Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l 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 Septemb er 21

, 2010 (75 FR 5 7546 ).

Subc ommittee Members in Attendance

Name Affiliation(s)

Bryan K. Bedford ( Subc ommittee Chair) President and

C hief Executive Officer Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. (Republic Airways)

Juan J. Alonso Associate P rofessor, Departme nt

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 P iasecki Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing)

Committee Members Not in Attendance

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

I nterior S ystems Goodrich

Nicole W. Piasecki Vice President,

Business Development Boeing

Raul R egalado President and

Chief Executive Officer Metropolitan Nashville Airport AuthorityFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l 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 En vironment Strategy GE Aviation

Scott Harper FAAC Support PAI Consulting
Jonathan Hoffman S enio r Princip al Scientist The MITRE Corporation
Krister Holladay Director, Government Affairs Goodrich

Richard Marchi S enio r Advisor, Policy and

Regulatory Affair s 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)

B ACKGROUND AND W ELCOMING R EMARKS

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, cal led the meeting to order at 10:34 a .m.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

3 A DMINISTRATIVE M ATTERS

Mr. Bedford asked Ms. Lynne Pickard, DFO, DOT /FAA

, to review the FACA requirements.

Ms. Pickard brie fed 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 maint aining information on cost s and m embership, 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 be fore 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 Fed eral officials , subject to the discretion of the subcommittee c hair . Ms. Pickard added that only subcommittee members and their alternates are entitled to vote on subcommittee business.

D ISCUSSION
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. Pick ard’s changes, the minutes would be approved . He receive d 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. K i nn e y Baxter, Metropolitan Nashville Airpor t 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 operation s and runway metering. Mr. Glover beg a n by discussing the challenge of making gr ound 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 t hat reduced ground delays

. Mr. Glover reported that the results of the program a re encouraging

, and referred to the H ouse a viation r eauthorization b ill (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 InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

4 Ms. Camille Mittelholtz , DOT, explain ed the H ouse reauthorization bill calls for a study of five additional airports to test air traffic flow methodologies and procedures. The bill w ould 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 suggest ed the Secretary of Transport ation 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 H ouse bill. Ms. Pickard ask ed 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 H ouse bill not only calls for the Secretary to run a pilot program

, but also to develop the supporting automation software necess ary 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 th e 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 proce dures 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 ask ed 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 th e pilot program should be adopted, but there also needs to be a goal beyond the pilot program. Mr. Bedford added the goal should s tate
, once the pilot progr am 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 ask ed if the subcommittee should suggest expanding the proposal beyond the fiv e 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 implement ing this program.

Mr. Bedford stated he was uncertain what criteria , be sides density, would be used to identify these airports. Mr. Marchi suggested redrafting the proposal, based on language in the H ouse bill , to include the cost s and benefit s of the program and a list of recommend ed airports that can be added after the pil ot 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 InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

5 Ms. Pickard ask ed 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 n o t specify that funding come from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) ; rather, it just directs the S ecretary of Transportation to conduct the study . Mr. Marchi thought the Secretary c ould conduct the pilot progra m 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 tool s 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 Relat ed 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 M r

. Krister Holl a day , both from Goodrich. Mr. B randewie defined NextGen and presented its benefits

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

– Broadcast (ADS

– B), A rea Navigation (RNAV) , Required Navigation Performance (RNP), and Ground Based Augmentatio n 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 efficien t use of available airspace

. Mr. Brandewie pointed out the ADS

– B mandate for installation at ground station s is 2013

, which will happen on schedule and under budget

. T he ADS

– B O ut mandate for equipage is 2020 for primary airspace in the U nited S tates . He suggested one of the p roposals move up the equipage to sometime earlier than 2020.

Mr. Brandewie noted the cost of implementing these technologies varie s. 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 b illion 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 ) w ould 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 e mployment i mpact . T he plan will drive the nation’s economic recovery and stimulate job growth across all sectors.

2. Global c ompetitiveness . I n 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 aerosp ace to the U.S. balance of trade and creat e jobs.

