航空环境保护委员会 - 中国民用航空局国际合作服务中心

should, within 1 – 3 business days2 of receipt of formal instruction from a duly authorized representative of the owner of an account capable of ...

Doc 10126, CAEP/11 2019 2 4 -- 15 Doc 10126, CAEP/11 2019 2 4 -- 15 999 Robert-Bourassa Boulevard, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7 www.icao.int Doc 10126 -- 10126 ISBN 978-92-9258-811-3 © ICAO 2019 1 CAEP 2019 2 4 15 Doc 10126CAEP/11 1 1. 2019 6 7 217 CAEP/11 2. RSPP 2.1 3/1 3-9 3/4 3-10 4/1 4-2 2.2 3. 3.1 Doc 10126CAEP/11 - 2 - 1 1/1 iii-5 1/2 iii-6 1/3 iii-6 2/1 1-9 2/2 1-9 2/3 1-9 3/2 3-10 C ANC Doc 9988 1 - 3 - Doc 10126CAEP/11 3/3 3-10 3/5 3-11 3/6 3-11 4/2 4-2 5/1 5-1 5/2 5-2 C ANC II -- III -- Doc 9889 -- I -- 1 Doc 10126CAEP/11 - 4 - 1 5/3 5-4 5/4 5-5 5/5 5-6 5/6 5-7 8/1 6-7 8/2 6-8 9/1 9-2 C ANC IV TAB 16 IV " " 1 - 5 - Doc 10126CAEP/11 9/2 9-5 9/3 9-7 9/4 9-7 9/5 9-7 10/1 10-2 12/1 12-4 C ANC 16 IV " " 16 IV " " 16 IV " " " -- " -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- CAEP 2019 CAEP2019 2019 2 4 15 CAEP Tan Kah Han 2019 2 15 ii -- ii-1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. CAEP/11 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. CORSIA 5. GAEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 -- MRV 7 -- 8 -- 9 10 11 TOR 12 ii-4 ii-4 ii-9 ii-10 ii-10 ii-10 ii-11 ii-11 ii-32 iii-1 iii-1 iii-3 iii-6 iii-8 1-1 2-1 3-1 4-1 5-1 6-1 6-1 6-1 9-1 10-1 11-1 12-1 ii-2 1 ii -- 1/1 Doc 9988 -- iii-5 1/2 iii-6 1/3 iii-6 2/1 1-9 2/2 1-9 2/3 1-9 3/1 RSPP 16 -- II -- 3-9 3/2 nvPM 3-10 3/3 II -- 3-10 3/4 RSPP 16 III -- 3-10 3/5 III -- 3-11 3/6 Doc 9889 -- 3-11 4/1 RSPP 16 -- I -- 4-2 4/2 I -- 4-2 5/1 ASBU 1 -- 5-1 5/2 5-2 5/3 5-4 5/4 5-5 5/5 5-6 5/6 5-6 1. "RSPP" ii -- ii-3 8/1 IV 6-7 8/2 TAB 6-7 9/1 16 IV " 9-2 " 9/2 16 IV " 9-5 " 9/3 16 IV " 9-7 " 9/4 16 IV " 9-7 " 9/5 " 9-7 -- " 10/1 10-2 12/1 CAEP/12 12-4 ii-4 ii -- CAEP 2019 2 4 15 1. 1.1 2019 2 4 14 CAEP 2019 2 15 2. 2.1 30 10 Carlos Ruben Fernandez Maria Fabiana Loguzzo Lachlan Phillips Ricardo Antonio Binotto Dupont Bruno Franciscone Daniel Ramos Longo Dario Taufner Guilherme Lima Renato Godinho Gilles Bourgeois 2019 2 4 6 Alissa Boardley David Bilcock David Branton-Brown Jon Albert Obnamia Kerri Henry Prem Lobo Ted McDonald Wendy Bailey Yves Cousineau Henry Chiu Abdelghafar Elsayed Abdelhalim ii -- Robert Mauri Anouck Barreaux Bruno Hamon Claire Rais Assa Jonathan Gilad Pierre Primard Frauke Pleines-Schmidt Georg Naumann Petra Bollich Stefan Bickert Rohit Thakur Rajasekar Ganesan Fransiscus Budi Prayitno Avirianto Suratno Budi Djatmiko Chandra Apriyatno Kusmini Kusmini Margaretta Rozetta Nurdini Tambunan Pintanugra Persanta Putu Eka Cahyadhi Sayuta Senobua Sigit Hani Adiyanto Wendy Aritenang Silvia Egoli Alberto Anglade Giovanni Barraco Giovanni Barraco 2019 2 4 8 Koichi Minato Kotaro Yamamoto Masato Takehisa Naoya Takahashi Shion Kanamori Shoji Kawamori Shomei Tanamachi Takahiro Nakashima Takashi Hongo Yoshikazu Makino Michael Lunter Beatrice Adolehoume Tadeusz Reklewski -- -- -- -- -- Artur Mirzoyan Agrafena Kotova Aleksei Sipatov Galina Kirichenko Iurii Khaletskii Ivan Belyaev Liudmila Rostovtseva Victor Kopiev ii-5 ii-6 Mohammed Habib Tan Kah Han Gabriel Bestbier Alfredo Iglesias Sastre Eva Marie Hankanen Urs Ziegler Oleksandr Zaporozhets Maryam Al Balooshi Jennifer Raynor Kevin Welsh ii -- Adnan Alotaibi Danh Alkurdi Mohammed Alsalama Qing Ming Go Chinga Mazhetese Arturo Benito César Velarde Catolfi-Salvoni Juan Hermira Carola Lindberg Emma Jeppsson Henrik Ekstrand Therése Sjöberg Catherine Marthe Theodor Rindlisbacher Ivan Iatsenko Svitlana Marunych Rebekah Marshall Alexandra Chittenden Bethan Owen Darren Rhodes David Lee David Moroz Ian Jopson Nicholas Cumpsty Bryan Manning Charlie Ashley Cullen Leggett Dimitri Mavris Donald Scata Gregg Fleming James Hileman John Mueller Molly Peters-Stanley Peter Coen Philippe Bonnefoy Ralph Iovinelli Rebecca Cointin Roger Schaufele Victor Sparrow ii -- Cesar Mac-Namara Alberto Mena Alberto Mena Patricio Arancibia (2019 2 4 8 ) Jose E. Sanhueza Flores Konstantina Chrysikopoulou Georgia Lykou Georgia Lykou (2019 2 4 8 ) Hilde Hoiem Jyrki Laitila -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Artur Sousa Ana Barbosa Deniz Kaymak Ibrahim Sahinkaya Juliana Scavuzzi Glynys Jones Guillaume Rodier Jeeyoon Jung Kathleen Henderson Mary Eagan Melinda Pagliarello Philippe Villard Adil Bouloutar -- -- -- -- -- Isabelle Besson Andrei Mungiu Andrew Watt David Brain Grégoire Le Comte Illimar Bilas Ivan de Lépinay Marco Paviotti Rachel Burbidge Richard Clarkson Stephen Arrowsmith Michel Adam Aaron Robinson Thomas Roetger Tim Pohle Ray Brown Nancy Young Bruce M Parry Alexandra Grose Eli Cotti Kahina Oudjehani Leo Knaapen ii-7 ii-8 Daniel Carnelly 2019 2 4 5 Arnaud Bonnet 2019 2 6 15 ii -- Amr Ali Arnaud Bonnet Brian Kim Bruno Pasturel Carlos Grandi Charles Etter Dale Smith Daniel Allyn Daniel Bassani Danielle Patton David Hyde David Lye Dominique Collin Eli Dourado Eric Jacobs Eric Upton Eugene Kors Hideki Moriai Jan Pie Jason Matisheck Jeffrey Peters John Morgenstern Jose Alonso Joseph Zelina Julien Dezombre Kevin Morris Kian Mccaldon Larry Gray Maria Chiara Detragiache Michel Wachenheim Miguel F. García Claro Minoru Hanakata Muni Majjigi Olivier Husse Olivier Penanhoat Paul Madden Peter Iosifidis Pierre Lempereur Raymond Russell Robby Lapointe Robert Cowart Rudy Dudebout Scott Piercy Sean Newsum Simone Rauer Thierry Percheron Tsutomu Oishi Vincent De Vroey Yoshiharu Sasaki Tim Johnson Robert Brons Gabriel Labbate Katia Simeonova Jane Hupe ii -- Amy Malaki Andrew Murphy Bill Hemmings Brad Schallert Dan Rutherford Hongming Liu John Holler Kristin Qui Pedro Piris-Cabezas -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Perumal Arumugam Bruno Silva Chrystelle Damar Demi Tighe Joonas Laukia Manuel Caballero Alarcon Mathias Grossmann Neil Dickson Sean Donovan Stelios Pesmajouglou Tetsuya Tanaka Yury Medvedev ii-9 3. 3.1 Tan Kah Han Frauke Pleines-Schmidt J. Hupe N. Dickson T. Tanaka B. Silva M. Caballero C. Damar S. Donovan J. Laukia Y. Medvedev Boubacar Djibo Stephen Creamer Andrew Opolot ii-10 ii -- 4. 4.1 2018 3 9 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 -- MRV 7 -- 8 -- 9 10 11 TOR 12 5. 5.1 6. 6.1 2. 2018 8 14 2019 2 1 ii -- ii-11 6.2 a) b) c) d) 6.3 2019 2 1 3 7. 7.1 2011 6 2018 11 2019 2 4 8. CAEP/11 8.1 39 1 -- -- N.01 + + + + 3. https://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx ii-12 ii -- 1 -- -- N.02 16 I I 16 SG2018 CAEP/11 N.03 N.04.01 CAEP/11 N.05.01 CAEP/11 N.05.02 1) VNRS" " 2) N.05.01 CAEP/11 N.05.03 2016 5 /6 N.05.04 CAEP/11 N.06.01 N.06.02 GAEP GAEP GANP 16 ii -- ii-13 1 -- -- N.07.01 UA N.07.02 UA 16 N.08.01 SG2017 N.08.02 SG2017 SG2017 N.09 IE 3 IE NOx nvPM NOx SG2016 CAEP/11 N.10 4 14 SG2016 SG2016 16 I CAEP/11 ii-14 ii -- 2 ---- O.01 2 1. 2. / 2 3. CAEP/11 O.02 10013 " " 1. 2. 3. CAEP/11 CAEP/12 O.03 -- -- CAEP/10 O.02 / SG2017 ii -- ii-15 2 ---- O.04 ASBU 1 ASBU 1 -- ASBU CAEP/11 ASBU 1 CAEP/11 1 CAEP/11 O.05 ATM ATM -- ATM ASBU CAEP/8 1 CAEP/11 a) b) ATM SG2016 CAEP/11 O.06 II II -- CAEP/10 O.06 a) CAEP/10 b) II 3 1 4 5 II SG2018 ii-16 ii -- 2 ---- O.07 ANSP CAEP CAEP/11 O.08 "" O.09 CAEP/11 O.10 " " O.11 Doc 9889 3 3 Doc 9889 Doc 9889 CAEP/11 O.12 2 ASBU APM ii -- ii-17 3 -- -- E.01 (a) (b) (c) (d) E.02 1) 2) 3) SOx CAEP/11 E.03 -- CAEP/11 E.04 16 16 CAEP/11 E.05 CAEP/11 E.06 CAEP/11 E.07 "" CAEP/11 1 ii-18 ii -- 3 -- -- E.08 -- NOx NOx NOx NOx CAEP/11 E.09 -- 16 CAEP/11 E.10 E.11.01 -- 2017 2 26.7kN / nvPM SG2017 [] 2017 2 E.11.02 -- 26.7kN / nvPM 16 II CAEP/11 E.11.03 -- 26.7kN <26.7kN 16 II CAEP/11 E.11.04 -- nvPM model <26.7kN 26.7kN APU nvPM 3 CAEP/11 ii -- ii-19 3 -- -- E.12 Doc 9889 Doc 9889 CAEP/11 Doc 9889 E.13 ISG nvPM SG2016 E.14 1 IE IE NOx nvPM NOx CAEP/11 E.15 " " 2016 E.16 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- -- ii-20 ii -- 3 -- -- E.17 GAEP GAEP GANP 16 CAEP/11 E.18 SG2016 2016 CO2 CO2 III III CO2 SG2017 2017 CO2 ACCS C.01 2016 MBM 2017 2018 C.02 SG2017 C.03 SG2017 ii -- ii-21 F.01 SG2018 CAEP/11 F.02 ADAP MDWG-LTF ADAP MDWG- LTF 20 SG2017 F.03 SG2016 F.04 PM SG2018 CAEP/11 F.05 / ADAP MDWG-LTF ADAP (MDWG-LTF) F.06 " " 2016 F.07 CAEP/11 ii-22 ii -- M.01 CAEP/11 M.02 SG2016 M.03 201x NOx CO2 1. ATM 2 2. 2% 2020 3. 4. 5. ASBU 0 1 SQL CAEP/11 M.04 LAQ GHG CAEP/11 ii -- ii-23 M.05 / 1. nvPM 3 2. 3. 1. 2. -- 3. COD CAEP/11 M.06 "" ii-24 ii -- M.07 Doc 9911 Doc 9911 1 1. Doc. 9911 NPD 2. 3. 4. 5. UAV 6. Doc 9911 CAEP/11 M.08 3 COD COHCNOx CO2 SG2017 M.09 M.10 CAEP/11 M.11 1 ASBU Block 1 [ CO2 LAQ] 2 SG2018 ii -- ii-25 M.12 201x COD 52 1. COD 2. COD WISDOM 2012 / SG2017 M.13 39 M.03 SG2017 CAEP/11 M.14 / ADAP MDWG-LTF M.15 Doc 7910 M.16 GMBM ii-26 ii -- M.17 CO2 CO2 CAEP/11 M.18 1 -- 2 -- 3 -- -- M.19 M.20 " " 2016 1,000 Gt 1.5/2°C SG2016 I.01.01 () I.01.02 I.01.03 SG2016 ii -- ii-27 I.02 " " 1 2 2018 I.03 2 2018 I.04 [ 3 E.13] 3 nvPM 3 NOx/PM SG2017 I.05 " " 2016 I.06 Doc 9889 Doc 9889 3 I.07 CBA LAQ GHG CAEP/11 I.08 1,000 Gt 1.5/2°C SG2016 ii-28 ii -- AFTF S.01 (GMBM) AFTF MRV GMBM MRV CAEP/11 S.02 (GMBM) AFTF MRV "" "" CAEP/11 S.03 " " S.04 1: SG 2016 2: SG 2017 3: SG 2018 CAEP/11 "" CAEP/11 ii -- ii-29 AFTF S.05 GMBM : SG 2016 : SG 2017 : SG 2018 : CAEP/11 CAEP/11 S.06 / S.07 1,000 Gt (1.5/2°C ) SG2016 GMTF G.01 SG2016 / ii-30 ii -- GMTF G.02 SG2016 G.03 SG2016 2 G.04 SG2016 SG2016 MRV G.05 ISO G.06 SG2016 SG2016 G.07 SG2016 G.08 G.09 ii -- ii-31 GMTF G.10 SG2016 COP-21 GMTF/8 G.11 SG2016 COP-21 GMTF/8 SG2016 G.12 SG2016 G.13 SG2016 G.14 CAEP/11 G.15 G.16 G.17 G.18 GMTF ii-32 ii -- 9. 9.1 9.2 9.3 1) 2) 3) 9.4 9.5 9.6 "CORSIA" 9.7 CO2 2018 6 16 IV 9.8 9.9 nvPM 16 II ii -- ii-33 9.10 ACT-CORSIA 9.11 TAB 9.12 CO2 2017 10 2050 9.13 16 I 50 9.14 50 20 60 75 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 ii-34 ii -- 9.20 GAEP GAEP 9.21 11 192 9.22 35 9.23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- iii -- iii-1 1. 1.1 25 18 2018 6 ACAO1UNEP 2. 2.1 UN 2.2 UNFCCC 2.2.1 UNFCCC 2018 12 COP24 6 2.2.2 COP24 CORSIA COP24 CORSIA 2.2.3 COP24 1 10 12 1. 2018 ACACACAO iii-2 iii -- 2.2.4 COP24 COP25 CAEP/11 2.3 WHO 2.3.1 "" -- 2016 2018 2 2.3.2 2018 10 2.4 IPCC 2.4.1 2018 10 6 48 1.5°C SPM http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf. 2.5 EMG 2.5.1 2018 9 24 EMG 24 SOM 2019 9 2019 2.6 Sum4All 2.6.1 2017 1 50 SuM4All " "GRA iii -- iii-3 2.6.2 SuM4All SuM4All 2.6.3 2.6.4 4 12 2.6.5 3. 3.1 3.1.1 2018 11 2 RTK2 91.8% 110 111 3.2 "" 3.2.1 A39-2 3 2. 2015 RTK) 3. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/ActionPlan-Questions.aspx iii-4 iii -- 3.3 Doc 9988 3.3.1 Doc 9988 "" 2013 2016 39 Doc 9988 3.3.2 40 3.4 -- 3.4.1 -- 14 CO2 ""2018 12 12 2019 1 10 3.5 -- / 3.5.1 -- UNDPGEF "" "" CO2 3.5.2 CO2 ECAC 44 iii -- iii-5 3.5.3 A39-2 A39-3 6 7 3.5.4 Doc 9988 3.5.5 111 Doc 9988 Doc 9988 3.5.6 3.5.7 3.5.7.1 1/1 -- Doc 9988 -- Doc 9988 iii-6 iii -- 1/2 -- Doc 9988 1/3 -- 4. CORSIA 4.1 16 IV 4.1.1 2018 6 214 16 -- IV --CORSIA 2018 10 22 2019 1 1 ETM IV -- CORSIADoc 9501 2018 7 4.2 4.2.1 16 IV 2018 CORSIACERT2018 8 CORSIA CORSIACERT 2019 2019 CORSIACCR 2020 CCR 2019 4.2.2 CORSIA2018 11 215 EUC TABPTG TAB ToRCORSIAAGC 4.2.3 ENV 6/1-18/110 TABEUC TABEUC 216 2019 3 216 iii -- iii-7 CORSIA 4.3 CORSIA 4.3.1 214 ACT-CORSIA ACT-CORSIA ACT-CORSIA 15 96 71 4.3.2 GAT 2019 4 4.3.3 www.icao.int/corsia ACT-CORSIA FAQ 2019 3 21 4 12 4.3.4 2018 CERT 4.3.5 2018 6 16 IV ACT CORSIA CORSIACORSIA CORSIA iii-8 iii -- 4.3.6 ACT-CORSIA ENV 6/6-18/1 4.3.7 CORSIA 2019 ACT CORSIA 4.3.8 TAB Alfredo Iglesias 4.3.9 CORSIA 12 5. GAEP 5.1 2018 SG2018 GAEP 40 214 2019 2 5.2 1) GAEP 2) 3) 4) iii -- iii-9 5.3 5.4 GASPGANP 12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 1-1 1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 LAQ 1.1.2.1 LAQNOxPM 1 3 000 Nox 2050 NOx 0.35 0.46 2050 0.15 0.23 1. 3 000 NOx 2010 2050 1.1.2.2 2 3 000 PM 2050 PM 1 160 3 100 PM 1-2 1 2. 3 000 PM 2010 2050 1.1.3 1.1.3.1 GHG CO2 CO2 NOx 1.1.3.2 CO2 3 4 2050 157 1 CO2 497 2 2050 57 CO2 183 1.37% 2% 1 1-3 3. 2005 2050 4. 3.16 CO2 2005 2050 1.1.3.3 AFTF 2020 2050 2020 6 2 12 2020 2% 1.2%2050 60 2 120 60/40 5 1-4 1 * **100 9 5. 3.16 2005 2050 1.1.4 1.1.4.1 80% 315 --DNL 5560 65 1 WG1 2 WG2 2015 2025 2035 2045 2015 2025 2035 2045 2050 CAEP/10 2010 1.1.4.2 6 55 DNL 315 2015 14 378 km22050 14 261 km2 26 483 km2 1 1-5 6 55 DNL 1.1.4.3 7 55 DNL 315 2 CAEP/10 2010 2015 3 050 2050 3 420 6 690 7. 55 DNL 1-6 1 1.1.5 LAQ Doc 9911 LAQ GHG LAQ MDG CAEP/12 1.1.6 1.1.7 2050 1.1.8 CO2 1.1.9 CAEP/10 CAEP/11 CAEP/11 1.1.10 IEIR 1 1-7 1.1.11 FESG ISGLAQ GHG 1.1.12 1.1.13 1.1.14 40 CAEP/12 1.1.15 1.1.15.1 IE IEIR 1.1.15.2 2037 CO2 CAEP/10 EIS 2027 2037 BJ RJ SA TA -15 -16 -14 -12 -23 -26 -24 -21 1-8 1 1.1.15.3 14 EPNdB EIS BJ RJ SA TA 2027 10.0 14.5 15.5 19.5 2037 15.0 17.0 24.0 26.5 1.1.15.4 2027 NOx 54 OPR=30 OPR Dp/F00 = 5.75 + 0.577*OPR. 1.1.16 IEIR 1.1.17 IEIR IEIR7 L/D IEIR 2037 IEIR 2%"" Code-D 1.1.18 IEIR 1.1.19 1.1.20 nvPMNOx nvPM NOx nvPM NOx nvPM 1.1.21 1 1-9 1.1.22 1.1.22.1 2/1 -- / 40 2/2 -- 2/3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 2-1 2 2.1 2.1.1 CAEP/11 2.1.2 CAEP/11 2.2 2.2.1 CAEP/11 nvPM 3 nvPM 3 1 NOxPM CO2 2.2.2 CORSIA CERT CORSIA CERT CCG CERT CEM CERT 2018 2.2.3 2 ASBU 1 5 2.2.4 nvPM nvPM nvPM IMPACT Campbell Hill COD 2012 FESG nvPM 2015 2.2.5 ADAP 2012 2015 2-2 2 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 CBA 2.2.9 CO2 CAEP/12 CAEP/11 2.3 2.3.1 CAEP/11 CAEP/11 nvPM 2.3.2 ADAP 2015 LTF 2018 3 IBAC 2015 2.3.3 FESG nvPM ADAP 2.3.4 CAEP/12 2020 CAEP/12 ADAP 2 2-3 2.3.5 ADAP 2.3.6 2015 CAEP/11 CAEP/11 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 3-1 3 3.1 3 3.1.1 3 3 CAEP/11 PMTGCTGTGTG nvPM 16 II II 3.1.2 3 3.2 3.2.1 3 nvPM nvPM PS-90A 2023 nvPM CAEP/11 3 CAEP/11 nvPM 3.2.2 3 PS-90A nvPM nvPM PS-90A 3.2.3 3 nvPM CAEP/11 LTOnvPM 3.2.4 3 CAEP/12 nvPM 3 nvPM CAEP/12 3.2.5 3 2023 1 1 >26.7 kN SN CAEP/10 3.2.6 CAEP/11 nvPM 3-2 3 3.2.7 nvPM 3.2.8 3 nvPM RIA CAEP/11 nvPM LTO 3 2023 1 1 >26.7 kN SN 3.2.9 nvPM RIA CAEP/11 nvPM LTO CAEP/11 C 3.2.10 >26.7kN LTO nvPM nvPM nvPM 1-3 3.2.11 3.2.12 nvPM 3.2.13 nvPM 6910-12 nvPM 3.2.14 2023 1 1 nvPM 3 4 1 2> 26.7kN SN nvPM 3 3-3 3.2.15 4 50 100 3.2.16 nvPM 2023 1 1 nvPM 2023 1 1 3.2.17 nvPM 10 12 3.2.18 Doc 9082 II 9 3.2.19 nvPM 10 12 NI3 3 3.2.20 3 3 3 - / 3.2.21 CAEP/11 nvPM 3 2023 1 1 CAEP/11 nvPM 2023 1 1 12 3.2.22 nvPM 3-4 3 3.2.23 NOx SO 1 9 3.2.24 3 2023 1 1 > 26.7kN 3 nvPM 3.2.25 2017 nvPM 3 3.2.26 nvPM NOxCO HC CO2 nvPM nvPM 3.2.27 nvPM nvPM nvPM NOxCO HC CO2 nvPM 3.2.28 nvPM 1.2.18 CAEP/10 CO2 Doc 9082 3.2.29 3 nvPM E-31 3 3-5 3.3 nvPM 3.3.1 nvPM SO 3.3.2 10 12 2 9 3.3.3 50 kN 2 3.3.4 nvPM 2 nvPM 2 3 3 5 2023 5 3 2025 2028 nvPM 3.3.5 150 kN 3.3.6 3 6 9 8 150 kN 8 9 3.3.7 2023 2025 nvPM 3.3.8 nvPM 3 5 1 5 3.3.9 3 2025 3.3.10 nvPM nvPM nvPM 3-6 3 1 2023 1 1 150 kN 2023 1 1 nvPM A 16 II II nvPM 16 II nvPM II CAEP/11 16 II II 1.5 3.3.11 nvPM 2019 2022 nvPM CAEP/11 nvPM nvPM 3 CAEP/12 nvPM CAEP/12 CAEP/13 nvPM 3.3.12 nvPM 2023 3.3.13 nvPM nvPM 3.4 3.4.1 3 SST 3 16 II 3 3 3 2 4 LTO 3 3 II 23 4 / 3 nvPM 1. 150 kN nvPM 2.8 nvPM 2 3 3-7 3.4.2 3 3 3 3 3.4.3 3 16 II 3 3.4.4 CO2 3.4.5 3.4.6 16 II 3 3.4.7 CAEP/11 16 II 3 CAEP/12 16 II 3.4.8 3 16 II 3 3.4.9 3.4.10 3-8 3 3.4.11 "" 3.4.12 3.4.13 3.4.14 CAEP/12 16 II 3 16 II 3 3.4.15 23 4 / 3 II " 16 II III 3 2 4 23 4 / 16 II III 3 " 3.4.16 3.4.17 3 3-9 3.4.18 3 3 12 3.4.19 3.4.20 3.4.21 12 3.5 16 II Doc 9501 II 3.5.1 3 16 II Doc 9501 -- II -- 3.5.2 3 A 3.5.3 II 3.5.4 1.3.10 nvPM 1.5.2 16 II RSPP 3/1 -- 16 -- II -- A 16 II 3-10 3 3/2 -- nvPM nvPM nvPM 3.5.5 3.3.10 nvPM 3.4.15 3.5.3 II 3/3 II II 3.6 16 III Doc 9501 III 3.6.1 3 16 III Doc 9501 -- III -- CO2 3.6.2 B 3 16 III III 3.6.3 3.6.3.1 RSPP 3/4 -- 16 --III -- B16III 3 3-11 3/5 III III 3.7 Doc 9889 3.7.1 3 Doc 9889 PM APU Doc 9889 3.7.2 3 Doc 9889 3 Doc 9889 3.7.3 3.7.3.1 3/6 -- Doc 9889 -- Doc 9889 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 A 3A-1 A 16 II 1. 2. 3. 3A-2 3 A 16 II I 1 ...... 2 3 / 1 2 3 A 3A-3 ...... III 1 ...... 1.3 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) 1.4 II 1.5 Doc 9501 II Doc 9501 II -- 1.6 3A-4 3 A 1.7 -------------------- 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.1.1 2.2 2.3 a) 1965 1 1 b) 2.2 2.3 2.1.1.2 """" 2.1.1.3 Doc 9501 II 3 A 3A-5 2.1.1.3 Doc 9501 II ...... 2.1.4 2.1.4.1 0.00634 kg /kg 2.1.4.2 ...... 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 a) 1983 1 1 2023 1 1 b) 26.7kN 2023 1 1 2.2.2 2 6 = 83.6 Foo0.274 50 Doc 9501 II 3A-6 3 A ...... ...... 2.3 2.3.2 e) 2014 1 1 2022 12 31 2023 1 1 1) 30 i) 89.0 kN Dp /Foo = 7.88 + 1.4080oo ii) 26.7 kN 89.0 kN Dp /Foo = 40.052 + 1.5681oo 0.3615Foo 0.0018ooFoo 2) 30 104.7 i) 89.0 kN Dp /Foo = 9.88 + 2.0oo ii) 26.7 kN 89.0 kN Dp /Foo = 41.9435 + 1.505oo 0.5823Foo + 0.005562oo Foo 3) 104.7 Dp /Foo = 32 + 1.6oo f) 2023 1 1 1) 30 i) 89.0 kN Dp /Foo = 7.88 + 1.4080oo ii) 26.7 kN 89.0 kN Dp /Foo = 40.052 + 1.5681oo 0.3615Foo 0.0018ooFoo 3 A 3A-7 2) 30 104.7 i) 89.0 kN Dp /Foo = 9.88 + 2.0oo ii) 26.7 kN 89.0 kN Dp /Foo = 41.9435 + 1.505oo 0.5823Foo + 0.005562oo Foo 3) 104.7 Dp /Foo = 32 + 1.6oo Doc 9501 II 2.4 ...... 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 4.2 4.1.1.2 4.2 4.2 4.1.1.3 "" 3A-8 3 A Doc 9501 II 4.1.2 nvPM 4.1.3 4.1.3.1 nvPMmass µgmicrograms/m3 4.1.3.2 4.1.4.2 LTOLTOmass 4.1.3.3 4.1.4.2 LTOLTOnum 4.1.4 4.1.4.1 0.00634 kg /kg 4.1.4.2 LTO nvPMmass EImass EInum EImass EInum nvPM / Foo 100% Foo 85% Foo 30% Foo 7% Foo 0.7 2.2 4.0 26.0 4.1.4.3 4 3 A 3A-9 4.1.5 4.1.5.1 4.1.5.2 6 4.1.5.3 4.1.4.1 7 EImass EInum 4.1.5.4 7 nvPMmass 7 EImass EInum 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.1.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 26.7 kN 2020 1 1 4.2.1.2 4.2.2 4.2.2.1 2020 1 1 7 6 nvPMmass [µg/m3] nvPMmass = 10 3 + 2.9 -0.274 nvPM 4.2.2.1 Doc 9501 II 4.2.2.2 nvPM 3A-10 3 A 7 nvPM 6 a) LTOmass: 1) 2023 1 1 i) 200kN LTOmass/Foo = 347.5 ii) 26.7kN 200kN LTOmass/Foo = 4646.9 21.497Foo 2) 2023 1 1 i) 150kN LTOmass/Foo = 214.0 ii) 26.7kN 150kN LTOmass/Foo = 1251.1 6.914Foo b) LTOnum: 1) 2023 1 1 i) 200kN LTOnumber/Foo = 4.170 x 1015 ii) 26.7kN 200kN LTOnumber/Foo = 2.669x 1016 1.126 x 1014Foo 2) 2023 1 1 i) 150kN LTOnumber/Foo = 2.780 x 1015 ii) 26.7kN 150kN LTOnumber/Foo = 1.490 x 1016 8.080 x 1013 Foo 3 A 3A-11 4.2.3 7 a) nvPMmass µg/m3 b) kg/s c) EImassmg/kg d) EInum/kg ea) EImassmgmilligrams/kg fb) EInum/kg 4.3 1) 2) 3) 4.3.1 a) b) c) d) e) / f) g) h)g) 3A-12 3 A 4.3.2 4.3.2.1 a) MJ/kg b) % c) % d) % e) % 4.3.2.2 7 a) kg/s b) EImassmilligram/kg c) EInum/kg 4.3.3 4.3.3.1 a) nvPM ×/ b) nvPM ×/ c) nvPM d) nvPM e) LTOmass / Foo /kN f) LTOnum / Foo /kN g) nvPM /m3 4.3.3.2 nvPM LTOmass/Foo and the LTOnum/Foo 3 A 3A-13 IV 1 7 2 7 8 III 4 2023 1 1 nvPM nvPM kSL mass kSL number EImass EInumber 1 8 kSL_mass kSL_num 2 8 7 ...... 2 ...... 2. 2.1 a) b) 1) 2) 80% c) 12 ...... 3A-14 3 A 2.3 A2-1 ...... e) 75 kPa 2826 L/min ...... i) 1) 2) A BC D 3) 4) 51 L/min ...... 2.5 ...... 2.5.2 a) 2.3 h) A "" D 20.4 /min ...... 3 A 3A-15 3 ...... 5.1 5.1.1 a) b) 1) 2) 80% c) 12 ...... 6.3 6.3.1 a) 0.4 L/min75 kPa 26 L/min b) 1% 1 ppm ...... 3A-16 3 A 4 15 kg/m3 10% MJ/kg % % mm % % -20mm2/s 780 820 155 201 235 285 42.86 43.50 15 23 0.0 3.0 20 28 13.4 14.3 0.3000 2.5 6.5 ...... 6 1. ...... 2. 2.1 A6-1 i A6-1 3 A 3A-17 A6-1 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 0.814 7 0.877 7 0.924 6 0.934 7 0.941 6 0.946 7 0.950 6 0.953 8 0.956 5 0.958 7 1- 0.130 59 0.649 3 0.768 5 0.857 2 0.876 4 0.889 4 0.899 0 0.906 5 0.912 6 0.917 6 0.921 8 1- -0.247 24 0.862 7 0.909 4 0.944 1 0.951 6 0.956 7 0.960 5 0.963 4 0.965 8 0.967 7 0.969 4 1- 0.096 78 0.776 9 0.852 7 0.909 1 0.921 3 0.929 6 0.935 8 0.940 5 0.944 4 0.947 6 0.950 2 1- 0.157 36 0.776 9 0.852 7 0.909 1 0.921 3 0.929 6 0.935 8 0.940 5 0.944 4 0.947 6 0.950 2 1- 0.157 36 0.719 4 0.814 8 0.885 8 0.901 1 0.911 6 0.919 3 0.925 2 0.930 1 0.934 1 0.937 5 0.197 78 1- 0.719 4 0.814 8 0.885 8 0.901.1 0.911 6 0.919 3 0.925 2 0.930 1 0.934 1 0.937 5 0.197 78 1- 2.2 2.2.1 A6-1 i A6-1 2.2.2 A6-1 (i) A6-1 3A-18 3 A 2.3 A6-1 3. ...... 7 ...... 1. 2.3 ...... EImass EInum F mg/kg /kg H [HC] VPRDm Dm kfuel_M kfuel_N kthermo ...... ...... 3 A 4. 4.1 3A-19 A7-1 ...... 4.2 4.2.1 1 / a) b) 1) 2) 80% c) 12 3A-20 3 A ...... 6. 6.1 ...... 6.1.1 nvPMmassDF1 nvPMmass = DF1 × nvPMmass_STP × kthermo 6.1.2 EImass EInum = ([2]1 + 22.4 × _ × 10-3 1 1 ([] - [2 ] + [])) ( + ) × × _ = ([2]1 22.4 × 2 × _ × 106 + 1 1 ([] - [2] + [])) ( + ) × × _ [CO2][CO] [HC] 3 E ...... 6.2 ...... 6.2.1 6.2.2 _ = {(1.08 00 - 1.31) (13.8 - )} _ = {(0.99 00 - 1.05) (13.8 - )} ...... 3 A 3A-21 7 A ...... 4.2 2 2 a) 2 b) 2 60±15 c) 2 1) 2) 3) d) 35° e) ...... 7 E 1. 1.1 a) 1P1 b) c) d) 75 kPa 2826 L/min 3A-22 3 A 1.2 2. EI 2.1 a) 1 P1 b) c) d) e) 2.2 2.2.1 1% 1 ppm 2.2.2 ...... 3. / 3 A 8 3A-23 1nvPM 7 2 35 m 50% 90% 3 0.01µm 43 7 7 7 1. 1.1 7 6.2.1 1.2 1.3 2. 2.1 1g/cm3 "" 3A-24 3 A ISO/IEC 17025:2005 SI ISO/IEC 17025:2005 nvPM 350 CPC EENEP nvPMmi nvPMni 2.2 nvPM slpm STP VPR Cc D DF1 DF2 Dm Dmg EImass EInum flgn(Dm) fN(Dm) IDti kB 3 A 0 101.325 kPa 3A-25 2.3 1 + 2 × 1.165 + 0.483 × e- 0.997Dm 2 Cunningham ×273.15+× × 107cm2/s 3××× mnm mnm mg/kg /kg 1×10-9 g Dmg i mm 1.3806 x 10-16(g·cm2)/(s2·K) 3A-26 kSL_mass kSL_num kthermo µ nvPMmass_EST nvPMnum_EST nvPMmass_EP nvPMnum_EP nvPMmass_STP nvPMnum_STP mass (Dm) num (Dm) i(Dm) bi(Dm) Pi g Qi 3 A EImassEImass g/m3 EInumEInum /cm3 7 6.2.1 67.3 × 10-3 × (273.15+)2 × (101.325 ) × ( 406.55 )µmnm 296.15 +383.55 g/cms g/m3 /cm3 4 4 g/m3 /cm3 Dm Dm i Dm i Dm ith kPa g/cm3 i slpm Re RMN (Dm) Ti 3 A 3A-27 2×× 3××× i 3. 3.1 EImass _ = _ 1 × _ 3.2 EInum _ = _ 1×2×_ 4. 4.1 nvPMmass_EPnvPMnum_EP a) nvPMnum_STP nvPMnum_EP = 3×DF1×DF2× nvPMnum_STP b) Dmg 0.02 µm c) a) b) nvPMnum_EP Dmg nvPMmass_ESTnvPMnum_EST _ = 1 (Dm ) × Dm3 6 × _ × (Dm ) × ln(Dm) =0.01 1 _ = (Dm) × _ × Dm × ln Dm =0.01 3A-28 3 A ( ) = 2 1 ln() × -12 {ln(ln)-(ln())}2 lnDm = 1 × 1 10 e n 10 d) nvPMnum_STP nvPMmass_STP nvPMnum_EST nvPMmass_EST = (1 × 2 × _ - _ 1 × 2 × _ 2 ) + (1 × _ - _ 1 × _ 2 ) e) nvPMnum_EP Dmg c d 1×10-9 f) 1×10-9 nvPMnum_EP Dmg g) f nvPMnum_EP Dmg nvPMmass_EP nvPMmass_EP = 1 Dm3 6 × nvPMnum_EP × (Dm ) × ln(Dm) =0.01 4.2 0.003 µm 1 µm 80 10 n 32 lnDm 0.01 µm 4.3 1 g/cm3 4.4 1.8 1 A8-1 3 A 3A-29 2 nvPMmass_STP 1 µg/m3 1 µg/m3 3 3 4Dm m 7 A8-1 5. 1 2 2 3 3A-30 3 A A8-1 1Dm b1Dm 2Dm b2Dm dilDm 3Dm b3Dm cycDm 4Dm b4Dm 5Dm b5Dm th_m 6Dm b6Dm vpmDm CPCDm th_n 1 -- 1 1 -- 1 2 -- 1 1 2 -- 1 1 2 -- 1 3 -- 1 3 -- 1 4 -- 2 4 -- 2 4 -- 2 nvPMmi 4 -- 2 nvPMmi 5 -- nvPMni 4 -- 2 4 -- 2 5 -- 5 -- nvPMniCPC 5 -- nvPMni 5.1 0.003µm 1µm 80 Dm Dm = 1 × 1 × 2 × 2 × 3 × 3 × × 4 × 4 × 5 × 5 × _ A8-1 6 A8-1 3 A 3A-31 5.2 0.003µm 1µm 80 Dm Dm = 1 × 1 × 2 × 2 × 3 × 3 × × 4 × 4 × 6 × 6 × × × _ A8-1 6 A8-1 6. 6.1 A8-2 A8-2 Ti Pi Qi IDti Li bi vpm(15), vpm(30), vpm(50), vpm(100) CPC(10), CPC(15) i i i i 101.325 kPa i i i i kPa slpm mm m 3A-32 3 A 6.2 6.2.1 iDmiDm, i=1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 -0.6×××× () = Li = i m Vdiff = 1.18 × 0.875 × 0.333 × cm/s Sc = µ × 103 mgas = 29.0 kg/mol Pi = kPa 101.325 kPa 6.2.2 0.003 m 1 m 80 Dm 6.3 nvPMmi th_mDm= 1 nvPMni th_nDm= 1 6.4 6.4.1 biDm, i=1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Re 5000 Re 5000 Re Re 5000 = 1 - 0.01745 × × 3 A 3A-33 Re 5000 = -0.04927×× Stk = ××× ×- ××× bi = i 6.4.2 0.003µm 1µm 80 Dm 6.5 6.5.1 - ( -)2 22 () = 1 - >0 2 µcyc = lnD50 cyc = lnD16/D840.5 6.5.2 0.003 m 1 m 80 Dm a) D50 = 1.0 µm ± 0.1 µm b) D16/D840.5 1.25 1 2Dm 0.3 m 1.0 3A-34 3 A 6.6 A8-3R2 0.95 VPRth VPRdi 6.6.1 2 = × {1 - 5.5 × 3 + 0.819 × -11.5 3.77 × + 0.0975 × -70.1 + 0.0325 × -179 < 0.007 > 0.007 = 6×× LVPR = m QVPR = slpm TVPR = VPRth = 6.6.2 LVPRVPRth VPRR2 0.95 6.6.3 0.003 m 1 m 80 Dm A8-3 Dm VPR Dm 0.015 µm 0.30 0.03 µm 0.55 0.05 µm 0.65 0.1 µm 0.70 6.7 1 6.7.1 1 di lDm = 1 6.7.2 0.003m 1m 80 Dm 3 A 3A-35 6.8 6.8.1 S = 1 - -ln 2[50--00] 0 = 1015 - 1510 10 - 15 50 = 15+110 + 10 + 115 15 - 10 = ln 1 ln - , 2 , = 0.01 µ 0.015 µ D10 = 0.01 µm D15 = CPC,10 = 0.015 µm 0.01 µm CPC,15 = 0.015 µm 6.8.2 0.003 m 1 m 80 Dm 3. 3.1 7 a) nvPMmass_STP b) nvPMnum_STP 3.2 7 D 3A-36 3 A 4. 4.1 A8-1 4.1.1 10 nm 4.1.1.1 1 g/cm3 4.1.1.2 1.8 4.1.1.3 4.1.1.4 kSL_num × kthermo × DF1 × DF2 × nvPMnum_STP 108 /cm3 1 7 2 A8-2 3 A 3A-37 A8-1 3A-38 3 A A8-2 4.2 7 nvPMmass = × × _ 4.3 nvPMnumDF1 DF2 = × × × _ 4.4 4.4.1 A8-1 6 3 A 4.4.2 Dm mass(Dm) = 1 × b1 × 2 × b2 × 3 × b3 × ... × dil × cyc 4.4.3 Dm num(Dm) = 1 × b1 × 2 × b2 × 3 × b3 × ... × dil × cyc × VPR × CPC 4.4.4 thermo = th1 × th2 × th3 × ... 7 6.2.1 kthermo A8-1 i(Dm) bi(i) thi dil(Dm) cyc(Dm) VPR(Dm) CPC(Dm) ith ith ith 1 3A-39 4.5 kSL_masskSL_num a) = × × × _ × × × _ × nm 3A-40 3 A b) a) Dmg = >3 () × × - {()-} × >3 () × - {()-} × flgn(Dm) = 2 1 ln(g) × e-12 {ln(Dmln)-(lng()Dmg)}2 ln (Dm) = 1 × 101e n 10 c) = { - × - } [ ( × × _)/( × × × _) ] d) b c 1×10-9 Dmg e) _ = >10 × - {()-} × >3 () × × - {()-} × f) _ = >10 - {()-} × >3 ( ) × - {()-} × g) 3 nm 1 000 nm 80 1 80 10 n 32 lnDm 3 A 2 10 nm 3 nm 3 3A-41 5. 1 8 4 2 4.1.1 5.1 nvPMmi 3 µg/m³ nvPMmi 3 µg/m³ Dmg 5.3 5.3 7 nm 100 nm nvPMmi 5.2 nvPMmi DF1 DF2 2 Dmg 5.3 2. 7 E 3A-42 3 A 5.3 7 nm 100 nm nvPMmi 1 /cm3 108 /cm3 5.3 7 100 nm 7 nm 100 nm/ 1×10-9 kSL_mass kSL_num 7 nm 100 nm 20 nm Dmg10 nm kSL_num 6. 80 3 nm 1 000 nm 3 A 3A-43 1 2 7 D 6.1 Dm iDm -×× ×, () = Li = i m 7 1 Vd,diff = 0.0118 × Re8 × Sc3 × D/IDticm/s Sc = µ × 103 gas D IDti = i mm Qi = i slpm 6.2 Re 5 000 Re 5 000 Re Dm () = 1 - 0.01745 × × = -0.04927×× Stk = ×××××××- bi = i 3A-44 3 A 6.3 = [ + 273.15 × + 273.15] × [1 + ( + 273.15 + 273.15 - 1) × -××××× × ] Tgasi Tlinei hgas Cp Pr Kth Cs Cm Ct kgas Kn kp = °C = °C = W/m2 K = J/kg K = -1 2×× 1+3×× [2 + (/1)+×] = 1.17 1.14 2.18 Wm-1K-1 2/Dm 0.2 Wm-1K-1 7 6.2.1 1.5 7 thi 1.0 6.4 - ( -)2 22 () = 1 - >0 2 µcyc= ln(D50), 3 A 3A-45 cyc=lnD16/D840.5 1 2Dm 300 nm 1.0 6.5 A8-3R2 0.95 VPRth VPRdi 2 = × {1 - 5.5 × 3 + 3.77 × 0.819 × -11.5 + 0.0975 × -70.1 + 0.0325 × -179 < 0.007 > 0.007 = ××100 LVPR = m QVPR = slpm TVPR = °C VPRth = LVPRVPRth VPRVPRmeas VPR = (()-() ( )2 ) 0.08 VPR 3A-46 3 A 6.6 1 1 dilDm = 1 6.7 S = 1 - -ln 2[50--00] 0 = 1015 - 1510 10 - 15 50 = 15+110 + 10 + 115 15 - 10 = ln 1 - , , ln 2 = 10 15 D10 = 10 nm D15 = 15 nm CPC,10 = 10 nm CPC,15 = 15 nm -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 B 3B-1 B 16 III 1. 2. 3. 3B-2 3 B 16 -- III -- ..................................................................................................................... I ............................................................................................. 1 ......................................................................................................... 2 ......................................................................................................... II ............................................. 1 ...................................................................................................... vii I-1-1 I-1-1 I-2-1 II-1-1 II-1-1 2 1. 5 700 2. 8 618 ........................................................................ 2.1 ................................................................................................... 2.2 ................................................................................. 2.3 ............................................................................................. 2.4 .................................................................. 2.5 .................................................................. 2.6 ................................................................................................... II-2-1 II-2-1 II-2-2 II-2-2 II-2-3 II-2-3 II-2-4 3 B 3B-3 1 ............................................................... APP 1-1 1. 5 700 2. 8 168 ........................................................................ APP 1-1 1. ......................................................................................................... 2. .............................................................................. 3. ............................................................ 4. .............................................................................. 5. ............................................................... 6. ............................................................................................. 7. ..................................................................... 8. .................................................................................... APP 1-1 APP 1-1 APP 1-2 APP 1-4 APP 1-6 APP 1-7 APP 1-8 APP 1-8 2 ............................................................................................. APP 2-1 ...... I 1 ...... a) 5 700 1.35% b) 60 000 0.75% c) 600 000 0.70% d) 600 000 0.70% 3B-4 3 B 16 III 1.5% ...... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 III AVG CG CO2 g0 Hz MTOM OML RGF RSS SAR TAS Wf 45.5 9.80665 m/s2 / / / 3 B 3B-5 II 1 ...... 1.11 ...... 2 1. 5 700 2. 8 618 2.1 1 1.41.51.61.71.8 1.11 2.1.1 RGF ...... d) 2023 1 1 5 700 e) 2023118 618 ...... 16 ...... 3B-6 3 B 2.1.3 2.1.1 2.1.1 ...... 2.5 2.5.1 a) 2.3 b) ...... 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 ...... 3 B 3B-7 1 1. 5 700 2. 8 168 ...... 3. 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 a) ...... 5. ...... 5.2 5.2.1 II 2 2.5 3B-8 3 B ...... / / / ...... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-1 APPENDIX C (English only) REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE RULEMAKING PROCESSES OF ICAO MEMBER STATES Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. C-3 2. Caveats, Limitations and Context ................................................................................................ C-4 3. Annex 16, Volume II and the Environmental Technical Manual, Volume II.............................. C-6 3.1 Overview of the nvPM Mass and Number Emissions Evaluation Metric ................................... C-6 3.2 The Environmental Technical Manual (ETM), Volume II .......................................................... C-6 4. Stringency Options....................................................................................................................... C-6 4.7 nvPM Mass Stringency Options .................................................................................................. C-8 4.8 nvPM Number Stringency Options.............................................................................................. C-9 4.9 nvPM Mass and Number Stringency Option Combinations (SO) ............................................. C-10 5. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Approach ...................................................................................... C-11 5.2 Defining the Global Fleet........................................................................................................... C-12 5.3 Two Paths .................................................................................................................................. C-12 5.4 Fleet Evolution Modelling ......................................................................................................... C-13 5.5 nvPM Mass and Number Emissions Modelling ....................................................................... C-14 5.6 Environmental Modelling ......................................................................................................... C-15 5.7 Cost Modelling ......................................................................................................................... C-16 6. Technology Response Assumptions .......................................................................................... C-17 6.1 Non-Recurring Manufacturer Technology Response Cost (NRC) ............................................ C-17 6.2 Non-recurring aircraft owner/operator Asset Value Loss (AVL) .............................................. C-18 6.3 Spare Engine Costs .................................................................................................................... C-19 6.4 Lost Revenue Assessment.......................................................................................................... C-20 6.5 Other Costs ................................................................................................................................ C-21 7. Cost Effectiveness Analysis Results .......................................................................................... C-22 8. Other Result Views ................................................................................................................... C-26 8.1 Specific Markets ....................................................................................................................... C-26 8.2 Outcome of Path-A and Path-B for All-Markets ....................................................................... C-31 9. CAEP/11 Decision ..................................................................................................................... C-32 3C-2 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 List of Figures Figure 1.1: The basic framework of an ICAO Environmental Standard .................................................. C-4 Figure 4.1: Proposed nvPM Mass Stringency Options ............................................................................ C-9 Figure 4.2: Proposed nvPM Number Stringency Options ....................................................................... C-9 Figure 5.1: Analysis Process Overview ................................................................................................. C-11 Figure 5.2: Updated smoke number to mass concentration correlation ................................................. C-14 Figure 7.1: LTO nvPM Mass (t) Change from Baseline, Cumulative 2025-2042 ................................. C-22 Figure 7.2: LTO nvPM Number Change from Baseline, Cumulative 2025-2042 ................................. C-22 Figure 7.3a: Change in Cumulative Costs (2025-2042, 2012$ Billions) ............................................... C-23 Figure 7.3b: Change in Cumulative Costs (2025-2042, 2012$ Billions) Path-B SO1 to SO9 .............. C-23 Figure 7.4: Change in Cumulative Costs per nvPM Mass (Gram) Avoided .......................................... C-24 Figure 7.5: Change in Cumulative Costs per nvPM Number (1016) Avoided ...................................... C-24 Figure 7.6: Change in nvPM mass and number ..................................................................................... C-24 Figure 7.7: Percent nvPM Emissions Change and Change in Total Cumulative Costs ......................... C-25 Figures 8.1a-c: Narrow Body Passenger Results ................................................................................... C-26 Figures 8.2a-c: Freighter Results ........................................................................................................... C-27 Figures 8.3a-c: Business Jet Market Results .......................................................................................... C-28 Figures 8.4a to 8.4f: Wide Body Passenger Market Results for Path-A and Path-B ............................. C-30 List of Tables Table 4.1: nvPM Mass Stringency Equations for In Production (INP) and New Type (NT) Engines ..... C-8 Table 4.2: nvPM Number Stringency Equations for In Production and New Type Engines ................. C-10 Table 4.3: nvPM Mass and Number Stringencies Modelled for New Types ........................................ C-10 Table 5.1: Contributing Models ............................................................................................................. C-11 Table 5.2: Comparison of All Baseline Path-B (2025-2042) Operations vs. Those Subject to nvPM .. C-12 Table 5.3: Operations distribution between CBin-9 and CBin-10 for Path-A and Path-B. ................... C-13 Table 5.4: Summary of Engine Family nvPM Technology Responses ................................................. C-13 Table 6.1: Summary of Engine Family nvPM Technology Responses ................................................. C-17 Table 6.2: Manufacturer Non-Recurring Costs for Engine Family Responses ...................................... C-17 Table 6.3 CAEP/8 AVL ...................................................................................................................... C-19 Table 6.4 CAEP/11 AVL .................................................................................................................... C-19 Table 6.5: Spare Engine Price Assumptions .......................................................................................... C-20 Table 8.1: GRdb wide-bodied passenger technology responses ............................................................ C-29 Table 8.2: Path-A and Path-B Change in Cumulative Costs (2025-2042, 2012$B; All Market Level) ...... C-31 Table 8.3: Path-A and Path-B Total Cost (2012$B) Results for All Markets Combined ...................... C-31 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-3 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a United Nations (UN) specialized agency, established by States in 1944 to manage the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (referred to as the Chicago Convention). ICAO works with the Convention's 192 Member States and industry groups to reach consensus on international civil aviation Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and policies in support of a safe, efficient, secure, economically sustainable and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector. Presently, there are over 10,000 such Standards and provisions contained in ICAO Annexes to the Chicago Convention. ICAO's ongoing mission is to support a global air transport network that meets or surpasses the social and economic development and broader connectivity needs of global businesses and passengers. While acknowledging the clear need to anticipate and manage the projected doubling of global air transport capacity by 2030 without unnecessary adverse impacts on system safety, efficiency, convenience or environmental performance, ICAO has established five comprehensive Strategic Objectives, namely: Safety, Air Navigation Capacity and Efficiency, Security and Facilitation, Economic Development of Air Transport, and Environmental Protection. 1.2 Improving the environmental performance of aviation is a challenge ICAO takes very seriously. In fulfilling its responsibilities, ICAO has three major environmental goals, which are to limit or reduce: 1) the number of people affected by significant aircraft noise, 2) the impact of aviation emissions on local air quality, and 3) the impact of aviation greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate. To limit or reduce the impact of aviation emissions on local air quality, ICAO takes actions on revising current and adopting new emission standards for international aviation. Following the development of a visibility based non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) Standard, aircraft engine landing and take-off (LTO) nvPM mass and number emissions Standard is being adopted. The non-volatile particulate matter is defined as emitted particles that do not volatilize when heated to a temperature of 350° C. These particles are also known as "ultrafine soot" or "black carbon" particles. The new Standards regulate the mass and the number of such particles emitted during the landing and take-off cycle. 1.3 The ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) is a technical committee of the ICAO Council established in 1983. CAEP assists the Council in formulating new policies and adopting new SARPs related to aircraft noise and emissions, and more generally to aviation environmental impacts. CAEP undertakes specific studies, as requested by the Council. Its scope of activities encompasses noise, air quality and the Basket of Measures considered for reducing international aviation CO2 emissions. CAEP is structured into Working Groups in order to progress tasks under the various environmental areas (noise, emissions, modelling, etc.). 1.4 Since 2013, CAEP has been developing Engine nvPM mass and number Emissions Certification Standards, following the plan approved by the ICAO Council and the request from the 38th Session of the Assembly (ResolutionA38-17 3 ). These new Standards will be added to Chapter 4 (Volume II) to Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, where Annex 16, Volume I covers aircraft noise and Volume III addresses aircraft CO2 emissions. 1.5 The nvPM mass and number Standards have been developed considering the four core CAEP tenets, which are technical feasibility, environmental effectiveness, economic reasonableness, and 3 Doc 10022, Assembly Resolutions in Force (as of 4 October 2013), ISBN 978-92-9249-419-3, ICAO, 2014 3C-4 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 the consideration of interdependencies (e.g. with noise and local air quality emissions). This has involved two phases of work, which have focussed on the development of a certification requirement and options for a regulatory limit line. Figure 1.1 shows a representative framework of an ICAO Environmental Standard. Figure 1.1: The basic framework of an ICAO Environmental Standard 1.6 Phase 1 involved tasks associated with the forming of a certification requirement for the nvPM mass and number Standards, including the development of nvPM emissions evaluation metric systems (i.e. metric/correlating parameter/test points), certification procedures, measurement methodologies, applicability to new engine types, and initial inputs to the cost effectiveness assessment. Phase 2 included the following. (1) Development of the regulatory limit stringency options for in- production and new engine types; (2) considering various combinations of mass and number limits; (3) technology responses from the manufacturers when engines do not meet the nvPM mass and number stringency option combinations (SO); and, (4) the cost effectiveness analyses. The subsequent material is a summary of the nvPM mass and number Standard development work that was conducted through a period of six years (i.e., two CAEP work cycles). 2. CAVEATS, LIMITATIONS AND CONTEXT 2.1 Context: The framework for this analysis does not necessarily represent what would occur in the real world. Specifically, (a) the real world does not ensure that all products of a similar capacity get used equally regardless of price or performance; and (b) the real world does not require in production aircraft or engines to go out of production if they do not perform to a level required of newly certificated types. This analysis uses aircraft and engines that are assumed to be in production at the implementation date to assess the technical feasibility, benefits and costs of the proposed stringency option combinations. When a product no longer responds, results are influenced by the fleet evolution analysis assumptions; and coincidently the remaining fleet tends to be more fuel-efficient. 2.2 Technological Feasibility: For the purposes of the nvPM Standard setting process, CAEP relied upon representative, certificated engines to measure nvPM performance as a basis for technological feasibility and economic reasonableness. In the larger context of technology for improved engine, emissions environmental performance to be used as part of the basis for ICAO certification Standard setting, technological feasibility refers to any technology demonstrated to be safe and airworthy proven to Technical Readiness Level (TRL) 8 and available for application over a sufficient range of newly certificated aircraft. 2.3 Limitations: The information used in the analysis included a mixture of public and non- public data that is subject to change. The data was informed by assumptions unique to this analysis, which limits the applicability of the data to only this work. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-5 2.4 The data and information provided in this document were provided to support the selection of nvPM mass and number Standards by ICAO CAEP in the context of the current ICAO Standard setting process. The in-production fleet and known products scheduled for entry into the fleet by 2023 were used for growth and replacement throughout the full analysis period (i.e., 2012-2042). The analysis did not speculate on potential future technology developments. 2.5 Fleet evolution is an element of CAEP modelling that defines the future fleet and its' deployment on routes and schedules, under different policy options and assumptions regarding the future state of the air transport system. Many of the input assumptions for this modelling are forward-looking and cannot be proven in advance. Thus, there is no certainty that any one baseline predicts what will actually happen in the future. 2.6 Assumptions of engine technology responses to regulatory levels were based on input from both manufacturers and other expert sources. These responses were meant for nvPM cost effectiveness modelling purposes, and do not imply a commitment from manufacturers to develop actual individual products. 2.7 Consequently, the environmental benefits and the costs are comparable relatively between analysis cases but cannot be represented as absolute benefits and costs. Hence, the data and information are not suitable for application to any other purpose of any kind, and any attempt at such application would be in error. 2.8 Recognizing the potential trade-offs between nvPM emissions and fuel efficiency and NOx, a range of trade-offs were modelled with the analysis submitted to CAEP. It should be noted however, regarding the proposed nvPM mass and number Standards for new engine type certificates, engines obtaining new type certificates are required to pass standards for all regulated pollutants. The anti-backsliding nvPM mass stringency proposed for in-production (INP) engines was not assessed. 2.9 Business Jets: Fleet evolution modelling for business jets (BJ) uses all types within a competition bin (CBin) equally without considering capacity, capital or operating costs, with the goal that CBins contain equivalent products in terms of costs and capabilities. However, after the analysis was run it was discovered that two BJ CBins had types with noticeably different capital costs. When some BJ types no longer respond, they were replaced by much less expensive types. This BJ CBin modelling is sufficiently influential that the combined market results are presented with and without the BJ market. 2.10 Two Paths: The analysis for the potential CAEP/11 nvPM mass and number Standards included a portion of the growth and replacement fleet modelled in two ways. Small and medium wide-bodied passenger aircraft were originally defined from the fleet forecast as CBin-9 (211 to 300 seats) and CBin-10 (301 to 400 seats). That fleet forecast-based approach was modelled as "Path-B" with CBin-9 and CBin-10 separated. An alternative "Path-A" approach modelled CBin-9/10 together. These different paths along with the equal product market share assumption resulted in a noticeable difference in the distribution of baseline operations. The original fleet forecast (Path-B) has an 82% to 18% distribution for the small and medium WB-PAX types; but 47% to 53% in the alternative (Path-A) modelling. The two paths have no noticeable consequence for the analysis until SO10 (mass5 #1) when some WB-PAX types no longer respond. Under Path-A, some small WB-PAX baseline operations are replaced by medium WB-PAX types at SO10 resulting in a noticeable capital cost increase. Results for the analysis are presented for all SO using the original fleet forecast (Path-B), as well as the alternative (Path-A) approach for SO10-12a. 3C-6 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3. ANNEX 16, VOLUME II AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL MANUAL, VOLUME II 3.1 Overview of the nvPM Mass and Number Emissions Evaluation Metric 3.1.1 The provisions contained in the draft update to Part 3 Chapter 4 of Annex 16, Vol. II represent the SARPs for the certification of engine nvPM mass and number emissions for the standard ICAO LTO cycle: 1. The LTO nvPM mass emissions from the measured engines normalized by the given engine's rated thrust and plotted against the rated thrust; 2. The LTO nvPM number emissions from the measured engines normalized by the given engine's rated thrust and plotted against the rated thrust as follows: 3.1.1.1 nvPM Mass Metric Value: 3.1.1.2 nvPM number Metric Value: Where: tm time in mode [seconds s], Wf is the fuel flow [kg/s] and EInvpm_mass is the nvPM mass emissions index [mg/kg of fuel], EInvpm_num is nvPM number emissions index [particles/kg of fuel] and F is the rated thrust [kN]. 3.2 The Environmental Technical Manual (ETM), Volume II 3.3 An update to Part 3, Chapter 4 of the Environmental Technical Manual, Volume II (ETM, Vol. II) has also been developed to promote implementation uniformity of the technical procedures of Annex 16, Volume II by providing the following: (1) Guidance to certificating authorities, applicants and other interested parties regarding the intended meaning and stringency of the Standards in the current edition of the Annex; (2) Guidance on specific methods that are deemed acceptable in demonstrating compliance with those Standards and (3) equivalent procedures resulting in effectively the same nvPM emissions evaluation metric that may be used in lieu of the procedures specified in those Standards. 4. STRINGENCY OPTIONS 4.1 An important part of the Standard-setting process was the definition of the nvPM mass and number stringency options, which could be chosen to represent the eventual limit lines for the nvPM mass and number standards. Each stringency option for nvPM mass and number aimed to maintain the intended behaviour of the nvPM emissions metric; i.e., to equitably reward advances in engine technologies that contribute to reductions in engine nvPM emissions, and to differentiate between engines of different size and with different generations of technologies. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-7 4.2 The development of the nvPM mass and number stringency options was based on the nvPM metric value database (nvPMVdb). The nvPMVdb contained engine test data provided directly from manufacturers and certification authorities on in-production engine types. Most of the measurements were targeted to comply with the CAEP/10 nvPM Standard (applicable from 1 January 2020), which contains the nvPM measurement system requirements, procedure and evaluation of LTO points and as such, the confidential nvPMVdb contained "certification-like" data. Overall, data from 23 engine types was used to develop the metric values and stringency options. 4.3 To correct nvPM emissions to standard day conditions, two proposed ambient conditions correction methodologies for nvPM mass and one for nvPM number were evaluated. Based on the results of the evaluation, it was concluded that additional tests may be needed and further analysis will be pursued in order to be able to propose satisfactory ambient corrections for nvPM mass and number emission indices (EIs), robust enough for inclusion into ICAO Annex 16, Volume II. For stringency options development, the nvPM emission EIs were not corrected for ambient conditions effects. The uncertainty on metric values for not correcting for ambient conditions have been taken into account, with an order of ± 10% for nvPM mass and ± 30% for nvPM number. 4.4 Application of fuel corrections was recommended and used the following functions to correct measured nvPM mass and number EIs to a fuel hydrogen content reference of 13.8% mass, hence normalising the nvPM emission values to the reference fuel for the stringency options development: _ = 0.95 00 - 1.12 (13.8 - ) _ = 0.99 00 - 1.05 (13.8 - ) where _ is the fuel correction factor for the nvPM mass emission index, _ fuel correction factor for the nvPM number emission index, the exponential function, the thrust in mode [kN], 00 the rated thrust [kN] and the fuel hydrogen content measured in %mass. 4.5 In contrast to gaseous emissions not being lost in a leak-tight system, any particle measurement system will have losses for particles in the sampling system resulting in nvPM values at instrument level that will always be lower than the values at engine exit plane. The dominant particle loss mechanisms are particle size dependent and are higher for nvPM number than for nvPM mass. Relatively bigger particles penetrate better compared to smaller particles; however, larger particles contribute more to nvPM mass. For example, an engine emitting generally larger particles than a competitor engine would report higher nvPM number levels at the instrument, although it may have similar nvPM number levels at the engine exit plane. 4.6 Based on the state of science informed by data analysis, it was concluded that the metric values could not be corrected for system losses with confidence while noting that not correcting for system losses may lead to some bias between engine metric values especially for number emissions, despite the use of standardised measurement systems. This potential bias was not taken into consideration in the stringency options development for the following additional reasons. (1) The certified metric value of an engine depends on its own performance, not on the relative performance of another engine; and (2) the unintended consequence of not addressing the potential bias could be an incentive to design engines to emit even smaller particles. However, the proposed CAEP/11 Standard makes use of two metric systems, for nvPM mass and nvPM number, which work together. If particle sizes are reduced and e.g. the particle 3C-8 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 number does increase, the particle mass is reduced but the particle number will be higher. The measurement system is less responsive to the smallest particles but it does not cut them off and is still measuring them. The metric values for nvPM mass and number in the nvPMVdb show that in general, engines with a lower number emit less mass. 4.7 nvPM Mass Stringency Options 4.7.1 A specific nvPM mass regulatory limit for in-production (INP) engines with a proposed applicability date of 1 January 2023 was derived based on the measured data. The INP regulatory limit is designed to be an anti-backsliding Standard. Given the fact that a number of small engine technologies had relatively higher metric values, the INP regulatory limit has a decreasing metric value as thrust increases until the 200 kN kink point. For engines with rated thrusts greater than 200 kN, the data indicates no trend in metric values and therefore a constant metric value is chosen to provide the INP regulatory limit. 4.7.2 The five New Type (NT) nvPM mass stringency options are chosen with a 150 kN kink point. The 150 kN is chosen because: a) it is the best mathematical fit to the clusters of data from different technologies; and b) this allows for reduction in severity of stringency for engines of rated thrust below 89 kN without being very lenient. Above a rated thrust of 150 kN, the five stringency options have been prescribed as per cent reductions from NT-1 (0%, 16%, 44%, 72% and 82%) for which the metric value is set at 250 mg/kN. Below a rated thrust of 150 kN, these five options provide increasing margin to smaller engines due to associated technical challenges (200 per cent alleviation for NT-1 through NT-4 and 30 per cent for NT-5). Table 4.1 are the equations for the nvPM mass stringency lines are shown in Figure 4.1. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-9 Table 4.1: nvPM Mass Stringency Equations for In-Production (INP) and New Type (NT) Engines nvPM Mass Stringencies INP NT-1 NT-2 NT-3 NT-4 NT-5 Equations 3343 15.465 F00 250 879.1 4.19 F00 250 738.4 3.52 F00 210 492.3 2.35 F00 140 246.1 1.17 F00 70 61.5 0.11 F00 45 Rated Output Range 26.7kN < F00 < 200 kN F 200 kN 00 26.7kN < F00 < 150 kN F 150 kN 00 26.7kN < F00 < 150 kN F 150 kN 00 26.7kN < F00 < 150 kN F 150 kN 00 26.7kN < F00 < 150 kN F 150 kN 00 26.7kN < F00 < 150 kN F 150 kN 00 Figure 4.1: Proposed nvPM Mass Stringency Options. The red line is the In-Production Regulatory Limit. The blue lines represent the five proposed New Type nvPM Mass Stringency Options. The circles are metric values obtained from the list of representative in-production engines in the nvPMVdb. 4.8 nvPM Number Stringency Options 4.8.1 One nvPM number stringency level for in-production engines with a proposed applicability date of 1 January 2023 was derived based on the cluster of data points across the thrust range. This necessitates a kink point at 200 kN. Given the trend of nvPM number metric values across the thrust range, use of one kink point is justified to represent this anti-backsliding stringency line. 4.8.2 The NT nvPM number stringency options are derived to be consistent with the mass stringency levels with a 150 kN kink point. The number of stringency options is limited to three, based on the analysis that reduction in nvPM mass does not translate to similar reductions in nvPM number metric values. Above a rated thrust of 150 kN, three stringency levels have been prescribed as per cent reductions from NT-1 (0%, 33% and 66%) for which the metric value is set at 3×1015 #/kN. The strictest stringency level for nvPM number has more margin to the best performing engines than for nvPM mass. Below a rated thrust of 150 kN, these three levels provide increasing margin to smaller engines due to associated technical challenges (200 percent alleviation for NT-1 through NT-3). The nvPM number stringency levels are shown in Figure 4.2. The equations for these lines are shown in Table 4.2. 3C-10 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 Figure 4.2: Proposed nvPM Number Stringency Options. The red line is the In-Production Regulatory Limit. The blue lines represent the three proposed New Type Stringency Options. The circles are metric values obtained from the list of representative in-production engines in the nvPMVdb. There are two additional stringencies for nvPM mass as reducing mass emissions is better understood at this point of time. Table 4.2: nvPM Number Stringency Equations for In-Production (INP) and New Type (NT) Engines nvPM Number Stringencies INP NT-1 NT-2 NT-3 Equations 16 13 1.92×10 8.1×10 F00 15 3.0×10 16 13 1.05×10 5.0×10 F00 15 3.0×10 15 13 7.03×10 3.36×10 F00 15 2.0×10 15 13 3.52×10 1.68×10 F00 15 1.0×10 Rated Output Range 26.7kN < F00 < 200 kN F00 200 kN 26.7kN < F00 < 150 kN F00 150 kN 26.7kN < F00 < 150 kN F00 150 kN 26.7kN < F00 < 150 kN F00 150 kN 4.9 nvPM Mass and Number Stringency Option Combinations (SO) 4.9.1 For the NT engines cost effectiveness analysis, the five nvPM mass and three nvPM number stringencies were combined to form the twelve stringency option combinations (SO) shown in Table 4.3. The colour differentiation is to indicate that the nvPM mass levels drive the responses for SO2, SO4, SO5 and SO7 to SO12, while the nvPM number levels drive the responses for SO1, SO3 and SO6. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-11 Table 4.3: nvPM Mass and Number Stringencies Modelled for New Types nvPM mass Stringency 1 nvPM mass Stringency 2 nvPM mass Stringency 3 nvPM mass Stringency 4 nvPM mass Stringency 5 nvPM number Stringency 1 SO-1 SO-2 SO-4 SO-7 SO-10 nvPM number Stringency 2 SO-3 SO-5 SO-8 SO-11 nvPM number Stringency 3 SO-6 SO-9 SO-12 5. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS APPROACH 5.1 In order to address the CAEP tenets of environmental effectiveness and economic reasonableness, CAEP has conducted a full cost effectiveness analysis. This involved the definition of an analysis framework and analytical tools, including fleet evolution modelling, environmental modelling, recurring costs, non-recurring costs, and costs per nvPM mass and number emissions avoided. The analysis was conducted with the aim of providing a reasonable assessment of the economic costs and environmental benefits for a potential nvPM mass and number emissions Standard in comparison with a "No ICAO action" baseline. The models that contributed to the analysis are listed in Table 5.1 and a high-level overview of the modelling process is provided in Figure 5.1. Model AAT Aircraft Assignment Tool Table 5.1: Contributing Models Area Fleet Evolution APMT-E Aviation Portfolio Management Tool for Economics FCM FESG Cost Model for nvPM FAST Future Civil Aviation Scenario Software Tool IMPACT AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool ANCON Aircraft Noise Contour Model Fleet Evolution & Costs Cost-Effectiveness GHG GHG GHG and Noise Noise STAPES SysTem for AirPort noise Exposure Studies Noise MDG Landing and Take-Off cycle (LTO) Consensus Model LTO Emissions Sponsor EUROCONTROL, EC and EASA US FESG UK EUROCONTROL US UK EUROCONTROL, EC and EASA MDG 3C-12 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 Figure 5.2: Analysis Process Overview 5.2 Defining the Global Fleet 5.2.1 The analysis process requires defining aeroplane and engine types that enter into the global fleet during the forecast years up to 2042, for both the baseline and each SO. This information is collated into the Growth and Replacement database (GRdb). This database documents all of the information required by the modelling community regarding each aeroplane and engine type in the analysis, both in their base configuration and as defined for each SO. The GRdb also includes references to other data sources such as the ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank and the ICAO noise certification database (NoisedB). 