Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

1

Public Announcement

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary of Transportation, told the 

public of this Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Environment Subcommittee meeting in 

a Federal Register notice published September 21, 2010 (75 FR 57546).

Subcommittee Members in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)

Bryan K. Bedford

(Subcommittee 

Chair)

President and 

Chief Executive Officer

Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. 

(Republic Airways)

Juan J. Alonso Associate Professor, Department 

of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

Stanford University

Kinney Baxter Attended for Raul Regalado Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority

Brian Brandewie Attended for Cynthia Egnotovich Goodrich Corporation (Goodrich)

Billy 

Glover

Attended for Nicole Piasecki Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing)

Committee Members Not in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)

Cynthia M. 

Egnotovich

Segment President, Nacelles and 

Interior Systems 

Goodrich

Nicole W. Piasecki Vice President, 

Business Development

Boeing

Raul Regalado President and 

Chief Executive Officer

Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

2

Other Officials Present

Name Affiliation(s)

Lynne Pickard

(Designated Federal 

Officer (DFO))

Deputy Director, Office of 

Environment and Energy

DOT/Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA)

Camille Mittelholtz

(Alternate DFO)

Environmental Policies Team 

Leader, Office of Assistant 

Secretary for 

Transportation Policy

DOT

Other Persons Present

Name Affiliation(s)

Steve Csonka Technical Director, Advanced 

Programs and Environment 

Strategy

GE Aviation

Scott Harper FAAC Support PAI Consulting

Jonathan Hoffman Senior Principal Scientist The MITRE Corporation

Krister Holladay Director, Government Affairs Goodrich

Richard Marchi Senior Advisor, Policy and

Regulatory Affairs

Airports Council International–

North America (ACI–NA)

Rick Pyatt Vice President, Government 

Relations

Goodrich

Nancy N. Young Vice President, 

Environmental Affairs

Air Transport Association of America, Inc. 

(ATA)

BACKGROUND AND WELCOMING REMARKS

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

committee formed pursuant to and subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA). The subcommittee and its meetings are likewise subject to the requirements of FACA.

Mr. Bryan K. Bedford, Subcommittee Chair, Republic Airways, called the meeting to order at 

10:34 a.m. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

3

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Mr. Bedford asked Ms. Lynne Pickard, DFO, DOT/FAA, to review the FACA requirements.

Ms. Pickard briefed the subcommittee on the history and purpose of FACA, and noted some of its 

key requirements, including balanced representation and publicly accessible meetings. She outlined 

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

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

Ms. Pickard noted meetings of the subcommittee are accessible to the public. She stated interested 

persons will have the opportunity to submit comments before each meeting, and the minutes of each 

meeting will be made available both in the regulatory docket at http://www.regulations.gov

(Docket number DOT–OST–2010–0074) and on the FAAC Web site at http://www.dot.gov/faac.

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

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

and Federal officials, subject to the discretion of the subcommittee chair. Ms. Pickard added that only 

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

DISCUSSION

Mr. Bedford started the discussion by asking the committee to approve the minutes of the 

August 10, 2010, meeting held in Denver, Colorado. Ms. Pickard stated she wanted to complete some 

minor changes before the minutes are officially ratified. Mr. Bedford put the motion forward that upon 

completion of Ms. Pickard’s changes, the minutes would be approved. He received a second and the 

motion was carried.

Mr. Bedford discussed the last report out and stated the subcommittee has come up with some good 

issues that will result in excellent proposals. He went on to thank the following individuals for their 

efforts in researching and writing the potential proposals: Mr. Billy Glover, Boeing; Mr. Dick Marchi, 

ACI–NCA; Mr. Brian Brandewie, Goodrich; Ms. Nancy Young, ATA; Mr. Kinney Baxter, Metropolitan 

Nashville Airport Authority; and Dr. Juan Alonso, Stanford University.

Efficient Ground Operations

Mr. Bedford turned the meeting over to Mr. Glover and Mr. Marchi to discuss ground operations and 

runway metering. Mr. Glover began by discussing the challenge of making ground operations more 

efficient and reducing ground delays to lessen fuel burn and carbon dioxide emissions. The proposal 

relates to a recent runway closure at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) and its ground 

metering program that reduced ground delays. Mr. Glover reported that the results of the program are 

encouraging, and referred to the House aviation reauthorization bill (H.R. 915) which calls for the 

program to be expanded to five additional public-use airports. He noted the program at JFK showed a 

reduction in fuel usage, carbon dioxide emissions, and delays.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

4

Ms. Camille Mittelholtz, DOT, explained the House reauthorization bill calls for a study of 

five additional airports to test air traffic flow methodologies and procedures. The bill would give a 

maximum of $5 million to each airport for the program and calls for a report evaluating the benefits of 

the program 3 years after the start date.