3. Environmental i mpact . F ull 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 InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

6 Mr. Brandewie stated, to accelerate the benefits of a modern air traffic c ontrol ( 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 ) o f 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 ensur e that port ion 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 iss ue being the cost of equipage. He reiterated that at the least

, ground station s 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 a s a baseline for a possible proposal for accelerati ng 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 b illion impact on the U

. S

. economy due to delays

. He added, if this was such a waste, perhaps the Federal G overnment 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 G overnment. Ms. Young responded the $41 billion impacted the entire

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

Ms. Pickard ask ed the subcommittee if they knew o f other subcommittees working on a similar NextGen equipage proposal. If so

, she sugge sted that proposal s from multiple subcommittee s 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 sub committee agreed the re are studies show ing up to a 12 percent savings, although a lower 6 percen t 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 InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

7 Mr. Bedford pointed out there are benefits of NextGen th at 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 G overnment to fund the acceleration of NextGen. Mr. Bedford believed if all the dif

ferent subcommittees pool ed together their ideas in to one single proposal

, the result would be a powerful proposal.

Dr. Alonso agreed with Mr. Bedford and favor ed 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 Financ ing 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 acce leration of NextGen would be a focus of this subcommittee . He added, until he had a conversation with the Subcommittee on Financ ing , this subcommittee would include proposing the accelerat ion of NextGen in the report out.

Mr. Brandewie agreed to draft the NextGen proposal , with assistance from Mr. Glover. H e stated he would tie it into the carbon reduction goal of the subcommittee

. Brandewie emphasized , with ground station s 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 g overnment

. 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

- neutra l 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 connec t 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 improvement s.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

8 Mr. Brandewie ask whether it was realistic for subcommittee members to believe the g overnment would give loan s to air carriers without some type of commitment, such as car bon

- 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 g overnment 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 g overnment 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 w ith the full committee

. W hen discu ss ing 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. B edford agreed and stated the sub committee needs to focus on the fact that it take s all of these

measures to come together to fulfill the objective of this sub committee. Mr. Brandewie and Mr. Glover agreed to work on the proposal

, which would include the f unding issues raised by this subcommittee

. Voluntary Airport Low Emissions
Mr. Bedford turned the meeting over to Mr. Baxter w ho 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 small er airports are reduc ing their

costs is through energy savings

. Mr. Baxter noted VALE opportunities help in these efforts. He asked how this program could reach out to a ll airports

, not just the non

- attainment airports (that is, airports located in areas that do not meet national ambient air quality standard s )

. Mr. Baxter mentioned, according to D r. 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 a reas 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 VA LE program . However, he thought small er airports would be interested because VALE is an Airport Improvement P rogram ( AIP ) and Passenger Facility C harge (PFC)

- eligible program. Mr. Baxter stated s mall 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 InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

9 Mr. Baxter suggested airports can encourage air carriers to use electric vehicles by providing these vehicles for rent or hav ing the facil ities 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 n o t sure the proposals under discu ss ion 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 n o t have an air quality problem.

Ms. Pickar d pointed out t hat 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 recognize d 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 s tate s administering the A ct via a State Im plementation 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 A irports O ffi ce is working on developing a new concept on airport sustainability . This concept would be broader than the VALE program in terms of its availab ility to all airports and energy sustainability emphasis

. Mr. Baxter mentioned his airport was one of 10 airp orts 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 com e 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 T ransportation Research Board (TRB)

, approved two projects ; these projects would further define

su stainability and best practices

, and would build up some additional data.

Mr. Brandewie wondered if the cost

- benefit o f this proposal is any better than the other proposals the committee has discussed. Mr. Baxter suggested this proposal c ould take VALE fu nding that is not used, and pass it out to other smaller airports to help reduce energy costs.

Mr. Brandewie ask ed how this would change the VALE program

. Mr. Glover pointed out this would

r equire a statutory change before the A dministrator could implem ent Mr. Baxter’s proposal

. Ms. Pickard confirmed the A dministrator would have to seek and receive a statutory change.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l 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 projec ts
, 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 previ ous discussions on this proposal and stated the proposal should be kept on the agenda . However, the proposal should be reconsider ed 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 sustainabil i ty 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 no n

- taxed entit ies. 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

- emitt ing diode ( LED ) lighting ) , which could be used at his airport t o save energy if grant money were available.

