Subcommittee on Environment and Energy | MINUTES

Meeting date & time September 10-11, 2019

Meeting location 800 Main St., Washington D . C .

Purpose Develop strategic guidance for 

the FY2022 R&D portfolio

Facilitator Jim Hileman, DFO

Note taker Jim Hileman

Timekeeper Jim Hileman

Minutes from Meeting

Presentation Chair Opening Statements | Presenter Ian Redhead

Ian Redhead welcomed everyone and those in the room introduced themselves.

Presentation Responses to REDAC Recommendations & Actions | Presenter Jim Hileman

Jim Hileman walked through the existing findings and recommendations from the last two 

meetings. The findings and recommendations were left open for discussion at the end of the 

meeting. He also walked through the action items from previous meetings. Open action items are 

listed below.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Share ASCENT NFO with REDAC E&E 

Subcommittee (on an annual basis)

J. Hileman Ongoing

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 Ongoing

Monetize the air quality and climate benefits of having 

an alternative jet fuel with reduced sulfur and 

naphthalene content

J. Hileman March 2020

Leverage the road mapping efforts at NASA and FAA 

to update the White House National R&D Plan

J. Hileman On hold until 

NARP revisions 

completed

Develop a means to communicate information on 

AEDT to the layperson. This could include its noise

F. Grandi March 2020
Page 2

Action items Person responsible Deadline

and emissions modeling capabilities and how it reduces 

the need for noise and emissions monitoring

Develop a means to communicate successes from E&E 

Portfolio summary slide

J. Hileman March 2020

Examine indirect environmental impacts from aviation 

that result from modifications to supply chains

J. Hileman March 2020

Presentation FAA Update (AEE and International Efforts) | Presenter Kevin Welsh

Kevin Welsh discussed progress that AEE have made in executing the research program. He 

expressed optimism in our continuing ability to conduct research on environment and energy 

matters.

Kevin continued with a discussion on international efforts including the coming ICAO 

Assembly. He noted that the European Commission has stated that sustainability would be the 

number one aviation priority going forward. He provided details on an information paper that 

will be presented by the United States to Assembly that highlights U.S. efforts related to climate 

change. He discussed the importance of CORSIA to international aviation. The Information 

Paper was provided to the Subcommittee via email.

Kevin concluded with a discussion about efforts on hiring. We have lost staff who are retiring. 

We have been given the green light to hire engineers and we are moving forward with this.

A Subcommittee Member noted that airports are also doing work to reduce their carbon 

emissions and they are happy to share this information with the FAA.

A Subcommittee Member asked about CORSIA and the availability of offsets. The FAA noted 

that we do not have all of the needed information on offset definition to enable this.

Presentation REDAC Season | Presenter Shelley Yak

Shelley Yak let everyone know that 2017/2018 National Aviation R&D Plan has been released. 

The FAA will share the link with the Subcommittee. Shelley provided information on the 

landscape process.

Presentation R&D Landscape Document – Report Out | Presenter Steve Summer

Steve Summer handed out the landscape document and provided a briefing on it. Based on a 

question from the Subcommittee, the FAA noted that the NARP provides strategic direction 

while the landscapes document provides drivers. They both inform the development of the work 

program.

Steve summarized how they requested input from the subcommittee on drivers and how the input 

was synthetized in the landscape. He reported that they combined all the inputs received into 25 

drivers under 3 categories, with duplicate drivers being collapsed into single combined ones. He
Page 3

also reported that each driver was listed with three areas of challenges and given an expected 

time to maturity.

Steve asked the subcommittee to review the document for missing items, and to provide any 

missing input in the form of the complete text to be added and not simply as a remark noting the 

omission. He also asked that the review be completed and comments provided by the end of the 

month.

A question was asked about the distribution of funds between near and long term items of the 

work program. The DFO remarked that NASA is the agency that handles long term research, but 

that the FAA works in partnership with them. In terms of distribution for FAA AEE has about 

1/5 of the research portfolio directed toward longer term items.

A subcommittee member asked Steve to include a version number on future versions of the 

document to enable version control.

The DFO emailed the draft R&D landscape document with the Subcommittee and meeting 

attendees and solicited their input. FAA requested that the Subcommittee review the draft 

document and revise items that need modification, add items that are missing, and identify areas 

that will not be done by industry. The input should be sent to the Subcommittee Chair and DFO 

by September 30, 2019. They will then consolidate it prior to sharing with Steve.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Provide feedback to the Subcommittee Chair and DFO 

on the draft R&D landscape document.

Subcommittee 

Members

Sept 30, 2019

Presentation R&D Budget Status | Presenter Mike Gallivan

Mike Gallivan presented details on the budget process for FY19, FY20, FY21 and the out-years.

