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 November 4, 2010 (75 FR 68017).

Subcommittee Members in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)

Bryan K. Bedford

(Subcommittee 

Chair)

President and Chief Executive 

Officer

Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. 

(Republic Airways)

Juan J. Alonso Associate Professor, 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 Piasecki Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing)

Committee Members Not in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)

Cynthia M. 

Egnotovich

Segment President, Nacelles and 

Interior Systems 

Goodrich

Nicole W. Piasecki Vice President, 

Business Development

Boeing

Raul Regalado 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

(Designated Federal 

Officer (DFO))

Deputy Director, Office of 

Environment and Energy

DOT/FAA
Future 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 Secretary, 

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 Aviation

Scott Harper FAAC Support PAI Consulting

John Hennigan Director of Strategy & Business 

Development

FAA

Jonathan Hoffman Senior Principle Scientist The MITRE Corporation

Krister Holladay Director, Government Affairs Goodrich

Anne Kohut Publisher Airport Noise Report

Richard Marchi Senior 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

Goodrich

Nancy N. Young Vice President, 

Environmental Affairs

Air Transport Association of America, 

Inc. (ATA)

BACKGROUND AND WELCOMING REMARKS

This is the record of the fifth meeting of the FAAC Environment Subcommittee, a Federal advisory 

committee formed pursuant 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, called the meeting to order at 

9:02 a.m. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

November 16, 2010

Teleconference

3

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

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 balanced representation and publicly accessible meetings. She outlined 

her responsibilities as DFO, including maintaining information on costs and membership, ensuring 

efficient operations, and keeping publicly available records of FAAC activities.

Ms. Pickard 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 http://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 chair. Ms. Pickard added that only 

subcommittee members and their alternates are entitled to vote on subcommittee business.

DISCUSSION

Dr. Alonso discussed the meeting‘s agenda, which included discussions 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 Infrastructure Improvements

2. Research and Development related to Airframe and Engine Technologies

3. Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels

4. Harmonized Sectoral Approach for CO2 Emissions Reductions.

Dr. Alonso stated feedback from the full FAAC is incorporated into these four 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 votes from the FAAC 

committee members.
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. Pickard 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 

asked to prioritize their proposals.

Dr. Alonso reviewed each focus area, 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. Before the subcommittee continued with the discussion, he asked Ms. Pickard 

whether there were discussions about making NextGen a joint recommendation from all 

subcommittees, or if the subcommittees should proceed on their own. Ms. Pickard stated each 

subcommittee was to proceed on its own; it was not yet determined whether a general recommendation 

would be proposed to prevent redundancies.

Dr. Alonso read the proposal for Focus Area No.1, Operational and Infrastructure Improvements,

which states—

―Seek substantial additional targeted investment to accelerate equipage elements 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 deployment 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 main 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 government and industry, 

with 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 states—

―The Secretary of DOT should lead a national initiative to promote 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 actions 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 CO2 Emissions Reductions proposal, which 

states—

―The Secretary of DOT should lead an effort to align federal aviation policy to enhance 

the confidence of the aviation industry 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 nations (markets) around the world. Advocate for 

acceptance of a coordinated global and domestic framework for aviation CO2 emissions.

It is important to set a strategic course for further international agreement through ICAO 

and follow with bilateral negotiations 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 measurement 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 program 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 explain 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 discussed AIP grants when it discussed the Voluntary 

Airport Low Emissions (VALE) program. He stated he thought AIP eligibility should not be tied to 

nonattainment areas. 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 and relation to AIP was in the background material. Mr. Billy Glover, Boeing, added he 

wanted 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 continued with the vote from the subcommittee on the four proposals 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 the 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 recommendations 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. Pickard stated the recommendations brought forward will be in a new 

format to provide more detail. She noted some of the information included in the background of these 

proposals could be brought forward and be included in the final recommendations.

Mr. Glover 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 present value. He suggested this 

information would give considerable weight to this proposal. Dr. Alonso agreed this should be 

included, but suggested the subcommittee needed to cite the studies used to gather such information to 

make the figures more credible.