5.2.2 The GRdb was defined with aeroplane and engine types that are both in-production (INP) and scheduled for entry into the fleet before 2023. For products that remain to be certified, the information required for modelling (project data) were provided by manufacturers. (The analysis did not speculate on potential future technology developments.) The baseline analysis scenario included some INP types going out of production and replaced by types entering the fleet prior to the 2023-implementation year. The transition between these paired types was immediate; i.e., there was no over-lapping "ramp up/ramp down" of production between transition pairs for this analysis. Because the transitioning process ended before the 2023 stringency applicability year, it had no effect on the results. 5.2.3 Another element defined in the GRdb are competition bins (CBins), which align to the fleet forecast seat classes. There can be a one-to-one relationship between the fleet forecast seat classes and CBins (as was the case for business jets); however, CBins have also been used to separate regional jets and turboprops4 (which are not separated in the fleet forecast). While CBins are required for the modelling process, results are primarily reported with all markets combined or at a market-specific level. Table 5.2 shows the market shares of all baseline aviation markets combined versus only those subject to the proposed CAEP/11 nvPM mass and number Standards. 4 Turboprops are not subject to the proposed nvPM mass and number standards Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-13 Table 5.2: Comparison of All Baseline Path-B (2025-2042) Operations vs. Those Subject to nvPM Market Narrow Body Passenger (NB-PAX) Wide Body Passenger (WB-PAX) Turboprops Business Jets (BJ) WB-Freighters NB-Freighters Total All Operations Market Share 55.6% 24.8% 9.2% 7.6% 1.7% 1.1% 100% Operations Subject to nvPM Market Share 63.6% 28.4% 0.0% 6.1% 1.5% 0.4% 100% Operations Not Subject to nvPM Market Share 0% 0% 73% 18% 3% 6% 100% 5.3 Two Paths 5.3.1 The analysis for the potential CAEP/11 nvPM mass and number Standards included a portion of the GRdb fleet modelled in two ways. Small and medium wide-bodied passenger aircraft were originally defined from the fleet forecast as CBin-9 (211 to 300 seats) and CBin-10 (301 to 400 seats). That fleet forecast-based approach was modelled as "Path-B" with CBin-9 and CBin-10 separated. An alternative "Path-A" approach modelled CBin-9/10 together. These different paths along with the equal product market share fleet evolution modelling assumption resulted in operations being distributed differently between the small and medium WB-PAX aircraft, as shown in Table 5.3. Table 5.3: Operations distribution between CBin-9 and CBin-10 for Path-A and Path-B. CBin-9 % CBin-10 % Alternate Path-A BSL CBin-9/10 Combined 47% 53% Path-A SO10 CBin-9/10 Combined 46% 54% Forecasted Path-B BSL CBin-9 vs CBin-10 Separated 82% 18% Path-B SO10 CBin-9 vs CBin-10 Separated 82% 18% 5.3.2 The "all-market" level results, presented later in the document, indicate whether the small and medium WB-PAX aircraft component is from Path-A or Path-B by the letter after the SO number; e.g., SO10a and SO10b. In most figures, all Path-B SO results are shown along with the Path-A SO10-12a on the right since SO10 through SO12 are where the two paths have the most notable differences in results, and because Path-B represents the original fleet forecast. 5.4 Fleet Evolution Modelling 5.4.1 Fleet evolution models use forecasted fleet and traffic demand as targets to project a scenario-compliant future fleet-specific schedule of operations and generate required inputs for the environmental models. The fleet evolution modelling process requires the following. (1) Base-year data, including a fleet-specific schedule of operations and the age profile for the base-year fleet. (2) The GRdb defined for the baseline (no stringency) and for each SO, and including seat/capacity assumptions for each aircraft/engine. (3) Fleet and traffic forecast targets along with compatible (4) aircraft retirement curves. 5.4.2 Depending on the "fleet choice" assumption used for particular analysis, costs can also be required for fleet evolution modelling. However, the fleet choice assumption for the CAEP/11 nvPM mass and number Standard analysis was "Equal Product Market Share" in which each available (scenario compliant) aircraft/engine within a competition bin is used equally (without considering operating costs). 3C-14 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 5.4.3 The fleet-specific schedule of operations varies from the baseline when a GRdb entry does not respond to an SO, and is assumed to go out of production at the implementation date. The technology response nvPM Improvement (NI) levels do not impact fleet selection. Therefore, the fleet evolution modellers only needed to model four scenarios to represent the twelve SO defined for the cost-effectiveness analysis. This point is highlighted in Table 5.4; namely, a run where all engine families remain in the analysis; a run where one drops out of the analysis; a run where two drop out of the analysis; and a run where eleven drop out of the analysis. Pass NI1 NI2# NI2M NI3 No Response Table 5.4: Summary of Engine Family nvPM Technology Responses BSL SO1 m1n1 SO2 m2n1 SO3 m2n2 SO4 m3n1 SO5 m3n2 SO6 m3n3 SO7 m4n1 SO8 m4n2 SO9 m4n3 SO10 m5n1 SO11 m5n2 SO12 m5n3 33 31 28 26 23 22 21 18 18 18 13 13 13 00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 01 1 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 5 9 10 10 10 8 8 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 11 11 11 5.4.4 When a growth and replacement fleet option (GRdb type) does not respond to an SO, the consequence varies by how much the remaining CBin growth and replacement options differ from the GRdb type(s) that do not respond. Apart from emissions improvements, the change from baseline stringency-results become more pronounced the more a stringency scenario fleet otherwise differs from the baseline fleet. Fuel burn and cost elements for individual GRdb types are part of the change; however, capacity differences magnify the change from the baseline because the levels of operations and deliveries change, which results in more (positive or negative) fuel burn, capital and direct operating cost changes. 5.5 nvPM Mass and Number Emissions Modelling 5.5.1 As much as possible, the 2012 base year and GRdb fleets were mapped to measured emission indices (EIs) from the nvPM metric value database (nvPMVdb) and provided directly from manufacturers. However, there were no measured nvPM emissions available for eleven of the thirty-three GRdb engine families represented in the analysis; so, the nvPM mass and number metric values for those engines had to be estimated. Those estimations were based on certified ICAO Smoke Numbers and correlation to nvPM derived-from-measurement comparisons between Smoke Numbers and nvPM. 5.5.2 A large set of nvPM mass concentration to Smoke Number pairs was available as more engines were tested and a correlation database (Cdb) was updated using these measurements. With this larger set of data pairs, the Cdb correlation of nvPM mass concentration to SN could be more reliably determined. An improved correlation and the corresponding equations have been derived, based on this more extensive data set. The updated correlation can be expressed as: 648.4 (0.0766 ) [µg/m3] = 1 + -1.098(-3.064) 5.5.3 This correlation was recommended for use in estimating nvPM mass concentrations when measured nvPM mass data is not available and SN data is available. In particular, this correlation was used to calculate the nvPM mass Emission Index (EI) in conjunction with the Fuel to Air Ratio (FAR) Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-15 estimation procedure previously developed for the published, so called FOA3 method used before, to estimate PM LTO mass emissions from aircraft engines. Figure 5.2: Updated smoke number to mass concentration correlation 5.5.4 The new Smoke Number to nvPM mass correlation was named SCOPE11 and provides estimations of nvPM mass EIs corresponding to measured values at instrument level of an nvPM standard measurement system required for aircraft engine nvPM emission certification. An additional step was the estimation of nvPM number EIs, which is based on the nvPM mass EIs estimated from smoke number with SCOPE11 as provided by the equation below: , = 6 , 3 (4.5 ( )2) Where , is the nvPM number EI of LTO mode i (idle, approach, climb-out, take-off). , is the nvPM mass EI of LTO mode i. is the geometric mean diameter of the particles in mode i (recommended values used in modelling provided in paragraphs below). is the assumed particle effective density (proposed value for all modes 1 g/cm3). i is the dimensionless geometric standard deviation of an assumed one-mode lognormal distribution (proposed value for all modes 1.8).5 5.5.5 Two approaches were used in modelling nvPM number emissions from the mass EIs estimated from Smoke Number. 5.5.5.1 Approach 1: Use of a mode-specific set of GMDs with fixed values for the four LTO modes (GMD = 20 nm at idle and approach, 38 nm at climb-out and 41 nm at take-off thrust conditions). 5.5.5.2 Approach 2: Use a mass concentration-GMD relationship, which was given with the following formula: = 12.5 0.15 5 Note that unit conversion factors may be needed depending on the units used in the formula 3C-16 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 Where C is the nvPM mass concentration in µg/m3 in the engine core, estimated using the SCOPE11 correlation and the GMD is the geometric mean diameter in nm. 5.5.6 The modellers estimated the nvPM number emissions using both approaches. While nvPM number metric values and emissions estimated using the two approaches were different, this did not adversely affect the technology response. This is because the engines for which the nvPM emissions had to be estimated using Smoke Number were driven by the mass components of the combined stringency options. 5.6 Environmental Modelling 5.6.1 Landing and Take-Off cycle (LTO) Modelling Time in mode-based LTO modelling was used with the ICAO/CAEP Modelling and Database Group (MDG) LTO Consensus Model for this analysis. 5.6.2 Project Data The information required for modelling products that remain to be certified were provided by manufacturers. Modellers applied adjustments to fuel burn and emissions for all project types entering the fleet in the future years. A separate adjustment was also applied to the NOx results when specified. These results were applied as a scalar multiplier to each operation in the LTO dataset. 5.6.3 Trajectory Assumptions Traditionally, CAEP full-flight greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel burn modelling has involved the use of great circle trajectory for the underlying origin-destination (OD) pairs as defined in the COD. For this analysis, however, all possible aircraft/engine types were modelled flying 18 representative tracks for the maximum possible range. In addition, each aircraft/engine type was modelled flying the type-specific minimum and maximum OD pair from the 2012 Common Operations Database (COD). Operations from each analysis year were then mapped to one of these tracks and all the parameters were interpolated (except for the minimum and maximum distance in which case the values were directly used) based on the actual and representative OD distances. In addition, AEDT modellers also processed base year 2012 using the traditional modelling method and compared the results with the representative tracks approach. Distance and fuel burn were within 0.5% and all other parameters were within 1% between the two approaches. 5.6.4 Other Environmental Modelling Trade-off response modelling is the assessment of potential environmental disbenefits that may occur when technology improvements are focused on a single pollutant. While a range from zero to "full" noise and emissions trade-offs were modelled with the analysis submitted to CAEP, engines obtaining new type certificates are required to pass standards for all regulated pollutants; so, that data is not relevant for this document. 5.7 Cost Modelling 5.7.1 Recurring Direct operating costs (DOC) include fuel costs, capital costs (depreciation and finance) and other-DOCs (crew, maintenance, landing and route costs). 5.7.2 Non-Recurring Because there are no limiting nvPM mass and number standards, there is no historic data on fleet valuation impacts on owner/operators or on how manufacturers will determine the technology response given changes in market demand associated with potential regulatory levels. Consistent with standard principles of economic analysis, all relevant recurring and non-recurring cost (NRC) items should be accounted for in the cost analysis for a potential Standard. Among these cost Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-17 items, non-recurring (N-R) aircraft owner/operator (AO/O) costs may include a loss in fleet value that could be incurred by aircraft owners and operators for fleet assets that would not meet the stringency options; referred to as asset value loss (AVL). This is based on the premise that the introduction of a new Standard would reduce the market value of existing fleets that do not meet the Standard, even if the Standard does not apply to the in-service aircraft. However, it should be noted that CAEP has not definitively stated whether AVL costs should be included and therefore the results of the analysis were considered with and without AVL. 5.7.3 NRC was used to represent technology response (TR) costs. It is understood, however, that while NRC capture the fixed cost associated with developing TR to pass a standard level, they do not reflect additional production cost of implementing these responses, i.e., material, labour and other recurring costs. The analysis assumes that the cost of manufacturing remains unchanged before and after TR, whereas the additional technology contained in a TR may cost more to manufacture. 5.7.4 Further details on the NRC assumptions are provided in Section 6. 6. TECHNOLOGY RESPONSE ASSUMPTIONS 6.1 Non-Recurring Manufacturer Technology Response Cost (NRC) 6.1.1 The need for considering the inclusion of manufacturer non-recurring cost (NRC) into the analysis arises from the stringency option combinations where one or more engine-family does not meet a stringency and receives a technology response (TR) to remain in the market. NRC captures the fixed costs associated with developing the TR applied to engine-families so that they pass the standard, but not any additional production costs associated with implementing TR. Thus, NRC does not include material, labour or other recurring costs. WG3 developed the technology responses and defined the non-recurring manufacturer costs. The agreed TR framework, as applied to the GRdb engine-families, is summarized in Table 6.1. The agreed TR framework included single, low and high NRC values. Table 6.2 shows the single NRC values applied for the respective NI levels by SO in the second through fourth columns; the last three columns show the total NRC by SO for the single, low and high NRC values respectively. Table 6.1: Summary of Engine Family nvPM Technology Responses Baseline SO-1: NT SO mass1 #1 SO-2: NT SO mass2 #1 SO-3: NT SO mass2 #2 SO-4: NT SO mass3 #1 SO-5: NT SO mass3 #2 SO-6: NT SO mass3 #3 SO-7: NT SO mass4 #1 SO-8: NT SO mass4 #2 SO-9: NT SO mass4 #3 SO-10: NT SO mass5 #1 SO-11: NT SO mass5 #2 SO-12: NT SO mass5 #3 Pass NI1 NI2# NI2M NI3 No Response 33 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 1 0 1 0 28 1 1 2 1 0 26 1 3 1 1 1 23 1 2 2 5 0 22 1 2 2 5 1 21 0 1 0 9 2 18 1 0 2 10 2 18 1 0 2 10 2 18 1 0 2 10 2 13 0 0 1 8 11 13 0 0 1 8 11 13 0 0 1 8 11 3C-18 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 Table 6.2: Manufacturer Non-Recurring Costs for Engine Family Responses Single Value NRC ($M) SO-1: NT SO mass1 #1 SO-2: NT SO mass2 #1 SO-3: NT SO mass2 #2 SO-4: NT SO mass3 #1 SO-5: NT SO mass3 #2 SO-6: NT SO mass3 #3 SO-7: NT SO mass4 #1 SO-8: NT SO mass4 #2 SO-9: NT SO mass4 #3 SO-10: NT SO mass5 #1 SO-11: NT SO mass5 #2 SO-12: NT SO mass5 #3 $15 $250 $150 NI1 NI2# NI2M $- $250 $- $30 $250 $150 $15 $750 $150 $15 $250 $450 $15 $500 $300 $- $250 $- $- $- $150 $- $- $150 $- $- $150 $- $- $150 $- $- $150 $- $- $150 $500 NI3 $500 $500 $500 $2,500 $2,500 $4,500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 Single Value NRC TOTAL $750 $930 $1,415 $3,215 $3,315 $4,750 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $3,650 $3,650 $3,650 Low NRC TOTAL $450 $560 $955 $1,755 $1,855 $2,450 $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 $1,850 $1,850 $1,850 High NRC TOTAL $1,050 $1,350 $1,900 $4,700 $4,800 $7,050 $7,700 $7,700 $7,700 $5,450 $5,450 $5,450 6.2 Non-recurring aircraft owner/operator Asset Value Loss (AVL) 6.2.1 Consistent with prior FESG practice and standard principles of economic analysis, all relevant recurring and non-recurring cost items should be accounted for in the cost analysis of the stringency option combinations. Among these, non-recurring (N-R) owner/operator (O/O) costs may include a loss in fleet value that could be incurred by owners and operators for fleet assets that would not meet a new standard (represented in the analysis by the stringency option combinations). This Asset Value Loss (AVL) is based on the following premises. (1) The introduction of a new Standard would reduce the market value of existing fleets that do not meet the Standard, even if the standard does not apply to the in-service fleet. (2) The introduction of a new Standard would cause a loss of fleet commonality between pre-Standard assets and new compliant-fleet assets. 6.2.2 The method used in this analysis uses much of the methodology developed for the CO2 main analysis (CO2ma) that informed the CAEP/10 Standard.6 As with the CO2ma, fleet assets subject to AVL are all those in the growth and replacement database that do not pass the nvPM stringency option combinations and enter the fleet between the announcement and implementation dates. For example, if the Standard is announced in 2019 and implemented in 2025, AVL would be assessed for aircraft that entered the fleet in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024. 6.2.2.1 How to recognize AVL: It is acknowledged that accounting practices allow for asset value losses and that they are recorded as impairment charges. When there is a change in the operating environment, such as the implementation of a new regulation, negative impacts on an asset's value are recorded in financial statements as an impairment loss. 6.2.2.2 When to recognize AVL: For the purposes of the modelling, an impairment charge is being used as a proxy for the actual realized market value loss, which would be recognized when an aircraft being assessed an AVL is sold. The idea is to consider the loss an operator would incur by selling an aircraft before the end of its economic life at a lower cost than initially estimated when the aircraft was purchased. For this purpose, it is assumed that asset values as projected through depreciation schedules are sensible proxies for resale prices. 6 CAEP/10-IP/06 Appendix E, and to FESG-MDG in CAEP/11-FESG-MDG/6-WP/15, January 2018 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-19 6.2.2.3 It is also assumed that the impairment charge calculated at the implementation date will be equal to the loss in value when aircraft are sold when they near the end of the first third of their 25-year economic useful lives, that is, 8 years after their entry into service. This is due to the fact that, under the assumption of parallel depreciation curves, the impairment charge calculated at the Standard implementation date will be the same as the loss in market value observed when an aircraft is sold. 6.2.2.4 Estimating the AVL connected to the nvPM stringency analysis: Similar to the CAEP/8 NOx Standard analysis (NOx/8), the loss of asset value is tied to reduction in value to the engines that do not pass the Standard, whereas engines delivered from the Standard effective date will have technologies that allow them to pass the Standard. The magnitude of the value of the AVL or impairment charge for the current analysis was developed from the NOx/8 work. 6.2.2.5 One method for calculating lost value in engine fleets delivered before the stringency effective date that would not pass the Standard is to estimate the "upgrade" retrofit cost required to allow those same engines to pass the new Standard through engine improvements. For the NOx/8, the engine manufacturer experts had scaled the costs of existing emissions kits to develop cost estimates for hypothetical engine modification packages. 6.2.2.6 Table 6.3 shows the AVL values used for NOx/8 along with the values to use for the nvPM stringency analysis. The values for CAEP/8 were in 2009 US Dollars. The cost analysis for nvPM is in 2012 US Dollars. The agreed approach is to use the CAEP/8 values by Modification Status (MS) level and escalate them to 2012 US Dollars. That requires a 1.07 escalation factor. Table 6.3 CAEP/8 AVL CAEP/8 Technology Response AVL per Engine MS1: Minor Changes 0 MS2: Scaled Proven Technology $250,000 MS3: New Technology $500,000 Table 6.4 CAEP/11 AVL Technology Response AVL per Engine NI1 0 NI2 $268,000 NI3 $535,000 No Response $535,000 6.2.3 Table 6.4 presents the escalated values to use for the CAEP/11 nvPM stringency analysis. For CAEP/11, there are significantly more "no technical" responses at the higher stringency option combinations which wasn't the case for the CAEP/8 NOX Standard analysis. Therefore, an additional impairment charge value is needed for the "no responses" in the CAEP/11 analysis. It has been agreed to use the highest technical response, NI3, value as a proxy. However, it should be acknowledged that with a "no response", the aircraft goes out of production and the loss of asset value may be underestimated. 3C-20 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 6.3 Spare Engine Costs 6.3.1 Spare engines are required by operators to cover scheduled maintenance visits and unscheduled engine removals. By exchanging a ready-to-fly spare engine for an on-wing engine that requires repair, operators can keep their aircraft flying with minimum lost time on the ground while the removed engine is sent to a maintenance provider for servicing. 6.3.2 The introduction of a new Standard would cause a loss of fleet commonality between pre-Standard assets and new compliant-fleet assets. This would incur additional owner/ operator costs to maintain spare engines for the portion of the fleet acquired before the Standard effectiveness date and a separate set of spare engines for the subsequently acquired fleet. 6.3.3 A review and survey were conducted regarding the spare engine assumptions used for the CAEP/6 and CAEP/8 NOx stringency analyses because those were based on 15-year old data that did not consider the business jet market. In addition, there were concerns that assets may be managed differently with the rise of engine leasing.7 6.3.4 IATA 2018 inputs were assessed against the CAEP/6 and CAEP/8 assumptions with the conclusion that the requirement for spare engines has trended lower for the commercial passenger and freighter markets than previously calculated.8 6.3.5 The business jet segment's investment in spare engines is somewhat similar to the commercial segment, however the business jet operators rely ever more greatly on the engine manufacturers and maintenance repair organizations (MROs) to invest in a pool of engines and make them available to the operator on a rental basis to support scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and inspections. With input from two IBAC member companies, the conclusion was to use the agreed upon commercial fleet spare engine curve to also represent the business jet market. From a global perspective, a similar relationship of spare engines required, measured in terms of percent of in-service fleet, should hold for business jet and commercial operators. The engine manufacturers and MRO providers act effectively in bringing efficiencies to the market by bringing small fleets together to act like a large fleet in terms of spare asset management. 6.3.6 An investigation was made into the relationship between aircraft and engine prices; and the linear regression that is a function of airplane price was used to estimate spare engine prices for the families that require a NI3 technical response to meet certain stringency option combinations. Average engine price was calculated for the engines grouped by aircraft retirement code and the results are presented in Table 6.5. 7 CAEP/6-IP/13, Economic Assessment of the NOx Stringency Options, and CAEP/8-IP/14, Economic Assessment of the NOx Stringency Scenarios 8 CAEP/11-FESG-MDG/7-WP/08 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-21 Table 6.5: Spare Engine Price Assumptions Aircraft Retirement Code B_WB_PAX G_NB_FRT H_WB_FRT A_NB_PAX F_BJ Spare Engine Price (US2012$ Millions) $11.3 $6.5 $5.3 $5.1 $3.4 6.3.7 Commonality Factor The CAEP/8 NOx stringency analysis assumed that the requirements for extra spare engines would apply to 50% of the engines receiving a modification status level 3 (MS3) technology response. It was assumed that the other 50% of engines (receiving a MS3 technology response) could be mixed with the engines that they replaced and so did not require additional spare engines to be acquired. Lacking information to contradict the CAEP/8 assumption, the 50% commonality factor for engines receiving a NI3 response (equivalent to the CAEP/8 MS3 response) for the present analysis. 6.4 Lost Revenue Assessment 6.4.1 The cost impact for lost revenue is directly linked to engines receiving a NI3 tech response, where there is a 0% to 0.5% fuel burn penalty trade-off from technology to improve nvPM mass and number. The population of flights (operations) for which this cost impact is assessed is limited to those flights that are operated at long-range distances where the aircraft is operated at its maximum take-off mass (MTOM). For previous CAEP analyses, the percentage of an aircraft's total operations has been on the order of 0% to 2% for narrow body aircraft and 5% for wide body aircraft. 6.4.2 For the current CAEP/11 nvPM stringency analysis, forecast operations have been allocated into separate Competition Bins (CBins) that are organized by aircraft operating up to their MTOW and where the distance bands being operated on exceed the aircrafts' MTOW at full passengers; thus, the operations for these aircraft are at lower payloads to meet the long-range requirements.9 It is this last set of CBins with long-range missions that would be impacted by an incremental fuel penalty from the NI3 tech response. An amount of payload has to be "off-loaded" so that additional fuel can be loaded to cover the incremental fuel penalty and still operate at a take-off mass that doesn't exceed the MTOM of the aircraft. Cargo is restricted first before blocking off seats to restrict revenue passengers. The reduction in payload to offset the incremental NI3 fuel penalty is approximated by a reduction in revenue belly cargo at a distance where aircraft is operated at MTOM. 6.4.3 To assess the cost impact for lost revenue the first step is to identify the aircraft models that would be impacted. For the CAEP/11 nvPM stringency analysis, the impacted aircraft are models belonging to the wide body segment that at a given level of stringency receive a NI3 tech response. The aircraft impacted for the nvPM stringency analysis are 787, A330neo, A350 and A380. 9 Reduced capacity wide-bodied aircraft were used for operations above 999nmi in CBin-33 (85 seats); above 2499nmi in CBin-34 (100 seats) and CBin-35 (125 seats); above 3499nmi in CBin-36 (150 seats), CBin-37 (175 seats) and CBin-38 (210 seats); and above 6499nmi in CBin-39 (300 seats). 3C-22 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 6.4.4 To simplify the analysis and to protect proprietary data, a single blended value was computed for the payload "off-loaded" at the long-range distances where the aircraft is operated at their respective MTOM. Average cargo impact from off-loaded payload = 0.17 tonnes 6.4.5 The next step is to choose a representative cargo revenue yield. For the CAEP/8 NOx stringency analysis, cargo yields were determined from comparing IATA 2007 system average yields, yield data collected by a manufacturer from the 2008 Association of European Airlines (AEA) Star Report and data obtained from public sources used as inputs in the APMT-Economics model. The values were reasonably close. The system wide values were adjusted to the 5000 NM distance using the yield - distance adjustment curve. The cargo revenue yield value for CAEP/8 was $$0.26/RTK, in 2009 US Dollars. This cargo revenue yield was inflated to 2012 US dollars using the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the resulting value was $0.28/RTK. 6.4.6 The final step is to perform a set of calculations to estimate the lost revenue for each impacted aircraft for the forecast years 2032 and 2042, then interpolate the intermediate years and calculate the cumulative and present value of the lost revenue. The following equation illustrates the approach. Lost Revenue per year = Off-loaded payload * C-Bin Distance * Cargo Yield ($0.28 / RTK) * number of operations at MTOM 6.4.7 The lost revenue for each impacted aircraft is then aggregated to report a global cost impact for each stringency option combination. 6.5 Other Costs 6.5.1 In subsequent sections, the label "Other Costs" represents the lost revenue, spare engine, maintenance and incremental build costs. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-23 7. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS RESULTS 7.1.1 As shown in Table 5.4, the nvPM technology responses are slightly different for stringency option combinations SO1 to SO6; but they are the same for SO7 to SO9 and for SO10 to SO12. With these inputs, the cost and benefit consequences will be slightly different for the SO1 to SO6 stringency option combinations. Stringency option combinations SO7 to SO9 are defined by mass stringency 4 and number stringencies 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The same engine family technology responses were provided for SO7 to SO9 because mass stringency 4 is determined to be the driving force for these technology responses. Likewise, SO10 to SO12 are defined by mass stringency 5 and number stringencies 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The same engine family technology responses were provided for SO10 to SO12 because mass stringency 5 is determined to be the driving force for these technology responses. It is therefore understandable that there are identical cost and benefit results for SO7 to SO9, and for SO10 to SO12 7.2 The LTO nvPM mass and number emissions results are shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. Note that responding engines get their maximum nvPM Improvement (NI) level as soon as they respond. Thus, when an engine is defined to have an NI3 mass response to pass SO3 through SO9, the NI3 benefits are those achieved at SO9 for all NI3 responses. This response approach results in identical costs and benefits for combined SO7 to SO9, as well as combined SO10 to SO12. Figure 7.1: LTO nvPM Mass (t) Change from Baseline, Cumulative 2025-2042 Figure 7.2: LTO nvPM Number Change from Baseline, Cumulative 2025-2042 7.3 The costs calculated included: fuel10 costs, capital costs (depreciation and finance), other direct operating costs (crew, maintenance, landing and route costs), non-recurring aircraft owner/operator asset value loss (AVL), non-recurring manufacturer technology response cost (NRC), spare engine costs, incremental build costs, maintenance costs and lost revenue for long-range flights that are impacted by the fuel trade-off penalty. In subsequent figures, the label `Other Costs' represents the lost revenue, spare engine, maintenance and incremental build costs. 10 Figures reflect the full fuel-burn trade-off penalty, which applied .25% to all operations performed by NI3 responding types. 3C-24 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 7.4 Undiscounted change in cumulative (2025-2042) costs (Billions US2012$) is presented in Figure 7.3a for all markets combined. From left to right results are first shown using the original fleet forecast (Path-B), with SO10 to SO12 shown together (SO10-12b); followed by the Path-B SO10 to SO12 combined results minus the business jet market (SO10-12b-BJ). The last two columns on the right are the alternative (Path A) approach for SO10-12a, and those minus the business jet market (SO10-12a-BJ). Figure 7.3b is also provided to zoom in on the SO1 through SO9 results. Figure 7.3a: Change in Cumulative Costs (2025-2042, 2012$ Billions) Figure 7.3b: Change in Cumulative Costs (2025-2042, 2012$ Billions) Path-B SO1 to SO9 7.5 Undiscounted change in cumulative costs per nvPM Mass avoided is presented for all markets combined in Figure 7.4. Results for nvPM Number avoided is presented Figure 7.5. The trend of the cost effectiveness ratios for both nvPM Mass and Number show the highest cost for emissions benefit at SO1, where only 7 of 119 GRdb types need to respond. The trend in total cost per emissions benefit is also relatively flat from SO2 through SO9 because the analysis framework required that responding engines meet the maximum stringency option combination defined for an nvPM Improvement (NI) level. Thus, when an engine is defined to have an NI3 mass response to pass SO3 through SO9, the NI3 benefits would be those achieved at SO9 for all NI3 responses. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-25 Figure 7.4: Change in Cumulative Costs per nvPM Mass (Gram) Avoided Figure 7.5: Change in Cumulative Costs per nvPM Number (1016) Avoided Table 8.1 Total Costs per nvPM Mass nvPM Number SO1b SO2b SO3b SO4b $3.31 $0.96 $0.82 $1.10 $7.96 $1.62 $1.25 $1.76 SO5b $1.05 $1.65 SO6b $0.86 $1.32 SO7b SO8b SO9b $0.95 $1.44 SO10b SO11b SO12b -$0.49 -$0.86 SO10/11/12b Minus BJ $1.79 $3.21 SO10a SO11a SO12a $2.33 $3.93 SO10/11/12a Minus BJ $4.98 $8.64 7.6 Figure 7.6 plots change in LTO nvPM mass versus nvPM number for all Path-B markets combined, with SO10 to SO12 shown together (SO10-12b); followed by the Path-B SO10 to SO12 combined results minus the business jet market (SO10-12b-BJ). The last points are the Path-A all markets combined for SO10 to SO12 (SO10-12b); and those minus the business jet market (SO10-12a-BJ). Figure 7.6: Change in nvPM mass and number 3C-26 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 7.7 Figure 7.7 shows the same scenarios with per cent change in nvPM mass (blue dots) and nvPM number (green dots) against change in total cumulative costs (DOC + AVL + NRC + Other) from the 2025 implementation year to 2042. Figure 7.7: Per cent nvPM Emissions Change and Change in Total Cumulative Costs Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-27 8. OTHER RESULT VIEWS 8.1 Specific Markets: In this section, undiscounted stringency change from the baseline results are presented for each market. Note that the scale used in the figures varies by market. 8.1.1 Narrow Body Passenger Market11 (NB-PAX): All types remain available in this market through SO9; and for CBin-5 (101-125 seats) and CBin-7 (151-175 seats) all types remain available for all SO. For SO10-SO12 two engine families do not respond, which results in CBin-04 (86-100 seats) and CBin-06 (126-150 seats) capacities decreasing by 1%; operations, flight kilometres and aircraft deliveries increase to meet the forecasted demand. The other NB-PAX CBins maintain their average capacities. Figures 8.1a-c: Narrow Body Passenger Results 11 For this analysis regional jets are included in the NB-PAX market. 3C-28 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 8.1.2 Freighter Markets: The FESG fleet forecast for narrow-bodied freighters (NB-FR) defines all demand as being for passenger-to-freighter converted aircraft, which are not subject to the Standard. Russian and Ukrainian manufacturers are of a different opinion; so there are two NB-FR entries that are included in the modelling. Both of these remain available for all SO. All wide-bodied freighter (WB-FR) types subject to the Standard either pass or respond. Medium wide-bodied freighters (CBin-19) are impacted by engine families not responding at SO6, when average capacity increases by 1%, and at SO10, when average capacity decreases by 14%. For SO6-SO9 when average capacity increases it results in a decrease in operations, flight kilometres and fleet deliveries. For SO10-SO12 when average capacity decreases it leads to an increase in operations, flight kilometres and fleet deliveries.12 Figures 8.2a-c: Freighter Results 12 The two fleet evolution models use different capacity metrics; AAT uses ATKs and APMT-E seats. To improve alignment between the two models, the freighter equivalent seat counts in APMT-E were adjusted to more closely reflect the change in payload capacity observed in AAT for the stringencies. The results presented in the Compendium files now show closer operational and fleet alignment between the two models. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-29 8.1.3 Business Jet Market: Since business jets are assumed to have equivalent capacity within a CBin, there are no capacity consequences such as operational changes or fleet deliveries. There are, however, cost consequences. 8.1.3.1 Light-medium business jets (CBins 27&28) are impacted at SO3 and SO5 and above when one engine family does not respond. Average capital cost decreases 13% in CBin-27 and 3% in CBin-28. 8.1.3.2 Large business jets (CBins 29-31) are impacted at SO10 when 3 of 6 engine families do not respond. Average capital cost decreases 1% in CBin-29, 8% in CBin-30, and 3% in CBin-31. 8.1.3.3 Corporate business jets (CBin-32) are impacted at SO10 when two engine families do not respond. Unfortunately, given the wide range of aircraft prices in this CBin, it should have been subdivided between types above (3) and below (6) the $100M price. However, because they were modelled together the average capital cost drops by 26% when two types priced above $200M do not respond. 3C-30 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 Figures 8.3a-c: Business Jet Market Results 8.1.3.4 Concerns: Some feel that it is counterintuitive to see less-expensive BJs replacing more expensive types, which no longer respond at SO10 through SO12. There is also concern that the business jet responses are producing a disproportionate impact on the overall fleet analysis, particularly in terms of capital costs. Figure 5.3b shows the sensitivity results where the corporate business jet market goes from a $29B capital cost saving to a $4B savings when the highest priced variants are no longer available and are replaced with only a similar type priced above $200M. 8.1.4 Passenger Wide Body Market (WB-PAX): This market has nine engine families; and all GRdb types remain available through SO9. For CBin-11 (401 seats) when one engine family does not respond at SO10, the average remaining capacity is 3% lower. Two engine families are used for CBin-9 (211-300 seats), when one does not respond at SO10 average capacity increases by 1% when CBin-9 is modelled alone (Path-B). Six engine families are used for CBin-10 (301-400 seats), when three do not respond at SO10 average capacity increases by 3% when CBin-10 is modelled alone (Path-B). These capacity increases reduce fleet deliveries, operations and the associated costs. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-31 8.1.4.1 The reason this analysis had a Path-A and Path-B was covered in Section 1.3. The details regarding the Path-A and Path-B fleet evolution modelling results was covered in Section 3.2.6. The impact for capital costs is discussed in Section 5.4.6. 8.1.4.2 Per Table 3.1, the proportion of total baseline operations forecasted for CBin-9 (211-300 seats) is 14.5% and 3.5% for CBin-10 (301-400 seats). So, the assumptions for CBin-9 and how it is modelled have more influence on the analysis than those for CBin-10. Table 8.1 lists technology responses, seats and price assumptions for the wide-bodied passenger GRdb types up to 400 seats; and it shows a smaller price range for CBin-9 versus CBin-10.13 So, when some GRdb types are no longer available at SO10, the similarity of prices within CBin-9 means the change from the baseline is small if demand is met with only CBin-9 types (Path-B). To break from the forecast and mix CBin-9/10 (Path-A) causes the wider range of CBin-10 prices to significantly influence capital costs. CBin CBin-09 CBin-09 CBin-09 CBin-09 CBin-09 CBin-10 CBin-10 CBin-10 CBin-10 CBin-10 CBin-10 CBin-10 CBin-10 Table 8.1: GRdb wide-bodied passenger technology responses SO-1 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass NI3@ SO12 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass SO-2/3 NI1@ SO3 NI1@ SO3 NI1@ SO3 Pass Pass NI3@ SO12 NI1@ SO3 NI1@ SO3 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass SO-4/5 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 Pass Pass NI3@ SO12 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 NI1@ SO5 NI2M@ SO5 Pass Pass Pass SO-6 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 Pass Pass NI3@ SO12 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 Pass Pass Pass SO7/8/9 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 Pass Pass NI3@ SO12 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 NI3@ SO9 Pass Pass Pass SO10/11/12 No Response No Response No Response Pass Pass NI3@ SO12 No Response No Response No Response No Response Pass Pass Pass Engine 25 25 25 07 07 32 25 25 22 26 07 08 08 Seats 256 257 277 256 277 350 315 318 305 369 315 345 365 Price $119,435,310 $126,808,000 $132,388,990 $119,435,310 $132,388,990 $141,480,000 $132,388,990 $126,808,000 $144,100,000 $161,392,000 $132,388,990 $201,238,972 $217,338,090 8.1.4.3 The undiscounted change in cumulative costs (2025-2042, 2012$B) and cost effectiveness results for the Path A and Path B WB-PAX market are shown in Figures 8.4a to 9.4f. 13 Stringencies are clustered when there is no difference between the technology responses. 3C-32 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 Figures 8.4a to 8.4f: Wide Body Passenger Market Results for Path-A and Path-B Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-33 8.2 Outcome of Path-A and Path-B for All-Markets 8.2.1 Table 8.2 shows the all-market14 level cost results for Path-A and Path-B for SO4 through SO12.15 The only difference between the paths is for the 211-400 seat wide-bodied passenger market; i.e., forecast-based Path-B and alternate Path-A for WB-PAX aircraft. For SO10 through SO12, there is an $83.4B capital cost difference between the paths, which is the primary reason total costs shift from being less than the baseline for Path-B to significantly more than the baseline for Path-A. Table 8.2: Path-A and Path-B Change in Cumulative Costs (2025-2042, 2012$B; All Market Level) Path-A Path-B Path-A Path-B Path-A Path-B Path-A Path-B Path-A Path-B SO4 SO4 SO5 SO5 SO6 SO6 SO7/8/9 SO7/8/9 SO10/11/12 SO10/11/12 Total Costs $11.92 $13.37 $11.25 $12.70 $10.01 $11.02 $11.17 $12.18 $45.58 -$10.79 Fuel Cost $1.97 $3.00 $1.87 $2.90 $0.97 $1.84 $0.99 $1.86 -$33.12 -$21.39 Capital Cost $0.00 $0.00 -$1.05 -$1.05 -$3.92 -$3.92 -$3.92 -$3.92 $80.59 -$2.83 Other-DOC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$0.40 -$0.40 -$0.40 -$0.40 -$13.48 $1.74 NRC $3.32 $3.32 $3.32 $3.32 $4.75 $4.75 $5.32 $5.32 $3.65 $3.65 AVL $2.84 $2.98 $3.17 $3.32 $3.74 $3.82 $4.00 $4.08 $5.06 $5.14 Other Costs $3.80 $4.07 $3.96 $4.22 $4.86 $4.93 $5.19 $5.25 $2.89 $2.90 "Other Costs" = lost revenue, spare engine, incremental build and maintenance costs. 8.2.2 Table 8.3 shows the Path-A and Path-B change in cumulative (2025-2042) total costs (2012$B) for all markets combined, effectiveness (total costs per emissions benefit), and the difference between the paths (last three rows) by stringency option combination (SO). Table 8.3: Path-A and Path-B Total Cost (2012$B) Results for All Markets Combined 2012$ Billions SO1 SO2 SO3 SO4 SO5 SO6 SO7/8/9 SO10/11/12 Path-A Total Costs Path-B Total Costs Path-A Total Costs per nvPM Mass Path-B Total Costs per nvPM Mass Path-A Total Cost per nvPM Number Path-B Total Cost per nvPM Number Total Costs Difference Total Costs per nvPM Mass Difference Total Cost per nvPM Number Difference $0.99 $0.99 $3.33 $3.31 $7.99 $7.96 $0.00 $0.01 $0.03 $1.75 $1.75 $1.41 $0.96 $2.43 $1.62 $0.00 $0.45 $0.81 $1.47 $1.47 $1.21 $0.82 $1.81 $1.25 $0.00 $0.39 $0.56 $11.92 $13.37 $1.51 $1.10 $2.37 $1.76 -$1.44 $0.41 $0.61 $11.25 $12.70 $1.43 $1.05 $2.20 $1.65 -$1.44 $0.38 $0.55 $10.01 $11.02 $1.10 $0.86 $1.61 $1.32 -$1.02 $0.24 $0.29 $11.17 $12.18 $1.22 $0.95 $1.78 $1.44 -$1.01 $0.28 $0.33 $45.58 -$10.79 $2.33 -$0.49 $3.93 -$0.86 $56.36 $2.83 $4.79 14 All-markets is the sum of the freighter, business jet, and the narrow and wide body passenger markets subject to the Standard. 15 Results for SO7 through SO9 and SO10 through SO12 are clustered because they are identical. Results for SO1 through SO3 are in the Compendium files and are within $0.004B for the two paths. 3C-34 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 9. CAEP/11 DECISION 9.1 During the CAEP/11 meeting the new nvPM mass and number SARPs were agreed. This included limit lines for nvPM mass and number, that would be applied to in-production and new engine types from 1 January 2023, providing some alleviation for smaller engines. These limit lines were adjusted according to the one engine characteristic level factor, and can be found in the proposed amendments to Annex 16, Volume II contained in Appendix A to Agenda Item 3 of the CAEP/11 Report. 9.2 The CAEP/11 decision amends Annex 16, Volume II, Part IV to include mandatory reporting of nvPM system losses to the certificating authority. The mandatory reporting of system losses allows for proper calculation of nvPM emissions for inventory purposes, is expected to be a minor burden on the competent authority, and is not part of the pass/fail compliance determination of an engine type during the certification process. Figure 9.1 nvPM Mass In-Production and New Type Regulatory Limits Figure 9.2 nvPM Number In-Production and New Type Regulatory Limits -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-35 ON THE VISIBILITY OF THE EXHAUST PLUMES OF AIRCRAFT ENGINES 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 During CAEP/10, a mass concentration limit line was developed with the aim to "transition" towards a regulation "that is equivalent to the existing SN [Smoke Number] Standard" [CAEP10-WG3-PMTG10-WP6]. This transitional mass concentration Standard was developed by correlating SN with mass concentration, shifting this best fit line upwards by ~2 standard deviations and substituting the = (00) limit line relationship into this. The goal of the transition was to allow for the collection of mass concentration data to create the framework for the regulation and thus it was developed to ensure all engines that pass the SN limit line would also pass the mass concentration limit line. 1.2 A corollary of this ~2 standard deviation shift is that statistically we expect approximately 97.5% of engines that lie on the CAEP/10 limit line to be above the SN limit line. A schematic portrayal of this was provided in CAEP11-WG3-PMTG08-Flimsy06. These conclusions suggest that the method used to convert the SN limit line to an equivalent mass concentration limit line does not provide the clarity required for regulatory purposes to assess whether the CAEP/10 limit prevents the visibility of smoke plumes. 1.3 Aerosol optical theory and a visibility criterion can be used to identify the mass concentration at which the smoke plume may become visible, which formed the basis for developing the SN limit line. An introduction to this theory was provided in CAEP11-WG3-PMTG09-Flimsy03, which included a preliminary method to estimate the core nozzle diameter of unmixed turbofan engines. In this paper, we improve upon and extend the analysis presented during PMTG/09 with a validated, iterative gas turbine model used to estimate the exhaust nozzle diameter, a modern update to the optics theory equations and constants, and a model for estimating the transmissivity of exhaust plumes for mixed and unmixed turbofan engines. 1.4 During CAEP/11 meeting it was agreed that 1 January 2023 would be the end date for the applicability of the SN SARPs for engines of a rated thrust > 26.7kN. 2. VISIBILITY OF THE SMOKE NUMBER LIMIT LINE FOR TURBOJETS 2.1 A derivation of the smoke number (SN) that has a transmission of 98% is covered in Munt (1979), which finds that the limit line has a transmission slightly greater than this. This means that, according to the method developed by Munt, the SN limit line conservatively prevents the visibility of an exhaust plume at the 98% transmission level. 2.2 The derivation requires three pieces of information. First, optics theory and associated absorption coefficients gives a relationship to estimate the transmission as a function of concentration and path length. The optics theory is based on a method described in Champagne (1971) and the absorption coefficient is derived analytically in Stockham and Betz (1970) for graphite rather than soot from a kerosene flame. Second, a relationship between mass concentration and smoke number is required, which is also described in Champagne (1971). Finally, a relationship between rated thrust and path length is derived based on measurements made by Munt. 3C-36 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 2.3 These three parts can be combined together to produce an estimate of the SN with a transmission of 98% as a function of rated thrust. Munt finds this line to lie slightly above the EPA NPRM (equivalent to the SN limit line) as shown in the diagram below. FIGURE B3: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SN AND RATED THRUST ADAPTED FROM MUNT (1979). THE EPA NPRM IS IDENTICAL TO THE SN LIMIT LINE, THE MIL-E-8593A IS THE CORRESPONDING MILITARY LIMIT LINE AND THE 98% AND 95% TRANSMISSION LINES ARE DERIVED BY MUNT. 2.4 The analysis by Munt can be reproduced on a mass concentration versus rated thrust basis. This is useful to help identify the mass concentration at 98% transmission according to the method developed by Munt. Unfortunately, the path length versus rated thrust relationship was not provided by Munt, so we use his data points to estimate the best fit line. The relationship is shown in Figure B4 and Eq 1 shows the coefficients and form of the equation. L = 1.23 - 0.95 e-0.01100 Eq 1 where L is the path length in meters and 00 is the rated thrust in kN. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-37 FIGURE B4: BEST FIT LINE BETWEEN RATED THRUST AND CORE NOZZLE DIAMETER USING DATA TABULATED IN MUNT (1979). 2.5 With this relationship, we can apply the optics theory from Champagne (1971) to estimate the mass concentration at a transmission of 98% and 95%, which is shown in Figure B5. These results suggest that the SN limit line in mass concentration space is at a transmission of ~98% according to this particular optics theory. It is also noticeable that the shape of the 98% transmission points differ from the SN limit line, particularly at low rated thrust. This is an artefact of the relationship between rated thrust and path length, where our best fit line is slightly higher than that derived by Munt at a rated thrust below ~50 kN. 3C-38 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 FIGURE B5: MASS CONCENTRATION AT A TRANSMISSION OF 98% (BLUE) AND 95% (ORANGE) AS A FUNCTION OF RATED THRUST DERIVED USING THE SAME METHOD AS IN MUNT (1979). THE SOLID BLACK LINE SHOWS THE CAEP/10 LIMIT LINE, THE DASHED BLACK LINE IS THE LIMIT LINE WITHOUT THE 2 STANDARD DEVIATION SHIFT IN THE SN MASS CONCENTRATION RELATIONSHIP AND THE DASHED BLUE LINE IS THAT BUT USING THE SCOPE11 RELATIONSHIP. 3. IMPROVEMENTS TO MUNT'S ANALYSIS 3.1 There are three caveats to Munt's analysis which we address. 3.1.1 First, the optics theory that Munt used is now outdated and the modern version of it is shown in Eq 2. In addition, the absorption coefficient was based on theoretical estimates starting from the refractive index of black carbon. Recent literature finds that experimentally measured mass-normalized absorption coefficients are 7.5±1.2 m2/g at a light wavelength of 550 nm (Bond and Bergstrom (2006)), ~50% higher than the equivalent value in Munt (1979) (~5.76 m2/g at a wavelength of 490 nm). Cm,e = soot log(1/T) Ke L Eq 2 3.1.2 Second, the exhaust nozzle diameters tabulated in Munt (1979) were measured from photographs and include the size of the exhaust cone. This means that the nozzle diameters represent the physical outer diameter of the core nozzle, while the area-equivalent diameter would be smaller than this. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-39 Instead of using measured values, we have developed a simple turbojet cycle model that is able to estimate the area-equivalent nozzle diameter. The model only requires the overall pressure ratio (OPR) and rated thrust, and assumes values for the air-fuel ratio (AFR) of 55 at rated thrust and that the exhaust nozzle is choked. The full method is described in Appendix J.1 and the final equation to estimate the nozzle diameter is shown in Eq 3. L = 4c009 Eq 3 where 00 is the rated thrust in N, c = 1.4 is the heat capacity ratio in the compressor and 9 is the static pressure at the exit plane found using the method described in Appendix J.1. 3.1.3 Third, the measurement system upon which the mass concentration limit line was developed corrects all measurements to standard temperature and pressure (STP) conditions and leads to the loss of particles as the flow passes through it. This information was not available to Munt and so we correct to STP conditions by scaling the mass concentration from Eq 2 by the ratio of density at STP (1.2 kg/m3) to the density at the exhaust of the engine. The latter density can be found using the turbojet cycle model. System losses can be accounted for using the correlation found in the SCOPE11 method that relates losses to mass concentration in reverse. 3.2 Using a subset of engines in the Engine Emissions Data Bank (EEDB), we have used the method introduced by Munt to predict the mass concentration at a transmission of 98%. The results are shown in Figure B6 in the blue circles. We then apply each of the 3 changes discussed earlier to show the effect of the changes. 3C-40 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 FIGURE B6: THE MASS CONCENTRATION AT 98% VISIBILITY AGAINST RATED THRUST. BLUE FILLED CIRCLES SHOW THE RESULTS USING THE METHOD IN MUNT (1979). THE GREEN OPEN CIRCLES APPLY THE UPDATED OPTICS THEORY BUT USE THE RATED THRUST TO PATH LENGTH RELATIONSHIP FROM MUNT. THE RED OPEN CIRCLES THEN USE OUR TURBOJET CYCLE MODEL TO PREDICT PATH LENGTH FOR A GIVEN RATED THRUST. FINALLY, THE PURPLE FILLED CIRCLES CORRECT THE RESULTS TO STP CONDITIONS AND INCLUDE THE EFFECT OF SYSTEM LOSSES. 3.3 The green circles use the rated thrust to path length relationship derived by Munt, but use the optics theory and coefficients from Bond and Bergstrom (2006). Relative to the blue circles, we find that the mass concentration at 98% transmission reduces by 44%. This is an expected change since the dimensionless absorption coefficient in Bond and Bergstrom (2006) is ~50% larger than that used by Munt (1979). 3.4 The red circles then include the effect of using our turbojet cycle model to predict the nozzle diameter. In this case, we find the effect on the mass concentration depends on the thrust. On average, the nozzle diameter decreases by 10% compared with Munt (1979) leading to an increase in mass concentration of 13%. At rated thrust above ~300 kN, where the Munt (1979) correlation is extrapolated, the nozzle diameter is 13% larger and the mass concentration is 11% lower. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-41 3.5 Finally, the correction to STP conditions and including system losses has the largest effect on the mass concentration. On average, the mass concentration at 98% transmission increases by 78%. The other noticeable feature is that the purple circles more closely follow the shape of the dashed line. 3.6 The three updates to the method show that we can reproduce the SN limit line in mass concentration space, finding this to have a transmission of approximately 98% for turbojet engines. The modern optics theory reduces the allowable mass concentration and this is offset mainly by the correction to STP conditions. 4. VISIBILITY FOR UNMIXED TURBOFAN ENGINES 4.1 The previous section showed the ability to reproduce the SN limit line in mass concentration space for turbojet engines. In this case, there was a single nozzle that contained all of the emissions and it was this nozzle diameter that we were interested in. For an unmixed turbofan engine, the nozzle is split into a core and bypass stream. The emissions are all contained within the core stream and thus the relationship between the rated thrust and core nozzle diameter is now of interest. Compared to turbojet engines, this relationship is more complicated, so we must develop a new gas turbine cycle model that is capable of modelling unmixed turbofan engines. The optics theory, required correction to STP conditions and artificially including system losses, are all applied in the same way as in Section 3. 4.2 The gas turbine model we have developed extracts the rated thrust, overall pressure ratio, bypass ratio and fuel flow rate at rated thrust from the EEDB and assumes the bypass to jet velocity ratio is fixed at 0.9. The calculation method requires iterating over the fan pressure ratio to begin until we obtain the desired jet velocity ratio. The implementation is conducted in Python and leads to the rapid estimation of the conditions within the engine and thus the core nozzle diameter and exhaust density. This model is described in Appendix J.2. 4.3 To validate the results of iterative model, we have estimated the fan diameter and compared with publicly available values for a range of engines as shown in Figure B7. The engines chosen include mixed and unmixed engines, however every engine has been modelled as unmixed. Estimating fan diameter requires knowledge of the air mass flow rate through the engine, which is estimated in the iterative model, but also the hub-to-tip ratio of the fan blade. Although this value varies between engines, we assume it to be 0.33 to create Figure B7. 3C-42 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 FIGURE B7: ACTUAL VERSUS MODELED FAN DIAMETER [IN]. BOTH MIXED AND UNMIXED ARE INCLUDED, BUT ALL ENGINES ARE MODELED AS UNMIXED. 4.4 We find the error in predicting fan diameter to be 3% on average. There is a skew of -1.5616 in the residuals and we find too small a diameter at low rated thrust and too large a diameter at high rated thrust. We expect that this is driven by the variation in hub-to-tip ratio as a function of rated thrust. The largest error is 38%, however we expect this is an incorrect measured diameter that includes the size of the nacelle, rather than just the fan blade diameter. 4.5 To further validate the results, we have run simulations in GasTurb, a detailed gas turbine cycle programme, which is capable of modelling a variety of aircraft engine configurations. For unmixed engines, the OPR and BPR were fixed as per the EEDB. Three iteration variables were then set: (1) the turbine inlet temperature until the required fuel flow rate was attained; (2) the fan pressure ratio (FPR) for a fixed jet velocity ratio; and the air mass flow rate for a fixed fan diameter. 4.6 Upon convergence of the GasTurb simulations, we compared the core nozzle diameter with that found using the turbojet cycle discussed above. A comparison of the results is shown in Figure B8. The error for all engines was found to be less than 5%, except for one engine with an error of 15%. 16 A skew between ±2 are considered acceptable to prove normally distributed residual Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-43 This particular engine was modelled as unmixed, however is actually a mixed-flow engine leading to a larger error in predicting the core nozzle diameter. FIGURE B8: COMPARISON BETWEEN CORE NOZZLE DIAMETER FROM GASTURB AND THE MODELED, ITERATIVE GAS TURBINE CYCLE FOR UNMIXED ENGINES. 4.7 We can now apply the diameter estimated using our gas turbine cycle model with the optics theory described in Section 3 to estimate the mass concentration at 98% transmission of unmixed turbofan engines at the exit plane. These results are shown by the orange circles in Figure B9 and include the correction to STP conditions and system losses. We also include the results for turbojets (blue circles). 