The FY19 budget was signed on February 15, 2019 and received $191.1M for RE&D funds. He 

provided a detailed comparison of the ops, F&E, Grant-in-Aid, and RE&D accounts among the 

President’s budget, subcommittee markups, and the final conference report.

He shared information on the FY20 budget, including overarching progress in developing the 

budget. He provided details on the FY20 President Budget and FY20 House report. There has 

not been a report from the Senate yet.

Mike said that the FY21 budget target is $120M and the full budget will be delivered to OST in 

June 2019.

He said that the President signed the reauthorization on October 5, 2018 and that it covers 

through to 2023.

Presentation E&E Research Update | Presenter Jim Hileman

Jim Hileman provided an overview presentation on the overall Environment and Energy 

Research and Development portfolio. He began by reminding where the Office of Environment 

and Energy (AEE) is located within the FAA organization and by reminding the subcommittee
Page 4

that as announced via email, Rebecca Cointin was selected as the permanent Deputy Director for 

AEE with Don Scata still remaining in the position of acting manager of the noise division.

Jim proceeded by providing an overview of the background context, aviation’s economic and 

environmental significance, and how the E&E R&D portfolio and programs have been set up to 

serve the AEE Mission and Vision. He then continued by highlighting what are the emerging 

aircraft technologies the office has to take into consideration and provided more details on 

AEE‘s ongoing efforts on noise, emissions, jet fuel, aircraft technology, model development, and 

modeling activities in support of decision-making.

Jim then presented an update on the ASCENT COE activities. He first provided a breakdown of 

the FY18 funding allocation by mechanisms and updated the committee on the fact that in 

addition to having challenges on executing funding via contracts, grants, and Inter Agency 

Agreements (IAA) now there have also been challenges in providing funds via the CLEEN OTA. 

Jim continued by giving a background on the ASCENT COE as well as the FAA COE program 

as a whole and noting the FAA COE program difficulties in executing funding overall because of 

the expanded COE grants approval process. He then proceeded by summarizing the new process 

that was put in place to solicit project ideas for the ASCENT COE and to obtain their preapproval. Jim reported that the effort resulted in 72 new ideas and 19 existing project 

continuations, divided into 10 categories, and that pre-approval was received for 37 projects for a 

total of $15.8M of funding, with an additional 14 projects ($4M) remaining under consideration. 

He then provided an overview of the projects to be funded with FY18 and FY19 funding. A 

question was asked whether the new grants process had improved the situation; Jim replied that 

while he is not sure it has made a difference in terms of projects funding throughput, it has made 

a difference in the project quality level and that once a decision is made on the remaining ideas 

we will proceed to initiate a new round of project ideas solicitation.

Jim continued the presentation with a review of the E&E R&D Portfolio budget profile. He first 

provided graphics reporting the historical and 6-year views of the funding sources and related 

amounts. He then proceeded with an overview of the intended target activities for FY19 funds 

by BLI, also noting that some funds for environmental research is provided from the Airport 

Technology Research (ATR) program in collaboration with the Tech Center and the Office of 

Airports. Lastly he gave an overview of the intended target activities for FY20 President Budget 

funds and a graphic of the breakdown of the E&E funded activities from FY14 to FY20.

Jim concluded the presentation by noting the program’s recent successes in terms of capabilities 

and solutions that are helping today.

Presentation Emissions Research | Presenter Laszlo Windhoffer

Laszlo Windhoffer provided a briefing highlighting emissions research efforts that are being 

done or contemplated by the office. The briefing included an overview of the current work on the 

emissions research roadmap. He provided details on a number of topics.

He provided highlights of the aviation emissions research plan. This plan has work streams on 

emissions dispersion, emissions measurements, measurement technique calibration to ease 

compliance with the nvPM standard, supersonic technology and impacts, and emissions 

measurements.
Page 5

He provided details on the particulate matter emissions measurements that have been done and 

are planned in the near term. He also noted planned work for the ASCENT Project 48 team.

Laszlo provided the five year plan for the development of a new dispersion model to replace the 

EPA Aermod model. This work is being done under ASCENT Project 19.

He presented details on the work being done to look at the costs and benefits of changing fuel 

composition. The DFO noted that once completed this information will be used to evaluate 

additional air quality and climate benefits that could result from the use of alternative jet fuels.

A Subcommittee Meeting member noted that we need to be careful with the term NEPA 

compliance. Instead this is really about NAAQS compliance.

