Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

1 Public Announcement

The U.S

. Department of Transportation (DOT) , Office of the Secretary of Transportation, told the public of this Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Environment Subcommittee meeting in a Federal Register notice published Novembe r 4

, 2010 (75 FR 68017 ).

Subc ommittee Members in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)

Bryan K. Bedford ( Subc ommittee Chair) President and C hief Executive

Officer Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. (Republic Airways)

Juan J. Alonso Associate P rofessor, Department

of Aeronautics and Astronautics Stanford University

Kinney Baxter Attended for Raul Regalado Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority
Brian Brandewie Attended for Cynthia Egnotovich Goodrich Corporation (Goodrich) Billy Glover Attended for Nicole Pias ecki Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing)

Committee Members Not in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)
Cynthia M. Egnotovich Segment P resident, N acelles and

I nterior S ystems Goodrich

Nicole W. Piasecki Vice President,

Business Development Boeing

Raul Rega lado President and

Chief Executive Officer Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority

Other Officials Present

Name Affiliation(s)

Susan Kurland (FAAC Committee Chair) Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs DOT

Lynne Pickard (Designa ted Federal Officer (DFO)) Deputy Director, Office of

Environment and Energy DOT /FAAFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

2 Name Affiliation(s)

Camille Mittelholtz ( Alternate DFO) Environmental Policies Team

Leader, Office of Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy DOT

Christa Fornarotto Deputy Assistant S ecretary,

Aviation and International Affairs DOT

Other Persons Present

Name Affiliation(s)
Andrew Compart Senior Editor and Transport Editor Aviation Daily and Aviation Week
Steve Csonka Technical Director Advanced

Programs & Environment Strategy GE Av iation

Scott Harper FAAC Support PAI Consulting John Hennigan Director of Strategy & Business

Development FAA

Jonathan Hoffman S enio r Principle Scientist The MITRE Corporation Krister Holladay Director, Government Affairs Goodrich

Anne Kohut Publisher Airport Noise Report
Richard Marchi S enio r Advisor, Policy and

Regulatory Affairs Airports Council International

– North America ( ACI

– NA ) Bill Mosley Public Affairs DOT

Rick Pittaway FAAC Support DOT

Rick Pyatt Vice President, Government

Relations Goodr ich

Nancy N. Young Vice President,

Environmental Affairs Air Transport Association of America

, Inc

. (ATA)

B ACKGROUND AND W ELCOMING R EMARKS

This is the record of the fifth meeting of the FAAC Environment Subcommittee, a Federal advisory committee formed p ursuant to and subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The subcommittee and its meetings are likewise subject to the requirements of FACA.

Dr. Juan Alonso

, acting Subcommittee Chair, Stanford University

, cal led the meetin g to order at 9: 02 a .m.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

3 A DMINISTRATIVE M ATTERS

Dr. Alonso asked Ms. Lynne Pickard, DFO, DOT / FAA

, to review the FACA requirements.

Ms. Pickard briefed the subcommittee on the history and purpose of FACA, and noted some of its key requirements, including b alanced representation and publicly accessible meetings. She outlined her responsibilities as DFO, including maint aining information on cost s and membership, ensuring efficient operations, and keeping publicly available records of FAAC activities.

Ms

. Pic kard noted meetings of the subcommittee are accessible to the public . She stated interested persons will have the opportunity to submit comments before each meeting, and the minutes of each meeting will be made available both in the regulatory docket at h ttp:// www.regulations.gov (Docket number DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0074) and on the FAAC Web site at http:// www.dot.gov/ faac

.

Ms. Pickard read the formal statement required under FACA. She noted although the meeting was open to the public

, participation in the meeting was limited to subcommittee members , their alternates

, and Federal officials , subject to the discretion of the subcommittee c hair . Ms. Pickard added that only subcommittee members and their alternates are entitled to vote on subcommittee business.

D ISCUS SION

Dr. Alonso discussed the meeting‘s agenda, which include d discussion s of the four proposals for potential recommendations brought forward to the full FAAC at the Los Angeles meeting. Dr. Alonso listed the four proposals:

1. Operational and Infrastructur e Improvements

2. Research and Development related to A irframe and Engine Technologies

3. Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels

4. Harmonized Sectoral Approach for CO 2 Emissions Reductions.

Dr. Alonso stated feedback from the full FAAC is incorporated into these f our proposals

, and they are ready to go forward as full recommendations. He noted that in today‘s meeting the subcommittee must prioritize these proposals before bringing them to the full FAAC. He stressed that it was important to achieve this at the day ‘s meeting because the finalized recommendations are due to the DOT on November, 22, 2010. Dr. Alonso stated there was a slight change in the format of these recommendations that would require additional writing assignments by the end of the week to meet the deadline.

