Subcommittee on Environment and Energy | MINUTES

Meeting date & time August 30-31, 2016

Meeting location A4A, Washington D.C.

Purpose E&E Subcommittee Guidance 

Facilitator Jim Hileman, DFO

Note taker Jim Hileman 

Timekeeper Jim Hileman

Minutes from Meeting

Presentation Chair Opening Statements | Presenter Mahendra Joshi

Discussion: Mahendra welcomed everyone and established the meeting logistics. Everyone 

introduced themselves. Mahendra discussed the outcomes from the last full REDAC meeting 

which had a focus on UAS. The full REDAC also discussed the need for a comprehensive R&D 

plan for the FAA (there is a briefing at this meeting on this subject). The letter to the 

Administrator had a note commending the FAA on the ICAO CAEP CO2 emissions standard

Presentation What’s New in FAA and AEE | Presenter Curtis Holsclaw

Discussion: Lourdes is on leave this week and sends her regrets. Curtis briefed in her absence.

Curtis discussed the ongoing efforts to develop a global market based measure for international 

aviation CO2 emissions. The focus at present is to develop a global consensus in advance of the 

ICAO Assembly meeting later this year. Several States might require technical assistance with 

the implementation of the global market based measure and the U.S. is preparing for this. He 

noted other ongoing CAEP efforts.

Curtis noted that we continue to have challenges with aircraft noise. Areas with precision 

navigation procedures are receiving particular attention. The FAA and the Office of the Secretary 

are heavily engaged with this. We are developing a community involvement manual and a plan 

for air traffic procedure implementation that are undergoing review. There was a discussion 

about the implementation of PBN procedures. 

Curtis noted that the US is hosting the first Steering Group meeting and AEE are expending 

much effort to arrange for this meeting.

There was a question about the workload in the office given the large number of items that are 

being addressed. Curtis noted that AEE does not have extra resources and these requirements are 

leading to staff being stretched further. Curtis informed the Subcommittee that Anne 

Christenson has been brought onboard to fill Lynne Pickard’s vacancy. 
Page 2

Presentation R&D Executive Director Update | Presenter Eric Neiderman

Discussion: Eric presented on Shelly Yak’s behalf. He discussed the ongoing effort to develop 

an improved version of the FAA National Aviation Research Plan (NARP) to better explain the 

FAA R&D Strategy as well as ongoing reviews from the GAO and DOT Inspector General. He 

also shared some of the observations that Shelly made based on her visiting the five 

subcommittee meetings in Spring 2016. These include: the subcommittees are varied in terms of 

how they interact, improvements in how the finding and recommendations could be developed 

and an independent REDAC program review is central to FAA R&D program governance. 

Presentation REDAC and Subcommittees: Roles and Responsibilities | Presenter

Chinita Roundtree-Coleman

Discussion: Chinita gave a refresher to the Subcommittee on the roles and responsibilities of the 

REDAC and its Subcommittees. The basis for the REDAC is Part 49 of USC Section 44508 and 

it provides several requirements for the REDAC. This includes a requirement to meet twice per 

year. The Administrator established five subcommittees: Human Factors, Aircraft Safety, NAS 

Operations, Environment and Energy, and Airports. 

She discussed the direction for the two Subcommittee meetings. The summer/fall meeting 

provides strategic guidance based on reviews of past year activities and accomplishments, 

selected deep dives, and proposed FY+3 focal areas. The winter meeting provides a review of the 

R&D portfolio, which is developed based on strategic guidance from the summer/fall meeting. 

She presented the responsibilities for the DFO. 

She provided guidance from the FAA on how the findings and recommendations should be 

written such that they could be readily acted upon by the FAA. She noted that the E&E 

Subcommittee is doing a good job with this.

Presentation R&D Budget Status | Presenter Mike Gallivan

Discussion: Mike presented budget details on budget for FY16. The budget was approved in the 

first quarter of the fiscal year. The Environment and Energy program received a plus-up with a 

requirement with regards to the COE Program.

The FY17 Presidents Budget has gone to Congress. Both the House and Senate appropriation 

subcommittees have approved the budget. Normally the House and the Senate would meet in a 

conference committee to resolve the differences as the House has not yet passed their bill. 