Presentation Alternative Jet Fuels Research | Presenter Nate Brown and Dan Williams

Nate Brown started the briefing with a reminder that the FAA does work on testing, analysis, and 

coordination. He then showed a graphic of the annual production of alternative fuels over the last 

decade. He also presented the geographical locations for fuel production facilities in the United 

States.

He followed with a summary of the ongoing efforts to support the ASTM Intl process for fuel 

approvals. This includes details on the status of fuels working their way through the approval 

process. The DFO noted that the IHI fuel is going to use a fast-track process that has been 

enabled by the investments into streamlining the fuel testing process.

Nate provided information on efforts to examine alternative jet fuel supply chains and develop 

open source tools that would be available to the public. The team is considering the entire supply 

chain via multiple aspects: feedstock production, techno-economics of pathways, existing 

infrastructure, community assets, transportation routes and capacity, and economic impacts.

Additionally, he noted that the team is also working on three regional studies in the Inland 

Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and the Southeast U.S. In terms of developing open source tools for 

evaluation of supply chains, the team are considering: economics, community assets, supply 

chain risk sharing, and logistics. He gave additional details on the Fuels Transport Optimization 

Tool (FTOT) being developed by Volpe.

Dan Williams provided information on CORSIA. He also presented how Sustainable Aviation 

Fuels (SAF) can reduce an airlines offsetting obligations. He provided the high level work 

program of the ICAO CAEP Fuels Task Group (FTG), which is determining how fuels will be 

credited under CORSIA. He then tied the work of the FTG to the E&E R&D portfolio and the 

work of the ASCENT Project 1 team and Volpe Center.

A Subcommittee member asked if a business jet owner could get a certificate that says a SAF 

provided some level of benefit. The FAA noted that fuels being produced by World Fuels facility 

in the LA area are RSB certified with a defined life cycle carbon benefit. RSB might provide 

such a certificate. This question led to additional discussion on tracking the carbon benefits from 

the use of SAF.
Page 6

Presentation Supersonic R&D Efforts | Presenter Don Scata

Don Scata started the briefing with an overview of interest from industry in supersonic civil 

transportation and the efforts of the FAA. He provided information on Section 181 of 

reauthorization that requires the US to provide leadership on supersonic aviation. He also gave a 

summary of efforts from FAA and NASA to advance supersonic civil transportation.

Maryalice Locke provide details on the emissions aspects of supersonic civil transports and some 

of the research being done. She provided several slides on the work of Georgia Tech and Purdue 

on ASCENT Project 10. She also gave a high level view of ASCENT Project 47, which has just 

recently started.

Sandy Liu provided details on the en-route aspects that need to be addressed to enable supersonic 

flight over land. He provided several slides on the work of Penn State under Projects 41, 42, and

57. This included details on efforts to examine the Mach cut off operational procedure concept.

The FAA noted that we also have a trades analysis to look at the impact of cruise Mach and 

payload on noise, fuel burn, and emissions. This will prove useful to the ongoing work in ICAO 

to look at LTO noise through the exploratory study.

Discussion Industry Perspective | Presenter Steve Alterman (CAA)

Steve Alterman started his remarks by noting that the biggest issues for the industry are noise 

and emissions. New procedures to reduce fuel and emissions are not satisfying the general 

public. In the past, people complained about noise because they lived near the end of the runway; 

now, those complaining are located far away from the airport. Another problem he identified is 

social media as there are now apps where you press a button and generate a complaint. As such, 

one can get a large number of complaints from a hand full of people. He noted there are multiple 

lawsuits because of noise. He also noted the challenge in conveying the facts on the situation. He 

noted that airlines want to fly new routes as they are efficient, but that they also want to be good 

neighbors too. He also remarked that there appear to be concerns in Europe with CORSIA.

Steve noted that a company has satellites and is selling space-based ADSB signals. With the use 

of space-based ADSB, one can significantly reduce spacing between aircraft. The US has not 

purchased this information and he thinks it is at a disadvantage as a result. He noted that the 

FAA is testing this now, but there is no long-range plan for this. He stated that there is a genuine 

chance that the US will fall behind if they do not adopt this technology.

Based on a question from FAA, a number of Subcommittee members engaged in a wide ranging 

discussion on the noise from UAS and UAM. This included a range of issues including who is 

responsible for the noise (e.g., airports or the operator), the noise from these vehicles, and how 

the noise could be reduced. A Subcommittee member noted that FAA and NASA need to 

continue to collect data on UAS.
Page 7

Presentation AEE Efforts on Helicopters, UAS and UAM | Presenter Eric Elmore and Don 

Scata

Eric Elmore provided a broad view of UAS/UAM noise from policy and R&D perspectives. He 

discussed different types of vehicles and their unique aspects. He discussed the FAA authority on 

noise from 49 US CFR Section 44715 as well as the requirement of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. He concluded his part of the briefing by talking about ongoing efforts to acquire 

noise data from UAS operations.