Ms. Pickard stated the subcommittee must vote on the proposals

, which will be brought forward as recommendations and will require notation reflecting consensus or dissent

. She reminded the alternates representing FAAC committee members that their votes count as vote s from the FAAC committee member s

.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

4 Dr. Alonso reminded the subcommittee all the proposals would go forward . He stated priority would be based on which proposals are the most actionable by the Secretary of Transportation

.

Ms. Picka rd stated the subcommittees are not limited in what they can present to the full FAAC

, nor is
any subcommittee required to pare down its number of proposals . However, subcommittees were ask ed to prioritize their proposals

.
Dr. Alonso reviewed each focus a rea , and then asked the author of each to open discussion for any changes. He started with Operational and Infrastructure Improvements

. Dr

. Alonso noted this was very close to NextGen

. B efore the subcommittee continued with the discussion

, he ask ed Ms

. Pickard whether there were discussions about making NextGen a joint recommendation from all subcommittee s , or if the subcommittees should p roceed on their own. Ms

. Pickard stated each subcommittee was to proceed on its own ; it was not yet determined wheth er a general recommendation would be proposed to prevent redundancies.

Dr. Alonso read the proposal for Focus Area No.1

, Operational and Infrastructure Improvements

, which state s

—

― Seek substantial additional targeted investment to accelerate equipage elem ents of NextGen that will have significant near term benefits and increase likelihood of successful deployment. In addition to other surface management efficiencies, establish a ground taxi delay management pilot program and recommend appropriate deployme nt of taxi delay management methodology for U.S. airport operations within 3 years. For airports, support the establishment of a program to reduce emissions from airport power sources and increase energy efficiency at airports.‖

Dr. Alonso thought the mai n subject of this proposal was equipage and what is needed to ensure NextGen ‘s success. He also noted it recommends ground surface management and an airport energy efficiency/emissions program.

Dr. Alonso then read the Research and Development related to Airframe and Engine Technologies proposal

, which states

—

― Accelerate aircraft technology development with more robust research and development by government and industry. For government, this would involve advocating for a significant increase in funding to FAA‘s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) technology program. For industry, advocate for the permanent extension of research and development tax credits.‖

He noted this proposal advocates research and development ( R&D ) for both governm ent and industry

, w ith part devoted to the FAA CLEEN program and part for the R&D tax credits for industry

.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

5 Dr. Alonso then read the Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels proposal, which state s

— ―The Secretary of DOT should lead a national initiative to p romote and showcase U.S. aviation as a first user of sustainable alternative fuels. This initiative would involve coordinating and enhancing the concerted efforts of government and industry to pool resources, overcome key challenges, and take concrete act ions to promote deployment of alternative aviation fuels through certification, funding, commercial production and deployment,  ̳ book and claim ‘ crediting and international and domestic acceptance. These actions would affirm a global leadership position in sustainable alternative fuels.‖

Dr. Alonso read the Harmonized Sectoral Approach for CO 2 Emissions Reductions proposal, which
state s

— ―The Secretary of DOT should lead an effort to align federal aviation policy to enhance the confidence of the aviation in dustry and federal government to make needed investments in the technological, alternative fuel, infrastructure and operational improvements necessary to meet a pragmatic set of emissions targets and proposals that can be harmonized among key aviation nati ons (markets) around the world. Advocate for acceptance of a coordinated global and domestic framework for aviation CO 2 emissions. It is important to set a strategic course for further international agreement through ICAO and follow with bilateral negotia tions to secure the support of other countries. The Secretary should take advantage of industry assets to develop practical global implementation methods (e.g. IATA members have already agreed to create an emissions inventory system

— the basis for any mea surement of emissions reduction progress.)‖

Dr. Alonso stated he wanted to put the subcommittee‘s four proposals to a vote , for the record

.

Mr. Kinny Baxter, Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority

, stated he thought there would be a recommendation that the Secretary support the Airport Improvement Program ( AIP ) legislation on funding energy related projects for airports. Ms

. Pickard reminded Mr

. Baxter it is in the Operational and Infrastructure Improvements proposal

, but was reworded to establish a pro gram to reduce emissions from airport power sources and increase energy efficiency at airports. She noted there was

more information in the background paper on this subject and stated there might be a need to review the background information to better ex plain the proposal. She noted the original wording had AIP tied to the reauthorization bill

, but on further discussion participants felt it best not to tie the FAAC recommendations to section 611 of a reauthorization bill which has not yet been passed and whose future is uncertain.