3C-44 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 FIGURE B9: THE MASS CONCENTRATION AT 98% VISIBILITY AGAINST RATED THRUST FOR TURBOJETS AS FOUND IN FIGURE B5 IN PURPLE AND FOR UNMIXED TURBOFANS IN ORANGE. 4.8 These results show that the CAEP/10 limit line is at a transmission of around 98% for unmixed turbofan engines. The variation in the results around the limit line is driven by differences in the bypass ratio. Modern engines have gas generators with a higher specific power, driven by improvements in component efficiency and higher turbine inlet temperatures. Furthermore, the trends also have reduced fan pressure ratio for increased propulsive efficiency. These trends result in a smaller core nozzle diameter and larger bypass ratio. Thus, modern turbofan engines have a higher allowable mass concentration to prevent a visibility of 98%. 5. VISIBILITY FOR MIXED-FLOW ENGINES 5.1 The mixing between the core and bypass streams of mixed-flow engines changes the visibility of the plume at the exit plane. Firstly, the relevant nozzle diameter changes. For unmixed changes, we were interested in the core nozzle diameter, but for mixed-flow engines, there is only one exhaust diameter to measure. Secondly, the mixing process leads to a lower density at the exit plane and accordingly a smaller correction to STP conditions. Combining these two effects together, we expect that the mass concentration at a 98% transmission to be lower for mixed-flow engines compared with Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-45 unmixed engines. At the same time, for a given core nvPM mass concentration, the mixing process reduces the mass concentration at the exit plane by the factor (1 + BPR). This gives mixed-flow engines an advantage under the current CAEP/10 limit line. 5.2 To study the visibility of mixed-flow engines, we must adapt our iterative gas turbine model to account for the mixing process. In the engine, the static pressure at the location of mixing should be equal. This condition requires knowledge of the internal velocities or areas, which is difficult to estimate in our simple model. Instead, we impose that the stagnation pressure must be equal at this stage. Although this is technically incorrect, it may be reasonable if we assume the velocities are low and similar in the core and bypass streams prior to mixing. This model is described in Appendix J.3. 5.3 As with the unmixed engines, we have attempted to predict fan diameter using our predicted mass flow rate and a hub-to-tip ratio of 0.33. The results are shown in Figure B10, which shows engines that are actually unmixed in blue and engines that are actually mixed-flow in yellow. It should be noted that all the engines were modelled as mixed-flow whether they are actually mixed or unmixed. FIGURE B10: ACTUAL VERSUS PREDICTED DIAMETER USING THE SIMPLE GAS TURBINE MODEL. ALL ENGINES WERE MODELED AS IF THEY WERE MIXED-FLOW. ENGINES THAT ARE ACTUALLY MIXED-FLOW ARE SHOWN IN YELLOW AND THOSE THAT ARE UNMIXED ARE SHOWN IN BLUE. 3C-46 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 5.4 For all the mixed-flow engines, the error in predicting fan diameter is under 10%, except for 1 engine where the actual fan diameter includes the nacelle size. We also run a subset of mixed-flow engines in GasTurb and the ability to predict exhaust nozzle diameter is shown in Figure B11. These results suggest that we consistently under-predict the exhaust nozzle diameter and we expect this to be caused by the stagnation pressure condition that was enforced at the mixing plane. FIGURE B11: COMPARISON BETWEEN NOZZLE DIAMETER FROM GASTURB AND THE MODELED, ITERATIVE GAS TURBINE CYCLE FOR MIXED-FLOW ENGINES. 5.5 Despite this consistent under-prediction of nozzle diameter, the results from our iterative model can still be used to provide a mass concentration at 98% transmission. The absolute value of this mass concentration would be slightly higher than using the GasTurb diameter, however would provide an upper bound on the results. These results, as well as those for the turbojet and unmixed turbofan, are shown in Figure B12. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-47 FIGURE B12: THE MASS CONCENTRATION AT 98% VISIBILITY AGAINST RATED THRUST FOR TURBOJETS IN PURPLE, UNMIXED TURBOFANS IN ORANGE AND MIXED-FLOW ENGINES IN GREEN. THE UNFILLED BLUE SQUARES REPRESENT THE MASS CONCENTRATION OF MIXEDFLOW ENGINES ESTIMATED BY CONVERTING THE MAXIMUM SN FROM THE EDB USING THE SCOPE11 METHOD. 5.6 On average, the mass concentration at 98% transmission for mixed-flow engines is 25% that for unmixed engines. The mixed-flow results lie below the SN limit line in mass concentration space and the mass concentration at 98% transmission of turbojet engines. This trend occurs in spite of the under-estimate in the nozzle diameter and so we expect the mass concentration at 98% transmission of mixed flow engines to be even lower. These results suggest that the SN and CAEP/10 limit lines would not prevent the visibility of plumes from mixed-flow engines at the 98% transmission level. 5.7 Figure B12 also includes the mass concentration of mixed flow engines estimated by converting the maximum SN from the EDB using the SCOPE11 method in the unfilled blue squares. These results show that all but one of the selected engines lie below our estimated mass concentration at 98% transmission for mixed-flow engines. Only one other engine lies within 10% of the estimated mass concentration at 98% transmission. These results suggest that mixed flow engines with a mass concentration at the CAEP/10 limit line or a smoke number at the SN limit line would have a transmission below 98% and thus may be visible. 3C-48 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 The SN limit line is reproducible if we consider turbojet engines and apply appropriate corrections to STP conditions and system losses. Our results suggest that the SN limit line is at a transmission of 98% for these engines. 6.2 First-order cycle models can be used to estimate the nozzle diameter of unmixed and mixed-flow engines using data from the EEDB, which is needed to determine the mass concentration at 98% transmission. Validation using publicly available fan diameters and GasTurb simulations showed that the unmixed turbofan model is accurate within 3%, while the mixed-flow turbofan model underestimates nozzle diameter by ~20%. 6.3 For unmixed turbofan engines, the mass concentration at 98% transmission was found to be close to the CAEP/10 limit line, however there was variability around this line driven by the differences in bypass ratio. 6.4 For mixed-flow engines, the mass concentration at 98% transmission was found to be below both the CAEP/10 and SN limit lines. This means that both these limit lines would not prevent the visibility of plumes from mixed-flow engines. 6.5 Comparing the mass concentration at a 98% transmission with mass concentration estimated using the SCOPE11 method for in-production mixed-flow engines, we found that all mixed-flow engines, except 1, lay below the mass concentration at 98% transmission, suggesting that these mixed-flow engines would not have a visible plume. 7. REFERENCES Agarwal, A., Speth, R.L. Understanding the statistics between the SN and mass concentration limit lines. International Civil Aviation Organization. 2018; CAEP10-WG3-PMTG08-Flimsy06 Agarwal, A., Speth, R.L. Mass concentration at constant transmission. International Civil Aviation Organization. 2018; CAEP10-WG3-PMTG09-Flimsy03 Bond, T.C., Bergstrom, R.W., Light Absorption by Carbonaceous Particles: An Investigative Review. Aerosol Science and Technology. 2006; DOI: 10.1080/02786820500421521 Champagne, D.L. Standard measurement of aircraft gas turbine engine exhaust smoke. United States Air Force. 1971; 71-GT-88 METRICS ad hoc group. Recommendation for a non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) Regulatory Limit Line Equation. International Civil Aviation Organization. 2015; CAEP10-WG3-PMTG10WP06 Munt, R.W. Evaluation of aircraft smoke standards for the criterion of invisibility. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979; EPA-AA-SDSB 79-25 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-49 Stockham, J., Betz, H. Study of visible exhaust smoke from aircraft jet engines. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. 1971; FAA-RD-71-22 8. APPENDIX J.1 TURBOJET CYCLE MODEL 8.1 Eq 4 shows how the engine nozzle diameter is found L = 4F009 Eq 4 where F00 is the engine rated thrust, is the heat capacity ratio in the compressor and 9 is the static pressure at the exit plane. To estimate 9, we have developed a turbojet cycle model. This also lets us estimate the density at the exit plane in order to correct the mass concentration to STP conditions. 8.2 The model requires the input of two variables: the overall pressure ratio (OPR) and the air-fuel ratio (AFR). The OPR is found from the EEDB, where we use rated thrust and OPR pairs in order to sample the domain space. The AFR is assumed to be 55 for all turbojets and we assume overall compressor and turbine polytropic efficiencies to be 0.78 and 0.83 respectively. Gas properties are also assumed to change after combustion with the heat capacity ratio reducing from 1.4 to 1.3 and the heat capacity at constant pressure increasing from = 1,005 to = 1,250 J/kg/K. The fuel is assumed to have a lower calorific value (LCV) of 43.2 MJ/kg. 8.3 Conditions at the combustor exit are calculated using Eq 5. Pt3 = OPR Pt2 -1 3 = 2OPR Eq 5 where subscript t2 refers to conditions at the engine inlet and t3 to conditions downstream of the compressor, and is the polytropic efficiency of the compressor assumed to 0.78. 8.4 We assume no stagnation pressure loss in the combustor such that Pt4 = Pt3 and then apply an energy balance across the combustor to estimate the turbine inlet conditions (subscript t4). 4 = AFR3 + LCV (1 + AFR) Eq 6 8.5 The turbine is used to drive the compressor and thus we use a power balance to estimate conditions downstream of the turbine (subscript t5). The pressure is calculated using a similar version of the second equation in Eq 5. 5 = 4 - (3 - 2) 5 = 4 54(-1) Eq 7 3C-50 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 8.6 To calculate conditions at the engine exit plane (subscript 9), we assume that the nozzle is choked. Isentropic relations can thus be used to estimate the static temperature and pressure: 9 = 1 Tt5 + - 2 1 9 = 5 95 -1 Eq 8 We then use the ideal gas equation to estimate the exit plane density. 9 = 9 9 Eq 9 where is the specific gas constant for air. 9. APPENDIX J.2 UNMIXED TURBOFAN CYCLE MODEL 9.1 For unmixed turbofans, the typical method to estimate conditions within the engine are to specify a rated thrust, OPR, BPR and turbine inlet temperature (4), while setting the jet velocity ratio to be ~0.9. The EEDB does not provide 4 at take-off conditions, instead supplying the fuel flow rate. This requires us to use an iterative process to converge on a solution for this engine. 9.2 We use a least-squares solver in Python in order to identify the value of fan pressure ratio (FPR) that leads to a converged solution. The first step therefore involves guessing a FPR. With this value, we can estimate the conditions downstream of the fan as well as the bypass jet velocity. Pt13 = FPR Pt2 -1 13 = 2FPR Eq 10 where subscript 13 refers to conditions downstream of the fan in the bypass stream and is the fan polytropic efficiency assumed to be 0.9. The bypass jet velocity (19) is then found using Eq 11. 19 = 2 13 1 - 13 -1 Eq 11 where subscript 19 refers to the bypass nozzle exit plane and is the ambient pressure. This method assumes that the bypass nozzle is perfectly expanded. This may not be reasonable particularly for smaller engines with a higher FPR. Thus, we check the exit Mach number to see if it is subsonic. If it is supersonic, we force the Mach number to be 1 and back out the exit plane pressure accordingly. 9.3 The conditions in the gas generator can then be estimated following a similar method to that for turbojet engines. We apply Eq 5 to estimate conditions downstream of the compressor assuming Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-51 = 0.9. Before we apply the combustor energy balance in Eq 6, we must identify the AFR. This is found using the jet velocity ratio of 0.9 to estimate the core jet velocity (9) from the bypass jet velocity found in Eq 11 and then applying a momentum balance around the whole engine. 9 = 19 = 9(1 00 + BPR ) Eq 12 Knowing the core mass flow rate, , we can the calculate the AFR = and subsequently apply Eq 6 to estimate conditions at the combustor exit/turbine inlet location. 9.4 We then conduct a power balance similar to that for turbojet engines but extending to include the power drawn by the fan to estimate conditions downstream of the turbine. 5 = 4 - (3 - 2) - (13 - 2) BPR 5 = 4 54(-1) Eq 13 where = 0.95 is the polytropic efficiency of the turbine. 9.5 We can now use the turbine exit conditions to estimate the core jet velocity following Eq 14. -1 9 = 25 1 - 5 Eq 14 9.6 9 was also estimated in Eq 12 using the jet velocity ratio. To ensure that the original FPR used is correct, we compare the two 9 values in order to check if they are equal. If they are equal, then the calculation procedure is complete, otherwise we loop round again with a different value of the FPR. 9.7 Upon completing the cycle calculations, the core exit nozzle diameter can be found using the core mass flow rate. where 9 is found using Eq 9. 9 = 499 Eq 15 3C-52 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 10. APPENDIX J.3 MIXED-FLOW TURBOFAN CYCLE MODEL 10.1 For mixed-flow engines, the jet velocity ratio cannot be fixed since there is a single stream exiting the engine. Instead, the static pressure in the core and bypass stream must be equal at the mixer. To force this condition, we require information on the velocities at the mixer, which in turn requires details of the areas at these locations. An alternative, less accurate option is to enforce that the stagnation pressures at the mixer match. This is expected to give reasonable results since the velocity tends to be subsonic and thus leads to stagnation pressures being close to matching. 10.2 The method begins in a similar fashion to unmixed turbofan engines. We guess a FPR and apply Eq 10 to estimate conditions downstream of the fan in the bypass stream. 10.3 We then need a method to estimate the core mass flow rate that leads to the stagnation pressure downstream of the turbine being equal to that downstream of the fan in the bypass. This requires a second, embedded iteration loop where we cycle over the core mass flow rate, solving Eq 6 across the combustor and Eq 13 across the turbine until the stagnation pressure condition is found. This gives us the stagnation conditions at the turbine exit. 10.4 The final step involves modelling the mixing process between the core and bypass streams. We assume that the flow perfectly mixes with no stagnation pressure loss and calculate the mixed out conditions by mass-averaging between the core and bypass conditions. = 13BPR + 5 1 + BPR = BPR + 1 + BPR where subscript m refers to the mixed out conditions. Eq 16 10.5 Finally, these mixed out conditions can be used to find the jet velocity and thus the gross thrust of the engine. This is compared with the rated thrust input to the solver and if the error is low enough then the solver completes. If not then, the iteration loops over a different FPR. 11. APPENDIX J.4 GASTURB SIMULATIONS 11.1 To validate both the unmixed and mixed flow solvers, we have used the GasTurb software to model a subset of engines. 11.2 GasTurb is a fast and accurate solver that allows us to iterate over certain variables to model engines. The OPR and BPR are provided in the EEDB and set as fixed variables in the solver. 11.2.1 For unmixed engines, we set three variables that we iterate over: (1) 4 until the desired fuel flow rate from the EEDB is found; (2) FPR until the jet velocity ratio, set as 0.9, is found; and (3) air mass flow rate until the fan diameter is found. The fan diameter is publicly available and we believe is better for estimating the nozzle dimensions than rated thrust. 11.2.2 For mixed flow engines, a very similar set of variables are selected to iterate over, however the jet velocity ratio is no longer available to us. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 3 3C-53 12. APPENDIX J.5 SN LIMIT LINE CONVERTED USING THE SCOPE11 CORRELATION 12.1 The SCOPE11 method provides a correlation to convert smoke number to mass concentration and so we can use this to convert the smoke number limit line to a mass concentration basis. This is found to be µg 648.4 6.40-00.274 SCOPE11 best fit limit m3 = 1 + -1.098(83.60-00.274-3.064) Eq 17 12.2 The SCOPE11 best fit limit line is between 5% and 12% greater than the limit line without a 2 standard deviation shift. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 4-1 4 4.1 1 -- 4.1.1 1 WG1 -- CAEP/10 1 4.1.2 1 16 I Doc 9501 ETM I --N.02 2018 IEC 4.1.3 CAEP/11 NoisedB2018 9 1 NoisedB2.26 v2.25 272 NoisedB2.26 2018 10 4 4.1.4 1 N.04.01 4.1.5 1 N.05.01 N.05.04 2016 6 9 ANCSARPs 4.1.6 1 B 1 C 4.1.7 1 16 I A 2018 I 4.1.8 1 CAEP/11 N.08 1 4-2 4 4.1.9 4.1.9.1 RSPP RSPP 4/1 -- 16 -- I -- 16 I A 4/2 -- I -- I 4.2 4.2.1 1 4.2.2 1 RFP 4.2.3 4.2.4 1 CAEP/11 4 4-3 4.2.5 1 1 CAEP/13 4.2.6 1 RFP 75 PLdB 1 1 4.2.7 "" 1 RFP 4.2.8 1 4.2.9 · VII PLISBAPA ASELB BSELE ESELD DSEL 4.2.10 1 -- """" N 4-4 4 4.3 LTO 4.3.1 1 1 PLR 4.3.2 1 55 STCAJAXA TsAGISTCA 4.3.3 1 4.3.4 2017 -- T/WW/S CLMax 1 55 STCA 4.3.5 1 LTO 1 4.3.6 EPNL 2017 1 14 1 1 1 OEM 1 VNRS PLR VNRS 14 4 4-5 4.3.7 SST 4.3.8 1 14 14 4.3.9 -- 1 -- 1 14 4.3.10 LTO A39-1 14 4.3.11 14 12 4.3.12 A39-1 "" 4.3.13 1 4.3.14 2022 CAEP/12 A39-1 1.1 "" "" A39-1 "" 4-6 4 4.3.15 14 4.3.16 4.3.17 EPNL A39-1 4.3.18 4.3.19 OEM 20 20 4.3.20 -- -- TRL 4.3.21 14 4.3.22 14 4 4-7 4.3.23 """" "" "" "" 4.3.24 A39-1 "" A39-1 " " CAEP/10 2015 " " "" 4.3.25 A39-1 "" 4.3.26 4.3.27 CAEP/12 14 4.3.28 14 1 CAEP/12 14 4-8 4 4.3.29 CAEP/12 4.3.30 CAEP/12 16 I 14 4.3.31 1) -- 1 2019 SG2019 2) -- 3) -- -- 1STCAOEM -- 1-- -- 3 -- 13 -- 13 4 4-9 4) -- -- -- LA max -- -- 5) -- 2021SG2021 CAEP/12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4 A 4A-1 A 16 I 1. 2. 3. 4A-2 4 A 16 I ...... CR CHR MATR MH MHR R/C VAR / / -- -- -- / // 1.1 -- 100 0.65-- VCON VG VGR VH VMCP VMO VNE VR VREF VS Vtip VtipR VY V2 ...... 4 A 4A-3 // // // // // // // // // // / / // // VGR VR 4A-4 ...... LAE 1 2 4 A 1.4 dB SEL(A) TPNdB dB(A) dB(A) TPNdB dB(A) dB(A) SEL AdB (A)1 43 PNLTM 2F PNLTM EPNL 4 LAE 68 618 LASmax 2F EPNL 4 LAE 68 618 LASmax 3 TPNdB dB(A) 4 dB(A) ...... H HR ...... 4 A 4A-5 2 EPNL 68 618 LASmax 68 618 LASmax 1.6 4A-6 4 A 11 3 175 ...... 11.2 4SELLAE ...... 11.4 11.4.1 11.1.2 11.1.3 4 788 82 A 3 11.4.2 11.1.44 1 41782A 3 A ...... 11.6 11.6.1 11.6.2 4 SELLAE A 11.6.3 4 11.6.4 4 A 4A-7 11.6.5 2.0 A 11.6.6 10±1.0% 11.6.7 104 ±5.5/±3 11.6.8 ±10° 11.6.9 90%105% Doc 9501I -- ...... 13 ...... 13.2 2EPNdB 5024.3.1 4SELLAELASmax2 LASmaxSPL ...... 4A-8 4 A 2 1. -- 1977106 2. 8 618 -- 198511 3. 4. ...... 2. ...... 2.2 ...... 2.2.2 2.2.2.1 ""(v) 3030 15 8.1.3.5 30 3015 ""(u)""(v)uv 3030 15 "(v/u)"uv ...... 4 A 4A-9 3. ...... 3.7 ...... 3.7.3 50 10 IEC 61260-11 1 1 IEC 61260-11 2 IEC 61260 1 2 2 IEC 61260-3x1 3.7.4 "" 0.511.520.51 0.5 -4±1 1 -1.75±0.75 1.5 -1±0.52-0.5±0.5 0.51-6.5±1 1.57.5 6.52-7.5 12"" ...... 4. ...... 1. IEC 61260-11995 2014 " -- -- " 3 x1. IEC 61260-32016 " -- -- " 3 4A-10 4 A 4.7 4.7.1 SPLA2-3A2-3 ...... A2-3 BAND ISO f (i) BAND Hz SPL(a) SPL(b) SPL(c) SPL(d) SPL 1 17 50 91.0 64 52 49 55 2 18 63 85.9 60 51 44 51 3 19 80 87.3 56 49 39 46 4 20 100 79.09 53 47 34 42 5 21 125 79.8 51 46 30 39 6 22 160 76.0 48 45 27 36 7 23 200 74.0 46 43 24 33 8 24 250 74.9 44 42 21 30 9 25 315 94.6 42 41 18 27 10 26 400 40 40 16 25 11 27 500 40 40 16 25 12 28 630 40 40 16 25 13 29 800 40 40 16 25 14 30 1 000 40 40 16 25 15 31 1 250 38 38 15 23 16 32 1 600 34 34 12 21 17 33 2 000 32 32 9 18 18 34 2 500 30 30 5 15 19 35 3 150 29 29 4 14 20 36 4 000 29 29 5 14 21 37 5 000 30 30 6 15 22 38 6 300 31 31 10 17 23 39 8 000 44.3 37 34 17 23 24 40 10 000 50.7 41 37 21 29 M(b) 0.043478 0.040570 0.036831 0.036831 0.035336 0.033333 0.033333 0.032051 0.030675 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.029960 0.029960 0.029960 0.029960 0.029960 0.029960 0.029960 0.042285 0.042285 M(c) 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.030103 0.029960 0.029960 0.029960 M(d) 0.079520 0.068160 0.068160 0.059640 0.053013 0.053013 0.053013 0.053013 0.053013 0.053013 0.053013 0.053013 0.053013 0.053013 0.059640 0.053013 0.053013 0.047712 0.047712 0.053013 0.053013 0.068160 0.079520 0.059640 M(e) 0.058098 0.058098 0.052288 0.047534 0.043573 0.043573 0.040221 0.037349 0.034859 0.034859 0.034859 0.034859 0.034859 0.034859 0.034859 0.040221 0.037349 0.034859 0.034859 0.034859 0.034859 0.037349 0.037349 0.043573 ...... 4 A 4A-11 8. 8.1 ...... 8.1.1 8.1.1.1 A2-4 a) ABBCC F b) K2LK2R K4"" ...... 8.1.3 EPNL ...... 8.1.3.5 ...... 4 3 175 ...... 2. ...... ...... 2.4 4A-12 4 A 2.4.3 MATRVtipRVR25 cR MATR = VtipR +VR cR 3. ...... 3.4 (t2 t1)10LAS (t)10 (A)10(A) ...... 4. ...... 4.3 ...... 4.3.2 LAE LAE 233.3 61672-12A 4.3.3 AS IEC 61672-11IIEC 61672-11 IECIIII 3.3LAEIEC 561 2. IEC 61672-12002 " -- -- I " 3 4 A 4A-13 ...... 4.3.5 LAEIEC 61672-13I 4.3.6 4.3.3 ...... 5. ...... 5.2 ...... 5.2.2 1 = 12.5 log H/150 m H 5.2.3 2 = 10 () 2 LAE VR1111.5.2 VAR2.4.2 ...... 6. 6.3 6.3.1 6LAE90% 3. IEC 61672-12002 " -- -- I " 3 4A-14 4 A 6.3.2 ±1.5A90% 90%Doc 9501I -- ...... 6 8 618 -- 19881117 ...... ...... 5. ...... 5.2 5.2.2 LASmaxRLASmax LASmaxR = LASmax + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 1 2 3 4 ...... d) 3 3 = k3 log P0R /P PP0R/ k3 k3=17P0R 4 A ...... 16I A ...... 10. 1111.4.1 M = 1 000 kg dB(A) SEL 0 0.788 3.175 82 83.03 + 9.97 log M 4A-15 11. 1111.4.2 M = 1 000 kg dB(A) SEL 0 1.417 3.175 82 80.49 + 9.97 log M ...... F ...... 2. 2EPNdB 4SEL LAELASmax2 LASmaxSPL -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 4 APPENDIX B (English only) HELICOPTER NOISE CORRELATION TASK REPORT 4B-1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The task N.08.01, decided at the CAEP/10, asked to "Investigate the feasibility of correlating certification noise levels with operational noise levels to better assess the helicopter noise certification scheme and its relevance to day- to-day operations, similar to the studies done for jets." 1.2 WG1 reviewed the mentioned study done for jets to facilitate the analysis. In addition, the task description "similar to the studies done for jets" was refined and the task description accordingly reformulated to: "Investigate the feasibility of correlating the ranking of helicopters based on noise certification levels with the ranking based on operational noise data to better assess the helicopter noise certification scheme and its relevance to day-to-day operations". Finally, WG1 discussed basic considerations on typical flight phases during helicopter missions and their possible applicability for the correlation task along with possible sources of operational data. 1.3 WG1 then worked to secure operational noise measurements data. A sample of helicopter noise measurement performed in Sweden was presented during WG1_1. Norway provided helicopter noise measurements performed for two offshore helicopters for development of Noise Power Distance (NPD) data typically used for land-use planning purposes. In order to acquire available measurements to support the analysis, the group agreed to prepare a State Letter to request helicopter noise data from ICAO contracting states. Additionally, measurement information on eight different helicopters in various flight conditions came from the Public European Environmental Model Suite for Aviation. Finally, WG1 decided to review data from a 1984 operational noise test conducted by the FAA at Dulles Airport near Washington, DC where eight helicopters models were measured. 2. DATA REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS 2.1 Methodology Review: WG1 reviewed a correlation analyses between noise certification EPNL and operational SEL for the eight helicopter models included in operational noise testing conducted by the FAA at Dulles Airport near Washington DC in 1984. The correlations give preliminary indications that noise certification data can provide adequate rank ordering of operational noise emissions for helicopters. 2.2 Data Review: As feedback to the state letter, data from four members (Latvia, Australia, Japan, Russia) involving operational data was provided. WG1 reviewed available information received in response to the state letter and determined that only the Australian noise data sets were considered to be sufficient for the correlation task. Either the other data sets represented certification data only or the number of different helicopter models contained was too small to allow a meaningful statistical analysis. For example, the Latvian data is of similar nature to the Australian data but heavily dominated by only one helicopter model and thus not appropriate for a statistically relevant analysis. 2.3 Among the data sets supplied by Australia, the operational data obtained around Sydney Airport was identified as most promising for the correlation task due to the large number of different helicopter models combined with a significant number of recorded movements. Based on the location of 4B-2 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 4 the operational measurements relative to the Sydney Airport, however, correlations were limited to Flyover only. 2.4 Data Analysis: Substantial effort was needed to utilize the Sydney Airport data for the correlation task, since the helicopters in the Australian data set are only characterized by their ICAO type designation. In order to assign the respective noise certification level to each database entry, the unique helicopter model identifier needed to be established. WG1 requested this information from Australia but unfortunately, the information is not available in their database. Therefore, the identification of models has been conducted manually by the OEMs by correlating the noise data base with Australian CAA registration data and in-house information from the respective sales departments. Using this methodology, an identification of helicopter models operated in the Sydney area has been achieved for many models. 2.5 Based on the operational noise dataset around Sidney Airport, a statistical analysis was establish to compare the rankings of helicopter models based on operational and certification noise data. This statistical analysis concludes that "there is a good correlation between the certified noise level in EPNdB on Flyover and the noise levels measured in operational conditions in SEL. The sample is composed of very different helicopter types (twin-engine and single engine, different power, different MTOM, different manufacturer)." WG1 also suggests that to confirm this trend, a larger dataset should be investigated. 2.6 Aside from the operational data received in response to the ICAO state letter, two large scale test campaigns in Europe and the US have been conducted in 2017/2018. However, the data is not yet available. 3. CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Considerable effort has been put in the search for adequate data and the pre-processing of this data to render it accessible for a noise ranking correlation analyses. 3.2 Analysis of a 1984 FAA measurement campaign at Dulles Airport with eight helicopters indicates a preliminary feasibility of correlating the ranking of helicopters based on certification noise levels with a ranking based on operational noise levels. 3.3 Analysis of operational noise measurement data acquired around Sydney Airport for five different helicopter models showed a good correlation between the ranking of helicopters based on flyover noise certification with the ranking of helicopters based on operational data. 3.4 Results of the analyses of the earlier FAA noise data and the more recent operational noise data support further extending the correlation analysis when the additional European and U.S. noise test data becomes available. 3.5 The achievability of the task is limited particularly by the lack of adequate operational data. Even with the lack of data, the feasibility analyses of the information available to date indicate a potential for correlation between the ranking of helicopters based on certification noise levels and a ranking based on operational noise levels, while noting that a low number of aircraft models were represented on the current analysis. Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 4 4B-3 3.6 WG1 agreed that the information available to date suggests that the helicopter noise certification scheme has relevancy to day-to-day operations especially for flyover. 3.7 WG1 discussed the need for additional data to support further investigations on this topic, and it was agreed that additional data should ideally contain helicopter model and tail number associated with the noise measurements. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 4 4C-1 APPENDIX C (English only) HELICOPTER HOVER TASK REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Working Group 1 was tasked to review any past evaluations of a noise certification scheme for the hover condition, and assess whether the current helicopter noise certification scheme is applicable for assessing hover noise including the sufficiency of a correlation with one or more of the existing reference conditions. 1.2 Including a hover reference point for helicopter noise certification was examined as part of the original development of Chapter 8 of the Annex during CAN/5 and CAN/6. During this development period for the Annex, it was concluded that the hover condition did not provide the repeatability and accuracy needed for a noise certification reference point. This conclusion was primarily based on the results of measurement programs carried out by Member States. 1.3 WG1 conducted a more detailed review of the hover work done during and subsequent to CAN/5 and CAN/6. To facilitate this review, WG1 collected the relevant documentation produced during CAN/5 CAN/6 and identified additional relevant WG1 documentation from CAEP/6. 1.4 WG1 identified a 2016 European test campaign where hover data was measured. An evaluation of hover noise data acquired during the 2016 European test campaign indicated that measurement of hover noise lacks adequate repeatability for noise certification purposes. In addition, the U.S. conducted a test campaign in 2017, which also had a goal of collecting hover data. 1.5 In summary, WG1 found no new information to alter the conclusion reached by CAN/5 and CAN/6 during development of Chapter 8 of the Annex to exclude the hover condition or to change the recommendation to exclude hover from Land Use Planning guidelines developed during CAEP/6, which stated "The hover flight configuration should not be included in any noise measurement programme (noise certification or Land Use Planning)." 2. DATA ANALYSIS 2.1 Considering that final data from the European and US test campaigns have not yet been analysed, WG1 examined In-Ground Effect (IGE) and Out-of-Ground Effect (OGE) hover noise data for several helicopter models acquired by the FAA during 1983 and 1984. While a preliminary rank order analysis of three of the helicopter models was completed, it illustrated some of the issues in defining a hover noise measurement/metric for correlation with the noise certification test points such as hard vs. soft surface and average vs. maximum azimuthal level. WG1 also conducted a correlation analyses between noise certification EPNL and hover noise data for nine of the helicopter models tested by the FAA in 1983 and 1984. Three correlation methods were examined including comparisons of noise level correlations with gross weight, direct correlations of hover noise levels with noise certification levels and rank order comparisons of hover noise and noise certification levels. In general, no or inconclusive statistical correlations between hover and certification noise levels were observed. More specifically, only a correlation of Out-of-Ground Effect (OGE) hover noise levels vs. gross weight provided any indication 4C-2 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 4 of comparative results to noise certification levels, albeit with insufficient correlation strength/data points to be considered conclusive. OGE hover noise data for more helicopter models over a broader gross weight range could potentially provide a more conclusive result. The prospect for additional data would be enhanced with the establishment of guidelines for acquisition of hover noise data to ensure more consistent testing procedures. 3. CONCLUSIONS 3.1 The review of past evaluations of a noise certification scheme for the hover conditions (In-Ground Effect - IGE and Out-of-Ground Effect - OGE) is complete and further data is not available at the time being. Based on the information available to date, it does not appear feasible to define a measurement method for the hover condition with the accuracy and repeatability needed for a reference noise certification point in Annex 16, Chapters 8 and 11. 3.2 The limited IGE and OGE hover noise data acquired during FAA noise testing in 1983-84 do not support, or indicate the feasibility of, correlating hover noise levels with the current helicopter noise certification test scheme. While the possibility of having a trend between OGE hover noise and helicopter gross weight was discussed, it was recognized that the current trend identified is supported by a single point in the low-weight helicopter range. Therefore, this investigation could benefit from additional data from helicopters with gross weights in that weight range. On that note, WG1 agreed that further work is needed to substantiate if there is a trend between OGE hover noise and gross weight comparable to that of noise certification test conditions. 3.3 WG1 recommends that if new data becomes available, the feasibility of correlating hover noise with the current helicopter noise certification scheme should be further examined. 3.4 WG1 recommends that the CAEP/12 work programme include the development of measurement guidelines for hover noise data in support of future hover noise work. Members of ICCAIA will consider sharing OEM hover measurement procedures and hover data. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 5-1 5 5.1 ASBU 1 5.1.1 CAEP/10 2 2025 ASBU B0 B1 0(B0) 1(B1) 2025 ASBU B0/B1ASBU 167 307 / 2,620 4,820 50 92 5.1.2 ASBUB0/B1 2 5.1.3 D/NBGANP ASBU ATM 2 5.1.4 IFSET 5.1.5 B0/B1 2025 5.1.6 5.1.6.1 5/1 -- ASBU 1 -- ASBU B0/B1 B0 B1 5-2 5 5.2 5.2.1 2 ADS-B HFE 2017 94% 98% ADS-B 68% 2 VFE 5.2.2 2 12 5.2.3 2 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.5.1 5/2 -- HFE 5.3 2 5.3.1 2 CAEP/11 CAEP/10 2 2 Doc 9184 -- II -- "" O.10 2 Doc 9889 -- 5 5-3 1 3 ASBU B0 B1 2 PBN 2 5.3.2 2 2 2 2 5.3.3 2 5.3.4 "" 2 5.4 5.4.1 2 CAEP/11 CAEP/11 5.4.2 2 O.01 5-4 5 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.4.1 5/3 -- 5.5 5.5.1 2 CAEP/12 5.5.2 CAEP/12 2 5.6 5.6.1 2 CAEP/10 Doc 9184 -- II ISG 5 5-5 5.6.2 2 5.6.3 SIDS 2 2 5.6.4 5.6.5 5.6.6 5.6.6.1 5/4 -- 5.7 5.7.1 2 2018 5.7.2 2 CAEP/12 5.7.3 Doc 9184 2 -- 5-6 5 5.7.4 5.7.5 5.7.5.1 5/5 -- 5.8 5.8.1 2 2 5.8.2 2 2 2018 5.8.3 2 CAEP/11-WP/35 5.8.4 5.8.4.1 5/6 -- 5 5-7 5.9 2 5.9.1 2 CAEP/11 O.01 O.07 O.09 CAEP/12 GANP "" 5.9.2 CAEP/12 5.9.3 5.9.4 O.01 O.07 O.09 12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 67 8 6-1 6 -- MRV 7 -- 8 -- 6.1.1 GMTF GMTF CAEP/11 7 GMTF 39 16 IV Doc 9501 IV 2017 214 2018 6 16 IV 2018 CCR 214 CAEP/11 23 CAEP/12 6.1.2 GMTF-EUC 2016 31 CAEP/10 " " 6.1.3 GMTF-EUC 6.1.4 GMTF-PTG CAEP/11 211 2017 6 5 23 EUC 215 2018 10 29 11 16 6-2 67 8 6.1.5 GMTF-PTG 6.1.6 GMTF-CCG 2018 2019 214 2018 6 11 29 2018 CEM GMTF-CCG 2019 ICAO CORSIA CERT 2019 GMTF-CCG CAEP/12 CORSIA ICAO CORSIA CERT 6.1.7 ICAO CORSIA CERT 2018 ICAO CORSIA CERT ICAO CORSIA 6.1.8 CORSIA GMTF A39-3 CORSIA MRV 2017 RTK 2021 2035 25 98 1.4%0.5% 0.02% CAEP/12 6.1.9 CAEP/10 CAEP/11 67 8 6-3 16 IV ICAO CORSIA CERT 6.1.10 GMTF 16 IV II 1 2 16 IV II 4 4.3.3 16 IV 6.1.11 6.1.12 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 6.1.13 SDG GMTF AFTF IV IV 6.1.14 IV 16 IV IV PACAPAC 6-4 67 8 6.1.15 GMTF CAEP/12 16 IV 2019 ICAO CORSIA CO2 CERT MRV EUC 6.1.16 CAEP/11 16 IV 16 IV IV 6.1.17 CAEP/11 6.1.18 A39-3 20 j) TAB 6.1.19 EUCR CERT "" CAEP/12 2022 67 8 6-5 6.1.20 CORSIA MRV IV CORSIA CERT CCG ICAO CORSIA CERT CEMs 2017 6.1.21 16 IV 6.1.22 CAEP/11 6.1.23 CAEP/11 6.1.24 IV 6.1.25 A 6-6 67 8 6.1.26 B CAEP/12 6.1.27 6.1.28 6.1.29 CAEP/11 6.1.30 12 CAEP/12 CERT CAEP/12 6.1.31 6.1.32 TAB [12. 12.1 ] 6.1.33 6.1.32 67 8 6-7 6.1.34 PTG 8.7 6.1.35 C B TAB 6.1.36 CERT 6.1.37 6.1.38 CAEP/11 CEM CCG 2019 5 6.1.39 CCG 6.1.40 6.1.40.1 8/1 -- IV IV 8/2 -- TAB TAB 216 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 6A-1 APPENDIX A (English only) RECOMMENDATIONS ON OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLICATION OF DATA BY ICAO 1.1 The recommendations in this section apply to ICAO, and are relevant to the documents listed in Note 2 of Part II, Chapter 1 of Annex 16, Volume IV. The Registries Task Group acknowledges the standard practice of the ICAO Secretariat is that the documents listed in Table 1 should follow the harmonized format rules and be presented in a downloadable .pdf. 1.2 Table 1 presents a list of documents referred to in paragraph 1.1, including information on SARPs data submission and publication deadlines, as well as any additional relevant information. Specific recommendations for the documents in Table 1 are: 1.2.1 Table 1, Document 2 `ICAO CORSIA CO2 Estimation and Reporting Tool' should be published as soon as practicable for each year of CORSIA. 1.2.2 Table 1, Document 8 `CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units' should present information in a format which shows the eligibility parameters of eligible units. 1.2.3 Table 1, Document 14, part containing `List of verification bodies accredited in each State', should be published as soon as practicable, but no later than 31 May 2019. Further updates to this list should be published as soon as practicable on an ongoing basis, subject to the provision of updated information from States as per Annex 16, Volume IV, Part II, Chapter 1, 1.3.7. 1.2.4 Table 1, Document 14, part containing `Total average CO2 emissions for 2019 and 2020 aggregated for all Aeroplane Operators on each State pair route', should be published as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 November 2021. 1.2.5 Table 1, Document 14, part containing `CCR State reported emissions', should be published in accordance with Note 2, of Table A5-8, in Appendix 5 of Annex 16, Volume IV, as soon as practicable, but no later than 31 October 2022 (for 2021 emissions). The same day and month should apply to subsequent years. 1.2.6 Table 1, Document 14, part containing `CCR State reported emissions unit cancellations', should be published in accordance with Note 2, of Table A5-8, in Appendix 5 of Annex 16, Volume IV, as soon as practicable, but for the Pilot Phase no later than 31 October 2025. The same day and month should apply to subsequent compliance periods. 1.3 ICAO public information relating to identification of States, aeroplane operators, verification bodies, or other entities will be as notified to ICAO by the States. This is to ensure a high level of consistency of data published by ICAO and States. 1.4 Public information should be available free of charge. The web pages containing this information should be available to the general public, with no credentials required, and with no prior authorization necessary to access them. 6A-2 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 1.5 When there is an update to the information, a change log should be published alongside the new version of the document. The change log should include the modifications occurring since the previous version, as well as the date when the modifications occurred. For data for which this is relevant, the change log should include the beginning of the validity of the modifications. Previous versions of the implementation elements may be required for various purposes and should be archived (but downloadable) for State and public use. The exception is where there are two (or more) versions of the same document could be simultaneously valid and should remain clearly visible and available for download. In this case, it should be clearly specified under which circumstances each version is applicable. 1.6 Where a State or ICAO identifies a discrepancy of data already published, it is recommended that ICAO and States coordinate in order to publish the correction with a minimum of delay between each other, to reduce the time interval when the data is discrepant between the two web pages. To ensure transparency, previous versions (editions) of documents which have been modified should be retained and made available on the web page, while making clear they have been subsequently updated. 1.7 The CORSIA public web pages should have contact information for further enquiries by the general public. It is recommended that there is a dedicated online form or electronic mailbox for CORSIA enquiries. 1.8 In addition to any web-based presentation / summary information, and any presentation of information in a downloadable document, where large quantities of information are to be published, the recommendation is for the information to be published in a machine-readable, downloadable format, e.g. xlsx. 1.9 Where large quantities of information are to be presented by ICAO on a publicly accessible website, it is recommended that all such available information can be searched on the website by each relevant data field, subject to the availability of financial resources. Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 6A-3 Table 1: Documents referenced in Note 2 of Part II, Chapter 1 of Annex 16, Volume IV # Information Data availability date SARPs Publication Deadline Update frequency 1 CORSIA States for Chapter 3 State Pairs 30.06.2020 01.08.2020 Annually Note: This ICAO document will only show participating States from 2021 for the purpose of determining Chapter 3 State pairs and not the State pairs themselves. 2 ICAO CORSIA CO2 Estimation and Reporting Tool 31.07.2018 See 1.2.1 Annually Note: Approved recommendations relating to this document are as per GMTF/11-WP/03 pages D-5 and D-16 and CAEPSG.20172.ICAO CORSIA Package, Draft Supporting Information and Supporting Documents, pages 8 and p29. 3 CORSIA Eligibility Framework and Requirements for Sustainability Certification Schemes Following approval by the ICAO Council Following approval by the ICAO Council Ongoing Note: This document was approved at SG2018 (ref WP11 https://portal.icao.int/CAEP/2018%20Singapore%20Meeting/CAEPSG.20183.WP.011.4.en.pdf). 4 CORSIA Approved Sustainability Certification Schemes Following approval by the ICAO Council Following approval by the ICAO Council Ongoing Note: The format for this table was approved at SG2018 (ref WP11 https://portal.icao.int/CAEP/2018%20Singapore%20Meeting/CAEPSG.20183.WP.011.4.en.pdf). It is a single table with three columns. 5 CORSIA Sustainability Criteria for CORSIA Eligible Fuels Following approval by the ICAO Council Following approval by the ICAO Council Ongoing Note: The criteria will be presented in a table format and followed / accompanied by Guidance. CORSIA Default Life Cycle Following Following 6 Emissions Values for CORSIA approval by the approval by the Ongoing Eligible Fuels ICAO Council ICAO Council Note: There is no official expiry date for the values, but they are subject to the regular review process of the Annex. In case of changes, it is not clear if it will affect previously certified fuels; therefore, this would need further discussion and agreement within the CAEP/AFTF. In any case, this should not have an impact on the fact that the values are published together with the validity date. CORSIA Methodology for Following Following 7 Calculating Actual Life Cycle approval by the approval by the Ongoing Emissions Values ICAO Council ICAO Council Following Following 8 CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units approval by the approval by the Ongoing ICAO Council ICAO Council Recommendation: The information should be presented in a format which shows the eligibility parameters of eligible units. 9 CORSIA Emissions Units Eligibility Criteria Following approval by the ICAO Council Following approval by the ICAO Council Ongoing 10 CORSIA Central Registry (CCR): See rows 11 - 13 6A-4 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 Information and Data for the Implementation of CORSIA 11 CORSIA Aeroplane Operator to States Attributions 30.11.2018 31.12.2018 Annually Following 12 CORSIA 2020 Emissions 31.08.2021 approval by the Once ICAO Council Note: This will be just one number. 13 CORSIA Annual Sector's Growth Factor (SGF) 31.07.2022 31.10.2022 Annually Note: This will be a list showing a numerical value for each year. CORSIA Central Registry (CCR): 14 Information and Data for See rows 14.1 14.4 Transparency 14.1 List of verification bodies accredited in each State 30.04.2019 See 1.2.3 Ongoing Total average CO2 emissions for 14.2 2019 and 2020 aggregated for all Aeroplane Operators on each State 30.09.2021 See 1.2.4 Once pair route 14.3 CCR State reported emissions 31.07.2022 See 1.2.5 Annually Recommendation: Publish in accordance with Note 2, of Table A5-8, in Appendix 5 of Annex 16, Volume IV. 14.4 CCR State reported emissions unit cancellations 31.07.2025 See 1.2.6 Once per period Recommendation: Publish in accordance with Note 2, of Table A5-8, in Appendix 5 of Annex 16, Volume IV. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 6B-1 APPENDIX B (English only) PROPOSED PROGRAM REGISTRY-RELATED CONSIDERATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 1.1. The following proposed registry-related considerations and requirements follow from the contents of the proposed draft Emissions Unit Program Registry Attestation (Section 4). 1.1.1. Recommended definition of Emissions Unit Program Registry: An Emissions Unit Program Registry is a registry that the program designates to provide its registry services; and is described in the information that the program submits to ICAO. 1.1.2. Recommended definition of the emissions unit program registry relationship: The application of the EUC to determine program eligibility includes an assessment of the program's provisions and procedures governing the program registry, as represented by the program in the information that the program submits to ICAO. ICAO does not separately or independently evaluate the program registry. The program registry's provision of registry services relevant to the CORSIA shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the program's eligibility. Such terms include, inter alia, the program's commitment to administer any and all provisions and procedures governing the program registry in the manner represented by the program in the information that the program submits to ICAO. 1.1.3. Recommendation on timing of applicability of registry requirements: The program registry can provide registry services to Aeroplane Operators prior to the program's and program registry's demonstration of the registry's consistency with these registry requirements. However, the program registry can only claim to support and can only provide for Airplane Operators to fulfill CORSIA SARPs involving emissions unit cancellation-, reporting-, and verification-related actions after its consistency with these requirements is demonstrated, and published on the CORSIA website along with the list of CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units. 1.1.4. Recommendation on registry affirmation of program information: The program registry shall / should affirm that the program's representation of its provisions and procedures governing the program registry, and of program registry functionality, as contained in the most recent information that the program submits to ICAO, is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of the registry representative's knowledge; 1.1.5. Recommendation on notification of material changes to registry: The program registry shall / should notify the program of any material changes1 to the program registry, such that the program can maintain consistency with relevant criteria and guidelines. 1.1.6. Recommendation on registry non-discrimination based solely on account applicant location: The program registry shall / should not deny a CORSIA participant's request for a registry account solely on the basis of the country in which the requestor is headquartered or based. 1 As referred to in CAEP-11/SG20161/WP-015, "Material" change is defined as "...updates that would alter the program's response(s) to questions in application form." In the context of an emissions unit program registry, the same applies to any changes to the registry procedures or functions that are addressed in the EUC, Guidelines, or the requirements in Section 2 of this Appendix that would alter the program's response(s) to questions in application form or contradict the confirmation of the registry's adherence to the requirements contained in Section 2 of this Appendix. 6B-2 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 1.1.7. Recommendation on functionality for designating purpose of cancellation: The program registry shall / should have the capability to designate the participant's cancellation of units for the purpose of reconciling offsetting requirements under the CORSIA, including by compliance cycle. 1.1.8. Recommendation on publishing the cancellation information: The program registry shall / should, within 1 3 business days2 of receipt of formal instruction from a duly authorized representative of the owner of an account capable of holding and cancelling CORSIA Eligible Emission Units within the registry, and barring system downtime that is scheduled in advance or beyond the control of the registry administrator, make visible on the program registry's public website the account owners cancellations of CORSIA Eligible Emission Units as instructed. Such cancellation information shall / should include all fields that are specified for this purpose in the CORSIA SARPs 1.1.9. Recommendation on public accessibility of cancelation information: The program registry shall / should ensure that all cancellation information on its website is presented in a user-friendly format; is available at no cost and with no credentials required; is capable of being searched based on data fields; and can be downloaded in a machine-readable format, e.g., .xlsx. 1.1.10. Recommendation on generation of reports, upon request: The program registry shall / should, upon request of the CORSIA participant account holder or participant's designee, generate report(s) containing the information specified for this purpose in the CORSIA SARPs. 1.1.11. Recommendation on verifier registry access: The program registry shall / should, upon request of an account owner, provide a verification body with "viewing-privileges-only" access to the relevant account(s) and/or cancelled emissions units. 1.1.12. Recommendation on document and data retention: The program registry shall / should retain documents and data relevant to CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units and cancellations on an ongoing basis and for at least three years beyond the end date of the latest compliance period in which the emissions unit program is determined to be eligible; and consistent with the program's long-term planning, including plans for possible dissolution. 1.1.13. Recommendation on registry security provisions: The program registry shall / should maintain security practices that ensure the integrity of, and authenticated and secure access to, the registry data of CORSIA participant account holders or participants' designees, and transaction events carried out by a user; and disclose documentation of such practices upon request. The program registry shall / should utilize appropriate method(s) to authenticate the identity of each user accessing an account; grant each user access only to the information and functions that a user is entitled to; and ensure each event initiated by a user (i.e. transfer of units between accounts; cancellation / retirement of a unit, update of data, etc.) is an intentional transaction event confirmed by the user. Such security features should meet and be periodically updated in accordance with industry best practice. 1.1.14. Recommendation on notification of breach of data security or integrity: The program registry shall / should, upon identifying any breach of program registry data security or integrity that affects a CORSIA participant account holder or participant's designee, notify the CORSIA participant account holder or their designee, and inform the program, which will notify and engage with ICAO on the matter in the same manner as conducted for any material changes to program procedures. 2 Business days as defined by the registry administrator. Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 6B-3 1.1.15. Recommendation on irreversibility of emissions units cancellation: The program registry shall / should ensure the irreversibility of emissions unit cancellations and the designation of the purpose of emissions units cancellations as per the requirements contained in paragraphs 2.1.7 and 2.1.8, and as defined and required in Annex 16 Volume IV, Chapter 4: Standard and Recommend Practices (SARPs) for the CORSIA3. Without prejudice to the aforementioned, such requirement would not prevent a program registry from utilizing secure, time-bound and auditable methods for correcting unintentional user-entry errors. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 From Annex 16, Volume IV, Chapter 4: Standards and Recommend Practices (SARPs) for the CORSIA: "`Cancel' means the permanent removal and single use of an CORSIA Eligible Emissions Unit within a CORSIA Eligible Emissions Unit Program designated Registry such that the same emissions unit may not be used more than once. This is sometimes also referred to as `retirement', `cancelled', `cancelling' or `cancellation'." Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 6C-1 APPENDIX C (English only) BASIC TOR AND PROPOSED ADDITIONAL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY BODY (TAB) Part A: Basic TOR for the TAB (as approved by the Council as C-DEC 215/7, Appendix) Secretariat note: Upon approval of Part B by the Council, Part A and Part B will be integrated as the TOR for TAB. 1. MANDATE OF TAB 1.1 In line with the Assembly request, the mandate of the TAB is to make recommendations to the Council on the eligible emissions units for use by the CORSIA. 2. TASKS OF TAB 2.1 In fulfilling this mandate, the TAB is tasked to: 1) undertake the assessment of emissions unit programmes (and potentially project types) against the emissions units criteria, applying as a starting point the CAEP Programme Testing Group's procedures and guidelines for applying the emissions units criteria; 2) ensure that emissions unit programmes around the world can receive advance notice of, and are given ample time to apply for, the assessment by TAB; ensure outreach and ample notice and opportunity for input from stakeholders, with the support of the ICAO Secretariat; 3) develop, in a transparent manner, recommendations on the list of eligible emissions unit programmes (and potentially project types) whose emissions units would be eligible based on the emissions units criteria, for the compliance use under the CORSIA, for presentation to the Council; 4) adjust its work, if needed, in light of any developments of work by the ICAO Council, with technical contribution of CAEP, in any reviews of the emissions unit criteria, which are set out in the ICAO CORSIA Implementation Elements; and 5) undertake any other tasks as instructed by the Council. 6C-2 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 3. EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 In order for the TAB to undertake the tasks as outlined in paragraph 2 above, TAB members are required to have relevant expertise and experience such as in carbon markets, carbon offset project development, carbon offset programmes and methodologies, and climate policy and related subjects. TAB members are required to meet at least two of the following five technical expertise requirements, which have to be substantiated at the time of nomination: a) experience in the design, development, operation or evaluation of market-based measures for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. emissions trading systems, offsetting standards or programmes, the international carbon market); b) experience in the quantification or forecasting of greenhouse gas emissions; c) experience in the creation or use of emissions units (offset credits or allowances); d) experience in developing, operating or using emissions units registries/carbon trading registries and emissions inventories; e) experience in ensuring the transparency and accountability of carbon market programmes and carbon market operations. 3.2 In addition, it would be desirable (though not essential) that TAB members have experience with ICAO processes, in particular those related to CORSIA. 4. AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 4.1 Thorough evaluation is undertaken to avoid conflicts of interest of TAB members. In particular, TAB members should not be holding a financial and/or commercial interest in any organization, project, and/or programme that would benefit from the member's appointment. This has to be substantiated at the time of nomination, through a personal declaration. 5. DURATION OF SERVICE 5.1 Regarding the duration of service by TAB members and to ensure consistency in the work of TAB, TAB membership is aligned with the compliance cycles of the CORSIA (potentially with a short term for work undertaken prior to 2021), and a statement of commitment to the work of TAB for at least one full compliance cycle of CORSIA is provided at the time of nomination. 6. MEMBERSHIP SIZE 6.1 In principle, the size of the TAB should be in the order of 14 to 16 experts, nominated by States, taking into account the need for balanced geographical representation. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 6C-3 Part B: Proposed Additional Rules of Procedure for the TAB Secretariat note: The Council, in November 2018, requested CAEP to provide further advice regarding additional rules of procedure for the TAB, which would complement the approved basic TOR, for the Council consideration and approval by its 216th Session in March 2019 (C-DEC 215/7, paragraph 32 e)). Secretariat note: Upon approval of Part B by the Council, Part A and Part B will be integrated as the TOR for TAB. 7. MEMBERSHIP Selection of Co-Chairpersons for TAB 7.1 The TAB selects two Co-Chairpersons from among its members at the first TAB meeting. 7.2 The Co-Chairpersons should not be from the same geographical region. Conduct of TAB members: 7.3 TAB members are to conduct themselves in accordance with the TAB's TOR. 7.4 The TAB Co-Chairpersons may bring to the Council's attention any serious concerns regarding a member's consistency with the TOR, which may become apparent in the course of the TAB's work, in particular concerns related to the participation of TAB members and conflicts of interest should be informed to the Council. Replacement of TAB Members during a CORSIA compliance cycle 7.5 The replacement of an existing TAB Member during a compliance cycle of the CORSIA is approved by the Council. 7.6 The replacement must meet the same criteria as outlined in the TOR for the TAB. 7.7 The outgoing member's nominating State should first be allowed to nominate a replacement. 7.7.1 If a replacement is not nominated by that State or should the Council reject the nominated replacement, ICAO would then seek nominations from the outgoing member's geographic region. 7.7.2 If a replacement is not nominated by a State from that geographical region or should the Council reject the nominated replacement(s), ICAO would then seek nominations from all States. 7.7.3 Where possible, the replacement of TAB members should be staggered over CORSIA compliance cycles to ensure continuity of knowledge and expertise. 6C-4 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 8. WORKING METHODS Modality and frequency of TAB meetings 8.1 Face-to-face meetings of the TAB are the primary means of organizing the TAB's work, making significant decisions in particular TAB's recommendations to the Council, and resolving substantive issues. 8.2 The TAB is also expected to conduct business via teleconferences and emails between the face-to-face meetings to progress the work. 8.3 TAB discusses and agrees on a schedule of meetings, which can be reviewed later as necessary. The number of TAB meetings should be sufficient to achieve the deliverables for the TAB as set by the Council. 