CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

1 

### ICAO COMMITTEE ON A VIATION ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION WORKING GROUP 3 - EMISSIONS TECHNICAL

6th Meeting 

### 1 - 3 April 2009 London, UK Draft Report of 6th Meeting Plenary Sessions Presented by Rapporteurs 1 Welcome Curtis Holsclaw, Co
- Rapporteur of WG 3 to ok the chair and welcomed members and guests to the fifth meeting under the CAEP8 work programme. New members were Marcelo Saito (ANAC, Brasil) who attended with Cesar Hess and will be replacing him in future meetings and Mr Matthew Spears (EPA, USA) 2 Administration 2a Attachment A to this report lists the attendees. The current membership list [ IP6 - 01 ] was circulated for attendance recordkeeping and amendment as necessary. 2b The Rapporteurs reviewed the schedule [WP 6 - 01 ], noting the initial Plenary was intended to handle the bulk of the working group activities and that the mini
- Plenary sessions following each of the Task Group [TG] meetings would be held to handle any W G3
- level business related to outcomes of those task group meetings. 2c The meeti ng approved the Agenda [WP 6 - 02 ]. 2d Attachment B to this report and IP6 - 02 provide a complete list of papers. Attachment C lists the actions resulting from this meeting. Attachment D and FL6 - 03 provides the initial response to GIACC/3 requests
3 Fifth Meeting of WG3 (November 2009,Tokyo, Japan) 3a Ap proval of Minutes The draft report of the fifth meeting of W G3 in Tokyo [WP 6 - 03 ] had been circulated and a number of comments received. The substantive ones were: Section 8.4: Delete paragraphs 8.4.1 & 8 .4.2 Section 8.7: Need to harmonise the wording relating to a CO 2 standard with the amendment noted earlier in section 3.1 of W P6 - 03 relating to the minutes of the Montreal meeting [W P5 - 03], ie that the text regarding a ‘CO2 standard’ is not to be interpreted as an aviation CO2 certification standardCA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

2 The meeting accepted the proposed changes together with the minor editorial revisions throughout the paper and approved the final version. 3b Actions & Matters arising 3.1 All actions listed in Attachment C to WP 6 - 03 had been completed, with the exception of action 5.4 which would be addressed by CTG during this meeting. 3.2 It was noted that ICCAIA had developed three NOx scenarios and provided them to MO DTF in late 2008 for use for Environmental Goals m odelling purposes. Although LTTG had accepted them during the course of scheduled Ad
- hoc telecon discussions and further discussed them in Tokyo, WG 3 had not formally accepted them. WP 6 - 17 sets out the details and a number of recommendations on how MODTF should implement these scenarios. WG 3 accepted this document for the record. 3.3 In addition, two other more extreme scenarios had been proposed by government members of WG 3 and passed to MODTF for use. 3.4 The feedback from MODTF was that all these proposals were easy to implement, but queried why, in the ‘government’ scenarios’, when there was a high fuel improvement factor, there was no NOx improvement. 3.5 In discussion, it was suggested that since these government’ scenarios assumed the realis ation of all research goals, then there should be both a fuel and NOx improvement factor applied and proposed that the ICCAIA best NOx factor should be taken. ICCAIA stressed that these scenarios were not supported by industry and that it was up to the me mbers who made the proposals to decide the response. It was agreed that the government representatives would discuss this and report back to the group by the end of the week. Action 6.1: Convene group to review NOx improvement factors to be applied in ‘g overnment’ scenarios and to report back to WG 3 by Friday. [CJE] 3.6 The outcome of this further discussion was presented in FL6 - 01 . The recommendations were that, W G3 should: i) note that ICCAIA retain their position that fuel and NOx technology scenarios should be limited to the technology improvements previously recommended by ICCAIA. ii) note that the W G3 members associated with the “Government” scenario recommend the NOx scenario associated with the “advanced” technology scenario also be used for the “Gover nment” scenario iii) pass the recommendation in (ii) to MODTF

. WG 3 accepted these recommendations. Action 6.2: To pass the recommendation (ii) on NOx improvement factors on to MODTF. [CJE] 4 Requests from the Third Meeting of GIACC [WP6 - 09 (App A), WP6 - 10, WP6 - 11, WP6 - 17 , IP6 - 07 ] 4.1 The CAEP Secretariat presented the WP 6 - 09 part that related to the GIACC/3 meeting. Section 2 reviewed the meeting and Appendix A provided t he Summary of Tasks requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP. WG 3 was requested to consider the items requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP in paragraph 2.3 and 2.4 and in the Appendix A, in particular the item 2, 3 and 5 of the Appendix A for CAEP W G3, in order to prepare the initial view andCA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

3 necessary deliverables of CAEP W G3 for these items (e.g. re lated issues, challenges and work plan for CAEP/9 cycle), in time for GIACC/4 meeting on 25
- 27 May 2009. 4.2 In clarification, it was pointed out that the 1 st column of Appendix A was the specific request as developed by GIACC/3. The 2 nd column was the ‘ initial interpretation’ by the CAEP Secretary that had been re
- presented to GIACC/3 and accepted by them. W G3 was also free to add its interpretation of the requests and its response would be taken into discussion at the Steering Group in June 2009. CA EP had not yet accepted the requests - they would essentially be CAEP/9 work items. 4.3 The three specific requests are considered further below. 4a. Efficiency