Mr. Brian Brandewie, Goodrich, asked if the subcommittee had any discussions on AIP grants

. Mr

. Baxter observed that the subcommittee discuss ed AIP grants when it discussed the Voluntary Airport Low Emissions ( VALE ) program. H e stated he thought AIP eligibility should not be tied to

non attainment area s

. Ms

. Pickard noted subcommittee members thought ground support equipment ( GSE ) was too small a focus and had decided to broaden the proposal . She also stated the description an d relation to AIP was in the background material. Mr

. Billy Glover , Boeing, added he
want ed to ensure the subcommittee took into consideration the backup sections for each proposal

.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

6 Dr. Alonso continue d with the vote from the sub committee on the four prop osals to be brought forward as recommendations. Four out of the five subcommittee members voted to recommend all of the proposals

. (The fifth member was absent from the voting procedure. )

Dr. Alonso continued to discuss each proposal to further refine th e recommendations. He started with Focus Area No. 1 and asked Mr

. Baxter if he had anything further to add.

Mr. Baxter agreed they should make the recommendation s short and noted the background paper read : ―The Environmental Subcommittee proposes that the Secretary establish an airport energy efficiency and emissions reduction program supported by the AIP grants.‖ Mr. Baxter suggested the subcommittee connect this to current airport sustainability programs. He stated the FAA has funded 10 airports to do these studies

. He noted this may be a way to prioritize the AIP grants to airports doing these sustainability studies.

Dr. Alonso expressed concern that some of the information included in the background papers was not included in the proposals. Ms

. Pick ard stated the recommendations brought forward will be in a new format to provide more detail

. She noted s ome of the information included in the background of these proposals could be brought forward and be included in the final recommendations.

Mr. Glov er stated the estimate of net present value of the accelerated equipage investments did not get into the background paper for Focus Area No. 1

. Mr

. Glover noted the figures show a $ 6 billion investment yielded by the assessment of the $ 15 billion net prese nt value. He suggested this information would give considerable weight to this proposal. Dr

. Alonso agreed this should be included

, but suggested the subcommittee need ed to cite the studies used to gather such information to make the figures more credibl e.

Ms. Nancy Young , ATA, clarified the point of recommending AIP grants for airport energy. She cited the dialog from the October 5 , 2010 meeting where it was suggested the subcommittee would support a pilot program for energy efficiency in various airport projects. She stated the background demonstrated something much broader than a pilot program and is very specific to AIP funding. She expressed her concern about broadening AIP funding and the potential implications. Mr

. Baxter expressed concern that t he subcommittee did not understand the impact to all airports in terms of utilities . He stated the cost of these utilities is passed on to the airlines

. He thought these programs w ere a way to save millions of dollars. Ms

. Young stressed she did not opp ose this

, but felt there are alternative s to AIP funding

. Mr. Glover suggested the subcommittee adjust the wording on the proposal to use a combination of AIP grants and two or three other examples of funding mechanisms. Mr

. Baxter agreed

, and Mr. Glover asked others to help him identify some other examples that could be included. Ms. Young stated the Airport Energy Efficiency and Cost Reduction Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) project does suggest a variety of sources that could be assessed.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

7 M r. Bryan Bedford, S ubcommittee C hair, Republic Airways, joined the meeting and Dr

. Alonso summarized for him the meeting thus far . Mr

. Bedford agreed the proposals were on the right track and prioritization was important. He stressed to the subcommittee that as they go forward with the recommendations they ask themselves if the recommendation is reasonably actionable

, and if the subcommittee wants to discuss how to fund these recommendations. He noted the other committees were having debates on how to pa y for the recommendations going forward. He suggested these recommendations should not be placed on hold because of funding questions, and he added the government should take the lead on funding with the belief they will eventually pay for themselves thro ugh the user or the industry.

With Mr. Bedford‘s affirmative vote , Dr

. Alonso confirmed the vote as five out of five in favor of advancing the proposals as recommendations to the full FAAC.

Mr. Bedford raised a question regarding the issue of $ 40 billion i n lost productivity and missed opportunity cited in the Economic and Employment Impact paragraph of the background notes for Focus Area No. 1. He asked if this figure could be broken down to direct costs to aviation and in direct costs in lost U.S. product ivity. Mr

. Bedford wanted the figure broken down to indicate if the suggested program would actually save as much money as predicted , or if it require d an additional investment to reach that goal. Mr

. Glover stated he would research the breakdown of the cost s and review the report in which these figures were generated. Mr

. Glover also suggested he and Ms

. Pickard would be glad to edit all four of the proposals and would write them in conformance with the recommendation format.