Ms. Young ask ed if there were energy efficien cy programs for airports the subcommittee could focus

on . She also asked if these programs could be p roductively expa nded. 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 prog rams for energy overhauls. Mr. Baxter stated he had gotten a positive reaction from the ai r carriers when they were ask ed to help with these projects. Mr. Bedford ask ed Mr. Baxter to work with D r. Plante on a n 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 S ecretary of T ransportation plays a unique role in developing alternative fuels for ground transportation. He further explained aviation is different because it does not have many alternativ e 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 infrast ructure needed for providing alternative fuels. Ms. Young described how the DOT might use the framework of the g overnment to support d eploy ment of alternative fuel in the aviation community and give environment al 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 d ue to the co

- mingling of air carrier f

uel use. Ms. Young used the example of Mr. Bedford buying the fuel , but Mr. TiltonFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

11 actually flying the fuel. She noted the unique role of the S ecretary of DOT to address the complications of co

- mingling fuel.

Ms. Young added the DOT c ould establish en vironmental guidance f or acceptable use of fuels both domestically and internationally. She explained the aviation and shipping industr ies are the two modes of transportation operating internationally. Ms. Young would like support for alternative aviatio n 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 S ecretary to consider

. Ms. Pickard suggested one of the high level themes should be that the U.S. is the l eader in alternative aviation fuels. Alternative fuels would have broader benefits than just for aviation users . T he accrual of benefits should be noted

, such as en ergy security

, green jobs, “ farm

- to

- fly” initiative benefits to rural areas

. Ms. Pickard suggested the proposal should highlight the aviation sec tor ’s tak ing a lead ership role on alternative fuel s , producing broader societal benefits

. The committee members agreed with Ms. Pickard’s comments and suggestions and agreed the aviation in dustry should be promoted as a leader in alternative fuels. Mr. B edford 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 i n 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/a lternative 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 g ets the attention of the DOT

, the proposal needs to have good suppo rting content. Ms. Pickard explained the deliverables for the committee

, and noted each subcommittee is make 3 to 5 proposals . T he full committee will discuss and condense the proposals at the October 20, 2010

, FAAC meeting. Ms. Pickard stated the subco mmittees should be focusing on finalizing the proposals , to be presented by Mr. Bedford, at the October 20, 2010

, meeting

. The committee agreed the current propo sal is good but needs more work

.

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

. However, he stated there need s to be further investigation of the harvest infrastructure currently in place and how long it would take to provide the materials plant s needs to produce the fuel. The sub committee di scus sed the startup of factories and some variables that might hinder the ability of factories to produce fuel

. The sub committee discussed the need to promote the farming aspect

. TheFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

12 sub committee also discussed partnering various g overnment agencies with industry and making the building of plants a national priority.

Mr. Bedford proposed involving universit ie s in the process, particularly universit ies that teach farmers and crop growers. Mr

. Glover mentioned the “farm to fly” program was in place

, but n eeds 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. Be dford then address ed the proposal to harmoniz e domest ic 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, g overnment, 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 go od flow of communication among all parties

. He added the cost and benefit s 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. Be dford 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 present ing 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 e xplained the g oals may be very expensive , and the costs should be considered when imposing them on the U

. S

. a ir carrier industry

.

Mr. Glover stated the committee should disclose the goals currently in place and evaluate what credits should be given for users of alternat ive 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 penalt ies

.
Ms. Young stated the carbon dioxide standard for future ai rcraft is being developed right now . She said this standard should be developed first before deciding what penalties are impos ed

. Ms. Young noted she charted the difference in g overnment and industry target s in carbon

- neutral growth in 2020 relative to 2 005 . 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. Pic k ard 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 cost s for industry and g overnment and how this all fit into the proposal

. Ms. Pic k ar d 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 U nited S tates to take on a leadership role.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

13 Mr. Bedford stated there is not m uch information available to the public

, and the committee could provide that information. He added t hat 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 cost s

. 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 reduc i ng 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 techno logy on aircraft (engines, airframe structure, and aerodynamics )

. Dr. Alonso mentioned that, unfortunately, mak ing these improvements takes time and money . He added research and development ( R&D ) usually tak es 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 acce lerate the development of improved technologies and their introduction to the fleet. He ask ed to open the discussion around craft ing a proposal ensur ing investments in R&D of new technologies are sustained to a level to meet the aggressive target s set by various governments.

Dr. Alonso mentioned this proposal can be related to the CLEEN program

, which is overseen by the FAA . T he p roposal 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 av iation is accomplished by several a gencies including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Department of Energy, and DOD

. He ask ed 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 othe r agencies. Dr. Alonso thought there were already mechanisms in place toward coordinated R&D effort s 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 specifical ly oriented to accelerate more immediate delivery . She noted CLEEN looks at areas being researched and push es 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 f orward . She also stated an element could be added to bring in additional current research on c arbon 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 in to 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 accelerat ing these technologies

, but the chances of success would increas e signifi cantly if its scope and resources were expa nded. It is generally acknowledged that the CLEEN program is underfunded for what it i s trying to accomplish.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l 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 fu nding 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 i s targeted for a shorter time implementation ; other effo rts, particularly NASA programs

, ar e looking more at the longer term. Ms. Pickard noted CLEEN received government fund ing 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 l ow 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 n o t 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 the se R&D tax credits.

Mr. Glover ask ed if this proposal could be wrapped around the a dditional funding for the CLEEN program and the R&D tax credit . Mr. Bedford thought this could be a propos al 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 w ere removed with the assumption that the A dministration was on board with the tax credits . N ow R&D tax credits need to be place d 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 deli ver ed in 10 to 15 years. He suggested the overall thought was programs are not getting the proper funding

, and the sub committee should s uggest fixes

.

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

on t he 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 a nd 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 InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

15 Dr. Alonso agreed the proposal should include the R&D tax credit . H e noted this could go beyond just the interests of the E nvironment S ubcommittee and impact m any 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 compan y’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 h e 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 ne cessary to accomplish it, including : ( 1) NextGen, ( 2) alternative fuels, ( 3) technology improvements, and ( 4) some smal ler initiat ives 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 n ational and international comple mentary 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 an d competitive air carrier industry and manufacturing base, (2) a better environmental outcome ; and (3) the develop ment of clean energy industries

. Mr. Bedford added the DOT could become a global leader in this effort

, which would help the United States re new its economy.

Mr. Glover thought this is a great opportunity for the U nited S tates. 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 as k ed 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. Bedf ord 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 b rought 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.

P UBLIC C OMMENTS
One public comment from A I A was discussed . The comment provided in a paper entitled, “ Civil Aviation Growth in the 21 st Century: Meeting Capacity and Environmental Challenges.” ( Docket itemFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee Record of Meeting October 5, 2010 Chicago InterContinenta l O’Hare Chicago, Illinois

16 DOT

– OST

– 2010

– 0074

– 0150. ) Ms. Pickard mentioned the comment discussed many issues the sub committee has talked about

, and she recommended the subcommittee members look at the paper.

C LOSING R EMARKS

/N EXT M EETING
Mr. Bedford closed the meeting by reviewing the action item s to be given to him within short timelines in prepar ation for the full FAAC meeting on October 2 0 , 2010. The subcommittee members recapped their individual assignments as discussed below.

A CTION I TEMS

Assigned to Action Item

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

subcommit tee members for refinement of the draft s

. Billy Glover and Brian Brandewie Refine the NextGen component of the operational p roposal

. Billy Glover and Richard Marchi Refine the proposal on the airport metering pilot program.

Kinney Baxter Develop a propo sal on airport energy efficiency and emissions reduction

. Billy Glover and Nancy Young Revise the alternative f uel s proposal

.

Juan Alonso and Brian Brandewie Work on the technologies proposal, including R&D tax credits for industry

and CLEEN

. Billy Glov er and Nancy Young Re fine the harmonization proposal, including a graphic chart depict ing carbon

reductions anticipated from various measures compared to targets.

A DJOURNMENT

Mr. Bedford solicited a motion for adjournment. On motion, duly seconded and ap proved 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: