Congrept Aviation Envirn

8/8/2019 Congrept Aviation Envirn

1/55

Report to the United States Congress

AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

A National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions


2/55


AVIATIONAND THEENVIRONMENT

A National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions

December 2004

Prepared by:Ian Waitz, Jessica Townsend, Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld,

Edward Greitzer, and Jack Kerrebrock

Contact: Professor Ian A. Waitz, PARTNER Director

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

77 Massachusetts Avenue 33-207

Cambridge, MA 02139

[email protected]

Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction

An FAA/NASA/Transport Canada-sponsored Center of Excellence

Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Funded under FAA Cooperative Agreement No. 03-C-NE-MIT.

cover photo Firefly Productions/CORBIS


3/55

Table of Contents

1.0 ExecutiveSummary p.3

2.0 OverviewofStudyandReportOrganization p.9

3.0 AviationandtheEnvironment p.11

4.0 ANationalVisionforAviationandtheEnvironment p.25

5.0 FrameworkforNationalGoals p.27

6.0 RecommendedActions p.29

Appendices:

A. PublicLaw108-176,Section321 p.37

B. ListofAcronyms p.39

C. References p.41

D. StakeholdersInterviewed p.47

E. ParticipantsinStakeholderMeetings p.49


AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTA National Vision Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions

FireflyProductions/


4/55

Report to the United States Congress: Aviation and the Environment


5/55

1.0 Executive Summary

Aviation is a critical part o our national economy, providing or the movement o peopleand goods throughout the world, enabling our economic growth. In the last 35 years there

has been a six-old increase in the mobility provided by the U.S. air transportation system.

At the same time there has been a 60% improvement in aircra uel eciency and a 95%

reduction in the number o people impacted by aircra noise.

Despite this progress, and despite aviations relatively small environmental impact in the

United States, there is a compelling and urgent need to address the environmental eects

o air transportation. Because o strong growth in demand, emissions o some pollutants

rom aviation are increasing against a background o emissions reductions rom many other

sources. In addition, progress on noise reduction has slowed. Millions o people are adversely aected by these side eects o aviation. As a result

o these actors and the rising value being placed on environ-

mental quality, there are increasing constraints on the mobility,

economic vitality and security o the nation. Airport expan-

sion plans have been delayed or canceled due to concerns over

local air quality, water quality and community noise impacts.

Military readiness is challenged by restrictions on operations.

Tese eects are anticipated to grow as the economy and de-

mand or air transportation grow. I not addressed, environ-

mental impacts may well be the undamental constraint on air

transportation growth in the 21st century.

Te concerns extend well beyond American shores. For example, within the European

Union (EU) the climate impacts o aviation are identied as the most signicant adverse

impact o aviation, in contrast to the United States and many other nations where air qual-

ity and noise are the current ocus o attention. As a result, there are increasing EU calls


Immediate action is required

to address the interdependent

challenges of aviation noise,

local air quality and climate

impacts. Environmental im-

pacts may be the fundamental

constraint on air transportation

growth in the 21st century.

AlanSchein/


6/55


or regulationtrading, taxes and charges, demand management and reduced reliance on

aviationeven though there is large uncertainty in the understanding o the climate eects

o aircra and appropriate means to mitigate these eects. Despite the importance o this

issue, the United States does not have a signicant research program to assess the potential

impacts o aviation on climate. Tis may put the United States at a disadvantage in evaluat-

ing technological, operational and policy options, and in negotiating appropriate regula-

tions and standards with other nations. Te international concerns will continue to grow

with the strong increase in air transportation demand anticipated or Asia.

Immediate, ocused action is required to address the interdependent challenges o aviation

noise, local air quality and climate impacts. Not acting, as stated above, will not only aect

millions o Americans living near airports but will adversely impact the vitality and security

o our nation. A national vision and strategic plan o action are required.

Tis document reports the results o a study mandated by the United States Congress in De-

cember 2003 as part o the Vision 100Century o Aviation Reauthorization Act(H.R. 2115,

Public Law 108-176). Section 321 o the legislation mandates that the Secretary o rans-

portation, in consultation with the Administrator o the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, shall conduct a study o ways to reduce aircra noise and emissions and to

increase aircra uel eciency. Fiy-nine stakeholders rom 38 organizations spanning the

aerospace industry, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Depart-

ment o Commerce (DOC), the Department o Deense (DoD), academia, local government

and community activists, participated in ormulating the recommendations in this study.

Collectively, the stakeholders who participated in this study propose the ollowing National

Vision or Aviation and the Environment:

A National Vision for Aviation and the Environment:

In 2025, significant health and welfare impacts of aviation community noise and

local air quality emissions will be reduced in absolute terms, notwithstanding

the anticipated growth in aviation. Uncertainties regarding both the contribu-

tion of aviation to climate change, and the impacts of aviation particulate matter

and hazardous air pollutants, will be reduced to levels that enable appropriate

action. Through broad inclusion and sustained commitment among all stake-

holders, the US aerospace enterprise will be the global leader in researching,

developing and implementing technological, operational and policy initiatives

that jointly address mobility and environmental needs.

Reducing signicant aviation environmental impacts in absolute terms is a challenging goal,

especially when considered in light o the projected growth in aviation trac. While in

some areas absolute reductions are already being achieved (e.g., the reduction in the num-


7/55

ber o people exposed to signicant levels o aircra noise), these reductions will be dicult

to sustain as trac grows. Further, there are areas (such as NOx emissions) where techno-

logical improvements and operational procedures combined have not been enough to oset

the increase in emissions associated with trac growth. Accordingly, the vision statement is

aspirational. o achieve the vision, immediate and sustained public and private commitment

to investment, experimentation, communication, eedback and learning at local, regional, na-

tional and international levels is required. Such action will provide both near-term and long-

term benets. Troughout the process o realizing this vision, there must be careul attention

to ostering distributed leadership, responsibility and burdens among all stakeholders. A plan

o action to bring this vision to reality is the main thrust o this report. Development o the

Next Generation Air ransportation System (NGAS) oers an opportunity to implement the

recommendations made in this report; the plan or NGAS should address both the unding

sources and levels required to do so.

Within the United States there are hundreds o organizations and groups (ederal, state, local,

aerospace industry, and community groups) whose principal ocus is aviation noise and emis-

sions. Te participants are dedicated to their charge and, when ocused, can be very eective

in bringing about change. However, in general, the activities o these organizations are not

well coordinated, and acting independently they are not likely to alter our national path in a

substantive manner. o become more eective, organizations must better coordinate their ac-

tivities. Te development o a new paradigm or organizational interaction and coordination

at the national level emerged rom the study as one o the most important opportunities or

improving the nations capability to jointly address mobility and environmental needs.

Recommendation 1: Communication and Coordination

A federal interagency group should be established for coordinating governmentalaction to reduce the negative impacts of aviation on local air quality, noise, and

climate change. The group should have representation from the FAA, NASA,

EPA, DoD, DOT, DOC, and DOI, and should be chaired by a representative from

the FAA. The group should be formed within the Joint Planning and Development

Office (JPDO). It should promote public-private partnerships with industry. This

new interagency group should also be responsible for fostering a network of

community forums to promote communication, idea exchange and joint action.

These community forums should be given representation at the highest level in

the interagency coordinating group. This coordinating group should build upon

existing interagency efforts, but not be bound by them. The group should oper-ate in a coordinated fashion with relevant committees and oversight groups in

Congress. The group should be responsible for strategic planning and for coor-

dinating the member agencies to achieve the national goals for aviation and the

environment.



8/55


Te benets o aviation, as well as its eects on the environment, result rom a complex sys-

tem o interdependent technologies, operations, policies and market conditions. In addi-

tion, there is great uncertainty in evaluating potential impacts, particularly the health eects

o some aviation emissions and the role o aviation in climate change. Policy and research

investment options related to aviation and the environment are currently considered within

narrowly-ocused contexts (e.g., only noise, only local air quality, only climate change), and

the ull economic eects, and health and welare impacts o these options are not considered.