Mr. Glover stated the proposal can work around this bill. He suggested the Secretary of Transportation 

initiate a pilot program to develop improved ground operational procedures at five public-use airports 

and report the findings after 3 years, consistent with the House bill. Ms. Pickard asked if the use of 

pilot program language was necessary since the program was already done at JFK. Mr. Marchi noted 

JFK’s program was a very ad hoc process. He stated the language in the House bill not only calls for 

the Secretary to run a pilot program, but also to develop the supporting automation software necessary 

to run the program under different conditions at different airports.

Mr. Bedford noted in previous meetings regarding runway metering, it was mentioned that several 

different versions of software were being tested at different airports. He stressed the importance of 

developing a standard methodology for the program. Mr. Bedford added the methodology should be 

developed and adopted throughout the industry even though the procedures might be different at 

different airports.

Ms. Young thought developing a methodology was right because at this stage there is insufficient 

knowledge to point to one standard software program. She believed this pilot study would help in 

developing a methodology to point toward a standard software program. Ms. Young asked if the pilot 

study would include ways to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this program, as well as how to look at 

the tradeoffs of a particular program (for example, improving outbound traffic, but worsening

inbound traffic).

Mr. Bedford agreed, but stated the program also needs to put a value on carbon reduction. He 

commented the proposal would say the pilot program should be adopted, but there also needs to be a 

goal beyond the pilot program. Mr. Bedford added the goal should state, once the pilot program ends, 

there should be a consistent methodology identified and standard software developed. These should be 

usable at all airports and bring a return on capital. 

Mr. Baxter asked if the subcommittee should suggest expanding the proposal beyond the five pilot 

airports. He thought, once the five pilot airport programs have been completed, the proposal could 

include a prioritized list of other airports that could benefit from implementing this program.

Mr. Bedford stated he was uncertain what criteria, besides density, would be used to identify these 

airports. Mr. Marchi suggested redrafting the proposal, based on language in the House bill, to include 

the costs and benefits of the program and a list of recommended airports that can be added after the 

pilot program ends. Mr. Marchi and Mr. Glover volunteered to take on the task of developing a 

specific proposal.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

5

Ms. Pickard asked if new legislative authority is required. Mr. Glover stated that he thought funding 

would require new legislative authority. However, Mr. Marchi noted the bill does not specify that 

funding come from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP); rather, it just directs the Secretary of 

Transportation to conduct the study. Mr. Marchi thought the Secretary could conduct the pilot program 

as an air traffic study. 

Mr. Bedford closed this subject with a clarification of the possible proposal and inclusion of goals at 

the end of the study. He stated the proposal’s goals should include: (1) consistent methodology;

(2) common software tools made available to all users; (3) identification of key elements constituting 

success and these elements’ return on invested capital; and (4) identification of criteria for airport 

selection, based on a preliminary cost-benefit analysis.

NextGen and Related Funding

Mr. Bedford moved the discussion to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)

and related funding. Mr. Brandewie stated the research on this issue was compiled by Mr. Rick Pyatt 

and Mr. Krister Holladay, both from Goodrich. Mr. Brandewie defined NextGen and presented its 

benefits. He discussed some of the key enabling technologies such as Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B), Area Navigation (RNAV), Required Navigation Performance 

(RNP), and Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS). He also mentioned some of the benefits of 

these technologies, such as carbon reduction due to improved fuel utilization, job creation, enhanced 

safety capabilities, and more efficient use of available airspace. Mr. Brandewie pointed out the ADS–B 

mandate for installation at ground stations is 2013, which will happen on schedule and under budget. 

The ADS–B Out mandate for equipage is 2020 for primary airspace in the United States. He suggested 

one of the proposals move up the equipage to sometime earlier than 2020.

Mr. Brandewie noted the cost of implementing these technologies varies. He stated the Aerospace 

Industries Association (AIA) estimates the cost of the infrastructure to be about $15 billion, with a 

range of $6 billion to $20 billion for equipage of all the aircraft. He mentioned the primary systems or

procedures (for example, RNAV for point-to-point capabilities, RNP for closer spacing and airspace 

efficiency, and GBASS for more efficient tracking and scheduling of aircraft) would provide the most

benefit in terms of carbon dioxide reduction and lower fuel costs. 

Mr. Brandewie stressed the following three areas of importance:

1. Economic and employment impact. The plan will drive the nation’s economic recovery and 

stimulate job growth across all sectors.

2. Global competitiveness. In addition to domestic benefits, NextGen will increase demand for 

U.S.-developed air traffic management (ATM) solutions in international markets. This will 

further strengthen the contribution of aerospace to the U.S. balance of trade and create jobs.