Mike walked through the language from both the House and the Senate mark-ups. There is 

considerable uncertainty regarding the FY17 budget due to a host of issues and FY17 is most 

likely to start under a continuing resolution. 

The FY18 policy budget is on hold until after the Presidential election and it will be developed 

with the winning transition team. There is a current services budget in place for FY18 that notes 

what is required to continue operations at their current level. Mike also gave the FY18-FY22 

funding targets for the overall RE&D appropriation and he noted that these will almost certainly 

change with the change of administration.
Page 3

He noted that the current FAA Authorization was approved by Congress on July 14, 2016 and 

signed by the President on July 15, 2016 which extends authorization through the end of FY 

2017 (September 30, 2017).

There was a discussion about the FY18 and out year budgets as the winter meeting will discuss 

the FY19 RE&D budget. There is a chance that the FY18 and out year budget won’t be ready in 

time for the winter REDAC meetings, but this is not expected to happen. There was also a 

discussion about RE&D funding not keeping pace with inflation. 

Presentation Responses to REDAC Recommendations & Actions | Presenter Jim 

Hileman

Discussion: Jim walked through the existing findings and recommendations from the past two 

meetings (August 2015 and April 2016). The recommendation from the August 2015 meeting 

was closed. The April 2016 recommendations were left open. He also walked through the action 

items from previous meetings. Those items that are still open are copied below.

Action items (from previous meetings) Person responsible Deadline

Create ASCENT fact sheet for sharing with community J. Hileman February 2017

Share the ASCENT NFO with the REDAC E&E 

Subcommittee (on an annual basis)

J. Hileman February 2017

Leverage “right-to-left” thinking in developing 

roadmaps wherein we start by thinking about the 

endpoint (goal) that is desired and decide how to get 

there

J. Hileman February 2017

Carefully consider NARP milestones on noise metrics R. Cointin February 2017

Add a NARP milestone on supersonic aircraft R. Cointin February 2017

Monetize the air quality and climate benefits of having 

an alternative jet fuel with reduced sulfur and 

naphthalene content

J. Hileman August 2017

Leverage the road mapping efforts at NASA and FAA to 

update the White House National R&D Plan

J. Hileman August 2017

Presentation E&E Research Overview | Presenter Jim Hileman

Discussion: Jim gave an overview of the Environment and Energy Research to refresh the 

Subcommittee on the research program. This includes the goals for the program, the overall 

strategy and plan, and where the money comes from to do the work.

He provided additional details on the CLEEN Program including recent accomplishments, 

alternative fuels testing, the release of the Federal Alternative Jet Fuel Strategy, the coming 

CAAFI Biennial General Meeting, and the recently completed operations research meeting. 
Page 4

There was considerable discussion on the subject of the environmental goals and a clarification 

on the historical nature of the goals. Jim noted that there will be much discussion on the noise 

goal throughout the day. 

Jim presented information on the Noise Technology Workshops that are being developed by the 

INCE, NAE, NASA, Volpe and FAA. The intent is to raise awareness of aircraft noise issues and 

the need for new technologies to reduce aircraft noise. A subcommittee member asked whom 

would be the audience and Jim noted it would be a wide range of individuals that could include 

manufacturers, government agencies, congressional staffers, and community groups. 

He summarized the efforts being supported with AIP funds on Airport Environment Research 

that are being led by the Tech Center, Office of Airports, and AEE. 

The budget section of the briefing provided a breakout of the funding by research topic. Jim 

noted that roughly half of the R&D funds go to the CLEEN Program and that roughly $10 

million go to ASCENT. 

Jim provided recent accomplishments that were funded by the Environment and Energy 

program. A subcommittee member stated that the FAA should be proud of these 

accomplishments. 

Jim closed with three questions that are being posed to the Subcommittee for the Day 2 Priorities 

Discussion.

Presentation Noise Research – Roadmap and Update | Presenter Rebecca Cointin

Discussion: Becky presented research being done on noise. This included the Noise Roadmap

structure, an update on the Aviation Noise Survey, UAS Certification and other Environmental 

Considerations, and Quantifying Noise Impacts and Tracking Noise Trends.

A subcommittee member commended Becky for the Noise Research Roadmap chart as she finds 

it very useful. 