metric that takes into account alternative fuels 4.4 Discussion on this topic was deferred to Agenda item 9f (Report of the Fuel Efficiency Metric [FEM] ad - hoc group). 4b Fuel conversion factors between existing fuels and potential biofuels 4.5 A number of the considerations were also part of the FEM discussions. If this was primarily aimed at assessing life cycle differences then it was not a WG 3 activity. S ources outside of CAEP such as CAAFI, SWAFEA were already addressing these. However, if it was requesting CO 2 emissions factors then this simply required knowledge of the fuel compositio n; it was pointed out that while the CO 2 may be the same, the HC composition might be significantly different and that would be an issue for W G3. 4c The question of setting a CO 2 standard [WP6 - 10, WP6 - 11 , IP6 - 07 ] 4.6 WP6 - 10 presented by ICSA reviewed op tions for a carbon intensity metric for new aircraft. Any useful metric should recognise and reward technical progress and could be different for different functions eg freight (mass) or passengers (numbers). The preferred options were for an ATK /ASK ba sis, arguing that a TOW base did not distinguish between fuel burnt (a) to move the airframe weight (b) to carry fuel and (c) to move payload. The paper also proposed that the diversity of function for various aircraft could be handled either by setting s eparate standards for different aircraft types, or by establishing a sales and activity-weighted intensity target for individual manufacturers. Given sufficient priority by WG 3, it was believed that a suitable metric could be developed in time to recomme nd an airframe CO2 standard within the CAEP/9 work cycle. 4.7 ICCAIA acknowledged the high level of technical understanding by ICSA and agreed that development of a CO 2 standard had more chance of success if it was focussed on new aircraft types rather th an on in - service ones. No comment was offered on the metric proposals at this time. 4.8 In discussion the following points were raised:

 All metrics are, to some degree, imperfect. Weneed the best metric we can find, for which any perverse consequences are small in CO2 terms. Also the change in the political climate gave opportunities to reconsider previous thinking.

 There was need for consistency between freight and passenger. Conversion factors for passenger weights vary. It was noted that any metric has a specific use and couldn’t necessarily be applied across the board.CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

4  There would be need for a body of documentation to underpin any decision in CAEP/9

 Care needed to be taken that both policy and technical perspectives are considered appropri ately. 4.9 Following this the Rapporteurs proposed that further discussion of this should be remitted to CTG. The group accepted this recommendation. Action 6.3: To consider the ICSA proposals in scoping the work required to develop a CO 2 standard [CTG] 4.10 WP 6 - 11 from ICCAIA addressed issues arising from an earlier FAA proposal [Nov 2008] that “ given the previous difficulties in developing a sophisticated parameter and scheme for the whole aircraft .......there may be options to consider that focus solely on the engine in a similar manner as the current LTO cycle gaseous emissions standards... “. At that meeting, ICCAIA stated “An engine based standard would be detrimental or counter productive to improved aircraft performance. Also previous W G3 work on a lternative emissions methods, during CAEP5 and CAEP6 had already pointed out potential adverse consequences from an engine based standard” 4.11 ICCAIA had considered the specific suggestion to base an efficiency parameter solely on the engine, and the s uggestion to use LTO data for an efficiency parameter, in terms of CO 2 emissions. It was concluded that an engine - only based efficiency parameter was unlikely to be a fair and useful means to judge the relative merits of different products. A poorly defin ed efficiency parameter could influence manufacturers to optimize designs to unrealistic requirements. Additionally, thrust and fuel flow rate data from ICAO emissions certification tests at sea level static conditions were not representative of in
- service efficiency over a full flight cycle. ICCAIA asked for W G3 endorsement of these conclusions. 4.12 There was support for the view that a CO 2 standard should be aircraft based, but the UK suggested that if there were no prospect of this then an alternative approach would be needed. It was stated that LTO fuel / thrust was clearly not appropriate, but possibly some factoring of these for flight conditions might be considered. ICCAIA pointed out that the complexity of the factoring would make this extremel y difficult. 4.13. In response to a comment that LTO fuel was reasonable for characterising block fuel for RJs, even if not for large wide body aircraft, it was noted that the trades would vary with aircraft sizes. 4.14 IP6 - 07 provided a Collection of pa st CAEP material on CO 2 Standard and Aircraft Efficiency Parameters 4.15 WG 3 accepted the conclusions presented in W P6 - 11. 4.16 The Rapporteurs reminded the meeting that WP 6 - 09 had requested WG 3 to consider the items requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP in paragraph 2.3 and 2.4 and in the Appendix A, in particular the item 2, 3 and 5 of the Appendix A and prepare the initial view and necessary deliverables of CAEP WG3 for these items, in time for GIACC/4 meeting on 25
- 27 May 2009. This would need input from CT G and the FEM ad
- hoc group. Action 6.4: Develop the initial response on GIACC/3 requests and report back to WG 3 by Friday for approval. [Rapporteurs]CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

5 4.17 A draft of this response was further discussed /amended at the end of the meeting and the final version is given in Appendix D to this report [also as FL6 - 03 ]. Action 6.5: Forward initial response of W G3 to GIACC/3 requests to CAEP Secretariat by end of April [Rapporteurs] 5 Reports from LTTG [WP6 - 04, WP6 - 05, WP6 - 06 , IP6 - 03 ] 5a IE Initial report on F uel Burn Reduction Technology Workshop [WP6 - 04, WP6 - 05] 5.1 The ICCAIA led W orkshop had taken place in the previous week. The FBRT Independent Experts (IEs) had prepared an initial paper (presented by LTTG lead in absence of IE Chairman). 5.2 I n summary, the IEs noted that the Wo rkshop represented a good start for their task to discharge the SG remit to provide technology goals for fuel burn reductions over a 10 and 20 - year timeframe. However, in their view:  the Industry 20 year technology proj ections were weak  few technologies discussed were at a low TRL and therefore there appeared little continuity between near medium and long term technologies  there was no indication of probability of success  the EC presentation on European research projects offered no substantive information on LT technology goals In general, more (quantified) information was needed and therefore the IEs could not offer views on precise quantitative goals at this stage, but it should be possible to indicate broad regions fo r long term technology goals (using uncertainty bands) for an agreed range of different aircraft classes The IEs will be preparing a report for presentation at the SG meeting in Brazil, June 2009, with recommendations relating to a formal technology revie w for fuel burn reductions in 2010. 5.3 In response ICCAIA was strongly of the opinion that the IEs had treated the W orkshop as if it was the Review; their expressed views did not appear to match what ICCAIA believe they had offered. There was a need for urgent interaction to address any differences of expectations. Also, ICCAIA was unsure whether there was an adequate spread of expertise among the IEs. ICCAIA noted that it would not be easy to provide all the data requested owing to its commercially se nsitive nature and that this would be unlikely to change in the near future. 5.4 WG 3 noted the initial report from the IEs and the concerns expressed by ICCAIA and recommended that ICCAIA interact with the IEs promptly to find ways of addressing these iss ues. W G3 asked that the IEs provide a more formal paper within 2 weeks. Action 6.6 FBRT IEs to provide written paper to W G3 on Wo rkshop [LTTG Lead] Action 6.7 ICCAIA to interact with IE group to address data concerns and expectations 5b IE Initial report on the NOx Emissions Technology Goals Review / update [WP6 - 06]CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

