Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687-0010
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2011-07-27T04:00Z

ICAO COMMITTEE ON AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WORKING GROUP 3 - EMISSIONS TECHNICAL

6th Meeting

1 - 3 April 2009

London, UK

Draft Report of 6th Meeting

Plenary Sessions

Presented by Rapporteurs

1	Welcome

Curtis Holsclaw, Co-Rapporteur of WG3 took the chair and welcomed
members and guests to the fifth meeting under the CAEP8 work programme. 
New members were Marcelo Saito (ANAC, Brasil) who attended with Cesar
Hess and will be replacing him in future meetings and Mr Matthew Spears
(EPA, USA)

2	Administration

2a	Attachment A to this report lists the attendees.  The current
membership list [IP6-01] was circulated for attendance recordkeeping and
amendment as necessary.

2b	The Rapporteurs reviewed the schedule [WP6-01], noting the initial
Plenary was intended to handle the bulk of the working group activities
and that the mini-Plenary sessions following each of the Task Group [TG]
meetings would be held to handle any WG3-level business related to
outcomes of those task group meetings.

2c	The meeting approved the Agenda [WP6-02]. 

2d	Attachment B to this report and IP6-02 provide a complete list of
papers. Attachment C lists the actions resulting from this meeting.

Attachment D and FL6-03 provides the initial response to GIACC/3
requests

3	Fifth Meeting of WG3 (November 2009,Tokyo, Japan)

3a	Approval of Minutes

The draft report of the fifth meeting of WG3 in Tokyo [WP6-03] had been
circulated and a number of comments received.  The substantive ones
were:

Section 8.4:	Delete paragraphs 8.4.1 & 8.4.2

Section 8.7:	Need to harmonise the wording relating to a CO2 standard
with the amendment noted earlier in section 3.1 of WP6-03 relating to
the minutes of the Montreal meeting [WP5-03], ie that the text regarding
a ‘CO2 standard’ is not to be interpreted as an aviation CO2
certification standard

The meeting accepted the proposed changes together with the minor
editorial revisions throughout the paper and approved the final version.

3b	Actions & Matters arising 

3.1	All actions listed in Attachment C to WP6-03 had been completed,
with the exception of action 5.4 which would be addressed by CTG during
this meeting.

3.2	It was noted that ICCAIA had developed three NOx scenarios and
provided them to MODTF in late 2008 for use for Environmental Goals
modelling purposes.  Although LTTG had accepted them during the course
of scheduled Ad-hoc telecon discussions and further discussed them in
Tokyo, WG3 had not formally accepted them.  WP6-17 sets out the details
and a number of recommendations on how MODTF should implement these
scenarios.    WG3 accepted this document for the record.

3.3	In addition, two other more extreme scenarios had been proposed by
government members of WG3 and passed to MODTF for use.

3.4	The feedback from MODTF was that all these proposals were easy to
implement, but queried why, in the ‘government’ scenarios’, when
there was a high fuel improvement factor, there was no NOx improvement. 

3.5	In discussion, it was suggested that since these government’
scenarios assumed the realisation of all research goals, then there
should be both a fuel and NOx improvement factor applied and proposed
that the ICCAIA best NOx factor should be taken.  ICCAIA stressed that
these scenarios were not supported by industry and that it was up to the
members who made the proposals to decide the response.  It was agreed
that the government representatives would discuss this and report back
to the group by the end of the week.

Action 6.1:	Convene group to review NOx improvement factors to be
applied in ‘government’ scenarios and to report back to WG3 by
Friday. [CJE]

3.6	The outcome of this further discussion was presented in FL6-01.  The
recommendations were that, WG3 should:

note that ICCAIA retain their position that fuel and NOx technology
scenarios should be limited to the technology improvements previously
recommended by ICCAIA.

note that the WG3 members associated with the “Government” scenario
recommend the NOx scenario associated with the “advanced” technology
scenario also be used for the “Government” scenario

pass the recommendation in (ii) to MODTF

  .

WG3 accepted these recommendations.

Action 6.2:	To pass the recommendation (ii) on NOx improvement factors
on to MODTF. [CJE]

4	Requests from the Third Meeting of GIACC [WP6-09 (App A), WP6-10,
WP6-11, WP6-17, IP6-07]

4.1	The CAEP Secretariat presented the  WP6-09  part that related to the
GIACC/3 meeting.  Section 2 reviewed the meeting and Appendix A provided
the Summary of Tasks requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP.   WG3 was requested
to consider the items requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP in paragraph 2.3
and 2.4 and in the Appendix A, in particular the item 2, 3 and 5 of the
Appendix A for CAEP WG3, in order to prepare the initial view and
necessary deliverables of CAEP WG3 for these items (e.g. related issues,
challenges and work plan for CAEP/9 cycle), in time for GIACC/4 meeting
on 25-27 May 2009.

4.2	In clarification, it was pointed out that the 1st column of Appendix
A was the specific request as developed by GIACC/3.  The 2nd column was
the ‘initial interpretation’ by the CAEP Secretary that had been
re-presented to GIACC/3 and accepted by them.   WG3 was also free to add
its interpretation of the requests and its response would be taken into
discussion at the Steering Group in June 2009.   CAEP had not yet
accepted the requests - they would essentially be CAEP/9 work items.

4.3	The three specific requests are considered further below.

4a.	Efficiency metric that takes into account alternative fuels

4.4	Discussion on this topic was deferred to Agenda item 9f (Report of
the Fuel Efficiency Metric [FEM] ad-hoc group).

4b	Fuel conversion factors between existing fuels and potential biofuels

4.5	A number of the considerations were also part of the FEM
discussions.  If this was primarily aimed at assessing life cycle
differences then it was not a WG3 activity.  Sources outside of CAEP
such as CAAFI, SWAFEA were already addressing these.   However, if it
was requesting CO2 emissions factors then this simply required knowledge
of the fuel composition; it was pointed out that while the CO2 may be
the same, the HC composition might be significantly different and that
would be an issue for WG3.