3. Environmental impact. Full implementation of NextGen could reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions from aircraft up to 12 percent by 2025.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

6

Mr. Brandewie stated, to accelerate the benefits of a modern air traffic control (ATC) system, it is 

critically important to begin equipping aircraft today. He stated the subcommittee could propose an 

initial investment of $6.4 billion over the next 5 years. This investment would include the following:

1. ADS–B Out (approximately $4.1 billion) upgrades for all Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) part 121 air carriers, including regional jets, general aviation (GA) jets and turboprops, 

helicopters, and the majority of GA pistons.

2. ADS–B In (approximately $0.8 billion) for a small number (less than 20 percent) of aircraft 

currently operating in or expected to operate in ADS–B In pilot locations.

3. RNAV/RNP (approximately $1.2 billion) upgrades to 10 to 15 percent of the civil fleet currently 

not RNAV-capable, to ensure that portion of the civil fleet using the most congested airspace is 

appropriately equipped.

4. GBAS (approximately $0.2 billion) installed at selected airports.

Mr. Brandewie mentioned the common theme was carbon-neutral growth from 2020 and beyond, with

the main issue being the cost of equipage. He reiterated that at the least, ground stations will be ready 

by 2013 and aircraft will be equipped by 2020, in accordance with the current FAA mandate. 

Mr. Brandewie stated distribution of the $6.4 billion could be used as a baseline for a possible proposal 

for accelerating NextGen equipage goals. 

Mr. Bedford asked if the subcommittee proceeded with a proposal around these figures, would it 

address the requirement that aircraft flying into high density airports must have the necessary equipage. 

Ms. Young thought the concern around this issue would be the funding; she also mentioned GA would 

be a major issue. 

Mr. Bedford stated the presentation mentioned a $41 billion impact on the U.S. economy due to delays. 

He added, if this was such a waste, perhaps the Federal Government would be willing to provide the 

funding at a low payback rate to accelerate these savings; then the industry could borrow, equip, cut its 

losses, and pay back the Government. Ms. Young responded the $41 billion impacted the entire 

economy (not just the air carriers), and indirect losses were accounted for in that figure.

Ms. Pickard asked the subcommittee if they knew of other subcommittees working on a similar

NextGen equipage proposal. If so, she suggested that proposals from multiple subcommittees might be 

combined into an overall NextGen proposal. The group thought that the Subcommittee on Financing

and the Subcommittee on Competition were working on a NextGen proposal.

Mr. Bedford asked if any data or studies show the value of a fully implemented NextGen program on

carbon reduction, fuel consumption, or more efficient handling. The members of the subcommittee 

agreed there are studies showing up to a 12 percent savings, although a lower 6 percent savings is 

thought by some to be more realistic. Ms. Pickard pointed out this is just operational savings and does 

not include the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN) technology.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

7

Mr. Bedford pointed out there are benefits of NextGen that would lead to payback and cash flow 

incentives and attract air carriers to invest in the equipment. He noted there were enough indirect 

benefits to attract the Federal Government to fund the acceleration of NextGen. Mr. Bedford believed 

if all the different subcommittees pooled together their ideas into one single proposal, the result would 

be a powerful proposal.

Dr. Alonso agreed with Mr. Bedford and favored conversations with the other subcommittees to form a 

single proposal on NextGen. Dr. Alonso felt this would strengthen the NextGen proposal because the

Subcommittee on Financing would be able to include other benefits in addition to environmental 

benefits in its proposal.

With the subcommittees’support, Mr. Bedford agreed that proposing the acceleration of NextGen 

would be a focus of this subcommittee. He added, until he had a conversation with the 

Subcommittee on Financing, this subcommittee would include proposing the acceleration of NextGen 

in the report out.

Mr. Brandewie agreed to draft the NextGen proposal, with assistance from Mr. Glover. He stated he 

would tie it into the carbon reduction goal of the subcommittee. Brandewie emphasized, with ground

stations being completed by 2013, accelerating equipment installations would help produce benefits 

more rapidly.

Mr. Bedford stated over the years, air carriers have invested in systems that were never finished. He 

suggested including language in the proposal regarding some type of government loan or incentives to 

help industry equip aircraft. This language could include wording that says, once the system is up and 

running and the air carriers are seeing the benefits, the air carriers could repay the government. 

Mr. Bedford stated it will take time to manufacture and equip aircraft, but when the system is turned on 

in 2013, the air carriers would be ready to operate with that system.

Mr. Glover commented this idea was similar to the cash-for-carbon concept, which would propose 

funds to industry to equip aircraft in exchange for a carbon-neutral growth commitment. Ms. Young 

suggested if the proposal includes some sort of funding, the subcommittee should think about being 

more creative, for example, using tax incentives or loan guarantees.