6 5.5 The Independent Expert (IE) NOx goals update review took place in the 2 days prior to WG 3 and as such only a very simple verbal overview statement was available (presented by LTTG lead i n absence of IE Chairman). In summary, the IEs:  had considered all inputs, capturing the time scales for reporting to CAEP/8  had reviewed progress towards the goals set 3 years ago;  reviewed the status of science understanding
- believing that there was even more compelling need for control of NOx than appeared evident 3 years ago.  thought that within a year the goal as defined in 2006 would be attained  thought that there was a need to monitor the relationship between LTO NOx and cruise NOx  expressed appreciation to ICCAIA for the excellent input.  Wo uld put further questions directly to ICCAIA and RFP/SFPs. At the last review the IEs indicated that a goal is reached when one or more products cross the goal line. The IEs feel that a refinement to that assu mption may be warranted, as it may not adequately cover engine families. 5.6 WG 3 accepted this brief report and requested that the IEs provide a written paper within 2 weeks. Action 6.8 NOx IEs to provide written paper to W G3 on Goals review / update [LT TG Lead] 5c Fuel Consumption Scenarios [ IP6 - 03] At the W G3/LTTG meeting in Nov 2009, ICCAIA had presented a paper on 2 scenarios of new and in - production aircraft fuel burn improvement over time, to go with “Scenario 1” from the 1999 IPCC Special Report On Aviation And The Environment. As an interim status to the Fuel Burn Technology Goals Review Process, that paper summarized the on - going industry technology developments, which were being transitioned in the near future to upcoming products or were be ing studied for next
- generation aircraft, in support of the fuel burn scenarios identified for the MODTF exercise. IP6 - 03 by ICCAIA provided further background information on how the two new fuel consumption scenarios were developed. 6 Reports from CETG (WG3 Plenary and Mini Plenary) [WP6 - 07, WP6 - 18, WP6 - 19 ] 6.1 Plenary [WP 6 - 07 ] 6.1.1 The CETG Leader reported on progress to date on its assigned remits. E.05.1.a) Evaluate and document non -volatile PM measurement procedures , which, if appropriate, could be used in a certification methodology. DONE

– draft AIR 5892 from E
- 31 up for vote late 2008/early 2009. E.05.1.b) Develop measurement and sampling techniques for volatile PM emissions. No longer a deliverable for CAEP8. E.05.1.c) Validate and improve FOA methodology. Ongoing with PM ad hoc group. E.05.2 Further characterize LTO PM emissions reflecting state
- of
- the - science. Initial draft delivered this meeting from RFP/SFPs. E.05.3 Monitor latest understanding of PM impacts on both LAQ & climate c hange. Initial draft delivered this meeting from RFP/SFPs. E.05.4 Assess the data required for environmental impact studies of aircraft particle emission on the upper atmosphere and provide data (e.g., emissions factors), including uncertainties, for gl obal emissions inventories of particles based upon ground
- based and other measurement data. Initial draft delivered this meeting from RFP/SFPs.CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

7 E.08.4 APU emissions. Ongoing with Emissions Methodology ad hoc group. E.09.1 Review trends in aviation ke rosene fuel supply composition. Ongoing with ICCAIA. E.09.2 Promote improved understanding of the potential use and emission effects of alternative fuels. Ongoing with ICCAIA/IATA. E.09.3 Wo rkwith CRC, ASTM, and other appropriate bodies to further eva luate the costs and benefits of a potential policy to remove sulphur from jet fuel. Ongoing with ICCAIA/IATA

. E.10 Support W G2/TG4 with emissions methodologies for ICAO/CAEP Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. Ongoing with Emissions Methodology ad hoc group. E.11 Support MODTF as requested. Ongoing on an as needed basis. Most of the remit items have been progressed via ad
- hoc groups’ telecons and would be discussed further at this meeting. WG 3 noted the progress to date. 6.2 Mini - Plenary [WP 6 - 18, WP 6 - 19 ] CETG raised 3 items to W G3 for consideration / approval as follows: a. Emissions vs thrust relationship for airport inventory work [WP 6 - 18] 6.2.1 WG 2/TG4 had requested guidance from WG 3 “whether a linear fit between the 85% and 30% ICAO th rust setting modes is the best method for estimating emissions indices”. The CETG has concluded work on this as documented by CETG6 WP 05 [taken as WP 6 - 18 in WG 3]. For thrusts down to 60%, the recommendation was to use a twin quadratic to estimate fuel fl ow from thrust, followed by the use of existing methods to estimate emissions from fuel flow. This advice was applicable for the purposes of calculating aircraft emissions inventories. CETG also requested that W G2
-TG4 adhered to the precise language witho ut further methodological embellishments. WG 3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this to WG 2/TG4, for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance document Action 6.9: Provide WG 2 TG4 with the guidance material on emissions ve rsus thrust relationship, including the language caveats, as provided in Appendix A to CETG6 WP 05 [W G3
-WP 6 - 18] for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. [Rapporteurs] b. Guidelines For Including Effects Of Ambient Conditions And Forwa rd Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using Advanced Modelling Methods [WP 6 - 19] 6.2.2 Preliminary guidance on such effects had already been produced by ICCAIA and included in the ICAO Air Quality Guidance Manual. However, this guidance was based upon the ‘Simple’ approach. W G2 has also requested a statement providing some guidance for modellers who wish to use an ‘Advanced’ approach. The CETG has concluded work on this, as documented by CETG6 W P07 [taken as W P6 - 19 in W G3]. This paper discussed how corrections for ambient conditions and forward speed effects might be applied to calculation methods for aircraft emissions categorized as Advanced according to the WG 2 draft guidance on airport air quality calculations. General considerations that apply to a ll Advanced models were discussed, and then Advanced Options B and A were considered individually. Advanced Option B was conceptually easier to adjust for these effects than Advanced Option A, because the performance models that underlie Advanced Option B should already be capable of considering them. CETG recommended the preferred use of option B and also laid out some important caveats for modellers using any Advanced method.CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