Don Scata summarized the overall R&D work that is going done by other parts of the FAA and 

ACRP on UAS and UAM. Don provided a summary of ongoing work on helicopter noise being 

done by Penn State through ASCENT Project 38 and the Volpe Center.

A Subcommittee member asked for a clarification on the use of the helicopter research being 

performed, and Don noted that pilots were being provided with knowledge on noise levels and 

the lower noise procedures being developed.

A Subcommittee member asked what would happen if a company came to the FAA to certify an 

UAM with passengers, and specifically how would the FAA certify it for noise? The FAA said 

that they would certify it using an existing procedure, but if that does not work then the FAA 

would need to go to rulemaking. The member recommended that the FAA work with NASA to 

get the needed data to support this effort.

Presentation Operations for Reduced Noise | Presenter Chris Dorbian

Chris Dorbian provided an overview of the research FAA is doing to develop operational 

procedure concepts to reduce noise. This includes work by MIT through the FAA-Massport 

MOU, ASCENT research, and Airport Technology Research (ATR) projects.

He provided an extensive update on the work MIT is doing in ASCENT under the FAAMassport MOU. This included a description of the differences between the Block 1 and Block 2 

upgrades, a table of the ideas for Block 1, and the processes being used by FAA to evaluate these 

procedures. He provided an update on the work that MIT are doing with NASA to understand 

whether or not reducing speed actually results in a change in aircraft noise. This includes a note 

that speed reduction on takeoff is not likely to provide a noise benefit. He also provided an 

update on the progress toward creating the Section 179 report on how speed modifications could 

impact noise. He gave an update of where the Bock 1 upgrades are in the 7100.41A PBN 

process. He also gave a brief update on work to develop the Block 2 upgrades. He provided 

details on the delayed deceleration approach concept which is showing promise for reducing 

noise on approach at areas well outside the DNL 65 contour. He concluded the MIT portion of 

the briefing with a slide describing the work to validate the noise benefits of operational 

procedure changes.

Chris provided details on two recently completed Airport Technology Research projects that 

were conducted by MITRE. The first was on noise abatement procedure usage and effectiveness. 

The second was on steeper approaches for noise abatement operational feasibility. Based on the 

results from the latter project, as well as recently completed work at MIT, FAA does not intend 

to do any additional work on steeper approaches.
Page 8

He concluded with a slide on the noise risk of the NextGen Enterprise Risk Board and a 

summary of the work.

A subcommittee member asked for a clarification on the noise benefits from stepper approach 

and the FAA confirmed that the use of steeper approaches (those under 3.5 degrees) would 

provide less than 1 dB of benefit.

Discussion on Findings and Recommendations | Lead Ian Redhead

The Chair led a discussion based on the questions that were posed by the DFO during his 

morning briefing. The Chair started the discussion by noting that he is pleased to see the progress 

in executing grants. He asked for input on the questions from the audience.

A Subcommittee member said that he thinks more work needs to be done on UAS/UAM noise or 

else the FAA will not be in a position to address this key issue. The DFO noted that noise issues 

could potentially prevent the acceptance of UAS and prevent the timely certification of UAM. 

Another subcommittee member noted that subsonic aircraft noise is more important than 

UAS/UAM noise. There was a question on the remit on the E&E R&D work and it was clarified 

that privacy is not included in it.

END OF DAY 1

Presentation Aircraft Trajectory Data and Environmental Data Visualization | 

Presenters Fabio Grandi & Sean Doyle

Fabio Grandi provided the rationale for doing work in analysis of aircraft trajectory data and the 

development of environmental data visualization. He explained that as higher quality aircraft 

trajectory data has become available, additional opportunities for analytical and communication 

purposes are possible. To take maximum advantage of these opportunities, an integrated data 

management and data visualization framework is needed. He walked through the benefit of 

moving to a single data source for aircraft trajectory data and that FAA are working with MITRE 

to further develop the MITRE threaded track product, a data source that integrates the various 

radar data streams into a single data set.

Sean Doyle provided an overview of the MITRE threaded track processing overview. MITRE 

has developed treaded track for the FAA to provide customized flight track processing to meet 

specific use cases. Threaded track provides the ability to manage overlapping radar coverage, 

data quality checks, and data completeness. The final timeline to completion is yet to be 

determined as the integrated system approach is still in development as is the Enterprise 

Information Management (EIM) platform (a computational platform that will support broad data 

management and analytics capabilities efficiently across the agency). AEE is exploring the EIM 

as a management tool to support environmental data visualization and modeling, but the full 

utilization of this capability will require further development of the AEDT architecture. The EIM
Page 9

could provide a stable platform to explore options for AEDT architecture changes that were not 

previously feasible.

