U.S. Jet Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions 

Inventory for Aircraft below ICAO CO2

Standard Thresholds

Final Report

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Laurel Driver

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Standards and Planning

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Prepared by:

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

1600 Perimeter Park Drive

Suite 200

Morrisville, NC 27560

May 7, 2015

EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-006

Work Assignment 5-05
This page is intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

2.0 T-100....................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 GAATA................................................................................................................. 15

4.0 COMPARISONS ....................................................................................................... 18

5.0 BACKCASTING AND FORECASTING......................................................................... 19

6.0 QA/QC.................................................................................................................. 21

7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX A. AIR TAXI MODELS BY AIRCRAFT CATEGORY FOR EDMS/T-100 DATA................A-1

i
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2-1. Number of Aircraft in each Aircraft Category ...............................................................5

Table 2-2. Time and Mode Data ......................................................................................................6

Table 2-3. Engine Assignments by Aircraft Make and Model ........................................................8

Table 2-4. Summary ofT-100Activity Data...................................................................................10

Table 2-5. Aircraft and Engine Specific Emission Factors from EDMS Run...............................11

Table 2-6. Aircraft and Engine Specific Cruising Fuel Consumption Rates.................................12

Table 2-7. 2012 T-100AircraftandEngine Specific Fuel Use and CO2Emissions.........................14

Table 3-1. FAA Registry Aircraft Population by MTOM Range..................................................15

Table 3-2. Finalized GAATA Activity for Aircraft Below the MTOM CO2 Standard 

Thresholds..............................................................................................................16

Table 3-3. GAATA Fuel Consumption Rates by Aircraft Type (Block fuel/Block time) ............16

Table 3-4. 2012 Fuel Use and CO2 Emission Estimates by Aircraft Below the CAEP MTOM

Thresholds by Type and Mode ..............................................................................17

Table 4-1. T-100 and GAATA Combine CO2 Emissions (tons) Summary...................................18

Table 5-1. Historical Fraction of Jet, Turboprop Powered Aircraft, and Helicopters Below the 

CAEP MTOM Thresholds for the ICAO CO2 Standards......................................19

Table 5-2. Adjustment Factors for General Aviation Aircraft Based on Jet Fuel Energy 

Consumption..........................................................................................................20

Table 5-3. Growth Factors Based on Forecasted Jet Fuel Energy Consumption ..........................20

Table 5-4. Backcasted/Forecasted Small Jet, Turboprop, and Helicopter CO2 Emissions (tons) .21

Table 6-1. QA Summary Table......................................................................................................23

ii
LIST OF FIGURE

Page

Figure 1-1. Summary of Activity Data Used to Quantify Fuel and CO2 Emissions from Aircraft 

Below ICAO Reporting Thresholds.........................................................................3

iii
1.0 Introduction

In 2010, the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Committee on Aviation Environmental 

Protection (CAEP), with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participation, agreed

to develop an aircraft carbon dioxide (CO2) standard, and CAEP expects to finalize the standard 

in February 2016. In November 2010, CAEP decided that the CO2 standard will be applicable to 

subsonic jets with a weight threshold of maximum takeoff mass (MTOM)1 greater than 5,700 kg 

(12,566 lbs) and aircraft equipped with turboprop engines with a MTOM greater than 8,618 kg 

(19,000 lbs). Applying these MTOM thresholds, ERG identified four categories of aircraft, large 

transport jets, regional jets, large turboprops, and large business jets2 that correspond to the 

above applicability thresholds that CAEP has agreed to for the aircraft CO2 standard. We have

also identified the aircraft categories that do not meet the CAEP applicability thresholds into the 

following aircraft classes: small turboprops and small business jets. In addition, CAEP’s 

applicability exclude piston-engine aircraft3 and helicopters,4 and because CAEP requirements

apply only to civil aircraft, the aircraft CO2 standard also does not apply to military aircraft. The 

objective of this study is to estimate jet fuel usage and CO2 emissions (from this jet fuel usage) in 

the United States for aircraft below the CAEP MTOM thresholds (excluding jet fuel usage by 

military aircraft).

To evaluate the current and projected CO2 emissions for the aircraft (that use jet fuel) below the 

CAEP MTOM thresholds, fuel use and CO2 emissions were developed for these aircraft (below 

the MTOM thresholds) for domestic flights and international flights that originate from a U.S. 

airport. Emissions estimates were calculated for the base year 2012 and projected for years 2020,

2030, and 2040 using Federal Aviation Administration Forecast data. The 2015 EPA Inventory

of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (EPA, 2015) report includes a category for 

emissions from general aviation aircraft jet fuel. The category includes large and small business 

jets, large and small turboprops, and helicopters (with gas turbine engines), which is more 

inclusive than the CAEP applicability thresholds. Data from the 2015 EPA Inventory of U.S. 

1 The terms maximum takeoff mass and maximum takeoff weight are used interchangeably throughout the report. 2 The classes of aircraft are broken down in a general manner for the purpose of showing which aircraft are 

included and excluded from the ICAO aircraft CO2 standard. As described earlier, CAEP has specifically 

identified MTOM thresholds for subsonic jet and turboprop aircraft that clearly indicate which aircraft will be 

covered by the international CO2 standard being developed (and which aircraft will not be covered by the 

international standard). For the aircraft classes that will be covered by the CAEP CO2 standard, ICAO generally 

refers to them as follows: turboprops, business jets, regional jets, single aisle aircraft, small twin aisle aircraft, 

large twin aisle aircraft, and large quad aircraft. However, a subset of turboprops and business jets will not be 

included in the CO2 standard (based on the MTOM thresholds). 3 Piston-engine aircraft primarily operate using aviation gasoline, though it is recognized that a small number use 

Jet A fuel (i.e., diesel-powered piston aircraft). 4 There are both piston-engine and turbine-engine helicopters. CAEP’s applicability thresholds exclude both types 

of helicopters.

1

 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (EPA, 2015) was used to back cast 2012 emissions to 

1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and to develop 2013 estimates.

The 2015 EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (EPA 2015) states that 

U.S. aircraft emissions include emissions from the U.S. international aviation bunker fuels 

category, and this U.S. international aviation bunker fuels category includes emissions from 

combustion of fuel purchased in and used by aircraft departing from the United States (regardless 

of whether they are a U.S. flagged carrier). To ensure the products of this project align with data 

used in the 2015 GHG Emission and Sinks document, data obtained from the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) 2012 General Aviation Part 135 Activity Surveys (GAATA, 2013) was 

assumed to be fuel purchased and used within the United States. Data obtained from the Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics (BTS) T-100 Domestic Segment also accounted of activity within the 

United States; while the International Segment accounted for aircraft departing from the U.S. 

(assumed to be included in the U.S. international aviation bunker fuel category) (FAA, 2012).

In general, aviation activities can be classified as: 

• Part 915 – non-commercial general aviation, corporate flight departments, limited forhire activity (flight training, etc.) 

• On-Demand Part 1356 operations

• Scheduled Part 135 operations

• Part 1217 (large aircraft) 

The GAATA survey covers Part 91 and On-Demand Part 135, while the T-100 dataset covers 

Part 121 and Part 135 operators with more than $20 Million in annual revenue. This provides 

both an overlap and a gap between the two datasets. The overlap occurs between GAATA and 

T-100 for large On-Demand Part 135 operators with more than $20M in annual revenue that 

include commercial air taxi operations. Conversely, neither database covers smaller Part 135 

Scheduled operators with less than $20 million in revenue. Regarding the overlap, adjustments 

were made to the GAATA data to account for air taxis reported in the T-100 data. However, note 

that the missing scheduled Part 135 operators with revenues less $20 million may have higher

utilization levels and fuel consumption rates than represented in the GAATA survey. It is 

believed that the aircraft with MTOM less than the ICAO CO2 Standard thresholds are 

anticipated to be a relatively small portion of the Part 135 operators with revenues less than $20 

million.

The GAATA data include all activity (by aircraft type) for general aviation and air taxis, while 

the T-100 dataset include commercial activity by specific aircraft make and model, which 

include air taxis but not non-commercial general aviation. Aircraft fleet data sources were also 

5 14 CFR Part 91 is General Operating and Flight Rules. 6 14 CFR Part 135 is Operating Requirements: Commuter and On Demand Operations and Rules Governing 

Persons on Board Such Aircraft. 7 14 CFR part 121 is Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations.

2

 
used in this analysis including aircraft and airline data from the Ascend Online Fleets Database,

(Flightglobal, Ascend, 2015), and aircraft registration information from the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) Aircraft Registry–Releasable Aircraft Database Download (FAA, 

2014a).

8 Figure 1-1 shows how the different sources of activity data were integrated to generate 

CO2 emission estimates for this analysis.

Figure 1-1. Summary of Activity Data Used to Quantify Fuel Use and CO2 Emissions from 

Aircraft Below ICAO MTOM Thresholds

Because the T-100 dataset provides aircraft-specific data, priority was given to include these data 

in this analysis. Where possible, adjustments were made to the GAATA aircraft type data to 

avoid double counting. GAATA data do not differentiate aircraft type by maximum takeoff 

weight categories. Therefore, different approaches were used to approximate maximum takeoff 

weight for jets, turboprop, and helicopter estimates. For example, to approximate the weight 

categories for the U.S. general aviation and air taxi jet-powered fleet, the percentage of active 

business jets below the CAEP MTOM threshold was determined using the latest FAA Aircraft

Registry data (FAA, 2014a).

9 A different approach was taken to determine the turboprop activity 

data below the CAEP MTOM threshold. For turboprops, the aircraft make and model from the 

T-100 dataset above and below the CAEP MTOM threshold were determined using the MTOM

listed for each aircraft make and model in the FAA’s Emissions Dispersion Modeling System 

(EDMS) system tables (FAA, 2013). Because both the GAATA data includes commercial air 

taxi activities and the T-100 dataset also includes commercial flights, including commercial air 

taxis, the T-100 turboprop annual landing takeoff (LTO) and annual air time values for aircraft 

below the CAEP MTOM threshold were subtracted from the GAATA turboprop annual LTO 

and annual airtime values for turboprop aircraft below the CAEP MTOM threshold to avoid 

double counting.

8 The FAA Aircraft Registry–Releasable Aircraft Database Download provides information about current registered 

aircraft owners, documents filed, aircraft dealers, and more. 9 The FAA Aircraft Registry data provides data by the following MTOM thresholds: up to 5,699 kg, 5,670 – 9, 071 

kg, and 9,072 kg.

FAA Registration Data Aircraft Below 

ICAO Threshold 

EDMS/ASCEND Data T-100 Domestic/ 

International 

Segment

GAATA Fuel Usage EDMS LTO 

Emissions

GAATA Flight Time

Combined LTO/Cruising

Fuel/Emission 

Estimates

T-100 Flight Time

Manufacturer Cruising 

Fuel Usage

Emission/Fuel 

Estimates

Adjustment for 

Double Counting

Aircraft Specific Data

GAATA Survey

CO2 Emission Estimates

3

 
In comparing the active turboprop aircraft above the CAEP MTOM threshold in Ascend and the 

T-100 data, all but two airframe models could be matched in the two datasets.

10 This matching 

suggested that except for these two aircraft models, all of the remaining turboprop aircraft in 

GAATA annual LTOs were less than the CAEP MTOM threshold. Note that this assumption

slightly overestimates activity below the CAEP MTOM threshold because the GAATA data 

include the two unmatched aircraft models and any turboprops above the CAEP MTOM

threshold but not used in commercial activities. It is believed that this later group is likely to be 

small due to the economics of aircraft ownership.

The remaining GAATA turboprop data were combined with the T-100 activity data identified as 

being less than the CAEP MTOM threshold, providing the activity data used to estimate annual 

fuel usage and emissions from turboprops included in this analysis (below the CAEP MTOM

threshold).

The emissions for the small business jets and turboprops below the CAEP MTOM threshold 

were calculated by applying fuel consumption rates and CO2 emission factors11 to the activity 

data. Emissions from aircraft below the CAEP MTOM threshold were calculated separately for 

the LTO cycle as well as the cruising mode.

Section 2 describes the emission inventory development associated with the T-100 data, and 

Section 3 describes the development of the GAATA emission inventory. Section 4 compares the 

2012 results of this study with data presented in the 2015 EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks (EPA 2015). Section 5 documents how the projections were developed and 

Section 6 discusses QA/QC activities implemented.

2.0 T-100

Activity

For base year 2012, the T-100 activity data include annual air time and LTO by specific aircraft 

make and model (FAA, 2012). The aircraft are categorized based on aircraft type (e.g., aviation 

gas powered propeller, helicopter, turboprop, and jet) and linked to their MTOM information 

obtained from the EDMS system tables. Table 2-1 shows the number of air taxi models in each 

category, average MTOMs from EDMS, and the MTOM threshold categories used in this 

analysis- the highlighted rows represent the air taxi categories included in this analysis. Note the 

average MTOM values presented in Table 2-1 represent a wide range of individual aircraft 

values. Appendix A includes a complete list of air taxi models noted in Table 2-1.

Five additional aircraft models were directly matched to equivalent aircraft in the EDMS list of 

aircraft. One aircraft (Helio H-250/295/395) (Plane & Pilot, 2010) was matched to an alternative 

model in EDMS aircraft characteristics list (included in Table 2-1 under the small turboprop 

10 Ascend data documents 64 Jetstream J41 and one Nord N 262 were active, but not included in the T-100 data. 11 EPA CO2 emission factors are in terms of the carbon content of the fuel and are presented as kgs of CO2 per 

gallon of fuel.

4

 
category). Three aircraft were out of scope: two were piston engines, and one was a military 

aircraft. The single remaining aircraft, Quest Kodiak 100, was identified as a small turboprop.

The MTOM was obtained from the manufacturer (Quest, 2014), and the aircraft type was pulled 

from the T-100 dataset.

Table 2-1. Number of air taxi models by aircraft category for EDMS/T-100 data

General Aircraft

Category EDMS Category

Number of 

Aircraft 

Models

Average

MTOM

(lbs)

MTOM

Threshold

Categories (lbs)

 Piston powered aircraft Propeller 17 3,652 N/A

Helicoptera Light Helicopter 1 - N/A

Small Turbopropa Turboprop 18 11,984 <19,000

Larger Turbopropb Turboprop 18 50,391 >19,000

Large Business Jetb Business Jet 21 37,374 >12,566

Large Business Jetb Regional Jet 21 77,249 >12,566 a Aircraft below weight thresholds included in this study. b Aircraft above the weight thresholds used to adjust the GAATA activity data in Section 3.

The annual LTO cycles are a summation of the number of departures for each aircraft make and 

model listed in the T-100 dataset. The annual cruising time was calculated by subtracting the 

airborne portion of the annual LTO cycle based on the average takeoff, climbout, and approach 

time from EDMS (see Table 2-2) from the airtime listed in the T-100 dataset. Because the Quest 

Kodiak 100 did not have aircraft information in EDMS, comparable values were used from a 

similar aircraft in EDMS.

Engine makes and models for the aircraft were needed to ensure proper matching with EDMS 

emission factors. For the aircraft types below the CAEP MTOM threshold, weighted emission

factors were based on engine market share reported in the Ascend data. This approach was 

limited to the nine small aircraft that encompassed 90% of the LTO activity. The remaining 

aircraft below the CAEP MTOM threshold were assigned engines from the most popular aircraft 

engine combination listed in the Ascend data. For two cases where aircraft were not included in 

the Ascend data, engine assignments were made that represent conservative aircraft engine 

combination in EDMS based on the highest CO2 emission factor. The aircraft makes and models 

above the CAEP MTOM threshold were assigned engines from the most popular aircraft engine 

combination listed in the Ascend data, or from the only valid aircraft engine combination listed 

in EDMS. Where the engines from the most popular aircraft engine combination listed in Ascend

but were not listed in EDMS, a comparable engine was assigned. For the aircraft makes and 

models above the CAEP MTOM threshold that were not listed in the Ascend data, typical 

engines based on Internet research (Section 6) were assigned. Table 2-3 lists the engine 

assignments for each aircraft make and model and the basis for assigning each engine.

The finalized activity data are summarized by aircraft and engine combination in Table 2-4.

5
Table 2-2. Time and Mode Data for Aircraft Below CAEP MTOM Threshold in T-100 data

Aircraft Type Aircraft Code Engine Type

Engine 

ID

Time in Mode (minutes)

Approach Climbout Startup Takeoff

Taxi 

In

Taxi 

Out

Aerospatiale/Aeritalia ATR-42 ATR42-4 PW121 PW121 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Aerospatiale/Aeritalia ATR-72 ATR72-2 PW124B PW124B 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Beech 1900 A/B/C/D BEECH1900-C PT6A-65B PT6A6B 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Beech 200 Super Kingair BEECH200 PT6A-41 PT6A41 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Beech 99 Airliner BEECH99 PT6A-20 PT6A20 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Beech C99 BEECH99 PT6A-36 PT6A36 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

British Aerospace Jetstream 31 J31 TPE331-10U TPE10U 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Casa 235 CN235-2 CT7-9B CT79B 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Casa/Nurtanio C212 Aviocar CASA212-1 PT6A-28 PT6A28 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114 PT6A14 4.5 2.5 1 0.5 7 9

Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 4.5 2.5 1 0.5 7 9

Cessna 406 Caravan II REIMS406 PT6A-112 PT6112 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Cessna C208B/Grand Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 4.5 2.5 1 0.5 7 9

Convair CV-580 CV580

501 D13 

alternative 1 501DA1 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

De Havilland DHC8-100 Dash-8 DHC8Q-1 PW120A PW120A 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

De Havilland DHC8-200Q Dash-8 DHC8Q-2 PW123D PW123D 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

De Havilland DHC8-300 Dash 8 DHC8Q-3 PW123 PW123 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

De Havilland DHC8-400 Dash-8 DHC8Q-4 PW150A PW150A 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 PT6A-20 PT6A20 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 PT6A-27 PT6A27 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Dornier 228 DO228-1 TPE331-5A TPE5A 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Dornier 328 DO328-1 PW119C PW119C 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia EMB120 PW118B PW118B 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Eurocompter AS350 B2 AStar SA350 TPE331-3 TPE3 6.5 4.33 1 2.17 7 9

6
Table 2-2. Time and Mode Data for Aircraft Below CAEP MTOM Threshold in T-100 data

Aircraft Type Aircraft Code Engine Type

Engine 

ID

Time in Mode (minutes)

Approach Climbout Startup Takeoff

Taxi 

In

Taxi 

Out

Grumman G-21A (Goose) G21G TPE331-2UA TP2UA 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Gulfstream I GULF1 RDa.7 RDA7 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Helio H-250/295/395 MIL-U10 PT6A-27 PT6A27 3.5 0.8 1 0.4 7 9

Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2/A 

Islander BN2 250B17B 250B17 4.5 2.5 1 0.5 7 9

Pilatus PC-12 PC12 PT6A-67B PT67B 4.5 2.5 1 0.5 7 9

Quest Kodiak 100 CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 4.5 2.5 1 0.5 7 9

Saab-Fairchild 340/A SAAB340-A CT7-5A2 CT75A2 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Saab-Fairchild 340/B SAAB340-B CT7-9B CT79B 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Shorts 330 SD330 PT6A-45A PT6A4A 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Shorts 360 SD360-1 PT6A-65R PT6A6R 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Shorts Harland SC-7 Skyvan SC7-3-1 TPE331-2 TPE2 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

Socata TBM850 TBM-850 PT6A-66 PT6A66 4.5 2.2 1 0.5 7 9

7
Table 2-3. Engine Assignments by Aircraft Make and Model

Aircraft Make/ Model

EDMS Aircraft 

Code

Engine Make/ 

Model

EDMS 

Engine 

Code Engine Assignment Basis

Below the CAEP MTOM Threshold

Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2/A 

Islander

BN2 250B17B 250B17 Weight factors based engine market share

Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114 PT6A14 Weight factors based engine market share

Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A Weight factors based engine market share

De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 PT6A-20 PT6A20 Weight factors based engine market share

De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 PT6A-27 PT6A27 Weight factors based engine market share

Beech 1900 A/B/C/D BEECH1900-C PT6A-65B PT6A6B Weight factors based engine market share

EurocopterAS350 B2AStar SA350 TPE331-3 TPE3 Weight factors based engine market share

Grumman G-21A (Goose) G21G TPE331-2UA TP2UA Weight factors based engine market share

SocataTBM850 TBM-850 PT6A-66 PT6A66 Weight factors based engine market share

Beech King Air C-90 BEECH90 PT6A-60 PT6A60 Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Beech 200 SuperKingair BEECH200 PT6A-41 PT6A41 Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Beech 99 Airliner BEECH99 PT6A-20 PT6A20 Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Beech C99 BEECH99 PT6A-36 PT6A36 Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Cessna C208B/Grand Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Dornier 228 DO228-1 TPE331-5A TPE5A Most Popular Engine in Ascend

British Aerospace Jetstream 31 J31 TPE331-10U TPE10U Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Pilatus PC-12 PC12 PT6A-67B PT67B Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Cessna 406 Caravan II REIMS406 PT6A-112 PT6112 Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Shorts Harland SC-7Skyvan SC7-3-1 TPE331-2 TPE2 Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Casa/NurtanioC212Aviocar CASA212-1 PT6A-28 PT6A28 Conservative Engine Assignment Based on CO2 EF

HelioH-250/295/395 MIL-U10 PT6A-27 PT6A27 Conservative Engine Assignment Based on CO2 EF

Quest Kodiak 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Above the CAEP MTOM Threshold

Shorts 360 SD360-1 PT6A-65R PT6A6R Most Popular Engine in Ascend

De Havilland DHC8-100 Dash-8 DHC8Q-1 PW120A PW120A Most Popular Engine in Ascend

De Havilland DHC8-200Q Dash-8 DHC8Q-2 PW123D PW123D Most Popular Engine in Ascend

De Havilland DHC8-300 Dash 8 DHC8Q-3 PW123 PW123 Most Popular Engine in Ascend

De Havilland DHC8-400 Dash-8 DHC8Q-4 PW150A PW150A Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia EMB120 PW118B PW118B Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Saab-Fairchild 340/A SAAB340-A CT7-5A2 CT75A2 Most Popular Engine in Ascend

8
Table 2-3. Engine Assignments by Aircraft Make and Model

Aircraft Make/ Model

EDMS Aircraft 

Code

Engine Make/ 

Model

EDMS 

Engine 

Code Engine Assignment Basis

Saab-Fairchild 340/B SAAB340-B CT7-9B CT79B Most Popular Engine in Ascend

Dornier 328 DO328-1 PW119C PW119C Comparable Engine to Most Popular Engine in 

Ascend

Gulfstream I GULF1 RDa.7 RDA7 One Valid EDMS Aircraft Engine Combination

ConvairCV-580 CV580 501 D13 

alternative 1

501DA1 One Valid EDMS Aircraft Engine Combination

Casa 235 CN235-2 CT7-9B CT79B Typical Engine based on internet search

Shorts 330 SD330 PT6A-45A PT6A4A Typical Engine based on internet search

Aerospatiale/AeritaliaATR-42 ATR42-4 PW121 PW121 Typical Engine based on internet search

Aerospatiale/AeritaliaATR-72 ATR72-2 PW124B PW124B Typical Engine based on internet search

9
Table 2-4. Summary of T-100Activity Data

Aircraft Make/Model

EDMS Aircraft 

Code LTO

Cruising Time 

(minutes) Category

Below the CAEP MTOM Threshold

EurocopterAS350 B2AStar SA350 692 11,058 Helicopter

Beech 1900 A/B/C/D BEECH1900-C 169,145 7,256,113 Turboprop

Beech 200 SuperKingair BEECH200 4,841 131,106 Turboprop

Beech 99 Airliner BEECH99 139 3,723 Turboprop

Beech C99 BEECH99 125 3,600 Turboprop

British Aerospace Jetstream 31 J31 3 230 Turboprop

Casa/NurtanioC212Aviocar CASA212-1 7,841 198,022 Turboprop

Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 233,899 8,004,766 Turboprop

Cessna 406 Caravan II REIMS406 4,367 110,714 Turboprop

Cessna C208B/Grand Caravan CNA208 10,030 457,983 Turboprop

De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 37,245 900,000 Turboprop

Dornier 228 DO228-1 4,585 152,302 Turboprop

Grumman G-21A (Goose) G21G 582 10,860 Turboprop

HelioH-250/295/395 MIL-U10 113 9,996 Turboprop

Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2/A Islander BN2 15,513 146,131 Turboprop

Pilatus PC-12 PC12 15,523 637,144 Turboprop

Quest Kodiak 100 778 25,045 Turboprop

Shorts Harland SC-7Skyvan SC7-3-1 922 16,319 Turboprop

SocataTBM850 TBM-850 66 3,715 Turboprop

Beech King Air C-90 BEECH90 19 1,543 Turboprop

Total 506,428 18,080,370

Above the CAEP MTOM Thresholda

Casa 235 CN235-2 26 3,805 Turboprop

ConvairCV-580 CV580 1,548 135,602 Turboprop

Gulfstream I GULF1 40 3,653 Turboprop

Shorts 330 SD330 898 36,115 Turboprop

Shorts 360 SD360-1 885 14,407 Turboprop

Aerospatiale/AeritaliaATR-42 ATR42-4 7689 310,233 Turboprop

Aerospatiale/AeritaliaATR-72 ATR72-2 14387 549,501 Turboprop

De Havilland DHC8-100 Dash-8 DHC8Q-1 116034 4,795,594 Turboprop

De Havilland DHC8-200Q Dash-8 DHC8Q-2 34930 1,386,025 Turboprop

De Havilland DHC8-300 Dash 8 DHC8Q-3 43494 1,764,646 Turboprop

De Havilland DHC8-400 Dash-8 DHC8Q-4 140083 7,149,258 Turboprop

Dornier 328 DO328-1 1360 44,760 Turboprop

Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia EMB120 128476 5,265,448 Turboprop

Saab-Fairchild 340/A SAAB340-A 1825 173,891 Turboprop

Saab-Fairchild 340/B SAAB340-B 59064 2,955,215 Turboprop

Total 550,739 24,588,154

a Turboprop activity for aircraft above the weight thresholds were used to adjust the GAATA activity data in Section 3. 

10
Emission Factors

Annual LTO emissions were estimated using the FAA’s EDMS (FAA, 2013). The aircraft and 

engine-specific fuel consumption rates and CO2 emission rates from EDMS are summarized in 

Table 2-5.

Table 2-5. Aircraft and Engine Specific Emission Factors from EDMS Run for Aircraft Below 

CAEP MTOM Threshold in T-100 Data

Category Aircraft Make/Model

EDMS Aircraft 

Code

Engine Make/ 

Model

EDMS Engine 

Code

Fuel 

Consumption 

Rate 

(lbs/LTO)

CO2Emission 

Rate 

(lbs/LTO)

Helicopter EurocopterAS350 B2AStar SA350 TPE331-3 TPE3 170 537

Small Turboprop Grumman G-21A (Goose) G21G TPE331-2UA TP2UA 170 537

Small Turboprop SocataTBM850 TBM-850 PT6A-66 PT6A66 130 410

Small Turboprop Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2/A Islander BN2 250B17B 250B17 119 376

Small Turboprop Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114 PT6A14 86 273

Small Turboprop Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 96 301

Small Turboprop De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 PT6A-20 PT6A20 168 531

Small Turboprop De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 PT6A-27 PT6A27 206 651

Small Turboprop Beech 1900 A/B/C/D BEECH1900-C PT6A-65B PT6A6B 275 866

Small Turboprop Beech 200 SuperKingair BEECH200 PT6A-41 PT6A41 231 729

Small Turboprop Beech 99 Airliner BEECH99 PT6A-20 PT6A20 168 531

Small Turboprop Beech C99 BEECH99 PT6A-36 PT6A36 219 691

Small Turboprop Cessna C208B/Grand Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 96 301

Small Turboprop Dornier 228 DO228-1 TPE331-5A TPE5A 185 582

Small Turboprop British Aerospace Jetstream 31 J31 TPE331-10U TPE10U 206 651

Small Turboprop Pilatus PC-12 PC12 PT6A-67B PT67B 153 484

Small Turboprop Cessna 406 Caravan II REIMS406 PT6A-112 PT6112 150 473

Small Turboprop Shorts Harland SC-7Skyvan SC7-3-1 TPE331-2 TPE2 205 648

Small Turboprop Casa/NurtanioC212Aviocar CASA212-1 PT6A-28 PT6A28 206 651

Small Turboprop HelioH-250/295/395 MIL-U10 PT6A-27 PT6A27 83 263

Small Turboprop EADSSocataTBM-700a TBM700 PT6A-64* PT6A64 125 393

Small Turboprop Beech King Air C-90 BEECH90 PT6A-60 PT6A60 264 833

a The LTO emissions for the Quest Kodiak 100 were estimated by applying the fuel consumption rate and CO2emission rate 

from a comparable EDMS aircraft engine combination based on MTOM and engine thrust. The comparable aircraft selected 

was Cessna 208 Caravan.

The cruising emissions for aircraft below the CAEP MTOM threshold were estimated based on 

the annual cruising air time, fuel consumption rates obtained from the manufacture or from 

literature, Internet searches or EDMS fuel-based CO2 emission index. The aircraft and engine 

specific fuel consumption rates used in this analysis are listed in Table 2-6. To calculate the CO2

emissions, the EDMS fuel-based CO2 emission index of 3.15 lbs of CO2 per lb of jet fuel was 

used. Note the EDMS CO2 factors match those used in the 2015 EPA Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.

11
Table 2-6. Aircraft and Engine Specific Cruising Fuel Consumption Rates for Aircraft Below 

CAEP MTOM Threshold in T-100 Data

Aircraft Make/Model

EDMS 

Aircraft Code

Engine 

Make/Model

EDMS 

Engine Code

Fuel 

Consumption 

Rate (lb/min)

Cruising CO2

Emission Rate 

(lbs/min)

Beech 1900 A/B/C/D BEECH1900-C PT6A-65B PT6A6B 8.58 27.03

Beech 200 SuperKingair BEECH200 PT6A-41 PT6A41 10.25 32.29

Beech 99 Airliner BEECH99 PT6A-20 PT6A20 7.40 23.31

Beech C99 BEECH99 PT6A-36 PT6A36 7.40 23.31

Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2/A 

Islander

BN2 250B17B 250B17 3.17 9.99

Casa/NurtanioC212Aviocar CASA212-1 PT6A-28 PT6A28 7.69 24.22

Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114 PT6A14 6.92 21.80

Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 6.92 21.80

Cessna C208B/Grand Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 6.92 21.80

De Havilland Twin Otter DHC6DHC6-1 PT6A-20 PT6A20 9.67 30.46

De Havilland Twin Otter DHC6DHC6-1 PT6A-27 PT6A27 9.67 30.46

Dornier 228 DO228-1 TPE331-5A TPE5A 7.83 24.66

Grumman G-21A (Goose) G21G TPE331-2UA TP2UA 4.51 14.21

British Aerospace Jetstream 31 J31 TPE331-10U TPE10U 10.00 31.50

HelioH-250/295/395 MIL-U10 PT6A-27 PT6A27 7.69 24.22

Pilatus PC-12 PC12 PT6A-67B PT67B 7.40 23.31

Cessna 406 Caravan II REIMS406 PT6A-112 PT6112 7.69 24.22

EurocompterAS350 B2AStar SA350 TPE331-3 TPE3 5.65 17.80

Shorts Harland SC-7Skyvan SC7-3-1 TPE331-2 TPE2 7.69 24.22

SocataTBM850 TBM-850 PT6A-66 PT6A66 5.97 18.81

Beech King Air C-90 BEECH90 PT6A-60 PT6A60 7.33 23.09

Quest Kodiak 100 N/A N/A N/A 5.47 17.23

a Sources for fuel consumption rates can be found in the Reference Section.

Emission Calculations

Base year 2012 fuel use and CO2 emission estimates for aircraft below the CAEP MTOM

threshold were developed by applying the appropriate fuel use and CO2 emission factors to the 

T-100 activity data for both the annual LTO cycle and cruising segment of the trip. The 

emissions were calculated using the following equation:

E = A × EF × CF

Where: 

E = emissions (tons) 

A = activity (number of LTOs or minutes of cruising time)

EF = emission factor (lbs/LTO or gal/hr) 

12
CF = conversion factor 

Jet Fuel density = 6.84 lbs/gallons of jet fuel; 

1 lb = 0.0005 ton; 

1 g = 1.10231 E-6 ton

Example Calculation:

In 2012, for the Eurocopter AS350 B2 AStar, the total annual minutes of cruising time was 

11,058 minutes and the fuel use rate is 5.65 lbs/min.

E = A × EF × CF

E = 11,058 minutes × 5.65 lb/min × 0.0005 ton/lbs

E = 31 tons of jet fuel

The aircraft specific fuel use and CO2 emission estimates for 2012 aircraft below CAEP MTOM

threshold and in T-100 data are summarized in Table 2-7.

Example Calculation:

In 2012, for the Beech 99 Airliner, the total annual LTOs was 139 LTOs and the fuel use rate is 

168 lbs/LTO. 

E = A × EF × CF

E = 139 LTOs × 168 lbs/LTO × 0.0005 ton/lbs

E = 11.7 tons of jet fuel

13
Table 2-7. 2012 T-100 Aircraft and Engine Specific Fuel Use and CO2Emissions for Aircraft Below CAEP MTOM Threshold

Category Aircraft Make/Model EDMS Aircraft 

Code

Engine Make/ 

Model

EDMS Engine 

Code

LTO Cruising Total

Fuel Use 

(tons) CO2(tons) Fuel Use (tons) CO2(tons) Fuel Use (tons) CO2(tons)

Helicopter EurocopterAS350 B2AStar SA350 TPE331-3 TPE3 59 186 31 99 90 284

Turboprop Beech 1900 A/B/C/D BEECH1900-C PT6A-65B PT6A6B 23,222 73,265 31,139 98,244 54,361 171,509

Turboprop Beech 200 SuperKingair BEECH200 PT6A-41 PT6A41 559 1,763 672 2,120 1.231 3,884

Turboprop Beech 99 Airliner BEECH99 PT6A-20 PT6A20 12 37 14 43 25 80

Turboprop Beech C99 BEECH99 PT6A-36 PT6A36 14 43 13 42 27 85

Turboprop British Aerospace Jetstream 31 J31 TPE331-10U TPE10U 0.31 0.98 1.16 3.63 1.46 4.62

Turboprop Casa/NurtanioC212Aviocar CASA212-1 PT6A-28 PT6A28 809 2,554 761 2,401 1,571 4,955

Turboprop Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114 PT6A14 4,238 13,370 11,609 36,627 15,847 49,997

Turboprop Cessna 208 Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 6,486 20,462 16,074 50,714 22,559 71,176

Turboprop Cessna 406 Caravan II REIMS406 PT6A-112 PT6112 327 1,033 425 1,342 753 2,376

Turboprop Cessna C208B/Grand Caravan CNA208 PT6A-114A P6114A 479 1,511 1,584 4,997 2,063 6,508

Turboprop De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 PT6A-20 PT6A20 2,960 9,337 4,109 12,962 7,068 22,298

Turboprop De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 DHC6-1 PT6A-27 PT6A27 214 674 242 762 455 1,436

Turboprop Dornier 228 DO228-1 TPE331-5A TPE5A 423 1,335 597 1,882 1,020 3,217

Turboprop Grumman G-21A (Goose) G21G TPE331-2UA TP2UA 50 156 24 77 74 234

Turboprop HelioH-250/295/395 MIL-U10 PT6A-27 PT6A27 5 15 38 121 43 136

Turboprop Pilatus Britten-Norman 

BN2/AIslander

BN2 250B17B 250B17 924 2,916 231 730 1,156 3,645

Turboprop Pilatus PC-12 PC12 PT6A-67B PT67B 1,190 3,754 2,357 7,438 3,547 11,192

Turboprop Shorts Harland SC-7Skyvan SC7-3-1 TPE331-2 TPE2 95 299 63 198 157 496

Turboprop SocataTBM850 TBM-850 PT6A-66 PT6A66 4 13 11 35 16 48

Turboprop Beech King Air C-90 BEECH90 PT6A-60 PT6A60 3 8 6 18 9 26

Turboprop Quest Kodiak 100 N/A N/A N/A 49 153 69 216 59 630

Total 110,903 354,217

14
3.0 GAATA

Activity

Turbojet/Turbofan

The GAATA activity data include all general aviation and air taxi activities. The percentage of 

aircraft equipped with turbojet or turbofan engines below the CAEP MTOM threshold 

(MTOM<5,700 kg for jets) in the GAATA data was estimated using the FAA’s Registry data 

(FAA, 2014a). Table 3-1 shows the aircraft population breakout based on the maximum takeoff 

weight range from the FAA Registry data:

Table 3-1. FAA Registry Aircraft Population by

MTOM Range

Aircraft Type

Maximum Takeoff 

Weight (kg, 

Range)

Aircraft 

Population

Percent (%) 

of Aircraft 

Populationa

Turbo-jet/Turbofan

Up to 5,669 3,046 16%

5,670 - 9,071 5,478 29%

9,072 and over 10,335 55%

a Percentage of the jet and turboprop population that are Below the CAEP 

MTOM thresholds. 

The GAATA data were adjusted to include only the percentage of jets below the CAEP MTOM

threshold based on the aircraft registration. Note that use of the 16% value likely overestimates 

activity for jets below the CAEP MTOM threshold because aircraft above the CAEP MTOM

threshold are likely to be used more frequently and for longer trips than aircraft below the 

threshold, but the GAATA data does not account for these differences. Efforts were made to use 

the T-100 data to quantify operations of business jets, but the T-100 dataset did not include 

corporate jets not used in commercial passenger travels.

Turboprops

As noted earlier, a number of turboprop aircraft models appear to be included in the T-100 data. 

To avoid double counting between the T-100 and GAATA turboprops, the total T-100 turboprop 

annual LTO and cruising time activity (above and below the threshold) were subtracted from the 

total GAATA turboprop activity. The final adjusted activity data from GAATA are listed in 

Table 3-2.

Helicopters

No adjustment was needed for helicopters because there is no weight threshold for this aircraft 

category. 

15
Table 3-2. Finalized GAATA Activity for Aircraft 

Below the CAEP MTOM Thresholds 

Aircraft Type Annual Cruising Time (Hours)

Small Turboprop 1,924,033

Small Jet 552,104

Helicopter 2,722,511

Total 5,198,648

Emission Factors

Fuel use and CO2 emissions were calculated based on fuel consumption rates in the GAATA data

Survey, listed in Table 3-3, and EPA’s jet fuel CO2 factor, 9.75 kg CO2/gal of fuel (EPA, 2015).

Note that fuel usage reported in the GAATA survey, is provided as block fuel usage, so it 

includes fuel consumption associated with the LTO cycle. The GAATA data aggregate fuel 

usages rates by aircraft type, thus actual fuel usage for specific aircraft may be higher or lower 

than the average values presented in Table 3-3; for example, it is likely that small business jets 

such as the Citation 500 Series would be approximately 125 gallons per hour compared to the 

315.1 gallons per hour value noted in the GAATA average fuel consumption data.

Table 3-3. GAATA Fuel 

Consumption Rates by Aircraft 

Type (Block fuel/Block time)

Aircraft Type

Average Fuel 

Consumption Rate 

(Gallons per Hour

per Aircraft)

Small Turboprop 76.4

Small Jet 315.1

Helicopter 54.7

16
Emission Calculations

Base year 2012 fuel use and CO2 emission estimates were developed by applying the fuel use 

and CO2 factors to the GAATA air time data. The emissions were calculated using the following 

equation:

E = A × EF × CF

Where: 

E = Emissions (tons) 

A = Activity (hours of airtime)

EF = Emission factor (gal/hr) 

CF = Conversion factor 

Jet Fuel density = 6.84 lbs/gallons of jet fuel; 

1 lb = 0.0005 tons; 

g = 1.10231 E-6 ton) 

Example Calculation:

In 2012, for small turboprops, the total annual cruising time was 1,924,033 hours and the fuel use 

rate is 76.4 gal/hr.

E = A × EF × CF

E = 1,924,033 hours × 76.4 gal/hr × 6.84 lbs/gal × 0.0005 tons/lbs

E = 502,727 tons of jet fuel

The fuel use and CO2 emission estimates are summarized in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4. 2012 Fuel Use and CO2 Emission 

Estimates by Aircraft Below the CAEP 

MTOM Thresholds by Type and Mode

Aircraft Type

Total

Fuel Use 

(tons) CO2 (tons)

Small Turboprop 502,727 1,579,844

Small Jet 594,970 1,869,724

Helicopter 509,311 1,600,535

17
4.0 Comparisons

The combined T-100 and GAATA jet fuel CO2 emission estimates are summarized in Table 4-1.

These combined data for aircraft below the CAEP MTOM thresholds are compared to the 

estimates in the U.S. EPA 2015 Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks to quantify the 

fraction of CO2 emissions associated with this group of aircraft relative to U.S. aircraft emissions

(or U.S. jet fuel emissions), excluding emissions from piston-engine aircraft and military aircraft.

Collectively these aircraft account for approximately 2.52 percent of U.S. jet fuel CO2 emissions. 

Conversely aircraft subject to the ICAO CO2 standard (or “U.S. covered aircraft”) would account

for 207,167,221 of the 212,525,619 tons of CO2 or 97.48 percent of U.S. jet fuel CO2 emissions 

in 2012 (excluding emissions from piston-engine aircraft and military aircraft).

Table 4-1. T-100 and GAATA Combined U.S. Jet Fuel CO2 Emissions (tons) Summary for 

2012

Aircraft Type

Commercial 

General 

Aviation Domestic 

Total

International 

Total Total Domestic 

(T-100)

Commercial 

International 

(T-100)

GAATA 

Surveya

Turboprop (less 

than 8,618 kg 

MTOM)

321,784 31,854 1,534,216 1,856,000 31,854 1,887,854

Jet (less than 5,700 

kg MTOM) 0 0 1,869,724 1,869,724 0 1,869,724

Helicopter 284 0 1,600,535 1,600,820 0 1,600,820

Total CO2 (less 

than CAEP MTOM

threshold)

322,068 31,854 5,004,476 5,326,544 31,854 5,358,398

U.S. EPA Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012

Total CO2 Aviation 

jet fuel - domestic 124,891,870 N/A 19,841,603 144,733,474 N/A 144,733,474

Total CO2 Aviation 

jet fuel -

International 

Bunker

N/A 67,792,145 N/A N/A 67,792,145 67,792,145

Total aviation CO2

(tons) 124,891,870 67,792,145 19,841,603 144,733,474 67,792,145 212,525,619

% (less than 

MTOM threshold) 0.26% 0.05% 25.22% 3.68% 0.05% 2.52%

a To avoid double counting, the T-100 commercial activity was removed from the GAATA data.

18
5.0 Backcasting and Forecasting

Before “backcasting” or “forecasting” the 2012 CO2 emission estimates to past and future years, 

an assessment of Ascend data was performed to quantify the fraction of the fleet that was below 

the threshold to determine whether the fraction of jet, turboprop powered aircraft, and helicopters 

below the MTOM thresholds for the ICAO CO2 standards of the aviation fleet remained fairly 

constant over the years leading up to 2012 (Table 5-1). A constant fraction would yield 

reasonable forecast and backcast emission estimates.

Our assessment showed that only the jet population showed a significant change in the fleet, 

increasing from 28 aircraft in 2005 to 477 in 2010. However, even with this increase, the jet 

population still represent only 3 percent of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters below the ICAO 

threshold. Since 2000, these aircraft account for 23 to 25 percent of the fixed wing fleet 

(excluding helicopters). If helicopters are included, then the value increases to 44 to 46 percent 

of the total fleet. This information supports the assumption that the fraction of the fleet below the 

ICAO threshold has remained fairly constant; therefore extrapolation of 2012 data to other years 

based on changes to the total general aviation fleet is expected to provide reasonable estimates. 

Note the 2015 values presented in Table 5-1 represent the current fleet. 

Table 5-1. Historical Fraction of Jets, Turboprop Powered Aircraft, and Helicopters Below the 

CAEP MTOM Thresholds for the ICAO CO2 Standards

Threshold Aircraft Type

Year

1990 2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015

< 8619 kgs Turboprop 4,623 6,253 6,802 6,953 6,899 6,854 6,914 7,092

< 5701 kgs Jets 15 16 28 477 528 587 645 706

All Helicopters 4,962 5,631 6,118 6,414 6,290 6,269 6,153 6,159

Total aircraft below ICAO threshold 

(excluding helicopters)

4,638 6,269 6,830 7,430 7,427 7,441 7,559 7,798

Percent of aircraft below ICAO threshold 

(excluding helicopters)

25% 24% 23% 25% 24% 25% 25% 25%

Total aircraft below ICAO threshold 

(including helicopters)

9,600 11,900 12,948 13,844 13,717 13,710 13,712 13,957

Percent of aircraft below ICAO threshold 

(including helicopters)

51% 45% 44% 46% 45% 45% 45% 44%

Total aircraft in fleet (that use jet fuel) 18,775 26,185 29,321 30,297 30,334 30,356 30,813 31,412

Note that the Ascend data primarily includes commercial and business aircraft powered by jet engines with a seat 

count greater than four. The general aviation data may not be as complete as the commercial aircraft data.

In order to be consistent with the 2015 Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks (EPA 2015), 

historical general aviation jet fuel usage (in terms of British Thermal Units (Btus) from the 

report, was used to develop adjustment factors relative to the inventory year of 2012, for 

backcasting to 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2013 as noted in Table 5-2.

19
Table 5-2. Adjustment Factors for General Aviation Aircraft Based 

on Jet Fuel Energy Consumption

Year

General Aviation Jet 

Fuel Energy 

Consumption (TBtu)1

Adjustment Factor 

(relative to 2012)2

1990 544.566 2.431 

1995 453.669 2.026 

2000 427.013 1.907 

2005 483.735 2.160 

2010 313.523 1.400 

2011 255.837 1.142

2012 223.969 1.000 

2013 271.335 1.212

1 2015 Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks (EPA 2015), actual energy usage may be higher 

because the GA value does not include air taxis equipped with turboprops which are included in 

the commercial jet fuel data.

2 Year 2012 is the reference year, and thus provides a growth factor of 1. The growth factors for 

each of the other years are a ratio of the fuel consumption of the year of interest divided by the 

fuel consumption for 2012 for each aircraft type. Where fuel usage was less than the reference 

year, the values were a fraction less than 1 and where fuels consumption was great than the 

reference year, the growth factors were greater than 1.

To forecast future emissions from jet, turboprop, and helicopter activities below the ICAO 

thresholds, ERG obtained projected general aviation fuel usage data from the FAA’s Aerospace 

Forecast, 2014-2034 (FAA, 2014b). The FAA Forecast projects to year 2034. In order to 

estimate fuel usage for 2040, ERG applied the average annual growth for the period from 2013 

to 2034 to the 2034 fuel data to approximate fuel usage in 2040. These fuel data were used to 

develop the growth factors noted in Table 5-3 that could be applied to the 2012 data to estimate

2020, 2030, and 2040 CO2 emissions. Note that at the time this document was being finalized, 

the FAA posted an updated forecast that provided lower growth rates (FAA, 2015). For example 

2013 – 2034 aggregated growth rates was 1.4 percent, 3.3 percent, and 2.6 percent for turboprop, 

turbo jet, and helicopter respectively; the revised values for 2014-2035 are 1.2 percent, 2.7

percent and 2.8 percent. Therefore the projected growth factors should be considered a high 

estimate for all aircraft types, except helicopters which may be slightly underestimated.

Table 5-3. Growth Factors Based on Forecasted Jet Fuel Energy Consumption

Year

Millions of gallons Growth Factors (from 2012)

Turbo-prop Turbo-jet Turbine 

Helicopter

TurbopropTurbojetTurbine 

Helicopter

2012 208.8 1,077.2 148.9 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000

2020 213.0 1,427.0 182.8 1.0201 1.3247 1.2277

2030 250.2 1,914.6 229.2 1.1983 1.7774 1.5393

2040 301.9 2,545.1 299.3 1.4459 2.3627 2.0101

Table 31 FAA Aerospace Forecast 2014-2034.

20
The backcast and forecast factors presented in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 were applied to the 2012 CO2

emissions to approximate CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2040 in Table 5-4 for aircraft below the 

CAEP MTOM thresholds.

Table 5-4. Backcasted/Forecasted Small Jets, Small Turboprops, and Helicopters (below 

the CAEP MTOM Thresholds) -- CO2 Emissions (tons)

Year

CO2 Emissions (tons)

Small Turbo Total -

prop

Small Jet Turbine Helicopter

1990 4,590,197 4,546,116 3,892,292 13,028,605 

1995 3,824,020 3,787,296 3,242,606 10,853,922 

2000 3,599,329 3,564,764 3,052,078 10,216,171 

2005 4,077,448 4,038,291 3,457,503 11,573,242 

2010 2,642,711 2,617,332 2,240,907 7,500,950 

2011 2,156,469 2,135,760 1,828,594 6,120,824

2012 1,887,854 1,869,724 1,600,820 5,358,398 

2013 2,287,107 2,265,143 1,939,369 6,491,619 

2020 1,925,828 2,476,881 1,965,278 6,367,987 

2030 2,262,170 3,323,221 2,464,123 8,049,514 

2040 2,729,613 4,417,597 3,217,766 10,364,976 

6.0 QA/QC

To ensure the quality of data used in the study and reasonableness of the results, the following 

quality assurance checks were implemented:

• Checked data compilation to ensure that the datasets matched the original data and were 

not corrupted during data transfer. No issues with data transfer or transcription were 

found.

• Compared LTO fuel usage rates to aircraft average data to identify and evaluate aircraft 

that were significantly different for the average values. LTO fuel usage was only used for 

the T-100 data that were applied to EDMS, which includes separate fuel usage data for 

aircraft make/model engine make/model combinations. No alternative LTO fuel usage 

data sources were identified or used in this study.

• Compared CO2 fuel fractions found in EDMS (9.75 kg CO2/gal), the 2008 Climate 

Leaders GHG Guidance (9.57 kg CO2/gal) (EPA, 2008), the 2014 EPA Fast Facts: 

National-Level U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory summaries (EPA, 2014b), and the 2015

Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks report (9.75 kg/CO2) (EPA, 2015). The EPA 

recommended using the 9.75 kg/CO2 because it was based on the most recent data and 

was consistent with the EDMS factor.

21
• Ensured that the LTO data used in the EDMS runs matched the data compiled from the 

T-100 data.