Dr. Alonso moved on to the Research and Development related to Airframe and Engine Technologies recommendation . Mr

. Bedford asked if the paper on this proposal could include a breakout section o n environmental impact, as the subcommittee included i n the first focus area. He sugges ted using a graph of emissions reduction

, a roadmap

, or something similar to what the subcommittee included for NextGen. Dr

. Alonso stated he and Mr

. Glover would work on th is and come up with examples of the environmental impact.

Mr. Glover stated the pr oposal advocated for a significant increase in funding for the CLEEN program but did not specify the level

, and he asked if that i s what the subcommittee wanted to recommend. Mr

. Bedford stated he was uncomfortable specifying a number, and he thought it b etter to suggest a

― substantial increase

. ‖ The subcommittee members discussed the addition al funding , then determined th at leveraging industry‘s R&D investment could produce the maximum benefits. It was suggested the
paper should lead with the industr y‘s R&D tax credits and then follow with CLEEN. The subcommittee members concurred, and Mr

. Brandewie agreed to edit the recommendation.

Dr. Alonso moved discussion to the Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels recommendation

. Mr

. Bedford noted this area is not as well

- known

, but represents a great opportunity to take a leadership position both domestically and internationally. He asked for the recommendation to be consistent with the others and asked if it could highlight some of the benefits of using alte rnative fuels. Mr

. Glover added that DOT and the Department of Agriculture recently signed a memorandum of understanding to work toward this recommended path.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

8 Mr. Bedford asked the subcommittee members if anyone knew what percentage of fossil fuels could be replace d by alternative fuels by 2020 . Ms

. Young suggested th i s figure may be 4

– 5 percent by 2020

, but stressed this small number would be significant

.
Mr. Bedford asked if the proposal explained why this was important to aviation. Mr

. Glover pointed out much of the rational e and adv antages of alternative fuels were placed in the background paper

. O nce this recommendation was edited and the facts were brought forward from the background paper, it would explain all of these issues

.

B efore Mr. Bedford left the meeting

, Dr

. Alonso ask ed him if he would give his input regarding the prioritization of the proposals. Mr

. Bedford initially placed his priorities in the following order:

1. Operational and Infrastructure Improvements

,
2. Research and Development rela ted to Airframe and Engine Technologies

,
3. Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels

4. Harmonized Sectoral Approach for CO 2 Emissions Reductions.

Mr. Bedford s tated he thought No s . 2 and 3 were interchangeable and added he had no strong preference for one over t he other. Ms

. Pickard asked Mr

. Bedford if he rank ed operational infrastructure as No. 1 because it could be implemented the quickest, even though it represented the lowest benefit for carbon emissions. Mr

. Bedford confirmed that, but he also reminded th e subcommittee they were looking for actionable items which could be done in 3 to 5 years. He also stated there was great uniformity among other subcommittee s on the importance of NextGen

.
Dr. Alonso stressed that all of the factual numbers should be take n into account in pr ioritizing the proposals. E ven th ough some numbers may show a more immediate effect of one recommendation, the others may have a smaller number at first , but continue to grow and surpass the others after those 3 to 5 years.

Dr. Alonso continued on to the Harmonized Sectoral Approach for CO 2 Emissions Reductions recommendation . Mr

. Glover suggested they could include more detail on the International Civil Aviation Organization ( ICAO ) resolution

, which was not available at the time their proposal was written. Dr

. Alonso also observed that many important facts from the background paper could be incorporated into the recommendation during the editing phase

. Dr. Alonso went over the writing assignments and stated he would send subcommitte e members an email about their individual assignments. The subcommittee discussed the schedule and noted the formal recommendations were due to the DOT by November 22, 2010. Ms

. Pickard and Mr

. Glover acknowledged the schedule and thought there would be no problem in meeting all the dates.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

9 Dr. Alonso continued the meeting with more discussion on prio ritization on the four focus areas. He stated , as did Mr. Glover, that he agreed with Mr. Bedford that F ocus A rea No. 4 should be Harmonization. Dr

. Alonso reminded the subcommittee members of Mr

. Bedford‘s list and polled members ‘ input on prioritization

.
Mr. Glover stated he agreed with the order Mr

. Bedford suggested . Mr

. Rick Pyatt , Goodrich, stated he thought the subcommittee would want to differentiate between the investments for R&D tax credits and the Administration‘s stimulus

. Mr. Brandewie agreed with the priority given by Mr

. Bedford. Ms

. Pickard pointed out the subcommittee may want to think a bit more about how they are looking at the proposals ‘ prioritization. She added t he members can look at prioritization either in terms of which areas can achieve the most benefits in c arbon e missions reduction s and energy improvements

, or in terms of wh ich areas can achieve the most immediate benefits. She suggested making the approach transparent so the full FAAC can see how the subcommittee arrived at its choice s

.
Mr. Baxter stated h is priority would be operational

, alternative fuels

, technology , and harmonization

.
Dr. Alonso stated when looking at the prioritization

, he considered what would have the most environment al benefits

. He added he was putting alternative fuels first, followed very closely by technology, then operational

, with harmonization last. He noted there is an agreement among all the

s ubcommittee that harmonization would be the last on the priority list.