Fabio concluded the briefing with a discussion on data visualization needs and methods that are 

being considered by AEE and a conclusion slide.

A Subcommittee member noted that NASA also has issues with data visualization. They have 

focused on what the end user needs and to have that drive the work. The FAA said they are 

indeed thinking about the customer and usage. Another Subcommittee member suggested that 

the FAA think about the needs of other users like airports.

Another Subcommittee member strongly encouraged the FAA to focus on the end users and not 

the FAA. He used the NASA NPSS engine design code as an example and how it survives today 

because it has a broad external user base. He also said that managing regulatory requirements is 

obviously the FAA requirement.

The DFO noted that this briefing is providing a window into what could be done as we have 

improved radar data and computing capabilities. He said that the FAA could in the future 

automatically compute noise, fuel burn and emissions from the threaded track data and then use 

this data for any number of purposes, (e.g., NEPA analyses, Part 150 studies, inventories, 

research).

A Subcommittee member encouraged the FAA to reduce the barrier to entry to doing 

environmental analyses. He further encouraged the FAA to find ways to develop validated data 

in a streamlined manner. He did not want computations to be a barrier to the FAA doing 

environmental work.

The Subcommittee Chair asked for additional details on the process and timelines for doing the 

work. He requested an update on this work for the winter 2020 meeting.

The DFO noted that it will take a few years (maybe more than 5) to develop a fully automatic 

version of AEDT. The FAA stated it is something that could be included within AEDT5, but we 

have not made any formal plans for this yet.

A Subcommittee member asked about the relationship of AEDT to monitoring data. The FAA 

said that there are differences between these data sources and noted that comparisons are going 

to be made between these data sources through two new ASCENT projects.

Based on the support of the Subcommittee, the FAA agreed to explore the potential for a new 

architecture for AEDT that could be automated using threaded track data within an environment 

like the EIM. The FAA took an action to report to the Subcommittee on the efforts covered in 

this briefing and further thoughts on modifying the AEDT architecture at the next Subcommittee 

meeting.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Provide an update on work to utilize threaded track 

data, develop visualization tools, and potential changes 

in the AEDT architecture that could streamline 

environmental analyses.

Fabio Grandi, 

Mohammed Majeed, 

Joe DiPardo, Sean 

Doyle

March 18, 2020
Page 10

Presentation AEDT Update | Presenter Mohammed Majeed and Joe DiPardo

Mohammed Majeed and Joe DiPardo provided an update on AEDT tool development. The 

briefing covered the current focus of AEDT development, the current status of AEDT, AEDT 

Near-Term Development (FY19 – FY21) and AEDT Future Development (FY22+).

Mohammed talked about the need to develop a new dispersion model for use in AEDT as well 

efforts by the AEDT development team to identify and overcome issues that were identified 

during a recent analysis that was conducted at Chicago O’Hare. He continued with an update on 

the status of the AEDT3b release, which has been delayed due to additional time being required 

to get all of the legal agreements in place between the FAA and Eurocontrol to use the BADA4 

database. He provided information on AEDT3c, which is planned for release in February 2020.

Joe continued the briefing by walking through the FY2020 development plan and its focus on 

addressing the AEDT maintenance backlog. The team will also launch a user feedback review, 

which will solicit feedback on AEDT 3c.

A Subcommittee member asked that people who don’t regularly use AEDT because of its 

complexity also be included. The FAA said they would take this on, but will need help from the 

airport community to identify one to two people to help with this.

Joe provided more information on additional work that will be done on the 3 series of AEDT as 

well as the current plans for AEDT4. The development goals for AEDT4 will be higher fidelity 

noise characterization, incorporating an improved emissions dispersion tool, and update the GIS 

engine to reduce development costs. He concluded with the timeline for AEDT development and 

a short summary of what was provided in the slide deck.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Identify 1-2 people from the airport community to help 

gain user feedback on AEDT

Mohammed Majeed, 

Joe DiPardo

March 18, 2020

Presentation Screening Tool Development | Presenter Sean Doyle

Sean Doyle provided an update on the development of a new noise screening tool at FAA. He 

started with the timeline which includes developing a methodology in FY19, scoping of the new 

tool in FY20 and implementation of the tool in FY21. He noted that the new tool will need to be 

consistent, conservative, and credible.

He provided the policy needs that will be addressed by the tool in terms of NEPA wherein a 

screening tool is often used to inform whether a CATEX is appropriate or whether an 

Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement must be considered (using a 

comprehensive modeling tool).
Page 11

He concluded with some information on the current FAA noise screening tools and then 

provided the roadmap to finishing the new screening tool.