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 the 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 were a way to save 

millions of dollars. Ms. Young stressed she did not oppose this, but felt there are alternatives 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

Mr. Bryan Bedford, Subcommittee Chair, 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 pay 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

through 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 in 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 indirect 

costs in lost U.S. productivity. Mr. Bedford wanted the figure broken down to indicate if the suggested 

program would actually save as much money as predicted, or if it required an additional investment to 

reach that goal. Mr. Glover stated he would research the breakdown of the costs 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 on

environmental impact, as the subcommittee included in the first focus area. He suggested 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 this and come up with examples of the 

environmental impact.

Mr. Glover stated the proposal advocated for a significant increase in funding for the CLEEN program 

but did not specify the level, and he asked if that is what the subcommittee wanted to recommend. 

Mr. Bedford stated he was uncomfortable specifying a number, and he thought it better to suggest a 

―substantial increase.‖ The subcommittee members discussed the additional funding, then determined 

that leveraging industry‘s R&D investment could produce the maximum benefits. It was suggested the 

paper should lead with the industry‘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 alternative 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 

replaced by alternative fuels by 2020. Ms. Young suggested this 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 rationale and advantages of alternative fuels were placed in the background paper. 

Once this recommendation was edited and the facts were brought forward from the background paper, 

it would explain all of these issues.

Before Mr. Bedford left the meeting, Dr. Alonso asked 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 related to Airframe and Engine Technologies,

3. Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels

4. Harmonized Sectoral Approach for CO2 Emissions Reductions.

Mr. Bedford stated he thought Nos. 2 and 3 were interchangeable and added he had no strong 

preference for one over the other. Ms. Pickard asked Mr. Bedford if he ranked 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 the 

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 subcommittees on the importance of NextGen.

Dr. Alonso stressed that all of the factual numbers should be taken into account in prioritizing the 

proposals. Even though 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 CO2 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 subcommittee 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 prioritization on the four focus areas. He 

stated, as did Mr. Glover, that he agreed with Mr. Bedford that Focus Area 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 the members can look at prioritization either in terms of which areas can achieve the most 

benefits in carbon emissions reductions and energy improvements, or in terms of which 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 choices.

Mr. Baxter stated his priority would be operational, alternative fuels, technology, and harmonization. 

Dr. Alonso stated when looking at the prioritization, he considered what would have the most 

environmental 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 

subcommittee 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 FAAC. 

Ms. Susan Kurland, FAAC committee chair, 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 was looking for three or 

four recommendations, it would be good if the committee had consensus on many more 

recommendations that could be implemented.

Several subcommittees member agreed there should be an introduction explaining the logic behind the 

proposal 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 in an optimistic scenario the maximum fuel burn and related CO2

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 percent was an 

unrealistic number in his opinion. Mr. Glover noted the Air Traffic Association (ATA) has already 

stated almost 4 percent of the 12 percent figure has already been achieved with NextGen 

improvements, 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 done the quickest or, what would achieve 

the most CO2 reduction. Mr. Brandewie stated he was also changing his opinion on the prioritization 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 specific details in the alternative 

fuels recommendations in terms of what can be done by the Secretary.

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 following 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 CO2 Emissions Reductions.

The record shows that four out of the 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.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

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 cited ventilation, reduced O2

levels, quality of air supply, ozone exposure, and high concentration of pesticides. The subcommittee 

felt this was beyond the 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.

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. Glover asked the subcommittee members to get their input to him as soon as possible. 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

ACTION ITEMS

Assigned to Action Item

Mr. Baxter 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 technology proposal

Mr. Glover and Ms. 

Pickard

Edit all four proposals and submit in the recommendation format to the 

subcommittee

ADJOURNMENT

Dr. Alonso solicited a motion for adjournment. On motion, duly seconded and approved by the 

majority of the FAAC Environment 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: __________________________________________________