4c	The question of setting a CO2 standard	[WP6-10, WP6-11, IP6-07]

4.6	WP6-10  presented by ICSA reviewed options for a carbon intensity
metric for new aircraft.  Any useful metric should recognise and reward
technical progress and could be different for different functions eg
freight (mass) or passengers (numbers).  The preferred options were for
an ATK /ASK basis, arguing that a TOW base did not distinguish between
fuel burnt (a) to move the airframe weight (b) to carry fuel and (c) to
move payload.  The paper also proposed that the diversity of function
for various aircraft could be handled either by setting separate
standards for different aircraft types, or by establishing a sales and
activity-weighted intensity target for individual manufacturers.  Given
sufficient priority by WG3, it was  believed that a suitable metric
could be developed in time to recommend an airframe CO2 standard within
the CAEP/9 work cycle.

4.7	ICCAIA acknowledged the high level of technical understanding by
ICSA and agreed that development of a CO2 standard had more chance of
success if it was focussed on new aircraft types rather than on
in-service ones.    No comment was offered on the metric proposals at
this time.

4.8	In discussion the following points were raised:

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

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

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

Care needed to be taken that both policy and technical perspectives are
considered appropriately.

4.9	Following this the Rapporteurs proposed that further discussion of
this should be remitted to CTG.  The group accepted this recommendation.

Action 6.3:	To consider the ICSA proposals in scoping the work required
to develop a CO2 standard [CTG]

4.10	WP6-11 from ICCAIA addressed issues arising from an earlier FAA
proposal [Nov 2008] that “given the previous difficulties in
developing a sophisticated parameter and scheme for the whole aircraft
…….there may be options to consider that focus solely on the engine
in a similar manner as the current LTO cycle gaseous emissions
standards… “.   At that meeting, ICCAIA stated “An engine based
standard would be detrimental or counter productive to improved aircraft
performance.  Also previous WG3 work on alternative emissions methods,
during CAEP5 and CAEP6 had already pointed out potential adverse
consequences from an engine based standard”  

4.11	ICCAIA had considered the specific suggestion to base an efficiency
parameter solely on the engine, and the suggestion to use LTO data for
an efficiency parameter, in terms of CO2 emissions.  It was concluded
that an engine-only based efficiency parameter was unlikely to be a fair
and useful means to judge the relative merits of different products. A
poorly defined efficiency parameter could influence manufacturers to
optimize designs to unrealistic requirements.  Additionally, thrust and
fuel flow rate data from ICAO emissions certification tests at sea level
static conditions were not representative of in-service efficiency over
a full flight cycle.  ICCAIA asked for WG3 endorsement of these
conclusions.

4.12	There was support for the view that a CO2 standard should be
aircraft based, but the UK suggested that if there were no prospect of
this then an alternative approach would be needed.  It was stated that
LTO fuel / thrust was clearly not appropriate, but possibly some
factoring of these for flight conditions might be considered.  ICCAIA
pointed out that the complexity of the factoring would make this
extremely difficult.

4.13.	In response to a comment that LTO fuel was reasonable for
characterising block fuel for RJs, even if not for large wide body
aircraft, it was noted that the trades would vary with aircraft sizes.

4.14	IP6-07 provided a Collection of past CAEP material on CO2 Standard
and Aircraft Efficiency Parameters

4.15	WG3 accepted the conclusions presented in WP6-11.

4.16	The Rapporteurs reminded the meeting that WP6-09 had requested WG3
to consider the items requested from GIACC/3 to CAEP in paragraph 2.3
and 2.4 and in the Appendix A, in particular the item 2, 3 and 5 of the
Appendix A and prepare the initial view and necessary deliverables of
CAEP WG3 for these items, in time for GIACC/4 meeting on 25-27 May 2009.
 This would need input from CTG and the FEM ad-hoc group.

Action 6.4:	Develop the initial response on GIACC/3 requests and report
back to WG3 by Friday for approval. [Rapporteurs]

4.17	A draft of this response was further discussed /amended at the end
of the meeting and the final version is given in Appendix D to this
report [also as FL6-03].

Action 6.5:	Forward initial response of WG3 to GIACC/3 requests to CAEP
Secretariat by end of April [Rapporteurs]

5	Reports from LTTG	[WP6-04, WP6-05, WP6-06, IP6-03]

5a	IE Initial report on Fuel Burn Reduction Technology Workshop       
[WP6-04, WP6-05]

5.1	The ICCAIA led Workshop had taken place in the previous week.  The
FBRT Independent Experts (IEs) had prepared an initial paper (presented
by LTTG lead in absence of IE Chairman).  

5.2	In summary, the IEs noted that the Workshop represented a good start
for their task to discharge the SG remit to provide technology goals for
fuel burn reductions over a 10 and 20-year timeframe.  However, in their
view:

the Industry 20 year technology projections were weak

few technologies discussed were at a low TRL and therefore there
appeared little continuity between near medium and long term
technologies

there was no indication of probability of success

the EC presentation on European research projects offered no substantive
information on LT technology goals 

In general, more (quantified) information was needed and therefore the
IEs could not offer views on precise quantitative goals at this stage,
but it should be possible to indicate broad regions for long term
technology goals (using uncertainty bands) for an agreed range of
different aircraft classes

The IEs will be preparing a report for presentation at the SG meeting in
Brazil, June 2009, with recommendations relating to a formal technology
review for fuel burn reductions in 2010.

5.3	In response ICCAIA was strongly of the opinion that the IEs had
treated the Workshop as if it was the Review; their expressed views did
not appear to match what ICCAIA believe they had offered.  There was a
need for urgent interaction to address any differences of expectations. 
Also, ICCAIA was unsure whether there was an adequate spread of
expertise among the IEs.  ICCAIA noted that it would not be easy to
provide all the data requested owing to its commercially sensitive
nature and that this would be unlikely to change in the near future.

5.4	WG3 noted the initial report from the IEs and the concerns expressed
by ICCAIA and recommended that ICCAIA interact with the IEs promptly to
find ways of addressing these issues.  WG3 asked that the IEs provide a
more formal paper within 2 weeks.

Action 6.6	FBRT IEs to provide written paper to WG3 on Workshop [LTTG
Lead]

Action 6.7	ICCAIA to interact with IE group to address data concerns and
expectations

5b	IE Initial report on the NOx Emissions Technology Goals Review /
update	[WP6-06]

5.5	The Independent Expert (IE) NOx goals update review took place in
the 2 days prior to WG3 and as such only a very simple verbal overview
statement was available (presented by LTTG lead in absence of IE
Chairman).  In summary, the IEs:

had considered all inputs, capturing the time scales for reporting to
CAEP/8

had reviewed progress towards the goals set 3 years ago; 

reviewed the status of science understanding - believing that there was
even more compelling need for control of NOx than appeared evident 3
years ago.

thought that within a year the goal as defined in 2006 would be attained

thought that there was a need to monitor the relationship between LTO
NOx and cruise NOx

expressed appreciation to ICCAIA for the excellent input.

Would put further questions directly to ICCAIA and RFP/SFPs.

At the last review the IEs indicated that a goal is reached when one or
more products cross the goal line. The IEs feel that a refinement to
that assumption may be warranted, as it may not adequately cover engine
families.

5.6	WG3 accepted this brief report and requested that the IEs provide a
written paper within 2 weeks.

Action 6.8	NOx IEs to provide written paper to WG3 on Goals review /
update [LTTG Lead]

5c	Fuel Consumption Scenarios	[IP6-03]

At the WG3/LTTG meeting in Nov 2009, ICCAIA had presented a paper on 2
scenarios of new and in-production aircraft fuel burn improvement over
time, to go with “Scenario 1” from the 1999 IPCC Special Report On
Aviation And The Environment.  

As an interim status to the Fuel Burn Technology Goals Review Process,
that paper summarized the on-going industry technology developments,
which were being transitioned in the near future to upcoming products or
were being studied for next-generation aircraft, in support of the fuel
burn scenarios identified for the MODTF exercise.

IP6-03 by ICCAIA provided further background information on how the two
new fuel consumption scenarios were developed.

6	Reports from CETG (WG3 Plenary and Mini Plenary)	[WP6-07, WP6-18,
WP6-19]

6.1	Plenary	[WP6-07]

6.1.1	The CETG Leader reported on progress to date on its assigned
remits.

E.05.1.a)	Evaluate and document non-volatile PM measurement procedures,
which, if appropriate, could be used in a certification methodology. 
DONE – draft AIR 5892 from E-31 up for vote late 2008/early 2009.

E.05.1.b)	Develop measurement and sampling techniques for volatile PM
emissions. No longer a deliverable for CAEP8.  

E.05.1.c)	Validate and improve FOA methodology.  Ongoing with PM ad hoc
group.  

E.05.2	Further characterize LTO PM emissions reflecting
state-of-the-science.  Initial draft delivered this meeting from
RFP/SFPs.  

E.05.3	Monitor latest understanding of PM impacts on both LAQ & climate
change.  Initial draft delivered this meeting from RFP/SFPs.  

E.05.4	Assess the data required for environmental impact studies of
aircraft particle emission on the upper atmosphere and provide data
(e.g., emissions factors), including uncertainties, for global emissions
inventories of particles based upon ground-based and other measurement
data.  Initial draft delivered this meeting from RFP/SFPs.  

E.08.4	APU emissions.  Ongoing with Emissions Methodology ad hoc group. 

E.09.1	Review trends in aviation kerosene fuel supply composition.
Ongoing with ICCAIA.  

E.09.2	Promote improved understanding of the potential use and emission
effects of alternative fuels. Ongoing with ICCAIA/IATA.  

E.09.3	Work with CRC, ASTM, and other appropriate bodies to further
evaluate the costs and benefits of a potential policy to remove sulphur
from jet fuel.  Ongoing with ICCAIA/IATA.  

E.10	Support WG2/TG4 with emissions methodologies for ICAO/CAEP Airport
Air Quality Guidance Manual.  Ongoing with Emissions Methodology ad hoc
group.  

E.11	Support MODTF as requested.  Ongoing on an as needed basis.  	

Most of the remit items have been progressed via ad-hoc groups’
telecons and would be discussed further at this meeting.  WG3 noted the
progress to date.  

6.2	Mini-Plenary	[WP6-18, WP6-19]

CETG raised 3 items to WG3 for consideration / approval as follows:

a.	Emissions vs thrust relationship for airport inventory work [WP6-18]

6.2.1	WG2/TG4 had requested guidance from WG3 “whether a linear fit
between the 85% and 30% ICAO thrust setting modes is the best method for
estimating emissions indices”.  The CETG has concluded work on this as
documented by CETG6 WP05 [taken as WP6-18 in WG3].  For thrusts down to
60%, the recommendation was to use a twin quadratic to estimate fuel
flow from thrust, followed by the use of existing methods to estimate
emissions from fuel flow. This advice was applicable for the purposes of
calculating aircraft emissions inventories.  CETG also requested that
WG2-TG4 adhered to the precise language without further methodological
embellishments.

WG3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this to
WG2/TG4, for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance document

Action 6.9:  Provide WG2 TG4 with the guidance material on emissions
versus thrust relationship, including the language caveats, as provided
in Appendix A to CETG6 WP05 [WG3-WP6-18] for inclusion in the ICAO
Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. [Rapporteurs]

b.	Guidelines For Including Effects Of Ambient Conditions And Forward
Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using Advanced Modelling Methods
[WP6-19]

6.2.2	Preliminary guidance on such effects had already been produced by
ICCAIA and included in the ICAO Air Quality Guidance Manual. However,
this guidance was based upon the ‘Simple’ approach.  WG2 has also
requested a statement providing some guidance for modellers who wish to
use an ‘Advanced’ approach.  The CETG has concluded work on this, as
documented by CETG6 WP07 [taken as WP6-19 in WG3].  This paper discussed
how corrections for ambient conditions and forward speed effects might
be applied to calculation methods for aircraft emissions categorized as
Advanced according to the WG2 draft guidance on airport air quality
calculations.  General considerations that apply to all Advanced models
were discussed, and then Advanced Options B and A were considered
individually. Advanced Option B was conceptually easier to adjust for
these effects than Advanced Option A, because the performance models
that underlie Advanced Option B should already be capable of considering
them.  CETG recommended the preferred use of option B and also laid out
some important caveats for modellers using any Advanced method.

WG3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this to
WG2/TG4, for inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance document

Action 6.10:	Provide WG2 TG4 with “Guidelines For Including Effects Of
Ambient Conditions And Forward Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using
Advanced Modelling Methods” as provided in CETG6 WP07 [WG3-WP6-19] for
inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual. [Rapporteurs]

c.	Remit item E.09.1:	Fuel composition and emissions effects; review
trends in aviation kerosene supply composition.

6.2.3	A Status report on this item is a deliverable for SG2009. 
However, in view of other priority work, ICCAIA had asked that this be
deferred to CAEP/8.  WG3 accepted this request.

Action 6.11	WG3 report to SG2009 to reflect approval of ICCAIA request
to defer delivery of remit item E.09.1 report until CAEP/8 [Rapporteurs]

7	Reports from CTG (WG3 Plenary and Mini Plenary)

[WP6-08, WP6-14, WP6-15; WP6-16 & WP6-20]

7.1	Plenary	[WP6-08, WP6-14, WP6-15; WP6-16]

7.1.1	The CTG Leader reported on progress to date on its assigned remits
[WP6-08]. 

E.03.2 	Technology Interdependencies:	Completed 

E.06 	Annex 16, Volume II:	Proposals for amendments nearing completion 

E.07 	Environmental Technical Manual: Proposals for updates nearing
completion

E.08.1 	NOx LTO stringency:	Completed - further work now with FESG and
MODTF

E.08.2	NOx cruise climb methodology:	Now considered as a CAEP/9 future
work item

E.08.3 	Supersonic aircraft emissions:	No significant developments -
waiting on WG1 

E.12 	ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank:	V16 issued in Feb 2009 

Most of the remit items have been progressed via the ad-hoc group’s
telecons and would be discussed further at this meeting.  WG3 noted the
progress to date.

7.1.2	The EPA presented 3 papers [WP6-14, WP6-15; WP6-16] that were
within the scope of CTG and had not yet been brought to the attention of
the group.  Since this was also an issue of ‘process’ the Rapporteur
stated that while an outline of the papers could be given to WG3, they
would need to be remitted to CTG for fuller consideration before any
recommendations could be taken by WG3.

7.1.3	WP6-14 on Production cut-off, made several recommendations related
to this topic.  The Rapporteur noted that this was a policy issue
already under consideration within SG and WG3 was not the arena for
discussion until SG had given direction on it.  The Rapporteurs
suggested that the EPA re-present this paper to the SG.  Also that WG3,
in its report to SG2009, could note that it had had sight of this
document and noted the policy perspective in it.  This was accepted.

7.1.4	WP6-15 made many detailed proposals for additions to the emissions
Databank.  This was remitted to CTG for consideration.

Action 6.12:	Consider proposals of WP6-15 and report back to WG3 [CTG]

7.1.5	WP6-16 on revision of exemptions provisions within Annex 16 Vol.
II, attempted to address a number of questions that had arisen during
the CTG ETM ad-hoc group discussions and made specific recommendations
for revision of the exemption language of the Annex.  It was
acknowledged that there was a strong link between introduction of a
production cut-off and the need for some exemption provisions.  A
Rapporteur noted, however, that work on this topic did not imply any
decision about a production cut-off.

7.1.6 	ICCAIA stated that any data used in such analyses should be the
latest from the manufacturer and, if necessary, requested between WG3
meetings.  EPA believed it could work with ICCAIA concerns and stated
that WP6-14 was aiming to open a continuing dialogue for mutual benefit.
 EPA also clarified that the data used was just related to engine types,
not taking the proportions of flights into account.

7.1.7	FL6-02 was an initial informal response from ICCAIA to WP6-14 &
WP6-16 from EPA.  ICCAIA appreciated that the USEPA were once again
directly involved in and actively contributing to the CAEP process. 
ICCAIA believed that the available evidence supported the view that
market forces were effective and that manufacturers voluntarily complied
with new CAEP NOx standards.  ICCAIA recommended that work towards
production cut-off provisions for any future CAEP8 standard was
premature before CAEP/8.  However ICCAIA supported work to include
suitable exemption text and guidance in Annex 16 and the ETM and
recommended that WG3 support the inclusion of this work in the future
work programme.

7.1.8	Following these comments and clarification these papers were
remitted to CTG for consideration.

Action 6.13:	Consider proposals of WP6-16 & comments in FL6-02 and
report back to WG3 [CTG]

7.2	Mini-Plenary 	[WP6-20]

CTG raised 4 items to WG3 for consideration / approval as follows:

a.	Estimation of PM Emissions from CIS-Manufactured Engines [WP6-20]

7.2.1	At the request of MODTF, CTG had carried out a qualitative
assessment of noise and emissions from CIS aircraft.  At CTG (Nov 2009),
it was concluded that “CIS operations comprised a small representation
of total noise and emissions, although this did vary across different
ICAO regions. There was some discussion as to whether PM emissions from
CIS aircraft would be disproportionately high due to higher smoke
numbers.

7.2.2	This paper presented the analysis of CIS engine PM emissions as
calculated from data in the ICAO Emissions Databank V16a (EDB).  Data
from the FOI database were not used explicitly. However, data on two
CIS-manufactured turboprops were also analysed.  

7.2.3	CTG recommended that “For the purposes of supporting the CAEP/8
MODTF Environmental Goals Analysis, based on an approximate assessment
based on in-service engines in the EDB and using FOA3, the estimated PM
emissions from CIS- manufactured engines are likely to be approximately
3 to 4 times those of equivalent non-CIS engine types for the current
fleet.  For future fleets, it can be expected that next generation CIS
types will produce similar smoke and levels to Western types. Total PM
emissions will be subject to any fuel sulphur content differences.”