Ms. Pickard pointed out the subcommittee needs to connect this issue to the public good. She stated 

the subcommittee should emphasize that not only is this investment good for air carriers, it also 

benefits the public as a whole in terms of cost savings and carbon reductions. Mr. Glover stated this 

also ties into indirect benefits such as job creation and gross domestic product improvements.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

8

Mr. Brandewie ask whether it was realistic for subcommittee members to believe the government 

would give loans to air carriers without some type of commitment, such as carbon-neutral growth. 

Mr. Glover thought this could be tied together with the concept of government funding for air carriers

with repayment expected back when the FAA has the system in place and air carriers are showing a 

return on investment. He stated it would take a coordinated effort among the government and 

air carriers, but the outcome of carbon reduction and other benefits would accrue to all parties. 

Mr. Glover thought the subcommittee’s proposal could emphasize the advantage of a coordinated and 

accelerated effort between government and industry. He added such an effort will benefit the public, 

air carriers, and other stakeholders from an operational standpoint, as well as provide carbon benefits.

Ms. Pickard suggested Mr. Bedford bring this up with the full committee. When discussing carbon 

reductions, the full committee will need to consider a comprehensive array of measures (for example, 

the operational aspects of NextGen, new technologies, alternative fuels, and market-based measures). 

Mr. Bedford agreed and stated the subcommittee needs to focus on the fact that it takes all of these 

measures to come together to fulfill the objective of this subcommittee. Mr. Brandewie and Mr. Glover 

agreed to work on the proposal, which would include the funding issues raised by this subcommittee.

Voluntary Airport Low Emissions

Mr. Bedford turned the meeting over to Mr. Baxter who discussed the Voluntary Airport Low 

Emissions (VALE) program. Mr. Baxter stated, at a recent small airport conference, one of the issues 

raised was rising airport operating costs. He added one of the ways smaller airports are reducing their 

costs is through energy savings. Mr. Baxter noted VALE opportunities help in these efforts. He asked 

how this program could reach out to all airports, not just the non-attainment airports (that is, airports 

located in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality standards). Mr. Baxter mentioned, 

according to Dr. Jake Plante, FAA, the VALE program will be available to more communities within 

the year because more areas will be in non-attainment. This is because the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is reevaluating areas based on some stricter air quality standards. Ms. 

Pickard added that VALE will automatically expand as the EPA declares more areas in non-attainment. 

Ms. Young mentioned the number of affected airports will increase three-fold as the EPA redefines the 

criteria for non-attainment. 

Mr. Baxter believed many airports are not taking sufficient advantage of the VALE program. However, 

he thought smaller airports would be interested because VALE is an Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP) and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)-eligible program. Mr. Baxter stated small airports are 

looking at uses of AIP funding and would like to use this money on systems such as solar panels, wind 

generators, and charging stations to reduce emissions. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

9

Mr. Baxter suggested airports can encourage air carriers to use electric vehicles by providing these 

vehicles for rent or having the facilities to promote their use (for example, charging stations). Mr. 

Baxter stated airports will need ways to save on energy, which would directly impact air carriers; 

currently energy costs are being distributed back by means of agreements with air carriers. Mr. Baxter 

pointed out he is expecting the cost of electricity for his airport to double over the next couple of years. 

He believed the savings would be an easy fix with the use of available technologies.

Ms. Young was not sure the proposals under discussion could be covered by the VALE program. She

thought there were many things within the scope of VALE that could have broader advantages to 

communities without trying to extend the program to airports that do not have an air quality problem. 

Ms. Pickard pointed out that procedurally and legally, the proposal would not be within the scope of the 

current VALE program and would require legislation, which the subcommittee could still consider. She 

also believed carbon dioxide savings would not be recognized under the current VALE program, but 

instead would require a restructuring of the VALE program. This is because VALE is set up so airports

can receive credits for reducing emissions under the Clean Air Act from states administering the Act via 

a State Implementation Plan. FAA’s approval of AIP or PFC funding for VALE is linked to state 

credits. Carbon dioxide, however, is not currently regulated under the Clean Air Act; therefore, there 

are no state credits. 

Ms. Pickard mentioned the FAA Airports Office is working on developing a new concept on airport 

sustainability. This concept would be broader than the VALE program in terms of its availability to all 

airports and energy sustainability emphasis. 

Mr. Baxter mentioned his airport was one of 10 airports in a pilot program on sustainability, and he has 

contracted a consultant to perform a sustainability study at his airport. This effort will fit into his new 

master plan that will have a chapter on sustainability. He also stated any projects that come out of this 

study will be eligible for AIP funding. Mr. Baxter noted the definition of sustainability is not very 

clear, and each airport may have a different definition. He suggested the definition should require that 

nothing leave an airport that has not been treated in some way, but that would be very hard to achieve. 