• Compared fuel usage rates for cruising to Project Interactive Analysis and Optimization 

(PIANO) data provided by the EPA. The PIANO fuel usage rate data were only 

applicable for aircraft above the CAEP MTOM threshold and were not used directly in 

this assessment of aircraft below the CAEP MTOM threshold.

• Assessed the fraction of CO2 emissions associated with the aircraft relative to total jet 

CO2 emissions in the 2015 Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks (2015) and Fast 

Facts: National-Level U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory (EPA, 2014).

• Compared the aircraft counts from the GAATA survey, the FAA Registry, and the 

Ascend database.

Table 6-1 shows general QA assessment factors and how they were considered in this study. In 

addition to these internal quality checks, the documentation and data were provided to two 

external reviewers who are experienced with aviation. The external reviewers’ comments and 

observations are documented in a separate report that compiles all comments and revisions made 

to the report. No changes were recommended for the data developed in this study.

22
Table 6-1. QA Summary Table

General 

Assessment 

Factor

Definition How the Factor was 

Considered

Soundness The extent to which the scientific and 

technical procedures, measures, 

methods or models employed to 

generate the information are 

reasonable for, and consistent with, 

the intended application. 

ERG used accepted inventory 

procedures to compile available 

data and calculate emissions. 

The emission calculations 

follow similar methods used in 

the EPA’s 2011 National 

Emission Inventory. 

Applicability and 

Utility

The extent to which the information 

is relevant for the Agency’s intended 

use.

There is no singular data source 

currently available to quantify 

aircraft counts and activity 

levels for aircraft with MTOM 

below the CO2 standard 

thresholds. To get the required 

data, T-100 datasets, which 

includes aircraft make and 

model-specific information were 

used in conjunction with the 

FAA EDMS model to identify 

commercial aircraft below the 

thresholds. GAATA data along 

with aircraft registration data 

were used to quantify noncommercial aircraft (though 

adjustments were needed to 

account for air taxis which 

would appear in both studies.

23
Table 6-1. QA Summary Table

General 

Assessment 

Factor

Definition How the Factor was 

Considered

Clarity and 

Completeness

The degree of clarity and 

completeness with which the data, 

assumptions, methods, quality 

assurance, sponsoring organizations 

and analyses employed to generate 

the information are documented.

Throughout the process, data 

were provided to the EPA to 

show how the datasets were 

being developed, including 

summary comparisons and 

analysis.

The quality checks implemented 

in this study were included in 

the project Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP).

This document, in conjunction 

with the project datasets were 

developed to allow for 

independent replication of the 

procedures used.

Uncertainty and 

Variability

The extent to which the variability 

and uncertainty (quantitative and 

qualitative) in the information or in 

the procedures, measures, methods or 

models are evaluated and 

characterized.

The data used in this study were 

either detailed and specific, such 

as the T-100 and EDMS factors 

or highly aggregated data such 

as the GAATA activity data; 

making it difficult to

quantitatively assess uncertainty. 

To the extent possible, 

information was provided in this 

report to qualitatively indicate 

whether the data over-or underestimated actual fuel usage or 

emissions. 

24
Table 6-1. QA Summary Table

General 

Assessment 

Factor

Definition How the Factor was 

Considered

Evaluation and 

Review

The extent of independent 

verification, validation and peer 

review of the information or of the 

procedures, measures, methods, or 

models.

Internally, data were reviewed at 

critical points of the project to 

insure that data were compiled 

and calculations were 

implemented correctly.

The EPA implemented a 

comprehensive review of the 

report and data; all 

recommended changes were 

included in this final report. 

ICF and an independent 

contractor, RR Aviation 

Services, LLC, provided an 

external review of the

methodology used and

preliminary results. Suggested 

changes were addressed in the 

current version of this report.

25
7.0 References

Air Charter Service, 2003. Shorts SD 330 Cargo aircraft facts. 

http://www.aircharterservice.ae/aircraft/sd330_shorts.htm

Airlines Inform, 2008-2012. ATR 42. http://www.airlines-inform.com/commercial-aircraft/ATR-42.html

Airlines Inform, 2008-2012. Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia. http://www.airlines-inform.com/commercialaircraft/Embraer-120-Brasilia.html

American Museum of Aviation. Convair 580 Technical Specifications. http://www.propliners.com/c580tech.htm

AOPA Turbine Pilot, 2012.TBM 850 By The Numbers. 

http://www.tbm850.com/2014/images/tbm/newsstand/files/2012-01%20AOPA%20Pilot.pdf

ATR, 2014. ATR 72-600. http://www.atraircraft.com/products_app/media/pdf/Fiche_72-

600_septembre%202014.pdf

Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Authority, 2010. Standard Economic Values Guidelines: 

Aircraft Operational Values. 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/acm/256r003.pdf

Aviation English Academy. SAAB 340. http://aviationenglishacademy.com.au/resources/saab-340/

Blackhawk, 2009. Financial Analysis of the Blackhawk King Air 200 XP42 Engine Upgrade. 

http://www.banyanair.com/pdf/conklinxp42-200.pdf

BLM National Aviation Office. EADS CASA CN-235: Preliminary Aircraft Evaluation for SASEB. 

http://www.nifc.gov/aviation/av_documents/av_SASEB/CN235Report.pdf

Bramson, Alan, 1977. Pilot Flight Check: HS 125 Series 700. 

http://www.aeroresourcesinc.com/store_/images/classifieds/456-1.pdf

EPA, 2008. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Module Guidance: Direct 

Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources, EPA430-K-08-004, United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. May 2008. Internet address: 

http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/resources/mobilesource_guidance.pdf

EPA, 2014. Fast Facts, National-Level U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory, EPA 430-F-14-014, May 2014.

EPA, 2015. Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013, EPA 430-R-15-004, April 15, 2015.

FAA, 2012. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, T-100 Forms, 2012.

26
FAA, 2013. Emissions and Dispersion Modeling Systems (EDMS), Version 5.1.4.1. Federal Aviation 

Administration. August. Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ 

headquarters_offices/apl/research/models/edms_model/

FAA, 2014a. Aircraft Registry–Releasable Aircraft Database Download. Federal Aviation 

Administration. September 5, 2014.

FAA, 2014b. FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2014-2034. Internet address: 

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/20

14-2034/

FAA, 2015. FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2015-2035. Internet address:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/20

14-2035/media/2015_National_Forecast_Report.pdf

Flightglobal, Ascend Online Fleets Database, Aircraft and Airline Data, U.S. historical fleet as of 

December 31, 2012, accessed on September 17, 2014, the data files were updated in 2015 to account for 

2013 and current fleet composition. 

Flight International, 1969. In The Air: Beechcraft 99A Airliner. 

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1969/1969%20-%202689.PDF

GAATA, 2013. General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Surveys, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration, FY 2012, December 16, 2013. 

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, 1938. Erection and Maintenance Instructions for Grumman 

Amphibian Model G-21A. http://www.seawings.co.uk/images/manuals/Goose/Grumman%20G21A%20Erection%20&%20Maintenance%20Manual.pdf

Jet Advisors, 2014. Bombardier Learjet 45. http://jetadvisors.com/learjet-45-performance/

Jet Advisors, 2014. Cessna Citation II Performance. http://jetadvisors.com/cessna-citation-ii-performance/

Jet Advisors, 2014. Citation Excel Performance. http://jetadvisors.com/citation-excel-performance/

Jetstream Central. J31. http://www.jetstreamcentral.com/j31/

Lufttransport, 2011. Dornier Do228. 

http://www.lufttransport.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34&Itemid=16

Maritime Air Charter Limited, 2014. BN-2A-21 Britten-Norman Islander. 

http://www.maritimeair.com/islander.php

Pilatus Aircraft. Just The Facts: Pilatus PC-12 NG. http://www.prostarpilatuscenter.com/pdf/PC12_Just_The_Facts.pdf

27
Plane & Pilot, 2010. Helio Courier H-295/395/391, 1955-78, Plane & Pilot, April 16, 2010. Internet 

address: http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/international-aircraft-directory/single-engineaircraft/helio-courier-h-295-395-391.html#.VC1-iGdOWUk

Premier Jet Aviation, 2013. Fairchild Dornier DO-328-120 Performance Specs. http://jetav.com/fairchilddornier-do-328-120-performance-specs/

Quest, 2014. Quest Aircraft, April 2014. Internet address: http://questaircraft.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/Quest_Electronic_Brochure_April_2014.pdf

Twombly, Mark R, 1991. Cessna 208B – Grand Caravan. AOPA. http://www.aopa.org/PilotResources/Aircraft-Ownership/Aircraft-Fact-Sheets/Cessna-208B-Grand-Caravan

Universal Helicopters, 2012. Eurocopter AS350 B2. http://www.uhnl.nf.ca/our-fleet/eurocopter-as350-b2

US NOAA. DeHavilland Twin Otter (DHC-6). http://www.aoc.noaa.gov/aircraft_otter.htm

28
Appendix A. Air Taxi Models by Aircraft Category for EDMS/T-100 Data
Appendix A. Air Taxi Models by Aircraft Category for EDMS/T-100 Data

General Aircraft 

Category

EDMS 

Category Aircraft Model MTOM Cutoff Weight (lbs)

Avg. MTOM 

(lbs)

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Beech Bonanza 35A/C/D/E/G/H/J/K/S/V/ 36A Not Included in regulation 8,750

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Beech Baron (55 Series) Not Included in regulation 5,500

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Beech 65/65A-80/65B-80 (Queen Air) Not Included in regulation 6,100

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Cessna 172 Skyhawk Not Included in regulation 2,450

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Cessna 180 Not Included in regulation 2,800

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Cessna 180A/B Not Included in regulation 2,800

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Cessna 182 Skylane Not Included in regulation 2,800

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Cessna 185A/B/C Skywagon Not Included in regulation 2,800

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Cessna C206/207/209/210 Stationair Not Included in regulation 3,000

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Cessna C-402/402A/402B Not Included in regulation 6,100

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Aero Commander (500/600 Series Excpt 680FL) Not Included in regulation 6,100

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine De Havilland DHC2 Beaver Not Included in regulation 2,100

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine De Havilland DHC3 Otter Not Included in regulation 8,000

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Piper PA-23-250 (Aztec/Apache) Not Included in regulation 6,100

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Piper PA-31 (Navajo)/T-1020 Not Included in regulation 6,100

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Piper PA-32 (Cherokee 6) Not Included in regulation 3,000

Piston powered aircraft Piston Engine Piper PA-34/39 (Twin Commanche) Not Included in regulation 6,100

Helicopter Light Helicopter Eurocompter AS350 B2 AStar No Minimum MTOM 2,250

Large Business Jet Business Jet Bombardier BD-100-1A10 Challenger 300 12,566 36,000

Large Business Jet Business Jet Cessna Citation II/ Bravo 12,566 14,800

Large Business Jet Business Jet Cessna 510 Mustang/560XL Citation Excel 12,566 14,800

Large Business Jet Business Jet Cessna Citation X Model 650/550B/550XL 12,566 20,000

Large Business Jet Business Jet Cessna CE-680 Citation Sovereign 12,566 20,000

Large Business Jet Business Jet Cessna Citation X Model CE750 X 12,566 35,700

Large Business Jet Business Jet Dassault Falcon 2000 12,566 35,700

Large Business Jet Business Jet Dassault Falcon 2000EX 12,566 35,700

Large Business Jet Business Jet Dassault-Breguet Mystere-Falcon 12,566 28,700

A-1
Appendix A. Air Taxi Models by Aircraft Category for EDMS/T-100 Data

General Aircraft 

Category

EDMS 

Category Aircraft Model MTOM Cutoff Weight (lbs)

Avg. MTOM 

(lbs)

Large Business Jet Business Jet Dassault Falcon 7X 12,566 35,700

Large Business Jet Business Jet Dassault Falcon 900 12,566 19,200

Large Business Jet Business Jet Gulfstream G150 12,566 23,500

Large Business Jet Business Jet Gulfstream G200 12,566 36,000

Large Business Jet Business Jet Gulfstream Aerospace G-III/G-IV 12,566 74,600

Large Business Jet Business Jet Gulfstream G450 12,566 74,600

Large Business Jet Business Jet Gulfstream III/V/ G-V Exec/ G-5/550 12,566 90,500

Large Business Jet Business Jet Hawker Siddeley 125 12,566 18,300

Large Business Jet Business Jet Raytheon Beechcraft Hawker 800XP 12,566 28,700

Large Business Jet Business Jet 1124A Westwind II 12,566 23,500

Large Business Jet Business Jet Learjet45 12,566 18,300

Large Business Jet Business Jet Raytheon Beechraft 390 Premier I 12,566 14,450

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Boeing 717-200 12,566 121,000

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Canadair CL-600 Challenger 12,566 36,000

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Canadair (Bombardier) Challlenger 601 12,566 43,100

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Bombardier Challenger 604/605 12,566 36,000

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Canadair RJ-100/RJ-100ER 12,566 59,250

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Canadair RJ-200ER /RJ-440 12,566 59,250

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Bombardier BD-700 Global Express 12,566 82,500

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Canadair RJ-700 12,566 82,500

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Bombardier CRJ 705 12,566 84,500

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Canadair CRJ 900 12,566 82,500

Large Business Jet Regional Jet

McDonnell Douglas DC9 Super 

80/MD81/82/83/88 12,566 114,000

Large Business Jet Regional Jet McDonnell Douglas DC-9-15F 12,566 114,636.3636

Large Business Jet Regional Jet McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 12,566 114,636.3636

Large Business Jet Regional Jet McDonnell Douglas DC-9-40 12,566 114,636.3636

Large Business Jet Regional Jet McDonnell Douglas DC-9-50 12,566 114,636.3636

A-2
Appendix A. Air Taxi Models by Aircraft Category for EDMS/T-100 Data

General Aircraft 

Category

EDMS 

Category Aircraft Model MTOM Cutoff Weight (lbs)

Avg. MTOM 

(lbs)

Large Business Jet Regional Jet McDonnell Douglas DC9 Super 87 12,566 116,671.4286

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Embraer-135 12,566 45,420

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Embraer-140 12,566 45,420

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Embraer-145 12,566 45,420

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Embraer 170 12,566 43,100

Large Business Jet Regional Jet Embraer 190 12,566 133,500

Large Turboprop Turboprop Antonov 12 19,000 155,000

Large Turboprop Turboprop Aerospatiale/Aeritalia ATR-42 19,000 36,200

Large Turboprop Turboprop Aerospatiale/Aeritalia ATR-72 19,000 46,000

Large Turboprop Turboprop Casa 235 19,000 27,300

Large Turboprop Turboprop Convair CV-580 19,000 58,000

Large Turboprop Turboprop McDonnell Douglas DC-6A 19,000 106,000

Large Turboprop Turboprop De Havilland DHC8-100 Dash-8 19,000 34,500

Large Turboprop Turboprop De Havilland DHC8-200Q Dash-8 19,000 43,000

Large Turboprop Turboprop De Havilland DHC8-300 Dash 8 19,000 43,000

Large Turboprop Turboprop De Havilland DHC8-400 Dash-8 19,000 43,000

Large Turboprop Turboprop Dornier 328 19,000 30,843

Large Turboprop Turboprop Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia 19,000 26,433

Large Turboprop Turboprop Gulfstream I 19,000 46,500

Large Turboprop Turboprop British Aerospace (Hawker-Siddeley) BAe-748 19,000 46,500

Large Turboprop Turboprop Saab-Fairchild 340/A 19,000 27,300

Large Turboprop Turboprop Saab-Fairchild 340/B 19,000 27,300

Large Turboprop Turboprop Shorts 330 19,000 22,900

Large Turboprop Turboprop Shorts 360 19,000 22,900

Small Turboprop Turboprop Beech 1900 A/B/C/D 19,000 16,950

Small Turboprop Turboprop Beech 200 Super Kingair 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Beech King Air C-90 19,000 12,500

A-3
Appendix A. Air Taxi Models by Aircraft Category for EDMS/T-100 Data

General Aircraft 

Category

EDMS 

Category Aircraft Model MTOM Cutoff Weight (lbs)

Avg. MTOM 

(lbs)

Small Turboprop Turboprop Beech 99 Airliner 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Beech C99 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2/A Islander 19,000 6,550

Small Turboprop Turboprop Casa/Nurtanio C212 Aviocar 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Cessna 208 Caravan 19,000 11,200

Small Turboprop Turboprop Cessna C208B/Grand Caravan 19,000 11,200

Small Turboprop Turboprop De Havilland Twin Otter DHC-6 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Dornier 228 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Grumman G-21A (Goose) 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop British Aerospace Jetstream 31 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Helio H-250/295/395 19,000 3,000

Small Turboprop Turboprop Pilatus PC-12 19,000 8,750

Small Turboprop Turboprop Cessna 406 Caravan II 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Shorts Harland SC-7 Skyvan 19,000 12,500

Small Turboprop Turboprop Socata TBM850 19,000 9,900

A-4