7.2.4	WG3 approved the outcome of the work and agreed to transmit this
to MODTF for use in CAEP/8 Environmental Goals Analysis.

Action 6.14	Provide MODTF with the information on the Estimation of PM
Emissions from CIS-Manufactured Engines contained in CTG6-WP03
(WG3-WP6-20). [Rapporteurs]

b.	CO2 scoping study 

7.2.5	Based on discussions held during the WG3 Plenary meeting, and
subsequent input from relevant stakeholders, CTG proposed a way forward
on the issue of developing a potential aircraft CO2 emissions
certification requirement.  CTG recommended that the SG2009 meeting
should be provided with references to past CAEP work regarding CO2
standards and aircraft efficiency parameters, the WG3 responses to
GIACC-4 and a proposal for a new WG3 work item to scope out this issue
in order to inform CAEP/8 discussions and any CAEP/9 work.  The scoping
work could include a comparison with existing Annex 16 Vol. II
requirements, as well as CO2 standards in other sectors, in order to
inform future workload, metric(s), methodology, applicability and
terminology.  If the study is agreed by SG2009, WG3/CTG recommended that
WG3 establish a “CO2” ad-hoc group to address this issue via
telecons prior to the next WG3 meeting.

	WG3 accepted the proposal and agreed to bring it to the attention of
SG2009.

Action 6.15:	WG3 report to SG2009 to include offer of carrying out a
scoping study for CAEP/8 on the likely work required to develop a
potential aircraft CO2 emissions certification requirement.
[Rapporteurs]

c.	Amendments to Annex 16, Volume II and updates to emissions ETM

7.2.6	Final agreements on the Annex 16 Vol. II issues, which had already
been resolved, had been reached at the last meeting. As no comments had
since been received from WG3 these were now considered approved.

7.2.7	Two new items had been added to the Annex 16 ad-hoc group remit.
The first was to review the Annex 16 humidity measurement requirements
which were stricter than those used for performance measurements. This
had already caused difficulties in past engine projects. The second item
was linked to the ongoing discussions on a potential CAEP/6 production
cut-off requirement, and the need to review paragraph 2.1.1 of the Annex
dealing with exemptions. Guidance on evaluating and issuing exemptions
was also urgently required within the ETM.  In the light of this, WG3
WP6-16 from the EPA had been remitted to the ad-hoc group for further
discussion.

7.2.8	The latest updates to the ETM had been approved by CTG and were
available as Attachment 1 to CTG-WP6/06.  WG3 members were requested to
provide any comments by Friday 22nd May.

Action 6.16:	Provide comments on latest updates of ETM as provided in
CTG WP6/06 by May 22. [All WG3 members]

d.	Response re EPA WP6-15 [Databank]

7.2.9	A CTG Databank ad-hoc group has been created to address the
outstanding issues and to try to incorporate as many of these changes as
possible into the next version of EDB - likely Feb 2010.

8	Follow-on from the CAEP Impacts Workshop	[IP6-04]

8.1	IP6-04 was a spreadsheet, compiled by the CAEP Secretariat, of
recommendations arising from this Workshop, together with a request for
each CAEP WG or TF to identify the level of resources needed to address
each of the recommendations at 3 different ‘Tier’ levels [1-3 in
increasing complexity and time scales].  The CAEP Secretariat was asking
for a ‘fast track’ response as a SG2009 input.

8.2	There was a broad discussion about this request, including the
purpose of such a matrix, what could be considered and the linkage of
emissions to impacts, recognising that this could require WG3 to expand
its range of expertise considerably.

8.3	WG3 agreed that an initial response would be identified by a small
group of volunteers during this meeting.

Action 6.17:	Develop an initial response to request related to follow-on
from CAEP Impacts Workshop and report back during this meeting [Ad Hoc
group (DL, MG, PM and RI)]

8.4	The initial response recommended setting up a new group (an Impacts
Task Force) within the CAEP framework.  WG3 accepted this.

Action 6.18:	Pass recommendation on formation of an ITF to co-ordinators
of the Workshop for inclusion in their submission to SG2009.
[Rapporteurs]

9	Co-ordination with Other Working Groups, etc.

9.1	Technology Interdependencies Group (TIG)

There was nothing to report.

9.2	Working Group 1

CTG Lead will circulate papers from the WG1 Supersonic Task Group (SSTG)
meeting to be held in Paris during April to CTG members.  The CAEP
Secretariat noted that they have received questions regarding the
current status of the certification requirements for engines intended
for propulsion at supersonic speeds.  There was a request for a progress
report on the IE Noise Technology Review.

Action 6.19:	Request a progress report of the WG1 IE Noise Technology
Review to assist WG3 FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead]

9.3	Working Group 2

There was nothing from WG2.  However an early copy of the ATM IE report
would be helpful for WG3 FBRT IEs.

Action 6.20:	Request an early copy of the WG2 ATM IE report to assist
WG3 FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead]

9.4	Modelling and Database Task Force (MODTF)

MODTF is currently performing a second round of modelling.  All WG3
stringency options have been used satisfactorily.  Environmental Goals
issues related to technology improvement factors have been brought to
WG3 and resolved [see Section 3.6].

9.5	Forecasting and Economic Analysis Sub-Group (FESG)

There was nothing to report.

9.6	Fuel Efficiency Metric [WP6-13, IP6-08]

9.6.1	The Fuel Efficiency Metric ad-hoc (FEMah) group had been
established jointly by WG3, WG2 and MODTF, to address task E.03.b
“formulate appropriate fuel efficiency metric(s) for use in assessment
of CAEP Environmental goals (MODTF), air traffic operational goals (WG2)
and aircraft and engine technology goals (WG3)”.

9.6.2	IP6-08 covered the metric for the Environmental Goals assessments
only, describing the approach taken by the ad hoc group, the metric
developed, the rationale for its creation and the testing undertaken. 
The outcome of this was the “Commercial Aircraft System Fuel
Efficiency (CASFE)” metric (using fuel mass as the numerator and
payload multiplied by distance as the denominator) that reflected that
the metric incorporated the fleet usage and operational factors
alongside actual aircraft performance capability.

9.6.3	WP6-13 covered overall progress on task E.03.b and the two issues
raised at the Sept 08 Steering Group (Alternative fuels and metric
proposed to GIACC). In addition the paper made proposals to address the
fuel efficiency requests from GIACC/3 to CAEP.  The recommendations to
WG3 are listed below:

a)	Note the clarification to the payload-weight term shown (Section 2.1)

b)	Note the potential applicability of CAFSE to the draft Operations
Goals (Section 2.2)

c)	Note the future work to complete Task E03b (Sections 2.1, 2.2 and
2.3)

d)	Accept the proposed responses to SG Salvador on the two fuel
efficiency metric questions from SG Seattle (Section 3)

e)	Note the initial FEMah comments on GIACC/3 requests to CAEP (Section
4) and agree a way forward.

9.6.4	Regarding the passenger weight issue it was noted that this only
refers to the ‘usefully moved weight’ of the person, not including
anything else.  The actual weight is currently under review [91 to
100kg].  Additionally there is also the passenger / freight weight
conversion term.  These are not items for WG3 to resolve.

9.6.5	The ad-hoc group recognised that metrics were required for
different purposes and that the CASFE fuel efficiency metric had the
potential to be adapted or extended for other purposes, potentially
including alternative fuels.   However, the CASFE metric could not be
easily extended to radically different aircraft designs resulting from
use of fuels very different from current aviation kerosene.

9.6.6	It was confirmed that the GIACC metric was identical in technical
format to the proposed CASFE metric and that the application was on a
fleet-wide basis, albeit at National rather than Global/Regional level.
However, the proposed use was outside the current scope of the work of
the FEMah Group.

9.6.7	WG3 accepted the recommendations and proposed that the information
should be provided as a WP to SG2009, additional to the main WG3 report.

Action 6:21:	Prepare paper on Fuel Efficiency Metric issues for SG2009
[FEMah group]

10	Other WG3 Business	[WP6-09, WP6-12, IP6-05, IP6-06]

a.	Update on environmental activities in ICAO and other UN bodies
[WP6-09]

10.1	The key issues for WG3 action, namely response to GIACC/3, had
already been covered in Agenda Item 3 [see paragraph 4.17 and App D].  

10.2	WG3 noted the future ICAO Conference on Aviation Alternative Fuels
[Nov 2009] and outcome of the UNFCCC COP14 [Nov 2008].  Although
aviation was not the main item on the agenda of COP, an important
development of the Conference had been the publication of the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventory data for the period 1990–2006 which
reflected, inter alia, that international aviation emissions increased
by 65.9 per cent in Annex I countries. For maritime the growth was
reported to be 18.4 per cent.   [IEA data based on fuel sales also
supported this - 70% for aviation and 30% for marine] 

b.	Open Rotor Technology [WP6-12, IP6-05, IP6-06]

10.3	WP6-12, supported by IP6-05 and IP6-06, were ICCAIA papers
requesting work on emissions regulations for Open rotors and setting out
potential issues associated with the emissions certification of such
engines.  Open rotors are one of several new technologies offering
potential solutions for the next generation aircraft, predicted to
provide a 25–30% reduction in specific fuel consumption & CO2
emissions relative to current, equivalent turbofan engines, as well as
possible NOx advantages.  There are substantial challenges associated
with open rotors including noise, aircraft integration, certification
requirements, accessibility & maintenance, etc – however it is
believed that all can be overcome.  

10.4	Current Annex 16, Vol. II certification requirements are not
applicable to such technologies because of the markedly different
physical configuration.  For example, small core sizes pose particular
problems of sampling and measurement; ability to feather blades would
mean difficulty in defining idle thrust setting.  

10.5	Therefore Working Group 3 were asked to include a recommendation in
their report to the CAEP Steering Group that certification procedures be
developed for alternative engine architectures, such as open rotors,
that may not be able to certify using current procedures in Annex 16
Vol. II.

10.5	Discussion clarified that likely certification date would be late
2010; cruise NOx is not linked to LTO NOx; rules already exist for noise
measurements.

10.6	WG3 accepted the recommendation for inclusion of this as a CAEP/9
work item

Action 6.22:	Propose development of certification procedures for
alternative engine architectures, such as open rotors, that may not be
able to certify using current procedures in Annex 16 Vol. II as a CAEP/9
work item [Rapporteurs]

c.	WG3 ad-hoc group telecon schedule_090406_v2

	This was an updated telecon schedule until end September 2009

11	Preparations for WG3 report to SG2009

The Rapporteurs proposed structuring the report to SG similarly to that
presented to earlier SG meetings ie they would draft the report, looking
to the Task Group Leads to provide the sections related to their TG
responsibilities.  WG3 concurred with this proposal.

12	Next Meeting

At the request of the CAEP Secretariat the next meeting is now
rescheduled for the week Sept 28 - Oct 2, still in Montreal

The Rapporteurs closed the meeting with thanks to UK BERR and Peter
Newton as LTTG Lead for hosting not only the WG3 meeting but also the
FBRT Workshop and the IE NOx Goals Update meeting during the two weeks.