8.4 If changes to the meeting schedule or additional meetings are required, the Co-Chairpersons will, after consultations with TAB members, give notice of any changes in the meeting schedule and/or additional meetings. Note. The Co-Chairpersons are encouraged to give approximately 8 weeks' notice of any changes in the face-to-face meeting schedule and/or additional face-to-face meetings. Quorum for TAB recommendations 8.5 A majority of TAB Members, at least from three geographical regions, must be present at a TAB meeting in order to constitute a quorum to make TAB recommendations. This rule would not apply to the meetings of a sub-group or other structural arrangements by TAB, to make progress on specific work. Working language for TAB meetings 8.6 The working language of the TAB is English. The recommendations of TAB are translated in all six languages, for consideration by the Council. Decision process 8.7 TAB's final recommendations to the Council, including the underlining decisions by the TAB, are taken by consensus. If there is no consensus, then the prevailing and alternative conclusions will be described and substantiated, and presented to the Council for decision. Openness of TAB meetings 8.8 As a general rule, TAB meetings will only be open to TAB Members, with support provided by the ICAO Secretariat. 8.9 Other participants may, upon request by the TAB, be invited by the ICAO Secretariat to participate in TAB meetings relating to matters under consideration by the TAB. Secretariat 8.10 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 6C-5 The ICAO Secretariat will: a) publish general information related to TAB on the ICAO CORSIA website, including the membership, TOR, and the latest timeline of work; b) provide administrative and logistical support for TAB meetings and business conducted by TAB c) facilitate all communications between emissions unit programmes and the TAB; and d) support the preparation of necessary documentation and reports related to TAB. 9. TAB WORK PROGRAMME 9.1 Based on the TOR, TAB will initiate its work by defining its work programme and timeline, and use as a starting point the CAEP Programme Testing Group's procedures and guidelines for applying the emissions unit criteria, including as a source of guidance on any specific procedures or issues not addressed in the TOR. 10. PROGRAMME APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS 10.1 The TAB, with the support of the ICAO Secretariat, will issue an open invitation on the ICAO CORSIA public website, by which emissions unit programmes that wish to be considered for eligibility in CORSIA can apply. To facilitate the applications by emissions unit programmes, the website will include an application form and other information that need to be prepared and submitted electronically to ICAO. 10.2 Once the application process is initiated, the status of applications submitted by emissions units programmes will be made available on the ICAO CORSIA public website. 11. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY 11.1 Applications and other information submitted by emissions unit programmes will be publicly available on the ICAO CORSIA website, except for materials which the applicants designate as business confidential. 11.2 The public will be invited to submit comments on the programmes applications including regarding their consistency with the emissions units criteria (EUC), through the ICAO CORSIA website, for consideration by the TAB following its initial assessment of programmes applications. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9 9-1 9 9.1 9.1.1 CAEP/10 CAEP/11 SAF ""LCAF 214 2018 6 "" CAEP/11 9.1.2 TABFAB ILUC CAEP/12 LSf SAF 9.1.3 LEC RECLSf 9.1.4 LCAMSW LECREC 9.2 S.05 9.2.1 CAEP/11 212 212 ` 3 12' "" 9-2 9 9.2.2 9.2.3 "" CAEP/11 9.2.4 A " " 212 2017 11 214 2018 6 9.2.5 212 " """ B 9/1 -- 16 IV " " B " " 9.3 9.3.1 FAB12 34 SCS 9.3.2 FAB 9.3.3 9 9-3 SCS SAF LCAF 9.3.4 "" " SCSEG " SCSEGSCS 9.3.5 C SCSEG 9.3.6 SCSEG a) 20196CAEP/12 SCSEG b) 20198SCSEG c) 20199SCSEG SCS " " d) 2019 SCSEGSCS 20203 9.4 GMBMMRV 9.4.1 CAEP/11 "" " " 9-4 9 9.4.2 " """""" -- " 9.4.3 "" LSf 9.4.4 "" 9.4.5 " " 9.4.6 "" """" 9.5 9.5.1 MSW SAFLECREC LSf" " 9.5.2 LECREC LSf 9.5.3 LSf MSW CEF " " LECREC 9 9-5 9.5.4 LSf MSW 9.5.5 LSf SAF """" " " a b/ 0 gCO2e / MJ 9.5.6 " " 9/2 -- 16 IV " " D " " 9.6 S.01 9.6.1 SAF ILUC --GTAP-BIO-- GLOBIOM--IIASA / 9.6.2 SCS "LUC" 9-6 9 9.6.3 --GTAP-BIO SAF 9.6.4 LUC ILUC 9.6.5 ILUC """" "" 9.6.6 ABFA 9.6.7 LUC ABFA 9.6.8 SCS 9.6.9 ILUC "LUC" F """" 9.6.10 LSf " " 9 9-7 9.6.11 CAEP/12 9.6.12 -/ GTAPBIO GLOBIOM ILUC ILUC" " "" 9.6.13 " " 9/3 -- 16 IV " " E " " 9.6.14 " " 9/4 -- 16 IV " " F " " 9.6.15 """ " 9.6.16 " --" 9/5 -- " -- " "--" 9-8 9 9.7 S.04 9.7.1 "" TEA 9.7.2 9.7.3 2025 2% 9.7.4 2019 4 30 5 1 2050 9.7.5 2025 2% -- "" 2025 2%CAAF/2 2050 -- "" -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-1 APPENDIX A (English only) REPORT ON SUSTAINABILITY THEMES, PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUELS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1. HISTORY OF ICAO WORK ON SUSTAINABILITY OF AVIATION FUELS 1.1 ICAO ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS AND CONFERENCES 1.2 CAEP AND AFTF 1.3 THE CAEP APPROACH 1.4 CAEP RECOMMENDATION OF SUSTAINABILITY THEMES, PRINCIPLES, CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE CHAPTER 2. EXISTING APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY 2.1 TYPES OF APPROACHES 2.2 STRUCTURE OF SUSTAINABILITY APPROACHES CHAPTER 3. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY APPROACHES 3.1 METHODOLOGY USED 3.2 ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES 3.3 ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A SUSTAINABILITY APPROACHES CONSIDERED BY CAEP A.1 FAO SAFA A.2 GBEP (FAO) A.3 ISO 13065 A.4 EU RED A.5 ISPO A.6 US RFS2 A.7 BONSUCRO A.8 ISCC A.9 RSB A.10 RSPO APPENDIX B QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA APPENDIX C CAEP REFERENCES -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9A-2 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ICAO Council's adoption of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) in 2018 established the requirement that both sustainable aviation fuels and lower carbon aviation fuels need to comply with a set of Sustainability Criteria to be eligible to reduce offsetting obligations under the Scheme. The First ICAO International Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels (CAAF, Rio de Janeiro 2009) recognized the need for a common definition of sustainability requirements at the international level. The ICAO Assembly, at its 38th session (2013), acknowledged the need for sustainable aviation fuels to be developed and deployed in an economically feasible, socially and environmentally acceptable manner and the need for increased harmonization of the approaches to sustainability. The 39th Assembly requested States to recognize existing approaches to assess sustainability, which should achieve net GHG emissions reduction, contribute to local social and economic development; competition with food and water should be avoided. In addition, the Second ICAO International Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels (CAAF/2, Mexico City, 2017) recognized that the sustainability of alternative aviation fuels is of essential importance to the efforts of international civil aviation to reduce its CO2 emissions, and that this is ensured by application of sustainability criteria to aviation fuels. Considering these agreements from the Assembly, the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) developed a list of 12 Sustainability Principles and Themes with 17 associated Criteria that should be met for a sustainable aviation fuel to generate carbon offset reductions under CORSIA. This list was agreed by CAEP on its 2017 Steering Group meeting (Montreal, Canada, 11 to 15 September 2017), and covers the three aspects of sustainability acknowledged by the ICAO Assembly (environmental, social and economic). CAEP also agreed to the inclusion of specific guidance for assessing compliance with the socio-economic themes (8 to 12), aiming to address concerns of national sovereignty, as well as to address aspects that are beyond the fuel producer control. This report provides the rationale underlying the CAEP recommendation. For that, a detailed comparison is done with the main approaches in place worldwide to assess sustainability. This analysis supports the conclusion that the list of Sustainability Themes, Principles and Criteria recommended by CAEP builds on existing approaches or combination of approaches to sustainability, including work developed by other UN bodies, fulfilling the ICAO Assembly directive of ensuring the sustainability of aviation fuels. Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-3 Consideration of Sustainability Criteria in different approaches 3.1 Water Quality 3.2 Water Use 4.1 Soil Health 5.1 Air Pollution 6.1 Conservation Use of Protected Areas 6.2 Conservation Invasive Feedstocks 6.3 Conservation Effects on Protected Areas 7.1 Waste and Chemicals - Use and Disposal 7.2 Waste and Chemicals Pesticide Use 8.1 Human and Labour Rights 9.1 Land use rights and land use 10.1 Water use rights 11.1 Local and social development 12.1 Food security total criteria covered FAO SAFA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14 EXISTING APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY GBEP ISO EU RED ISPO RFS2 Bonsucro ISCC x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 12 11 12 11 10 12 14 RSB RSPO x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14 12 9A-4 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 CHAPTER 1. HISTORY OF ICAO WORK ON SUSTAINABILITY OF AVIATION FUELS 1.1 ICAO ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS AND CONFERENCES The first reference to alternative fuels in ICAO Assembly Resolutions was registered in its 36th Session (2007), when the Assembly recognized the importance of research and development in fuel efficiency and alternative fuels for aviation that will enable international air transport operations with a lower environmental impact, and encouraged the Council to promote improved understanding of the potential use, and the related emissions impacts, of alternative aviation fuels. In 2009, ICAO organized the first Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels (CAAF), which endorsed the use of sustainable alternative fuels for aviation, particularly the use of drop-in fuels in the short- to mid-term, as an important means of reducing aviation emissions. The Conference also recognized the need for a common definition of sustainability requirements at the international level, and declared that Member States and stakeholders "work together through ICAO and other relevant international bodies, to exchange information and best practices, and in particular to reach a common definition of sustainability requirements for alternative fuels". It also acknowledged that the technology exists to produce substitute, sustainable fuels for aviation that take into consideration the world´s food security, energy and sustainable development needs. These outcomes were reflected in the ICAO Assembly Resolution A37-18 (2010), which requested the Council to encourage Member States and invite industry to actively participate in further work on sustainable alternative fuels for aviation. Building on the successful outcomes of the ICAO SUSTAF Workshop (Montréal, 18 20 October 2011) and on the discussions in the third meeting of the 194th Session of the ICAO Council, ICAO created the SUSTAF Expert Group in June 2012 to develop recommendations to further facilitate the global development and deployment of sustainable alternative fuels for aviation, leading up to the 38th Session of the ICAO Assembly. One of the conclusions of this expert group was that States should focus on developing and deploying sustainable alternative fuels for aviation and acknowledge the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability. Similar conclusions were later included in the ICAO Assembly Resolution A38-18 (2013), as follows: A38-18: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection -- Climate change (...) Acknowledging the need for such fuels to be developed and deployed in an economically feasible, socially and environmentally acceptable manner and the need for increased harmonization of the approaches to sustainability; (...) The Assembly: (...) Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-5 32. Requests States to: j) recognize existing approaches to assess the sustainability of all alternative fuels in general, including those for use in aviation which should: i. achieve net GHG emissions reduction on a life cycle basis; ii. respect the areas of high importance for biodiversity, conservation and benefits for people from ecosystems, in accordance with international and national regulations; and iii. contribute to local social and economic development, and competition with food and water should be avoided; k) adopt measures to ensure the sustainability of alternative fuels for aviation, building on existing approaches or combination of approaches, and monitor, at a national level, the sustainability of the production of alternative fuels for aviation. Similar requests related to sustainability of aviation fuels were made by the ICAO Assembly during its 39th Session (2016). A39-2 Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection -- Climate change Recognizing that the technological feasibility of drop-in sustainable alternative fuels for aviation is proven and that the introduction of appropriate policies and incentives to create a long-term market perspective is required; Acknowledging the need for such fuels to be developed and deployed in an economically feasible, socially and environmentally acceptable manner and the progress achieved in the harmonization of the approaches to sustainability; The Assembly 32. Requests States to: i) recognize existing approaches to assess the sustainability of all alternative fuels in general, including those for use in aviation which should achieve net GHG emissions reduction on a life cycle basis, contribute to local social and economic development; competition with food and water should be avoided; and j) adopt measures to ensure the sustainability of alternative fuels for aviation, building on existing approaches or combination of approaches, monitor, at a national level, the sustainability of the production of alternative fuels for aviation, and work together through ICAO and other relevant international bodies, to exchange information and best practices, including for the harmonization on the sustainability criteria of aviation alternative fuels; In 2017, ICAO organized the second Conference on Aviation and Alternative Fuels (CAAF/2), which recognized that the sustainability of alternative aviation fuels is of essential importance to the efforts of international civil aviation to reduce its CO2 emissions, and that this is ensured by application of sustainability criteria to aviation fuels. The Conference also noted that the introduction of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) may realize economic, social, and environmental advantages that contribute to the vision set out in 13 out of 17 of the United Nations Sustainable 9A-6 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 Development Goals (SDGs). Details on the potential contribution of SAFs to the SDGs are available at CAAF/2-WP-12. 1.2 CAEP AND AFTF In response to the ICAO Assembly Resolution requests, the ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) established the Alternative Fuels Task Force (AFTF) in 2013 to provide technical support to all aspects of ICAO work on aviation fuels, including sustainability. During the CAEP/10 cycle (from 2013 to 2016), the CAEP-AFTF developed a scoping exercise for future work on sustainability criteria for aviation fuels1. Based on this scoping exercise, in the CAEP/11 cycle (2016-2019) CAEP tasked AFTF to develop recommendations on sustainability criteria for alternative fuels in the context of the recognition under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) . CAEP instructed AFTF to prioritize the development of environmental criteria first, followed by social and economic criteria at a later stage, and planned the work to build as much as possible upon existing sustainability standards and frameworks, which would be analysed and compared in order to develop recommendations for CAEP. To develop such a task, AFTF set up the "Sustainability Task Group", composed of 72 experts2 nominated by 11 CAEP Member States and seven international organizations. 1.3 THE CAEP APPROACH In the development of the CAEP approach, the AFTF recommended that ICAO should rely on existing sustainability standards, whether regulatory or voluntary, for the actual sustainability demonstration of alternative fuels as long as: (1) their scope matches with the sustainability criteria agreed upon within ICAO, and (2) their effectiveness has been demonstrated, including how the standards are implemented, verified and monitored. Certification and conformity of a product, service or system to meet certain requirements is a common approach applied to assess sustainability and recommended by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to promote sustainable growth. The AFTF refers to this approach as the development of an "umbrella standard" in which a set of sustainability criteria is defined and existing regulatory or voluntary Sustainability Certification Schemes (SCS) can be recognized as a means of compliance if they cover all criteria of the "umbrella standard." Existing SCS covering only part of the "umbrella standard" criteria will require additional certification to comply with the CORSIA sustainability requirements. Under the current CORSIA framework, SCSs interested in being recognized under CORSIA will need to be approved by the ICAO Council, after being evaluated by a "Fuels Advisory Body" to be created under the auspices of ICAO. This "umbrella standard" approach is similar to the approach adopted by some regulatory sustainability approaches (e.g. the European Union's Renewable Energy Directive), which 1 CAEP/10-WP/42 2 As of 11/Jun/2018 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-7 defines sustainability criteria without specific indicators, which should be developed by the SCS. CAEP agreed to this approach at its 2016 Steering Group meeting and all of the sustainability criteria subsequently agreed to by CAEP and presented to the Council followed this approach. 1.4 CAEP RECOMMENDATION OF SUSTAINABILITY THEMES, PRINCIPLES, CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE In the course of four meetings and 12 conference calls, AFTF developed a recommended set of 12 Sustainability Themes, Principles and Criteria to be adopted as part of CORSIA requirements for sustainable aviation fuels. To ensure that the proposed sustainably criteria are based on current best practices of sustainability certification, AFTF compared 10 existing approaches to sustainability, with various scopes and formats. These Sustainability Themes, Principles and Criteria were adjusted by CAEP during its 2017 Steering Group meeting, which also agreed on specific guidance to the application of the socio-economic criteria. With regards to Themes 8, 9 and 10, the guidance aims to address concerns of national sovereignty related to the compliance with these themes. Additionally, the agreed guidance recognizes that Themes 11 and 12 are largely beyond the economic operator's control, and ensures that compliance with them is granted exclusively on the basis of requiring the economic operator to report actions being taken to meet the related criteria, without further judgement of those actions by the SCS. These recommendations were presented to the ICAO Council during its 212th Session (November, 2017) for consideration, as provided in Table 1. The detailed list of documents presented in CAEP to develop these recommendations is provided in Appendix C. It is important to note that these recommendations from CAEP did not consider the concept of "CORSIA lower carbon aviation fuels" adopted by the ICAO Council during its 214th Session (June 2018). Further work will be conducted by CAEP to assess the suitability of these sustainability Themes, Principles and Criteria for the "CORSIA eligible fuels" (including "CORSIA lower carbon aviation fuels"), in line with the Council request for CAEP to develop further proposals, at the latest by the end of the pilot phase, on strengthened Sustainability Criteria, including Themes 1 and 2, specifically applicable to CORSIA eligible fuels (C-DEC214/10, 2 i). 9A-8 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 Table 1 - Sustainability Themes, Principles, Criteria and Guidance recommended by CAEP during its 2017 Steering Group Meeting Theme Principle Criteria 1. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Principle: Sustainable alternative jet fuel should generate lower carbon emissions than conventional kerosene on a life cycle basis. Criterion 1: Sustainable alternative jet fuel shall achieve net greenhouse gas emissions reductions of at least 10% compared to fossil jet fuel on a life cycle basis. 2 Carbon stock Principle: Sustainable alternative jet fuel should not be made from biomass obtained from land with high carbon stock. Criterion 1: Sustainable alternative jet fuel shall not be made from biomass obtained from land converted after 1 January 2008 that was primary forests, wetlands, or peat lands and/or contributes to degradation of the carbon stock in primary forests, wetlands, or peat lands as these lands all have high carbon stocks. Criterion 2: In the event of land use conversion after 1 January 2008, as defined based on IPCC land categories, direct land use change (DLUC) emissions shall be calculated. If DLUC greenhouse gas emissions exceed the default induced land use change (ILUC) value, the DLUC value shall replace the default ILUC value. 3. Water Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should maintain or enhance water quality and availability. Criterion 1: Operational practices shall be implemented to maintain or enhance water quality. Criterion 2: Operational practices shall be implemented to use water efficiently and to avoid the depletion of surface or groundwater resources beyond replenishment capacities. 4. Soil Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuels should maintain or enhance soil health. Criterion 1: Agricultural and forestry best management practices for feedstock production or residue collection shall be implemented to maintain or enhance soil health, such as physical, chemical and biological conditions. 5. Air Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should minimize negative effects on air quality. Criterion 1: Air pollution emissions shall be limited. 6. Conservation Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should maintain or enhance biodiversity, conservation and ecosystem services. Criterion 1: Sustainable alternative jet fuel shall not be made from biomass obtained from areas that are protected for their biodiversity, conservation value, or ecosystem services unless evidence is provided that shows the activity does not interfere with the protection purposes. Criterion 2: Low invasive-risk feedstock shall be selected for cultivation and appropriate controls shall be adopted with the intention of preventing the uncontrolled spread of cultivated non-native species and modified microorganisms Criterion 3: Operational practices shall be implemented to avoid adverse effects on areas that are protected for their biodiversity, conservation value, or ecosystem services. 7. Waste and Chemicals Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should promote responsible management of waste and use of chemicals. Criterion 1: Operational practices shall be implemented to ensure that waste arising from production processes as well as chemicals used are stored, handled and disposed of responsibly. Criterion 2: Operational practices shall be implemented to limit or reduce pesticide use. 8. Human and labour rights Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should respect human and labour rights. Criterion 1: Sustainable alternative jet fuel production shall respect human and labour rights. 9. Land use rights and land use Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should respect land rights and land use rights including indigenous and/or customary rights. Criterion 1: Sustainable alternative jet fuel production shall respect existing land rights and land use rights including indigenous peoples' rights, both formal and informal. 10. Water use rights Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should respect prior formal or customary water use rights. Criterion 1: Sustainable alternative jet fuel production shall respect the existing water use rights of local and indigenous communities. 11. Local and social development Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should contribute to social and economic development in regions of poverty. Criterion 1: Sustainable alternative jet fuel production shall strive to, in regions of poverty, improve the socioeconomic conditions of the communities affected by the operation. 12. Food security Principle: Production of sustainable alternative jet fuel should promote food security in food insecure regions. Criterion 1: Sustainable alternative jet fuel production shall, in food insecure regions, strive to enhance the local food security of directly affected stakeholders. Guidance on the application of sustainability criteria Compliance with Themes 11 and 12 is granted exclusively on the basis of requiring the economic operator to report actions being taken to meet the related criteria, without further judgement of those actions by the Sustainability Certification Scheme (SCS). A national attestation of compliance with Themes 8, 9 and 10, and the related criteria, is considered sufficient, and precludes any assessment of those criteria by the SCS. Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-9 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY 2.1 TYPES OF APPROACHES Ten approaches to sustainability were considered for the development of the 12 CAEP Sustainability Themes and Criteria. They can be grouped as follows: · Internationally agreed sustainability approaches This category encompasses approaches that were agreed by international forums. However, differently from CORSIA, these approaches do not include a framework for enforcing compliance with their criteria. They include. o Food and Agriculture Organization Sustainability Assessment Of Food And Agriculture Systems) (FAO SAFA) (2013) This approach was developed by the FAO to be an international reference for assessing trade-offs and synergies between all dimensions of sustainability. The target audience of a SAFA assessment is economic operators and stakeholders that participate in crop, livestock, forestry, aquaculture and fishery value chains. However, SAFA is also relevant to governments' strategies, policy and planning. o Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) (2011) - developed by 23 countries and 15 international organizations and institutions including nine UN agencies, the GBEP indicators are intended to provide policy-makers and other stakeholders a set of analytical tools that can inform on the development of national bioenergy policies and programmes and monitor the impact of these policies and programmes. That is, GBEP assessments are meant to be applied at a State or regional level, not at the economic-operator-level required by CORSIA. o ISO 13065 - Sustainability criteria for bioenergy (2015). The purpose of this International Standard is to provide a framework for considering environmental, social and economic aspects that can be used to facilitate the evaluation and comparability of bioenergy production and products, supply chains and applications. It does not provide threshold values, which can be defined by economic operators and/or other organizations (e.g. governments). Other standards, certification initiatives and government agencies can use this International Standard as a reference for how to provide information regarding sustainability. · Regulatory sustainability approaches Sustainability approaches adopted at a national level for the sustainability assessment of economic operators. In the case of the EU RED and United States RFS, these regulatory approaches include requirements not only for the economic operators, but also reporting requirements by the responsible governmental agencies. The compliance verification is either done directly by the respective governments (e.g. ISPO) or by third-parties duly recognized to perform such verification (EU RED and US RFS). These approaches are: o European Union's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) (2009) o Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) (2015) 9A-10 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 o United States' Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program (2017) · Voluntary global sustainability certification schemes Certification schemes that are voluntarily adopted by economic operators to certify the sustainability of their products. They include frameworks for verification of compliance, as well as indicators and, in some instances, thresholds. o Bonsucro (2016) o International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) (2016) o Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) (2016) o Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) (2013) 2.2 STRUCTURE OF SUSTAINABILITY APPROACHES Most of the sustainability approaches considered by CAEP are formatted with three layers of information: Principles, Criteria, and Indicators. These terms are defined by the ISO 13065 as follows: Principle -- aspirational goal that governs decisions or behavior Criterion -- requirement that describes what is to be assessed. Note 1: A criterion adds meaning and operability to a principle without itself being a direct measure of performance. Note 2: A criterion is characterized by a set of related indicators. Indicator -- quantitative, qualitative or binary variable that can be measured or described, in response to a defined criterion. Some of the sustainability approaches also include specific guidance on the application of the indicators. Table 2 provides a summary of these elements in the different sustainability approaches. Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-11 Table 2 - Summary of Sustainability Themes, Principles and Indicators in different approaches Sustainability Approach Reference document date Principles Criteria Indicators Guidance provided? Target audience CAEP 2017 12 17 0 YES Economic Operators FAO SAFA 2013 16 44 116 Economic YES Operators, States GBEP 2011 24** 0 46*** States and YES Regional Organizations ISO 2015 12 18 62 Government, other YES standard- setting organizations EU RED 2009 0* 23 8 Economic NO operators, government agencies ISPO 2015 7 45 131 YES Economic operators RFS2 2017 0* 15 0 Economic NO operators, government agencies BONSUCRO 2016 6 19 55 YES Economic operators ISCC 2016 6 96 255 YES Economic operators RSB 2016 12 39 156 YES Economic operators RSPO 2013 8 46 140 YES Economic operators *The EU RED and RFS2 do not explicitly reference sustainability principles or indicators. **GBEP is based on 24 Indicators that are expressed similarly to the CAEP principles *** As defined in the GBEP "Indicator Descriptions" 9A-12 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 It should be noted that, while being informative, the number of principles, criteria and indicators does not necessarily represent the comprehensiveness of a specific sustainability approach, since the same topic may be covered differently by the different sustainability approaches. For example, CAEP Principle 3 (Water) covers two GBEP Principles (5 Water use and Efficiency, and 6 Water Quality). More details on each of these sustainability approaches are provided in Appendix A. Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-13 CHAPTER 3. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY APPROACHES 3.1 METHODOLOGY USED Sustainability aspects are considered in different ways by the existing sustainability approaches, due to their different scopes, objectives, and structures. To overcome those differences, the adherence of the Sustainability Approaches to the Sustainability Themes, Principles and Criteria recommended by CAEP was done in a qualitative manner. This qualitative assessment was performed by identifying which elements of the existing Sustainability Approaches are associated with the Themes, Principles and Criteria recommended by CAEP. In some cases, this methodology required the comparison of elements with different scopes and objectives, for example where there are elements that are included as part of the approach as responsibilities of the implementing organization (e.g., government agency), but are not explicit criteria for economic operator qualification. . The main objective of such a qualitative assessment is to demonstrate that the list of Sustainability Themes, Principles and Criteria recommended by CAEP builds on existing approaches or combination of approaches to sustainability, including work developed by other UN bodies, fulfilling the ICAO Assembly directive of ensuring the sustainability of aviation fuels. It should not be interpreted as a recommendation or endorsement of any particular sustainability approach for the purposes of CORSIA: the current CORSIA framework includes an approval process by the ICAO Council for SCSs to be recognized under CORSIA. This process will include a detailed assessment of the SCSs by a dedicated ICAO body. The results of this qualitative assessment are provided in this chapter. More detailed background underlying the assessment is provided in Appendix B. 3.2 ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES Table 3 provides an overall assessment of the inclusion of the Principles from the analyzed sustainability approaches, and the 12 Principles recommended by CAEP. Table 3 - Comparison of Sustainability Principles coverage CAEP-proposed principles 3. Water 4. Soil 5. Air 6. Conservation 7. Waste and Chemicals 8. Human and labour rights 9. Land use rights and land use 10. Water use rights 11. Local and social developme 12. Food security total principles covered FAO SAFA X X X X X X X X X X 10 EXISTING APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY GBEP ISO EU RED ISPO RFS2 Bonsucro ISCC RSB RSPO X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 9 9 9 8 7 9 10 10 9 9A-14 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 3.3 ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Table 4 provides an overall assessment of the Criteria from the analyzed sustainability approaches, and the 17 Criteria recommended by CAEP. A detailed assessment of the wording of the different Criteria and detailed references are provided in Appendix B. Table 4 - Comparison of Sustainability Criteria coverage 3.1 Water Quality 3.2 Water Use 4.1 Soil Health 5.1 Air Pollution 6.1 Conservation Use of Protected Areas 6.2 Conservation Invasive Feedstocks 6.3 Conservation Effects on Protected Areas 7.1 Waste and Chemicals - Use and Disposal 7.2 Waste and Chemicals Pesticide Use 8.1 Human and Labour Rights 9.1 Land use rights and land use 10.1 Water use rights 11.1 Local and social development 12.1 Food security total criteria covered FAO SAFA x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14 EXISTING APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY GBEP ISO EU RED ISPO RFS2 Bonsucro ISCC x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 12 11 12 11 10 12 14 RSB RSPO x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 14 12 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-15 CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS The need for a common definition of sustainability requirements at the international level applicable to alternative fuels has been an ICAO concern and request since the potential of those fuels to reduce international aviation effects on climate change was identified. ICAO Assembly resolutions have called to ensure the sustainability of alternative fuels for aviation, and for the harmonization of approaches to sustainability building up on existing approaches or combination of approaches, In addition to achieving net GHG emissions reductions, the 38th and 39th Assemblies agreed that to be sustainable, aviation alternative fuels should also contribute to local social and economic development, and that competition with food and water should be avoided. The adoption of ICAO CORSIA SARPs in 2018 established the need to define Sustainability Criteria for the specific purpose of CORSIA compliance for certain fuels to be eligible under the Scheme to reduce offsetting obligations. Considering these agreements from the Assembly and ICAO Conferences, the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) developed a list of 12 Sustainability Themes and Principles, and 17 associated Criteria that should be met for an aviation fuel to generate carbon offset reductions under CORSIA. This list was agreed by CAEP during its 2017 Steering Group meeting (Montreal, Canada, 11 to 15 September 2017), and only considered sustainable aviation fuels. The analysis presented in this report supports the conclusion that the list of 12 Sustainability Themes and Principles, and the 17 associated Criteria recommended by CAEP builds on existing global approaches or combination of approaches to Sustainability, including work developed by other UN bodies, which comprises: Internationally-agreed sustainability approaches developed by: the UN FAO, the Global Bioenergy Partnership (which comprises 52 countries and 28 international organizations including 9 UN bodies) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Regulatory sustainability approaches developed by the EU, Indonesia, and the United States. Voluntary global sustainability certification schemes currently widely used in bioenergy production. A comparative analysis of the sustainability themes, principles and criteria included on those global approaches show that the recommended list of 12 Sustainability Themes and Principles, and the 17 associated Criteria, for the purpose of its application in CORSIA, fulfil the ICAO Assembly directive of ensuring the sustainability of aviation fuels while building upon a combination of existing global approaches to sustainability. As part of the CORSIA framework, an approval of the ICAO Council is required for the recognition of any sustainability approach under CORSIA. 9A-16 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 APPENDIX A SUSTAINABILITY APPROACHES CONSIDERED BY CAEP A.1 FAO SAFA SAFA is a holistic global framework developed by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) for the assessment of sustainability along food and agriculture value chains. SAFA establishes an international reference for assessing trade-offs and synergies between all dimensions of sustainability. It has been prepared so that enterprises, whether companies or small-scale producers, involved with the production, processing, distribution and marketing of goods have a clear understanding of the constituent components of sustainability and how strength, weakness and progress could be tackled. By providing a transparent and aggregated framework for assessing sustainability, SAFA seeks to harmonize sustainability approaches within the food value chain, as well as furthering good practices. The SAFA provide the protocol for assessing sustainability along 21 themes and 58 sub-themes, and 118 default indicators, which are applicable at the macro level meaning to all enterprise sizes and types, and in all contexts. Specific guidelines are also provided, together with a computational tool and mobile app that assist users in their implementation. Reference: http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/sustainability-assessments-safa/en/ A.2 GBEP (FAO) The Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) was created in 2006 with the mission to promote the wider production and use of modern bioenergy, particularly in the developing world where traditional use of biomass is prevalent. GBEP includes 23 Partner countries and 15 Partner international organizations and institutions (9 UN bodies among them), along with 29 countries and 13 international organizations that participate as Observers. It is supported by the GBEP Secretariat, hosted at FAO Headquarters in Rome. In 2011, GBEP published the first edition of "The Global Bioenergy Partnership Sustainability Indicators for Bioenergy". This report includes 24 sustainability indicators for bioenergy and their methodology sheets, which were intended to provide policy-makers and other stakeholders with a tool that can inform on the development of national bioenergy policies and programmes, monitor the impact of these policies and programmes, as well as interpret and respond to the environmental, social and economic impacts of their bioenergy production and use. It should be highlighted that GBEP indicators are value-neutral, do not feature directions, thresholds or limits and do not constitute a standard, nor are they legally binding. The "GBEP indicators" can be correlated with the "Principles" and "Indicators" from other sustainability approaches. These indicators are intended to inform on policy-making and facilitate the sustainable development of bioenergy. Although being considered by CAEP, especially for the identification of themes, it should be noted that the GBEP approach is not in line with the CAEP needs for sustainability certification, since its scope is just to evaluate State´s bioenergy policies, and not specific project-scale performance. Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-17 References: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2668e/i2668e.pdf http://www.globalbioenergy.org/programmeofwork/task-force-on-sustainability/gbep-report-onsustainability-indicators-for-bioenergy/pt/ A.3 ISO 13065 The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) was officially established in 1947 in order to "facilitate the international coordination and unification of industrial standards". The 22,236 International Standards published by ISO to date cover various aspects of technology and manufacturing. As of 2018, ISO includes 783 technical committees and subcommittees, made up of members from 160 States. The organization is supported by the ISO Central Secretariat, based in Geneva, Switzerland. In 2015, ISO published the first edition of "ISO 13065: Sustainability criteria for bioenergy". This standard includes general requirements and recommendations, 12 sustainability Principles with associated Criteria and Indicators, and informative guidance related to several of the indicators. This Standard provides a framework for considering environmental, social and economic factors, and can be used to evaluate bioenergy production and products, supply chains, and applications. The Standard indicates that it was developed with due consideration to existing relevant sustainability initiatives and International Standards. Reference: https://www.iso.org/standard/52528.html A.4 EU RED The European Union's Renewable Energy Directive (RED) was established by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union in 2009. This Directive established a policy for the production and promotion of renewable energy throughout the EU. The EU RED mandated that 20% of the EU's total energy needs are to be met with renewables by 2020, and established individual targets for each EU member state. It also mandated that 10% of each EU member state's transport fuels must come from renewable sources by 2020. The EU RED includes requirements related to 8 of the CAEP-proposed sustainability criteria. These requirements can be found in Article 17, "Sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids" and Article 18, "Verification of compliance with the sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids". References: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN A.5 ISPO The Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) policy was established by the Government of Indonesia in the interest of improving the competitiveness of Indonesian palm oil in the global market, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The most recent version of the policy was published in 2015. It includes five separate annexes that detail the regulations relevant for various types of producers and manufacturers. The Annexes used for comparison within this document were Annex II, III and IV which apply to plantation companies and mills, while 9A-18 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 annexes V and VI apply to smallholders. As the regulation is published in the Indonesian language, for the purpose of this work a courtesy translated version provided by the Government was used. References: http://www.ispo-org.or.id/index.php?lang=en A.6 US RFS2 The United States' Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program was created by the U.S. Congress in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while encouraging the development of renewable fuels. The RFS was first created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It was largely amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (RFS2). The RFS is implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy. The RFS mandates a "volume of renewable fuel to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel". Fuel pathways (based on feedstock, production process, and fuel type) are approved for RFS inclusion based on GHG intensity, as well as other sustainability criteria. The applicable regulations are found at 40 CFR Part 80, Subpart M. References: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/overview-renewable-fuelstandard A.7 BONSUCRO Bonsucro is a global multi-stakeholder non-for-profit initiative that provides voluntary sustainability certification for the sugarcane industry. The Bonsucro Production Standard can be applied worldwide to any sugarcane mill and their suppliers. It was first established in 2005 and has since grown to include over 480 members, representing 25% of land used for sugarcane production. The organization is supported by the Bonsucro Secretariat, based in London, England. The most recent version of the Bonsucro Production Standard is Version 4.2, published in 2016. This version included updates that align Bonsucro with the requirements of EU RED, and covers three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental viability. The document defines "a set of principles, criteria and indicators, along with explanatory notes, for the assessment of the performance of operators against the three pillars of sustainability". It was developed alongside a document titled "Guidance for the Bonsucro Production Standard" which provides further support for compliance with the Bonsucro Production Standard. References: https://www.bonsucro.com/what-is-bonsucro/ http://www.bonsucro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bonsucro-PS-STD-English-2.pdf A.8 ISCC The International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) is an independent multistakeholder organisation providing sustainability certification for various raw materials and products around the world. The ISCC certification system is applicable to entire supply chains, Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-19 including all feedstock types. The ISCC Association (ISCC e.V.), the governing body of the ISCC, is based in Cologne, Germany. The ISCC requirements used for comparison with the CAEP-proposed sustainability criteria are those within ISCC Plus. ISCC Plus includes sets of sustainability add-ons, which can be implemented on top of the requirements set in the standard. The latest version of ISCC Plus is ISCC202, "Sustainability Requirements for the Production of Biomass," published in 2016. These requirements include 6 overarching sustainability principles and corresponding detailed criteria for the production of sustainable biomass. References: https://www.iscc-system.org/about/governance-and-transparency/ https://www.iscc-system.org/process/audit-and-certification-process/iscc-system-documents/ A.9 RSB The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) is an independent multi-stakeholder coalition providing sustainability certification around the world. The RSB has members from 60 organizations, including businesses, NGOs, academics, government and UN organisations. The RSB is supported by its Secretariat, based in Geneva, Switzerland. The most recent version of the RSB's Principles and Criteria (Version 3.0) was published in 2016. The document includes the RSB's 12 overarching principles for sustainability, which are further elaborated into specific criteria and minimum requirements (e.g. indicators). The RSB has also published a series of standards, procedures and guidance documents, to complement the Principles & Criteria. Together, these documents represent the RSB Standard. References: https://rsb.org/about/what-we-do/the-rsb-principles/ http://rsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/RSB-STD-01-001_Principles_and_Criteria-DIGITAL.pdf A.10 RSPO The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is a not-for-profit organization that includes stakeholders from the entire palm oil supply chain. It was formally established in 2004, and has since grown to include over 3,000 members worldwide. RSPO aims to promote the production and use of sustainably derived palm oil. As of 2017, over 19% of the world's palm oil production was certified by the RSPO. The RSPO is supported by the RSPO Secretariat, headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The RSPO requirements used for comparison with the CAEP-proposed sustainability criteria are those within RSPO P&C 2013, "Audit Checklist for assessing compliance". This standard includes 8 overarching sustainability principles, which are further elaborated into a series of criteria and indicators. Each indicator has a set of questions included as a checklist, and some indicators include additional guidance information. References: https://rspo.org/about https://rspo.org/about/who-we-are https://www.rspo.org/key-documents/certification/rspo-principles-and-criteria# 9A-20 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 APPENDIX B QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Note. The material contained in Appendix B, "Qualitative Assessment of Sustainability Criteria", of Appendix A, "Report on Sustainability Themes, Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Aviation Fuels," to the CAEP/11 Report on Agenda Item 9, is available at the following link: http://www.icao.int/environmentalprotection/Documents/CAEP11_assessment_of_sustainability_criteria.pdf Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9A-21 APPENDIX C CAEP REFERENCES CAEP-AFTF References Reference Title CAEP/11-AFTF/1-WP/03 Task S.5: Sustainability Criteria CAEP/11-AFTF/1-IP/05 CAEP/10 Scoping Study for Future Work on Sustainability Criteria for Alternative Fuels CAEP/11-AFTF/1-IP/10 Alternative Jet Fuel Environmental Sustainability Overview CAEP/11-AFTF/1-IP/15 Supply and Sustainability of Carbon Credits and Alternative Fuels for International Aviation (2020-2035) CAEP/11-AFTF/1-IP/16 ICSA'S Views on the Work of the Alternative Fuels Task Force CAEP/11-AFTF/1-IP/18 Extract from CAEP/10 Report CAEP/10-AFTF/04-FL/08 Sustainability criteria for alternative aviation fuels under the GMBM Scoping study CAEP/11-AFTF/1-Report Report of the First Meeting CAEP/11-AFTF/2-WP/04 Report of the Sustainability Task Group CAEP/11-AFTF/2-IP/02 Process for Confirming LCA and Sustainability of Alternative Fuels CAEP/11-AFTF/2-FL/11 AFTF Task S5 Sustainability CAEP/11-AFTF/2-Report Report of the Second Meeting CAEP/11-AFTF/3-WP/06 - Presentation AFTF Sustainability Task Group WP/6 - Presentation CAEP/11-AFTF/3-WP/06 Report of the Sustainability Task Group CAEP/11-AFTF/3-WP/06 Appendix B Sustainability Criteria for Alternative Aviation Fuels CAEP/11-AFTF/3-WP/07 - Presentation Sustainability Criteria Tracking CAEP/11-AFTF/3-WP/07 Sustainability Criteria Tracking CAEP/11-AFTF/3-FL/01 Environmental Themes Principles and Criteria CAEP/11-AFTF/3-FL/06 Sustainability Criteria for Alternative Aviation Fuels CAEP/11-AFTF/3-FL/08 Framework for Treating Sustainability Under CORSIA CAEP/11-AFTF/3-Report Report of the third Meeting CAEP/11-AFTF/4-WP/07 - Presentation Report of the Sustainability Task Group - Presentation CAEP/11-AFTF/4-WP/07 Report of the Sustainability Task Group CAEP/11-AFTF/4-WP/08 - ICAO Sustainability Standard Eligibility Process - Presentation 9A-22 Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 9 Presentation CAEP/11-AFTF/4-WP/08 rev1 ICAO Sustainability Standard Eligibility Process CAEP/11-AFTF/4-IP/08 - Risk Based Verification of the Protection of No Go Areas for the Presentation Production of Sustainable Alternative Jet-Fuels - Presentation CAEP/11-AFTF/4-IP/08 Risk Based Verification of the Protection of No Go Areas for the Production of Sustainable Alternative Jet-Fuels CAEP/11-AFTF/04-FL07 Sustainability Criteria Status after AFTF04 CAEP-SG/20153-WP/28 Methodology for the Assessment of Life Cycle Emissions from Alternative Jet Fuels for use in the Global Market Based Measure System CAEP-SG/20153-WP/48 Further Assessment of Alternative Fuels in a Global MarketBased Measure (MBM) CAEP-SG/20153-SD/4 Summary of Discussions and Decisions of the Fourth Meeting of the Steering Group CAEP-SG/20161-WP/21 Report of the Sustainability Task Group CAEP-SG/20161-SD/3 Summary of Discussions and Decisions of the Third Meeting of the Steering Group CAEP-SG/20172-WP/6 ICAO CORSIA Package CAEP-SG/20172-WP/13 Sustainability Themes, Principles and Criteria for Alternative Fuels Under CORSIA CAEP-SG/20172-SD/2 CAEPSG.20172.SD.2 Agenda Item 4 SD sections (AFTF) CAEP/9-IP/6 Sustainable Alternative Fuels for Aviation CAEP/10-WP/42 Scoping Study for Future Work on Sustainability Criteria for Alternative Fuels -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 9 APPENDIX B (English only) ICAO DOCUMENT 9B-1 CORSIA SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA FOR CORSIA ELIGIBLE FUELS Theme Principle Criteria 1. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) 2. Carbon stock Principle: CORSIA eligible fuel should generate lower carbon emissions on a life cycle basis. Principle: CORSIA eligible fuel should not be made from biomass obtained from land with high carbon stock. Criterion 1: CORSIA eligible fuel shall achieve net greenhouse gas emissions reductions of at least 10% compared to the baseline life cycle emissions values for aviation fuel on a life cycle basis. Criterion 1: CORSIA eligible fuel shall not be made from biomass obtained from land converted after 1 January 2008 that was primary forest, wetlands, or peat lands and/or contributes to degradation of the carbon stock in primary forests, wetlands, or peat lands as these lands all have high carbon stocks. Criterion 2: In the event of land use conversion after 1 January 2008, as defined based on IPCC land categories, direct land use change (DLUC) emissions shall be calculated. If DLUC greenhouse gas emissions exceed the default induced land use change (ILUC) value, the DLUC value shall replace the default ILUC value. 2.1 Guidance on the application of sustainability criteria a) Compliance with Themes 1 and 2 is granted on the basis of independent attestation by CORSIA approved Sustainability Certification Schemes; b) Work on other themes such as Water; Soil; Air; Conservation; Waste and Chemicals; Human and labour rights; Land use rights and land use; Water use rights; Local and social development; and Food security, and related criteria, and on the application of these criteria, is ongoing under the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) and will be subject to approval by the Council by the end of the pilot phase; c) CORSIA Sustainability Criteria for CORSIA Eligible Fuels does not set a precedent for, or prejudge the outcome of negotiations in other fora. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9C-1 APPENDIX C (English only) PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE CAEP SCS EVALUATION GROUP (SCSEG) 1. MANDATE 1.1 The SCSEG is a subgroup of CAEP mandated with developing technical recommendations to the Council on the eligibility of Sustainability Certification Schemes (SCS). 2. TASKS 2.1 In fulfilling this mandate, the CAEP SCSEG is tasked to: 1) undertake the evaluation of Sustainability Certification Schemes (SCS) against the eligibility requirements listed in the ICAO document "CORSIA Eligibility Framework and Requirements for Sustainability Certification Schemes"; 2) develop technical recommendations based on the above evaluation of SCS applicants for submission to the Council; 3) ensure that SCS around the world can receive advance notice of, and are given ample time to apply for, the evaluation by CAEP SCSEG, and conduct outreach as necessary, with the support of the ICAO Secretariat; 4) collect additional information from SCS and/or economic operators and issue guidance to the SCSs, as required; 5) monitor the compliance of the SCS contained in the ICAO document "CORSIA Approved Sustainability Certification Schemes" with the "CORSIA Eligibility Framework and Requirements for SCSs", and make technical recommendations to Council to decide on the continuity of the SCSs being on the list of eligible SCS; 6) ensure SCS eligibility is re-assessed at least every five years; and 7) raise any technical issues to CAEP for consideration, including issues related to the ICAO document "CORSIA Eligibility Framework and Requirements for SCS". 3. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 3.1 The SCSEG subject administrative to guidance from CAEP and members are nominated by CAEP Members. 3.2 SCSEG Members are invited to observe the deliberations of CAEP and the CAEP Fuels Task Group (CAEP FTG) but the SCSEG technical work is independent of these bodies. 3.3 The SCSEG's technical recommendations on the eligibility of SCS are contained in a report that is sent to CAEP Members and CAEP Observers who will have 30 days to provide comments 9C-2 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 9 on the report prior to the report being forwarded to the Council by CAEP. These comments from CAEP Members and CAEP Observers are reported by CAEP to the Council alongside the report of the CAEP SCSEG. 3.4 Evaluations and reports from the SCSEG following the procedure described above and subsequent reporting to the Council could occur at any time during the CAEP cycle without the need of a formal CAEP meeting. 4. EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS 4.1 In order for the CAEP SCSEG to undertake the tasks as outlined in paragraph 2 above, SCSEG members are required to meet at least two of the following five technical expertise and experience requirements, which have to be substantiated at the time of nomination: a) experience in the development or deployment of fuels for aviation which could fall under the definition of sustainable fuels or lower carbon fuels; b) experience in the design, development, operation or evaluation of SCS; c) experience in the development, assessment, or implementation of international standards relevant to aviation fuel, sustainability certification, or sustainable development; d) experience in fossil-based fuels, biomass, biofuel and/or agriculture value chain sustainability assessments and requirements; and e) experience in the development, assessment, or oversight of climate change policies and/or sustainable development policies. 4.2 In addition, it would be desirable (though not essential) that CAEP SCSEG members have experience with ICAO processes, in particular those related to CORSIA. 4.3 The collective membership of the CAEP SCSEG should cover all of the areas of expertise provided in Section 4.1. 5. MEMBERSHIP Nomination of CAEP SCSEG members 5.1 In principle, the size of the SCSEG should be in the order of 14 to 16 experts, nominated by CAEP Members, taking into account the need for balanced geographical representation. 5.2 Nomination is to be made through the submission of a letter (or an email) to the CAEP Secretary, highlighting the areas of expertise and experience of the proposed expert, including a personal conflict of interest declaration and a statement of commitment by the proposed expert to the work of CAEP SCSEG for at least one full CORSIA compliance cycle (i.e., 3 years). Nominations would be considered for approval by CAEP. Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9C-3 Selection of Co-Chairpersons for CAEP SCSEG 5.3 meeting. The CAEP SCSEG selects two co-Chairpersons from among its members at its first 5.4 The co-Chairpersons should not be from the same geographical region. Replacement of CAEP SCSEG Members during a CORSIA compliance cycle 5.5 The replacement of an existing CAEP SCSEG Member during a compliance cycle of the CORSIA is allowed, if the replacement member is approved by CAEP (through correspondence). 5.6 The replacement must meet the same criteria as outlined in the TOR. 5.7 The outgoing member's nominating CAEP Member should first be allowed to nominate a replacement. 5.7.1 If a replacement is not nominated by that CAEP Member or should CAEP reject the nominated replacement, the CAEP Secretary would then seek nominations from CAEP Members of the outgoing member's geographic region. 5.7.2 If a replacement is not nominated by CAEP Members from that geographical region or should CAEP reject the nominated replacement(s), the CAEP Secretary would then seek nominations from all CAEP Members. 5.7.3 Where possible, the replacement of CAEP SCSEG Members should be staggered over CORSIA compliance cycles to ensure continuity of knowledge and expertise. 6. AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 6.1 As a part of the nomination process, SCSEG nominees will have to present a personal declaration about potential conflicts of interest assessed/validated by the proposing CAEP Member. SCSEG Members should not benefit materially from decisions made by the SCSEG. This could include employment by or having financial and/or commercial interest in any SCS or an economic actor along the fuel supply chain that would benefit from the expert's appointment. This has to be substantiated at the time of nomination, through a personal declaration. 7. WORKING METHODS Modality and frequency of SCSEG meetings 7.1 Face-to-face meetings of the CAEP SCSEG are the primary means of organizing its work, making significant decisions and resolving substantive issues. 7.2 The CAEP SCSEG is also expected to conduct business via teleconferences and emails between the face-to-face meetings to progress the work. 7.3 The CAEP SCSEG will discuss and agree on a schedule of meetings, which can be reviewed later as necessary. The number of meetings should be sufficient to achieve its deliverables. 9C-4 Appendix C to the Report on Agenda Item 9 7.4 If changes to the meeting schedule or additional meetings are required, the co- Chairpersons will, after consultations with CAEP SCSEG Members, give notice of any changes in the meeting schedule and/or additional meetings. Quorum for CAEP SCSEG recommendations 7.5 A majority of CAEP SCSEG Members from at least three geographical regions must be present at its meeting in order to constitute a quorum to make technical recommendations. Working language for CAEP SCSEG meetings 7.6 The working language of the CAEP SCSEG is English. The recommendations of CAEP SCSEG are translated in all six languages, for consideration by the Council. Decision process of CAEP SCSEG 7.7 The SCSEG's technical recommendations, including the underlining decisions by the SCSEG, are taken by consensus. If there is no consensus, then the prevailing and alternative conclusions will be described and substantiated, and presented to the Council for decision. 8. PUBLIC INFORMATION, TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNICATION 8.1 Applications and other information submitted by SCSs will be publicly available on the ICAO CORSIA website, except for materials, which the applicants designate as business confidential. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix D to the Report on Agenda Item 9 APPENDIX D (English only) ICAO DOCUMENT 9D-1 CORSIA ELIGIBILITY FRAMEWORK AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY CERTIFICATION SCHEMES 1. Definitions: Accreditation bodies: authoritative bodies that perform accreditation (ISO 17011). Accreditation: a third-party attestation related to a certification body conveying formal demonstration of its competence to carry out specific conformity assessment tasks (adapted from ISO 17011). Auditors: Auditors plan, conduct and complete audits on behalf of the certification body. Responsibilities include designing risk-based audit and evidence-gathering plans, designing sampling procedures, evaluating the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence of compliance, identifying nonconformities, issuing a recommendation for or against certification and preparing an audit report. Audits: systematic, independent and documented processes for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled (adapted from ISO 19011:2011). Certification bodies: third-party conformity assessment bodies (ISO 17065:2012) making certification decisions and issuing certificates. Economic operator: Economic operators include feedstock producers, processing facilities, and traders. Stakeholder: individual or group that has an interest in any decision or activity of an organization (adapted from ISO 26000). Sustainability Certification Schemes (SCS): organizations that certify economic operators against the sustainability criteria, and ensure that economic operators calculate actual life cycle emissions values (if default values are not applied) using the agreed methodology. SCS define sustainability certification requirements, set requirements for certification bodies, auditors and accreditation bodies, and monitor effectiveness of the assurance mechanism. 2. Eligibility requirements. SCS meets the requirements specified in Table 1. 9D-2 Appendix D to the Report on Agenda Item 9 Table 1: Requirements for SCS # THEME REQUIREMENT 1) Documentation · SCS has a documentation management system that addresses each of the following management elements: o General management system documentation for the SCS CORSIA certification programme (e.g. policies, roles/responsibilities within SCS, etc.). o Control of documents. o Control of records. o Management review of management system. · SCS keeps records for a minimum of 10 years. 2) Audit competencies The SCS documentation describes in sufficient detail the specific audit competencies requirements and how it is ensured that the requirements concerning auditors' competencies (see Table 5, Requirement 6) are met. 3) SCS Group Where the SCS permits group auditing, SCS establishes requirements and provides auditing guidance to certification bodies on: requirements o Risk-based sampling of units within a group audit, including minimum sample size (where (see Table 5, Requirement 5) and the threshold for non-compliance. applicable) o Group management. o Process and conditions to join a group. 4) Non-compliance SCS has documented procedures for addressing when a certified economic operator is with found to not comply with the certification requirements. This includes: certification o Procedures for withdrawing or suspending certificates and the circumstances under requirements which this occurs. o Procedures to ensure that any non-conformities that do not lead to immediate withdrawal or suspension of the certificate are corrected. SCS makes these procedures available to economic operators. 5) Monitoring and SCS has procedures and timelines for reviewing its CORSIA certification programme, system review including compliance of economic operators, certification bodies and accreditation bodies with the provisions of the programme, to ensure its continuing integrity, adequacy, and effectiveness. Review of the CORSIA certification programme occurs at planned intervals and after significant changes to the CORSIA requirements as specified by ICAO, as well as in response to complaints received, where necessary. SCS uses the results of the review to improve its assurance programme where indicated and maintains records of any corrective actions taken. Appendix D to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9D-3 6) Transparency 7) Annual reports SCS ensures that the following information is made publicly available on a website: The list of economic operators that are certified under its CORSIA certification programme, including the start and expiry dates of each certificate, and those who no longer participate. Information on the withdrawal or suspension of certificates must be published without delay after the decision has been made. The latest version of SCS CORSIA certification programme requirements. The list of certification bodies that are permitted to conduct audits within the CORSIA certification programme, as well as any certification bodies that are no longer permitted to conduct audits within the programme and those that are temporarily suspended. Publication of contact details for the SCS CORSIA certification programme e.g. telephone number, email address and correspondence address. The names of any other eligible SCS that the subject SCS recognizes within its CORSIA certification programme. Recognized SCS submits annually a report to ICAO that includes relevant information SCS has a procedure in place to collect the information required to fulfil this reporting obligation. SCS records detailed information about the calculation of actual values within their system and provide this information to ICAO on request, in line with the ICAO document entitled, "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values". 8) Risk Management Plan · SCS has a documented plan for addressing the risks to the integrity of the assurance system. 9) Accreditation of SCS uses an accreditation body complying with ISO 17011 to ensure that certification certification body requirements listed herein are implemented by the certification bodies. bodies SCS periodically assesses the effectiveness of the accreditation mechanism as part of their system review. SCS has procedures in place that ensure that the accreditation body has the following competencies: o Knowledge of the 5 ICAO documents that compose the CORSIA Implementation Elements related to CORSIA eligible fuels and the SCS CORSIA certification programme requirements. o Competence to review sampling protocols and practice, where this is undertaken by the Certification Body. o Competence to review assessment of groups under group auditing procedures, where this is permitted by the SCS and undertaken by the Certification Body. 10) Stakeholder Engagement · SCS has a process for incorporating stakeholder input relevant to the CORSIA sustainability criteria and adequate to the scope and scale of the operation. 11) Complaint procedure · SCS has a documented complaints procedure to respond to complaints received from clients, the public and other stakeholders about its CORSIA certification programme and fraud or potential fraud. · SCS has procedures in place for: o Investigating and responding to relevant complaints, including reporting relevant information, to the oversight body or certification body, as appropriate and in a timely manner. o Reviewing the assurance system and taking corrective actions where necessary (see 9D-4 Appendix D to the Report on Agenda Item 9 Table 1, Requirement 5). o Documenting all complaints received and actions taken for consideration in the system review. · SCS has procedures in place for responding to requests for information from the ICAO Fuels Advisory Body. 12) Transparency on · SCS will provide any information required by the relevant national authority related to GHG reporting GHG reporting. and accounting SCS ensures that economic operators meet the general requirements specified in Table 2. Table 2: General requirements set by SCS on Economic Operators THEME REQUIREMENTS 1) Documentation management · SCS requires that economic operators: i) have an auditable documentation management system for the evidence related to the claims they make or rely on for certification; ii) keep records for a minimum of 5 years; and iii) accept responsibility for preparing any information related to the auditing of such evidence. 2) Transparency on · SCS requires all economic operators to declare the names of all SCS under which they other SCS are and/or were certified and make available to the auditors all information relevant to participation by those certifications. economic operators 3) CORSIA certification requirements · SCS requires the economic operator to demonstrate and document that it satisfies all CORSIA requirements specific to the economic operator stated herein, including the following which form the basis for audit objectives: o The fuel under review satisfies the CORSIA sustainability criteria specified [ICAO Document "CORSIA Sustainability Criteria for CORSIA Eligible Fuels"]. o (where applicable) The default GHG LCA value applied by the economic operator matches the value and associated feedstock and conversion process (pathway) specified by ICAO in the ICAO Document "CORSIA Default Life Cycle Emissions Values for CORSIA Eligible Fuels". o (where applicable) The system of the economic operator to calculate GHG emissions for an actual LCA value ensures that: o The CORSIA LCA methodology specified in the ICAO Document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values" is accurately followed to calculate its actual LCA value. o The LCA value calculation is complete, accurate and transparent. o (where applicable) The actual LCA value calculated by the economic operator is accurate and has been calculated in accordance with the CORSIA LCA methodology specified in the ICAO Document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values" using the most recent data available. o (where applicable) The emissions credits used to calculate the actual LCA value by the economic operator are accurate, have been calculated in accordance with the relevant CORSIA emissions credit methodology or methodologies, and satisfy all other requirements for emissions crediting, as specified in the ICAO document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values", Appendix D to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9D-5 Section 6. o In the case of waste or residue feedstocks, the material meets the definition for waste or residues specified by ICAO for CORSIA and can be traced back to the first gathering point [ICAO Document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values", Section 4]. o In the case of by-products, the material meets the definition for by-products specified by ICAO for CORSIA and can be traced back to the point of origin [ICAO Document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values" , Section 4]. o In the case of low LUC risk feedstocks, the feedstocks and / or land use practices meet the criteria specified by ICAO for CORSIA [ICAO Document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values", Section 5]. SCS ensures that economic operators meet the traceability requirements specified in Table 3. Table 3: Traceability requirements set by SCS on Economic Operators THEME REQUIREMENTS 1) Traceability: Mass balance 2) Traceability: Mass balance system documentation 3) Traceability: Mass balance level of operation 4) Traceability: Mass balance timeframe SCS requires economic operators to use a mass balance system that: a) Allows batches of sustainable materials with differing sustainability characteristics to be mixed. b) Requires information about the sustainability characteristics and sizes of the physical quantity (batches) referred to in point (a) to remain assigned to the mixture. c) Provides for the sum of all consignments withdrawn from the mixture to be described as having the same sustainability characteristics, in the same quantities, as the sum of all consignments added to the mixture. d) Demonstrates that the product claims are linked correctly to the feedstock quantities claimed. SCS requires each economic operator to include, as part of its documentation management system (see Table 2, Requirement 1), a system for documenting the mass balance. SCS requires the economic operator to assign a unique reference/identification number to each batch of certified product sold (also known as batch number). SCS requires economic operators to operate the mass balance system at a site level. SCS requires that if more than one legal entity operates on a site then each legal entity that is an economic operator is required to operate its own mass balance. · SCS requires the economic operator to monitor the balance of material withdrawn from and added to the mass balance system. · SCS requires economic operators to specify a timeframe over which they will ensure that the mass balance is respected. o The operator ensures that the balance is achieved over an appropriate period of time no longer than three months. A deficit is not allowed at the end of the period. · At the end of the reporting period, a positive balance can be forwarded to the next reporting period as long as an equivalent physical stock is available. 9D-6 Appendix D to the Report on Agenda Item 9 SCS ensures that economic operators meet the information transmission requirements specified in Table 4. Table 4: Information Transmission requirements set by SCS on Economic Operators THEME REQUIREMENT 1) Transmission · SCS requires the economic operator to transmit relevant information necessary to of information demonstrate compliance with the CORSIA sustainability criteria throughout the supply in the supply chain. The information transmitted includes all of the relevant reporting elements listed in chain Annex 16. Volume IV, Appendix 5, Table A5-2 for which the economic operator has information. The information is related to a specific physical quantity of material. SCS ensures that certification bodies meet the requirements specified in Table 5. Table 5: Requirements set by SCS on Certification Bodies THEME REQUIREMENTS 1) Accreditation SCS requires certification bodies to be accredited to ISO standard 17065 by an and Auditing accreditation body operating in compliance with ISO 17011. Standards SCS requires that certification bodies are accredited in accordance with Table 1, Requirement 9. SCS requires certification bodies to inform the SCS immediately if the accreditation is suspended, withdrawn or terminated by the accreditation body. SCS requires that certification bodies conduct assessments of GHG LCA values in line with ISO 14064-3. SCS requires that certification bodies conduct audits in line with ISO 19011. 2) Audits The SCS requires that certification bodies being recognized within its CORSIA certification programme, apply the audit objectives to meet CORSIA certification requirements (Table 2, Requirement 3) . Initial audits should be performed on-site. SCS may permit remote audits by the certification body under the following conditions: The audit risk as assessed by the certification body is low. The same level of assurance can be achieved with remote audits as with on-site audits. Sufficient traceability (mass balance) records, greenhouse gas data and other forms of appropriate evidence are available. The systems in place for collecting and processing traceability and greenhouse gas data and ensuring data quality are reliable. It is the responsibility of the certification body to define the size of the sample of mass balance or GHG data to audit in consideration of the audit risk and the required level of assurance (see Table 5, Requirement 7). 3) Transfer from Prior to re-certification of an economic operator that was previously found to be in one SCS to major non-conformity with any other SCS, the certification body will be required to another bring this to the attention of the SCS. Appendix D to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9D-7 4) Certificate Issuance The SCS requires that certification bodies issue a certificate to an economic operator only after a positive certification decision is reached confirming that the requirements of the SCS CORSIA certification programme have been satisfied. 5) Group auditing Group auditing of economic operators by the certification body is permitted under the (where following conditions: applicable) For the following economic operators: producers of raw material, points of origin in the case of waste and residue supply chains, and warehouses or storage facilities under common management. When confirming compliance with the CORSIA sustainability criteria when the areas concerned are near each other and have similar characteristics. For the purpose of assessing the accuracy of the claimed LCA value when the units have similar production systems and products. A sample of at least the square root of the number of group members is audited individually annually or, for wastes and residues, using a risk-based sampling approach providing the same level of assurance. Self-declarations from economic operators are not accepted by the certification body as sufficient evidence to replace audits supporting a group claim. A group value for actual GHG LCA would be permitted as long as the SCS sets the guidelines for how this should be determined. If the conditions for group auditing are not fulfilled, economic operators are audited individually. 6) Auditor SCS requires that certification bodies appoint competent auditor(s), in accordance with competencies the process set out in ISO 19011. The auditor(s) as a whole, and the independent reviewer, demonstrates knowledge and appropriate necessary skills to conduct audits under the CORSIA eligible fuels framework, in accordance with the audit scope, including: Knowledge of the requirements of the SCS CORSIA certification programme and the ICAO CORSIA Implementation Elements related to CORSIA eligible fuels. Knowledge of and experience with CORSIA or similar sustainability criteria, mass balance systems, traceability, GHG LCA calculations, and data collection and handling. Knowledge of and experience with appropriate sectors (e.g., agriculture, engineering, etc.). 7) Establishment SCS requires the certification body to conduct all audits to a "reasonable assurance of a level of level." assurance SCS requires the certification body to apply a materiality threshold of 5% for traceability (volume of sustainable material sold as compliant) and actual GHG LCA value calculations. Referenced ISO standards ISO/IEC 17065 Conformity assessment -- Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services ISO 19011 Guidelines for auditing management systems ISO 14064-3 Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions ISO/IEC 17011 Conformity assessment -- Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies NOTE: The most recent version of the standards apply. 9D-8 Appendix D to the Report on Agenda Item 9 3. Eligibility framework. The approval of SCS will be exclusively carried out centrally by the ICAO Council with the technical assistance of CAEP, which will assess the compliance of the SCS with the eligibility requirements listed in this ICAO Document. Only the SCS that meet all the eligibility requirements will be included in the list of approved SCS. In case the scope of the certification scheme is limited to part of the CEF supply chain (or specific feedstocks or conversion processes), the assessment mechanism and potential recognition will only apply to the scope of the certification scheme. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix E to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9E-1 APPENDIX E (English only) ICAO DOCUMENT CORSIA DEFAULT LIFE CYCLE EMISSIONS VALUES FOR CORSIA ELIGIBLE FUELS 1. Acronyms ATJ = Alcohol-to-jet CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent FT = Fischer-Tropsch HEFA = Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids ILUC = Induced land use change LCA = Life cycle assessment LSf = Life cycle emissions factor for a CORSIA Eligible fuel in gCO2/MJ MSW = Municipal Solid Waste NBC = Non-biogenic carbon SIP = Synthetic iso-paraffin 9E-2 Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 2. CORSIA Default Life Cycle Emissions Values for CORSIA Eligible Fuels Fuel Conversion Process Region Fuel Feedstock Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) Alcohol (isobutanol) to jet (ATJ) Alcohol (ethanol) to jet (ATJ) Synthesized isoparaffins (SIP) Global Global Global Global USA USA EU USA Global Global Global Global USA Brazil EU Malaysia & Indonesia Malaysia & Indonesia Global Global Brazil USA USA EU USA Brazil USA Brazil EU Agricultural residues Forestry residues Municipal solid waste (MSW), 0% non-biogenic carbon (NBC) Municipal solid waste (MSW) (NBC given as a percentage of the non-biogenic carbon content) Poplar (short-rotation woody crops) Miscanthus (herbaceous energy crops) Miscanthus (herbaceous energy crops) Switchgrass (herbaceous energy crops) Tallow Used cooking oil Palm fatty acid distillate Corn oil (from dry mill ethanol plant) Soybean oil Soybean oil Rapeseed oil Palm oil closed pond Palm oil open pond Agricultural residues Forestry residues Sugarcane Corn grain Miscanthus (herbaceous energy crops) Miscanthus (herbaceous energy crops) Switchgrass (herbaceous energy crops) Sugarcane Corn grain Sugarcane Sugar beet Core LCA Value 7.7 8.3 5.2 NBC*170.5 + 5.2 12.2 10.4 10.4 10.4 22.5 13.9 20.7 17.2 40.4 40.4 47.4 37.4 60.0 29.3 23.8 24.0 55.8 43.4 43.4 43.4 24.1 65.7 32.8 32.4 ILUC LCA Value 0.0 -5.2 -32.9 -22.0 -3.8 0.0 24.5 27.0 24.1 39.1 LSf (gCO2e/MJ) 7.7 8.3 5.2 NBC*170.5 + 5.2 7.0 -22.5 -11.6 6.6 22.5 13.9 20.7 17.2 64.9 67.4 71.5 76.5 39.1 0.0 7.3 22.1 -54.1 -31.0 -14.5 8.7 25.1 11.3 20.2 99.1 29.3 23.8 31.3 77.9 -10.7 12.4 28.9 32.8 90.8 44.1 52.6 NOTE: The "LCA Methodology Supporting Document" describes the methodologies used by ICAO to calculate these Default Life Cycle Emissions Values, as well as the process for requesting the inclusion of a new conversion process, feedstock, and/or region on this table. During the pilot phase, negative ILUC values, as shown above, will be provisionally allowed to obtain a negative LSf. A decision on whether to continue allowing negative LSf values, due to reductions from negative ILUC, will be made by the end of the pilot phase. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9F-1 APPENDIX F (English only) ICAO DOCUMENT CORSIA METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING ACTUAL LIFE CYCLE EMISSIONS VALUES 1. Acronyms CO2 = CO2e = CEF = CH4 = GHG = ILUC = LCA = LEC = LSf = MSW = N2O = REC = SCS = Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent CORSIA eligible fuel. A CORSIA sustainable aviation fuel or a CORSIA lower carbon aviation fuel, which an operator may use to reduce their offsetting requirements Methane Greenhouse gas Induced land use change Life cycle assessment Landfill Emissions Credit Life cycle emissions factor for a CORSIA Eligible fuel in gCO2/MJ Municipal Solid Waste Nitrous oxide Recycling Emissions Credit Sustainability Certification Scheme 9F-2 Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 2. CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values An Aeroplane Operator seeking benefits from the use of CEF in terms of reductions in CORSIA CO2 offsetting requirements will have to provide documentation to their State on the life cycle emissions values (LSf) and sustainability. An Aeroplane Operator will need to work with an CEF supplier to obtain this information. 1. An Aeroplane Operator may use an actual core life cycle value described in paragraphs 3 and 6 as part of an accepted fuel sustainability certification process if a fuel producer can demonstrate lower core life cycle emissions compared to the default core life cycle values provided in the ICAO Document entitled "CORSIA Default Life Cycle Emissions Values for CORSIA Eligible Fuels", or if a fuel producer has defined a new pathway that does not have a default core life cycle value. If the Aeroplane Operator chooses to use an actual core life cycle value, then the Aeroplane Operator shall select an eligible Sustainability Certification Scheme from the ICAO Document entitled "CORSIA Approved Sustainability Certification Schemes" to ensure the analysis is in accordance to the LCA methodology defined below. The results of the actual core life cycle value analysis shall be added to the appropriate ILUC value from the ICAO Document entitled "CORSIA Default Life Cycle Emissions Values for CORSIA Eligible Fuels" to calculate the total Life Cycle Emissions Value (LSf). The SCS shall ensure that the methodology has been applied correctly and that relevant information on GHG emissions is transmitted through the chain of custody. SCS shall record detailed information about the calculation of actual values within their system and provide this information to ICAO on request. 2. If a fuel was produced from a feedstock that is defined as a waste, residue, or by-product according to Section 4, then the actual core LCA value shall be the total LSf. If the feedstock is not a waste, residue, or by-product, then a default core LCA value and an ILUC value will need to be added to the ICAO Document entitled "CORSIA Default Life Cycle Emissions Values for CORSIA Eligible Fuels" before the fuel can be included in CORSIA. NOTE: Information on how fuels can be added to the ICAO Document entitled "CORSIA Default Life Cycle Emissions Values for CORSIA Eligible Fuels can be found in the "LCA Methodology Supporting Document". 3. The system boundary of the core LCA value calculation shall include the full supply chain of CEF production and use. As such, emissions associated with the following life cycle stages of the CEF supply chain must be accounted for: (1) production at source (e.g., feedstock cultivation); (2) conditioning at source (e.g., feedstock harvesting, collection, and recovery); (3) feedstock processing and extraction; (4) feedstock transportation to processing and fuel production facilities; (5) feedstock-to-fuel conversion processes; (6) fuel transportation and distribution to the blend point; and (7) fuel combustion in an aircraft engine. 4. For life cycle stages 1-6 described in Paragraph 3, carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions of CH4, N2O and non-biogenic CO2 from these activities shall be calculated on the basis of 100year global warming potential (GWP). CO2e values for CH4 and N2O shall be based on the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (28 and 265, respectively). Only non-biogenic CO2 emissions from fuel combustion shall be included in the calculation of CO2e emissions. 5. The functional unit for final LSf results shall be grams of CO2e per megajoule of fuel produced and combusted in an aircraft engine, in terms of lower heating value (gCO2e/MJ). 6. The calculated LSf values shall include emissions generated during on-going operational Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9F-3 activities (e.g., operation of a fuel production facility, feedstock cultivation), as well as emissions associated with the material and utility inputs to operational activities, such as processing chemicals, electricity, and natural gas. Emissions generated during one-time construction or manufacturing activities (e.g., fuel production facility construction, equipment manufacturing) shall not be included. 7. In many cases, the CEF supply chain of interest will result in the co-production of multiple commodities. These co-products may include non-CEF liquid fuels, chemicals, electricity, steam, hydrogen, and/or animal feed. Energy allocation shall be used to assign emissions burdens to all co-products in proportion to their contribution to the total energy content (measured as lower heating value) of the products and co-products. CO2e emissions shall not be allocated to waste, residues and by-products that result from the CEF supply chain of interest. 8. CEF feedstocks can be broadly categorized into three groups - primary or co-products, by-products, and wastes and residues. Further information on how feedstocks are categorized into these group for the purposes of CORSIA can be found in Section 4. 9. Feedstocks that are "low risk" for land use change have been identified and assigned as having zero emissions from land use change. The low land use change risk feedstock list includes: (1) feedstocks that do not result in expansion of global agricultural land use for their production; (2) wastes, residues, and by-products (see Section 4); and (3) feedstocks that have yields per surface unit significantly higher than terrestrial crops (~ one order of magnitude higher) such as some algal feedstocks. The feedstocks in these three categories shall all receive an ILUC value of zero in the fourth column of the table in the ICAO Document "CORSIA Default Life Cycle Emissions Values for CORSIA Eligible Fuels". 10. Aeroplane Operators may choose to capture the benefits of utilizing land use change-risk mitigation practices, (e.g., land management practices) to avoid ILUC emissions as part of an accepted fuel sustainability certification process (see the ICAO Document "CORSIA Eligibility Framework and Requirements for Sustainability Certification Schemes"). Mitigation practices that avoid ILUC emissions and the requirements that shall be met to obtain these reductions can be found in Section 5. The ILUC value of zero shall be used in place of the default ILUC value to calculate total LSf. If the Aeroplane Operator chooses to claim emissions reductions from the implementation of land use change-risk mitigation practices, then the Aeroplane Operator shall select an eligible Sustainability Certification Scheme from the ICAO document "CORSIA Approved Sustainability Certification Schemes" to provide documentation that the fuel was produced using land use change-risk mitigation practices according to Section 5. 11. Waste, residue, and by-product feedstocks are assumed to incur zero emissions during the feedstock production step of the lifecycle. Emissions generated during the collection, recovery, extraction, and processing of these wastes, residues, and by-products, however, shall be included (life cycle stages 2-7 described in paragraph 3). 12. The production of SAF from wastes and residues, as defined in Section 4 (Feedstock Categories section of the CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values), may generate emission credits that can be subtracted from the actual LCA values to calculate total LSf. If the Aeroplane Operator chooses to use a SAF that would generate such an emission credit, then the Aeroplane Operator shall select an eligible Sustainability Certification Scheme from the CORSIA ICAO Document "CORSIA Approved Sustainability Certification Schemes" to ensure the calculation of emission credits is in accordance with the specific methodologies 9F-4 Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 defined in this document, as follows. o Avoided Landfill Emissions Credit (LEC) for SAF derived from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Section 6.1 o Recycling Emissions Credit (REC) for SAF derived from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Section 6.2 The analysis to calculate these emission credits values shall be documented in a technical report citing fully the data sources, such that the results are replicable and use the most recent data available. The technical report must also demonstrate that the emission credits claimed are permanent; directly attributable to the SAF production; exceed any emissions reductions required by law, regulation or legally binding mandate; avoid double counting (including double issuance3 or double claiming4) of such credits; and exceed emissions reductions that would otherwise occur in a business-as-usual scenario. During the pilot phase of CORSIA, and until additional requirements and guidance have been developed to (a) ensure that emission credits for SAF generated under CORSIA are of an equivalent quality and quantity to emission units and (b) resolve concerns regarding double counting, after the subtraction of the LEC and/or REC applicable to a SAF, the total LSf value cannot be smaller than 0 gCO2e/MJ. 3. Technical Report Requirements 3.1 Reporting Requirements The SCS will require economic operators to document all relevant data appropriately in a Technical Report, which is verified by an accredited certification body. Upon request, the economic operator will submit the technical report to the SCS and on request, the SCS will submit the report to ICAO. Relevant data include: a) GHG emissions by life cycle step within the scope of certification, broken out by GHG emission species and aggregated in CO2e (100 year GWP). With regard to the life cycle steps, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICAO Document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values" states: "The system boundary of the core LCA value calculation shall include the full supply chain of SAF production and use. As such, emissions associated with the following life cycle stages of the SAF supply chain must be accounted for: (1) production at source (e.g., feedstock cultivation); (2) conditioning at source (e.g., feedstock harvesting, collection, and recovery); (3) feedstock processing and extraction; (4) feedstock transportation to processing and fuel production facilities; (5) feedstock-tofuel conversion processes; (6) fuel transportation and distribution to the blend point; and (7) fuel combustion in an aircraft engine." b) The LCA inventory data by life cycle step within the scope of certification, including all energy and material inputs. For life cycle steps 1-4, the inventory data are to be 3 In this instance, double issuance occurs when two or more credits or units are being issued for the same reduction. 4 In this instance, double claiming occurs when the same unit was used by multiple entities Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9F-5 provided per mass of feedstock, for the other steps per total fuel energy yield (MJ of fuel). c) Emission factors used for calculating GHG emissions associated with energy and material inputs, including information about the source for the emission factors. d) All relevant feedstock characteristics within the scope of certification, such as, for example, agricultural yield, lower heating value, moisture content, the content of sugar, starch, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, vegetable oil, or any other energy carrier (as applicable to feedstock of interest). e) Quantities for all final and intermediate products, per total energy yield. f) If Municipal Solid Waste is being used as a feedstock, then all relevant data required for the calculation of landfill emissions credits and recycling emissions credit will be disclosed according to the MSW crediting methodology in Section 6 on "Emissions Credits." g) In case a low LUC risk practice is being used, all relevant data required for the calculation and certification will be disclosed according to the Low LUC Risk Practices methodology. The SCS will report evidence that the certification body has verified that the economic operator has accurately followed the methodology specified in the ICAO Document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values" to calculate its actual LCA value using the most recent and scientifically rigorous data available, and that the LCA value calculation is complete, accurate and transparent. The SCS will report information on chain of custody system employed. Data will be recorded and reported to ICAO upon request in a format conducive to re-calculation and verification, for example as a spreadsheet in .csv or .txt file format. 3.2 Flow Of Information Along The Supply Chain For Actual LCA Values Each economic operator along the supply chain will implement a robust and transparent system to track the flow of data outlined in Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the ICAO Document "CORSIA Methodology for Calculating Actual Life Cycle Emissions Values" along the supply chain ("chain of custody system"). Tracking will occur each time the feedstock or fuel passes through an internal processing step or changes ownership along the supply chain. The SCS will implement procedures that allow verification that the economic operator has used an appropriate chain of custody system. 4. Feedstock Categories Primary and co- products are the main products of a production process. These products have significant economic value and elastic supply, (i.e., there is evidence that there is a causal link between feedstock prices and the quantity of feedstock being produced). By-products are secondary products with inelastic supply and economic value. 9F-6 Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 Wastes are materials with inelastic supply and no economic value. A waste is any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. Raw materials or substances that have been intentionally modified or contaminated to meet this definition are not covered by this definition. Residues are secondary materials with inelastic supply and little economic value. Residues include: a) Agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residues: Residues directly deriving from or generated by agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry. b) Processing residues: A substance that is not the end product that a production process directly seeks to produce; the production of the residue or substance is not the primary aim of the production process and the process has not been deliberately modified to produce it. The positive list provided in Table 1 includes feedstocks that have been classified as by-product, wastes and residues. It has been arrived at considering a broad range of publicly-available regulatory and voluntary approaches. The positive list is non-exhaustive. It includes materials currently in use or in discussion to be used for sustainable aviation fuel. The classification of specific feedstocks as by-products is subject to later revisions as part of the regular CORSIA review process in case there is strong scientific evidence showing that significant indirect effects could be associated to these feedstocks. Residues Agricultural residues: - Bagasse - Cobs - Stover - Husks - Manure - Nut shells - Stalks - Straw Forestry residues: - Bark - Branches - Cutter shavings - Leaves - Needles - Pre- commercial thinnings - Slash - Tree tops Processing residues: - Crude glycerine Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9F-7 - Forestry processing residues - Empty palm fruit bunches - Palm oil mill effluent - Sewage sludge - Crude Tall Oil - Tall oil pitch Wastes - Municipal solid waste - Used cooking oil By-products - Palm Fatty Acid Distillate - Tallow - Technical corn oil Table 1: Positive lists of materials classified as residues, wastes or by-products The positive list is an open list. The ICAO Council can add materials to it, according to the definitions of feedstocks above and using the process shown in Figure 1 as a guide: Figure 1: Guidance for inclusion of additional materials in positive list 9F-8 Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 5. Low LUC Risk Practices For the purposes of CORSIA, using certain types of land, land management practices (LMP), and the incorporation of innovative agricultural practices could all be considered as contributing to low risk for land use change and therefore receive a value of zero for ILUC. The implementation of these low LUC risk practices for a project should avoid market mediated responses that lead to changes in land use, and lead to additional SAF feedstock available relative to a baseline, without increasing land requirements. SCS with a methodology consistent with the principles and criteria listed below could be authorized by the ICAO Council to assess the implementation of low LUC risk practices and certify their low LUC risk status on a case-by-case, project-specific basis. The methodology must be open, documented, and publicly communicated. Feedstocks designated under the Low LUC Risk Practices approach during the CORSIA pilot phase are designated as such until 2030, subject to periodic audits to ensure ongoing compliance with the original requirements when the feedstocks were certified by the SCS. In all cases, this methodology should consider that, for a specific project to be eligible for recognition as a low LUC risk practice, the practice must be verified as a net enhancement in SAF feedstock available per unit of land. There are two approaches for low LUC risk SAF feedstock production: a) Yield Increase Approach. b) Unused Land Approach. Low LUC risk practices implemented on or after 1 January 2016 could be eligible. The feedstock producer needs to provide credible and verifiable evidence of the nature of the new land management practice, timing of its implementation and level of additional feedstock production. Exceptionally, practices implemented between 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 may be accepted where it can be demonstrated that low LUC risk practices were implemented primarily as a result of demand for biofuels. This would have to be demonstrated on a project-specific basis. This methodology is applicable during the pilot phase of CORSIA only. 5.1 Yield Increase Approach Eligible land management practices for the yield increase approach could include, among others, sequential cropping where more than one crop is planted per year, cover crops, the use of fallow land in a prescribed crop rotation, significant post-harvest loss reduction, and significant project level productivity increases due to the introduction of good practices and technology. The Yield Increase approach applies to any situation where feedstock producers are able to increase the amount of available feedstock out of a fixed area of land (i.e. without expanding the surface of the land). An increase in the harvested feedstock may be the result of: a) An improvement in agricultural practices, (practices that increase yields through means such as increased organic matter content, reduced soil compaction/erosion, decreased pests, post-harvest loss reduction, etc.); b) Intercropping, (i.e. the combination of two or more crops that grow simultaneously, for example as hedges or through an agroforestry system); Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9F-9 c) Sequential cropping, (i.e. the combination of two or more crops that grow at different periods of the year); and/or d) Improvements in post-harvest losses, (i.e. losses that occur at cultivation and transport up to but not including the first conversion unit in the supply chain). If there is a decrease of the available feedstock for the food or feed market at the project level resulting from the LMP (e.g., reduced yield from the main crop) this should be accounted for in calculating the volume of low LUC risk SAF feedstock (i.e., the volume of low LUC risk SAF feedstock represents the net increase in feedstock after accounting for any reduction in production of the primary food/feed crop that had been grown historically). Measurements of yield increases and post-harvest loss reduction relative to a baseline are calculated based on historical practices using the annual yield per unit of land based on data from the preceding 5 years before the LMP measure takes effect from similar producers within the same region for the duration of the LMP measure. The low LUC risk feedstock thus represents additional feedstock obtained as a consequence of the improvement relative to the baseline. The amount of additional feedstock available and considered eligible for low LUC risk feedstock is calculated as follows: 1) The average amount of feedstock available historically, from similar producers within the same region, is calculated based on actual net feedstock production (i.e., amount harvested less post- harvest losses) in the five years before the LMP measure takes effect. Similar producers can be defined as producers growing the same (or equivalent) crops and using a similar management model (e.g., smallholder, small or large scale plantation). 2) The amount of feedstock available as a consequence of the LMP is calculated based on the current/new net feedstock production (amount harvested less post-harvest losses) that is attributable to the adoption of the new LMP measure. 3) The additional low LUC risk feedstock represents the difference between the values calculated via the two previous steps. 5.2 Unused Land Approach: Eligible lands for the unused land approach could include, among others, marginal lands, underused lands, unused lands, degraded pasture lands, and lands in need of remediation. For a land to be eligible for the unused land approach, it needs to meet one of the following criteria: a) Land was not considered to be arable land or used for crop production during the five years preceding the reference date. b) Land is identified as severely degraded land or undergoing a severe degradation process for at least three years, according to criteria proposed by a Sustainability Certification Scheme recognized under CORSIA, where the criteria are based on scientific literature. 9F-10 Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 For a land to be eligible for the unused land approach, it also needs to have little risk for displacement of services from that land onto different and equivalent amounts of land elsewhere. Note: services refer to products obtained from ecosystems such as food, animal feed, or bioenergy feedstocks. The amount of feedstock considered eligible for low LUC risk feedstock is equal to the amount of feedstock harvested for SAF production. 6. Emissions Credits 6.1 Methodology for Calculation of Landfill Emissions Credits SAF produced from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) feedstocks may generate an avoided Landfill Emissions Credit (LEC). The value of the LEC shall be calculated as follows: Step 1 Estimate the proportional shares of each of the following four waste categories (j) that make up the MSW diverted from landfilling: paper/textiles; wood/straw; other (non-food) organic putrescible/garden and park waste; and food waste/sewage sludge. These shares should be expressed in terms of the dry mass of each waste category (j) per dry mass of MSW diverted from landfilling (before additional sorting and recycling, if applicable) (eg. Wpaper/textiles = 0.4 dry tonne per dry tonne of MSW). Step 2 Select the degradable organic carbon content (DOC) and the fraction of carbon dissimilated (DOCF) values from Table 2 that best represent each waste category (j) in the MSW. Use weighted averages to generate DOC and DOCF values that accurately represent each of the four waste categories of the MSW feedstock of interest. Table 2: DOC and DOCF Material DOC5 (% of dry matter) Corrugated containers 47% Newspaper 49% Office paper 32% Coated paper 34% Food waste 50% Grass 45% Leaves 46% Branches 49% Gypsum board 5% Dimensional lumber 49% Medium-density fiberboard 44% Wood flooring 46% DOCF (%) 45% 16% 88% 26% 84% 46% 15% 23% 45% 12% 16% 5% Step 3 Select the methane correction factor (MCF) from Table 3 that most accurately represents the conditions of the landfill in question. 5 EPA, "Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Management Practices Chapters." 2016. EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/warm_v14_management_practices.pdf Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 Table 3: Methane correction factor (MCF)6 Landfill conditions Anaerobic managed solid waste disposal site Unmanaged solid waste disposal site deep Semi-aerobic managed solid waste disposal site Unmanaged solid waste disposal site - shallow MCF 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 9F-11 Step 4 Use Equation 1 to calculate total CH4 generation, Q, from each waste category, j, per dry tonne of diverted MSW. Equation 1: Total CH4 generation from waste category j, per dry tonne of diverted MSW [g CH4 / t dry diverted MSW] where: Qj Wj DOC DOCF F MCF 16/12 106 Qj = Wj × DOCj × DOCF_j × F × MCF × (16/12) ×106 = total CH4 generation over a 100-year period from waste category j = dry mass of waste category j per dry mass of MSW diverted from landfilling [%] = degradable organic carbon content from Table 2 [%] = fraction of degradable organic carbon dissimilated from Table 2 [%] = CH4 concentration in LFG, 50% = Methane correction factor from Table 3 = CH4 to carbon ratio = grams per tonne conversion [g / t] Step 5 Select the lifetime LFG collection efficiency (LFGCE) that most accurately represents the landfill-specific conditions in Table 4, for each waste category of the organic MSW diverted from the landfill. If the landfill in question is not managed, and LFG is not collected, use a value of 0%. Note that in this case, it would be inappropriate to also select a MCF value of 1.0 which corresponds to an anaerobic managed solid waste disposal site. 6 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html 9F-12 Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 Table 4: Landfill gas collection efficiency (LFGCE)7 Climate zone LFG collection Boreal and temperate (MAT 20°C) Dry Wet (MAP/PET < 1) (MAP/PET >1) Tropical (MAT > 20°C) Dry Moist and wet (MAP < 1000 mm) (MAP >1000 mm) Activea Moderateb Minimalc Activea Moderateb Minimalc Activea Moderateb Minimalc Activea Moderateb Minimalc Waste category, j Slowly degrading waste Paper/textiles waste 78% 70% 56% 82% 71% 56% 79% 70% 56% 83% 71% 56% Wood/straw waste 68% 63% 51% 74% 67% 54% 71% 65% 53% 76% 68% 55% Moderately degrading waste Other (non-food) organic putrescible/garden and park waste 80% 71% 56% 83% 69% 54% 83% 71% 56% 80% 61% 55% Rapidly degrading waste Food waste/Sewage sludge 82% 71% 56% 79% 59% 49% 84% 70% 55% 72% 46% 43% MAT Mean annual temperature; MAP Mean annual precipitation; PET Potential evapotranspiration. a Active: Typically, the landfill operator is using horizontal LFG collectors from the early stage of cell development while still accepting MSW (less than a year after cells' first waste disposal), and vertical collectors once cells are capped. b Moderate: Horizontal collectors are installed to capture LFG 1-3 years after cells' first waste disposal, and vertical collectors are used once cells are capped. c Minimal: LFG is not collected during waste acceptance, but vertical collectors are used once cells are capped. Step 6 Select the oxidation rate that best represents the landfill conditions: 10% should be used for modern, sanitary, and well-managed landfills; 0% should be used in all other cases.2 Step 7 Calculate non-captured CH4 emissions, CH4n, per dry tonne of diverted MSW using Equation 2. Note that Qj and LFGCEj are defined for each waste category, j. Equation 2: Non-captured CH4 emissions (CH4n) [g CH4 / t dry MSW] CH4n = Qj×1 - ×(1 - oxidation rate) j 7 Nine landfills were interviewed, and three landfills that represent active, moderate, and minimal LFG collection were selected and simulated based on the method provided in Lee et al. (2018) with phased collection efficiency specified in Barlaz et al. (2009). Lee, U., Han, J. and Wang, M., 2017. Evaluation of landfill gas emissions from municipal solid waste landfills for the lifecycle analysis of waste-to-energy pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, pp.335-342. Barlaz, M.A., Chanton, J.P., Green, R.B., 2009. Controls on landfill gas collection efficiency: instantaneous and lifetime performance. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 59, 13991404. Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9F-13 Step 8 Calculate biogenic CO2 in non-captured CH4 emissions, CO2n, and biogenic CO2 that remains as carbon in the landfill, CO2s, using Equation 3. Equation 3: CO2n and CO2s [g CO2e / t dry MSW] CO2n = CH4n × 44/16 2 = Wj× DOC × (1 - ) × (44/12) × 106 j Step 9 In the case that the project of interest diverts MSW from a landfill where collected CH4 is used for electricity generation instead of flaring, calculate the avoided electricity credit using Equation 4. where: LHVCH4 CF LFGCEn CIelec 10-3 Equation 4: Avoided electricity credit [g CO2e / t dry MSW] = 4 × × × [( × )] × × 10-3 = lower heating value of CH4, 0.0139 MWh / kg = net electricity generation efficiency (eg. 30%, dependent on landfill of interest) = capacity factor including downtime (eg. 85%, dependent on landfill of interest) = total CH4 generation from waste category j from Equation 1[g CO2e / t dry MSW] = landfill gas collection efficiency selected from Table 3 [%] = average carbon intensity of grid electricity in the region where the landfill generating electricity is located (use the highest spatial resolution regional-level CI published by a relevant national entity) [gCO2e / MWh] = kilogram per gram conversion [kg / g] Step 10 Calculate the final LEC of the SAF production process, as shown in Equation 5. This landfilland waste-specific LEC value is to be subtracted from the core LCA value (g CO2e/MJ) of MSW-derived SAF. where: CH4n GWPCH4 CO2n CO2s [avoided electricity credit] Y Equation 5: Final LEC calculation [g CO2e/MJ] LEC = CH4n × (GWPCH4) CO2n CO2s [avoided electricity credit] Y = non-captured CH4 emission [g CH4 / t dry MSW] = 100-year global warming potential of CH4, 28 g CO2e / g CH4 = Biogenic CO2 in non-captured CH4 emissions [g CO2e / t dry MSW] = Biogenic CO2 that remains as carbon in the landfill [g CO2e / t dry MSW] = Emissions offset by replacing grid electricity with electricity from captured CH4 [g CO2e / t dry MSW] = Total energy yield (liquid fuels, other fuel and energy co-products and non-energy co-products) from MSW [MJ/ t dry MSW]. Note that this is calculated on the basis of MSW diverted from the landfill, before any additional sorting or recycling takes place. 6.2 Methodology for Calculation of Recycling Emissions Credits SAF produced from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) feedstocks may generate a Recycling Emissions Credit (REC), due to additional recyclable material being recovered and sorted during feedstock 9F-14 Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 preparation. The emissions avoided for additional recycling of plastics and metals, calculated separately, are summed to generate a total REC value. REC shall be calculated as follows: 1. Plastics Step 1a. Select the energy consumption factors for virgin plastic production and recycling from Table 5, for the plastic types recovered from the MSW feedstock in question. Material PET HDPE LDPE PP Table 5: Energy factors for virgin plastic production and recycling8 Specific electricity consumption for virgin plastic production (SECbl) Specific fossil fuel consumption for the production of virgin plastic (SFC) Specific electricity consumption for plastic recycling (SECrec) [MWh / t] [GJ / t] [MWh / t] 1.11 15.0 0.83 0.83 15.0 0.83 1.67 15.0 0.83 0.56 11.6 0.83 Step 1b. Select appropriate emission factors for electricity, and direct fossil fuels use, for virgin plastic production, that accurately represent the specific project in question. CIelec = average carbon intensity of grid electricity in the region where the virgin plastic production is being offset (use the highest spatial resolution regional-level CI published by a relevant national entity) [gCO2e / MWh] CIff = carbon intensity of fossil fuel used in the virgin plastic production process [g CO2e / GJ]. The life cycle CIs of coal, natural gas, fuel oil, and diesel, used as stationary fuels in US industrial processes, are 100.7, 69.4, 95.6, and 93.4 g CO2e/MJ, respectively. Note that more regionally or context appropriate data should be substituted for the values given here, if available. Step 1c. Estimate the emissions avoided by using recycled plastics to reduce virgin plastic production, per tonne of diverted MSW feedstock. This calculation should be carried out for each plastic type, and summed up, as shown in Equation 6. Equation 6: REC associated with additional recycled plastic [g CO2e / t dry MSW] where: qi i Li SECbl,i SECrec,i SFCi = × × , × + × - , × = quantity of plastic i recycled [t / dry t MSW]. This is on the basis of per tonne of dry MSW diverted from the landfill, before additional recycling takes place. = type of plastic recycled (eg. PET, HDPE, LDPE, or PP) = adjustment factor for degradation in material quality and loss when using the recycled material, 0.75 = specific electricity consumption for virgin material production for plastic i [MWh / t plastic] = specific electricity consumption for recycling of plastic i [MWh / t plastic] = specific fossil fuel consumption for virgin material production of plastic i [GJ / t plastic] 8 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2018. AMS-III.AJ.: Recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes --- Version 7.0. Clean Development Mechanism. Valid from August 2018. Appendix F to the Report on Agenda Item 9 9F-15 2. Metals Step 2a. Select the energy consumption factors for virgin metal production and recycling from Table 6, for the metal types recovered from the MSW feedstock in question. Table 6: Emissions and energy factors for virgin metal production recycling9 Material Emission factor for virgin metal production (CI) Specific electricity consumption for metal recycling (SECrec) [g CO2ee / t] [GJ / t] Aluminium 8.40 x 106 0.66 Steel 1.27 x 106 0.9 Step 2b. Select an appropriate emission factor for electricity use in virgin metal production that accurately represents the specific project in question. CIelec = average carbon intensity of grid electricity in the region where virgin metal production is being offset (use the highest spatial resolution regional-level CI published by a relevant national entity) [gCO2e / MWh] Step 2c. Estimate the emissions avoided by using recycled metals to reduce virgin metal production, per tonne of diverted MSW feedstock. This calculation should be carried out for each metal type, and summed up, as shown in Equation 7. Equation 7: REC associated with additional recycled metal [g CO2e / t dry MSW] where: qi i CIi Li SECrec,i = × × () - , × = quantity of metal i recycled [t / dry t MSW]. This is on the basis of per tonne of dry MSW diverted from the landfill, before additional recycling takes place. = type of metal recycled (eg. steel, or aluminum) = emission factor for virgin production of metal i [g CO2e / t metal] = adjustment factor for degradation in material quality and loss when using the recycled material, 0.75 = specific electricity consumption for recycling of metal i [MWh / t plastic] Step 3 Sum up emissions credits from plastics and metals, and convert to a basis of per MJ of fuel, as shown in Equation 8. Equation 8: Final REC calculation [g CO2e / MJ] where: = + Y = Total energy yield (liquid fuels, other fuel and energy co-products and non-energy co-products) from MSW [MJ/ t dry MSW]. Note that this is calculated on the basis of MSW diverted from the landfill, before any additional sorting or recycling takes place. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2018. AMS-III.AJ.: Recovery and recycling of materials from solid wastes --- Version 7.0. Clean Development Mechanism. Valid from August 2018. 10 10-1 10 10.1 1999 10.1.1 IPCC 1999 IPCC1999 1)2)3)4) 5)6)7) 8) 4 1999 10.1.2 1999 1999 10.1.3 1999 10.2 10.2.1 ISG CAEP/11 1 2 "" 10.2.2 CAEP/11 "" 10-2 10 10.2.3 "" 10.2.4 "" 10.2.5 "" "" 10.2.6 10.2.6.1 "" 10/1 -- 10.3 10.3.1 IPCC 1.5°C LTGSPM 1.5°C 1.5°C 2°C IPCC 10.3.2 1.5°C LTG 40 10.3.3 LTG IPCC 1.5°C 10 10-3 10.3.4 1.5°C 40 A39-2 10.3.5 A39-2 9 "" 2019 CAEP -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 APPENDIX AVIATION NOISE IMPACTS WHITE PAPER 10A-1 STATE OF THE SCIENCE 2019: AVIATION NOISE IMPACTS V. Sparrow, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, United States T. Gjestland, SINTEF, Norway R. Guski, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany I. Richard, ENVIRONNONS, France M. Basner, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, United States A. Hansell, University of Leicester, United Kingdom Y. de Kluizenaar, The Netherlands Organization for applied scientific research (TNO), The Netherlands C. Clark, ARUP, United Kingdom S. Janssen, The Netherlands Organization for applied scientific research (TNO), The Netherlands V. Mestre, Landrum & Brown, California, United States A. Loubeau, NASA Langley Research Center, Virginia, United States A. Bristow, University of Surrey, United Kingdom S. Thanos, University of Manchester, United Kingdom M. Vigeant, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, United States R. Cointin, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, United States SUMMARY This paper provides an overview of the state of the science regarding aviation noise impacts as of early 2019. It contains information on impacts including community noise annoyance, sleep disturbance, health impacts, children's learning, helicopter noise, supersonic aircraft, urban air mobility and unmanned aerial systems. The paper also considers the economic costs of aviation noise. This information was collected during an ICAO/CAEP Aviation Noise Impacts Workshop in November 2017 and in subsequent followon discussions. 10A-2 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS AVIATION NOISE IMPACTS WHITE PAPER CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2. COMMUNITY NOISE ANNOYANCE 2.1 Definition 2.2 Exposure-response relationships 2.3 Generalized versus local exposure-response relationships 2.4 Moderating variables 2.5 Temporal trends in aircraft noise annoyance 2.6 Noise mitigation strategies 2.7 Conclusions CHAPTER 3. SLEEP DISTURBANCE 3.1 Sleep And Its Importance For Health 3.2 Aircraft noise effects on sleep 3.3 Noise effects assessment 3.4 Noise mitigation 3.5 Recent evidence review CHAPTER 4. HEALTH IMPACTS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Aircraft noise and cardiovascular impacts 4.3 Aircraft noise and metabolic effects (diabetes, obesity, waist circumference, metabolic biomarkers) 4.4 Aircraft noise and birth outcomes 4.5 Aircraft noise and mental health 4.6 Conclusions CHAPTER 5. CHILDREN'S LEARNING 5.1 Chronic aircraft noise exposure and children's learning 5.2 How might chronic aircraft noise exposure cause learning deficits? 5.3 Interventions to reduce aircraft noise exposure at school 5.4 Conclusions CHAPTER 6. HELICOPTER NOISE 6.1 Exposure-response relationships 6.2 Role of non-acoustic factors 6.3 Role of impulse noise 6.4 Role of rattle noise and vibrations CHAPTER 7. EN-ROUTE NOISE FROM SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Human response studies 7.3 Non-technical aspects of public acceptability for sonic boom 7.4 Impacts of sonic boom on animals 7.5 Conclusions CHAPTER 8. UAM/UAS noise 8.1 Current status 8.2 Conclusions CHAPTER 9. ECONOMIC COST OF AVIATION NOISE / MONETIZATION 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Hedonic Pricing (HP) 9.3 Stated Preference (SP) Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 9.4 Impact pathway 9.5 The abatement and mitigation costs of dealing with noise 9.6 Conclusions CHAPTER 10. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK CHAPTER 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPENDIX A - Sonic Boom Noise Impact, Additional Detail And References A1. Sonic boom impacts on humans A.1.1 Unique qualities of sonic booms A.1.2 Sonic boom noise generation for subjective studies A.1.3 Human response studies A.1.4 Sonic boom metrics evaluation A.1.5 Conclusions A2. Non-technical aspects of public acceptability for sonic boom A3. Impacts of sonic booms on animals REFERENCES 10A-3 10A-4 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the state of the science in the area of aviation noise impacts. As part of its work programme CAEP's Impacts and Science Group (ISG) was tasked with providing an updated white paper on the topic of aviation noise impacts. A white paper on aviation noise impacts was provided at the CAEP/10 meeting as WP/54-Appendix G, and was later published in 2017 as an open access journal article1, but it did not address some emerging areas in aviation. So instead of merely providing an update, the course taken was to extend the review to the above mentioned topics. An Aviation Noise Impacts Workshop was held for invited scientists and other observers and guests in Montreal, Canada November 1-3, 2017. The purpose of this workshop was to lay the foundation for this white paper, and over 50 attendees participated. One specific topic requested by the CAEP Steering Group (CAEP SG.20161.SD.4) was for ISG to address the non-technical environmental aspects of the public acceptability for supersonic aircraft noise, and ISG began to explore this topic. In addition, the authors found much material on supersonics that had not previously been summarized for CAEP, and these details are provided in an appendix. Subsequent follow-up discussions led to additions to this white paper beyond those discussed at the workshop, and this includes urban air mobility (UAM) and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) noise. The basic of metrics for aircraft noise were defined in an appendix to WP/54-Appendix G and the open access journal article1, and those will not be repeated here. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-5 CHAPTER 2. COMMUNITY NOISE ANNOYANCE 2.1 Definition Community noise annoyance refers to the average evaluation of the annoying aspects of a noise situation by a "community" or group of people. Annoyance, in this context, comprises a response that reflects negative experiences or feelings such as dissatisfaction, anger, disappointment, etc. due to interference with activities (e.g., communication or sleep) or simply an expression of being bothered by the noise. To facilitate inter-study comparisons standardized annoyance questions and response scales have been introduced by the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise, ICBEN.2 These recommendations have been adopted by the International Standards Organization3, ISO TS 15666, and translated into a number of new languages, following a standard protocol.4 2.2 Exposure-response relationships Over the years, many attempts have been made to relate the percentage of respondents highly annoyed by a specific noise source to the day-night average noise exposure level, Ldn, or a similar indicator, e.g. dayevening-night average noise exposure level, Lden.5,6 The standard ISO 1996: 2016 has tables with % HA as a function of Ldn and Lden for various transportation noise sources.7 A review by Gelderblom et al.8 confirms these data for aircraft noise. Another review suggests different relationships, particularly for aircraft noise annoyance.9 2.3 Generalized versus local exposure-response relationships While exposure-response relationships have been recommended for assessing the expected annoyance response in a certain noise situation, they are not applicable to assess the effects of a change in the noise climate. Existing survey results reveal a higher annoyance response in situations with a high rate of change, for instance, where a new runway is opened.10,11,12 Such heightened annoyance response seems to prevail. Since airports and communities may differ greatly with respect to acoustic and non-acoustic variables, local exposureresponse relationships, if available, may be preferred for predicting annoyance and describing the noise situation with desired accuracy. Still, generalized exposureresponse relationships are desirable to allow assessment across communities and to establish recommended limit values for levels of aircraft noise. 2.4 Moderating variables Analyses show that the common noise exposure variables per se explain about one third of the variance of individual annoyance responses. The annoyance response is moderated by a series of other factors, both acoustic and non-acoustic. Acoustic factors can be maximum levels, number of flights, fleet composition, and their respective distribution over time. Non-acoustic factors are for instance, personal noise 10A-6 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 sensitivity and attitude towards the noise source. In the aviation industry all "non- Ldn factors" are commonly referred to as "non-acoustic". Two old meta-analyses on the influence of non-acoustic factors on annoyance13,14 showed the factors of fear of danger of aircraft operations, followed by noise sensitivity and age, had the largest effects. More recent results indicate that fear is no longer a dominating modifying factor. Other important modifying factors may be distrust in authorities and expectations of property devaluation.15 Guski et al. suggested9 that the rate of change at an airport with respect to noise and operational procedures could be an important moderating factor. They defined two types: LRC and HRC, low/high rate of change airport. Gelderblom et al. have shown that the average difference in the annoyance response between these two types of airports, LRC and HRC, corresponds to a 9-dB-difference (9 dB ± 4 dB) in the noise exposure.17 Guski et al. reported a similar, but smaller difference, about 6 dB.9 The difference between the two studies is likely due to different selections and weighting of survey samples. An important non-acoustic factor seems to be the attitude towards the noise source and/or its owner. Contrary to common beliefs, people that benefit from the air traffic are not more tolerant to aircraft noise.18 A lack of trust in the authorities, misfeasance, and a feeling of not being fairly treated will increase the annoyance.15 People may adapt different coping strategies, i.e. to master, minimize or tolerate the noise situation. Noise sensitive people have more difficulties coping with noise than others.19 If the respondents in a survey are selected according to proper random procedures, and the number of respondents is large enough to be an accurate representation of the population, individual factors will have the same effect in all surveys. However, other factors are location specific, for instance number of aircraft movements, prevalence of night time operations, LRC/HRC categorization, etc. The survey results from different airports will therefore vary unless these location specific factors are the same, or that they are accounted for statistically. Hence the search for a common exposure-response function, a "one curve fits all" solution, may not be applicable for all purposes. 2.5 Temporal trends in aircraft noise annoyance Systematic surveys on aircraft noise annoyance have been conducted regularly over a good half century. Analyses by some researchers indicate that there has been an increase in aircraft noise annoyance over the past decades.20,21 These authors state that at equal noise exposure levels, people today seem to be more annoyed by aircraft noise than they were 30-40 years ago. Other researchers, however, claim that they can observe no change provided that the comparisons comprise similar and comparable noise situations.17 Gelderblom et al. point out that the trend observations made by others can be explained by variations in non-acoustic factors, such as the fact that the prevalence of HRC airports are higher among recent surveys than among older ones. When LRC and HRC airports are analyzed separately they claim that there has been no change in the annoyance response over the past 50 years. Guski et al. on the other hand, claim that even at LRC airports the prevalence of highly annoyed people is higher for all exposure levels compared to older studies.9 Survey results from different airports show a large variation in the annoyance response. The result of a trend analysis based on a limited sample of surveys is therefore highly dependent on the selection criteria. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-7 2.6 Noise mitigation strategies Annoyance due to aircraft noise has been recognized by authorities and policy makers as a harmful effect that should be reduced or prevented. Priority is given to noise reduction at the source (e.g., engine noise, aerodynamic noise) and reducing noise impact by adjusting operational procedures and take-off and landing trajectories. Attempts to modify the noise spectrum to produce a more agreeable "sound" were made in the EU-funded COSMA project.22 Such changes gave little or no effect. Sound insulation of dwellings is often applied, but such measures have no consequences for the outdoor experience of aircraft noise. The observed influence on annoyance of personal non-acoustic factors such as perceived control, and trust in authorities suggests that communication strategies addressing these issues could contribute to the reduction of annoyance, alongside or even in the absence of a noise reduction. 2.7 Conclusions There is substantial evidence that there is an increase in annoyance as a function of noise level, e.g. Ldn or Lden. The noise level alone, however, accounts for only a part of the annoyance. Location and/or situation specific acoustic and non-acoustic factors play a significant role and must be taken into account. There is conflicting evidence that there has been a change in the annoyance response in recent years. Under equal conditions, people today are not more annoyed at a given noise level than they were 30-40 years ago. However, due to changes in both acoustic and non-acoustic factors (more HRC airports, higher number of aircraft movements, etc.), the average prevalence of highly annoyed people at a given noise level (Ldn or Lden) seems to be increasing. Existing exposure-response functions should be updated and diversified to account for various acoustic and non-acoustic factors. The difference between a high rate change and a low rate change situation seems to be particularly important. 10A-8 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 CHAPTER 3. SLEEP DISTURBANCE 3.1 Sleep And Its Importance For Health Sleep is a biological imperative and a very active process that serves several vital functions. Undisturbed sleep of sufficient length is essential for daytime alertness and performance, quality of life, and health.23,24 The epidemiologic evidence that chronically disturbed or curtailed sleep is associated with negative health outcomes (like obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure) is overwhelming. For these reasons, noise-induced sleep disturbance is considered one of the most important non-auditory effects of environmental noise exposure. 3.2 Aircraft noise effects on sleep The auditory system has a watchman function and constantly scans the environment for potential threats. Humans perceive, evaluate and react to environmental sounds while asleep.25 At the same sound pressure level (SPL), meaningful or potentially harmful noise events are more likely to cause arousals from sleep than less meaningful events. As aircraft noise is intermittent noise, its effects on sleep are primarily determined by the number and acoustical properties (e.g., maximum SPL, spectral composition) of single noise events. However, whether or not noise will disturb sleep also depends on situational (e.g., sleep depth26) and individual (e.g., noise sensitivity) moderators.25 Sensitivity to nocturnal noise exposure varies considerably between individuals. The elderly, children, shift-workers, and those in ill health are considered at risk for noise-induced sleep disturbance.24 Children are in a sensitive developmental stage and often sleep during the shoulder hours of the day with high air traffic volumes. Likewise, shift-workers often sleep during the day when their circadian rhythm is promoting wakefulness and when traffic volume is high. Sleep depth decreases with age, which is why the elderly are often more easily aroused from sleep by noise than younger subjects. Repeated noise-induced arousals impair sleep quality through changes in sleep structure including delayed sleep onset and early awakenings, less deep (slow wave) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, and more time spent awake and in superficial sleep stages.26,27 Deep and REM sleep have been shown to be important for sleep recuperation in general and memory consolidation specifically. Non-acoustic factors (e.g., high temperature, nightmares) can also disturb sleep and complicate the unequivocal attribution of arousals to noise.28 Field studies in the vicinity of airports have shown that most arousals cannot be attributed to aircraft noise, and noise-induced sleep-disturbance is in general less severe than that observed in clinical sleep disorders like obstructive sleep apnea.29,30 However, noise-induced arousals are not part of the physiologic sleep process, and may therefore be more consequential for sleep recuperation.132 Short-term effects of noise-induced sleep disturbance include impaired mood, subjectively and objectively increased daytime sleepiness, and impaired cognitive performance.31,32 It is hypothesized that noise-induced sleep disturbance contributes to the increased risk of cardiovascular disease if individuals are exposed to relevant noise levels over years. Recent epidemiologic studies indicate that nocturnal noise exposure may be more relevant for long-term health consequences than daytime noise exposure, probably also because people are at home more consistently during the night.16,33 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-9 3.3 Noise effects assessment Exposure-response functions relating a noise indicator (e.g., maximum SPL) to a sleep outcome (e.g. awakening probability) can be used for health impact assessments and inform political decision making. Subjects exposed to noise typically habituate, and exposure-response functions derived in the field (where subjects have often been exposed to the noise for many years) are much shallower than those derived in unfamiliar laboratory settings.34,35 Unfortunately, sample sizes and response rates of the studies that are the basis for exposure-response relationships were usually low, which restricts generalizability. Exposure-response functions are typically sigmoidal (s-shaped) and show monotonically increasing effects. Maximum SPLs as low as 33 dB(A) induce physiological reactions during sleep, i.e., once the organism is able to differentiate a noise event from the background, physiologic reactions can be expected (albeit with a low probability at low noise levels).34 This reaction threshold should not be confused with limit values used in legislative and policy settings, which are usually considerably higher. At the same maximum SPL, aircraft noise has been shown to be less likely to disturb sleep compared to road and rail traffic noise, which was partly explained by the frequency distribution, duration, and rise time of the noise events.27,36 At the same time, the percent highly sleep disturbed assessed via self-reports is typically higher for aircraft noise compared to road and rail traffic noise at the same Lnight level.37 Although equivalent noise levels are correlated with sleep disturbance, there is general agreement that the number and acoustical properties of noise events better reflect the degree of sleep disturbance (especially for intermittent aircraft noise). As exposure-response functions are typically without a clearly discernible sudden increase in sleep disturbance at a specific noise level, defining limit values is not straight forward and remains a political decision weighing the negative consequences of aircraft noise on sleep with the economic and societal benefits of air traffic. Accordingly, night-time noise legislation differs between Contracting States. 3.4 Noise mitigation Mitigating the effects of aircraft noise on sleep is a three-tiered approach. Noise reduction at the source has highest priority. However, as it will take years for new aircraft with reduced noise emissions to penetrate the market (and will thus not solve the problem in the near future), additional immediate measures are needed. For example, noise-reducing take-off and landing procedures can often be more easily implemented during the low-traffic night-time. Land-use planning can be used to reduce the number of relevantly exposed subjects. Passive sound insulation (including ventilation) represent mitigation measures that can be effective in reducing sleep disturbance, as subjects usually spend their nights indoors. At some airports, nocturnal traffic curfews have been imposed by regulation. It is important to line up the curfew period with the (internationally varying) sleep patterns of the population. 3.5 Recent evidence review For sleep disturbance, a systematic evidence review based on studies published in or after the year 2000 was recently published.37 According to GRADE38 criteria, the quality of the evidence was found to be moderate for cortical awakenings and self-reported sleep disturbance (for questions that referred to noise) induced by aircraft noise, low for motility measures of aircraft noise induced sleep disturbance, and very 10A-10 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 low for all other investigated sleep outcomes. Significant exposure-response functions were found for aircraft noise for (a) sleep stage changes to wake or superficial stage S1 (unadjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.22-1.50 per 10 dB increase in LAS,max; based on N=61 subjects of a single study) and (b) percent highly sleep disturbed for questions mentioning the noise source (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61-2.33 for a 10 dBA increase in Lnight; based on N=6 studies including > 6,000 respondents). For percent highly sleep disturbed, heterogeneity between studies was found to be high (I2=84%). Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-11 CHAPTER 4. HEALTH IMPACTS 4.1 Introduction There is good biological plausibility for health impacts of environmental noise, with potential mechanisms involving sleep disturbance, `fight and flight' physiological response and annoyance.39,40 The number of epidemiological studies investigating impacts of environmental noise on disease risk and risk factors has increased greatly since the previous ICAO white paper1 and these have been used to define exposure-response relationships. Some variability is expected between epidemiological studies due to differences in populations, methodology, exposures and study design. Therefore, a combined estimate from a meta-analysis of studies with a low risk of bias is used to provide a state of the art estimate of the exposure-response relationship. This section highlights main findings from the systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses published in 2017-2018. These reviews reference the noise and health literature up to August 2015 for cardiovascular outcomes41 and December 2016 for birth outcomes.42 This section also considers new publications up to end July 2018, including from the NORAH (http://www.laermstudie.de/en/norahstudy/) and SIRENE (http://www.sirene-studie.ch/) studies in Germany and Switzerland respectively. Almost all studies available were conducted in European and North American populations. 4.2 Aircraft noise and cardiovascular impacts The systematic review on cardiovascular and metabolic effects of environmental noise was performed by van Kempen et al.41 and described in detail in an RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) report.46 The authors reviewed studies on the association between environmental noise (different source types) and hypertension in adults (none were identified focusing on children), ischaemic heart disease, stroke and obesity published up to August 2015. Findings for aircraft noise were reported to be consistent with findings for road traffic noise, where there are more studies available. For hypertension: the van Kempen et al.41 meta-analysis included nine cross-sectional studies and provided an estimated increased risk of 5% (95% confidence intervals -5% to +17%) per 10 dB (Lden) aircraft noise (comprising 60,121 residents, including 9487 cases of hypertension). The one cohort study identified50 (4721 residents and 1346 cases in Sweden published in 2010) did not show an overall association with hypertension incidence, but there were significant associations in subgroup analyses of males and of those annoyed by aircraft noise. The authors of the review ranked the quality of the evidence for noise from air traffic as "low" using the GRADE ranking system, meaning that further research is considered very likely to have both an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and to change the size of the estimate. Subsequent to the systematic review, a large case-control study (137,577 cases and 355,591 controls) from the NORAH study51 found no associations overall for aircraft noise with hypertension, but an increased risk for the subgroup of those who went on to develop hypertension-related heart disease, i.e. more severe cases. A subsequent publication from a small cohort (N=420) with up to 9 years follow-up in Athens who formed part of the original HYENA (Hypertension and Exposure to Noise 10A-12 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 Near Airports) study found a 2.6-fold increased risk of hypertension in association with a 10 dB increase in night-time aircraft noise.52 Hypertension shows a positive but non-statistically significant association overall reflecting inconsistency between studies. This can be a difficult outcome to define precisely the PURE multi-country study published in 2013 found nearly half of all cases of hypertension were unrecognised.198 There are various issues about defining hypertension by medication use, and recognised issues about measuring blood pressure in individuals. Also, hypertension may not be the only or most important mechanism contributing to potential impacts of noise on the heart inflammation, small blood vessel function and sleep disturbance also need to be considered.196,197 For ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and heart failure, findings were more consistent than for hypertension: the van Kempen et al. systematic review41 reported a statistically significant increased risk of new cases of ischaemic heart disease of +9% (95% confidence intervals +4% to +15%) per 10 dB Lden, derived from a meta-analysis of two very large registry-based studies of 9.6 million participants and 158,977 cases. Taking into account evidence relating to existing as well as new cases and to mortality, the authors of the systematic review concluded "Overall, we rate the quality of the evidence supporting an association between air traffic noise and IHD as `low'" [using the GRADE ranking system] "indicating that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate". Subsequent published analyses from the SIRENE project using data from the Swiss National Cohort covering 4.4 million people53, reported associations between aircraft noise and myocardial infarction mortality with increased risk of +2.6% (95% confidence intervals +0.4% to +4.8%) per 10 dB Lden. Highest associations between noise and IHD were seen with intermittent nighttime exposures.54 A large case-control study in Germany (19,632 cases and 834,734 controls) forming part of the NORAH study found associations of aircraft noise with diagnosis of myocardial infarction at higher noise levels (>55 dB) in the early morning hours, although not for 24 hour average noise levels. A further large NORAH study analysis55 found a statistically significant linear exposure-response relationship with aircraft noise for heart failure or hypertensive heart disease of +1.6% per 10 dB increase in 24 hour continuous noise level (analysis based on 104,145 cases and 654,172 controls). For stroke: the van Kempen et al. systematic review41 considered seven studies of different designs including one cohort study (the Swiss National Cohort). Findings were mixed but the meta-analysis did not show statistically significant associations of aircraft noise with stroke outcomes. This result is consistent with subsequently published SIRENE study findings on stroke mortality also using the Swiss National Cohort but with improved noise exposure estimates.53 Comparisons with findings for road traffic noise: findings for aircraft noise and the cardiovascular disease outcomes presented above are consistent with those for road traffic noise as reported in the van Kempen et al systematic review.41 In particular, for ischaemic heart disease, the systematic review rated the quality of the evidence supporting an association between road traffic noise and new cases of ischaemic heart disease to be high, providing an increased risk of +8% (+1% to +15%) per 10 dB Lden road traffic noise (as compared with findings for aircraft noise for this outcome of +9% (+4% to +15%) as noted above). Analogy with road traffic noise is meaningful, because, as well as impacts on annoyance, noise also functions as a non-specific stressor with non-auditory impacts on the autonomic nervous Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-13 system and endocrine system. These stressor effects are seen with noise from different sources and result in adverse effects on oxidative stress and vascular function in experimental studies.196,197 4.3 Aircraft noise and metabolic effects (diabetes, obesity, waist circumference, metabolic biomarkers) The van Kempen et al. systematic review41 identified one Swedish cohort study considering aircraft noise,56 which found a significant association between aircraft noise exposure and increased waist circumference over 8-10 years follow-up, but not for Body Mass Index (BMI) or type 2 diabetes. The authors of the systematic review concluded that further research would be likely to have an important impact on both size and statistical confidence in the estimate of effect. Three more recent publications also report some associations of aircraft noise with metabolic disturbance.57-59 A 2017 Swiss cohort study analysis forming part of the SIRENE project suggested an approximate doubling of diabetes incidence per 12 dB Lden increase in aircraft noise exposure57 and positive although non-significant associations of aircraft noise exposure with glycosylated haemoglobin, a measure of glucose control over the past three months and a predictor of diabetes.58 A 2017 study in Korea of 18,165 pregnant women identified through health insurance records,59 found an association between night-time but not daytime aircraft noise exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Findings are consistent with a hypothesis that noise exposure is related to stress-hormone-mediated deposition of fat centrally and other impacts on metabolic functioning and/or adverse effects of disturbed sleep on metabolic and endocrine function, also with results from a small number of studies considering road traffic noise that also found associations with diabetes, but more studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base for this outcome. 4.4 Aircraft noise and birth outcomes A systematic review by Nieuwenhuijsen, et al.42 published in 2017 considered literature published up to December 2016. Six aircraft noise studies were included, but there were too few studies to conduct a meta-analysis. Four studies (published 1973-2001) considered birth weight and all studies found associations with aircraft noise exposure, but noise exposure levels in these studies were high (> 75 dB, various metrics). A further two studies conducted in the 1970s considered birth defects, of which one found significant associations again, noise levels considered were high. Evidence was considered such that any estimate of effect is very uncertain. The authors commented that "there may be some suggestive evidence for an association between environmental noise exposure and birth outcomes" with some support for this from studies of occupational noise exposure (which were higher than most current environmental aircraft noise exposures), but that further and high quality studies were needed. No further studies relating birth outcomes to aircraft noise have been published to date. 4.5 Aircraft noise and mental health There remain very few studies of aircraft noise exposure in relation to wellbeing, quality of life, and psychological ill-health. Since the previous ICAO paper and publication1 in 2017, there has been one major German analysis60 published from the NORAH study, which found a significant association with 10A-14 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 depression as recorded in health insurance claims. Risk estimates increased with increasing noise levels to a maximum Odds Ratio (OR) of 1.23 (95% CI=1.19-1.28) at 50-55 dB (24 hour average), but decreased at higher exposure categories. The reason for this is unclear but it may potentially be due to uncertainties related to very small numbers of exposed and cases at higher noise levels. A cohort study following 1185 German school children61 from age 5-6 to 9-10 years did not find associations of aircraft noise exposure with mental health problems (such as emotional symptoms, hyperactivity and conduct problems), but as the study used parental noise annoyance at place of residence as the measure of exposure as opposed to objectively assessed (modelled or measured) quantitative exposure levels, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. 4.6 Conclusions There has been a large increase in studies in recent years examining associations of noise exposure with health outcomes. The best epidemiological evidence relates to cardiovascular disease, which includes analyses from population-based studies covering millions of individuals, in particular for new cases of ischaemic heart disease. Findings for aircraft noise are consistent with those for road traffic noise (for which more studies have been conducted and where the quality of evidence is rated as high). Results from epidemiological studies are also supported by evidence from human and animal field and laboratory experimental studie45-49 showing biological effects of noise on mechanistic pathways relating to risk factors for cardiovascular disease. This experimental evidence, together with consistency with findings for road traffic noise, supports the likelihood that associations for aircraft noise with heart disease observed in epidemiological studies are causal. However, the exact magnitude of the exposure-response estimate for heart disease varies between studies and best estimates (obtained by combining results from good quality studies in a systematic review) are likely to change as further studies add to the evidence base. There are important gaps in the evidence base for other outcomes. Perhaps surprisingly, few studies have been conducted in relation to impact of aircraft noise on mental health. There are also few studies relating to maternal health and birth outcomes including birth weight. Generally, health studies to date have used Lden, Lday and Lnight metrics, most likely as these were available and had been extensively validated in annoyance studies. There is a need to examine other noise metrics that may be more relevant to health endpoints some of the more recent studies are starting to include other metrics, including intermittency ratio,43 maximum noise level and to examine specific time periods,44 especially for night-time exposures. These new metrics should be additional, but not replace the standard equivalent metrics (LAeq, Lden) to allow for comparability of results, at least at present while the evidence base is being compiled. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-15 CHAPTER 5. CHILDREN'S LEARNING 5.1 Chronic aircraft noise exposure and children's learning Several studies have found effects of aircraft noise exposure at school or at home on children's reading comprehension or memory skills62 or standardized test scores.63,64 The RANCH study (Road traffic and Aircraft Noise and children's Cognition & Health) of 2844 9-10 year old children from 89 schools around London Heathrow, Amsterdam Schiphol, and Madrid Barajas airports found exposure-response associations between aircraft noise and poorer reading comprehension and poorer recognition memory, after taking social position and road traffic noise exposure, into account.65 A 5 dB increase in aircraft noise exposure was associated with a two month delay in reading age in the UK, and a one month delay in the Netherlands.66 These associations were not explained by co-occurring air pollution.67 Night-time aircraft noise at the child's home was also associated with impaired reading comprehension and recognition memory, but night-noise did not have an additional effect to that of daytime noise exposure on reading comprehension or recognition memory.68 The recent NORAH study of 1242 children aged 8 years from 29 primary schools around Frankfurt airport in Germany found that a 10 dB (LAeq 08.00am14.00pm) increase in aircraft noise was associated with a one-month delay in terms of reading age. The RANCH and NORAH studies examine the effect of aircraft noise on children's reading comprehension starting from a very low level of exposure. This enables the studies to adequately assess where effects of aircraft begin (i.e. identify thresholds): we should not be concerned by the inclusion of the examination of such low levels of aircraft noise exposure as both the RANCH and the NORAH study adjust the results for other noise exposures (e.g. road noise in RANCH and road and rail noise in NORAH) making the assessment meaningful in terms of considering other noise exposures and ambient noise exposure per se. Effects of aircraft noise on children's learning have been demonstrated across a range of aircraft noise metrics including LAeq, Lmax, number of events above a threshold, and time above a threshold. 64 10A-16 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 Figure 1. Exposure-effect relationship between aircraft noise exposure at school and reading comprehension in the RANCH study. The vertical axis shows the adjusted mean reading z scores and 95% confidence intervals for 5-dB(A) bands of aircraft noise at school (adjusted for age, gender, and country).66 Data from the RANCH study and the NORAH study enable the exposure-effect association between aircraft noise exposure and children's reading comprehension to be estimated69,70 (see Figures 1 and 2). Both studies suggest that the relationship between aircraft noise and reading comprehension is linear, so reducing exposure at any level should lead to improvements in reading comprehension. In the RANCH study, reading comprehension began to fall below average at exposures greater than 55 dB LAeq 16 hour at school. It is possible that children may be exposed to aircraft noise for many of their childhood years, but few studies have assessed the consequences of long-term noise exposure at school on learning or cognitive outcomes. Whilst it is plausible that aircraft noise exposure across a child's education may be detrimental for learning, evidence to support this position is lacking. A six-year follow-up of the UK sample of the RANCH study, when the children were aged 15-16 years of age, failed to find a statistically significant association but did suggest a trend between higher aircraft noise exposure at primary school and poorer reading comprehension at follow-up,71 as well as a trend between higher aircraft noise exposure at secondary school and poorer reading comprehension at secondary school. This study was limited by its small sample size, which may be why it detects trends rather than significant associations. There remains an urgent need to evaluate the impact of aircraft noise exposure throughout a child's education on cognitive skills, academic outcomes and life chances. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-17 Figure 2. Exposure-response function between aircraft noise exposure at school and reading comprehension in the NORAH study.70 5.2 How might chronic aircraft noise exposure cause learning deficits? Aircraft noise may directly affect the development of cognitive skills relevant for learning such as reading and memory. A range of other plausible pathways and mechanisms for the effects have also been proposed. Communication difficulties might also account for the effects: teacher behavior is influenced by fluctuations in external noise, with a recent observational study finding associations between aircraft noise events and teacher voice-masking (when the teacher's voice is distorted or drowned out by noise) and teacher's raising their voice).72 Effects might also be accounted for by teacher and pupil frustration, reduced morale, impaired attention, increased arousal which influences task performance, and sleep disturbance from home exposure which might cause performance effects the next day.73,74 Noise causes annoyance, particularly if an individual feels their activities are being disturbed or if it causes difficulties with communication. In some individuals, annoyance responses may result in physiological and psychological stress responses, which might explain poorer learning outcomes. 5.3 Interventions to reduce aircraft noise exposure at school Studies have shown that interventions to reduce aircraft noise exposure at school do improve children's learning outcomes. The longitudinal Munich Airport study75 found that prior to the relocation of the airport in Munich, high noise exposure was associated with poorer long-term memory and reading comprehension in children aged 10 years. Two years after the airport closed these cognitive impairments were no longer present, suggesting that the effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance may be reversible if the noise stops. In the cohort of children living near the newly opened Munich airport 10A-18 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 impairments in memory and reading developed over the first two-year period following the opening of the new airport. A recent study of 6,000 schools exposed between the years 2000-2009 at the top 46 United States airports (exposed to Day-Night-Average Sound Level of 55 dB or higher) found significant associations between aircraft noise and standardized tests of mathematics and reading, after taking demographic and school factors into account.64 In a sub-sample of 119 schools, they found that the effect of aircraft noise on children's learning disappeared once the school had sound insulation installed. These studies evidence the effectiveness of the insulation of schools that may be exposed to high levels of aircraft noise. Sound-field systems, which ensure even distributions of sound from the teacher across the classroom, could provide a solution to improving children's learning in situations of aircraft noise. However, an evaluation of these systems in schools in the UK, which were not exposed to aircraft noise, found that whilst the systems improved children's performance on tests of understanding of spoken language they did not influence academic attainment in terms of test of numeracy, reading or spelling.76 Whether such systems may be an effective intervention for children attending schools with high levels of aircraft noise exposure remains to be evaluated. 5.4 Conclusions There is robust evidence for an effect of aircraft noise exposure on children's cognitive skills such as reading and memory, as well as on standardized academic test scores. Evidence is also emerging to support the insulation of schools that may be exposed to high levels of aircraft noise. Whilst a range of plausible mechanisms have been proposed to account for aircraft noise effects on children's learning, future research needs to test these pathways, to further inform decision-making concerning the design of physical, educational and psychological interventions for children exposed to high levels of aircraft noise. Further knowledge about exposure-effect relationships in different contexts, using either individually collected cognitive performance data or standardized school test data, would also further inform decisionmaking. It would also be productive to derive relationships for a range of additional noise exposure metrics, such as the number of noise events. To date, few studies have evaluated the effects of persistent aircraft noise exposure throughout the child's education and there remains a need for longitudinal lifecourse studies of aircraft noise exposure at school and cognitive skills, educational outcomes and life chances. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-19 CHAPTER 6. HELICOPTER NOISE 6.1 Exposure-response relationships Exposure-response relationships derived for annoyance by aircraft noise were viewed as not necessarily valid for specific sources such as helicopters, low-flying military aircraft or aircraft ground noise.6 Although relatively little is known on annoyance induced by helicopter noise, some surveys performed in the past have shown that helicopter noise is more often reported as annoying than fixed-wing aircraft noise, at similar or even lower A-weighted outdoor noise levels.78-82 This was found for heavy military helicopters as well as for lighter civilian helicopters. A more recent survey83 was done in three residential areas under or adjacent to helicopter corridors that were used by light civilian helicopters. The study was limited to only three surveys, but it was clear that for light civilian aircraft there was not a pronounced difference between response to fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft. The study did show that there was a residual annoyance associated with helicopter operations that was not associated with noise exposure level. 6.2 Role of non-acoustic factors Some field studies81,84 have shown that helicopter noise annoyance is heightened by certain non-acoustic factors, in particular fear of a crash, lack of information on the reason of the flights, and low perceived necessity of the helicopter flights themselves (such as when the helicopter is viewed as `rich person's toy') or of the noise that is produced by them (for instance when it is felt that the pilot or operator could reduce the disturbance by choosing a different flight pattern). A more recent study83 also found that for three surveys completed under or near light civil helicopter routes there was `residual annoyance,' not a function of noise exposure level, an annoyance that was constant for all noise exposures with no evident tendency to approach zero at even very low noise levels. This lack of correlation between noise exposure level; and annoyance was associated with the strong influence of non-acoustic factors. These and earlier findings suggest that observed differences in annoyance between helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft may heavily depend on non-acoustic factors. 6.3 Role of impulse noise Several laboratory studies have explored whether the degree of impulsiveness of the helicopter noise may contribute to annoyance.85-89 No consistent differences in annoyance were found between helicopter and aircraft noise, again suggesting that observed differences in the field were partly due to non-acoustic factors, nor did annoyance depend on the degree of impulsiveness. Therefore, the overall consensus is that there is no evidence to justify the application of an impulse correction to the noise level of helicopters with impulsive characteristics.90-91 10A-20 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 6.4 Role of rattle noise and vibrations There is evidence that helicopter noise characterized by large low frequency components may impact the building and produce rattle (i.e. sounds of rattling objects or windows within the dwelling) or vibration (the perception of vibrating building elements or furniture), which in turn may lead to increased annoyance by the helicopter noise.92 While rattle noise and vibration may also be induced by the lowfrequency components of ground noise during aircraft landing and take-off,93,94 it is only sporadically induced by overflying fixed-wing aircraft.95 In a large field study in the United States96 it was found that noise from helicopters flying over was rated by subjects (seated in a wooden frame building) as more annoying than a control stimulus, but only when the helicopter induced rattle noise or vibration within the building. The results suggest a decibel offset of at least 10 dB to account for the extra annoyance when rattle or vibration were induced by the helicopter noise (i.e. the control stimulus had to be at least 10 dB higher to induce equal annoyance). An extension of this study suggested similar offset values of 10 and 8 dB for two helicopter types inducing rattle and vibration.80 A recent study in the Netherlands suggests a lower offset, around 5-6 dB, for helicopter noise in combination with rattle noise induced within the building.97 This conclusion is not supported for light civil helicopter surveys83 where survey respondents did not report vibration or rattle as a source of annoyance. The relatively small degree of low frequency energy associated with light civil helicopters as compared to heavy lift helicopters is not expected to produce rattle noise, which is the most plausible explanation for the difference. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-21 CHAPTER 7. EN-ROUTE NOISE FROM SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT 7.1 Introduction Sonic booms are the unique sounds produced by supersonic aircraft. This section summarizes many of the properties and impacts of sonic booms, as we know them today. Additional detail about sonic boom noise impacts is provided in an Appendix to this white paper, for readers interested in those specifics. Detailed references are given in that Appendix.98-164 Conventional sonic booms are widely considered to be loud, and this forms the basis of current regulations in many countries that prohibit supersonic overland flight. However, new research has enabled aeronautical engineers the tools to develop quiet "low-boom" aircraft designs that may be available in 5 to 10 years. Hence, sonic boom research needs to clearly distinguish whether the sonic booms are the conventional N-wave sounds, so called because of their letter N pressure versus time shape, or the new low-booms which are considerably smoothed. The low-booms, or "sonic thumps", can be as much as 35 dB quieter than conventional booms. 7.2 Human response studies Studies have shown that sonic booms can be reproduced quite accurately in the laboratory, and this makes it possible to perform subjective experiments under controlled conditions. Although no supersonic aircraft has produced a low-boom signature yet, a similar surrogate sound can be created using a special aircraft dive manoeuver. This makes it possible to conduct tests with real aircraft outdoors for either N-waves or low-booms, complementing the laboratory tests. A number of subjective tests have been conducted. One trend seen in studies from both the U.S. and Japan is that annoyance to sonic boom noise is greater indoors compared to outdoors. The findings show that indoor annoyance can be estimated based on the outdoor sonic boom exposure. There has been recent work to establish that both rattle and vibration contribute to indoor annoyance of sonic booms. One interesting point is that although conventional N-waves can be accompanied by a startle response, it turns out that low-booms are of low enough amplitude that they don't induce a consistent physiological startle response. There has been substantial work in recent years to establish metrics to assess sonic boom noise. Out of a list of 70 possible metrics, a group of 6 metrics has been identified for the purposes of use in certification standards and in developing dose-response curves for future community response studies. Clearly the low-booms are much quieter than the conventional N-wave booms, but additional community studies with a low-boom aircraft need to be conducted to assess public response. 7.3 Non-technical aspects of public acceptability for sonic boom An additional aspect that should be considered for sonic booms includes the non-technical aspects of acceptability. The CAEP Steering Group specifically requested that ISG look into this topic. A 10A-22 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 preliminary discussion has revealed a strong resemblance to the non-acoustical factors of subsonic aircraft noise, previously mentioned in Section 2 "Community Noise Annoyance" of this white paper. There are currently no peer-reviewed studies on the topic of non-acoustical factors for sonic boom noise, but it seems plausible that the knowledge of subsonic aircraft non-acoustical factors could be extended for application to sonic boom noise non-technical aspects. 7.4 Impacts of sonic boom on animals Recently there has been renewed interest regarding the impacts of sonic boom noise on animals. Fortunately there is an extensive literature extending from before the days of Concorde to recent years, mostly for conventional N-wave aircraft. The details of the many studies are available in the Appendix to this white paper. There have been substantial studies for both livestock and other domesticated animals, and detailed studies of some wildlife species. For conventional sonic booms the animals usually show no reactions or minimal reactions, although occasionally they may startle just as humans do. There are no reported problems of developing fish eggs or of avian eggs due to sonic boom exposures. NASA conducted a number of studies in the late 1990s and early 2000s to assess the impact of overwater sonic booms on marine mammals. There is a good bit of knowledge as to how much sonic boom noise transitions from air into water, and fortunately, very little of the sound gets into the water. For the California sea lion, elephant seals, and harbor seals, careful lab experiments showed no temporary hearing shifts in those species. In 1997 and 1998 a study of a colony of seals exposed to Concorde booms on a regular basis showed that the booms didn't substantially affect the breeding behavior of gray or harbor seals. It instead seems that these animals substantially habituated to hearing these N-wave sonic booms on a routine basis. Most of what is known about noise impacts on animals comes from the literature of the effects of subsonic aircraft and other anthropogenic noise sources, not sonic booms, on animals. It is well known that human activities can interfere with animal communication, for example. There have not been many specific studies on the effects of sonic boom noise on animals in recent years. Some species with good low-frequency hearing, such as elephants, have never been evaluated regarding sonic boom noise. But it makes sense that if the already tested animals were not negatively affected by sonic boom noise from conventional N-waves, that they will likely not be affected by the proposed low-booms of the future. Long-term effects of sonic boom exposure on animals seem unlikely. 7.5 Conclusions Much progress has been made to model and mitigate the effect of sonic booms from supersonic flight. Ongoing research to assess the impact on the public indicate that new supersonic aircraft designs will create quieter sonic thumps that are much less annoying than conventional sonic booms. Upcoming community tests with a low-boom demonstrator aircraft will collect the data needed on noise exposure and resulting public reactions. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-23 CHAPTER 8. UAM/UAS noise 8.1 Current status New aircraft technologies for increased mobility are likely to lead to new sources of community noise. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) refers to a range of vehicle concepts and missions operating in a community, from small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS) to vehicles large enough for several passengers. The sUAS are envisioned for package delivery, surveillance, agriculture, surveying, and other similar applications that can benefit from use of a small and agile autonomous system, while the larger vehicles are envisioned for on-demand urban passenger transportation.165 Electric propulsion is seen as a key technology that could enable these kinds of systems, across the range of vehicle types and sizes.165 UAM vehicles have the potential to alter the community soundscape due to their noise characteristics that are qualitatively different from traditional aircraft.166-168 In addition, similar to sonic booms from supersonic aircraft en route, the noise may not be concentrated around traditional airports. There is very little scientific research on the human impacts of noise from UAM aircraft, although there have been increased efforts to measure and model the noise generated by them and their components.167,169-172 Two psychoacoustic studies are briefly described here. A study166 was conducted by NASA to evaluate human annoyance to sUAS noise, including the effect of variation in operational factors and a comparison of annoyance to noise from road vehicles. The noise from four commercially available sUAS and four road vehicles, ranging in size from a passenger car to a step van, were recorded and presented to test subjects in a specialized simulation facility. For this limited set of noise sources, a systematic offset was found that indicates the noise of sUAS is more annoying than noise from road vehicles when presented at the same loudness. Another NASA psychoacoustic study168 concentrated on annoyance to noise from a simulated distributed electric propulsion (DEP) aircraft. Using auralizations from noise predictions of spatially-distributed, isolated propeller noise sources, the subjective study in a specialized psychoacoustic facility found that the number of propellers and inclusion of time-varying effects were significant factors in annoyance, while variation of the relative revolutions-per-minute (RPM) between propellers was not significant. The study also developed an annoyance model based on loudness, roughness, and tonality for predicting annoyance to these DEP sounds. Despite the limitations in prediction methods and simplifications, the study identified the relevant parameters and metrics that should be studied further. 8.2 Conclusions Growing interest in UAM aircraft has been observed from different sectors, such as hobbyists, commercial entities, the military, government agencies, and scientists.165 There is preliminary evidence that the public may be concerned with these new noise sources intended for transportation and package delivery.173 Although there is only a very limited amount of research on subjective reaction to noise from these new aircraft types, indications that the noise characteristics differ from traditional aircraft warrant further research to understand and predict human perception of these sounds. 