Ms. Young mentioned that the Airports Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), under the 

Transportation Research Board (TRB), approved two projects; these projects would further define 

sustainability and best practices, and would build up some additional data.

Mr. Brandewie wondered if the cost-benefit of this proposal is any better than the other proposals the 

committee has discussed. Mr. Baxter suggested this proposal could take VALE funding that is not 

used, and pass it out to other smaller airports to help reduce energy costs. 

Mr. Brandewie asked how this would change the VALE program. Mr. Glover pointed out this would 

require a statutory change before the Administrator could implement Mr. Baxter’s proposal. Ms. 

Pickard confirmed the Administrator would have to seek and receive a statutory change.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

10

Ms. Young reminded the subcommittee the VALE program was used to fund local air quality projects 

and can include some fuel-related projects, but it’s a narrow definition. She said if carbon dioxide or 

energy savings-related projects were to be included in the VALE program, it would require a 

restructuring of the program to allow a broader scope of projects.

Mr. Bedford summarized the previous discussions on this proposal and stated the proposal should be 

kept on the agenda. However, the proposal should be reconsidered as a broader new program, and 

VALE should be taken out of the proposal. The subcommittee agreed but wondered if this could be 

tied into the proposal on sustainability. 

Mr. Bedford suggested that Mr. Baxter consolidate his proposal with the sustainability proposal. 

Mr. Baxter stated sustainability covers a wide variety of issues and perhaps the subcommittee could 

focus more on the emissions part. Ms. Young thought focusing on the concept of energy efficiency and 

savings would bring in the environmental benefits and were relevant to the subcommittee’s work on 

carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Baxter pointed out airports are a non-taxed entities. He stated the benefits of programs to save 

energy are based on tax credits, which prevent airports from getting needed grants. Mr. Baxter 

continued to talk about available energy saving systems (for example, solar panels and light-emitting 

diode (LED) lighting), which could be used at his airport to save energy if grant money were available. 

Ms. Young asked if there were energy efficiency programs for airports the subcommittee could focus 

on. She also asked if these programs could be productively expanded. Mr. Baxter responded there 

were no such programs. Mr. Glover thought perhaps that should be the focus of the proposal. Ms. 

Young mentioned air carriers were working with airports to determine capital projects and funding 

bonds programs for energy overhauls. Mr. Baxter stated he had gotten a positive reaction from the air 

carriers when they were asked to help with these projects. Mr. Bedford asked Mr. Baxter to work with 

Dr. Plante on an airport sustainability proposal.

Sustainable Alternative Aviation Fuels

Mr. Bedford moved the discussion on to alternative fuels. Mr. Glover addressed the background on the 

proposal to reduce carbon emissions and stated this is a significant opportunity for the aviation 

industry. He explained the Secretary of Transportation plays a unique role in developing alternative 

fuels for ground transportation. He further explained aviation is different because it does not have 

many alternative fuels available and relies heavily on liquid fuels.

Mr. Glover stated the DOT could play a significant role in accelerating approvals of alternative fuels 

and facilitating the infrastructure needed for providing alternative fuels. Ms. Young described how the 

DOT might use the framework of the government to support deployment of alternative fuel in the 

aviation community and give environmental credit to air carriers. She stated the credit would have to 

be given to air carriers at the time of purchase rather than the time of use due to the co-mingling of 

air carrier fuel use. Ms. Young used the example of Mr. Bedford buying the fuel, but Mr. Tilton 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

11

actually flying the fuel. She noted the unique role of the Secretary of DOT to address the 

complications of co-mingling fuel. 

Ms. Young added the DOT could establish environmental guidance for acceptable use of fuels both 

domestically and internationally. She explained the aviation and shipping industries are the two modes 

of transportation operating internationally. Ms. Young would like support for alternative aviation fuels 

similar to what is used in other industries. Mr. Glover explained there is a biofuels interagency 

working group and recommended the Secretary of Transportation be more engaged.

Ms. Pickard supported the proposal but suggested there are too many details in the report. She felt

there needs to be more high level action items for the DOT Secretary to consider. Ms. Pickard 

suggested one of the high level themes should be that the U.S. is the leader in alternative aviation fuels.

Alternative fuels would have broader benefits than just for aviation users. The accrual of benefits 

should be noted, such as energy security, green jobs, “farm-to-fly” initiative benefits to rural areas. Ms. 

Pickard suggested the proposal should highlight the aviation sector’s taking a leadership role on 

alternative fuels, producing broader societal benefits. 