There was a discussion about the survey and efforts to re-evaluate DNL 65. Becky noted that the 

research is going well. She noted that it is being conducted to understand if a change is warranted 

and to be prepared should the research indicate a change is indeed needed. Becky noted that 

there are a number of policies that would be affected by a change with the Part 150 program 

being among them. Becky presented related research that is supporting the evaluation of the 

DNL 65 threshold. A subcommittee member asked if the staff levels have increased with the size 

of this research effort. Becky noted that it has not but her staff has really stepped up to ensure the 

work gets done.

During the discussion on UAS, Becky clarified that a risk-based certification approach for UAS 

noise would focus on a consideration of the size and mission in terms of the noise requirements. 

In other words, the same UAS would have very different noise impacts if it was operating over a 

pipeline versus a busy city street. Becky noted that the recent ASSURE noise measurements 

showed that the UAS being examined was louder than was expected. There was considerable 

discussion on UAS implementation and the need to get in front of the issues that are coming.

Becky presented the historical trends on noise exposure to DNL 65 within the US. She noted that 

while noise exposure has decreased by a factor of 20 over the last 40 years, the noise trend is 

increasing of late. A subcommittee member asked the level of accuracy within the data and the 
Page 5

FAA noted that the population exposure data is indeed sensitive to aircraft flight paths in areas 

with high population data near airports. 

There was a question about the costs of certification and the FAA noted that the Safety 

Subcommittee is carefully considering certification by analysis. A subcommittee member asked 

if it could work for noise. The FAA noted that this might be of interest but we should not 

underestimate the challenge in predicting noise via modeling. 

Presentation Update on Aircraft Technology Assessment Efforts | Presenter Arthur 

Orton

Discussion – Arthur provided information on the efforts to assess aircraft technology at the 

aircraft and fleet levels. This included evaluations of CLEEN technologies, evaluations of how 

mission specification changes could impact aircraft design and environmental performance, and 

a long term aircraft technology evolution and the resulting noise, emissions and fuel burn in the 

future. These projects are all being done by COE universities. 

Arthur presented the CLEEN technology evaluation results from PARTNER Project 36 and 

ASCENT Project 10. This included a range of technology introduction rates – for both CLEEN 

and NASA technologies that are available in the near term. The results show that CLEEN 

technologies could reduce fuel burn by 24 billion gallons between now and 2050 and lead to 

LTO NOx emissions being held at 2005 levels through 2050 (even with anticipated growth in 

aircraft operations). Further, the new technologies could reduce takeoff noise to a level that is 

below 2010 levels. A subcommittee member noted that the incorporation of new technologies is 

reducing noise during takeoff but is not having a commensurate reduction in approach noise. 

He presented work on the mission specification from PARTNER Project 43. Reduced cruise 

Mach number has the potential to reduce fuel burn for all aircraft classes by 5 to 10%. Reduced 

design range has significant fuel burn reduction effects of 5 to 10+% in the longer range aircraft 

but it is not very effective in shorter range (RJ, SA) vehicles. Span increases are ineffective for 

larger aircraft and provide only modest improvements for smaller aircraft. Significant 

improvements (>10%) from span increases require unconventional configurations. Combinations 

of Mach, range, and span can further increase benefits.

The ongoing efforts of ASCENT Project 10 were also presented. The project has the objective to 

define a range of scenarios that bound the demand for future aviation activity and assess the 

effects of different fleet composition and aircraft technology on fuel burn, emissions, and noise 

from aviation. The focus of the effort thus far has been to conduct a series of workshops to solicit 

public information from industry, government and academia. The workshop outputs are being 

incorporated into aircraft and fleet wide assessment tools by the research team. The team intends 

to complete analysis and reporting by May 2017.

He finished with a discussion on the ongoing work of ASCENT Project 37 to evaluate CLEEN II 

technologies. This is going to be a joint effort between the research team and analysts at FAA 

AEE.

A subcommittee member commended Arthur for his efforts on the work. 
Page 6

Presentation Historical Noise Exposure and Analysis of Future Trends for Noise | 

Presenter Fabio Grandi and Chris Dorbian 

Discussion: Fabio presented the historical noise exposure to assess the aviation system progress 

towards the goal of reducing the U.S. population exposed to significant aircraft noise. This effort 

results in an estimate of the number of people exposed to aircraft noise and is created by 

collecting the best fleet and operations information available for preceding years for input to the 

Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) model. He noted that we use the information 

generated over multiple years to visualize progress towards the goal in the form of a population 

noise exposure trend line.

A subcommittee member asked if AEDT could be used to model situations before and after the 

implementation of flight path changes. Fabio confirmed that we can indeed do this. 

A subcommittee member noted that AEDT is being used by Hong Kong airport to restrict 

aircraft operations. Unfortunately, they are using an older aircraft model as a substitution for that 

aircraft within AEDT for modeling purposes. The FAA asked the member to provide the 

appropriate data as FAA would be happy to incorporate it into the AEDT model.

A subcommittee member asked how hard it is to re-run older years. Fabio stated there is work 

required, but the FAA are doing this to rerun the years from 2005 to 2013 to match the recent 

AEDT2b runs for 2014 and 2015.

There was a discussion about how the process to develop annual noise exposure could be 

changed from an annual basis to be run more often and more efficiently. The FAA noted that 

radar cleanup is the most difficult portion of the process and the one requiring the most time. A 

subcommittee member indicated that the ability to examine fuel burn and noise data in faster 

time could prove very useful and insightful to the FAA.

Chris presented the analysis to quantify the noise levels from the future fleet. The analysis is 

consistent with existing evaluations of projected aircraft operations and fuel burn levels (i.e., 

‘Goals’ runs featured in 2015 US Climate Action Plan) to inform future (post 2018) noise goal 

planning.

A subcommittee member asked whether or not the analysis is considering population growth. 

Chris noted that the population is fixed within this analysis. The FAA stated that including 

population growth would add uncertainty to the results as the results are most sensitive to 

population fluctuations near the airport. The subcommittee member noted that if the work is to 

inform goal setting, then you should include population fluctuations. 

Presentation CAEP Analyses Supported by FAA AEE Tools | Presenter Maryalice 

Locke

Discussion: Maryalice walked through the process to develop CAEP standards and how the FAA 

tools are supporting these analyses. She provided a historical perspective on the use of FAA tools 

in the CAEP process. She provided information on CAEP metric systems development, CAEP 

stringency option development, stringency option analyses, and evaluation of CAEP standard 

levels.

A subcommittee member noted that the analysis work done by the FAA team is amazing. They 

commented that FAA spends months with the various domestic and international stakeholders to 
Page 7

develop the inputs to the models. The result is a set of information that is used for standard 

setting. She wanted to know that the Subcommittee is very supportive of FAA efforts on this 

front.

A subcommittee member asked who provides tools to the CAEP process. The FAA answered 

that the majority of the tools are provided by the US and Europe but other States also provide 

their tools to be approved by CAEP for use. These models follow certain procedures including 

ICAO Document 9911.

Presentation AEDT Development | Presenter Joe DiPardo and Mohammed Majeed

Discussion: Joe and Mohammed presented an overview of AEDT efforts that includes the 

drivers behind AEDT development, information on AEDT usage, the AEDT development plan 

as well as varied research efforts that are supporting AEDT. 

Joe and Mohammed presented details on the functionality that will be included in future service 

packs for AEDT2b and AEDT2c. They also presented an overview of what is expected for 

AEDT3.

A subcommittee member asked how the FAA handles backward compatibility with new releases 

of AEDT. Joe said that the team does a variety of checks to examine the stability of the results. 

A subcommittee member asked about the emissions speciation profile that is used within AEDT. 

The FAA said that the work on speciation was completed a while ago when there were 

considerable efforts on hazardous air pollutants. The subcommittee member confirmed that no 

additional work is needed as the existing speciation is sufficient.

A subcommittee member asked who provides the underlying data within BADA 3 and BADA 4. 

The FAA clarified that industry provides the information as contractors to Eurocontrol. The FAA 

noted that it wants to include BADA 4 within AEDT but the agreement needs to be put in place 

with Eurocontrol to allow it. A subcommittee member asked if there is another way to generate 

the data that is in BADA 4. The FAA agreed it is possible to generate the data but it would 

require the FAA to contract with industry and perhaps academia to generate the data.

There was a discussion about the importance of appropriately selecting aircraft substitutions 

within AEDT.

A subcommittee member asked if the FAA has thought about the development of an AEDT light 

that has on-off switches. Other subcommittee members asked why we need a simple tool. They 

noted that we may be fine with the complicated tool. The subcommittee agreed that a light 

version is not necessary with the use of SQL databases underlying the tool.

A subcommittee member noted that the tool could benefit from a series of simple examples that 

would help with the simple problems of interest. The meeting agreed that the on-off switch ask is 

not needed and the FAA should examine the sample problems that are within AEDT. 

The FAA noted that the development items listed in AEDT3 were largely derived during the 

December 2015 Aircraft Performance Module (APM) workshop and are meant to improve the 

quantification of noise and fuel burn. Such improvements are needed to properly quantify the 

benefits of NextGen and to examine new opportunities to further reduce the noise and fuel burn 

of aviation through operational procedures. 
Page 8

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Examine the sample problems for AEDT and see if they 

could be augmented with additional simple problems of 

interest.

Mohammed Majeed 

and Joe DiPardo

August 2017

Presentation APMT-Impacts for Air Quality and Climate – Development Update | 

Presenter Ralph Iovinelli and Daniel Jacob

Discussion: Ralph gave an overview of the work that is ongoing to develop tools to quantify the 

impacts of aviation emissions on air quality and climate. Daniel provided details on the air 

quality and climate tools that are being developed by the FAA.

Daniel presented details on the APMT-Impacts Climate model as well as the APMT-Impact Air 

Quality models. The APMT-Impacts AQ modeling effort has been extended to the local level to 

enable FAA to quantify the benefit of reduced fuel burn that is accompanying the introduction of 

NextGen. 

A subcommittee member asked about the differences in various air quality tools and Daniel 

explained the relative uses of AERMOD and CMAQ. 

A subcommittee member asked about the examination of cruise emissions on surface air quality. 

The FAA clarified that cruise emissions are examined for CAEP cost benefit analysis and the 

research team is currently quantifying the uncertainty that is due to the uncertainty in the 

background emissions inventory of ammonia.

Daniel noted ongoing work of ASCENT Project 18 to measure ambient particulate matter and to 

see if there is a correlation with aircraft operations around Boston Logan airport. This would help 

us know if individual aircraft operations are actually leading to increased exposure of PM. 

The subcommittee was very supportive of the new direction of project 18 as it is a clear need in 

terms of helping understand the impacts of aviation emissions. 

Daniel finished the briefing with a timeline of APMT-Impacts development. 

End of Day Discussion

The DFO asked for feedback on the afternoon session. There was a lot of positive feedback on 

the afternoon tools session as it provided useful technical details on the work being done by 

AEE. The subcommittee especially appreciated seeing how the tools will be used and the 

practical aspects. 

Presentation Elements of the Weather In The Cockpit (WTIC) Program Relating to 

Aug 2015 Recommendation #7 | Presenter Gary Pokodner

Discussion: Gary presented elements of the WTIC program that relate to August 2015 

Recommendation #7. The WTIC program is conducting research to develop, verify, and validate 
Page 9

recommendations for incorporation into Part 121/135 and Part 91 Minimum Weather Service 

standards/guidance. The focus of the briefing was on WTIC efforts to enhance efficiency with a 

special emphasis on the WTIC WIND Study which is examining how to better utilize the wind. 

The efficiency enhancements are in reduced workload as well as fuel savings. 

There was a discussion about how various efforts at FAA and NASA are linked in terms of 

utilizing weather information. This was prompted by a discussion on engine icing.

A subcommittee member asked who is involved in the effort. Gary responded that the work is 

done by FAA, MIT-LL, MITRE, the Pegasus COE, Delta Airlines (on EDR), American Airlines 

(on tactical turbulence efforts), among others. 

There were several questions relating to how the weather data could be used with existing FMS 

systems and uploading information to the cockpit. Gary said that they have worked extensively 

with Honeywell and their FMS and that there is a limit to the amount of data that can be sent to 

the cockpit due to the datalink and you have to be very careful about what is shared with the 

pilots due to workload issues.

There was a brief discussion on contrails and Gary noted that the AWRP Program is the better 

group to engage on this topic.

Presentation Update on ASCENT Project 1 Efforts and Farm-to-Fly 2.0 | Presenter

Nathan Brown and Dan Williams

Discussion: Nate and Dan gave an update on alternative jet fuel analysis efforts that are ongoing. 

This included an overview of the ASCENT Project 1 team structure and its work to examine 

alternative jet fuel supply chains and deployment. It also included an update on analysis efforts 

related to alternative jet fuels in ICAO CAEP. 

Nate provided details on ASCENT Project 1. This included the efforts of Washington State 

University to develop siting benefits and strategies in the Pacific Northwest, the work of 

University of Tennessee to use the Polysys model to understand feedstock economics, the 

analysis of Volpe using the Alt. Fuels Transportation Optimization Tool (AFTOT) to model 

refinery locations that could meet future alternative jet fuel production levels and some recent 

results from the DOE National Renewable Energy Lab using their Biomass Scenario Model 

(BSM). He finished his part of the briefing with an update on the Farm to Fly 2.0 program.

There was considerable discussion around the NREL results which were created with the 

ASCENT Project 1 inputs and there was a request to consider how the inclusion of the California 

Air Resources Board Low Carbon Fuel Standard would impact the results.

Dan followed Nate and presented the work that is ongoing within ASCENT Project 1 to support 

the ICAO Alternative Fuel Task Force (AFTF). This includes the recently completed fuel 

production assessment that has forecast global alternative jet fuel production in 2050 as well as 

the ongoing life cycle analysis efforts to ensure that alternative jet fuels are included in the global 

market based measure.

There was a lengthy discussion on the relationship between alternative jet fuels and the global 

market based measure to inform the attendees about how the two are related. 
Page 10

Presentation Industry Perspective | Presenter Steve Alterman and Nancy Young

Discussion: The Subcommittee discussed the items listed below. There were no slides.

The recently passed FAA reauthorization only runs through September 2017 and there will be 

much work next year on this and the nature of the work will depend on the election results.

Steve mentioned that there is a report that was published by the Inspector General on R&D 

within the FAA. Steve stated that everyone is satisfied with E&E program so there is likely 

nothing in it on E&E.

There was a discussion on the EPA process for implementing the CO2 certification standard that 

was agreed upon at the CAEP/10 meeting. There was a brief discussion on how the new 

standard could affect the fleet of commercial and cargo airlines.

Presentation NASA Update| Presenter Jay Dryer

Discussion: Jay gave an update on NASA Aeronautics efforts. He focused on the NASA goals, 

structure of the aeronautics program, and key work areas. This included the New Aviation 

Horizons program, enabling tools and technologies, revolutionizing operational efficiency, 

fostering advanced concepts and future workforce, UAS and hypersonics.

A subcommittee member commended the efforts of NASA and the FAA on supersonics. Another 

subcommittee member said the collaboration is good but he does want to make sure that the end 

product is mutually understood. There was much discussion on how NASA and FAA are 

working closely together on issues of supersonics, helicopters, alternative fuels, technology 

maturation, UAS noise, and PM measurements.

A subcommittee member noted that FAA and NASA are working from common tools to do 

their analyses and the use of these tools has enabled greater coordination in their respective 

research efforts. 

Priorities Discussion | Lead Mahendra Joshi

The Subcommittee was asked by the Subcommittee Chair to consider these three questions:

1. Are there R&D areas within the E&E Portfolio that should be lower / higher priority?

2. Are there R&D areas that AEE is not examining that should be added to the E&E 

Portfolio?

3. What do you see coming on the horizon regarding E&E that may require future R&D 

efforts? 

The subcommittee had considerable discussions based on these three questions that led to the 

creation of the findings and recommendations that were submitted by the Subcommittee. Some 

of the discussion is captured below in relation to each of the questions that were asked.

Discussion on Question #1

A subcommittee member asked what was dropped due to the F&E funding reduction and what 

FAA would like to see reinstated from this. The FAA stated that the FMS effort in CLEEN, 
Page 11

research on operational procedures, and AEDT development have all been reduced and they 

would like to see funding restored for these as it could directly help noise efforts. 

A subcommittee member stated that the airlines are dealing with noise and want to see 

alternative fuels developed. They also need the technologies being matured by the CLEEN 

Program to help with noise. Their priority order is CLEEN, Noise (noting that this is a broad 

area that includes noise research roadmap, operational procedure development, and AEDT 

development to help with noise) and Alternative Fuels. 

In response to discussion within the Subcommittee, the FAA noted that we need a better 

understanding on fuel composition and its impact on emissions.

Discussion on Question #2

A subcommittee member noted that FAA could do more work on chemicals as it relates to

TSCA. She noted that certain chemical requirements for safety are in conflict with environmental 

concerns. The FAA noted this is an issue that is being handled by AVS and reported to the SAS.

A subcommittee member stated it would be useful to know how population encroachment 

impacts noise. Specifically, she asked about the importance of population encroachment to the 

increased population exposure. The FAA noted that such an analysis could be performed using 

the existing data within the goals analysis.

A subcommittee member asked about perfluorinated compounds. The FAA noted that AVS is 

working on this subject and the work is reported to the SAS and that the issue is also relevant for 

the Airports Subcommittee. 

A subcommittee member noted their concern that the Airport Environment Research projects are 

at the contracting stage. He suggested that FAA work to improve the speed of the contracting 

process. 

A subcommittee member asked if there are ways that the FAA could improve the modeling 

experience with AEDT (e.g., by having it be able to better use varied input data and increase 

efficiency of AEDT runs).

A subcommittee member asked if the FAA could quantify the benefit or prove the disbenefit of 

alternative fuels on emissions that affect air quality. He noted that the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) is interested in understanding the impacts of alternative fuel use on NOx 

emissions.

Several subcommittee members noted that there is much work ongoing within AEE and there 

was a discussion whether AEE has sufficient staff to handle the workload.

Some subcommittee members gave the FAA kudos for getting the PM measurements in place

and to getting it done on time and budget. 

A subcommittee member noted that his priorities were: NextGen support, ICAO CAEP support, 

and the CLEEN program. He noted that UAS should be a lower priority.

Another subcommittee member stated that the operations research technical review was useful. 

She also noted that many folks are not aware of the work of AEE and that we should increase our 

efforts to communicate the efforts. She also stated that the noise research roadmap and the 

planning for it are both good as are the AER projects.
Page 12

Discussion on Question #3

A subcommittee member complemented the FAA and NASA for their cooperation as it is very 

good. He stated that it is as good as he has ever seen it. With that being said, he noted that there 

are some activities that will come up in the next few years where the FAA will need to take full 

advantage of the flight testing on supersonic aircraft. The FAA and NASA will need to think 

about microphone layout, propagation modeling, etc. to complement the low boom flight 

demonstrator. NASA noted that they are keen to make this happen.

The subcommittee agreed that the FAA should capitalize on tests that are being planned at 

NASA on supersonic aircraft and UAS.

The subcommittee member also said that there is a need for research to measure LTO emissions 

and LTO noise from supersonic aircraft. The emissions aspect of these aircraft is unique as the 

engine will be de-rated on takeoff. The FAA noted that some work will be needed to ensure that 

the probe will be able to work in the engine exhaust.

After being asked by a subcommittee member about it, the FAA stated that they are currently 

working on PM and GMBM in CAEP and there is work ongoing to consider certification for 

future supersonic aircraft. The FAA also noted that at some point in the future CAEP will again 

consider the stringency levels for NOx, noise and CO2 emissions. A subcommittee member

noted that NOx could come more quickly. 

A subcommittee member asked if the FAA could provide their view on what is driving the 

future. He noted that in some areas FAA are very proactive and in other areas FAA are being 

reactive to what we anticipate happening in the future. He further clarified that it would be good 

if FAA could provide a sense where they see big issues coming over the next 10 years. These 

could include issues arising from efforts at ICAO CAEP, new entrants, and/or environmental 

issues that are looming.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Quantify the importance of population encroachment to 

increased population exposure over time. 

Fabio Grandi August 2017

Meeting Close-Out | Lead Mahendra Joshi

Dimitri agreed to map out the information from the open discussion and share with everyone. 

Mahendra agreed to create a draft of the Findings and Recommendations from Dimitri’s notes, 

circulate it, and then that will go to the main REDAC. The subcommittee was highly 

complementary of the work that was presented. I agreed and said I would let AEE staff know 

this.

Subcommittee Discussion of Open Recommendations (Discuss status of FAA response and 

decide to close or remain open)

All of the recommendations from the August 2015 meeting were closed. All of the April 2016 

recommendations were left open. 
Page 13

Next Meetings – Date/Location/Agenda Items to be Included

February 28-March 1, 2017 in Washington DC

Adjourned at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Page 14

DRAFT FAA REDAC Subcommittee on Environment & Energy 

Summer 2016 Meeting Agenda

Airlines for America

1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, suite 1300

Washington, DC 20004

Meeting focus: Analytical Tool Development and Analysis Efforts within E&E Research Portfolio

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Start Duration Title Presenter

8:00 0:30 Check-In

8:30 0:05 Welcome

8:35 0:10 Chair opening statement & Introductions M. Joshi

8:45 0:15 FAA Update C. Holsclaw

9:00 0:30 R&D Executive Director Update and REDAC Protocol 

Review

E. Neiderman

9:30 0:15 Budget Update M. Gallivan

9:45 0:15 Responses to REDAC Recommendations & Actions J. Hileman

10:00 0:15 Break

10:15 0:45 AEE Research Update 

(including brief updates on CLEEN Program, Alt Fuels 

Testing, Operations, and Airport Technology Research)

J. Hileman

11:00 0:15 Discussion

11:15 0:30 Noise Research Roadmap and Update on Efforts R. Cointin

11:45 0:15 Discussion

12:00 1:00 Lunch

13:00 0:30 Update on Aircraft Technology Assessment Efforts A. Orton

13:30 0:15 Discussion

13:45 0:30 Historical Noise Exposure and Analysis of Future Trends for 

Noise

F. Grandi and 

C. Dorbian 

14:15 0:15 Discussion

14:30 0:15 Break

14:45 0:30 CAEP Analyses Supported by FAA AEE Tools M. Locke

15:15 0:15 Discussion

15:30 0:45 AEDT Development J. DiPardo and 

M. Majeed

16:15 0:30 APMT-Impacts for Air Quality and Climate - Development 

Update

R. Iovinelli and 

D. Jacob

16:45 0:15 Discussion

17:00 End of Day-1
Page 15

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Start Duration Title Presenter

8:00 0:30 Check-in

8:30 0:30 Elements of the Weather In The Cockpit (WTIC) Program 

Relating to Aug 2015 Recommendation #7

G. Pokodner 

9:00 0:30 Update on ASCENT Project 1 Efforts and Farm-to-Fly 2.0 N. Brown and 

D. Williams

9:30 0:30 NASA Update J. Dryer 

10:00 0:15 Break

10:15 0:30 Industry Perspective S. Alterman 

(phone)

10:45 1:15 Priorities discussion M. Joshi

12:00 0:45 Lunch

12:45 1:15 Priorities discussion, continued M. Joshi

14:00 0:45 Identify topics for subcommittee report M. Joshi

14:45 0:15 Summary of Action Items and Findings & Recommendations M. Joshi

15:00 End of Day-2
Page 16

Attendance List:

First name Last name Affiliation 30-Aug 31-Aug

Juan Alonso Stanford x

Steve Alterman CAA x

Gonca Birkan FAA x

Nate Brown FAA x

Becky Cointin FAA x x

Joe DiPardo FAA x x

Chris Dorbian FAA x x

Jay Dryer NASA x

Charles Etter Gulfstream x x

Gregg Fleming Volpe x x

Mike Gallivan FAA x

Yuri Gawdiak NASA x

Fabio Grandi FAA x x

Mohan Gupta FAA x x

Jim Hileman FAA x x

Curtis Holsclaw FAA x

Levent Ileri FAA x

Ralph Iovinelli FAA x x

Daniel Jacob FAA x

Mahendra Joshi Boeing x x

Sandy Lancaster Dallas Fort 

Worth Airport x x

Maryalice Locke FAA x

Mohammed Majeed FAA x x

Dimitri Mavris Georgia Tech x x

Alex Menotti A4A x x

Eric Neiderman FAA x x

Arthur Orton FAA x

Gary Pokodner FAA x

Katherine Preston ACI-NA x x

Ian Redhead Kansas City Intl 

Airport x x

Leslie Riegle AIA x x

Chinita Roundtree 

Coleman FAA x x

Jim Skalecky FAA x x

Ed Smith GAMA x

Rhonda Solomon FAA x x

Dan Williams FAA x

Nancy Young A4A x x

Darcy Zarubiak Haley & 

Aldrich, Inc. x x

Joe Zelina GE x