8 WG 3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this to WG 2/TG4, for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance document Action 6.10: Provide WG 2 TG4 with “Guidelines For Including Effects Of Ambient Conditions And Forward Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using Advanced Modelling Methods” as provided in CETG6 WP 07 [W G3
-WP 6 - 19] for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. [Rapporteurs] c. Remit item E.09.1: Fuel composition and emissions effects; review trends in aviation ke rosene supply composition. 6.2.3 A Status report on this item is a d eliverable for SG2009. However, in view of other priority work, ICCAIA had asked that this be deferred to CAEP/8. WG 3 accepted this request. Action 6.11 WG 3 report to SG2009 to reflect approval of ICCAIA request to defer delivery of remit item E.09.1 re port until CAEP/8 [Rapporteurs] 7 Reports from CTG (WG3 Plenary and Mini Plenary) [WP6 - 08, WP6 - 14, WP6 - 15; WP6 - 16 & WP6 -20 ] 7.1 Plenary [WP 6 - 08, WP 6 - 14, WP 6 - 15; WP 6 - 16 ] 7.1.1 The CTG Leader reported on progress to date on its assigned remits [WP 6 - 08 ]

. E.03.2 Technology Interdependencies: Completed E.06 Annex 16, Volume II: Proposals for amendments nearing completion E.07 Environmental Technical Manual: Proposals for updates nearing completion E.08.1 NOx LTO stringency: Completed
- further work no w with FESG and MODTF E.08.2 NOx cruise climb methodology: Now considered as a CAEP/9 future work item E.08.3 Supersonic aircraft emissions: No significant developments
- waiting on WG1 E.12 ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank: V16 issued in Feb 200 9 Most of the remit items have been progressed via the ad
- hoc group’s telecons and would be discussed further at this meeting. W G3 noted the progress to date. 7.1.2 The EPA presented 3 papers [WP 6 - 14, W P6 - 15; W P6 - 16 ] that were within the scope of CTG a nd had not yet been brought to the attention of the group. Since this was also an issue of ‘process’ the Rapporteur stated that while an outline of the papers could be given to WG 3, they would need to be remitted to CTG for fuller consideration before any recommendations could be taken by W G3. 7.1.3 WP 6 - 14 on Production cut- off, made several recommendations related to this topic. The Rapporteur noted that this was a policy issue already under consideration within SG and WG 3 was not the arena for discussi on until SG had given direction on it. The Rapporteurs suggested that the EPA re - present this paper to the SG. Also that WG 3, in its report to SG2009, could note that it had had sight of this document and noted the policy perspective in it. This was accepted. 7.1.4 WP 6 - 15 made many detailed proposals for additions to the emissions Databank. This was remitted to CTG for consideration. Action 6.12: Consider proposals of WP 6 - 15 and report back to WG 3 [CTG] 7.1.5 WP 6 - 16 on revision of exemptions provisio ns within Annex 16 Vol. II, attempted to address a number of questions that had arisen during the CTG ETM ad
- hoc group discussions and made specific recommendations for revision of the exemption language of the Annex. ItCA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

9 was acknowledged that there was a strong link between introduction of a production cut
- off and the need for some exemption provisions. A Rapporteur noted, however, that work on this topic did not imply any decision about a production cut- off. 7.1.6 ICCAIA stated that any data used in su ch analyses should be the latest from the manufacturer and, if necessary, requested between W G3 meetings. EPA believed it could work with ICCAIA concerns and stated that W P6 - 14 was aiming to open a continuing dialogue for mutual benefit. EPA also clarifi ed that the data used was just related to engine types, not taking the proportions of flights into account. 7.1.7 FL6 - 02 was an initial informal response from ICCAIA to W P6 - 14 & W P6 - 16 from EPA. ICCAIA appreciated that the USEPA were once again directly involved in and actively contributing to the CAEP process. ICCAIA believed that the available evidence supported the view that market forces were effective and that manufacturers voluntarily complied with new CAEP NOx standards. ICCAIA recommended that work towards production cut- off provisions for any future CAEP8 standard was premature before CAEP/8. However ICCAIA supported work to include suitable exemption text and guidance in Annex 16 and the ETM and recommended that WG 3 support the inclusion of th is work in the future work programme. 7.1.8 Following these comments and clarification these papers were remitted to CTG for consideration. Action 6.13: Consider proposals of WP 6 - 16 & comments in FL6
- 02 and report back to WG 3 [CTG] 7.2 Mini - Plenary [WP 6 - 20 ] CTG raised 4 items to WG3 for consideration / approval as follows: a. Estimation of PM Emissions from CIS
- Manufactured Engines [WP 6 - 20 ] 7.2.1 At the request of MODTF, CTG had carried out a qualitative assessment of noise and emissions from CIS aircraf t. At CTG (Nov 2009), it was concluded that “CIS operations comprised a small representation of total noise and emissions, although this did vary across different ICAO regions. There was some discussion as to whether PM emissions from CIS aircraft wou ld be disproportionately high due to higher smoke numbers. 7.2.2 This paper presented the analysis of CIS engine PM emissions as calculated from data in the ICAO Emissions Databank V16a (EDB). Data from the FOI database were not used explicitly. However, data on two CIS
- manufactured turboprops were also analysed. 7.2.3 CTG recommended that “For the purposes of supporting the CAEP/8 MODTF Environmental Goals Analysis, based on an approximate assessment based on in
- service engines in the EDB and using FOA3, the estimated PM emissions from CIS
- manufactured engines are likely to be approximately 3 to 4 times those of equivalent non
- CIS engine types for the current fleet. For future fleets, it can be expected that next generation CIS types will produce sim ilar smoke and levels to W es tern types. Total PM emissions will be subject to any fuel sulphur content differences.” 7.2.4 WG 3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this to MODTF for use in CAEP/8 Environmental Goals Analysis.CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