The committee members agreed with Ms. Pickard’s comments and suggestions and agreed the aviation 

industry should be promoted as a leader in alternative fuels. Mr. Bedford mentioned this is an 

opportunity for the United States to become a clean fuel and alternative energy leader. He explained 

the funding should be tied to a specific test clean fuel project. Mr. Bedford also asked if facilities could 

be constructed in 2 to 3 years to produce bulk quantities of fuel. Mr. Glover explained a proposal like 

this would be possible within 3 years. The committee members liked the proposal and reinforced the 

need for promoting the work the aviation industry can do in clean/alternative fuels.

The committee suggested any proposals be “punchy and short” to grab the attention of the DOT to 

promote aviation as an industry leader in clean/alternative fuels. It was noted the FAAC and other 

facets of the transportation industry have several subcommittee groups and reports coming in, and it 

would be important to have a recommendation that stands out. 

Ms. Young suggested after the committee comes up with a title that gets the attention of the DOT, the 

proposal needs to have good supporting content. Ms. Pickard explained the deliverables for the 

committee, and noted each subcommittee is make 3 to 5 proposals. The full committee will discuss 

and condense the proposals at the October 20, 2010, FAAC meeting. Ms. Pickard stated the 

subcommittees should be focusing on finalizing the proposals, to be presented by Mr. Bedford, at the 

October 20, 2010, meeting. The committee agreed the current proposal is good but needs more work. 

Mr. Glover then discussed the issue of fuel facilities and noted they could be built within 2 years. 

However, he stated there needs to be further investigation of the harvest infrastructure currently in 

place and how long it would take to provide the materials plants needs to produce the fuel. The 

subcommittee discussed the startup of factories and some variables that might hinder the ability of 

factories to produce fuel. The subcommittee discussed the need to promote the farming aspect. The 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

12

subcommittee also discussed partnering various government agencies with industry and making the 

building of plants a national priority. 

Mr. Bedford proposed involving universities in the process, particularly universities that teach farmers 

and crop growers. Mr. Glover mentioned the “farm to fly” program was in place, but needs the DOT’s 

involvement. The committee discussed the need for scientific research on how much real estate would 

be needed to fuel aircraft. Mr. Glover and Ms. Young agreed to work on this proposal.

Environmental Goals and Regulatory Framework

Mr. Bedford then addressed the proposal to harmonize domestic and global efforts to reduce aviation 

greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Young stated the subcommittee could set specific environmental goals 

to submit to the DOT. She explained industry, government, and the DOT each have their own set of 

goals to improve aviation greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Young explained, to meet the goals of the 

different parties involved, the parties need to work collaboratively to be effective. 

Mr. Bedford discussed having a good flow of communication among all parties. He added the cost and 

benefits of projects should be outlined to verify whether they can be completed. Mr. Bedford stated air

carriers need a figure to promote investment in an alternative fuel program. Mr. Bedford further 

described the importance of having charts and a presentation on the programs air carriers could invest 

in for alternative energy. The charts and presentation should include the types of penalties that could 

result if the goals are not met. He stressed the importance of presenting the global ideas currently in 

progress. Mr. Bedford commented all of the goals have equal importance, and the committee should 

consider what penalties should be imposed if the goals are not met. He explained the goals may be 

very expensive, and the costs should be considered when imposing them on the U.S. air carrier

industry.

Mr. Glover stated the committee should disclose the goals currently in place and evaluate what credits 

should be given for users of alternative fuel. Mr. Bedford brought up the idea of penalizing air carriers 

that do not meet the goals. The committee suggested this should be a voluntary process and that there 

should be no penalties. 

Ms. Young stated the carbon dioxide standard for future aircraft is being developed right now. She said

this standard should be developed first before deciding what penalties are imposed. Ms. Young noted 

she charted the difference in government and industry targets in carbon-neutral growth in 2020 relative 

to 2005. She stated one could see the delta in the cost of carbon. Mr. Bedford requested a copy of that 

chart and thought the chart should be included in the proposal. Ms. Young further explained carbon is 

predicted to cost $20 a ton in 2012 and an assumed $45 or $50 in 2020. 

Ms. Pickard asked Ms. Young how she saw this chart fitting into the framework of the proposal. She 

also asked if the chart was based on the assumed costs for industry and government and how this all fit 

into the proposal. Ms. Pickard commented the cost chart grabs the attention of the reader and wanted 

an explanation of how it was going to be used in the report. Mr. Glover thought this was a chance for 

the United States to take on a leadership role.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

13

Mr. Bedford stated there is not much information available to the public, and the committee could 

provide that information. He added that laying out several proposals would indicate the cost of carbon 

is significant and create a sense of urgency. He explained the subcommittee should use this data in the 

framework of its proposals and present the economic benefits of reducing carbon emissions. 

Mr. Bedford explained this proposal could serve to warn industry of significant potential costs. 