A Subcommittee Member asked about the involvement of NASA in this work. The FAA said 

that we are currently focused on getting the policy aspects right but would in the future reach out 

externally. The DFO noted that the screening tool has been a great example of AEE working 

closely with the Air Traffic Organization, The Office of Airports, and MITRE.

A Subcommittee Member noted that FAA should also consider developing a screening tool for 

air quality. The FAA commented that the EPA also has a role in this area.

A few Subcommittee members asked about what is meant by the terms accuracy and 

conservative with respect to the screening tool. The FAA clarified that the tool is being 

conservative from a NEPA perspective, and that the accuracy is from the point of view of 

ensuring that NEPA work is done accurately. There was also a discussion on the need for the 

FAA to carefully consider how visual communication is handled by the tool.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Provide a briefing on screening tool efforts related to 

emissions and air quality.

Ralph Iovinelli March 18, 2020

Presentation Noise Research | Presenter Don Scata

Don Scata started his briefing by noting that much of the AEE work was already covered during 

other parts of the meeting and his briefing is covering aspects that were not covered elsewhere. 

His briefing focused on how the E&E R&D portfolio is supporting the development of materials 

to respond to reauthorization requests. Many of these are focused on noise. He provided details 

on the work to examine the sleep and health impacts of noise. He also briefly discussed 

commercial space.

Based on a question from a Subcommittee member, the FAA stated that the community noise 

survey is still under review and that Section 187 of Reauthorization requires its release by 

October 2020.

Presentation Aircraft Technology Research (CLEEN) | Presenter Levent Ileri

Levent Ileri provided a summary of the first two phases of the CLEEN program as well as plans 

for the third phase of CLEEN, which will start with FY2020 funding. He summarized the 

expected benefits of the technologies which were matured under CLEEN Phase I as well as the 

technologies being matured under CLEEN Phase II. His slide deck provided considerable details 

on the draft solicitation for the CLEEN Phase III project, which was shared during the industry 

day in December 2018.
Page 12

A member asked if we have a list of technologies that have been introduced into the fleet. He 

thought that a one pager describing this would be very useful. This led to a discussion on how to 

better communicate the successes of CLEEN to the lay person. There was also a discussion on 

the development of analytical tools that have resulted from the investments made in CLEEN.

Levent noted that the CLEEN companies have also taken an action to develop a condensed way 

to communicate the benefits of CLEEN.

Based on a question, the DFO confirmed that the CLEEN companies have made a two-to-one 

cost share match and the Subcommittee asked that this information be shared.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Develop a short, one-pager that communicates the 

benefits that have come from the CLEEN Program.

Levent Ileri March 18, 2020

Presentation NASA Update | Presenter Barb Esker (NASA)

Barb gave an update on NASA Aeronautics efforts. She started by providing an overview of 

drivers moving NASA aeronautics and then gave on update on budget profile for NASA 

aeronautics and how funding is being shifted to support NASA’s testing infrastructure. The 

briefing provided details on work related to supersonics, vertical flight and subsonic transports.

She concluded by noting a few things. The overall support from key stakeholders is strong. She 

also said that NASA are on the verge of completing several projects: Advanced Composites, 

UAS in the NAS, and Airspace Demonstrations. Outreach and communications on the results 

from these will be ongoing. She also noted continued support for NASA’s larger testing facilities 

at the Agency level. She also highlighted a few changes in NASA Aeronautics leadership.

The Subcommittee noted that the collaboration between FAA and NASA is exemplary.

Priorities Discussion and Development of Findings and Recommendations | Lead Ian 

Redhead

The Subcommittee Chair led a discussion on the three questions that were raised by the DFO on 

day 1.

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

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

Portfolio?

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

efforts?

The Chair opened the floor to members responding to the questions and initiate discussion on the 

findings and recommendations.

Key points related to Question 1 on lower / higher priority
Page 13

 UAS/UAM are both important but there is a distinction between the two and UAM need 

to be a higher priority (but they are still less important than continued work on the 

subsonic civil fleet). The importance of UAM should be raised, but it is not more 

important than subsonic.

 There was a discussion on the relative priority of subsonic, UAM/UAS, supersonics, and 

commercial space, and that the order of priority has not changed since previous 

meetings. The Subcommittee agreed that more nuance is needed on the 

recommendations related to noise and this prioritization.