Dr. Alonso noted there was a lot of momentum about operations and NextGen in the full FAAC and he thought there would probably be a highlighted NextGen recommendation from the entire FA AC

. Ms

. Susan Kurland , FAAC committee c hair , DOT, stated they would wait until all the recommendations came forward before there would be any decision about a separate NextGen recommendation in the report. She noted even though initially the Secretary wa s looking for three or four recommendations, it would be good if the committee had consensus on many more recommendations that c ould be implemented

.
Several subcommittees member agreed there should be an introduction explaining the logic behind the
proposa l prioritization, suggesting it show either the more immediate results or what would have the most environmental benefits

. Dr. Alonso asked the subcommittee members if there was any flexibility about changing the priority. He reminded the members that i n an optimistic scenario the maximum fuel burn and related CO 2 reductions

, for the entire fleet that could be achieved with NextGen operational and infrastructure
measures, are probably in the range of 5

- 6 percent. Dr. Alonso stated the advertised 12 perc ent was an unrealistic number in his opinion . Mr

. Glover noted the Air Traffic Association (ATA) has already stated almost 4 percent of th e 12 percent figure has already been achieved with NextGen i mprovements , and only one

- half of the remaining 8 percent would be achieved in the future. Mr

. Glover added he has reconsidered his order of prioritization.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

10 Mr. Baxter stated his order would change depending on how the subcommittee decides what the priority criteria should be

— whether it‘s based on what can be d one the quickest or

, what would achieve the most CO 2 reduction. Mr

. Brandewie stated he was also changing his opinion on the prioritiz ation of the recommendations

. Mr. Brandewie suggested the priority criteria should be based primarily on the most carbon reduction, the most impact in a five year window, and the best return on investment. Mr

. Glover noted that if the subcommittee decides to change the priority , there needs to be more specif ic details in the alternative fuels recommendations in terms of wha t can be done by the Secreta ry.
Dr. Alonso asked the members if they wanted to hold another vote on the priority based on these discussions. After some further discussions the subcommittee members took another vote and placed the proposals in the followin g order:

1. Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels

2. Research and Development related to Airframe and Engine Technologies

3. Operational and Infrastructure Improvements

4. Harmonized Sectoral Approach for CO 2 Emissions Reductions

.
The record shows that four out of t he five subcommittee members agreed with this order with one member

, Mr. Bedford

, absent from the voting procedure. The subcommittee used what would achieve the greatest environmental impact as the criteria for the prioritization and felt an introduction of the criteria used should be included with the recommendations. Dr. Alonso offered to share the members‘ final prioritization with Mr. Bedford and poll his final opinion.

P UBLIC C OMMENTS

Ms. Laura Gladding, President of the Association for Professional Flight Attendants , offered a
comment via letter on the improvement of cabin air quality . The letter c ited ventilation, reduced O 2 levels, quality of air supply, ozone exposure, and high concentration of pesticides. The subcommittee felt this was beyond t he scope of what this subcommittee was considering and agreed this comment should be forward to the appropriate DOT and FAA staff dealing in such matters.

C LOSING R EMARKS

Mr. Glover asked the subcommittee members to get their input to him as soon as possib le. Dr

. Alonso, closed the meeting in Mr. Bedford‘s absence, and stated that with further communication and possibly at the next full FAAC meeting, Mr

. Bedford could get his vote on prioritization on the record.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting November 16, 2010 Teleconference

11 A CTION I TEMS
Assigned to Action Item

Mr. B axter Input for the airport energy efficiency and emissions reduction

recommendation

Mr. Glover Breakdown the finances from the background paper on operational and

infrastructure improvements
Dr. Alonso and Mr. Glover Submit more input for the R&D techno logy proposal

Mr. Glover and Ms. Pickard Edit all four proposals and submit in the recommendation format to the

subcommittee

A DJOURNMENT

Dr. Alonso solicited a motion for adjournment. On motion, duly seconded and approved by the majority of the FAAC Env ironment Subcommittee members present, the meeting was adjourned.

The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m

. I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Approved by: _______________________

________________ _____

Lynne Pickard

, Designated Federal Official

Dated: _______________________

________________ ___________