10 Action 6. 14 Provide MODTF with the information on the Estimation of PM Emissions from CIS
Manufactured Engines contained in CTG6
-WP 03 (W G3
-WP 6 - 20). [Rapporteurs] b. CO 2 scoping study 7.2.5 Based on discussions held during the W G3 Plenary meeting, and subsequent input from relevant stakeholders, CTG proposed a way forward on the issue of developing a potential aircraft CO2 emissions certification requirement. CTG recommended that the SG2009 meeting should be provided with references to past CAEP work regarding CO 2 standards and aircraft efficiency parameters, the WG 3 responses to GIACC
-4 and a proposal for a new W G3 work item to scope out this issue in order to inform CAEP/8 discussions and any CAEP/9 work. The scoping work could include a comparison with existin g Annex 16 Vol. II requirements, as well as CO 2 standards in other sectors, in order to inform future workload, metric(s), methodology, applicability and terminology. If the study is agreed by SG2009, WG 3/CTG recommended that WG 3 establish a “CO 2 ” ad
- hoc group to address this issue via telecons prior to the next W G3 meeting. WG 3 accepted the proposal and agreed to bring it to the attention of SG2009. Action 6.15: WG 3 report to SG2009 to include offer of carrying out a scoping study for CAEP/8 on the lik ely work required to develop a potential aircraft CO2 emissions certification requirement. [Rapporteurs] c. Amendments to Annex 16, Volume II and updates to emissions ETM 7.2.6 Final agreements on the Annex 16 Vol. II issues, which had already been resol ved, had been reached at the last meeting. As no comments had since been received from W G3 these were now considered approved. 7.2.7 Two new items had been added to the Annex 16 ad - hoc group remit. The first was to review the Annex 16 humidity measurement requirements which were stricter than those used for performance measurements. This had already caused difficulties in past engine projects. The second item was linked to the ongoing discussions on a potential CAEP/6 production cut- off requirement, and th e need to review paragraph 2.1.1 of the Annex dealing with exemptions. Guidance on evaluating and issuing exemptions was also urgently required within the ETM. In the light of this, W G3 W P6 - 16 from the EPA had been remitted to the ad - hoc group for further discussion. 7.2.8 The latest updates to the ETM had been approved by CTG and were available as Attachment 1 to CTG
-WP6/06. W G3 members were requested to provide any comments by Friday 22nd May. Action 6.16: Provide comments on latest updates of ETM as provided in CTG WP 6/06 by May 22. [All W G3 m em bers] d. Response re EPA W P6 - 15 [Databank] 7.2.9 A CTG Databank ad
- hoc group has been created to address the outstanding issues and to try to incorporate as many of these changes as possible into the next version of EDB
- likely Feb 2010. 8 Follow - on from the CAEP Impacts Workshop [ IP6 - 04] 8.1 IP6 - 04 was a spreadsheet, compiled by the CAEP Secretariat, of recommendations arising from this Wo rkshop, together with a request for each CAEP W G or TF to identify t he levelCA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

11 of resources needed to address each of the recommendations at 3 different ‘Tier’ levels [1
- 3 in increasing complexity and time scales]. The CAEP Secretariat was asking for a ‘fast track’ response as a SG2009 input. 8.2 There was a broad discussi on about this request, including the purpose of such a matrix, what could be considered and the linkage of emissions to impacts, recognising that this could require W G3 to expand its range of expertise considerably. 8.3 WG 3 agreed that an initial response would be identified by a small group of volunteers during this meeting. Action 6.17: Develop an initial response to request related to follow
- on from CAEP Impacts Wo rkshop and report back during this meeting [Ad Hoc group (DL, MG, PM and RI)] 8.4 The in itial response recommended setting up a new group (an Impacts Task Force) within the CAEP framework. WG3 accepted this. Action 6.18: Pass recommendation on formation of an ITF to co
- ordinators of the W orkshop for inclusion in their submission to SG2009. [Rapporteurs] 9 Co - ordination with Other Working Groups, etc. 9.1 Technology

Interdependencies Group (TIG) There was nothing to report. 9.2 Working Group 1 CTG Lead will circulate papers from the WG 1 Supersonic Task Group (SSTG) meeting to be held in Pa ris during April to CTG members. The CAEP Secretariat noted that they have received questions regarding the current status of the certification requirements for engines intended for propulsion at supersonic speeds. There was a request for a progress repo rt on the IE Noise Technology Review. Action 6.19: Request a progress report of the WG 1 IE Noise Technology Review to assist WG 3 FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead] 9.3 Working Group 2 There was nothing from W G2. However an early copy of the ATM IE report would be hel pful for W G3 FBRT IEs. Action 6.20: Request an early copy of the WG 2 ATM IE report to assist WG 3 FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead] 9.4 Modelling and Database Task Force (MODTF) MO DTF is currently performing a second round of modelling. All W G3 stringency options have been used satisfactorily. Environmental Goals issues related to technology improvement factors have been brought to W G3 and resolved [see Section 3.6]. 9.5 Forecasting and Economic Analysis Sub - Group (FESG) There was nothing to report. 9.6 Fuel Effici ency Metric [WP6 - 13 , IP6 - 08 ] 9.6.1 The Fuel Efficiency Metric ad
- hoc (FEMah) group had been established jointly by W G3, WG 2 and MODTF, to address task E.03.b “formulate appropriate fuel efficiency metric(s)CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