Ms. Young took an action item to coordinate with Mr. Glover and submit the proposal to Mr. Bedford. 

Accelerating R&D for Instruction of Aircraft/Engine Technologies into the Fleet

Dr. Alonso introduced the proposal on engine and aircraft technology. He mentioned the subcommittee 

was focusing on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft in the commercial fleet. Dr. Alonso 

added, while great things are expected from operational improvements, historically, 90 to 95 percent of 

environmental impact reductions have come from improvements in the technology on aircraft (engines, 

airframe structure, and aerodynamics). Dr. Alonso mentioned that, unfortunately, making these 

improvements takes time and money. He added research and development (R&D) usually takes

10 to 15 years for these new technologies to materialize and even longer to reach the fleet and have an 

impact. Dr. Alonso suggested a concerted effort is needed to accelerate the development of improved 

technologies and their introduction to the fleet. He asked to open the discussion around crafting a 

proposal ensuring investments in R&D of new technologies are sustained to a level to meet the 

aggressive targets set by various governments.

Dr. Alonso mentioned this proposal can be related to the CLEEN program, which is overseen by the 

FAA. The proposal can also be related to other R&D programs. The concept is that DOT could 

encourage R&D to be done in conjunction with industry to realize these technological improvements. 

Mr. Glover stated much of the R&D in aviation is accomplished by several agencies including the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of Energy, and DOD. 

He asked if the subcommittee should look at R&D in a broader scope, where the DOT takes the lead to 

coordinate R&D efforts among these other agencies. Dr. Alonso thought there were already 

mechanisms in place toward coordinated R&D efforts among agencies, and referred to the 

National R&D Plan. 

Ms. Pickard stated she had assumed the CLEEN program was singled out was because it is specifically 

oriented to accelerate more immediate delivery. She noted CLEEN looks at areas being researched and 

pushes them through the program more quickly. Ms. Pickard pointed out the advantage of CLEEN in 

the terms of what this subcommittee is trying to push forward. She also stated an element could be 

added to bring in additional current research on carbon reduction.

Dr. Alonso stated the key element was not only to accelerate the R&D pipeline, but also to accelerate 

the introduction of new technologies into the fleet. He wanted to ensure the subcommittee looks at 

things that can be done earlier than the normal 10 to 15 years. Dr. Alonso mentioned CLEEN is a great 

program for accelerating these technologies, but the chances of success would increase significantly if 

its scope and resources were expanded. It is generally acknowledged that the CLEEN program is 

underfunded for what it is trying to accomplish.
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

14

Mr. Bedford thought that it would be helpful to include some facts to address the funding issue. He 

noted billions of dollars are being spent on NextGen. Mr. Bedford believed R&D in airframe and 

engine technologies (which could provide the bulk of the opportunity to reduce carbon over the next 50 

years) is underfunded. Mr. Bedford pointed out if R&D funding is spread around to different agencies, 

there could be an opportunity for consolidation of these resources working toward a common goal. 

Mr. Glover stated CLEEN is a unique program in that it is targeted for a shorter time implementation; 

other efforts, particularly NASA programs, are looking more at the longer term. Ms. Pickard noted 

CLEEN received government funding of $125 million for 5 years, with a minimum 50 percent match 

from industry. Ms. Young stated CLEEN primarily covers technology, but some of its money goes to 

alternative fuels.

Mr. Bedford noted the graphic provided by Ms. Young and stated the challenge will be meeting the 

carbon emission goal by 2050. He pointed out the contribution of ATC/NowGen (the near-term 

NextGen program) and low carbon fuels are fairly well known. However, Mr. Bedford questioned 

whether reductions in carbon emissions (brought about by technological improvements) will be 

possible with funding of $25 million per year.

Mr. Glover stressed the subcommittee does not dismiss industry’s investments in R&D. Mr. Brandewie 

added the R&D tax credits approved by Congress will provide a greater overall benefit to reducing 

carbon emissions. He noted almost every other mode of transportation is funded through tax credits,

and the Environment Subcommittee should endorse the renewal of these R&D tax credits.

Mr. Glover asked if this proposal could be wrapped around the additional funding for the 

CLEEN program and the R&D tax credit. Mr. Bedford thought this could be a proposal not just about 

the CLEEN program, but also for the R&D tax credit. He mentioned the R&D tax credits were 

originally on the agenda and were removed with the assumption that the Administration was on board

with the tax credits. Now R&D tax credits need to be placed back on the agenda. Mr. Bedford also

noted the industry is relying on the fact that new technology will deliver a significant benefit in the 

future. However, the question is whether the R&D programs are funded properly so results can be

delivered in 10 to 15 years. He suggested the overall thought was programs are not getting the proper 

funding, and the subcommittee should suggest fixes.