 There was an agreement that a recommendation is needed to state that NASA and FAA 

need to work closely on both UAM and UAS such that noise is not a barrier to UAM 

vehicles being certified in a timely manner, and that UAS noise does not lead to a 

plethora of local ordinances which inhibits the growth of the industry

 There would also be a separate recommendation on noise from supersonic and subsonic 

noise.

Key points related to Question 2

 Subcommittee agreed the priority order does not need to change 

Key points related to Question 3

 A Subcommittee member asked if there is something needed to facilitate certification of 

hybrid electric vehicles. The DFO noted that GA vehicles have few, if any, emissions 

certification requirements and therefore this is not an issue. These vehicles would of 

course need to be certified for noise, as has been discussed previously during the 

meeting.

 A subcommittee member asked about water issues. The DFO noted that the Airports 

Technology Research (ATR) is covering water issues. The Chair said he would talk to 

the Airports REDAC Subcommittee to ensure that efforts are ongoing to deal with 

existing airport PFOS contamination.

 A subcommittee member asked about non-CO2 emissions and their climate impacts. A 

second member asked about contrails. He suggested that there should be an expansion of 

the portfolio to examine contrails. The DFO explained that the climate impact of 

contrails and aviation induced cloudiness is likely of the same order of magnitude as 

CO2 but that contrails have a much shorter timescale in terms of their impact. The FAA 

has done much work on this subject in the past, but has not had much, if any, work on 

climate impacts within the last year. Two projects are currently in the queue to continue 

this work on climate impacts. The Subcommittee asked the FAA to identify potential 

research that could be done to understand and mitigate the climate impacts of contrails 

and aviation induced cloudiness.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Identify potential research that could be done to 

improve our understanding of the climate impacts of 

non-CO2 emissions in general, and of contrails and

Ralph Iovinelli March 18, 2020
Page 14

After returning from lunch, the Chair asked the Meeting to go through the findings and 

recommendations that were still open.

Regarding REDAC recommendation 2019-03 #1, the meeting agreed to close the current 

recommendation and will write an updated recommendation on alternative jet fuels.

Regarding REDAC recommendation 2019-03 #4, the meeting agreed to close the 

recommendation. The Sub-committee agreed to write a new recommendation related to public 

private partnerships that captures improvements of the grant approval process. The meeting also 

noted that they would like to see additional streamlining of the process.

Regarding REDAC recommendation 2019-03 #3, the meeting agreed to close the 

recommendation. The Sub-committee will write a new recommendation using the previously 

discussed points (from Question #1 above here).

Regarding REDAC recommendation 2019-03 #5, the Chair noted that the FAA presented 

information on this and the meeting agreed to close this. The meeting requested the FAA 

provide information on the work on Aermod at the next meeting.

Regarding REDAC recommendation 2019-03 #2, the Chair noted that there needs to be 

continued work on the international front. The meeting agreed to create a new recommendation 

as AEE is working with a reduced work force.

In summary, the meeting agreed to write recommendations on the following: 1-2 on noise, 

international efforts, public private partnerships, alt fuels and workforce. Chinita clarified that 

the Findings and Recommendations need to be completed by September 25.

The Chair asked for additional topics.

A Subcommittee member asked if the FAA could provide a clear statement on the future 

direction of AEDT to ensure the work remains focused.

A Subcommittee member suggested that younger NASA staff be invited to the REDAC E&E 

meetings to make them more knowledgeable on the issues of noise.

The Chair asked for a briefing on what is happening with water. The DFO agreed to invite 

Michel Hovan to come talk about both the ATR environment work as well as efforts relating to 

water.

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Provide a clear statement on the future direction of 

AEDT within a dedicated AEDT briefing

Mohammed Majeed 

and Joe DiPardo

March 18, 2020

Invite younger staff at NASA to sit in coming E&E 

Subcommittee meetings

Barb Esker and Jim 

Hileman

February 1, 2020

Provide a briefing from the Airport Technology 

Research portfolio on the environmental efforts,

Jim Hileman March 18, 2020

Action items Person responsible Deadline

Aviation induced cloudiness, in particular, and means to 

mitigate these impacts.
Page 15

Action items Person responsible Deadline

including those impacting water at airports (e.g., 

firefighting foams)

Meeting Close-Out | Lead Ian Redhead

Ian thanked everyone for their participation. The dates for the summer 2020 meeting were not 

decided.

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

decide to close or remain open)

All of the recommendations from the March 2019 meeting were closed. All of the 

recommendations from the September 2018 meeting were left open.

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

March 17-18, 2020 in Washington DC

July 22-23, 2020 in Washington DC

Adjourned at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, September 11, 2019
FAA REDAC Subcommittee on Environment & Energy 

Summer 2019 Meeting Agenda

GAMA 1400 K St. NW #801 Washington, DC 20005

Purpose:

 Develop strategic guidance for the FY2022 R&D portfolio

 FAA provides deep‐dive briefings on topics of interest to develop strategic guidance

 E&E REDAC to provide recommendations on R&D portfolio and direction

TELECONFERENCE / WEBEX Information

Read Ahead Materials: https://redacdb.faa.gov/browse.cfm

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Time

8:00

8:30

Duration

0:30

0:05

Title

Check‐In 

Welcome

Presenter

A. Grose

8:35 0:10 Chair opening statement & Introductions I. Redhead

8:45 0:30 FAA Update (AEE and International Efforts) K. Welsh

9:15 0:30 Industry Perspective S. Alterman (TBC)

9:45

10:00

10:15

10:30

0:15

0:15

0:15

0:30

Budget Update 

Discussion 

Break

FAA R&D Landscape Document ‐ Report Out

M. Gallivan (TBC)

S. Summer

11:00 0:15 Responses to REDAC Recommendations & Actions J. Hileman

11:15

11:45

12:00

13:00

0:30

0:15

1:00

0:45

E&E Research Update 

Discussion

Lunch

ASCENT COE ‐ Project Development Process and New

J. Hileman

J. Hileman

13:45 0:45

Projects

Briefing on Supersonic R&D Efforts w/ Discussion TBD (Cointin, Scata,

Liu, Windhoffer)

14:30 0:30 Briefing on AEE Efforts on Helicopters, UAS and UAM D. Scata / E. Elmore

15:00

15:15

0:15

0:30

Break

Briefing on Ops for Low Noise C. Dorbian

15:45 0:30 Analysis & Tools Briefing ‐ Focus on Trajectory Evaluation F. Grandi & S. Doyle

16:15 0:30

and Visualization Efforts

Briefing on AEDT Plans & Screening Tool Development J. DiPardo, M.

16:45 0:45 Subcommittee Discussion on Ideas for Findings &

Majeed & S. Doyle

I. Redhead

17:30

Recommendations 

End of Day‐1
Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Time Duration Title Presenter

8:00 0:30 Check-in

8:30 0:30 Briefing on Noise R&D Efforts D. Scata

9:00 0:30 Briefing on Emissions R&D Efforts R. Iovinelli

9:30 0:30 Briefing on Fuels (including fuels aspects of CORSIA) N. Brown & D.

Williams

10:00 0:15 Break

10:15 0:30 Briefing on CLEEN Program L. Ileri

10:45 0:45 Briefing from NASA R. Wahls (TBC)

11:30 0:30 Priorities discussion I. Redhead

12:00 0:45 Lunch

12:45 1:00 Priorities discussion I. Redhead

13:45 0:45 Subcommittee Discussion on Ideas for Findings & I. Redhead

Recommendations

14:30 0:30 Agree on Draft Action Items and Findings & I. Redhead

Recommendations for the E&E Meeting

15:00 End of Day‐2
Page 16

Attendance

Day 1 Day 2

Ian Redhead 

Jim Hileman

Veronica Bradley 

Gregg Fleming 

Fabio Grandi 

Sandy Lancaster 

Jayant Sabnis 

Charles Etter 

Andrew Murphy 

Melinda Pagliarello 

David Hyde

Juan Alonso 

Barb Esker

Melvin Kosanchick 

Joseph Zelina 

Kevin Welsh 

Rebecca Cointin 

Maureen Molz

Chinita Roundtree-Coleman 

Jay Dryer

Shelley Yak (phone) 

Laszlo Windhoffer 

Sandy Liu

Alex Grose 

Nathan Brown 

Dan Williams 

Levent Ileri 

Don Scata 

Chris Dorbian

Maryalice Locke 

Katherine Preston 

Eric Elmore 

Steve Alterman 

Mike Gallivan

Cecilia Shaw (phone) 

Rangasayi Halthore (phone) 

Roxanne Moore (phone)

Ian Redhead 

Jim Hileman

Chris Dorbian (phone) 

Cecilia Shaw (phone) 

Veronica Bradley 

Gregg Fleming

Fabio Grandi 

Sandy Lancaster 

Jayant Sabnis 

Charles Etter 

Andrew Murphy 

Melinda Pagliarello 

Steven Hamburg 

Steve Alterman 

Juan Alonso

Barb Esker

Melvin Kosanchick 

Joseph Zelina 

Kevin Welsh 

Rebecca Cointin 

Maureen Molz

Chinita Roundtree-Coleman 

Jay Dryer

Laszlo Windhoffer 

Alex Grose

David Hyde 

Levent Ileri 

Don Scata

Maryalice Locke 

Katherine Preston 

Eric Elmore