12 for use in assessment of CAEP Environmental goal s (MODTF), air traffic operational goals (W G2) and aircraft and engine technology goals (W G3)”. 9.6.2 IP6 - 08 covered the metric for the Environmental Goals assessments only, describing the approach taken by the ad hoc group, the metric developed, the rati onale for its creation and the testing undertaken. The outcome of this was the “Commercial Aircraft System Fuel Efficiency (CASFE)” metric (using fuel mass as the numerator and payload multiplied by distance as the denominator) that reflected that the met ric incorporated the fleet usage and operational factors alongside actual aircraft performance capability. 9.6.3 WP 6 - 13 covered overall progress on task E.03.b and the two issues raised at the Sept 08 Steering Group (Alternative fuels and metric proposed to GIACC). In addition the paper made proposals to address the fuel efficiency requests from GIACC/3 to CAEP. The recommendations to W G3 are listed below: a) Note the clarification to the payload
- weight term shown (Section 2.1) b) Note the potential appl icability of CAFSE to the draft Operations Goals (Section 2.2) c) Note the future work to complete Task E03b (Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3) d) Accept the proposed responses to SG Salvador on the two fuel efficiency metric questions from SG Seattle (Section 3) e) Note the initial FEMah comments on GIACC/3 requests to CAEP (Section 4) and agree a way forward. 9.6.4 Regarding the passenger weight issue it was noted that this only refers to the ‘usefully moved weight’ of the person, not including anything else. The actual weight is currently under review [91 to 100kg]. Additionally there is also the passenger / freight weight conversion term. These are not items for WG 3 to resolve. 9.6.5 The ad - hoc group recognised that metrics were required for different purp oses and that the CASFE fuel efficiency metric had the potential to be adapted or extended for other purposes, potentially including alternative fuels. However, the CASFE metric could not be easily extended to radically different aircraft designs resulti ng from use of fuels very different from current aviation kerosene. 9.6.6 It was confirmed that the GIACC metric was identical in technical format to the proposed CASFE metric and that the application was on a fleet
-wide basis, albeit at National rather t han Global/Regional level. However, the proposed use was outside the current scope of the work of the FEMah Group. 9.6.7 WG 3 accepted the recommendations and proposed that the information should be provided as a WPto SG2009, additional to the main W G3 re port. Action 6:21: Prepare paper on Fuel Efficienc y Metric issues for SG2009 [FEMah group] 10 Other WG3 Business [WP6 - 09, WP6 - 12, IP6 - 05, IP6 - 06 ] a. Update on environmental activities in ICAO and other UN bodies [WP 6 - 09] 10.1 The key issues for W G3 act ion, namely response to GIACC/3, had already been covered in Agenda Item 3 [see paragraph 4.17 and App D]. 10.2 WG 3 noted the future ICAO Conference on Aviation Alternative Fuels [Nov 2009] and outcome of the UNFCCC COP14 [Nov 2008]. Although aviation was not the main item on the agenda of COP, an important development of the Conference had been the publication of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory data for the period 1990

–2006 which reflected,CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

13 inter alia, that international aviation emissions increa sed by 65.9 per cent in Annex I countries. For maritime the growth was reported to be 18.4 per cent. [IEA data based on fuel sales also supported this
- 70% for aviation and 30% for marine] b. Open Rotor Technology [WP 6 - 12 , IP6 - 05, IP6 - 06 ] 10.3 WP 6 - 12 , supported by IP6 - 05 and IP6 - 06, were ICCAIA papers requesting work on emissions regulations for Open rotors and setting out potential issues associated with the emissions certification of such engines. Open rotors are one of several new technologies offering potential solutions for the next generation aircraft, predicted to provide a 25

–30% reduction in specific fuel consumption & CO2 emissions relative to current, equivalent turbofan engines, as well as possible NOx advantages. There are substantial ch allenges associated with open rotors including noise, aircraft integration, certification requirements, accessibility & maintenance, etc

– however it is believed that all can be overcome. 10.4 Current Annex 16, Vol. II certification requirements are not applicable to such technologies because of the markedly different physical configuration. For example, small core sizes pose particular problems of sampling and measurement; ability to feather blades would mean difficulty in defining idle thrust setting. 10.5 Therefore Wo rking Group 3 we re asked to include a recommendation in their report to the CAEP Steering Group that certification procedures be developed for alternative engine architectures, such as open rotors, that may not be able to certify using current procedures in Annex 16 Vol. II

. 10.5 Discussion clarified that likely certification date would be late 2010; cruise NOx is not linked to LTO NOx; rules already exist for noise measurements. 10.6 WG 3 accepted the recommendation for inclusion of t his as a CAEP/9 work item Action 6.22: Propose development of certification procedures for alternative engine architectures, such as open rotors, that may not be able to certify using current procedures in Annex 16 Vol. II as a CAEP/9 work item [Rapporteu rs] c. WG 3 ad - hoc group telecon schedule_090406_v2 This was an updated telecon schedule until end September 2009 11 Preparations for WG3 report to SG2009 The Rapporteurs proposed structuring the report to SG similarly to that presented to earlier SG m eetings ie they would draft the report, looking to the Task Group Leads to provide the sections related to their TG responsibilities. W G3 concurred with this proposal. 12 Next Meeting At the request of the CAEP Secretariat the next meeting is now resche duled for the week Sept 28
- Oct 2, still in Montreal The Rapporteurs closed the meeting with thanks to UK BERR and Peter Newton as LTTG Lead for hosting not only the W G3 meeting but also the FBRT W orkshop and the IE NOx Goals Update meeting during the two weeks.CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

14 Attachment A : ICAO CA EP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group Sixth Meeting: April 1 - 3, 2009, London, UK ATTENDA NCE Name Organisation / A ffiliation Lister, Dave Holsclaw, Curtis Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), UK Federal Aviation Admin istration (FAA), USA Allyn, Dan Andreini, Antonio Arrowsmith, Steve Dantec, Delphine Dikstra, Wi eger Dudebout, Rudy Dodds, W ill Eyers, Chris Gupta, Mohan Hawkins, Betty Herms, Erika Hess, Cesar Hoermann, We rner Husse, Olivier Iovinelli, Ralph Madden, Paul Manzoni, Helene McDonald, Ted McQueen, Ed Miake - Lye, Rick Newton, Peter Plaisance, Christophe Plohr, Martin Rindlisbacher, Theo Rollin, Gilles Roetger, Thomas Rutherford, Dan Ryma n Jenny Saito, Marcelo Sepulveda, Dom Spears, Matthew Tanaka, Tetsuya Wa ys on , Roger Wetzel, Frank Wo rth, Roger Boeing / ICCAIA University of Florence, Italy European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), EU Air France / IATA Ministry of Environment, Netherlands Honeywell / ICCAIA General Electric (GE) / ICCAIA QinetiQ, UK FAA, USA Air Transport Association / IATA EASA, EU ANAC / Brazil EASA, EU Airbus / ICCAIA FAA, USA Rolls - Royce / ICCAIA DGAC / France Transport Canada / Canada FAA, USA Aerodyne, USA BERR, UK Airbus / ICCAIA DLR / Germany FOCA / Switzerland Snecma / ICCAIA IATA ICCT / IC SA Swedish Transport Authority ANAC, Brazil P&W , / ICCAIA EPA, USA ICAO Secretariat Volpe, USA UBA, Germany DfT, UKCA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

15 Attachment B: ICAO CA EP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group Sixth Meeting: April 1 -3, 2009, London, United Kingdom LIST OF PAPERS W P No. Title Ag enda Item Prepared by WP 6 - 01 Final Meeting Schedule 2b Rapporteurs WP 6 - 02 Final Agenda 2c Rapporteurs WP 6 - 03 Draft Report of 5 th WG 3 m eeting

– Tokyo, Japan 3 Rapporteurs WP 6 - 03 (rev) Final Report of 5 th WG 3 m eeting

– Tokyo, Japan 3 Rapporteurs WP 6 - 04 Progress Report from LTTG 5 LTTG Lead WP 6 - 05 Initial Report on the Fuel Burn Technology W ork shop 5a IEs WP 6 - 06 Initial Report on NOx Emissions Technology Goal Review/Update 5b IEs WP 6 - 07 Progress Report from CETG 6 CETG Lead WP 6 - 08 Progre ss Report from CTG 7 CTG Lead WP 6 - 09 Updates on Environmental Activities in ICAO and other UN bodies 4, 10a Secretariat WP 6 - 10 Characterizing the CO2 Intensity of Commercial Aircraft under a

Potential Airframe Standard 4c ICSA WP 6 - 11 Consideration of CO 2 Standards for Aircraft Engines 4c ICCAIA WP 6 - 12 Potential Issues Associated with the Certification of Open Rotor

Engines for Emissions 10b ICCAIA WP 6 - 13 Fuel Efficiency Metric ad
- hoc Group

– Progress Report and

Additional Tasks 4a, 9f FEMah Lead WP 6 - 1 4 Production Cut
- Off 7 U.S. EPA WP 6 - 15 Additions to the ICAO Databank 7 U.S. EPA WP 6 - 16 Revision of Exemption Provisions 7 U.S. EPA WP 6 - 17 NOx Scenarios for MODTF Goals/Trends Analysis 3b ICCAIA WP 6 - 18 CAEP8_

WG 3_CETG6_

WP 05 (Emissions vs Thrust Final) 9 c CETG Lead WP 6 - 19 CAEP8_

WG 3_CETG6_

WP 07 (Forward
-Am bient for Advanced Calcs) 9c CETG Lead WP 6 - 20 CAEP8_

WG 3_CTG6_

WP 03 (CIS Aircraft PM V1_0) 9d CTG Lead IP No. Title Ag enda item Prepared by IP6 - 01 WG 3 Mem bership - updated April 2009 2a Rapporteurs IP6 - 02 Final List of WG 3 Plenary Papers 2d Rapporteurs IP6 - 03 and App Further Information About ICCAIA Fuel Consumption Scenarios 5c ICCAIA IP6 - 04 CAEP Impacts Wo rkshop Recommendations Matrix 8 Rapporteurs IP6 - 05 Wh at is an Open Rotor? 10b Rolls - Royce, GE S necma IP6 - 06 SBAC Aviation and Environment Briefing Papers; Open Rotor

Engines 10b SBACCA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

16 IP6 - 07 Collection of past CAEP material; CO2 Standard and Aircraft

Efficiency Parameters 4c ICCAIA IP6 - 08 Commercial Aircraft System Fuel Efficiency Metric for Use in CAEP

Environmental Goals Trends Assessment 9f FEMah Lead
FL No. Title Ag enda item Prepared by FL6 - 01 NOx Assumptions for the “Government” Environmental Goals

Scenario 3b QinetiQ FL6 - 02 ICCAIA Response to EPA Papers on Production Cut Off (W P6 - 14)

and Engine Exemptions (W P6 - 16) 7 ICCAIA FL6 - 03 CAEP/W G3 initial response to task requests from GIACC/3 to CAEP 4 Rapporteurs FL6 - 04 WG 3 ad - hoc group telecon schedule_090406_v2 10c TG leadsCA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

17 Attachment C: ICAO CA EP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Workin g Group Sixth Meeting: 1 - 3 April 2009, London UK AG REED AC TIONS Action Item No. Item Agenda Item Action by: Timetable [Status as of August 2009] 6.1 Convene group to review NOx improvement factors to be applied in ‘government’

scenarios and to repo rt back to WG 3 by Friday 3b CJE 3 April [Done] 6.2 Pass the recommendation (ii) on NOx improvement factors on to MODTF 3b CJE Asap [Done] 6.3 To consider the ICSA proposals in scoping the work required to develop a CO2

standard 3c CTG 3 April [Done 6.4 Develop the initial response on GIACC/3 requests and report back to WG 3 by

Friday for approval 3 Rapporteurs 3 April [Done] 6.5 Forward initial response of W G3 to GIACC/3 requests to CAEP Secretariat by end

of April 3 Rapporteurs End April [Done] 6.6 Req uest FBRT IEs to provide written paper to W G3 on Wo rkshop 5a LTTG Lead 17 April [Done] 6.7 ICCAIA to interact with IE group to address data concerns and expectations 5a ICCAIA Asap [on - going] 6.8 Request NOx IEs to provide written paper to W G3 on Goals review / update 5b LTTG Lead 17 April [Done] 6.9 Provide WG 2 TG4 with the guidance material on emissions versus thrust

relationship, including the language caveats, as provided in Appendix A to CETG6 WP 05 [W G3
-WP 6 - 18] for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. 6 Rapporteurs Before next W G2 m eeting [Done]
6.10 Provide WG 2 TG4 with “Guidelines For Including Effects Of Ambient Conditions

And Forward Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using Advanced Modelling Methods” as provided in CETG6 WP 07 [W G3
-WP 6 - 19] for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. 6 Rapporteurs Before next W G2 m eeting [Done]
6.11 WG 3 report to SG2009 to reflect approval of ICCAIA request to defer delivery of

remit item E.09.1 report until CAEP/8 6 Rapp orteurs In W G3 report to SG2009 [Done] 6.12 Consider proposals of WP 6 - 14 and report back to WG 3 7 CTG 3 April [Done] 6.13 Consider proposals of WP 6 - 16 & comments in FL6
- 02 and report back to WG 3 7 CTG 3 April [Done] 6.14 Provide MODTF with the informati on on the Estimation of PM Emissions from CIS
Manufactured Engines contained in CTG6
-WP 03 [W G3
-WP 6 - 20]. 7 Rapporteurs Before next MODTF me eting [Done] 6.15 WG 3 report to SG2009 to include offer of carrying out a scoping study for CAEP/8 7 Rapporteurs In W G3 report to SG2009CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

18 Action Item No. Item Agenda Item Action by: Timetable [Status as of August 2009] on the likely work required to develop a potential aircraft CO2 emissions certification requirement. [Done] 6.16 Provide comments on latest updates of ETM as provided in CTG WP 6/06 by May

22. 7 All W G3 me mb ers 22 May 6.17 Develop an initial response to request related to follow
- on from CAEP Impacts

Wo rkshop and report back during this meeting 8 Ad Hoc group 3 April [Done] 6.18 Pass recommendation on formation of an ITF to co
- ordinators of the W orkshop for

inclusion in their submissio n to SG2009. [Rapporteurs] 8 Rapporteurs End April [Done] 6.19 Request a progress report of the WG 1 IE Noise Technology Review to assist WG 3

FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead] 9b LTTG Lead End April [Done] 6.20 Request an early copy of the WG 2 ATM IE report to assist WG 3 FBRT IEs [LTTG

Lead] 9c LTTG Lead End April [Done] 6.21 Prepare paper on Fuel Efficienc y Metric issues for SG2009 9f FEMah group For SG2009 [Done] 6.22 Propose development of certification procedures for alternative engine

architectures, such as open rotors, that may not be able to certify using current procedures in Annex 16 Vol. II as a CAEP/9 work item. 10b Rapporteurs For SG2009 [Done]CA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03 6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final Draft]

19 Attachment D: ICAO CA EP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group Sixth Meeting: April 1 -3, 2009, London, United Kingdom WG3 INITIA L RESPONSE TO TASK REQUESTS FROM GIACC/3 TO CA EP Request 2. CAEP is asked to address the development of a new efficiency metric that takes into account alternative fuels. WG 3 initial response : For kerosene - like “drop
- in” fuels, the d evelopment of any fuel efficiency metric to include emissions from the life cycle of alternative fuels should be approached essentially as a two - part problem. These parts are an efficiency metric (based on fuel properties / aircraft technology / operation al parameters), and a separate analysis taking account of life cycle emissions. CAEP has completed some preliminary work on a Commercial Aircraft System Fuel Efficiency Metric (CASFE). Use of non
- ke rosene - like fuels would seriously impact aircraft design and affect fleet mixes; the current CAEP work has not addressed this matter. Potential CAEP/9 Wo rk Item Request 3. CAEP is asked to consider fuel conversion factors between existing fuels and potential biofuels. WG 3 initial response : Assuming this is purely an issue of the differences in the total life cycle emissions of different fuels, then this is substantially independent of the final user, ie it is not an aviation specific issue. A consistent methodology needs to be used for all energy uses and i s best addressed from the energy supply side. Aviation needs reliable values for fuels that it might use, but does not need to be the developer of the information. Webelieve that these issues are being addressed by sources outside of CAEP such as CAAFI, SWAFEA. This is not a CAEP work item Alternatively, if this question deals with CO 2 emissions factors then this simply requires knowledge of the fuel composition that would need to be provided by the fuel supplier. Request 4. Secretariat is asked to r aise with CAEP the question of setting a CO2 Standard. WG 3 initial response : CAEP has already devoted significant resources in attempting to develop aircraft efficiency parameters and continues work in related areas. Recognizing the importance of this ma tter some major considerations to address the question of setting a CO 2 standard are the following:

 The development of appropriate metric(s) is a key issue that must be addressed as a first step.  Any standard should apply to aircraft, not just engines alo ne.  It may be easier to develop and implement an accurate methodology if it is based upon and solely applicable to new aircraft  It is essential to avoid metrics and methodology that may contribute to perverse incentives and counterproductive influences on aircraft/engine development. Also there is a need to take into account operational considerations in order to avoid unintended consequences  The implications for implementation by certification authorities and manufacturersCA EP8 -WG3 -WP7 - 03

6 th Me eting Report [090914 Final draft]

20  Defining the scope of work could be performed by W G3 to inform CAEP/8 discussion on this issue  The level of work required in setting any potential standard should not be underestimated [note earlier CAEP work of a similar nature on cruise NOx methodology and fuel efficiency parameter] Potential CAEP/9 + Wo rk Item

- END -