Dr. Alonso agreed the proposal should focus on the broader R&D process and funding, rather than only 

on the CLEEN program, and give some ideas on what is needed. Mr. Pyatt thought the R&D tax credit 

is at risk this year and noted there are already companies that have closed out their fiscal year reporting.

He stated these companies are involved in NextGen and other key R&D that should also be accelerated. 

However, because of the lack of credits, these companies will be taking financial hits. Mr. Pyatt 

believed it was very important for this subcommittee to take this on as a proposal. 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

15

Dr. Alonso agreed the proposal should include the R&D tax credit. He noted this could go beyond just 

the interests of the Environment Subcommittee and impact many other areas of this industry. Dr. 

Alonso believed these R&D tax credits are extremely broad. Mr. Glover pointed out over 75 percent of 

his company’s R&D investments in commercial airplanes are focused on environmental impact. He 

thought the subcommittee’s role is to point out that these tax credits benefit carbon reduction efforts, 

along with other benefits. Dr. Alonso agreed to develop the technologies R&D proposal.

Conclusion

Mr. Bedford thought he could approach these proposals to the FAAC by looking at the goals for 

carbon reduction. He stated, although there are no global agreements, the cost for achieving even the 

lowest goal is quite significant. Mr. Bedford noted, to achieve even the minimum goal, one must look 

at the ways necessary to accomplish it, including: (1) NextGen, (2) alternative fuels, (3) technology 

improvements, and (4) some smaller initiatives such as runway metering programs. He suggested the 

proposal include all of these elements to show the approaches needed. Ms. Pickard thought he could 

end this with harmonization, and for all of these efforts to be brought together and succeed, there is a 

need for a national and international complementary environment.

Mr. Bedford believed there is a need for the DOT to take a lead in this national policy discussion. He 

felt if the DOT takes the lead, the results could include: (1) a more viable and competitive air carrier

industry and manufacturing base, (2) a better environmental outcome; and (3) the development of clean 

energy industries. Mr. Bedford added the DOT could become a global leader in this effort, which 

would help the United States renew its economy.

Mr. Glover thought this is a great opportunity for the United States. Rather than wait for a global 

treaty, the United States could set up a system through bilateral agreements to further harmonization 

throughout the world.

Ms. Pickard asked Mr. Bedford how many proposals from the Environment Subcommittee he would 

like to bring forth to the full FAAC. She also gave him the time lines for the proposals. Mr. Bedford 

recapped the assignments as discussed below.

Mr. Glover suggested Mr. Bedford categorize the proposals into three areas: (1) Operational and 

Infrastructure Improvements, (2) Alternative Fuels, and (3) Technology and Fleet Renewal. Mr. 

Bedford agreed to the three areas suggested by Mr. Glover. He added harmonization could be brought 

in as the introduction and the ending of the proposal, which may entail a fourth recommendation. It 

was agreed the fourth recommendation of harmonization would be included in the proposals brought 

forward.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

One public comment from AIA was discussed. The comment provided in a paper entitled, “Civil 

Aviation Growth in the 21st Century: Meeting Capacity and Environmental Challenges.” (Docket item 
Future of Aviation Advisory Committee

Environment Subcommittee

Record of Meeting

October 5, 2010

Chicago InterContinental O’Hare

Chicago, Illinois

16

DOT–OST–2010–0074–0150.) Ms. Pickard mentioned the comment discussed many issues the 

subcommittee has talked about, and she recommended the subcommittee members look at the paper.

CLOSING REMARKS/NEXT MEETING

Mr. Bedford closed the meeting by reviewing the action items to be given to him within short timelines 

in preparation for the full FAAC meeting on October 20, 2010. The subcommittee members recapped 

their individual assignments as discussed below. 

ACTION ITEMS

Assigned to Action Item

Billy Glover Draft the final four proposals based on inputs described below and send out to 

subcommittee members for refinement of the drafts.

Billy Glover and

Brian Brandewie Refine the NextGen component of the operational proposal.

Billy Glover and 

Richard Marchi

Refine the proposal on the airport metering pilot program.

Kinney Baxter Develop a proposal on airport energy efficiency and emissions reduction.

Billy Glover and 

Nancy Young Revise the alternative fuels proposal.

Juan Alonso and 

Brian Brandewie

Work on the technologies proposal, including R&D tax credits for industry 

and CLEEN.

Billy Glover and 

Nancy Young

Refine the harmonization proposal, including a graphic chart depicting carbon 

reductions anticipated from various measures compared to targets.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Bedford solicited a motion for adjournment. On motion, duly seconded and approved by the 

majority of the FAAC members present, the meeting was adjourned.

The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

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

Approved by: 

Lynne Pickard, Designated Federal Official

Dated: