 is more obvious, particularly for those scenarios involving MS3 modifications. The CAEP/6 decision made in 2004 with an implementation date of 2008 would be consistent with a CAEP/8 im plementation date of 2014. 2 . 3 . 8 . 3 One member presented a proposal for NO x stringency basing it on the analysis carried out by FESG and MODTF. The member stated that in order t o make greater progress in reducing aviation’s contribution to air pollution and to move meaningfully towards the long term technology goals, CAEP should consider adopting the most stringent NO x Standard at CAEP/8, consistent with its principles for Standard

- setting. The member’s recommendations were based on analysis done within their State by using outputs from the APMT economics and impacts models. Based upon the FESG analysis and its own qualitative analysis of costs and benefits as provided to the meeting using APMT , the need for continu ous air quality improvements, continued technology research and development evidenced during NO x emissions reduction technology reviews for goal

- setting, conservative estimates of additional environmental impacts that are still being matured, and additional information being provided on cost/benefit, the N O x stringency scenario 6 for large and small engines (

- 15% and slope 2.0 for large engines and

- 5% /

- 15% for small engines) with a December 31, 2012 implementation date should be considered for adoption at CAEP/8. Alternatively, stemming solely from FESG ’s cost effectiveness results and the continued need for air quality improvements, at least the NO x stringency scenario 4 for large and small engines (

- 15% and slope of 2.2 for large engines and

- 5% /

- 15% for small engines) with a 31 December 2012 impleme ntation date shoul d be considered for adoption. 2 . 3 . 8 . 4 Elaborating on the proposal, the member proposed that a slope of 2.0 be maintained for further stringency in recognition of likely future combustor technology development to meet mid

- and long

- term CAEP NO x emissions reduc t ion technology goals, and to foster engine and combustor technology development that considers the balance between fuel efficiency improvements and NO x

6 DNL

– Day

- Night Noise Level.CAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 11 emissions reduction particularly for engines with pressure ratios greater than 35 to 40. Changing the slope to 2.2 would be an unnecessary relaxation of the slope that could potentially compromise this balance. 2 . 3 . 8 . 5 In summary, the proposal was for CAEP/8 to agree that NO x stringency scenario 6 (

- 15% and slope of 2 for large engines and

- 5% /

- 15% for small engines) should be adopted, based on the discussion above and the need for air quality improvements including knowledge related to airport

- local effects, cruise emissions influence on air quality, and future background concentration changes, as well as detailed APMT impacts calculations for cost/benefit. However, if CAEP/8 wishes, at least the NO x stringency scenario 4 (

- 15% and slope of 2.2 for large engines and

- 5% /

- 15% for small engines) should be adopted, based on the need for air quality i mprovement and FESG’s cost effectiveness results. Furthermore, it was proposed that the implementation date of 31 December 2012 should be adopted at CAEP/8 for both large and small engines applicability, regardless of stringency scenario. 2 . 3 . 8 . 6 A member introduc ed some data on recent analysis done on aviation emissions inventory in her country. The member further pointed out that analysis performed in her State showed that NO x stringency scenario 1 through 7 have a similar impact on manufacturers, engine types, a nd engine orders. The NO x stringency scenarios 8, 9, and 10 (

- 20% and slope 2.2 for large engines) impact many more engine types and orders compared to the other scenarios. The meeting noted the information shared by the member. 2 . 3 . 8 . 7 Two observers presented the ir position that, upon review of the data and analyses produced in the CAEP/8 process, adoption of new NO x certification S tandards (colloquially referred to as ―stringency‖ S tandards) for both large and small engines is warranted under the CAEP Terms of Re ference. They stated that of the NO x stringency scenarios analyzed by CAEP for large engines, the data and analyses best support adoption of FESG Scenario 2, a 10% increased stringency with a slope of 2.2. Scenario 4 (15% stringency increase at slope 2.2) would be less cost effective because it would require more extensive technology response and thus pose the risk that manufacturers would be unable to accomplish that development in time to meet any future production cut

- off date. They noted that FESG and M ODTF did not consider an intermediate scenario between a 10% and 15% stringency increase. As a result, there are no detailed analyses to support selecting such an intermediate stringency. Nevertheless, an intermediate stringency increase at slope 2.2 coul d potentially be the appropriate increase based on the CAEP Terms of Reference. The observers believed that the FESG data support adoption of a 5% increased stringency for small engines at the low end of the thrust range (26.7kN). Assuming that the selecte d stringency is Scenario 2, 10% at 2.2 slope (or in any event less than 15% with slope of 2.2), the analysis favours an effective date of year

- end 20 12 , but in practice, this date might not provide enough time to respond to the new requirements. They prop osed that a slightly later implementation date of year

end 2013 should be considered with a new Standard for large engines at

- 12% with a slope of 2.2 and for small engines at 5% (at 26.7 kN thrust). 2 . 3 . 8 . 8 Another observer highlighted the need for a new NO x stri ngency. He expressed support for the NO x Stringency Scenario NS7, (

- 15%/

- 15%,

- 15%/Slope 2.0) with an implementation date of 31 December 2012 . Explaining his reasoning, he stated that Scenarios NS8

- 10 (2012 implementation) are calculated to provide a 9.7% reduction in NO x below 3000 ft. For these options, however, the potential cost for manufacturers wishing to modify their in

- production engine families could be significant. Scenarios NS6 and NS7 are predicted to provide more modest reductions of 7.3% in NO x (in 2036) with considerably less cost for engine modifications. Scenarios NS1 to NS3, with engine NO x reductions of only 5

- 10%, will provide less environmental benefit (<6% total NO x reduction in 2036), albeit for less cost than other scenarios.CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 12 Report on Agenda Item 2 2 . 3 . 8 . 9 It was o bserved that new technology engines are typically at least 15% below CAEP/6 Standards, and that ICAO Standards should strive to reflect the achievements of the best technology. Scenarios NS4 and NS5 (with the steeper slope of 2.2 for OPR>30) include engine NO x improvements of up to 15%, but provide less ambitious Standards for very large engines (i.e., the very engines responsible for the most NO x emissions). When comparing NS6 and NS7, the only distinction is the Standards for the Small Engine families (26 .7<Foo<89 kN and OPR<30

– typically regional and business jets 99 seats or less), with reductions of

- 5% and

- 15%, respectively. The observer preferred NS7 because it treats small and large engine manufacturers more equitably and yields additional benefits of 300 t of NO x reduction per annum in 2036. It was further noted that the emissions from Large Engines dominate those of Small Engine families. Thus the overall reductions calculated for NS6 and NS7 are virtually identical. However, at many smaller airpo rts the Large Engine families do not dominate aircraft NO x emissions inventories; therefore these airports will not see the benefit of Large Engine family NO x reduction. While on a global scale, the difference between NS6 and NS7 is very small, at a local level for smaller airports, the NS7 improvement in the NO x performance of smaller aircraft will be very important. 2 . 3 . 8 . 10 The observer supported an implementation date of 31 December 2012. He stated that t he Panel of Independent E xperts had noted the compelling n eed for action. The economic analysis shows a modest additional cost for engine modifications whereas the earlier engine modifications will result in a NO x saving of 8.5 kt per year. 2 . 3 . 9 Discussion and Conclusions 2 . 3 . 9 . 1 The meeting congratulated the FESG and MODTF a nd all their participants for putting together this detailed package. There was general appreciation for the amount of work that was put in this analysis not just by FESG and MODTF but also by groups within CAEP such as WG3 and from outside CAEP from the m odelling communities. 2 . 3 . 9 . 2 The environmental trade

- offs were done in terms of emissions inventories. Some members hoped that analysis in terms of impacts on passenger demand could be part of the future work. Some members expressed that there was a need to accou nt for costs that might be potentially transferred to airlines and passengers which is currently not a part of the analy tical procedure . The FESG C o R apporteurs clarified that CAEP had requested only a cost impact analysis to the industry and not to the pa ssengers and public in general. The Chair agreed with this position that the mandate given to the FESG and MODTF was from this committee and if there is identified a need to expand the analysis to impacts (cost to passengers or in terms of impacts), it sho uld be made part of future work. 2 . 3 . 9 . 3 A member highlighted the trade

- offs between aviation growth and its environmental responsibility. A member queried whether CIS built aircraft were part of the analysis and the Chair indicated that no CIS built aircraft were included due to lack of data. 2 . 3 . 9 . 4 A member queried that whether the impact on developing countries was a part of the study. The FESG co

- rapporteur clarified that the analysis was done by engine families and not for how the engines were operated in different r egions of the world. The member further remarked that current e conomic crisis might add more complications to the analysis . 2 . 3 . 9 . 5 Another member emphasized the relevance of the current economic crisis and the passing of any industry costs to the passengers. The FESG and MODTF accomplished the task they were given but now the need to study this aspect has increased. Therefore, this issue needs to be made a part of futureCAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 13 assessments . He suggested that a decision made now could be revisited if additional analysis w as done that showed adverse economic impact. 2 . 3 . 9 . 6 Another member , taking this point further , stated that the current economic crisis may necessitate that the implementation date should be end 2016. 2 . 3 . 9 . 7 The Chair clarified that revisiting a decision on stringency St andards is neither practical nor possible. The Chair stressed that such an approach would not be procedural. Once a Standard has been agr eed, it goes through a number of steps for formal global approval. Therefore, once a decision is reached by CAEP, it is not feasible to change it during the subsequent steps . 2 . 3 . 9 . 8 A member mentioned that their modelling capabilities do allow calculating consumer impact. Such an analysis, although it cannot be formally introduced in this CAEP meeting , was done and did not show a significant impact on co nsumers or the overall economy. 2 . 3 . 9 . 9 Regarding the issue of the impact on passengers , a member clarified that FESG did address the impact on demand which is directly related to consumer impact, and the conclu sion was t hat the e ffect was minimal. Although this aspect was not the focus of extensive analysis, it was addressed. 2 . 3 . 9 . 10 A member exp ressed concern on basing a new S tandard on MS3 technology and that such action may not allow time for market forces to a d just in an effective way. 2 . 3 . 9 . 11 A membe r pointed out that this is a certification Standard and therefore any engines complying with this Standard will not go into service until at least 2017 or later. Thus, any consumer impact would be smoothed out and should be minimal. Another member highligh ted the interdependencies within the environmental parameters and between environmental and economic issues and that they should be incorporated in any future analyses. The meeting agreed that all interdependencies should be taken into account in future an alysis . 2 . 3 . 9 . 12 An observer asked whether the sales volume of current aircraft/engines was taken into account for future fleets. The MODTF rapporteur clarified that future fleet composition was driven by assumption of equal manufacturer split. The same observer co mmented that the emissions benefit of current engines which perform much better than any future Standards are not being taken into account adequately. Another observer commented that if environmental benefit of such engines is taken into account then the c ost of such engines would also have to be accounted for. 2 . 3 . 9 . 13 An observer clarified that he was proposing a slope of 2 above OPR45 because of the fact that increasing slope to 2.2 may result in worse than the CAEP/6 Standard at higher OPRs , which is not the int ent. 2 . 3 . 9 . 14 During discussions on the level of a new NO x stringency, some members and observers preferred NS6 or NS7 , whereas other members and observers considered NS2

- NS4 more appropriate. 2 . 3 . 9 . 15 A n observer speaking on behalf of a group of countries stated that they preferred NS7 scenario which differs from NS6 mainly in application to small engines. The reason for the preference was stated to be that small engines have not had any stringency increase over the last few years. It was further proposed that a n implementa tion date of end of 2013 be adopted . The observer recommended to the meeting that CAEP not consider any production cut

- off based on this Standard before 2016 and any potential cut

- off should not be implemented before 2018. Several members supported this po sition.CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 14 Report on Agenda Item 2 2 . 3 . 9 . 16 An observer stated that cost effectiveness should be the criterion for making any stringency decision. His preference was for NS7 with an implementation date of end 2012. 2 . 3 . 9 . 17 Regarding the small engine issue, a member said that a decision should be dr iven by the availability of technology and not by how long the same Standards have been in place. Also looking at the study data on large engines, the NS4 scenario seems the best for a future Standard. 2 . 3 . 9 . 18 Two members, in the spirit of compromise, proposed ado ption of NS5 with an implementation date of end 2012 or end 2013 . 2 . 3 . 9 . 19 A member expressed his preference for NS6 with an implementation date of end 2013 in order to give industry time to adapt to the change. 2 . 3 . 9 . 20 After extensive discussions among the CAEP members, the Chair was pleased to inform the CAEP plenary that a consensus was reached about the question of which new NO x stringency level should be applicable to aircraft engines in the future. After a thorough discussion of the options , members converged to the adoption of a new Standard based upon option 6 (i.e. NS6) . 2 . 3 . 9 . 21 Although s ome members were of the view that a less stringent Standard according to option 4 wou ld be more appropriate to adopt, a fter further discussion s during which there was consensus that any n ew stringency evaluation in the future should be undertaken by carrying out a more thorough assessment of economic impacts especially on airlines and passengers and that there will be no production cut - off considered based upon a CAEP/8 stringency Standard before 2018 , a consensus on option 6 was reached. 2 . 3 . 9 . 22 The meeting came to the following decision:

a ) Adoption of a new CAEP/8 stringency according to option 6, which means reduction of small engines

- 5% and

- 15% with respect to the CAEP/6 Standard, and for large engines, reduction of

- 15% with respect to the same Standard with the slope of 2. b ) This stringency should be implemented by 31 December 2013, and it should be clearly noted that no production cut

- off before year end 2018 will be taken into consideration or should be applied before this date . 2 . 3 . 9 . 23 An observer pointed out that some in

- production engines, although not required to comply with this Standard, requiring MS3 changes may not be able to comply with this Standard by 2013. Another observer sought clarificat ion on the consideration or application of future production cut

- off before year end 2018. The Chair clarified that there should be no implementation of a production cut - off before year end 2018. 2 . 3 . 9 . 24 The meeting recommended that the provisions for a CAEP/8 NO x Standard as outlined in 2.3.9.22a) be incorporated as part of the Annex 16, Volume I I amendments as indicated in Appendix A to the report on this agenda item.CAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 15 2 . 3 . 10 Recommendation 2 . 3 . 10 . 1 In light of the foregoing discussions , as well as the prior discussions on amend ments to Annex 16, Volume II and NO x production cut

- off, the meeting developed the following recommendation:

RSPP Recommendation 2/ 2

— Amendments to Annex 16, Volume II

– Aircraft Engine Emissions That Annex 16 , Volume II be amended as indicated in Appen dix A to the report on this agenda item.

2 . 4 STATUS OF PARTICULAT E MATTER SCIENCE AND STANDARDS 2 . 4 . 1 A member reported that Particulate M atter (PM) related to aircraft engine exhaust can be div ided into two broad categories: non

- volatile PM and volatile PM. T he science is more advanced on non - volatile PM and it is certain that r educing non

- volatile PM from aircraft engines will reduce health i mpacts due to aircraft emissions and will also help to mitigate aviation climate impacts. 2 . 4 . 2 Recently, the U.S. Federal Aviat ion Administration (FAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and European Aviation Safety A gency (EASA) have agreed to pursue the definition of a non - volatile PM emissions certification requirement . However, it is to be noted that EPA plans to con tinue inves tigating volatile PM emissions . 2 . 4 . 3 In March 2009, the SAE

- International E

- 31 committee published the Aerospace Information Report (AIR) 6037 on measurement methods for non

- volatile PM e missions from aircraft engines. T he FAA, EPA, and EASA have req uested that final Aerospace Recommended Practices (ARP) that focuses on metrics and the quantification of non

- volatile PM mass and number as metrics be published by the end of 2011 . Outstanding research to address technica l questions would have therefore t o be completed in the latter part of 2010. Among the most pressing research is the need for reference instrument calibration S tandards , as well as a robust sampling and measurement methodology . 2 . 4 . 4 The development of the ARP by the SAE E

- 31 committee is a crit ical task that still needs to be a ccomplished before proceeding to developing the non

- volatile PM emissions certification requirement. The timing of the work on a PM emissions c ertification requirement by WG3 will therefore occur late in the three year CAE P/9 cycle, although ongoing dialo gue and coordination should continue to occur between participants of the SAE E

- 31 committee and CAEP. 2 . 4 . 5 The CAEP Air Quality Research Focal Point s and WG3 Science Focal Points reported on two important areas of interest , viz ., the latest understanding of aviation PM impacts on both ambient air quality and climate change, and the assessment of the availability of necessary data elements required for environmental impact studies of such effects. A n update on pol icy

- relevant sci entific results related to these two areas was also provided .CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 16 Report on Agenda Item 2 2 . 4 . 6 Discussion and Conclusions 2 . 4 . 6 . 1 A member noted the importance of research on PM issues and suggested that it be made part of the future work. Several CAEP members and observers expressed support for this task. 2 . 4 . 6 . 2 The meeting agreed on considering this item as part of future work , focus ing on non

volatile PM for now, with certification requirement targeted by CAEP/9 and a certification Standard to be established by CAEP/10. It was also noted that aspects of thi s work should be addressed in the Impacts Experts Group (discussed in section 1.3.13) . The Chair noted that further discussions on prioritization may be held under the future work agenda item. 2 . 5 AIRCRAFT CO 2 EMISSIONS 2 . 5 . 1 Fuel Efficiency Metrics 2 . 5 . 1 . 1 During dis cussions on assessment of ICAO environmental goals, air traffic operational goals, and aircraft and engine technology goals, the question of metrics has been extensively debated. An ad hoc grou p was formed to address the task of defining simple metrics tha t can be applied to global commercial aviation activity, noting that one single metric might not be appropriate for the three different proposed uses. 2 . 5 . 1 . 2 For application to the CAEP/8 trends assessment of the ICAO environmental goals task , a metric named the Commercial Air System Fuel Efficiency (CASFE) metric was developed. The CASFE metric takes the familiar form of fuel consumed divided by sum of (payload x distance). However, it is important that the metric is not separated from its data sources, applicabi lity and caveats. 2 . 5 . 1 . 3 While the CASFE metric is considered suitable for application to the CAEP/8 Environmental Goals trends analysis, further work on improvement of payload data and on further validation of the CASFE metric against actual airline data was sug gested. It was also stated this metric is suitable for kerosene

- like fuels only keeping in mind that this does not take into account life

- cycle CO 2 costs of any potential alternative fuels. 2 . 5 . 1 . 4 Work on the air traffic operational goals and fuel burn reduction technology goals has not been completed within this CAEP cycle. As a result, f uel efficiency metrics applicable to these types of goals cannot be developed yet . However, for the air traffic operational goal input to CAEP/8, application of the CASFE metric was offered as an interim measure with the same caveats and issues as for the application of CASFE to the ICAO Environmental Goals trends assessment. Beyond CAEP/8, it was recommended that given the complex relationship between fuel efficiency and operatio nal efficiency, consideration of a fuel efficiency metric applicable to future Operational Goals is not regarded as a separate task but is undertaken as part of the Goals process itself. This tasking should include the metric development and also the data and caveats to support it. 2 . 5 . 1 . 5 Similarly, it was recommended that the development of an appropriate fuel efficiency metric (and the data and caveats to support it) for application to the fuel burn reduction technology goals be included as part of the g oal s est ablishment process itself. 2 . 5 . 1 . 6 In addition to the three types of metrics mentioned above, the a d hoc group considered issues surrounding a metric accounting for alternative fuels as well as a fuel intensity metric that had beenCAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 17 introduced in GIACC. It was note d that the task of identifying appropriate applications , data sources , and associated c larifications would need to be made part of future work. 2 . 5 . 1 . 7 An observer highlighted that the future work program me for CAEP should include the evaluation of an alternative efficiency metric appropriate for business aviation operations based on maximum payload instead of revenue payload. He explained that business aviation’s main purposes are on demand and point to point tra nsportation of people or goods and therefore the pay load weight needs to be calculated differently. 2 . 5 . 2 Discussion and Conclusions 2 . 5 . 2 . 1 The meeting acknowledged the importance of selection of the right metric for a given use. It was highlighted that work should be continued with relevant bodies (e.g. CANSO) and inde pendent experts panel s and duplication of effort should be avoided . The meeting also noted the contribution of business aviation and its relatively small share of overall aviation emissions and that appropriate metrics should be used when calculating effic iencies . 2 . 5 . 2 . 2 The meeting agreed that development of fuel efficiency metrics should be continued within the ad

- hoc group in coordination with relevant organizations and bodies. 2 . 5 . 3 Recommendation 2 . 5 . 3 . 1 In light of the foregoing discussions the meeting developed the foll owing recommendation: Recommendation 2/3

— Fuel Efficiency and CO 2 Emissions

Metrics That the CASFE metric be established as the metric for assessment of ICAO environmental goals for global civil aviation and that work be continued on defining other app ropriate metrics for operational and technology goals and Standards. 2 . 5 . 4 Consideration of Aircraft CO 2 Emissions Standard 2 . 5 . 4 . 1 As a result of a recommendation from GIACC / 4 and the High

- level Meeting , the ICAO Council decided to seek to develop a global CO 2 Standa rd for new aircraft types consistent with CAEP recommendations . As a result, CAEP and its technical working groups were requested to carry out a scoping analysis to help inform discussions on a potential CO 2 emission Standard at CAEP/8 and to help define a future work item within the CAEP/9 work program me . 2 . 5 . 4 . 2 The WG3 ha d performed a scoping analysis on a global CO 2 Standard for aircraft. Several members and observers have made important contributions in this regard and presented additional material to CAEP/8. The presentations by WG3 and other members and observers outlined a number of significant policy and technical questions and issues which should be considered and assessed in developing an aircraf

t based CO 2 emission Standard.CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 18 Report on Agenda Item 2 2 . 5 . 4 . 3 The WG3 recommended that a po tential Standard in this area be refer red as a ―CO 2 S tandard‖ based on ―fuel efficiency‖ concepts within the certification requirement metric. In addition, the WG3 proposed the following definitions:

 Parameter

– a measured or calculated quantity that descr ibes a characteristic of an aircraft (e.g. Foo, MTOW, Optimum Cruise Speed)

 Metric

– a certification unit consisting of one or more parameters (e.g. Dp/Foo)

 Procedures

– specific certification procedures, including applicability requirements (e.g. Annex 16 Volume II, Chapter 2)

 Instrumentation and measurement methodology

– technical measurement procedures (e.g. Annex 16 Volume II, Appendix 3)

 Certified level

– approved for a specific product by a certification authority to demonstrate compliance with a regu latory level, as determined by the certification requirement

 Regulatory level

– a limit which a certified level must meet (e.g. CAEP/6 NO x )

 Certification requirement

– the combination of metric, procedures, instrumentation and measurement methodology, and compliance requirements

 Standard

– combination of a certification requirement and a regulatory level 2 . 5 . 4 . 4 The WG3 identified high level objectives of the overall Standard setting exercise in order to assess future proposals and, as far as practicable, to identi fy an optimum way forward:

 Provide an additional incentive to improve aircraft fuel efficiency and thus global fleet fuel burn performance

 Measure fuel burn performance and relevant capabilities (e.g. range, size, speed) across different aircraft types

 Ens ure it is technically robust (now and future) with an acceptable level of accuracy

 Represent key aircraft design characteristics and environmental performance with respect to individual design philosophies (e.g. 2 / 3 spool engines or regional jet / narrow body / wide body aircraft types)

 Equity across products and manufacturers

 Permit flexibility in aircraft design to comply with requirement

 Minimise counterproductive incentives

 Minimise adverse interdependenciesCAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 19

 Base it on existing certified data

 Account for proprietary data protection concerns

 Not require an inappropriate level of resources on the part of National Airworthiness Authorities and ICCAIA to implement

 Be simple, transparent and easily understood by the general public

 Develop a standard as soon as reasonably practicable to ensure that ICAO maintains its leadership in addressing aviation emissions issues 2 . 5 . 4 . 5 The WG3 presented results of its scoping analysis for a Standard on Aircraft CO 2 emissions. Based on this scoping analysis, the WG3 concluded th e following with respect to developing an aircraft CO 2 Standard:

 previous CAEP work related to this issue should be considered and, where appropriate re

- examined, in order to benefit from past lessons learnt;

 consistent use of agreed terminology is essenti al in order to structure future discussions on this issue;

 proposals for an aircraft CO 2 Standard should be assessed against the high level objectives;

 the initial scope of any future work should focus on the sub

- sonic jet aircraft category, which represen ts approx. 95%+ of global fuel use from commercial aviation, in order to improve the potential of agreeing on a CO 2 Standard during the CAEP/9 cycle;

 discussions on further focusing the scope of a Standard on a sub

- category of the subsonic jet aircraft hav e identified two options for consideration in defining the future work item remit:

 A MTOW threshold of ≥ 50,000 kg (110,231 lb);

 A MTOW threshold of ≥ 32,500 kg (71,650 lb) and a maximum passenger seating capacity of ≥ 20 (freighter aircraft above 32,500k g would be included).

 the certification metric(s) is a critical aspect to any future CO 2 Standard which should, as far as practicable, meet key criteria (e.g. reflect fuel efficiency of an aircraft at a design and operational level, include parameters whi ch characterise aircraft output, equitable, accuracy, limit interdependencies and easily understood), although associated timescales may result in compromises;

 the certification procedure will need to incorporate relevant aircraft design and performance ch aracteristics;CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 20 Report on Agenda Item 2

 a kerosene

- type fuel specification (e.g. Annex 16 Volume II Appendix 4) should be part of the certification requirement in order to remove any fuel burn performance variations resulting from variation in fuel properties;

 recognising that the SG2009 suggested that the initial focus should be on ―new aircraft types‖, and that they also agreed to defer further debate and discussions to WG3, the ad

- hoc group concluded that all applicability options in terms of ―new aircraft types‖, ―new productio n aircraft‖ or ―in

- service aircraft‖ should remain open for assessment at this point in time;

 in defining the applicability requirements, including the treatment of modified products, any associated standard and its effective date should be taken into acco unt;  the certification measurement methodology and required instrumentation is highly dependent on the discussions concerning the certification metric and procedure, and there may be a need to consult expert groups outside of CAEP;

 the current CAEP terms o f reference and standard/goal setting approach may provide sufficient flexibility to be used to assess and agree on CO 2 Standards. Any different perspective may need to be considered by CAEP while taking into account the broader implications;

 to the degree possible, work on assessing regulatory level options should be done in parallel to the development of the certification requirement;

 further work should consider the advantages and disadvantages of all available approaches to manufacturer compliance, incl uding those mentioned above and in further detail in CAEP/8

- IP/21, when applied specifically to the aviation sector;

 timescales to develop a CO 2 Standard will be dependent on the priority placed on this issue and the provision of resources to take this wor k forward;

 establishing interim milestones with target completion dates will be necessary in order to manage the development of an aircraft CO 2 Standard;

 prioritisation of this issue in the future work programme may lead to delays in other work items; and

 the resources required to implement the certification requirement will be highly dependent on how it is designed and the associated workload for regulatory authorities and manufacturers. 2 . 5 . 4 . 6 A member presented her position on two points related to CO 2 S tandard applicability , viz. a) to determine whether a CO 2 S tandard should be applied to ―new aircraft types‖, ―new production aircraft‖ and/or to ―in

- service aircraft‖ and b) to determine an aircraft size and/or seating capacity above which a CO 2 S tandard should initially apply. 2 . 5 . 4 . 7 For the first point , the member stated a preference that the CO 2 S tandard should apply to new in

- production aircraft and not only to new aircraft ty pes and recommended that CAEP not rule out applicability to new in

- production aircraft. W hi le realizing that t o achieve near

- term reductions , actions would h ave to be taken to improve in

- service aircraft , t he member expect ed that the ongoing ICAOCAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 21 process that follows the recommended programme of action from the GIACC and direction coming out of the High Level Meeting (HLM) should result in recommended additional actions that would address the CO 2 emissions contribution from in

- service aircraft. Depending on the outcome of this ongoing process the member would consider the need for recommendations to CAEP /9 for appropriate work to be carried out to address in

- service aircraft as part of the CAEP/10 work program. 2 . 5 . 4 . 8 For the second point , the member recommended the 32.5 tonnes MTOW option be pursued because the 50 tonne MTOW option does not achieve the targeted level of global fuel burn coverage and there is an expectation for growth in global and regional future fuel burn that should not b e ignored. The member also recommend ed that the maximum seating capacity threshold of at least 20 passengers be drop ped, for reasons of complexity and minimal environmental benefit. The member f urthermore recommended that the CO 2 S tandard’s certification and reporting requirements should be applied to all commercial subsonic jet aircraft, including business jet aircraft , even though they may not be subject to any regulatory level when the CO 2 S tandard is initially implemented. This would ensure an orderly process in the future, when these aircrafts’ regulat ory levels might be considered. 2 . 5 . 4 . 9 T he m ember also expressed that in light of the criticality of this task, it is essential that the process be comp leted during the CAEP/9 cycle. She highlighted that this was feasible and in line with the need for ICAO leadership. She suggested a project plan which included four milestones before CAEP/9. Milestone 1, to be completed no later than May 2010 , would be to a gree on a Program Development Strategy . Milestone 2, to be completed p rior to the 1st Steering Group Meeting would approve the B asic Program Construct including but not neces sarily limited to areas such as Applicability, Scope, Certification Metri c, and Fuel Specifications. M ilestone 3 , to be completed p rior to the 2nd Steering Group Meeting , would conclude with a Basic Approach to Emission Standards, Stringency, and Timing . Elements for consideration would include the Regulatory Level and Form of the Standard, the Certification Procedure, the Timing of Initial and Subsequent Requirements, and Programmatic Structure Options and Flexibilities. Milestone 4 , to be completed no la ter than October 2012 , would analyse options identified earlier. This milestone would also include activities related to drafting of amendments to Annex 16 and the Environmental Technical Manual as required. The expectation would be that after these milest ones and activities are complete and timelines are met, CAEP would have all the information needed to act on a CO 2 emission Standard during the CAEP/9 meeting in 2013. 2 . 5 . 4 . 10 The member recommended that the CAEP technical emissions working group (WG3) be assigned this task and b e directed to establish a stand

- alone task group (the ―CO 2 Standards Task Group ” ) with dedicated and empowered task group co

- leaders (to ensure for contingencies) to lead the task to develop the CO 2 emission Standard. These task group co

- le aders should come from a member state government or regulatory agency and the member volunteered an expert from its environmental protection agency to take one of the co

- leader positions. 2 . 5 . 4 . 11 An observer recalled that WG3, i n its scoping paper on a CO 2 Standar d for new aircraft, identified three options for applying that Standard: to new aircraft ― types ‖ (designs) only; to all newly delivered aircraft; or to all new and in

- service aircraft. Recent analysis done by the observer organization on historical trends in new aircraft efficiency suggests decreasing gains in average new aircraft due to a lack of new aircraft designs. A CO 2 Standard covering new aircraft types only is an inferior means of reducing emissions . Such a Standard could actually increase emission s by providing manufacturers with a disincentive to introduce new aircraft designs. Given pressing resource and time constraints faced in expeditiously developing a Standard, th e observer invite d CAEP to recommend that a CO 2 Standard be developed for appli cation to all newly delivered aircraft.CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 22 Report on Agenda Item 2 2 . 5 . 4 . 12 An observer noted that this approach suggest ed a technology

- forcing perspective in CAEP and reminded the meeting that the CAEP principles are technical feasibility, economic reasonableness, and environmental benefit, and that technology

- forcing is not one of the principles of CAEP . 2 . 5 . 4 . 13 With regard to the two potential applicability thresholds: 32.5 tonnes maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) with a maximum seating capacity of at least 20 passengers, and 50 tonnes MTOW without an associated seating capacity , the observer summarized an analysis of the global fuel burn coverage of these two options for newly delivered aircraft. It was estimate d that the 32.5 tonne MTOW threshold would cover approximately 96 % of the fuel burn of new aircraft in 2008, while a 50 tonne threshold would cover between 88 and 90 % of fuel burn depending on how regional jet manufacturers market model variants falling on either side of the threshold. Given the general desire to cover 95+% of global fuel burn, to maintain forward momentum in developing a Standard, and in the i nterest of developing a robust S tandard resistant to gaming, the observer recommend ed that CAEP provisionally accept the 32.5 tonne MTOW threshold as the basis of ongoing work, subject to f inal confirmation at the CAEP/9 meeting. He further recommend ed that regional and business jets below the threshold continue to be included in CAEP’s work to develop a certification requirement even if they are not subject to an associated regulatory level when the CO 2 S tandard is initially implemented. 2 . 5 . 4 . 14 An observer stated that a more inclusive approach to evaluate a metric and certification scheme for all subsonic jet aircraft is more likely to avoid future market distortion. It was therefore recommended th at the scope of CO 2 Standard work during the CAEP/9 cycle include initial evaluation of a more inclusive approach in parallel with the consideration of the MTOW threshold. Final recommendations on applicability could be made in a Steering Group meeting ear ly in the CAEP/9 cycle. Such an approach w ould ensure due consideration is given to all categories of subsonic jet aircraft and will minimize unintended consequences. The observer believe d that leaving the threshold open now will not delay the agreeing of a m etric for CO 2 Standard related work in this coming CAEP cycle. He also expressed his commitment to devote the appropriate resources and to complete the necessary work to deliver the material that CAEP needs during the CAEP/9 cycle, even given the above recommendation to keep the applicability threshold open at this time. It should be further noted that limitations on the applicability of a new CO 2 Standard at any point should not be construed to limit the scope of the analysis nor participation in releva nt work . 2 . 5 . 4 . 15 An observer, speaking on behalf of a group of Stat es stressed that work on a C O 2 S tandard should be given top priority in the CAEP/9 work programme. The three essential elements of such an effort are that the Standard be timely, well structured a nd effective. To ensure a successful outcome within this timeframe, it was proposed that the work be taken forward in a number of stages, with time built in for evaluation, and that the technical group be given responsibility for agreeing to the timetable for the work. It was also proposed that, for CAEP/9, the certification requirement should apply to larger new aircraft types greater than 50 tonnes. The CAEP was also invited to commit the resources , during the CAEP/10 cycle, for the work to set a regulato ry S tandard for new aircraft types and to extend the applicability to smaller and ―in

- production‖ aircraft. Undertaking the above tasks in parallel, with sufficient resources and commitment, it should be possible for a draft certification requirement to be considered at the CAEP/9 meeting in February 2013. It is anticipated that the applicability of such a requirement would initially be new aircraft types after 31 December 2015. There would initially be no associated regulatory level but it would provide tr ansparency on the C O 2 emissions of different aircraft types and configurations. The observer committed to provide a co

- leader of the C O 2 Standard task from the group of countries represented by him.CAEP/8

- WP/80 Report on Agenda Item 2 2

- 23 2 . 5 . 4 . 16 A member , noting the urgency and importance of the CO 2 St andard , suggested that a new working group or task force be created to undertake this task. He pointed out that aircraft performance is a system level issue and therefore would necessitate formation of a new group. He also recommended that the analysis on establishing a lower applicability threshold be continued. Ideally, all aircraft should be included but a thorough study based on technological feasibility, environmental benefit and economic cost is needed to make a decision. Therefore, a decision should be made in a Steering Group meeting after relevant analysis has been completed. The member also committed to provide experts for the effort leading to establishment of a CO 2 Standard . 2 . 5 . 5 Discussion and Conclusions 2 . 5 . 5 . 1 A member expressed her concern with the propo sal of establishing a new group. She was concerned with splitting the resources when the necessary expertise already resides in WG3. The member with the original proposal replied that a new group will avoid multiple levels of approval. He was concerned wit h overloading WG3 and noted that the same expertise will be used whether it is in a task group under the working group or a in a separate working group. 2 . 5 . 5 . 2 In answer to a question, t he Secretary clarified that a Standard does not always need to be adopted at fixed three year intervals , as long as the appropriate approval proce dures are followed . The three year interval has worked well in the past in terms of coordinating with amendments of other Annexes and also the typical work duration of a majority of CAEP work items has so far been three years. 2 . 5 . 5 . 3 Some m ember s emphasized that it is generally desir able that all jet aircraft be covered in the analysis and a decision on a lower applicability threshold may be premature. It was suggested that d ata analysis to be co nducted in the f uture to determine this threshold . One member noted that expanding the analysis to all jet aircraft has the danger of market distortion since the lower weight turbojets compete with other types of aircraft. He also pointed out the t rade

- off between expanding the scope and the length of time to complete the task . 2 . 5 . 5 . 4 Several members committed to providing resources to the group in order to ensure timely and effective completion of the CO 2 Standard task. 2 . 5 . 5 . 5 A member expressed his doubts about applica tion of a new Standard to any aircraft except new certifications since it is no t clear how it will be applied or what the economic cost could be . 2 . 5 . 5 . 6 A member inquired whether the meeting would discuss the choice between classical pass

fail certification test and a corporate average type of Standard since these were mentioned by the Chair . The working group representative clarified that the WG did not intend to bring this issue as something to be decided at CAEP/8 , since an analysis of the advantage s or disadva ntages of a corporate average approach had not yet been conducted. 2 . 5 . 5 . 7 A member agreed with the high priority accorded by ICAO to CO 2 Standard but highlighted that CAEP should not lose sight of other mandates from ICAO. Therefore, an appropriate balance in pri orities needs t o be maintained . 2 . 5 . 5 . 8 The Chair acknowledged the high quality of presentations and the subsequent discussion on the issue of a CO 2 Standard. He summarized that the main topics identified were applicability thresholds (e.g. MTOW) , to which aircraf t this Standard would apply (e.g. new aircraft types, in

production, in

- service) to, and whether this Standard would be a pass

- fail type or use some other criteria .CAEP/8

- WP/80

2

- 24 Report on Agenda Item 2 He also highlighted that timelines and resource s would have to be identified to complete th is task in the most efficient manner. The discussion was very helpful in understanding and setting out various positions and priorities. The Chair requested that these issues be further d iscuss ed under the future work agenda item.

— — — — — — — —