Attachment A:

ICAO CAEP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group 

Sixth Meeting: April 1 - 3, 2009, London, UK 

ATTENDANCE

Name

	Organisation / Affiliation

Lister, Dave

Holsclaw, Curtis	Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), UK

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), USA

Allyn, Dan

Andreini, Antonio

Arrowsmith, Steve

Dantec, Delphine

Dikstra, Wieger

Dudebout, Rudy

Dodds, Will

Eyers, Chris

Gupta, Mohan

Hawkins, Betty

Herms, Erika

Hess, Cesar

Hoermann, Werner

Husse, Olivier

Iovinelli, Ralph

Madden, Paul

Manzoni, Helene

McDonald, Ted

McQueen, Ed

Miake-Lye, Rick

Newton, Peter

Plaisance, Christophe

Plohr, Martin

Rindlisbacher, Theo

Rollin, Gilles

Roetger, Thomas

Rutherford, Dan

Ryman Jenny

Saito, Marcelo

Sepulveda, Dom

Spears, Matthew

Tanaka, Tetsuya

Wayson, Roger

Wetzel, Frank

Worth, Roger	Boeing / ICCAIA

University of Florence, Italy

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), EU

Air France / IATA

Ministry of Environment, Netherlands

Honeywell / ICCAIA

General Electric (GE) / ICCAIA

QinetiQ, UK

FAA, USA

Air Transport Association / IATA

EASA, EU

ANAC / Brazil

EASA, EU

Airbus / ICCAIA

FAA, USA

Rolls-Royce / ICCAIA

DGAC / France

Transport Canada / Canada

FAA, USA

Aerodyne, USA

BERR, UK

Airbus / ICCAIA

DLR / Germany

FOCA / Switzerland

Snecma / ICCAIA

IATA

ICCT / ICSA

Swedish Transport Authority

ANAC, Brazil

P&W, / ICCAIA

EPA, USA

ICAO Secretariat

Volpe, USA

UBA, Germany

DfT, UK

Attachment B:

ICAO CAEP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group 

Sixth Meeting: April 1-3, 2009, London, United Kingdom

LIST OF PAPERS

WP No.	Title	Agenda Item	Prepared by

WP6-01	Final Meeting Schedule	2b	Rapporteurs

WP6-02	Final Agenda	2c	Rapporteurs

WP6-03	Draft Report of 5th WG3 meeting – Tokyo, Japan	3	Rapporteurs

WP6-03 (rev)	Final Report of 5th WG3 meeting – Tokyo, Japan	3
Rapporteurs

WP6-04	Progress Report from LTTG	5	LTTG Lead

WP6-05	Initial Report on the Fuel Burn Technology Workshop	5a	IEs

WP6-06	Initial Report on NOx Emissions Technology Goal Review/Update	5b
IEs

WP6-07	Progress Report from CETG	6	CETG Lead

WP6-08	Progress Report from CTG	7	CTG Lead

WP6-09	Updates on Environmental Activities in ICAO and other UN bodies
4, 10a	Secretariat

WP6-10	Characterizing the CO2 Intensity of Commercial Aircraft under a
Potential Airframe Standard	4c	ICSA

WP6-11	Consideration of CO2 Standards for Aircraft Engines	4c	ICCAIA

WP6-12	Potential Issues Associated with the Certification of Open Rotor
Engines for Emissions	10b	ICCAIA

WP6-13	Fuel Efficiency Metric ad-hoc Group – Progress Report and
Additional Tasks	4a, 9f	FEMah Lead

WP6-14	Production Cut-Off	7	U.S. EPA

WP6-15	Additions to the ICAO Databank	7	U.S. EPA

WP6-16	Revision of Exemption Provisions	7	U.S. EPA

WP6-17	NOx Scenarios for MODTF Goals/Trends Analysis	3b	ICCAIA

WP6-18	CAEP8_WG3_CETG6_WP05 (Emissions vs Thrust Final)	9c	CETG Lead

WP6-19	CAEP8_WG3_CETG6_WP07 (Forward-Ambient for Advanced Calcs)	9c	CETG
Lead

WP6-20	CAEP8_WG3_CTG6_WP03 (CIS Aircraft PM V1_0)	9d	CTG Lead

IP No.	Title	Agenda item	Prepared by

IP6-01	WG3 Membership - updated April 2009	2a	Rapporteurs

IP6-02	Final List of WG3 Plenary Papers	2d	Rapporteurs

IP6-03 and App	Further Information About ICCAIA Fuel Consumption
Scenarios	5c	ICCAIA

IP6-04	CAEP Impacts Workshop Recommendations Matrix	8	Rapporteurs

IP6-05	What is an Open Rotor?	10b	Rolls-Royce, GE Snecma

IP6-06	SBAC Aviation and Environment Briefing Papers; Open Rotor Engines

	10b	SBAC

IP6-07	Collection of past CAEP material; CO2 Standard and Aircraft
Efficiency Parameters	4c	ICCAIA

IP6-08	Commercial Aircraft System Fuel Efficiency Metric for Use in CAEP
Environmental Goals Trends Assessment	9f	FEMah Lead

	FL No.	Title	Agenda item	Prepared by

FL6-01	NOx Assumptions for the “Government” Environmental Goals
Scenario	3b	QinetiQ

FL6-02	ICCAIA Response to EPA Papers on Production Cut Off (WP6-14) and
Engine Exemptions (WP6-16)	7	ICCAIA

FL6-03	CAEP/WG3 initial response to task requests from GIACC/3 to CAEP	4
Rapporteurs

FL6-04	WG3 ad-hoc group telecon schedule_090406_v2	10c	TG leads

	Attachment C:	

ICAO CAEP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group 

Sixth Meeting: 1 - 3 April 2009, London UK

AGREED ACTIONS

Action Item No.	Item

	Agenda

Item	Action by:	Timetable

[Status as of August 2009]

6.1		Convene group to review NOx improvement factors to be applied in
‘government’ scenarios and to report back to WG3 by Friday	3b	CJE	3
April [Done]

6.2	Pass the recommendation (ii) on NOx improvement factors on to MODTF
3b	CJE	Asap [Done]

6.3	To consider the ICSA proposals in scoping the work required to
develop a CO2 standard	3c	CTG	3 April [Done

6.4	Develop the initial response on GIACC/3 requests and report back to
WG3 by Friday for approval	3	Rapporteurs	3 April [Done]

6.5	Forward initial response of WG3 to GIACC/3 requests to CAEP
Secretariat by end of April	3	Rapporteurs	End April [Done]

6.6	Request FBRT IEs to provide written paper to WG3 on Workshop	5a	LTTG
Lead	17 April [Done]

6.7	ICCAIA to interact with IE group to address data concerns and
expectations	5a	ICCAIA	Asap [on-going]

6.8	Request NOx IEs to provide written paper to WG3 on Goals review /
update	5b	LTTG Lead	17 April [Done]

6.9	Provide WG2 TG4 with the guidance material on emissions versus
thrust relationship, including the language caveats, as provided in
Appendix A to CETG6 WP05 [WG3-WP6-18] for inclusion in the ICAO Airport
Air Quality Guidance Manual.	6	Rapporteurs	Before next WG2 meeting
[Done]

6.10	Provide WG2 TG4 with “Guidelines For Including Effects Of Ambient
Conditions And Forward Air Speed In Emissions Calculations Using
Advanced Modelling Methods” as provided in CETG6 WP07 [WG3-WP6-19] for
inclusion in the ICAO Airport Air Quality Guidance Manual.	6	Rapporteurs
Before next WG2 meeting [Done]

6.11	WG3 report to SG2009 to reflect approval of ICCAIA request to defer
delivery of remit item E.09.1 report until CAEP/8	6	Rapporteurs	In WG3
report to SG2009 [Done]

6.12	Consider proposals of WP6-14 and report back to WG3	7	CTG	3 April
[Done]

6.13	Consider proposals of WP6-16 & comments in FL6-02 and report back
to WG3	7	CTG	3 April [Done]

6.14	Provide MODTF with the information on the Estimation of PM
Emissions from CIS-Manufactured Engines contained in CTG6-WP03
[WG3-WP6-20].	7	Rapporteurs	Before next MODTF meeting [Done]

6.15	WG3 report to SG2009 to include offer of carrying out a scoping
study for CAEP/8 on the likely work required to develop a potential
aircraft CO2 emissions certification requirement.	7	Rapporteurs	In WG3
report to SG2009 [Done]

6.16	Provide comments on latest updates of ETM as provided in CTG WP6/06
by May 22.	7	All WG3 members	22 May 

6.17	Develop an initial response to request related to follow-on from
CAEP Impacts Workshop and report back during this meeting	8	Ad Hoc group
3 April [Done]

6.18	Pass recommendation on formation of an ITF to co-ordinators of the
Workshop for inclusion in their submission to SG2009. [Rapporteurs]	8
Rapporteurs	End April [Done]

6.19	Request a progress report of the WG1 IE Noise Technology Review to
assist WG3 FBRT IEs [LTTG Lead]	9b	LTTG Lead	End April [Done]

6.20	Request an early copy of the WG2 ATM IE report to assist WG3 FBRT
IEs [LTTG Lead]	9c	LTTG Lead	End April [Done]

6.21	Prepare paper on Fuel Efficiency Metric issues for SG2009	9f	FEMah
group	For SG2009 [Done]

6.22	Propose development of certification procedures for alternative
engine architectures, such as open rotors, that may not be able to
certify using current procedures in Annex 16 Vol. II as a CAEP/9 work
item.	10b	Rapporteurs	For SG2009 [Done]

Attachment D:

ICAO CAEP/8 WG3 Emissions Technical Working Group 

Sixth Meeting: April 1-3, 2009, London, United Kingdom

WG3 INITIAL RESPONSE TO TASK REQUESTS FROM GIACC/3 TO CAEP

Request 2.	CAEP is asked to address the development of a new efficiency
metric that takes into account alternative fuels.

WG3 initial response:	For kerosene-like “drop-in” fuels, the
development of any fuel efficiency metric to include emissions from the
life cycle of alternative fuels should be approached essentially as a
two-part problem.  These parts are an efficiency metric (based on fuel
properties / aircraft technology / operational parameters), and a
separate analysis taking account of life cycle emissions.  CAEP has
completed some preliminary work on a Commercial Aircraft System Fuel
Efficiency Metric (CASFE).  Use of non-kerosene-like fuels would
seriously impact aircraft design and affect fleet mixes; the current
CAEP work has not addressed this matter. 

Potential CAEP/9 Work Item

Request 3.	CAEP is asked to consider fuel conversion factors between
existing fuels and potential biofuels.

WG3 initial response:	Assuming this is purely an issue of the
differences in the total life cycle emissions of different fuels, then
this is substantially independent of the final user, ie it is not an
aviation specific issue.  A consistent methodology needs to be used for
all energy uses and is best addressed from the energy supply side. 
Aviation needs reliable values for fuels that it might use, but does not
need to be the developer of the information.  We believe that these
issues are being addressed by sources outside of CAEP such as CAAFI,
SWAFEA. 

This is not a CAEP work item

Alternatively, if this question deals with CO2 emissions factors then
this simply requires knowledge of the fuel composition that would need
to be provided by the fuel supplier.

Request 4.	Secretariat is asked to raise with CAEP the question of
setting a CO2 Standard.

WG3 initial response: CAEP has already devoted significant resources in
attempting to develop aircraft efficiency parameters and continues work
in related areas.  Recognizing the importance of this matter some major
considerations to address the question of setting a CO2 standard are the
following:

The development of appropriate metric(s) is a key issue that must be
addressed as a first step.

Any standard should apply to aircraft, not just engines alone.

It may be easier to develop and implement an accurate methodology if it
is based upon and solely applicable to new aircraft

It is essential to avoid metrics and methodology that may contribute to
perverse incentives and counterproductive influences on aircraft/engine
development.  Also there is a need to take into account operational
considerations in order to avoid unintended consequences

The implications for implementation by certification authorities and
manufacturers

Defining the scope of work could be performed by WG3 to inform CAEP/8
discussion on this issue

The level of work required in setting any potential standard should not
be underestimated [note earlier CAEP work of a similar nature on cruise
NOx methodology and fuel efficiency parameter]

Potential CAEP/9 + Work Item

- END -

CAEP8-WG3-WP7-03

6th Meeting Report [090914 Final draft]

CAEP8-WG3-WP7-03

6th Meeting Report [090914 Final Draft]

 PAGE   4 

 PAGE   3