Actions in one domain can produce unintended negative consequences in another.

Recommendation 2: Tools and Metrics

The nation should develop more effective metrics and tools to assess and com-

municate aviations environmental effects. The metrics should better represent

the human health and welfare impacts of aviation. The tools should incorporate

the best scientific understanding, and be able to put aviations impact in context

with that of other sources. The tools should enable integrated environmental

and economic cost/benefit analysis of policies and research and developmentactivities so that it is possible to:

evaluate potential benefits of research initiatives including source re-

duction technologies and operational advancements

assess the effects of environmental constraints on national airspace

system expansion

account for airline economics and affordability in evaluating regulatory

and research opportunities

assess the impacts on communities of policy and operational decisions

understand aviations environmental effects individually and relative to

one another (air quality, noise and climate) in terms of both damage

costs and mitigation costs

These tools should be useful at local, regional, national and international levels

enabling experimentation and feedback at all of these levels.

Tere is no single technological or operational solution to resolve the confict between goals

or aviation and the environment. Yet there are many emerging operational, technological

and policy options that can support a balanced approach to reducing the environmental

impacts o aviation. Many are already being pursued within FAA, NASA and industry.


9/55

Recommendation 3: Technology, Operations and Policy

The nation should vigorously pursue a balanced approach towards the develop-

ment of operational, technological and policy options to reduce the unfavorable

impacts of aviation. Because they offer near-term improvements, priority should

be given to developing and implementing improved operational procedures

for both noise and emissions reduction that satisfy safety requirements. In-

novative market and land-use options should be evaluated and implemented

for mid-term improvements. For the long-term, but commencing immediately,

integrated programs should be strengthened to bring economically reasonable

advanced technologies to levels of development that allow more rapid inser-

tion into aircraft and engines. Strategic decisions about what options to pursue

should be considered within the interagency coordinating group and informed

by improved metrics and tools.


ThisimagedepictstherelationshipbetweentherecommendedactionsandtheNationalVisionforAviation

andtheEnvironment.Technology,OperationsandPolicyrepresentabalancedapproachtoaddressingavia-

tionmobilityandenvironmentalneeds.Theseareplacedinaninvertedtriangletosignifythatthebalanceis

dependentonthesupportingelementsofCommunicationandCoordination,andToolsandMetrics.Itisonly

withallthreeoftheseelementsinplacethattheNationalVisionofabsolutereductions,reduceduncertaintyandgloballeadershipwillbeachieved.


10/55



11/55

2.0 Overview of Study and Report Organization

2.0 Overview of the Study and Organization ofthe Document

A study o ways to reduce aviation noise and emissions was mandated by the United States

Congress in the Vision 100Century o Aviation Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2115, Public

Law 108-176, Section 321). Appendix A contains the ull text o the relevant section o the

legislation. Te mandate asks or consideration o operational, inrastructure, and techno-

logical changes or improvements to mitigate the environmental eects o aviation. Based on

the legislation language and consultations with FAA, NASA, the Aviation Subcommittee o

the House Committee on ransportation and Inrastructure, and the Space and Aeronau-

tics Subcommittee o the House Committee on Science, goals or this study were dened

that are broader, but inclusive o the requirements o P.L. 108-176, Sec. 321. In particular,

we sought:

to develop a shared vision o national goals or addressing aircra noise and emissions

to develop actionable recommendations by consulting stakeholders and examining

and learning rom the results o past activities on aviation and the environment

to recommend a sustainable implementation plan to achieve the stated goals

Te study was conducted by the Partnership or AiR ransportation Noise and Emissions

Reduction (PARNER), an FAA/NASA/ransport Canada-sponsored Center o Excellence

(COE), on behal o FAA and NASA, with participation rom governmental organizations,

academia, industry groups and community groups.

We began the study by synthesizing key ndings and themes rom 35 prior studies (Ap-

pendix C contains a list o these studies). We also interviewed 43 individuals in 18 dierent

organizations to better understand stakeholder perspectives and interests (Appendix D

contains a list o the people we interviewed). Te inormation we collected was summa-

TedHorowitz/


12/55

0 Report to the United States Congress: Aviation and the Environment

rized and communicated to the study participants in advance o the rst o two combined

stakeholder meetings. Forty-ve people rom 31 organizations attended the rst meet-

ing. Aer the meeting, a dra report was developed and circulated; it generated detailed

comments rom 16 organizations. A revised dra was circulated in advance o a second

stakeholder meeting. Forty-eight people rom 32 organizations attended the second meet-

ing. Following the second stakeholder meeting, another revised dra report was circulated.

Te report generated additional comments rom 18 organizations. Tese comments are

refected in this nal report. Appendix E contains a list o people who attended the two

stakeholder sessions.

During the study it became apparent that signicant opportunities or long-term environ-

mental improvements exist beyond the domains o advanced technology and operations,

in particular through better interagency coordination, and through the development o

more eective tools and metrics. Tereore, ollowing the judgment o the study team

and the participating stakeholders, we have placed less emphasis on a detailed review o

advanced technological and operation opportunities than indicated in the language o

the legislation.

Tis document is the nal report resulting rom the study. It is divided into six sections.

Sections 1 and 2 are the Executive Summary and an overview o the study. Section 3 pro-

vides a brie review o the relationship between aviation and the environment. Sections 4, 5

and 6 propose a National Vision or Aviation and the Environment, a Framework or Goals,

and Recommended Actions, respectively.


13/55

3.0 Aviation and the Environment

In this section we briefy review the relationship between aviation and the environment,

including what is known about community noise impacts (Section 3.1), air quality impacts

(Section 3.2) and climate impacts (Section 3.3), the interdependencies between these eects

and opportunities to address them (Section 3.4), constraints on mobility, economy and

national security (Section 3.5) and interactions between governmental and other organiza-

tional structures to address these impacts (Section 3.6). Tis section was developed using

themes synthesized rom 35 prior studies (Appendix C contains a complete listing), and

interviews with 43 individuals in 18 dierent organizations held prior to the stakeholder

meetings. (Appendix D contains a complete listing.)

aken together, these studies and interviews present a compelling

case or urgent national action to address the environmental eects

o air transportation. Aviation is a critical part o our national econ-

omy, providing or the movement o people and goods throughout

the world, enabling our economic growth. Despite dramatic prog-

ress in reducing the environmental eects o aviation, and despite the

relatively small contribution that aviation currently makes to envi-

ronmental impacts in the United States, environmental concerns are

strong and growing.

As a result o growth in air transportation, emissions o many pollutants rom aviation

activity are increasing against a background o reductions rom many other sources. In

addition, progress on noise reduction has slowed. Although it depends on the metric used,

estimates suggest that millions o people are adversely aected by these side eects o avia-

tion. Because o these actors and the rising value placed on environmental quality, there

are increasing constraints on the mobility, economic vitality and security o the nation. Air-

port expansion plans have been delayed and canceled due to local air quality, water quality

and community noise impacts [GAO 2000c]. Military readiness is increasingly challenged

Organizations must

better coordinate

their activities to

address the growing

challenges of aviation

and the environment.


MartinJones;Ecoscene/CORB


14/55


by restrictions on operations [Waitz 2003]. Tese eects are anticipated to grow as the

economy and demand or air transportation grow. Indeed, as highlighted by the National

Science and echnology Council [NSC 1999], and later by the National Research Council

[NRC 2002], i they are not addressed, environmental constraints may impose the unda-

mental limit on the growth o our air transportation system in the 21st century.

Te United States is not the only orce in this arena: non-U.S. concerns and regulatory ac-

tions are increasingly setting conditions or the worlds airlines and manuacturers. For

example, within the European Union the climate eects o aviation are identied as the

most signicant adverse impact o aviation, exceeding the importance o local air quality

and noise impacts that are the current ocus o attention in the United States and many other

nations. As a result, there are increasing calls or regulation: trading, taxes and charges,

demand management and reduced reliance on aviation. However, there is considerable un-

certainty in assessing the climate eects o aircra and determining appropriate means to

mitigate these eects. Despite the importance o this issue, the United States does not have

a signicant research program to assess the potential impacts o aviation on climate. Tis

must be remedied to enable strong U.S. participation in international orums and continued

competitiveness in world markets. Te international concerns will continue to grow with the

strong increase in air transportation demand anticipated or Asia.

Within the United States there are hundreds o organizations and groups (ederal, state,

local, aerospace industry and community groups) whose principal ocus is aviation noise

and emissions. Te participants are dedicated to their charge and when ocused can be very

eective in bringing about change. However, in general, the activities o these organiza-

tions are not well coordinated and acting singly they are not likely to alter our national

path in a substantive manner. o become more eective these organizations must bettercoordinate their activities to address the growing challenge o aviation and the environ-

ment. Tis change, the development o a new paradigm or organizational interaction and

coordination at the national level, emerged rom the study as one o the most important

opportunities or improvement. Both requirements and incentives or coordinated action

should be considered.

With greater coordination, many opportunities or long-term environmental improve-

ments can be realized. A critical requirement to capitalize on these opportunities is the

development o better metrics and tools or assessing interdependent impacts, and options

or addressing them. Te tools currently used to estimate the costs and benets o proposed

improvements do not eectively address either the strong interdependencies between ac-

tions or the ull economic consequences o dierent choices. Once they are developed,

these tools should be used to assess the many opportunities or long-term environmental

improvements that exist in the domains o technology, operations, and policy. Most o


15/55

these opportunities are being pursued in some

orm, but most are not suciently unded to

promote rapid change.

We discuss in the ollowing sections the

specic connections between aviation and

the environment. We ocus on community

noise, local air quality and climate change.

We do not review the literature on water

quality. However, this is also an important

environmental impact; water quality is-

sues are limiting several airport expansion

projects. Water quality issues must also be

addressed in the uture.

3.1 Noise

Tere has been a 95% reduction in the number o people aected by aircra noise in the

United States in the last 35 years. Tis dramatic reduction was realized in terms o the num-

ber o people living in areas above 65dB Day-Night Noise Level (DNL, a weighted measure

o the noise impact or multiple fights over a period o time), where greater than 12% o the

population may be highly annoyed, and also in terms o the number people living in areas

above 55dB DNL, where greater than 3% o the population may be highly annoyed [NRC

2002, FICON 1992]. Note that the FAA identies 65dB DNL as the threshold or the ederal

unding o noise mitigation. While current FAA policy recognizes that impacts below 65dB

DNL may be evaluated, ederal unds or mitigation cannot be applied to these impacts. Tereductions in the number o people exposed to aircra noise were realized during a period

o six-old growth in mobility through major technological advances such as the introduc-

tion o high bypass ratio engines that provided both noise reductions and uel burn savings

[NRC 2002]. Te improvements were promoted by new certication standards and a orced

phase-out o 55% o the older, louder feet as a result o the Airport Noise and Capacity Act

o 1990 (ANCA). Te phase-out was estimated to have cost the industry approximately $5B

(as determined using an FAA methodology that incorporated generally reasonable assump-

tions; other estimates are higher) [GAO 2001].

Nonetheless, aircra noise remains a signicant problem and it is anticipated to grow. In2000, approximately 0.5 million people in the United States lived in areas with noise levels

above 65dB DNL. In 2000, approximately 5 million people in the United States lived in

areas with noise levels above 55dB DNL. Tere has been a urther 10% reduction in the

number o people impacted since 2000 due to the earlier than expected retirement o cer-

TheFAAIntegratedNoiseModel(INM)istheprincipaltoolusedaroundtheworldfor

assessingthenoiseofaircraftaroundairports.Shownherearecontoursofday-night

noiselevel(blue=55dB-65dB,green=65dB-75dB)anddepartureandarrivalflight

tracks(blueandredrespectively)foramajorinternationalairport.



16/55


tain aircra in light o the economic downturn and the events o 9/11, and the continuing

reduced trac in the U.S. system compared to 2000 [ICAO 2004].

Such dramatic improvements are not expected to be realized in the uture. Te environ-

mental impact o aircra noise is projected to remain roughly constant in the United States

or the next several years and then increase as air travel growth outpaces expected techno-

logical and operational advancements [NRC 2002]. Continuing increases in noise impact

are expected or Europe and Asia. In addition, new concerns are emerging such as the au-

dibility o aircra noise in certain areas o national parks and low requency noise impacts

around airports. Tere are also growing eorts to develop supersonic

business jets with sonic boom signatures that may be acceptable or

fight over populated areas.

While ederal and industry investments can be applied to reduce air-

cra noise, it is local authorities that control land-use decisions near

airports. Tere are many examples where ederal land-use guidance

designed to mitigate impacts has not been ollowed by local authori-

ties, and this has exacerbated the problem [GAO 2001]. Even when

airports are relocated to areas that were once sparsely-populated

(e.g., Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Naval Air Landing

Field Fentress, and Denver International Airport), problems eventu-

ally appear as local decisions lead to increased land-use near the air-

eld. While some communities have taken active roles in addressing

land-use issues near airports (e.g., through establishing building codes and guidelines or

sound insulation o new homes, and by providing interactive tools and property locators to

enable communities to better understand noise levels in particular locations), a disconnectremains between ederal aviation policy and local land-use decision-making.

Te current situation is that aircra noise is the single most signicant local objection to

airport expansion and construction [AERO 2002]. As the national aerospace system be-

comes increasingly capacity-constrained it will be ever more important to remove the lim-

its introduced by community noise impacts. Recognizing the strong role that advanced

technology and operations can play in addressing this issue, the National Research Council

(NRC) recommended that the ederal government shi some unding rom local abate-

ment (approximately $0.5B/year is currently spent or sound insulation and land purchases

around airports) to noise reduction research and technology [NRC 2002]. Tis money

would be used, in part, to enable NASA to develop noise reduction technologies to a tech-

nology-readiness-level (RL) o 6 so they can be more readily adopted by industry [NRC

2002]. However, airports see these mitigation unds as an essential part o addressing near

A balanced approach is

necessary: the greatest

near-term opportunities

exist with operational

procedures, reductions in

source noise are required

for the long-term, policies

to encourage appropriate

land use will be

required throughout.


17/55

term issues and maintaining positive relations with communities. In addition, some air-

ports have eectively used these unds or land purchases in an eort to reduce uture con-

cerns. A compromise on this issue was refected in the Administrations proposal or FAAs

2003 Reauthorization that included a provision or allowing the use o $20M per year rom

the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) noise set-aside und or aviation noise and emis-

sions research. Tis proposal received broad support across the stakeholders, but it will

take legislative action to enact it.

Tere is much potential or technological and operational improvements to reduce aircra

noise as refected in the plans o government research organizations both in the United

States and abroad. By 2020, the European Union hopes to reduce perceived noise rom new

aircra to one-hal o the average levels in 2001 [ACARE 2001]. NASA plans to develop

technology that could enable a 50% reduction in the eective perceived noise level (EPNdB,

a measure o single event noise closely related to human annoyance) or a new aircra rela-

tive to the 1997 state-o-the-art by 2007 and reductions o a actor o our beyond 2007. Te

NASA plan considers improvements to airrames, engines and terminal area operations

[NASA 2003]. Te National Research Council recognized NASAs noise reduction goals as

technically easible, but saw the level o unding or ederal research programs as too low to

achieve the current goals on schedule or to remove noise as an impediment to the growth

o aviation [NRC 2002]. Research within the FAA currently ocuses on the development o

better metrics and tools to assess aviation noise impacts, and on the development and im-

plementation o operational procedures to mitigate aviation noise [FAA

2004b]. It is widely recognized that a balanced approach is necessary,

with the greatest near-term opportunities existing with operational pro-

cedures, and reductions in source noise (airrames and engines) being

required in the long-term or urther reductions. Continuing policy

eorts to encourage appropriate land use will be required throughout.

3.2 Local Air Quality

Although noise is the primary environmental constraint on airport op-

erations and expansion, many airports either put local air quality con-

cerns on equal ooting with noise or anticipate they will be on equal

ooting soon [GAO 2000c]. Emissions o nitrogen oxides (NOx), car-

bon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (UHC) and particulate

matter (PM) rom a variety o airport sources contribute to local air

quality deterioration, resulting in human health and welare impacts.

Nationally, local air quality has steadily improved as a result o the Clean

Air Act, which has led to reductions in pollution rom most sources


Republishedwith

permissionofGlobeNewspaperCom

pan

y,Inc.


18/55


[EPA 1999a, EPA 2001]. However, many o the technologies

employed or land-based sources are not applicable to air-

cra because o the more severe weight, volume and saety

constraints. Tus, although aviation is a small overall con-

tributor to local air quality impacts, some aircra emissions

are growing against a background o generally decreasing

emissions rom other sources.

Historically, the most dicult o the pollutants to control

or aviation has been NOx. Aviation operations below 3000

eet contribute 0.4% to the total national NOx inventory. Forty-one o the 50 largest air-

ports are in ozone non-attainment or maintenance areas. In serious and extreme status

non-attainment areas, the airport contribution to the area NOx inventory ranges rom

0.7% to 6.1% with an average o less than 2% [FAA 2004a]. Te contribution o aviation

to NOx emissions around airports is expected to grow [EPA 1999b].

Tere are physical and chemical phenomena that make it more challenging to reduce NOx

emissions rom aircra engines that employ high temperatures and pressures to reduce

uel consumption. However, there are alternatives or reducing NOx that do not require

trade-os with uel eciency; improvements in combustor technology and airrame aero-

dynamics and weight have led to reductions in NOx emissions without negative eects

on uel eciency. Over the last 35 years uel burn per passenger-mile has been reduced

by 60%. wo-thirds o this reduction has been due to improvement in engine technology

with the rest due to improvements in aerodynamics, weight and operations [Lee 2000].

Continuation o ongoing technology research is expected to reduce uel consumption at a

slower rateabout 1% per year over the next 15 to 20 yearswith more opportunities orimprovement in airrames than engines [Lee 2001, IPCC 1999]. However, the demand or

air transportation is expected to increase 3% to 5% per year [NRC 2002]. Low emissions

technology and operations must thereore make up the dierence to avoid increased pol-

lutant emissions rom aircra.

Tere are many opportunities or technological and operational improvements to reduce

emissions o NOx, UHC, CO and PM. Tese options or reducing emissions present major

engineering, saety and cost challenges that must be overcome beore they can be imple-

mented in the feet. Research programs in the United States and Europe have been devel-

oped to address these challenges. By 2020, the European community hopes to make an 80%

reduction in NOx emissions [ACARE 2001]. By 2007, NASA plans to develop technology

to reduce NOx emissions o new aircra by 70% rom 1996 International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO) standards with additional plans to urther reduce NOx by one-third

o the remainder beyond 2007. Tese reductions will ocus on engine developments [NASA

2003]. NASA has already demonstrated RL 4 technology or a 67% reduction in NOx

Although aviation is a small

overall contributor to local air

quality impacts, some aircraft

emissions are growing against

a background of generally

decreasing emissions

from other sources.


19/55

emissions below 1996 standards [NASA 2003]. However, the National Research Council

determined that NASA unding is insucient to reach the specied milestones or reduc-

ing NOx emissions on schedule [NRC 2002]. Tere are also several promising operational

opportunities or reducing uel burn and emissions such as single-engine taxi, modied

takeo and landing procedures, and modernization o the air trac management system

to reduce enroute and ground delays. Less attention has been given to these in national

research plans, but increased ocus is warranted because they may enable relatively near-

term reductions.

wo areas o increasing importance and high uncertainty relating to local air quality have

emerged or aviation in the last decade. Te rst is ne particulate matter (PM). On a per-

pound basis, the mortality and morbidity costs o PM are several hundred times greater

than those resulting rom emissions o NOx [EPA 1999a]. While the EPA has introduced

increasingly stringent national ambient air quality standards or particulate matter, there

are currently no uniormly accepted methods or measuring both the PM and PM precur-

sors rom aviation. Te aviation community is thus challenged rst to measure and charac-

terize the pollutants, then to assess the impact o the pollutants, and nally to adopt strate-

gies to reduce them i warranted. Airports are required to address conormity and other

requirements as part o expansion or improvement projects, so mitigating actions may be

required, even though there is little understanding o aviation PM, its health impacts, and

the relationship with aviation technology and operations. FAA, NASA, EPA, industry and

academic institutions have joined together

to develop a National Roadmap or Aviation

Particulate Matter Research [FAA 2004b] to

outline the eorts required in this area.

Te second emerging local air quality con-

cern is the potential or aviation to contribute

hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) to local en-

vironments. In recent airport environmen-

tal assessments, HAPS reviews have gured

more prominently [see e.g., Oakland 2003].

In these recent cases HAPS associated with

emissions rom the airport were not ound

to produce signicant health impacts. How-

ever, the estimates o HAPS emissions used

in these reviews were developed using measurements rom 35-year-old engine technology

because no other data were available. Here again, the aviation community is challenged to

rst measure and characterize the emissions and then to adopt strategies to address them


ThisoutputfromtheFAASystemforassessingAviationsGlobalEmissions(SAGE)showsthe

world-widedistributionofaircraftcarbondioxideemissionsfor2000.SAGEcalculatesaircraft

emissionsonaflight-by-flightbasisasafunctionofaircrafttypeanddetailedflightprofileinform

tion.Theresultscanbeusedtoassesstheimpactofvariousmitigationstrategiesonfuelburn

emissionsatairport,regionalandgloballevels.


20/55


i warranted [FAA 2003b]. Current plans are not sucient to meet this need. As a result,

more airports may nd themselves in the dicult position o being required to pursue

mitigation measures without the benet o the proper tools to measure and characterize the

pollutants and assess the potential impacts.

3.3 Climate Change

Te topic o greatest uncertainty and contention is the climate change impact o aircra. In

Europe, this is considered the single most important environmental impact rom aviation

[SBAC 2001], while in the United States many still regard it as less important and less ur-

gent than community noise and local air quality. It is a act that aircra emit chemical spe-

cies and produce physical eects (like condensation trails, or contrails) that most scientists

believe aect climate. Scientic assessments also suggest that the resulting chemical and

physical eects due to aviation are such that aviation may have a disproportionate eect on

climate per unit o uel burned when compared to terrestrial sources.

In 1999, a special aviation study, conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) estimated that aviation was responsible or approximately 3.5% o the an-

thropogenic orcing o the climate in 1992. Tese estimates refect a nding that per unit o

uel burned, radiative orcing rom aircra is expected

to be approximately double that o land-based use o

hydrocarbon uels [IPCC 1999]. Since the IPCC study,

the scientic understanding o some o the chemical

and physical eects (particularly contrails and the cirrus

clouds they may induce) has evolved. A recent report by

the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Protec-tion (RCEP) stated that the net eect o contrail and avi-

ation-induced cirrus is expected to be three to our times the radiative orcing due to the CO2

emitted rom aircra, although urther changes in these estimates are likely [RCEP 2002].

I the estimates are correct and the aviation growth projections used by the IPCC are real-

ized, aviation may be responsible or between 3% and 15% o anthropogenic orcing o

climate change by 2050 [IPCC 1999].

Because o the uncertainty in understanding the impacts o aviation on climate, appropriate

technological, operational and policy options or mitigation are also uncertain. As a result

most mitigation options currently being pursued ocus on reducing uel burn. However, asnoted in Section 3.4, it is possible that this is not the most eective strategy or reducing

aviations contribution to climate change. Further, although uel use per passenger-mile has

been reduced by 60% in the last 35 years, most projections suggest a slower rate o improve-

The topic of greatest uncertainty

and contention is the climate change

impact of aircraft. There are

currently no major U.S. research

programs to address this.


21/55

ment in the next 15 to 20 yearsabout 1% per year [Lee 2001, IPCC 1999]alling short

o the expected growth in demand. NASA has a ve-year goal to deliver technologies (at

a technology-readiness-level o 6) needed to reduce CO2 emissions o new aircra by 25%.

However, signicant challenges will remain to demonstrate technological easibility and

economic reasonableness such that these concepts can be employed in the feet. As a result,

it may take an additional 5 to 15 years and signicant industrial investment beore these

NASA technologies can be introduced into new aircra.

Within Europe, public and governmental positions increasingly point towards a desire to

regulate the climate impacts o aircra. Te RCEP noted that without regu-

latory control, the rapid growth o air transport will proceed in undamen-

tal contradiction to the British governments stated goal o sustainable de-

velopment. Recently, Te Guardian newspaper wrote that the British prime

minister said, he would push the EU to curb emissions rom aircra,

which by 2030 could represent a quarter o Britains total contribution to

global warming. Britain would argue strongly or aviation to be brought

within the next phase o an EU emissions trading scheme. It would set a

cap on emissions and require companies increasing output to buy unused

capacity rom elsewhere. (Te Guardian, p. 9, September 14, 2004).

While the United States has increased investment to reduce uncertainty in

climate change impacts generally, there are currently no major research programs in the

United States to evaluate the unique climate impacts o aviation [NASA 2003]. Tis may

put the United States at a disadvantage in evaluating technology and policy options, and in

negotiating appropriate regulations and standards with other nations. It could also lead to

reliance on data put orth by others who may avor curtailing aviation activity to mitigateenvironmental impacts, despite its signicant contribution to the economy.

3.4 Interdependencies

Noise, local air quality and climate eects o aviation result

rom an interdependent set o technologies and operations,

so that action to address impacts in one domain can have

negative impacts in other domains. For example, both op-

erational and technological measures to reduce noise can result in greater uel burn, thus

increasing aviations impact on climate change and local air quality [SBAC 2001]. Emis-sions interrelationships make it dicult to modiy engine design as a mitigation strategy

since they orce a trade-o among individual pollutants as well as between emissions and

noise [FAA 2004a]. o date, interdependencies between various policy, technological and


Action to address impacts in

one domain can have negative

impacts in other domains.

Yn

gLiu/CORBIS


22/55


operational options and the ull economic consequences o these options have not been

appropriately assessed.

Te NRC has recommended that government and industry invest in comprehensive inter-

disciplinary studies that quantiy the marginal costs o environmental protection policies

[NRC 2002]. Such investments are now being made. Over the next six years the FAA and

NASA plan to invest $10M per year to develop a comprehensive ramework o aviation en-

vironmental analytical tools and methodologies to assess interdependencies between noise,

emissions, and economic perormance to more eectively analyze the ull costs and ben-

ets o proposed actions [FAA 2004b]. Tese tools will be critical or inorming decisions

on new noise and emissions standards, potential phase-outs o portions o the feet and

potential cruise emissions standards. Tey are also required to dene appropriate research

and development investments or technological and operational opportunities or reducing

noise and emissions. Tese tools can oer signicant leverage because o the billions o dol-

lars invested in developing and operating aircra. Te development o such tools will be a

major step orward or the nation.

3.5 Mobility, Economy and National Security

Aviation enables economic growth. Te Presidential Commission on the Future o Aero-

space ound that the superior mobility aorded the United States by air transportation is

a major national asset and a competitive advantage, but United States dominance in aero-

space is eroding [AERO 2002]. Te Air ransport Association estimated that the total

direct, indirect and induced impact o commercial aviation exceeded $800B and 10 million

jobs in 2000, representing 8% o the United States gross

domestic product [AA 2004]. From 1978 through 2001,the number o passenger boardings grew rom slightly over

300 million to over 600 million annually. United States

businesses also shipped more by air: rom 1978 to 2001,

air reight ton miles grew rom 6 million to over 20 million

annually. From 1978 through 2003, revenue passenger-ki-

lometers fown by large certicated air carriers increased

by a actor o 2.8 to approximately one trillion passenger-

kilometers per year [DO 2004]. At the same time airline

ticket prices have allen approximately 50% in real terms

(adjusted or infation) since 1978 [AA 2004].

Large carrier trac in the United States and international

passenger trac are both expected to continue to grow,S.Airtrafficfora24-hourperiodtakenfromtheFAAEnhancedTrafficManage-

entSystem(ETMS)whichintegratesdatafromFAAairtrafficcontrolradar.


23/55

with international markets growing aster than domestic markets (4.7% versus 3.5% annu-

ally) over the next 12 years [FAA 2004b]. At the same time, restructuring o large legacy

carriers and the growth o low-cost carriers is anticipated low-cost carriers and regional

and commuter carriers could account or more than hal o all domestic passengers by 2015.

Forecasts or air cargo and general aviation indicate growth as well [FAA 2004c].

Te United States national air transportation system is not sucient to accommodate this

growth. Five o the top 35 U.S. airports were in need o additional capacity in 2003; 15 o

the top 35 airports are projected to need additional capacity by 2013. I improvements pro-

posed in the FAA Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) do not take place, the number o air-

ports requiring additional capacity in 2013 increases to 26 o the top 35 airports. Further,

even with these capacity expansions, new airports may have to be built to satisy demand

projections in many metropolitan areas [DO 2004].

Environmental issues caused airport ocials to cancel or indenitely postpone expansion

projects at 12 o the 50 busiest U.S. airports in the last 10 years [GAO 2000c]. Te dominant

concern was noise, ollowed by water quality and then local air quality. In the uture, noise

and local air quality are expected to be the most signicant concerns.

Although the situation is dierent or military

aviation, similar challenges exist. Increasing im-

pacts on national security have been recognized

due to constraints on the deployment and com-

bat readiness o the airborne services, particu-

larly as related to limitations on the realism o

training activities [Waitz 2003]. While commer-

cial aviation has grown, military aviation has ex-

perienced reductions in feet size and number o

operations over the last 50 years. However, tech-

nological and operational improvements in noise and emissions or military aircra have

been more challenging to achieve because o the mission requirements or these vehicles.

Nonetheless, because o the decreasing number o operations, military aviation has been

responsible or a small and decreasing raction o total ossil uel use in the United States

(approximately 0.5% o total U.S. uel use in 2000). Further, when averaged nationally,

contributions to local air quality impacts and community noise have also decreased rom

1990 to 2000. However, since base closures were largely responsible or these reductions,

the impacts at any given installation may not refect overall trends. Tus, community noise

and air quality are expected to be a growing concern or military aviation due to increasing

urbanization, and increasing public and regulatory attention.


Aviation is an enabler for economic

growth. Environmental issues caused

airport officials to cancel or

indefinitely postpone expansion

projects at 12 of the 50 busiest U.S.

airports in the last 10 years.


24/55


3.6 Interactions between Government, Industry and Other Groups

A distinct dierence exists between the approaches o Europe and the United States to ad-

dress the challenges described above. Europe has plans and programs ocused on making

it the global aeronautics leader by jointly satisying aviation saety, environment and mobil-

ity demands by 2020 [ACARE 2001]. Te Advisory Council or Aeronautics Research in

Europe (ACARE) was ormed to coordinate the positions o international institutions that

support the aerospace industry and to launch and approve a Strategic Research Agenda

and update it every two years [ACARE 2001]. AERONE was established

as a platorm or aviation emissions issues in Europe where the dierent

stakeholders can meet, communicate and cooperate in a well-organized and

systematic way [AERONE 2000]. As Europe has moved to act in a coor-

dinated ashion, several studies and reports have encouraged independent

European action on charges and economic instruments to address noise, air

quality and climate change, outside o the ICAO ramework [SBAC 2001,

RCEP 2002]. axes, demand management and modal shi have been rec-

ommended to curb growth and impacts [RCEP 2002]. Te oundation or these recom-

mendations is the belie that current levels o air trac cause major environmental costs

that will grow unless economic instruments are instituted to curb them [SDC 2003]. Tese

recommendations refect the very dierent context within Europe relative to inrastructure

(greater availability o rail) and governmental policies to address environmental costs.

Less coordinated action is apparent within the United States, but there have been several

recent activities. Te General Accounting Oce (GAO) has called or the creation o a

national strategic ramework or local air quality emissions [GAO 2003]. Te Presidential

Commission on the Future o Aerospace ound that U.S. government unctions in a verti-cal manner in dierent organizations, whereas national problems cut across organizations

and need horizontal integration [AERO 2002]. In response to these and other drivers, the

FAA, NASA, DO, DOC, DoD, Homeland Security, and the Oce o Science and ech-

nology Policy (OSP) recently became part o the Joint Planning and Development O-

ce (JPDO), an organization created by a mandate in the Vision 100Century o Aviation

Reauthorization Act(P.L. 108-176). Te JPDO has been ormed to create and carry out an

integrated national plan that sets goals and aligns missions across government to ensure

that the United States stays at the oreront o aviation and meets the demands o the uture

[JPDO 2004]. One o JPDOs eight strategic thrusts is to reduce noise, emissions, and uel

consumption and balance aviations environmental impact with other societal objectives.

Te EPA has regulatory authority over aviation emissions under the Clean Air Act. A con-

cern is thus the lack o EPA participation thus ar in the JPDO [JPDO 2004]. Te recent

agreement by the EPA to participate in the JPDO is a positive step orward that will urther

the ability o the oce to eectively pursue environmental objectives.

These activities are

moving the nation in

the right direction, but

at a pace that far lags

the burgeoning need.


25/55

Tere are also growing cross-agency research programs. For example, FAA, NASA, and

ransport Canada have jointly sponsored a Center o Excellence called Partnership or

AiR ransportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARNER) to address issues o avia-

tion and the environment by utilizing the resources available in academia and industry

[FAA 2004b].

Tese activities are moving the nation in the right direction, but at a pace that ar lags the

burgeoning need. When we asked the stakeholders to describe prior successes and ailures,

communication and coordination between organizations was the key enabling or disabling

actor in all o the examples they oered. Examples were given o poor coordination among

NASA, FAA, EPA and the National Park Service and o poor coordination between groups

within agencies.

Conversely, past successes all

bridged boundaries between

various groups and organiza-

tions. Perhaps the most promi-

nent example is the Aircra

Noise and Capacity Act o 1990

(ANCA) described earlier. Tis

was a negotiated legislative re-

sponse involving all stakehold-

ers that led to the incorporation

o NASA and industry technol-

ogy into the feet aster than it

otherwise would have been, pro-ducing substantial reductions

in community noise along with

reductions in per mile uel burn

and per mile emissions. A key

compromise involved enacting

ederal guidelines or communi-

ties in setting local aircra noise limits and restrictions, while requiring airlines, at a cost o

$5B or more, to phase-out noisier (Stage 2) aircra under a proscribed timetable. Another

example was the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) that produced a report

in the early 1990s covering policy, technical and legal issues. Te study endorsed supple-

mental metrics and reinorced methods or DNL levels. It led to more clarity on how to

assess certain noise impacts, and it reduced tensions between stakeholders. Te NASA At-

mospheric Eects o Aviation Program (AEAP) was considered to be a successul example

Standardflightpaths,suchastheoneatLouisville(showninblue)involveaseriesofsteppeddescents.New

continuousdescentapproachprocedures,collaborativelydevelopedbyanFAA/NASA/industry/academia

team,havebeenshownreducenoiseimpactsbykeepingaircrafthigher,longer.Theyhavealsobeenshownto

reducefuelburnandemissionsoflocalairqualitypollutants.(IllustrationThe[Louisville]CourierJournal.)



26/55


27/55

4.0 A National Vision For Aviation and theEnvironment

Te consensus o the stakeholders who participated in this study is that immediate, ocused

action is required within the United States to jointly address the interdependent challenges

o aviation noise, local air quality and climate impacts. For this, a national vision and stra-

tegic plan o action are required.

Te stakeholders who participated come rom 38 organizations that span the aerospace

industry, NASA, FAA, EPA, DOC, DoD, academia, local government and community ac-

tivists. When they were asked to dene a vision or success, some diverging views were

expressed, but there were many more elements in common among the stakeholders. Tis

enabled them to identiy a national vision that they all support and recommend or action.

Collectively, the stakeholders who participated in this study propose the ollowing National

Vision or Aviation and the Environment:

A National Vision for Aviation and the Environment:

In 2025, significant health and welfare impacts of aviation community noise and

local air quality emissions will be reduced in absolute terms, notwithstanding

the anticipated growth in aviation. Uncertainties regarding both the contribu-

tion of aviation to climate change, and the impacts of aviation particulate matter

and hazardous air pollutants, will be reduced to levels that enable appropriate

action. Through broad inclusion and sustained commitment among all stake-

holders, the US aerospace enterprise will be the global leader in researching,

developing and implementing technological, operational and policy initiatives

that jointly address mobility and environmental needs.

Reducing signicant aviation environmental impacts in absolute terms is a challenging goal,

especially when considered in light o the projected growth in aviation trac. While in

some areas absolute reductions are already being achieved (e.g., a reduction in the number

4.0 A National Vision for Aviation and the Environment

CourtesyAlaskaAirlines


28/55


o people exposed to signicant levels o aircra noise), these reductions will be dicult to

sustain as trac grows. Further, there are areas (such as NOx emissions) where technology

and operational measures combined have not been sucient to oset the increase in emis-

sions associated with trac growth. Accordingly, the vision statement is aspirational. o

achieve the vision, immediate and sustained public and private commitment to investment,

experimentation, communication, eedback and learning at local, regional, national and in-

ternational levels is required. Immediate action will provide both near-term and long-term

benets. Troughout the process o realizing this vision, there must be careul attention to

ostering distributed leadership, responsibility and burdens among all stakeholders.

In draing this vision, specic attention was given to separating issues or which the im-

pacts are suciently well understood such that action is appropriate, rom those or which

uncertainty is high and research must be done to reduce uncertainty beore it is appropriate

to dene specic actions. Community noise and local air quality impacts due to NOx, CO,

and UHC were considered to be actionable now. Impacts o aviation PM, HAPS and avia-

tion climate eects require urther research to understand the eects and the relationship to

aviation technology and operations. However, in light o growing national and international

requirements to assess and mitigate these impacts, expeditious action is urgently required.

Further, our use o signicant in the rst paragraph o the vision statement is meant to sig-

nal a specic regulatory threshold or consideration. It is beyond the scope o this report to

dene these levels o signicance, but we look to the relevant agencies to dene and amend

these thresholds as necessary. For example, the U.S. EPA denes thresholds or attainment

o national ambient air quality standards and thresholds o signicance or health eects o

hazardous air pollutants. Tese should be taken into account in considering whether action

should be taken to mitigate these eects o aviation.


29/55

5.0 A Framework for National Goals

5.0 A Framework for National Goals

A set o clear, measurable goals or long-term environmental improvement is necessary to

support the National Vision. Within the limited scope o this study, we did not address such

goals. However, we oer the ollowing as a potential ramework or their development.

One o the rst activities o the ederal interagency group or aviation and the environment

that we propose in Section 6.1 should be to develop and nalize these goals. In doing so,

the ollowing guidelines should be considered.

We have divided these guidelines into three parts: recommendations on the process o de-

ning and reviewing the national goals, recommendations on the metrics (i.e., how prog-

ress will be measured), and recommendations on the goals themselves.

5.1 Processes

Te metrics and goals should be developed through an open, inclusive process in-

volving a broad cross-section o stakeholders.

Te goals and metrics should be related to representative examples to enable com-

munication with non-experts.

As part o the process or establishing the goals, a schedule or periodic review o

both metrics and goals should be established. When improved metrics are devel-

oped, they may merit incorporation. I conditions change, and when uncertainty

regarding impacts improves, the goals may need to be revised.

A periodic process should be established or assessing progress against the goals andcommunicating that progress to the stakeholders.

AlanScheinPhotography/COR


30/55


5.2 Metrics

Te goals should incorporate the best available metrics. When there is concern that

the metrics do not accurately refect the health and welare impacts, it is important to

move orward with existing metrics, but also to plan specic actions or improving the

metrics.

o measure progress relative to the national vision, metrics should be dened based

upon specic health and welare endpoints (e.g., quantitative health and welare risks

due to local air quality impacts o aviation).

However, supplemental metrics involving quantities o pollutant or eciency metrics

could be used to relate the national goals to other signicant policy or regulatory

benchmarks.

For areas where there is considerable uncertainty as to aviations eects (e.g., climate

change, HAPS and PM), the metric employed should be the uncertainty in assessing

impacts. Tis will enable specic quantitative goals to be set with regard to reductionsin uncertainty (e.g., reduce uncertainty in the climate change impacts o aviation rom

100% to 25% over 10 years).

5.3 Goals

Te goals should be both meaningul (accurately representing the national vision or

absolute reductions in signicant impacts), and achievable (with due consideration or

economic reasonableness and technological easibility).

Te goals should be established in a ramework that allows or consideration o

interdependencies. For example, the goals could be ormulated as ranges, rather thansingle values, to refect the interdependent nature o the environmental impacts o

aviation and the range o approaches that may be employed to mitigate them; progress

in one domain may limit progress in another.

Te goals should clearly dene a threshold level or signicance as reerenced in the

National Vision Statement (In 2025, signifcanthealth and welare impacts will be

reduced in absolute terms ).

Te goals should speciy the baseline against which change will be measured.


31/55

29

6.0 Recommended Actions

Te following recommendations have been constructed from the prior studies, from comments

in the various stakeholder interviews and from activities during the combined stakeholder

meetings.

o achieve the National Vision or Aviation and the Environment, three actions are recommended.

Te goal o the rst is to promote coordination and communication among stakeholders. Te second

addresses the development o more eective tools and metrics or guiding policy decisions and or

planning research investments. Te third ocuses on specic technological, operational and policy

options to support a balanced approach to long-term environmental improvements. While the third

recommendation is the most important in terms o directly addressing the needs, it will not be

successul unless the rst two recommendations are implemented in parallel. Below each recom-

mendation we briefy review current activities and suggest an implementation plan or responding

to the recommendation. Te Next Generation Air ransport System plan should address both the

unding sources and levels necessary to implement the recommendations made in this report.

6.1 Recommendation 1: Coordination and Communication

A ederal interagency group should be established or coordinating governmental ac-

tion to reduce the negative impacts o aviation on local air quality, noise, and climate

change. The group should have representation rom the FAA, NASA, EPA, DoD, DOT,

DOC, and DOI, and should be chaired by a representative rom the FAA. The group

should be ormed within the Joint Planning and Development Oce (JPDO). It should

promote public-private partnerships with industry. This new interagency group should

also be responsible or ostering a network o community orums to promote com-

munication, idea exchange and joint action. These community orums should be

given representation at the highest level in the interagency coordinating group. This

coordinating group should build upon existing interagency eforts, but not be bound

by them. The group should operate in a coordinated ashion with relevant commit-

tees and oversight groups in Congress. The group should be responsible or strategic

planning and or coordinating the member agencies to achieve the national goals or

aviation and the environment.


C


32/55


An Integrated Product eam (IP) such as that being developed within the JPDO, is an ap-

propriate structure or implementing this recommendation. Guidance or establishing the

IP ollows:

Te IP must be staed and unded at levels that will allow eective and sustained

progress on addressing aircra noise and emissions issues

Lead agencies and unctions within agencies must be subject to appropriate checks

and balances, as refected in the IP governance structure and operations

Te IP must develop eective mechanisms or alignment with industry research and

development, as well as airline operational practices

Te IP must establish mechanisms to ensure that its eorts are addressing the inter-

ests o relevant stakeholders and building sucient levels o trust and communication

Te IP leadership must have authority over their respective agency resources

Te relevant agencies should enter into a Memorandum o Understanding that will describe

their roles and responsibilities, resources, and other administrative matters. Under the IP

Steering Group, there should be panels associated with the various strategies, as well as an over-

arching stakeholders panel. Te Steering Group should meet regularly or an in-depth review

o all initiatives. A suggested structure or the IP and associated panels is shown below.

SuggestedStructurefortheAviationEnvironmentalIPTandassociatedgroupsandpanels.


33/55

6.2 Recommendation 2: Tools and Metrics

The nation should develop more effective metrics and tools to assess and com-

municate aviations environmental effects. The metrics should better represent

the human health and welfare impacts. The tools should incorporate the best

scientific understanding, and be able to put aviations impact in context with

that of other sources. The tools should enable integrated environmental and

economic cost/benefit analysis of policies and research and development activi-

ties so that it is possible to:

evaluate potential benefits of research initiatives including source re-

duction technologies and operational advancements

assess the effects of environmental constraints on national airspace

system expansion

account for airline economics and affordability in evaluating regulatory

and research opportunities

assess the impacts on communities of policy and operational decisions

understand aviations environmental effects individually and relative to

one another (air quality, noise and climate) in terms of both damage

costs and mitigation costs

These tools should be useful at local, regional, national and international levels

enabling experimentation and feedback at all of these levels.

Te plan or implementing this recommendation should include the ollowing program

elements.

6.2.1 Aviation Environmental Design Tool and Aviation Portfolio

Management Tool

FAA and NASA are investing approximately $10M per year or the next six years to jointly

create new analytical tools to better understand the relationship between noise and emis-

sions and dierent types o emissions, as well as to analyze the ull costs and benets o di-

erent technological, operational and policy options or mitigation. Tese tools are directly

aligned with Recommendation 2 and will be a major step orward or the nation when

complete. Future analytical tools should provide or: 1) the incorporation o more eective

metrics or assessing health and welare impacts, as well as industry and regional economiceects; 2) more eective validation o the suite o tools; and 3) more rapid extension o the

tools or application to local analysis. Also, coordination should be sought between these

eorts and research within NASA to assess the environmental benets o air trac manage-

ment system modernization.



34/55


6.2.2 Earth System Observations, Modeling and Analysis

Te nation must pursue a research program to assess the unique impacts o aviation on cli-

mate, weather and local air quality. A ocused research program similar to the Atmospheric

Eects o Aviation Program (AEAP) that was supported by NASA as an element o the

high-speed civil transport and subsonic aviation programs should be developed. Tis new

program should integrate atmospheric observations with local, regional and global model-

ing to reduce the uncertainty in the understanding o aviations climate, weather and local

air quality impacts, and to reduce the uncertainty in the relationship between these impacts

and technological and operational options or mitigation. An improved understanding o

aviation climate, weather and local air quality eects is necessary to ensure investments in

aircra technology and operations are eective.

6.2.3 Characterization of Aviation Air Toxics and Particulate Matter

FAA, NASA and DoD are investing approximately $5M per year to develop techniques to

measure hazardous air pollutants (air toxics) and particulate matter rom aviation, to col-

lect data to quantiy the emissions or the current feet, to perorm research to understand

the eects o engine design and operations, to inorm stakeholders o the impact o aircra

emissions and their contribution to local air quality, and to develop simplied models or

technical and policy decisions. Future work should consider ways: 1) to obtain data or a

wider range o aircra and decrease reliance on approximations; 2) to accelerate the de-

velopment o methods or measuring particulate matter rom both commercial and mili-

tary aviation; and 3) to determine whether there are unique health eects associated with

particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants rom aviation. Tese programs have been

dened by a broad cross-section o stakeholders who developed a National Aircra Par-ticulate Matter Roadmap under the leadership o FAA and NASA. Pursuing this Roadmap

will provide greater reliability in environmental analyses, more inormed decision-making,

and greater benet o actions to protect the public rom harmul aircra emissions. Tese

eorts are critical because many airports and military installations are being required to

assess the impacts o aviation particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants even though

data and methods to perorm the assessment do not exist.

6.2.4 Assessing Impacts and Developing More Effective Metrics

FAA, NASA and DoD are investing approximately $3M per year to better identiy, under-stand, and measure health and welare impacts o aircra noise and aviation emissions,

including: 1) the development and assessment o supplemental metrics or noise that better

represent community response; 2) the assessment o low requency noise impacts o avia-


35/55

tion; 3) a study o community response to sonic booms; 4) modeling and measurements to

better understand unique source noise and propagation eects or military aviation; 5) the

development o aviation particulate matter and climate change metrics or aviation; 6) the

development o risk-based damage cost metrics to enable interrelationships and tradeos

between noise and emissions to be assessed; and 7) a study o land-use patterns including

the development o appropriate metrics to measure encroachment and its relationship

to socio-economic eects around airports. Future work should consider: 1) establishing

appropriate noise, and air quality metrics at the national level and harmonizing these

metrics globally; 2) i warranted by scientic inormation, pursuing a metric or global

climate change eects; 3) developing metrics or assessing the industry economic impacts

o technological, operational and policy options or mitigation; and 4) developing tools

and metrics or assessing the regional economic eects o aviation mobility and environ-

mental impacts.

6.2.5 Public Education and Communication

Te FAA plans to invest $0.4M per year to provide an Internet capability to educate and

inorm the public about aviation and the environment. NASA is investing approximately

$5M per year to develop improved aircra and airport system tools or noise assessment

that could contribute to the eort. Greater coordination between the FAA and NASA work

in this area is recommended through the interagency coordinating group discussed in Sec-

tion 6.1. Future work should consider: 1) developing new audio/visual simulation tools to

extend the NASA tools and enable improved communication o airport noise issues with

the public and decision makers; and 2) expanding these capabilities to include emissions

and to include additional noise metrics o interest to the public. NASA and FAA should

consult some o the successul community-based groups (e.g., the OHare Noise Compat-

ibility Commission and San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable)

throughout the design and development o these tools.

6.3 Recommendation 3: Technology, Operations and Policy

The nation should vigorously pursue a balanced approach towards the develop-

ment of operational, technological and policy options to reduce the unfavorable

impacts of aviation. Because they offer near-term improvements, priority should

be given to developing and implementing improved operational procedures

for both noise and emissions reduction that satisfy safety requirements. In-

novative market and land-use options should be evaluated and implemented

for mid-term improvements. For the long-term, but commencing immediately,

integrated programs should be strengthened to bring economically reasonable



36/55


37/55


38/55


improving airport land-use compatibility by: (1) identiying issues, as perceived by indi-

vidual stakeholders; (2) analyzing the causes and constraints including legal, institutional,

and scal; and (3) discussing strategies or addressing the issues. Te FAA currently invests

$0.25M per year to sta the LUPI initiative.

6.3.3 Technology Options

Te greatest historical gains in environmental perormance have come rom technological

innovation. Tese gains include a 60% improvement in aircra uel eciency and a 95%

reduction in the number o people signicantly impacted by aircra noise in the last 35

years. As refected in NASA program plans, many more gains are possible. Tese plans

include developing technologies needed to reduce contributors to CO2

emissions by 25%,

reduce contributors to smog (NOx) by 70% relative to 1996 ICAO Standards, and reduce

contributors to aircra noise by 50% (-10 dB) in comparison to 1997 state-o-the-art tech-

nology. Te National Research Council [NRC 2002] and the stakeholders who participated

in this study believe that NASAs goals are technically easible and that NASA is pursuing

the appropriate technology options. However, the level o unding (approximately $925M

per year, not all directed towards environmental goals) is such that there is a signicant risk

the goals will not be achieved on schedule. A key concern is the limited number o tech-

nology options that will be brought to a technology-readiness-level such that they can be

eectively transitioned to industry. Te development and ull-scale validation o additional

engine and airrame noise and emissions reduction technologies is vital. By considering

more technology options and by developing them to higher technology-readiness-levels,

the risk o not achieving the goals on schedule will be reduced. Te programs will also

be more robust and responsive to potential changes in the industry, enabling additional

technologies to be developed specically or regional jet, microjet, cargo, rotorcra and

supersonic applications.


39/55

Appendix A

Public Law 108-176:

Vision 100Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act

Section 321: Report on Long-Term Environmental Improvements

(a) IN GENERAL Te Secretary o ransportation, in consultation with the Administrator o

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall conduct a study o ways to reduce

aircra noise and emissions and to increase aircra uel eciency. Te study shall

(1) explore new operational procedures or aircra to achieve those goals;

(2) identiy both near-term and long-term options to achieve those goals;

(3) identiy inrastructure changes that would contribute to attainment o those goals;

(4) identiy emerging technologies that might contribute to attainment o those goals;

(5) develop a research plan or application o such emerging technologies, including new

combustor and engine design concepts and methodologies or designing high bypass ratio

turboan engines so as to minimize the eects on climate change per unit o production o

thrust and fight speed; and

(6) develop an implementation plan or exploiting such emerging technologies to attain

those goals.

(b) REPOR Te Secretary shall transmit a report on the study to the Senate Committee onCommerce, Science, and ransportation and the House o Representatives Committee on

ransportation and Inrastructure within 1 year aer the date o enactment o this Act.

(c) AUHORIZAION OF APPROPRIAIONS Tere is authorized to be appropriated to the

Secretary $500,000 or scal year 2004 to carry out this section.

Appendix A: Public Law 108-176: Vision 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act


40/55



41/55

Appendix B

List of Acronyms

ACARE Advisory Council or Aeronautical Research in Europe

AERONE Tematic Network o the European Commission on Aircra Emissions andReduction echnologies

AEAP Atmospheric Eects o Aviation Program

AEE FAA Oce o Environment and Energy

ANCA Aircra Noise and Capacity Act

ASP Airspace Systems Program (NASA)

CAEP ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COE Center o Excellence, Partnership or Air ransportation Noise and EmissionsReduction (PARNER)

DNL Day-Night Noise Level

DOC Department o Commerce

DoD Department o Deense

DOI Department o the Interior

DO Department o ransportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EU European Union

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise

GAO General Accounting Oce

GSE Ground service equipment

HAPS Hazardous air pollutants

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IP Integrated product team

Appendix B: List of Acronyms


42/55


JPDO Joint Planning and Development Oce

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NGAS Next Generation Air ransportation System

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx Oxides o Nitrogen

NPS National Park Service

NRC National Research Council

OS Oce o the Secretary o ransportation

OSP Oce o Science and echnology Policy

PARNER Partnership or AiR ransportation Noiseand Emissions Reductions

PM Particulate matter

QA Quiet Aircra echnology

REDAC Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

RL echnology readiness level

UEE Ultra-Ecient Engine echnology Program

UHC Unburned Hydrocarbons

VSP Vehicle Systems Program (NASA)


43/55

Appendix C

References

ACARE 2001 Advisory Council or Aeronautical Research in Europe, European Aeronautics A Vision or 2020, January, 2001, URL: http://www.acare4europe.com/docs/Vision%202020.pd [accessed July 2004].

ACARE 2002 Advisory Council or Aeronautical Research in Europe, Strategic ResearchAgenda, October 2002, URL: www.acare4europe.org, [accessed July 2004].

ACI 2002 Airports Council International, Te Economic Impact o US Airports,Washington, DC, 2002, URL: http://www.aci-na.org/docs/US_Econ_Impact.pd, [accessed July 2004].

AERO 2002 Presidential Commission on the Future o the U.S. Aerospace Industry, FinalReport o the Presidential Commission on the Future o the U.S. AerospaceIndustry, Arlington, VA, 2002, URL: http://www.aia-aerospace.org/issues/commission/commission_report.pd [accessed July 2004].

AERONE 2000 Tematic Network o the European Commission on Aircra Emissions andReduction echnologies (AERONE), Te AERONE Network: Emissions,Atmospheric Impact and Regulations, Air and Space Europe, Vol. 2, No 3,2000, URL: http://www.aero-net.org/lib/articles/024-028%20dewes.pd,[accessed July 2004].

AA 2004 Air ransport Association, Statement on the State o the Airline Industry,Statement or the Record o the Subcommittee on Aviation, ransportation

and Inrastructure Committee, US. House o Representati

Documents

Congrept Aviation Envirn