10A-24 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 CHAPTER 9. ECONOMIC COST OF AVIATION NOISE / MONETIZATION 9.1 Introduction Sleep disturbance, myocardial infarction, annoyance, stroke, dementia, and other health effects are increasingly recognized as economic costs of noise.174 Recent studies estimating annual noise costs around specific major world airports are useful in considering the scale of the challenge and include: Taipei Songshan Airport 33 million175 and Heathrow £80.3 million.176 An unpublished student thesis by Kish (2008) suggests annual costs for aviation noise at 181 airports worldwide in excess of $1 billion, which is not out of line with the individual airport estimates.177 It is clear that noise can be a key factor when airport expansion is considered. Values of disturbance from aircraft noise are used in analysis and planning decisions affecting airport development and operations. Their main application is in estimating the costs or benefits arising from changes in noise levels and/or exposure. It is therefore important to look at the evidence that underpins these value estimates. There are three main approaches for monetizing noise costs, two of which value the nuisance according to individual preferences: revealed preference, usually hedonic pricing, and stated preference methods, which include contingent valuation and stated choice. The third type of approach, the impact pathway, links health effects of noise nuisance to monetary values from reducing morbidity risks that are typically derived from elsewhere. These are discussed in turn below. 9.2 Hedonic Pricing (HP) The main method using revealed preference is hedonic pricing whereby the market for an existing good or service, in this case housing, is used to derive the value for components of that good, in this case the noise environment. House price in HP is modelled as a function of property characteristics that should include all social, spatial, and environmental factors. HP then provides the percentage change in house prices resulting from a 1 dB change in noise levels.178,179 The method has been extensively applied to the problem of aircraft noise, especially in North America. Individual studies yield a wide range of price changes from 0% to 2.3% per dB.180 Thus a key challenge is to derive values that are applicable or transferable in different contexts. Meta-analyses have sought to estimate consensus values based on pooled evidence from individual studies.181-183 These meta-analyses are based on a reasonably small number of, US dominated studies, observations of 30, 29 and 53 respectively. Nelson (2004) and Wadud (2013) converge on 0.5 to 0.6% house price fall in response to a 1 dB increase in aviation noise, with caveats concerning the broad range of estimates and a dearth of studies in less developed countries. Using data on income, Kish (2008) carried out a meta-analysis on US based HP evidence, estimating a model with a low but reasonable fit, which he found did not transfer well to UK data. He et al. (2014) built on this work184 but their model fit was poor. The evidence from these studies also suggests that values in Canada are higher182,183 or more generically that values outside the US are higher.184 Interestingly, Kopsch (2016) reports a meta-analysis including air and road noise, finding that aviation noise increases the NDI by 0.4 to 0.6% relative to road.185 To conclude, the best available evidence from the HP is that house prices fall by 0.5 to 0.6%, on Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-25 average, per 1 dBA increase in aircraft noise, and there is also some support for country specific effects.182,183 9.3 Stated Preference (SP) Stated preference approaches have been increasingly applied to value noise nuisance especially in Europe. These involve either direct questioning on value, contingent valuation, or trade-off approaches, stated choice or ranking. As with HP, individual studies exhibit a wide range in values per unit of noise. A data set of 258 values of transportation noise derived from SP studies, adjusted to 2009 prices, yielded an average value per decibel change per household per annum of $141.59, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) +/$30.24 with a range from $0 to $3,407.67. However the aviation noise values within this data, 69, exhibit less variation with a mean of $292.24 and a CI of +/- $23.10 and smaller range of $15.05 to $1097.83. Such variation in values may reflect genuine variations in preferences, the impact of contextual variables, variations in approach, systematic study or country effects, and changing preferences over time or some combination of these effects.186 Again, meta-analysis can assist in explaining some of this variation. Only one meta-analysis has been conducted on studies of transportation noise, utilising 258 values derived from 49 studies across 23 countries conducted over a 40-year period.186 As might be expected, the value of noise reduction or the cost of noise increases were found to be dependent on level of annoyance and income. The income elasticity was close to one, suggesting that the value placed on reduced noise increases broadly in line with income; this is higher than estimates from cross sectional studies. There were no country effects found in this meta-analysis, suggesting that the model and values derived from it are transferable. Additionally, aviation noise was found to have a higher cost per dBA than road and rail noise. A result that is consistent both with studies of annoyance,6 and HP meta-analysis.185 Furthermore, comparison with the then HP-based approach applied by the UK Department for Transport at the time (2014) indicated that the values from the SP meta-analysis and the HP-based approach were broadly comparable. 186 This is also supported by the primary research of Thanos et al. (2015), applying SP and HP in the same context.195 9.4 Impact pathway The third approach is rather different by exploring the impact pathway (IP) for noise effects on human health, and expressing those endpoints in terms of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) or Quality Adjusted Life Years QALYs) to quantify healthy life years lost. The World Health Organization adopted this approach174 and identified disability weights (DW) for cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance, tinnitus and annoyance resulting from environmental noise. The evidence on the health impacts in all areas has been growing over the years. However, the evidence base underpinning the DWs for sleep disturbance and annoyance is extremely sparse, with a high degree of uncertainty.180 This is reflected in the WHO (2011, p: 93) weight on annoyance where "a tentative DW of 0.02 is proposed with a relatively large uncertainty interval (0.01-0.12)". This DW is only applicable those who are "highly annoyed", so any individuals experiencing annoyance who are not highly annoyed are assigned a value of zero. There is uncertainty around the value of a healthy life year lost, which is combined with the DW weights to derive monetary values. In practice, value of life has been derived from stated preference studies of traffic fatalities in the UK,188 or reduced mortality risk based on stated preference studies in Europe.189 As 10A-26 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 these values do not stem from analysing the health risks of noise nuisance, there is an added element of uncertainty regarding transferability of values from diverse contexts. Furthermore, the impact pathway approach has many steps each with potential to add error and uncertainty to the value/cost estimates. As Freeman et al., (2014, p: 441) put it, "significant work is needed to improve and update the values of reducing risks that lead to morbidity and/or mortality."190 Nevertheless, the method has been adopted into policy analysis by the UK Department of Transport191 in assessing transport schemes and by the European Commission in evaluating the environmental noise directive.192 9.5 The abatement and mitigation costs of dealing with noise The costs imposed by noise lead to efforts to measure, manage and mitigate. Airports can bear substantial costs, for example at the high end of the scale, Amsterdam Schiphol spent approximately 644.6m largely on insulation between 1984 and 2005.193 Nevertheless this only amounted to 0.58 per passenger. Whilst manufacturers have produced quieter aircraft, there is a trade-off between achieving energy efficiency and quieter design and operation. The benefits of any mitigation activity should outweigh the costs. The costs of mitigation are relatively straightforward to estimate, as they have a market price of implementation and maintenance, in the case of noise insulation or barriers, or of estimating forgone benefits, for instance, of noise curfews. It is also rational to compare the costs of different routes to achieving a noise reduction target, for example through regulation or market incentives. Once both the costs of noise and any additional costs of mitigation are established; cost benefit analysis (CBA) can be used to guide towards solutions with the highest net benefits. 9.6 Conclusions Economic valuation of noise nuisance and health effects is necessary and robust values are available. Most importantly, these values are applied and used in decision making. Meta-analysis of both hedonic pricing and stated preference studies suggests that these approaches, when properly applied, deliver robust values of noise nuisance. These preference-based approaches do not capture the health effects of noise that are not perceived by the exposed population. The impact pathway approach provides non-market values for these health effects. However, IP does not value annoyance at levels less than "highly annoyed", has a less well developed evidence base than HP and SP, and requires more steps that have the potential to introduce more error. Furthermore, HP and SP meta-analyses have improved the transferability of values providing confidence intervals for their variation, whereas there is no robust evidence on value transferability for the IP approach. This approach should be viewed with caution in the absence of a well-developed evidence base, and especially in the case of annoyance effects perceived by the exposed populations, for which robust values of noise nuisance can be delivered by tested methods. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-27 CHAPTER 10. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK This paper has provided an overview of the many different aircraft noise impacts. There is substantial evidence that increases in noise levels lead to increases in community annoyance, but there are other non-acoustical contributors to annoyance. In future work, existing exposure-response functions should be updated and diversified to account for various acoustic and non-acoustic factors. The difference between a high rate change and a low rate change situation seems to be particularly important. Undisturbed sleep is a prerequisite for high daytime performance, well-being and health. Aircraft noise can disturb sleep and impair sleep recuperation. Further research is needed to (a) derive reliable exposure-response relationships between aircraft noise exposure and sleep disturbance, (b) explore the link between noise-induced sleep disturbance and long-term health consequences, (c) investigate vulnerable populations, and (d) demonstrate the effectiveness of noise mitigation strategies. This research will inform political decision making and help mitigate the effects of aircraft noise on sleep. Epidemiological evidence from a systematic review published in 2018 covering studies up to 2016 and subsequent published studies involving several million participants show associations of aircraft noise with ischaemic heart disease. This is consistent with the evidence for road traffic noise, with larger numbers of studies. There is biological plausibility for impacts of noise on health and experimental evidence of effects of noise on the mechanistic pathways relating to cardiovascular disease, supporting the likelihood that associations are causal. Associations between aircraft noise and hypertension or stroke are less consistent across epidemiological studies, but other biological mechanisms than hypertension are available to explain associations with heart disease. However, the evidence base for aircraft noise remains limited and further research may result in changes to exposure-response relationships with cardiovascular disease, such as those derived from the systematic review of studies published in 2018. The evidence base is limited for non-cardiovascular outcomes; further research is particularly needed on diabetes and obesity, mental health, and pregnancy and birth outcomes. Further research is also needed using additional noise metrics, including those that better characterise air traffic events than average sound level (e.g. number of events above a certain noise threshold) and that consider time period (e.g. late evening and early morning). There is robust evidence for an effect of aircraft noise exposure on children's cognitive skills such as reading and memory, as well as on standardized academic test scores. Future research needs to test the different mechanisms and to inform key individuals who can intervene on the behalf of exposed children. Longitudinal studies over the lifecourse need to be conducted. While some surveys suggest a higher response to helicopter noise than to noise from fixed-wing aircraft, any observed differences in annoyance seem to heavily depend on non-acoustic factors. Overall, there is no evidence for a pronounced difference between response to fixed-wing and to rotary wing aircraft at equal noise levels that would justify a stricter evaluation of helicopter noise. Only when the helicopter noise is characterized by a large degree of low-frequency energy, which may produce rattle noise or vibration in buildings, there is evidence that annoyance is markedly increased. Further research should 10A-28 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 consider the consequences of rattle noise to the evaluation of helicopter noise, as well as the important role of non-acoustic factors. Using laboratory simulators and testing in the field with special aircraft manoeuvers, progress has been made on understanding and predicting human response to sonic boom noise from overflight of new proposed quiet supersonic aircraft. To confirm these results and extend the applicability of derived models, a new low boom flight demonstrator aircraft is being built to conduct sonic boom community response studies. Plans are underway for designing these experiments to develop exposure-response models for this new kind of quiet supersonic aircraft. Several aspects of human response to low-boom supersonic flight still remain to be researched. Subjective studies have not fully investigated perception of focus booms, booms from other parts of the trajectory outside the cruise portion, noise in the shadow zone beyond lateral cut-off, Mach cut-off booms, and secondary booms. In addition, sleep disturbance relating to low-boom supersonic cruise flight or any of these other conditions has not been studied. Finally, community studies are needed using quiet supersonic aircraft in areas where people are not accustomed to hearing sonic booms, in order to develop a dose-response relationship for this new sector of commercial transportation. Regarding the non-technical aspects of public acceptability for supersonic aircraft noise, there is nothing in the literature that directly applies. However, it may be possible in the future to draw from the existing literature on the topic of non-acoustical factors for subsonic aircraft noise. We are fortunate that there already have been many studies on how animals react to conventional sonic booms, and current thinking is that the new low-boom aircraft would even have less of an impact. It is still unknown if large animals with good low-frequency hearing such as elephants will respond any differently compared to the medium and small sized animals that have already been studied. There is preliminary evidence that the public may be concerned with the new UAM noise sources intended for transportation and package delivery. Although there is only a very limited amount of research on subjective reaction to noise from these new aircraft types, indications that the noise characteristics differ from traditional aircraft warrant further research to understand and predict human perception of these sounds. Evidence from hedonic pricing and stated preference studies suggests that these approaches, when properly applied, deliver robust monetary values of noise nuisance. Although the impact pathway approach additionally provides non-market values for health effects, it should be viewed with caution especially in the absence of a well-developed evidence base and evidence on value transferability. There remains a need for further research to improve the robustness of the impact pathway approach and comparisons with other approaches. A further issue is that of evidence for lower income countries which is very sparse. Comparisons between aircraft noise impacts and other noise source impacts, such as rail, road, and industrial noise, are beyond the scope of this current white paper. Others have already pointed out some of the similarities and differences in impacts between different types of noise sources, so much of that information is currently available.194 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-29 CHAPTER 11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V. Sparrow's, M. Vigeant's and M. Basner's participation in the CAEP/ISG Aviation Noise Impacts Workshop and this white paper was supported by the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States. The opinions, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASCENT sponsor organizations. Regarding the effects of sonic booms on animals, V. Sparrow thanks Dr. Kevin Shepherd and Dr. Sandy Liu for providing many of the references and to Dr. Shepherd for careful editing. The authors thank the ICAO Environmental Officers Neil Dickson and Bruno Silva for their unwavering help in hosting the Aviation Noise Impacts Workshop and in the development of this paper. They also thank Prof. David Lee, Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom for many useful conversations and spirited support. 10A-30 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 APPENDIX A - Sonic Boom Noise Impact, Additional Detail And References A1. Sonic boom impacts on humans A.1.1 Unique qualities of sonic booms There are several unique aspects of sonic booms that require different treatment from subsonic aircraft noise. The transient nature of the sonic boom and large amount of low-frequency energy in the signal result in a sound character that is perceived much differently than conventional aircraft. While subsonic aircraft noise is a concern near airports, the sonic booms from supersonic aircraft are created along the entire supersonic route and could potentially affect large segments of the population. Thus the existing methods and noise metrics for measuring and regulating aviation noise impacts cannot be used for supersonic aircraft. With advances in aircraft shaping techniques, modern supersonic aircraft designs are predicted to create shaped, low-amplitude sonic booms heard on the ground that are much quieter than conventional sonic booms from military aircraft or the Concorde. The significant reduction in waveform amplitude and increase in rise time lead to a reduction in sound pressure level spectra, particularly at higher frequencies where the reduction can reach 60 dB. Accordingly, the loudness spectra are also reduced, by over a factor of 10 in sones over most of the frequency range critical to human hearing. Historically, the maximum overpressure of the front shock of the waveform was used to describe the level of conventional N-wave sonic booms. Years of research using outdoor sonic boom simulators, however, resulted in identification of Perceived Level (PL) as a noise metric98,99 that works best for a variety of signature shapes.100 Annoyance to sonic booms as experienced indoors presents additional factors to consider that are related to the building environment. A.1.2 Sonic boom noise generation for subjective studies Laboratory simulators have been used effectively to study human annoyance to a broad range of sonic boom signals under controlled conditions.101 Simulators can reproduce measured booms as well as booms predicted for aircraft designs. They can also be used to study other boom-like waveforms to study human response to different parameters and interactions. The majority of simulators reproduce sonic booms as they would be experienced outdoors, although filtered outdoor waveforms or recordings of indoor waveforms have also been presented to estimate the indoor environment. These simulators, however, lack indoor realism because there is an absence of space and reverberation, secondary rattle and vibration, and overall aesthetic composition. Most outdoor sonic boom simulators in existence today consist of an airtight, small rigid-walled booth. The cavity is driven with subwoofer loudspeakers to reproduce the low frequencies characteristic of sonic booms, while mid-range loudspeakers fill in the rest of the pertinent spectrum. Another simulator design Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-31 consists of a mobile trailer that creates a traveling wave using an array of loudspeakers, a folded horn, and an anechoic termination.102 High-quality headphones or earphones are also used to reproduce the audible content of sonic booms and secondary rattle noises typically encountered in indoor environments. Binaural signals have been used to approximate the auditory experience of sonic boom and rattle exposure in different-sized rooms, through the use of models and filtering.103,104 Some limitations of this playback equipment are the absence of experiencing the sounds in a real space with natural reverberation, the absence of tactile vibration, and decreased realism due to limited very low-frequency reproduction. High-quality systems of amplifiers and headphones have mitigated this last point somewhat, but the systems are still more limited than subwoofer systems for reproducing the full frequency content of the sonic booms. Lastly, newer simulators allow for more realistic indoor soundscapes for investigating causes of elevated annoyance to sonic booms experienced indoors. One configuration105 consists of a small booth that can be configured for indoor listening using a partition with a window. Another installation106 called the Interior Effects Room (IER) at NASA Langley Research Center consists of a small room configured as a living room with loudspeaker playback over arrays adjacent to two exterior walls of the simulator. The realistic indoor soundscape and environment, augmented with the ability to control secondary rattle noises and vibration, have enabled systematic studies of the factors contributing to human annoyance to sonic booms. Sonic boom subjective studies have also been conducted with real supersonic overflight of an aircraft. In the past, these studies were limited to assessing response to very loud booms, usually produced with military aircraft. However, a special flight manoeuver called a low-boom dive has been developed107 to mimic the lower amplitudes at the ground that would be expected from supersonic overflight of future aircraft. By adjusting the location of the dive, the ground sonic boom can be varied in level over a small geographic area. This manoeuver has been used successfully in several field studies to create a variety of boom loudness levels that would otherwise not be possible with today's aircraft in steady, level flight. A.1.3 Human response studies Human response to outdoor booms Many human response tests were performed in NASA's outdoor sonic boom simulator100 in the 1990s. These laboratory studies were designed to investigate a wide range of shaped sonic boom signatures and to gather human perception of loudness and annoyance to these sounds. Several noise metrics were evaluated for their ability to predict the subjective response. Shaped booms were rated less loud than symmetric N-waves, and PL was found to be the best noise metric for describing subjective effects both outdoors and indoors. The metric PL has hence been used widely to design and assess sonic boom characteristics of supersonic aircraft. Conclusions on the indoor environment are limited because the waveforms were created by pre-filtering booms based on frequency-dependent noise reduction for transmission of sound into a typical house. An evaluation of the realism of outdoor boom simulation was conducted between three simulators and real booms from overflight of a supersonic aircraft.108 PL values were found to be highly correlated 10A-32 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 between field recordings and simulator reproduction, and results increased confidence in the use of simulators for human response testing. It was noted that very low frequency energy (less than 7 Hz) was not found to be significant for assessing realism to booms experienced in an outdoor environment. Outdoor vs. indoor response Some studies have been conducted to compare perception of sonic booms heard in indoor and outdoor environments. A field study conducted by NASA compared ratings from test subjects seated inside and outside a house overflown by a supersonic airplane, using the low-boom dive maneuver.109 Although the annoyance ratings showed that indoor and outdoor annoyance were the same for the same noise exposure, a post-test questionnaire highlighted an increase in annoyance indoors. This inconsistency could possibly be attributed to the methodology chosen or to the presence of a rattle indoors. A series of subjective tests with playback of measured low-amplitude sonic booms was conducted110,111 to further explore the inconsistency discovered by Sullivan et al.109 Three different listening environments were explored, including headphones indoors, headphones outdoors, and an outdoor simulator,102 and the same set of signatures were used in each case. Indoor signatures were found to be more annoying than outdoor signatures regardless of listening environment, and signatures experienced indoors were considered more annoying. A series of tests was also conducted by JAXA105 to evaluate both loudness and annoyance ratings of Nwaves with different amplitudes and rise times, using both indoor and outdoor configurations of their simulator. Different Japanese adjectives were evaluated for correspondence with the English words of loudness and annoyance. Most of the noise metrics investigated exhibited a high correlation with response, with indoor response being higher than outdoor response for the same loudness. Given the evidence from older community studies101,112 and these more recent studies, it is expected that indoor annoyance will be higher than outdoor annoyance, due to several factors discussed in the following section. Human response to indoor booms In recent years, sonic boom subjective research has shifted to exploring perception of booms experienced indoors.104, 113-126 Initial studies in NASA's IER simulator found that boom amplitude and rise time persist as important factors for indoor response.113,114 Overall, the longer rise times of low booms result in decreased annoyance. A later study evaluated indoor annoyance to sonic booms predicted for sub-scale and full-scale supersonic aircraft, which have different low-frequency energy, even for the same overall loudness value.115,116 The test was conducted using shaped, low-amplitude booms for four classes of aircraft size from sub-scale demonstrator to full-sized airliner. For a given exterior PL, the annoyance to sub-scale aircraft booms was not significantly different than that for full-scale aircraft booms. This finding confirmed that exterior PL can be used to evaluate supersonic aircraft designs, regardless of size. These results help justify plans for Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-33 use of a sub-scale demonstrator for community studies. However, results were limited to isolated booms with no rattle. In order to address the concern from community studies that rattle is important to perception of sonic booms indoors, a series of tests was conducted to investigate human response to rattle and to combined boom and rattle.104 Using binaural recordings of rattle played back over headphones, the study found differences in annoyance between rattle sounds of the same PL. Rattle sounds from structural elements such as windows, walls, and doors were judged more annoying than rattle from smaller objects. Most combinations of boom and rattle were more annoying than the boom alone at equal PL, giving a rattle penalty of 3-9 dB, depending on the rattle type. This result confirms the elevated annoyance indoors when rattle is present. Lastly, standard loudness and sound quality metrics were found to be poor predictors of annoyance to rattle sounds and boom/rattle combinations, but hybrid models incorporating multiple metrics resulted in higher correlations with subjective data. Rattle studies conducted in NASA's IER facility using a more realistic sonic boom playback and indoor environment117-119 found that rattle increased indoor annoyance. Window rattle sounds reproduced for a variety of window types demonstrated that the average increase in annoyance due to rattle was equivalent to an increase in exterior boom PL of 4 dB, confirming the headphone test rattle penalty of 3-9 dB. Two vibration studies were also conducted in the IER to investigate the effect of vibration on annoyance to sonic booms.120-123 The vibration condition was varied using vibration isolators on the test chair legs and in the second study, shakers attached to the seat bottom. The shaker signals were determined through structural modeling for an ensemble of approximately 6000 houses with varied physical properties, and the levels from the 84th and 99th percentile of the predicted peak acceleration distribution were chosen.124 Between the two studies, vibration penalties up to 10 dB were observed, indicating that vibration also plays a role in indoor perception of sonic booms. Another possible factor in human response to sonic booms is the startle experienced due to the transient nature of the boom. Earphone studies examined annoyance, startle, and loudness ratings for impulsive sounds including sonic booms.125,126 The startle ratings were strongly correlated with annoyance, and the importance of the abruptness of the initial shock and resulting high-frequency energy were highlighted. Subjective judgments of startle were then compared to physiological responses using measured skin conductance, heart rate, and electrical activity of three neck muscles. Subject-to-subject and day-to-day variability in the physiological responses were observed, and their association with startle were rare. It was concluded that low booms are below the threshold of consistent physiological startle responses using the current measurement techniques. Community studies A community study was conducted of the response of 100 Edwards Air Force Base (EAFB, USA) residents to sonic booms, ranging from low amplitude using the low-boom dive manoeuver to higher amplitude from conventional overflight.127,128 Although the study was primarily a methodological test in preparation for future studies with a low-boom demonstration aircraft, the daily annoyance results are remarkably similar to those from the 1960s Oklahoma City test.129 Lessons learned from this test are 10A-34 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 being used to develop follow-on risk reduction studies in preparation for community testing with a low-boom flight demonstrator aircraft. A.1.4 Sonic boom metrics evaluation Since no international standard exists for defining a sonic boom metric, there is a need to identify noise metrics to quantify the noise exposure dose in dose-response curves of community test data. A study was conducted to combine results from several years of laboratory testing into a meta-analysis to evaluate candidate noise metrics, with the objective of identifying the best subset of metrics.130 A meta-analysis was chosen because there was no clear preferred metric. Some metrics performed relatively better than other metrics in some studies, while the metrics ranking was very different for other studies. Some studies showed low or high correlations of metrics with human response in general for all metrics, compared to other studies. An exhaustive list of approximately 70 metrics was compiled from standards and literature; expert judgment, including consideration of non-acoustic factors, resulted in 25 metrics being chosen for quantitative analysis. Different metrics treat lower frequencies differently, which is critical for describing sonic boom noise. The candidates were grouped into three categories: engineering metrics that describe aspects of the sound, loudness metrics that attempt to account for human perception of sound, and "hybrid" metrics that combine several metrics. Using three laboratory studies of human response to isolated outdoor and indoor booms, eight metrics were retained.130 Additional analysis with two more laboratory studies on rattle and vibration effects reduced the number to six metrics: ASEL, BSEL, DSEL, ESEL (A-, B-, D-, and E-weighted sound exposure levels, respectively), PL, and ISBAP (indoor sonic boom annoyance predictor).131 This set of six metrics will be used by NASA in development of dose-response curves from future studies of community response to sonic booms. A.1.5 Conclusions Sonic boom simulators and special aircraft manoeuvers have been used to investigate human annoyance to sonic booms in outdoor and indoor environments. The most important factors have been studied separately to shed light on the role they each play in human perception. Studies have confirmed the viability of using an outdoor metric to predict human response indoors, despite differences in noise dose indoors. Results indicate that low-amplitude shaped sonic booms are much less annoying than conventional sonic booms, although annoyance levels need to be confirmed with community testing. Laboratory test results have been used in meta-analyses to evaluate candidate noise metrics, and six metrics are recommended for further study. This subset of metrics will be used by NASA in future dose-response curve analyses of community field studies using a purpose-built low-boom flight demonstrator. Other factors not considered in the subjective studies to date include: focus boom, booms from other parts of the trajectory outside the cruise design point, secondary booms, noise in the shadow zone beyond lateral cut-off, Mach cut-off booms, and sleep disturbance relating to any of these conditions. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-35 A2. Non-technical aspects of public acceptability for sonic boom As most people are not yet familiar with the concept of quiet supersonic civilian flight that may be developed in the future, it is likely that some individuals will assume future supersonic flights will be very much like those of Concorde or today's military aircraft, each creating loud sounds both on take-off and approach to landing as well as during supersonic cruise. In contrast, some members of the population could very well not be aware of noise concerns regarding supersonic flight from years ago, and hence, would be more open to this new transportation option. Therefore, it seems likely that, from the start, the public will have mixed reactions to future supersonic aircraft, without even having heard them. The CAEP Steering Group requested that its Impacts and Science Group (ISG) investigate the "non-technical aspects of public acceptability" for the noise of future supersonic civilian aircraft. There is no peer-reviewed literature available to easily address this topic. At the Aviation Noise Impacts Workshop held in Montreal, forming the basis of the present white paper, an open discussion was held on the topic by the attending scientific experts. It became clear during the discussion that there were some parallels between the "non-technical aspects of public acceptability" and the area known as "non-acoustical factors" of noise annoyance research, previously described in this paper for subsonic aircraft. Currently there are no studies available to compare attitudes and/or reactions of the public between subsonic and supersonic aircraft noise. Referring back to the section of this white paper on community annoyance briefly, the population usually does not think of the benefits of air travel when assessing their tolerance to aircraft-generated noise, and there is no reason to think there will be differences in these tolerances between subsonic and supersonic aircraft. There is also no reason to believe that a lack of trust in and/or sensitivity to fair treatment by politicians, airports, airlines, and manufacturers would be any different between subsonic and supersonic travel. So much of the knowledge regarding "non-acoustical factors" of annoyance may well also apply to the "non-technical aspects of public acceptability." Hence, the applicability of our knowledge of "non-acoustical factors" to the issues of "non-technical aspects of public acceptability" should be explored in the future. ISG will continue to study this issue, but it is unlikely that our knowledge, based in science, will change in the next few years regarding public acceptability to new supersonic noise sources. 10A-36 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 A3. Impacts of sonic booms on animals Animals can be affected by aviation operations, and the impact of supersonic aircraft noise (sonic boom) has been a topic of discussion since the 1960s when the Concorde and the U.S. SST programs were initiated. There is a sizable existing literature regarding effects of sonic boom noise on animals, both wild and domesticated. It should be noted that all past studies were primarily concerned with N-wave sonic booms with amplitudes determined by civilian and military supersonic aircraft. No studies have been conducted thus far examining the effects of low-boom supersonic aircraft, now on the drawing board, on animals. During the 1960s and 1970s the emphasis was on farm animals and potential adverse effects of sonic booms and their economic consequences. The concern was that operators of supersonic aircraft might have to pay damages via court orders. For either low-altitude flights or accidental incidents of high-amplitude focused sonic booms, military supersonic aircraft can cause breaking of windows or cracking of plaster in buildings, resulting in damages that must be compensated. Clearly, the developers of supersonic passenger aircraft and the regulatory authorities wanted to avoid such situations. Some of the primary references for the studies of the time are (Runyan & Kane, 1973; Bell, 1972; Cottereau, 1972; and Bond, 1971).133-136 Bell notes that during the period 1961 to 1970, the U.S. Air Force received claims of almost 900,000 USD but paid out about 128,000 USD in awards. Over 100,000 USD of those awards were for mink, a type of animal used to make warm coats. Because of their monetary value, there were several controlled experiments conducted in which mink were exposed to real and simulated sonic booms. It was noted that female kits may be alerted, pause in activity, and look around for sources of the sound. Sleeping females may awaken and mating pairs may show momentary alertness, but the mating ritual is not disturbed. No wounding, killing, carrying or burying of kits in the nests of females were observed. One study observed that the reactions of mink to barking dogs, truck noises, or mine blasting were similar to their reactions to sonic booms. Bell noted that domestic or pet animals may react to sonic booms, and simple startle is the most common response. Occasionally reactions such as trampling, moving, raising the head, stampeding, jumping, or running may be observed due to sonic boom. Avian species occasionally will run, fly, or crowd. It was noted that these reactions are similar to those due to subsonic airplane or helicopter flights, barking dogs, or other sudden noises. Regarding studies of wild animals and to animals in zoos, it was reported that observations of deer, reindeer, and some zoo animals showed no reaction or only minimal and momentary reactions such as raising the head, pricking the ears, or scenting the air. The Federal Aviation Administration funded a study on the effects of sonic boom on fish.137 The conclusion of the study was that sonic booms have no effects on developing fish eggs or fish. It was suggested that the pressure of a sonic boom was akin to the pressure of a pebble, stone, or boulder being dropped into water, and that this should be investigated in future studies. No follow-up studies are in the literature. Later in the 1980s and early 1990s the emphasis switched to the studies on the hatchability of eggs and to studies conducted by the United States Air Force. The Air Force program with interest in this topic was NSBIT ADPO, the Noise and Sonic Boom Impact Technology Aerospace-Medical Division Program Office. The program director during 1989-1994 was Robert Kull, and he at the time chaired the "Noise and Animals" team of ICBEN. That team no longer exists. The two large detailed literature reviews of the Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-37 time were (Kull and Fisher, 1987; and Manci, et al., 1988).138-139 In one of his unpublished overview presentations of the time Kull noted that it was difficult to observe animals in their natural environment, it's difficult to measure the noise exposure at the animal's position, the species of concern are usually low in population size and laws and/or regulations restrict access to those animals, there are thousands of species, the animals cannot be interviewed, the animals seem to habituate quickly, and terrestrial animals are usually not exposed for long periods or high levels. Each of these points make it a challenge to get the same types of impacts data for animals that we can get for the human population. There were a number of studies examining the possibility that chicken or other avian eggs might not hatch or might be cracked by sonic booms. In 1972 Bell reported on a number of studies in the 1960s where egg hatchability was not affected by sonic booms. A later study in 1994 by Bowles et al. showed similar results.140 However, there was one report from 1970 that a mass hatching failure of Sooty Tern eggs might have been caused by sonic booms.141 This prompted additional research, and subsequent detailed studies142,143 that showed this mass hatching failure was very likely not caused by sonic booms. It was suggested that it was much more likely that a predator, weather, lack of food, or insects caused the incident. Another study from this period noted that nesting peregrine falcons and other raptors were often minimally affected by mid to high- altitude sonic booms, showing no effects on their production of offspring. Overall, it was reported that adult birds would sometimes be alerted or would flee their nests in response to a loud boom, but no productivity-limiting responses were detected.144 Another species studied in the 1990s was the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii). Bowles et al. reported in 1999 that simulated carpet sonic booms "did not stimulate any significant changes in behavior other than brief bouts of looking." Overall, it was concluded that the Desert Tortoise does not have an acoustic startle response.145 It should be noted that this was a very complete study where the animals' hearing, metabolic rate, heart rate, oxygen consumption, etc. were very carefully monitored throughout the testing. During the 1990s and early 2000s NASA undertook a number of studies to assess the impact of overwater N-wave sonic booms on marine mammals, including both pinnipeds and whales. NASA's aim was to ensure that N-wave booms would be compliant with existing U.S. regulations such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Physics tells us that when a sonic boom traveling through air impinges on the water that the pressure just above the air/water interface must be the same as the pressure just below the air/water interface, i.e. the boundary condition is matched. This is true for any aircraft traveling at a speed of Mach 3 or less. Also there is a large density change, a factor of about 800, between air and water. This and the sound speed difference between air and water means that almost zero acoustic energy is transferred between the air and water. Thus although there is a pressure created in the water due to sonic booms in air, there is no propagating wave into the water. So the pressure disturbance in the water hugs the surface, and the sound pressure decays exponentially with depth. High frequencies (hundreds of hertz or higher) die off very fast with depth, but some very low frequencies penetrate to distances of about 50 m. Hence whales, which come up to breath air at the surface, would likely hear sounds created by sonic booms when they are very near the surface. They will hear nothing if they are diving to deep depths. In 2001 Rochat and Sparrow conducted a computational study to see if swell on the ocean surface could focus this sound energy and create acoustic hot spots, but this focusing was very small and had little effect.146 10A-38 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 The theory to predict N-wave sonic boom penetration into the ocean was developed in the 1960s, and this theory was updated by Sparrow and Ferguson in 1997 to handle arbitrary sonic boom signatures.147 The theory was tested in the field with hydrophones (underwater microphones) deployed by boats with a supersonic aircraft overhead by Sohn et al. in 2000.148 The acquired field data closely matched the simulation predictions, and these theories and results were summarized in a review paper by Sparrow in 2002.149 It should be noted that the sonic boom sounds that might be heard underwater are at levels much less than if a sound source is making sound IN the water. In that case, there is no mismatch between the density and speed of sound as in the case of sonic booms, and the sound will propagate very effectively. This has been seen for other types of anthropogenic underwater noise such as active sonar from military operations, underwater explosions, and pile driving. Such high amplitude underwater noises are known to create problems for underwater marine life and their habitats. So there are good physical reasons why sonic booms are not in the same category and will not cause similar problems for marine life. For the case of pinnipeds such as walrus, sea lions, seals, etc., NASA sponsored studies to measure the hearing thresholds of animals such as harbour seals, elephant seals, and the California sea lion. The results in the lab showed that after exposure to N-wave booms, that there was no evidence of temporary hearing loss for these animals.150,151 An additional field study of a colony of seals regularly exposed to Concorde sonic booms sheds additional light.152 Gray and harbour seals located on Sable Island, 163 km off the coast of Nova Scotia, Canada, were regularly exposed to sonic booms from Concorde flights during the 1990s. A team from the National Zoo of the United States travelled to the island and observed the seals during 3 weeks in January 1997 and during 3 additional weeks in June 1998. The team and the seals heard Concorde booms about 3 times per day during these periods. It was noted152 that "No significant differences in the behaviour or beach counts following sonic booms, regardless of the season" and that the booms "do not substantially affect the breeding behaviour of gray or harbour seals." The takeaway from this study is that over time the animals very likely habituated to the N-wave Concorde booms, and the animals showed no adverse effects whatsoever due to regular exposure to the N-wave booms. During the later 2000s and in the last few years there has been little new research on supersonic aircraft noise effects on animals, but a number of studies have been conducted on subsonic aviation and other transportation noise and their effects on wildlife. Some of this research has been funded by the United States National Park Service. A short overview of some of this recent research is now provided, and some review articles are now summarized. Hanson in 2008 noted that high speed train noise with high levels can cause effects on wildlife and livestock.153 Barber, Crooks, and Fristrup in their extensive 2010 review on chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms stated that there is a "preponderance" of "suggestive but inconclusive evidence" that noise "masking is substantially altering ecosystems."154 A further extensive review by Shannon et al. in 2016 noted that anthropogenic "noise is detrimental."155 A number of recent papers found no adverse effects on animals from aircraft noise.156-159 Other papers found that high levels of noise could cause effects. Barber et al. in 2011 cited studies of clear negative relationships between traffic noise on roads and birds nesting near the roads.160 Bunkley et al. in 2017 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-39 showed that high levels of compressor noise could be impactful.161 In a laboratory study in 2014 Schmidt et al. described that male cricket calls were not heard by females when noise was present.162 In 2017 Damsky and Gall noted that anthropogenic noise can affect the behaviour of songbirds.163 In cases where the noises under study were relatively continuous there is a distinct possibility of interference with communication between members of a species and disruption of auditory cues that are part of predator/prey relationships. In summary an extensive literature is available for N-wave sonic booms and their effects on a range of animals. Some animals such as the Desert Tortoise do not startle at all, but many animals react to sudden noises the same way that humans do. It is likely that hearing an isolated N-wave sonic boom would cause momentary startle in some animals. As there are many species of animals, there are many that have not been studied. These include large animals such as elephants and rhinoceroses that have good low-frequency hearing. Such animals can communicate over many kilometres of distance because of this low-frequency hearing capability.164 For other sound sources, there is a body of literature showing that louder and continuous sources have effects on animal communication. And it is well established that underwater sound sources with high sound levels such as active sonar, pile driving, etc. can have detrimental effects on marine life. The issue of startle and habituation due to sonic boom is still an open research question. However, the Perry et al. 2002 study clearly points to the likelihood that some animals will habituate to hearing N-wave sonic booms on a regular basis.152 Based on the known hearing characteristics of many animal species, there is little reason to expect hearing damage from exposure to infrequent sonic booms from aircraft at cruise altitudes. Other adverse long-term effects due to sonic boom exposure also seem unlikely, but such long-term studies have not been conducted. For overall conclusions regarding en-route supersonic aircraft noise, see Sections 7 and 10 of this white paper. 10A-40 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 REFERENCES 1. Basner M, Clark C, Hansel A, Hileman JI, Janssen S, Shepherd K, Sparrow V. Aviation noise impacts: State of the science. Noise Health 2017; 19: 41-50. 2. Fields J, de Jong RG, Gjestland T, Flindell IH, Job RFS, Kurra S, Lercher P, Vallet M, Yano T, Guski R, Felscher-Suhr U & Schumer R. Standardized noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: research and a recommendation. J Sound Vib 2001; 242(4): 641-679. 3. International Standards Organization. TS 15666: Acoustics - Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic surveys. 2003. 4. Gjestland T. Standardized general-purpose reaction questions. 12th ICBEN Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem; Zurich, Switzerland; 2017. 5. Schultz, TJ. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am, 1979; 64: 377-405. 6. Miedema HM & Oudshoorn CG. Annoyance from transportation noise: Relationships with exposure metrics DNL and DENL and their confidence intervals. Environmental Health 2001; 109: 409-416. 7. International Standards Organization. ISO 1996-1. Acoustics - Description, measurement and assessment of environmental noise - part 1: Basic quantities and assessment procedures. 2016. 8. Gelderblom, FB, Gjestland T, Fidell S, & Berry, B. On the stability of community tolerance for aircraft noise. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2017; 103: 17-27. 9. Guski R, Schreckenberg, D, & Schuemer, R. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. A systematic review on environmental noise and annoyance. Int J of Environmental Research and Public Health 2017; 14: 1539. doi:10.3390/ijerph14121539. 10. Fidell S, & Silvati L. Social survey of community response to a step change in aircraft noise exposure. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111(1): 200-209. 11. Brink M, Wirth KE, Schierz C, Thomann G, & Bauer G. Annoyance response to stable and changing aircraft noise exposure. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130(2): 791-806. 12. Schreckenberg D, Belke C, Faulbaum F, Guski R, Möller U, & Spilski J. Effects of aircraft noise on annoyance and sleep disturbances before and after expansion of Frankfurt Airport. Inter-Noise 2016; Hamburg, Germany; 2016. 13. Fields JM. Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 93: 2753-63. 14. Miedema H, & Vos H. Demographic and attitudinal factors that modify annoyance from transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105: 3336-44. 15. Schreckenberg D, Benz S, Kuhlmann J, Conrady M, & Felscher-Suhr U. Attitudes towards authorities and aircraft noise annoyance. 12th ICBEN congress on noise as a public health problem; Zurich, Switzerland; 2017. 16. Heritier H, Vienneau D, Foraster M, Eze IC, Schaffner E, et al. Diurnal variability of transportation noise exposure and cardiovascular mortality: A nationwide cohort study from Switzerland. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2018; 221(3) 556-563. 17. Gelderblom FB, Gjestland T, Fidell S, & Berry B. On the stability of community tolerance for aircraft noise. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2017; 103: 17-27. 18. Flindell IH & Witter IJ. Non-acoustical factors in noise management at Heathrow Airport. J Noise & Health 1999; 3: 27-44. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-41 19. Job, RF. Noise sensitivity as a factor influencing human reaction to noise. J of Noise & Health 1999; 1: 57-68. 20. Janssen SA & Vos H. A comparison of recent surveys on aircraft noise exposure-response relationships. TNO report, TNO-034-DTM-2009-01799, 2009. 21. Janssen SA, Vos H, van Kempen EEMM, Breugelmans ORP, Miedema HME. Trends in aircraft noise annoyance: The role of study and sample characteristics. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 129(4): 19531962. 22. COSMA. Community Oriented Solutions to Minimize Aircraft Noise Annoyance. The Commission, European Union, 2009. 23. Fritschi L, Brown AL, Kim R, Schwela DH, Kephalopoulos S, editors. Burden of disease from environmental noise. Bonn, Germany: World Health Organization (WHO); 2011. 24. Muzet A. Environmental noise, sleep and health. Sleep Med Rev 2007; 11(2): 135-42. 25. Dang-Vu TT, McKinney SM, Buxton OM, Solet JM, Ellenbogen JM. Spontaneous brain rhythms predict sleep stability in the face of noise. Curr Biol 2010; 20(15): R626-R7. 26. Basner M, Müller U, Griefahn B. Practical guidance for risk assessment of traffic noise effects on sleep. Appl Acoustics 2010; 71(6): 518-22. 27. Basner M, Müller U, Elmenhorst E-M. Single and combined effects of air, road, and rail traffic noise on sleep and recuperation. Sleep 2011; 34(1): 11-23. 28. Brink M, Basner M, Schierz C, et al. Determining physiological reaction probabilities to noise events during sleep. Somnologie 2009; 13(4): 236-43. 29. Cassel W, Ploch T, Griefahn B, et al. Disturbed sleep in obstructive sleep apnea expressed in a single index of sleep disturbance (SDI). Somnologie - Schlafforschung und Schlafmedizin 2008; 12(2): 15864. 30. Müller U, Elmenhorst EM, Mendolia F, et al. A comparison of the effects of night time air traffic noise on sleep at Cologne/Bonn and Frankfurt Airport after the night flight ban. 12th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN); 2017; Zurich, Switzerland; 2017. p. 1-6. 31. Basner M. Nocturnal aircraft noise increases objectively assessed daytime sleepiness. Somnologie 2008; 12(2): 110-7. 32. Elmenhorst EM, Elmenhorst D, Wenzel J, et al. Effects of nocturnal aircraft noise on cognitive performance in the following morning: dose-response relationships in laboratory and field. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2010; 83(7): 743-51. 33. Jarup L, Babisch W, Houthuijs D, et al. Hypertension and exposure to noise near airports: the HYENA study. EnvironHealth Perspect 2008; 116(3): 329-33. 34. Basner M, Isermann U, Samel A. Aircraft noise effects on sleep: Application of the results of a large polysomnographic field study. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 119(5): 2772-84. 35. Pearsons K, Barber D, Tabachnick BG, Fidell S. Predicting noise-induced sleep disturbance. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97(1): 331-8. 36. Marks A, Griefahn B, Basner M. Event-related awakenings caused by nocturnal transportation noise. Noise Contr Eng J 2008; 56(1): 52-62. 37. Basner M, McGuire S. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A systematic review on environmental noise and effects on sleep. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15(3): 519. 38. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336(7650): 924-6. 10A-42 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 39. Münzel T, Sørensen M, Gori T, Schmidt FP, Rao X, Brook J, et al. Environmental stressors and cardio-metabolic disease: part I-epidemiologic evidence supporting a role for noise and air pollution and effects of mitigation strategies. Eur Heart J 2017; 38(8): 550-6. 40. Münzel T, Sørensen M, Gori T, Schmidt FP, Rao X, Brook FR, et al. Environmental stressors and cardio-metabolic disease: part II-mechanistic insights. Eur Heart J 2017; 38(8): 557-64. 41. Kempen EV, Casas M, Pershagen G, Foraster M. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects: A Summary. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15(2): 379. 42. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Ristovska G, Dadvand P. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Adverse Birth Outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14(10): 1252. 43. Wunderli JM, Pieren R, Habermacher M, Vienneau D, Cajochen C, Probst-Hensch N, et al. Intermittency ratio: A metric reflecting short-term temporal variations of transportation noise exposure. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 2016; 26(6): 575-85. 44. Seidler A, Wagner M, Schubert M, Droge P, Pons-Kuhnemann J, Swart E, et al. Myocardial Infarction Risk Due to Aircraft, Road, and Rail Traffic Noise. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016; 113(24): 40714. 45. Münzel T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, Herzog J, Daiber A, Sorensen M. Environmental Noise and the Cardiovascular System. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 71(6): 688-97. 46. Kempen EV, Casas M, Pershagen G, Foraster M. Cardiovascular and metabolic effects of environmental noise: Systemic evidence review in the framework of the development of the WHO environmental noise guidelines for the European Region. RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) Report 2017-0078. Available from report: (https://www.rivm.nl/en/Search?searchbase=0&searchrange=10&searchpage=1&freetext=20170078&submit=Search) 47. World Health Organization Regional Office for E. Burden of disease from environmental noise. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf. Bonn, Germany: World Health Organization; 2011. 48. Schmidt FP, Basner M, Kroger G, Weck S, Schnorbus B, Muttray A, et al. Effect of nighttime aircraft noise exposure on endothelial function and stress hormone release in healthy adults. Eur Heart J 2013; 34(45): 3508-14a. 49. Schmidt F, Kolle K, Kreuder K, Schnorbus B, Wild P, Hechtner M, et al. Nighttime aircraft noise impairs endothelial function and increases blood pressure in patients with or at high risk for coronary artery disease. Clinical Research Cardiology 2015; 104(1): 23-30. 50. Eriksson C, Bluhm G, Hilding A, Ostenson C-G, Pershagen G. Aircraft noise and incidence of hypertension - Gender specific effects. Environmental Research 2010; 110(8): 764-72. 51. Zeeb H, Hegewald J, Schubert M, Wagner M, Dröge P, Swart E, et al. Traffic noise and hypertension - results from a large case-control study. Environ Res 2017; 157: 110-7. 52. Dimakopoulou K, Koutentakis K, Papageorgiou I, Kasdagli M-I, Haralabidis AS, Sourtzi P, et al. Is aircraft noise exposure associated with cardiovascular disease and hypertension? Results from a cohort study in Athens, Greece. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2017; 74(11): 830-7. 53. Heritier H, Vienneau D, Foraster M, Eze IC, Schaffner E, Thiesse L, et al. Transportation noise exposure and cardiovascular mortality: a nationwide cohort study from Switzerland. Eur J Epidemiol 2017; 32(4): 307-15. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-43 54. Heritier H, Vienneau D, Foraster M, Eze IC, Schaffner E, Thiesse L, et al. Diurnal variability of transportation noise exposure and cardiovascular mortality: A nationwide cohort study from Switzerland. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2018; 221(3): 556-563. 55. Seidler A, Wagner M, Schubert M, Dröge P, Römer K, Pons-Kühnemann J, et al. Aircraft, road and railway traffic noise as risk factors for heart failure and hypertensive heart disease - a case-control study based on secondary data. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 2016; 219(8): 749-58. 56. Eriksson C, Hilding A, Pyko A, Bluhm G, Pershagen G, Ostenson CG. Long-term aircraft noise exposure and body mass index, waist circumference, and type 2 diabetes: a prospective study. Environmental Health Perspectives 2014; 122(7): 687-94. 57. Eze IC, Foraster M, Schaffner E, Vienneau D, Héritier H, Rudzik F, et al. Long-term exposure to transportation noise and air pollution in relation to incident diabetes in the SAPALDIA study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2017; 46(4): 1115-25. 58. Eze IC, Imboden M, Foraster M, Schaffner E, Kumar A, Vienneau D, et al. Exposure to Night-Time Traffic Noise, Melatonin-Regulating Gene Variants and Change in Glycemia in Adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14(12): 1492. 59. Kyoung-Bok M, Jin-Young M. Noise exposure during the first trimester and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Environmental Research Letters 2017; 12(7): 074015. 60. Seidler A, Hegewald J, Seidler AL, Schubert M, Wagner M, Droge P, et al. Association between aircraft, road and railway traffic noise and depression in a large case-control study based on secondary data. Environ Res 2017; 152: 263-71. 61. Dreger S, Meyer N, Fromme H, Bolte G. Study Group of the GMEc. Environmental noise and incident mental health problems: A prospective cohort study among school children in Germany. Environ Res 2015; 143(Pt A): 49-54. 62. Clark C, Paunovi K, WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A systematic review on environmental noise and cognition. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15: 285. 63. Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Head J, Job RFS. Multilevel modelling of aircraft noise on performance tests in schools around Heathrow Airport London. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002; 56(2); 139144. 64. Sharp B, Connor TL, McLaughlin D, Clark C, Stansfeld SA, Hervey J. Assessing aircraft noise conditions affecting student learning; Transportation Research Board of the National Academies: 2014. 65. Stansfeld, SA, Berglund B, Clark C, Lopez-Barrio I, Fischer P, Ohrstrom E, Haines, MM, Head J, Hygge S, van Kamp I, Berry BF, team R.s. Aircraft and road traffic noise and children's cognition and health: a cross-national study. Lancet 2005; 365(9475): 1942-9. 66. Clark C, Martin R, van Kempen E, Alfred T, Head J, Davies HW, Haines MM, Barrio IL, Matheson M, Stansfeld SA. Exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure at school and reading comprehension - The RANCH project. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163(1): 27-37. 67. Clark C, Crombie R, Head J, van Kamp I, van Kempen E, Stansfeld SA. Does traffic-related air pollution explain associations of aircraft and road traffic noise exposure on children's health and cognition? A secondary analysis of the United Kingdom sample from the RANCH project. Am J Epidemiol 2012; 176(4): 327-37. 68. Stansfeld SA, Hygge S, Clark C, Alfred T. Night time aircraft noise exposure and children's cognitive performance. Noise and Health 2010; 12(49): 255-62. 10A-44 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 69. Clark C, Martin R, van Kempen E, Alfred T, Head J, Davies HW, Haines MM, Lopez Barrio I, Matheson M, Stansfeld SA. Exposure-effect relations between aircraft and road traffic noise exposure at school and reading comprehension: the RANCH project. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163(1): 27-37. 70. Klatte M, Spilski J, Mayerl J, Möhler U, Lachmann T, Bergström K. Effects of aircraft noise on reading and quality of life in primary school children in Germany: results from the NORAH study. Environ Behav 2017; 49(4): 390-424. 71. Clark C, Head J, Stansfeld SA. Longitudinal effects of aircraft noise exposure on children's health and cognition: A six-year follow-up of the UK RANCH cohort. J Environ Psychol 2013; 35: 1-9. 72. Eagan ME, Nicholas B, McIntosh S, Clark C, Evans G. Assessing aircraft noise conditions affecting student learning - Case Studies; Contractors Final Report for ACRP Project 02-47, 2017. DOI 10.17226/24941. Available as http://nap.edu/24941 . 73. Stansfeld S, Clark C. Health effects of noise exposure in children. Current Environmental Health Reports 2015; 2(2): 171-178. 74. Evans G, Lepore S. Non-auditory effects of noise on children: a critical review. Children's Environments 1993; 10: 42-72. 75. Hygge S, Evans GW, Bullinger M. A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive performance in schoolchildren. Psychol Sci 2002; 13(5): 469-474. 76. Dockrell JE, Shield B. The impact of sound-field systems on learning and attention in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 2012; 55(4): 1163-1176. 77. Taraldsen GG. How to measure community tolerance levels for noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 140(1): 692-701. 78. Atkins CLR, Brooker P, Critchley JB. Helicopter disturbance study: main report. Civil Aviation Authority, DR Report 8304, London, UK, 1983. 79. Schomer PD. A survey of community attitudes towards noise near a general aviation airport. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 74; 1773-1781. 80. Schomer PD, Hoover BD, Wagner LR. Human response to helicopter noise: a test of A-weighting. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Report TR N91-13, Champaign, IL, USA, 1991. 81. Ollerhead JB, Jones CJ. Social survey of reactions to helicopter noise. Civil Aviation Authority, London, UK, 1994. 82. Wyle Research. Aircraft noise study for Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (CA). Wyle Laboratories Report WR 94-25, Arlington (VA) USA, 1995. 83. Mestre V, Fidell S, Horonjeff R, Schomer PD, Hastings A, Tabachnick B, Schmitz F. Assessing community annoyance of helicopter noise, Airport Cooperative Research Program Research Report 181, Transportation Research Board, National Academies, Washington DC, 2017. 84. Fields JM, Powell CA. Community reactions to helicopter noise: results from an experimental study. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 479-492. 85. Ollerhead JB. Laboratory studies of scales for measuring helicopter noise. NASA Contractor Report 3610, Washington DC, USA, 1982. 86. Powell CA. A subjective field study of helicopter blade slap noise. NASA Report TM 78758, Washington DC, USA, 1978. 87. Fields JM, Powell CA. Community reactions to helicopter noise: results from an experimental study. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 82: 479-492. 88. Gjestland T. Assessment of helicopter noise annoyance: a comparison between noise from helicopters and from jet aircraft. J Sound Vib 1994; 171: 453-458. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-45 89. Schomer PD, Wagner LR. Human and community response to military sounds: results from fieldlaboratory tests of small arms, 25 mm cannon, helicopters and blast sound. Noise Control Eng J 1995; 43: 1-13. 90. Berry BF, Fuller HC, John AJ, Robinson DW. The rating of helicopter noise: development of a proposed impulse correction. NPL Report Ac 93, Teddington, UK, 1979. 91. Federal Aviation Administration. Report to Congress: Nonmilitary Helicopter Urban Noise Study. Report of the Federal Aviation Administration to the United States Congress, Washington DC, USA, 2004. 92. Passchier-Vermeer W. Rating of helicopter noise with respect to annoyance. TNO report PG 94.061, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1994. 93. Fidell S, Silvati L, Pearsons K, Lind S, Howe R. Field study of the annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106: 1408-1415. 94. Fidell S, Pearsons K, Silvati L, Sneddon M. Relationship between low-frequency aircraft noise and annoyance due to rattle and vibration. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 1743-1750. 95. Cawthorn JM, Dempsey TK, and DeLoach R. Human response to aircraft noise-induced building vibration. Proceedings of the AHS/NASA/Army Specialists Meeting on Helicopter Acoustics, Hampton, VA (NASA CP-2052), 1978. 96. Schomer PD, Neathammer RD. The role of helicopter noise-induced vibration and rattle in human response. J Acoust Soc Am 1987; 81: 966-976. 97. Janssen S, Heblij S, van Veen T. Annoyance response to helicopter noise Proc. 12th Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN) 2017, Zurich, Switzerland. 98. Stevens SS. Perceived level of noise by Mark VII and decibels (E). J Acoust Soc Am 1972; 51(2, Pt. 2): 575-601. 99. Shepherd KP, Sullivan BM. A loudness calculation procedure applied to shaped sonic booms. NASA Technical Paper TP-3134, 1991. 100. Leatherwood JD, Sullivan Brenda M, Shepherd KP, McCurdy DA, and Brown SA. Summary of Recent NASA Studies of Human Response to Sonic Booms. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111(1, Pt. 2): 586598. 101. Maglieri DJ, Bobbitt PJ, Plotkin KJ, Shepherd KP, Coen PG, Richwine DM. Sonic boom: Six decades of research. NASA Report NASA/SP-2014-622, 2014. 102. Salamone J. Portable Sonic Boom Simulation. Innovations in Nonlinear Acoustics: 17th Int. Symp. on Nonlinear Acous. 667670, 2005. 103. Giacomoni C and Davies P. A simplified approach to simulating sonic booms indoors. INTERNOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Denver, CO, pp. 56-64, 2013. 104. Loubeau A, Sullivan BM, Klos J, Rathsam J, Gavin JR. Laboratory headphone studies of human response to low-amplitude sonic booms and rattle heard indoors. Technical Report TM-2013-217975, NASA, 2013. 105. Naka Y. Subjective evaluation of loudness of sonic booms indoors and outdoors. Acoust Sci & Tech 2013; 34(3): 225-228. 106. Klos J, Sullivan BM, and Shepherd KP. Design of an indoor sonic boom simulator at NASA Langley Research Center. Noise-Con (2008). 107. Haering EA, Smolka JW, Murray JE, Plotkin KJ. Flight demonstration of low overpressure Nwave sonic booms and evanescent waves. AIP Conference Proceedings 838, 647650, 2006. 10A-46 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 108. Sullivan BM, Davies P, Hodgdon KK, Salamone JA, Pilon A. Realism assessment of sonic boom simulators. Noise Control Eng J 2008; 56(2): 141-157. 109. Sullivan BM, Klos J, Buehrle RD, McCurdy DA, Haering EA. Human response to low-intensity sonic booms heard indoors and outdoors. NASA Technical Report NASA/TM-2010-216685, 2010. 110. Miller DM, Sparrow VW. Assessing sonic boom responses to changes in listening environment, signature type, and testing methodology. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 127: 1898. 111. Miller DM. Human response to low-amplitude sonic booms. Ph.D. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 2011. Available at https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/11175 112. Borsky PN. Community reactions to sonic booms in the Oklahoma City area: Vol II: Data on community reactions and interpretations. Technical Report AMRL-TR-65-37, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1965. 113. Rathsam J, Loubeau A, Klos J. A study in a new test facility on indoor annoyance caused by sonic booms. Technical Report TM-2012-217332, NASA, 2012. 114. Loubeau A, Rathsam J, Klos J. Evaluation of an Indoor Sonic Boom Subjective Test Facility at NASA Langley Research Center. Proc Mtgs Acoust 2013; 12: 040007. 115. Loubeau A, Rathsam J, Klos J. Laboratory study of outdoor and indoor annoyance caused by sonic booms from sub-scale aircraft. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 134(5): 4220. 116. Loubeau A. Evaluation of the effect of aircraft size on indoor annoyance caused by sonic booms. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 136(4): 2223. 117. Rathsam J, Loubeau A, Klos J. Simulator study of indoor annoyance caused by shaped sonic boom stimuli with and without rattle augmentation. Proc. NoiseCon13 (INCE), 307-313, 2013. 118. Rathsam J, Loubeau A, Klos J. Effects of indoor rattle sounds on annoyance caused by sonic booms. J Acoust Soc Am 2015; 138(1): EL43-EL48. 119. Loubeau A. Evaluation of the effect of aircraft size on indoor annoyance caused by sonic booms and rattle noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2018; 143(3): 1936. 120. Rathsam J, Klos J, and Loubeau A. Influence of chair vibrations on indoor sonic boom annoyance. 20th International Symposium on Nonlinear Acoustics, 2015. 121. Carr D, Davies P. An investigation into the effect of playback environment on perception of sonic booms when heard indoors. In AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 1685 (2015), 090013. 122. Rathsam J, Klos J. Vibration penalty estimates for indoor annoyance caused by sonic boom. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 139: 2007. 123. Rathsam J, Klos J, Loubeau A, Carr D, Davies P. Effects of chair vibration on indoor annoyance ratings of sonic booms. J Acoust Soc Am 2018; 143(1): 489-499. 124. Klos J. Estimates of residential floor vibration induced by sonic booms, J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 139: 2007. 125. Marshall A, Davies P. Metrics including time-varying loudness models to assess the impact of sonic booms and other transient sounds. Noise Control Eng J 2011; 59(6): 681-697. 126. Marshall AJ, Davies P. Effect of long-term time-varying loudness and duration on subjects' ratings of startle evoked by shaped sonic booms and impulsive sounds. Proc of Internoise 2012, Paper No. 845, 2012. 127. Fidell S, Horonjeff RD, Harris M. Pilot test of a novel method for assessing community response to low-amplitude sonic booms, Technical Report NASA/CR-2012-217767, NASA, 2012. 128. Page JA, Hodgdon K, Hobbs C, Wilmer C, Krecker P, Cowart R, Gaugler T, Shumway D, Rosenberger J, and Phillips D. Waveforms and Sonic boom Perception and Response (WSPR) Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-47 program final report, low boom community response program pilot test design, execution and analysis, Technical Report NASA-CR-2014-218180, NASA, 2014. 129. Loubeau A. Community response to low-amplitude sonic booms. Proc Mtgs Acoust 2013; 19: 040048. 130. Loubeau A, Naka Y, Cook BG, Sparrow VW, and Morgenstern JM. A new evaluation of noise metrics for sonic booms using existing data. 20th International Symposium on Nonlinear Acoustics, 2015. 131. DeGolia J, Loubeau A. A multiple-criteria decision analysis to evaluate sonic boom noise metrics. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 141: 3624. 132. Basner M, Griefahn B, Berg Mv. Aircraft noise effects on sleep; mechanisms, mitigation and research needs. Noise Health 2010; 12(47): 95-109. 133. Runyan LJ, Kane EJ. Sonic boom Literature Survey: Volume I State of the Art. FAA-RD-73-1291, 1973. 134. Bell WB. Animal response to sonic booms. J Acoust Soc Am 1972; 51(2, Pt. 3): 758-765. 135. Cottereau P. Sonic Boom Exposure Effects II.5 Effects on Animals. J Sound Vib 1972; 20(4): 531-534. 136. Bond J. Noise and Its Effect on the Physiology and Behavior of Animals. Agricultural Science Review 1971; 9(4): 10 pp. 137. Rucker RR. Effect of sonic boom on fish. Work performed by US Fish & Wildlife Service. AD758 239, FAA-RD-73-29, 67 pp., 1973. 138. Kull RC, Fisher AD. Supersonic and subsonic aircraft noise effects on animals: A literature survey. AD-A186-922, AAMRL-TR-87-032, 60 pp., 1987. 139. Manci KM, Gladwin DN, Villella R, Cavendish M. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: A literature synthesis. ADA201 966, AFESC TR 88-14, 97 pp., 1988. 140. Bowles AB, Knobler M, Seddon M, Kugler BA. Effects of simulated sonic booms on the hatchability of white leghorn chicken eggs. AL/OE-TR-19994-0179, 1994. 141. Austin OL, Robertson WB, Woolfenden GE. Mass hatching failure in Dry Tortuga Sooty Terns. Proc. Int. Ornithological Cong 1970; 15: 627. 142. Bowles AB, Awbrey F, Jehl J. The effects of high-amplitude impulsive noise on hatching success: A reanalysis of the sooty tern incident. AD-A234 766, HSD-TP-91-0006, 1991. 143. Ting C, Garrelick J, Bowles A. An analysis of the response of Sooty Tern eggs to sonic boom overpressures. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111(1, Pt. 2): 562-568. 144. Ellis DH, Ellis CH, Mindell D. Raptor responses to low-level jet aircraft and sonic booms. Environmental Pollution 1991; 74: 53-83. 145. Bowles AB, Eckert S, Starke L, Berg E, Wolski L, Matesic J. Effects of flight noise from jet aircraft and sonic booms on hearing, behavior, heart rate, and oxygen consumption of desert tortoises (Gopherrus Agassiziii). Air Force Research Laboratory Report, AFRL-HE-WP-TR-1999-0170, 1999. 146. Rochat J, Sparrow V. A computational analysis of sonic booms penetrating a realistic ocean surface. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 109(3): 899-908. 147. Sparrow V, Ferguson T. Penetration of shaped sonic boom noise into a flat ocean. AIAA Paper 97-0486, 1997. 148. Sohn R, et al. Field measurements of sonic boom penetration into the ocean. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107(6): 3073-3083. 10A-48 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 149. Sparrow V. Review and status of sonic boom penetration into the ocean. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111(1, Pt. 2): 537-543. 150. Bowles AB, Wolski L, Berg E. Effects of simulated N-waves on the auditory brainstem response of three species of pinnipeds. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104: 1861. 151. Wolski L, Anderson R, Bowles AB, Yochem P. Measuring hearing in the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina): Comparison of behavioral and auditory brainstem response techniques. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 113(1): 629-637. 152. Perry E, Boness D, Insley S. Effects of sonic booms on breeding gray seals and harbor seals on Sable Island, Canada. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111 (1, Pt. 2): 599-609. 153. Hanson CE. High speed train noise effects on wildlife and livestock. In Noise and Vib. Mitigation, NNFM 99, B. Schulte-Werning, et al. (Eds.) (Springer, 2008), pp. 26-32. 154. Barber J, Crooks K, Fristrup K. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2010; 25: 180-189. 155. Shannon G, et al. A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological Reviews 2016; 91: 982-1005. 156. Grubb T, et al. Golden eagle indifference to heli-skiing and military helicopters in northern Utah. J Wildlife Management 2010; 74(6): 1275-1285. 157. Daleney D, Pater L, et al. Response of red-cockaded Woodpecker to military training operations. Wildlife Monographs 2011; 177: 1-38. 158. Hillman W, et al. Effects of aircraft and recreation on colonial waterbird nesting behavior,. J Wildlife Management 2015; 79(7): 1192-1198. 159. Derose-Wilson A, et al. Effects of overflights on incubating Wilson's Plover behavior and heart rate. J Wildlife Management 2015; 79(8): 1246-1254. 160. Barber J, et al. Anthropogenic noise exposure in protected natural areas: estimating the scale of ecological consequences. Landscape Ecology 2011; 26: 1281-. 161. Bunkley J, et al. Anthropogenic noise changes arthropod abundances. Ecology and Evolution 2017; 7: 2977-2985. 162. Schmidt R, Morrison A, Kunc H. Sexy voices no choices: male song in noise fails to attract females, Animal Behavior 2014; 94: 55-59. 163. Damsky J. Gall M. Anthropogenic noise reduces approach of Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) and Tufted Titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor) to Tufted Titmouse mobbing calls. The Condor 2017; 119(1): 26-33. 164. Larom D, Garstang M, Lindeque M, Raspet R, Zunckel M, Hong Y, Brassel K, O'Beirne S, Sokolic F. Meteorology and elephant infrasound at Etosha National Park, Namibia. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 111(3): 1710-1717. 165. Theodore CR. A summary of the NASA design environment for Novel Vertical Lift Vehicles (DELIVER) project. AHS International Technical Meeting on Aeromechanics Design for Transformative Vertical Flight, 2018. 166. Christian A, Cabell R. Initial investigation into the psychoacoustic properties of small unmanned aerial system noise. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, 2017. 167. Senzig DA, Marsan M, Downs RS, Hastings AL, Cutler CJ, Samiljan RW. UAS noise certification and measurements status report. FAA Technical Report DOT-VNTSC-FAA-18-01, 2017. Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 10A-49 168. Rizzi SA, Palumbo DL, Rathsam J, Christian AW, Rafaelof M. Annoyance to noise produced by a distributed electric propulsion high-lift system. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA AVIATION Forum, 2017. 169. Bulusu V, Polishchuk V, Sedov L. Noise estimation for future large-scale small UAS Operations. INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, 2017; 864-871. 170. Huff DL, Henderson BS, Envia E. Motor noise for electric powered aircraft. 22nd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 2016. 171. Zawodny NS, Christian A, Cabell R. A summary of NASA research exploring the acoustics of small unmanned aerial systems. AHS International Technical Meeting on Aeromechanics Design for Transformative Vertical Flight, 2018. 172. Cabell R, McSwain R, Grosveld F. Measured noise from small unmanned aerial vehicles. INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, 2016; 345-354. 173. United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General. Public perception of drone delivery in the United States. RARC report RARC-WP-17-001, 2016. 174. World Health Organization. Burden of disease from environmental noise: Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe, WHO, Regional Office for Europe, 2011. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf (accessed 10 October 2014). 175. Lu C. Is there a limit to growth? Comparing the environmental cost of an airport's operations with its economic benefits. Economies 2017; 5(4): 1-13. 176. Wolfe PJ, Kramer JL, Barrett SRH. Current and future noise impacts of the UK hub airport. J Air Transport Management 2017; 58: 91-99. 177. Kish C. An estimate of the global impact of commercial aviation noise, MSc thesis, MIT, 2008. 178. Nelson JP. Hedonic property value studies of transportation noise: aircraft and road traffic, pp 57- 82, Chap. 3 in Baranzini A, Ramirez J, Schaerer C, Thalman P. (eds) Hedonic Methods in Housing Markets: Pricing Environmental Amenities and Segregation. Springer, New York, 2008. 179. Thanos S. Bristow AL, Wardman M. Theoretically consistent temporal ordering specification in spatial hedonic pricing models applied to the valuation of aircraft noise. J Environmental Economics and Policy 2012; 1(2): 103-126. 180. Bristow AL. Transportation noise: nuisance or disability? Universities Transport Studies Group Conference, London, 3rd to 5th January, 2018. 181. Schipper Y, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P. Why do aircraft noise value estimates differ? A metaanalysis. J Air Transport Management 1998; 4(2): 117-124. 182. Nelson JP. Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values: Problems and prospects, J Transport Economics and Policy 2004; 38(1): 1-28. 183. Wadud, Z. Using meta-regression to determine noise depreciation indices for asian air-ports. Asian Geographer 2013; 30(2): 127-141. 184. He Q, Wollersheim C, Locke M, Waitz I. Estimation of the global impacts of aviation-related noise using an income based approach. Transport Policy 2014; 34: 85-101. 185. Kopsch F. The cost of aircraft noise Does it differ from road noise? A meta-analysis. J Transport Management 2016; 57: 138-142. 186. Bristow AL, Wardman M, Chintakayala VPK. International meta-analysis of stated preference studies of transportation noise nuisance. Transportation 2015; 42(1): 71-100. 10A-50 Appendix to the Report on Agenda Item 10 187. Fidell S, Mestre V, Schomer P, Berry B, Gjestland T, Vallet M & Reid T. A first principles model for estimating the prevalence of annoyance with aircraft noise exposure. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130(2): 791-806. 188. United Kingdom Department of Health. Quantifying health impacts of government policies, 2010. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216003/dh_120108.pd f (accessed 22nd November 2017) 189. NewExt. New elements for the assessment of external costs from energy technologies. Publishable Report to European Commission, DG Research, Technological Development and Demonstration (RTD), 2004. Available from: http://www.ier.unistuttgart.de/forschung/projektwebsites/newext/ (accessed 23rd November, 2017) 190. Freeman A, Herriges JA, Kling CL. The measurement of environmental and resource values: Theory and methods. Third ed., Taylor & Francis, Oxon, UK, 2014. 191. United Kingdom Department for Transport. TAG UNIT A3 Environmental Impact appraisal, 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/638648/TAG_unit_a3_ envir_imp_app_dec_15.pdf (accessed 22nd November 2017) 192. CSES, ACCON, AECOM. Evaluation of Directive 2002/49/EC Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise, Final Report. European Commission, 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/pdf/study_evaluation_directive_environmental_noise.pdf 193. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. Managing Aviation Noise, CAP1165, 2014. 194. Murphy E. What to do about environmental noise? Acoustics Today 2017; 13(2): 18-25 and 43. 195. Thanos S, Bristow AL, Wardman MR. Residential sorting and environmental externalities: the case of non-linearities and stigma in aviation noise values. J Regional Science 2015; 55(3): 468490. 196. Münzel T, Sørensen M, Gori T, Schmidt FP, Rao X, Brook FR, Chen LC, Brook RD, Rajagopalan S. Environmental stressors and cardio-metabolic disease: part II-mechanistic insights. Eur Heart J 2017 Feb 21; 38(8): 557-564. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw294. 197. Münzel T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, Herzog J, Daiber A, Sørensen M. Environmental Noise and the Cardiovascular System. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018 Feb 13; 71(6): 688-697. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.015. 198. Chow CK, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, Islam S, Gupta R, Avezum A, Bahonar A, Chifamba J, Dagenais G, Diaz R, Kazmi K, Lanas F, Wei L, Lopez-Jaramillo P, Fanghong L, Ismail NH, Puoane T, Rosengren A, Szuba A, Temizhan A, Wielgosz A, Yusuf R, Yusufali A, McKee M, Liu L, Mony P, Yusuf S; PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) Study investigators. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in rural and urban communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. JAMA 2013 Sep 4; 310(9): 959-68. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 11 11-1 11 TOR 11.1 8.1.2 11.2 Gilles Bourgeois 11.3 Tan Kah Han Urs Ziegler 11.4 6.6 7.5 11.5 11.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12 12-1 12 12.1 CAEP/12 12.1.1 CAEP/12 2018 CAEP/11 12.1.2 16 IV ETM IV AFTF 12.1.3 16 I IV CAEP/12 GMTFAFTF 12.1.4 12.1.5 16 IV 1 3 "" 4 "" -- 4 FTG FTG 4 CAEP/11 A 12-2 12 1 12.1.6 1 "" 4 4.3.29 4.3.31 1 3 4 1 GAEP 12.1.7 2 1 2 2 CAEP 2019 12.1.8 1 2 12.1.9 CAEP/12 2 12.1.10 2 12.1.11 2 12.1.12 CAEP/12 12 12-3 3 12.1.13 3 NOxnvPM Doc 9889 3 E.16" Doc 9889 " 12.1.14 3 3 nvPM 12.1.15 CO2 CAEP/13 16 III CO2 CO2 CO2 2019 CAEP 12.1.16 12.1.17 F.04" "OECD 100 ADAP 12.1.18 1 3 CO2 WMF 12.1.19 70% "" 12-4 12 12.1.20 4 12.1.21 GMTF 4 67 8 CAEP/12 "" 16 IV II 1 2 4 12.1.22 AFTF SCSEG ACCS 12.1.23 ACCS CAEP/12 12.1.24 B 12.1.25 12.1.25.1 12/1 CAEP/12 B -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix A to the Report on Agenda Item 12 APPENDIX A (English only) CAEP STRUCTURE LEADING UP TO CAEP/12 12A-1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-1 APPENDIX B (English only) CAEP/12 WORK PROGRAMME CAEP/12 Working Group 1 Noise Technical Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Coordinate with other working group Rapporteurs on + interdependencies related to technology, operational issues, and goals as well as harmonizing the goal setting process. N.01 + interdependencies related to Coordination management and update of noise and emissions databases Coordination + interdependencies related to environmental impacts, including stringency + programmes for development of both noise and emissions SARPs for future supersonic aeroplanes N.02 Annex and ETM maintenance Maintain and update Annex 16, Vol. I and ETM, Vol. I. Updates to ETM Updates to Annex 16 N.03 NoisedB Ensure process integrity and data currency of the ICAO noise certification database. Up-to-date ICAO NoisedB N.04 Monitor research and development Monitor and report on the various national and international research programme goals and milestones. Review data on emerging technologies as it becomes available. Report N.05.01 Monitoring SST research Monitor and report on research to characterize, quantify and measure (including metric) climb and en route noise from supersonic flight, including Mach cut-off conditions, and its acceptability while also assisting in promoting and defining such research. Report Deliverable Date Ongoing SG2021 CAEP/12 Ongoing CAEP/12 CAEP/12 12B-2 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Working Group 1 Noise Technical Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables N.05.02 SST Standard development (supersonic regime) Continue to work on a new scheme for en route noise/sonic boom certification for supersonic flight, as informed by developments under N.05.01. Continue to gather data on which "other factors" need to be considered for SARPs development. These may include boom at "off design" Mach numbers, boom from accelerations and turns, secondary sonic booms, restricting N-wave booms over water, sleep and booms at night, effects on animals, and avalanches. Progress report N.05.03 SST coordination Update Air Navigation Commission with SSTG Report on progress of Briefing to ANC SST noise activities. N.05.04 Monitoring SST projects Monitor, and report on, status of SST projects and expectations of Report supersonic development. N.06 New entrants noise monitoring Monitor developments around new entrants noise (e.g. RPAS/UAS, electric aircraft, air taxis) and where appropriate suggest specific work items to SG. Report Monitor the availability of appropriate operational helicopter noise datasets, and use them to: Helicopter N.07.01 Noise Correlation - augment the investigation on correlating the ranking of helicopters based on certification and operational noise levels, Report - assess the helicopter noise certification scheme and its relevance to day-to-day operations. N.07.02 Helicopter Hover Noise Monitor the availability of appropriate helicopter hover noise datasets, and use them to assess whether the current helicopter noise certification scheme is suitable for assessing hover noise. Report Deliverable Date CAEP/12 May/June 2019 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Working Group 1 Noise Technical Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables N.08 Environment al Trends WG1, WG2, WG3 and AFTF to update their respective input assumptions to the ICAO Environmental Trends Assessment, in coordination with MDG. Status Report: SG2019 Final inputs: SG2020 Review of N.09 Annex 16, Vol. I, Chapter 14 Review and analyse certification noise levels for subsonic jet and heavy propeller-driven aeroplanes. Based on the analysis, assess cumulative margin relative to Chapter 14 and the margins at each of the 3 certification points. Report on the findings 12B-3 Deliverable Date SG2020 CAEP/12 N.10 Exploratory Study For Supersonic Aircraft Recommendations on procedures for LTO noise certification SG2019 Conduct the exploratory study for supersonic aircraft as detailed in Sections 4.3.29 to 4.3.31 of the CAEP/11 report. Preliminary Results SG2021 Final Results CAEP/12 12B-4 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Working Group 2 Airports and Operations Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables O.01 Understanding Aviation Stakeholder Community Engagement Needs in the Context of Delivering ATM Change Having completed the report on PBN and community engagement, discussions at WG2 focused on the desire to continue working on this subject and to understand the needs of States and other stakeholders in the area of community engagement relating to deploying change in the ATM system. This task seeks views from States regarding their needs on community engagement practices and lessons learned. Report O.02 Operational Opportunities to Reduce Aircraft Noise Continue with CAEP/11, task O.02, to develop an ICAO document "Operational Opportunities to Reduce Aircraft Noise", to completion. The task will be aimed at identifying and highlighting good practices and the operational opportunities to minimize aircraft noise from aircraft operations where practicable and operationally safe to do so. Report O.03 Environmental Metrics of relevance to the Global Aviation System During the CAEP/11 cycle, WG2 was requested to consider the possibility to develop environmental KPIs for use in an ATM context. The work conducted during the CAEP/10 cycle by CAEP WG2 (Task O.12) in coordination with WG1 and WG3, demonstrated that the current level of understanding of the environmental impacts of the current GANP KPIs would not allow to satisfactorily address the definition of environmental indicator. Task O.12 led to the conclusion that further work would be necessary to understand better current environmental metrics used by States and operational stakeholders beyond an ATM environment, to assess the performance of all players within the global aviation system. Report Deliverable Date CAEP/12 CAEP/12 SG3 (stateof-play) and CAEP/12 (recommend ations if deemed necessary by SG3) Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-5 CAEP/12 Working Group 2 Airports and Operations Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables O.04 Review of the 2019 update to the Global Air Navigation Plan ICAO will undertake a major update of the GANP in 2019 including the ASBU documentation. In this update, a new structure is expected including updated blocks, modules and elements. The future task proposal is to undertake a review of the 2019 GANP (to be proposed for adoption at the 40th Session of the ICAO Assembly) with a view of understanding whether the new structure/content modules would result in the need for further ASBU analysis. Oral report (initially) O.05 Flight efficiency Based on the conclusions presented to CAEP/11, the global HFE analysis was considered as a first step towards analyzing global flight efficiency. The task proposed for the CAEP/12 cycle would consist of performing a global VFE analysis. Report O.06 Climate Change Adaptation Synthesis Dissemination 1) Assist Secretariat in making relevant information from the climate adaptation synthesis adopted by CAEP/11 available on the ICAO website. Review and assess the synthesis information for suitability and relevance for dissemination, and determine the best format to make it available. 2) Determine a methodology and timeline for ensuring the information in the synthesis stays current and incorporates the latest scientific information. If significant and relevant information is published in the next CAEP cycle the update process may be initiated. 3) Assess whether an update of the survey sent for the CAEP/11 Synthesis Report would provide useful information and, if so, what would be an appropriate timeframe e.g. for CAEP/13. Public dissemination of the CAEP/11 Climate Adaptation Synthesis, and report to CAEP on process for regular updates to the Synthesis. Deliverable Date SG2019 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 12B-6 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Working Group 2 Airports and Operations Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date O.07 Climate Change Risk Assessment, Adaptation, and Resilience Building on the CAEP/11 Task O.07 Climate Adaptation Synthesis adopted by CAEP/11, this task will produce and distribute a report on identified steps to develop climate change risk assessments and adaptation and resilience measures, so as to provide a "menu" of options for aviation stakeholders to consider in their own planning. Aircraft operations will be included in the scope of the study (Climate Change risk assessment, adaptation and resilience for ANSP and airport infrastructure and operations). The document will be broadlyapplicable and non-prescriptive. Guidance Document CAEP/12 O.08 Eco-Airport Toolkit ecollection It is proposed to deliver four epublications to be made freely available on the ICAO website and covering the following topics: · Water management at airports (including glycol management); · Air Quality Management; · Green airport surface access; · Climate resilient airports; These topics were identified by WG2 during the CAEP/11 cycle. e-collection series SG2019, SG2020, SG2021 and CAEP/12 O.09 Monitor Developments and Maintenance of Publications The work of WG2 includes monitoring and reporting of national and international advancements in support of improved environmental procedures and operations. WG2 reviews these advancements in order to maintain the ongoing relevance of existing publications and to make recommendations for updates or additional information, as required. WPs submitted to Steering Groups on-going O.10 Environmental Trends WG1, WG2, WG3 and AFTF to update their respective input assumptions to the ICAO Environmental Trends Assessment, in coordination with MDG. Status Report: SG2019 Final inputs: SG2020 SG2020 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-7 CAEP/12 Working Group 2 Airports and Operations Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date O.11 Environmental Impact of Unmanned Aircraft Operations at and around airports As Unmanned Aircraft (UA) operations are increasing and their applications diversifying (wildfire mapping, disaster management, weather/environment monitoring, package delivery/freight transport), Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) are expected to be ultimately integrated into airspace for international, instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. ICAO has developed a work programme to review the relevant Annexes to the Chicago Convention and integrate RPAs-related element. The 13th Air Navigation Conference requested ICAO to "provide an update on a fully integrated approach for ICAO's RPAS related work programme to the 40th Session of the Assembly in 2019" (ANC/13). While CAEP WG1 (noise) is responsible for assessing the noise certification impacts of RPAs, it is proposed that CAEP gains understanding on the impact of RPAS operations at and around airports and communicates this information to Council. The objective would be to get a snapshot of the current situation at international airports throughout the world and to collect the views from aviation stakeholders on their assessment of the impact of RPAS operations on their own activities. This would allow responding to very concrete questions, such as the potential need for dedicated infrastructure at airports, the ability of operational stakeholders to pursue the implementation of ATM- related changes delivering environmental benefits. Scoping report SG2020 and CAEP/12 for recommendat ions, if deemed necessary by SG2020 O.12 Investigation on possible indicators for encroachment Investigation of possible means to evaluate encroachment levels at a global scale. Scoping Report CAEP/12 12B-8 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Working Group 2 Airports and Operations Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables The task is to complete a scoping study to assess the potential, feasibility and resource necessary to create a centralized database of existing O.13 Assessment of the potential for an airport database on noise and emissions management initiatives initiatives related to the environmental impact of aircraft operations at airports, globally. If it was found to be feasible and desirable, then a follow-on task could be to support the creation of a database containing a reliable, consolidated source for initiatives used to manage environmental impacts at worldwide airport operations, for use by Report airport operators, aircraft operators, policy makers, and others involved and interested with the management of noise and emissions at airports Deliverable Date SG 2021 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-9 CAEP/12 Working Group 3 Emissions Technical Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date Coordinate with other working group Rapporteurs on interdependencies related to (a) technology, operational Coordination E.01 Interdependencies issues and goals (b) management and report for each CAEP/12 update of noise and emissions SG databases (c) environmental impacts (d) SARPs for future SST aircraft. Monitor trends in 1) petroleum-based aviation kerosene fuel supply composition, 2) aviation alternative fuel based kerosene fuel supply, and 3) blended fuel types. Consider the E.02 Fuel composition and emissions impacts of fuel composition on nvPM or precursors of vPM at the Report engine exit and the corresponding emission indices. This would permit to assess, for example, the potential benefit of fossil fuel desulfurization on emission indices. Coordinate with ISG (I.04) when necessary. CAEP/12 Monitor developments in aeroplane E.03 Emissions Certification requirements new subsonic aeroplane applications and concepts and engine applications and concepts, such as freighter applications or technology developments e.g. blended wing body, or non-classical tube and wing configurations and open-rotor engines etc., and develop methodologies for emissions Report certification. CAEP/12 Annex 16, E.04 Volume II maintenance Maintain Annex 16, Volume II on aircraft engine emissions. Proposed Annex changes CAEP/12 E.05 ETM, Volume II maintenance Maintain Environmental Technical Manual, Volume II on aircraft engine emissions. Proposed ETM changes CAEP/12 Annex 16, E.06 Volume III maintenance Maintain Annex 16, Volume III on aeroplane CO2 emissions. Proposed Annex changes CAEP/12 E.07 ETM, Volume III maintenance Maintain Environmental Manual, Volume III on CO2 emissions. Technical aeroplane Proposed ETM changes CAEP/12 12B-10 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Working Group 3 Emissions Technical Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables E.08 Emissions Engine Databank maintenance Maintain engine certification databank. emissions up-to-date databank E.09 CO2 Certification Database maintenance Maintain aeroplane CO2 certification up-to-date database. database E.10 G&R database maintenance Review and update a "Growth & Replacement" database in order to support development of models used to populate future fleets and the replacement of retired aircraft. Coordinate with MDG/FESG, WG1 and support groups to ensure consistency in assumptions. up-to-date G&R database NOx + nvPM E.11 Cruise - Climb relationship Review the LTO nvPM and NOx cruise climb relationship for staged combustion and future engine technologies, to quantify control of mission emissions of nvPM/NOx, and identify any methodology issues with respect to the correlation between LTO and climb/cruise and to quantify interdependencies with other emissions, in coordination with ISG (item I.03) when necessary. Report Certification E.12 Requirements - SST Monitor trends in supersonic technology and assess consequences for engine based emissions and certification Standards. Proposed changes to Annex 16, Volume II and ETM, Volume II E.13 SST CO2 Monitor trends in supersonic technology and assess consequences for aeroplane emissions and certification Standards. Report E.14 Modelling emissions at low power Provide guidance on the modelling of emissions at low power settings. Report Deliverable Date CAEP/12 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 CAEP/12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-11 CAEP/12 Working Group 3 Emissions Technical Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables nvPM model E.15 inputs and emissions inventories Develop improved nvPM model inputs to both local air quality models and, as required, global climate models per advice from ISG. Note input from ISG on nvPM impacts. WG3 Report Update Doc 9889 to reflect industry best practices, new emissions data for E.16 Update and review Doc 9889 modern aircraft and airport emission sources, airport operational information that affect aviation Updated Doc 9889 emissions, and emissions modelling methodologies. E.17 NOx scoping study Conduct NOx scoping study cut-off for in-production engines and present Report the analysis results to SG2019. E.18 Environmental Trends WG1, WG2, WG3 and AFTF to update their respective input assumptions to the ICAO Environmental Trends Assessment, in coordination with MDG. Status Report: SG2019 Final inputs: SG2020 Deliverable Date CAEP/12 CAEP/12 SG2019 SG2020 Conduct the exploratory study for E.19 Exploratory Study For Supersonic supersonic aircraft as detailed in Sections 4.3.29 to 4.3.31 of the Report Aircraft CAEP/11 report. Each SG and CAEP/12 Following proposals in CAEP/11- WP/17 for WG3 further to E.20 nvPM Emissions investigate corrections ambient for nvPM. conditions Additional Report work is also needed to address nvPM losses in the measurement system. E.21 Review CO2 information Monitor, review and analyze latest CO2 information for subsonic aeroplanes and any available certification data. Based on the analysis, assess margin relative to the CO2 subsonic Standard. Report The analysis should anticipate more information on new technologies, including project aircraft. CAEP/12 CAEP/12 12B-12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Working Group 3 Emissions Technical Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Following CAEP/11 decisions on the new nvPM Standard, WG3 to review the nvPM regulatory levels. This will involve the collation and analysis of the certified and certification-like nvPM mass and number emissions Report to inform the Review of nvPM need to update E.22 regulatory levels data that becomes available for all in- production engines. This will include the nvPM emissions a review of margins to the new type Standards nvPM mass and number Standards and an assessment of possible technological advancements to reduce nvPM emissions. Deliverable Date CAEP/12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-13 CAEP/12 Working Group 4 CORSIA Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date If required, revised Annex 16, Volume IV C.01 Maintenance of Annex 16, Volume IV and related guidance material Maintenance of Annex 16, Volume IV and related guidance material in line with similar work undertaken for other Volumes of Annex 16 If required, revised Doc 9501 (ETM, Volume IV) Continuous support to the ICAO Secretariat in the production of materials aimed at facilitating implementation of Annex 16, Volume IV CAEP/12 2019 version of the ICAO CORSIA CERT and related technical June 2019 Work on the documentation C.02 ICAO CORSIA CO2 Estimation and Reporting Development of the 2019 and subsequent versions of the ICAO CORSIA CERT 2020 version of the ICAO CORSIA CERT and related technical documentation June 2020 Tool (CERT) 2021 version of the ICAO CORSIA CERT and related technical June 2021 documentation C.03 Development of further guidance on monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) in CORSIA Development of further guidance on monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) in CORSIA Guidance material to be incorporated in subsequent revisions of Doc 9501 (ETM, Volume IV) CAEP/12 C.04 Supply, Demand and Price of Units Further assessment of supply, demand and price of emissions units for CORSIA implementation If requested, update of the work undertaken by GMTF on this topic in the CAEP/11 cycle, as reported in CAEP/11-IP/14 CAEP/12 12B-14 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Working Group 4 CORSIA Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date C.05 EUC Management Development of recommendations on technical approaches to the management of Emissions Units Criteria (EUC) Recommendations on technical approaches to the management of EUC CAEP/12SG2019 for recommendation s for items in CAEP/12-IP/18 Section 2 CAEP/12 for further items C.06 Programme registry requirements to facilitate application of the SARPS Identification of an approach for the application of programme registry requirements to facilitate application of the SARPs Identified approach for applying programme registry requirements To be determined C.07 Support Council in preparation for the CORSIA periodic review Development of methodologies and procedures for the CORSIA periodic review, including stocktaking of the implementation of Annex 16, Volume IV across all States, with a focus on Part II, Chapters 1 and 2, which will be used to inform the review Report to CAEP for approval and submission to the Council, when requested For CAEP consideration: as soon as practicable in advance of the first review in 2022. For Council consideration: upon Council's request. Technical C.08 Analysis Support Support Council requests and needs from other Working Group on CORSIA tasks (e.g., C.04) on technical analysis relating to the implementation of CORSIA. Support updates to technical analyses to (1) reflect the evolution of assumptions underlying the implementation of CORSIA and (2) ensure consistency with other CAEP analyses e.g., updates of GHG trends at CAEP/11. Report on analyses (as needed and appropriate) during CAEP/12 and summary report at CAEP/12. CAEP/12 (with interim reports as needed). Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-15 CAEP/12 Fuels Task Group (FTG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date S.01.01 Computation of induced land use change emissions for SAF for use in CORSIA Over CAEP/12, continue to carry out the computations of induced land use change (ILUC) emissions associated with SAF production for requested world regions, for use in CORSIA. List of ILUC values SG2019 SG2020 SG2021 CAEP12 S.01.02 S.01.03 Low ILUC risk practices Develop an approach for low ILUC risk practices for adoption beyond the CORSIA Pilot phase, in light of the experience gathered in real projects. Proposal to amend the CEF Implementation Element Feedstocks classification Continuously update the positive list of feedstocks in the CORSIA Implementation Elements Proposal to amend the CEF Implementation Element CAEP12 CAEP12 S.02 Computation of default core LCA emission values for SAF for use in CORSIA Over CAEP/12, continue to carry out the computations of default core LCA emission values for SAF, for use in CORSIA, with an emphasis on aligning the LCA values available for Alcohol (isobutanol) to jet (ATJ) and Alcohol ethanol to jet (ATJ). List of default Core LCA values SG2019 SG2020 SG2021 CAEP12 S.03 S.04.01 Co-processing of esters and fatty acids in petroleum refineries Methodology refinements core LCA Develop default LCA and ILUC values for co-processed fuels, including an approach for use in the CORSIA MRV system to quantify the CORSIA-eligible fuel present in co-processed products. default LCA values, ILUC values, and approach for fuels produced using coprocessing Analyze the applicability of the core LCA methodology, reporting rules under CORSIA to Lower Carbon Aviation Fuels, and other considerations, and identify possible required adjustments to enable eligibility under CORSIA. Report on the applicability of the LCA methodology and reporting rules under CORSIA to Lower Carbon Aviation Fuels. SG2019 SG2019 12B-16 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Fuels Task Group (FTG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date Proposed changes to the CEF Implementation Elements SG2020 SG2021 CAEP12 S.04.02 S.04.03 S.05 Methodology refinements ILUC Methodology refinements Emission Credits Reviewing the approach to ILUC in light of emerging scientific evidence and data. Develop definition of the ILUC regions. Define robust and specific criteria for determining when an exception to the LCA energy allocation approach is acceptable for generating emission credits. Develop additional requirements and guidance to ensure that emission credits for SAF generated under CORSIA are of an equivalent quality and quantity to emission units, with specific reference to the concepts described in paragraph 12 As requested, consider and approve new emissions credits for applicable pathways, based on the abovementioned criteria, requirements and guidance. Develop further requirements for LEC and REC calculation to limit unintended incentives for poor landfill management. Report on the need for amendments in the CEF Implementation Elements Report on the need for amendments in the CEF Implementation elements CORSIA Package Updates Maintain the components of the CORSIA SARP Package (e.g., Vol. 4, Implementation Elements, Supporting Documents, etc.) that relate to CORSIA Eligible Fuels, including on providing definitions for the terms included in the implementation elements. Report on changes to the CORSIA SARP Package that pertains to CORSIA Eligible Fuels CAEP12 SG2019 SG2020 SG2021 CAEP12 SG2019 SG2020 SG2021 CAEP12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Fuels Task Group (FTG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables 12B-17 Deliverable Date Develop further proposals, at the latest by the end of the pilot phase, Report: SG2019 on additional and/or strengthened Report: SG2020 S.06 Sustainability criteria Sustainability Criteria, including on Themes 1 and 2, specifically Report: SG2021 CAEP/12 applicable to CORSIA Eligible Fuels Final report : and other sustainability themes, as CAEP12 requested. As needed, update information contained in the ICAO document, S.07 SCS Requirements "CORSIA Eligibility Framework and Requirements for Sustainability As needed Certification Schemes (SCS)" such that the SCSEG can evaluate SCS As needed S.08 Technology evaluation Assess emerging and future technologies and processes that could lead to the production of CORSIA eligible fuels Report: SG2019 Report: SG2020 Report: SG2021 Final report : CAEP12 CAEP/12 Fuel S.09 Production Evaluation Using data on current offtake of CEFs and the TEA methods developed under S.10 and information from CAEP/10 AFTF Fuel Production Assessment, assess CORSIA Eligible Fuel availability through 2035 based on the range of estimated offset prices that have been developed by the GMTF. Report: SG2019 Report: SG2020 Report: SG2021 Final report : CAEP12 CAEP/12 12B-18 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Fuels Task Group (FTG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Continue to develop the techno- economic analysis (TEA) of policy S.10 Guidance on Potential Policies and Coordinated Approaches for the Deployment of SAF options available to foster the deployment of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) and Lower Carbon Aviation Fuels (LCAF), and produce guidance material that identifies policies, or combination of policies, that are particularly interesting as result of the analysis. The material developed could be made available Report containing the guidance to be shared with ICAO Member States as a "toolbox" to support Member States activities on SAF and LCAF. S.11 Double counting Develop approach(es) to minimize the risk of double counting related to LSf values within CORSIA including those that use either emissions credits or negative ILUC values. This could include a true-up mechanism in line with paragraph 1.2 of CAEP/11-WP/80. Report Examine permanence of the carbon reductions associated with the life S.12 ILUC Permanence cycle emissions reductions associated with negative ILUC Report values and develop approaches to minimize associated risks. Deliverable Date CAEP/12 SG2020 SG2020 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-19 CAEP/12 Modelling and Databases Group (MDG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables M.01 M.02 Interdependencies ICAO Environmental Trends Projection Coordinate with other working group Rapporteurs on interdependencies related to technology, operational issues, goals, environmental impacts and management and update of noise and emissions databases. Conduct an updated trends projection, for the 20xx baseline case and forecasts, for various cases which consider technology, operational improvements (both infrastructure and operator-initiated improvements) and alternative fuels life cycle, for noise, NOx, PM, fuel burn, and CO2. In doing so, consider potential input from WG3 Task E.11. The trends projection will support the display of the following information, as appropriate: 1. A static ATM (informed by WG2) and static aircraft technology scenario; 2. Progress being achieved toward the ICAO global aspirational environmental goals (i.e. 2% annual fuel efficiency improvement and carbon neutral growth from 2020); 3. Anticipated progress toward the goals based on the information communicated by States in their voluntary Action Plans; 4. Additional efforts that would be required to meet those goals (i.e. feasibility analysis results); and 5. The effects of ASBU Block 0, 1 and 2 implementation The MDG fuel trends results will be published in a Structured Query Language (SQL) database that could be easily accessed by experts from other CAEP groups. To the extent possible, the trends will use the same forecast, models and data as the other MDG analyses in the cycle. Coordinated WP Report that includes graphical depiction of the trends and database Deliverable Date Each SG meeting and final report to CAEP/12 CAEP/12 12B-20 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Modelling and Databases Group (MDG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Maintain version control of models and databases to be used in support of specific CAEP analyses. Determine if updates to models or databases require a re-evaluation, including providing feedback to the ICAO Secretariat regarding databases to be used in CAEP that they maintain. In support of the CAEP/12 work programme, the following specific enhancements to air quality and or greenhouse gas models have been identified: M.03 Existing Model and Database Management 1. Advance modelling of nvPM mass and number (in conjunction with WG3) 2. Enhancement and standardization of low-power setting emissions modelling Updated models and databases 3. Define a methodology to assess pollutant concentrations around airports in the trends and stringency analyses 4. Analyse and reconcile HC and CO computation across models as needed (in conjunction with WG3) 5. Update the tools as appropriate to support new policy analyses (e.g. supersonics) 6. To the extent possible, provide quantified uncertainties for data and models. Deliverable Date Each SG meeting and final report to CAEP/12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-21 CAEP/12 Modelling and Databases Group (MDG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables M.04 M.05 New Model Evaluation Doc 9911 Update If new models are introduced to support CAEP/12, continue the candidate model evaluation process, which calls for sensitivity tests, comparisons with "gold standard data, and sample problems. Refine the process as appropriate on the basis of relevant criteria, to better inform CAEP which tools are sufficiently robust, rigorous and transparent, and appropriate for which analysis, and why there might be differences in modelling results. Update ICAO Doc 9911 as required. Potential areas for update that should be scoped out and considered (in coordination with WG1 and ISG) include: 1. full ICAO Doc 9911 harmonization and implementation across all models, including implementation of the extended level line segment, the latest start-of-takeoff roll directivity, and speed-varying effects on noise-power-distance (NPD) curves; 2. standard approaches for modelling of helicopter noise; 3. modelling of reduced thrust departures; 4.sonic boom modelling; 5. noise modelling for commercial space vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles(UAV) ; and 6. improved noise propagation modelling, possibly including terrain effects Report Updated Doc 9911 M.06 ICAO Support Provide support to ICAO Secretariat in dissemination of MDG results. As requested Deliverable Date As model evaluations are complete Final report to CAEP/12 CAEP/12 As requested 12B-22 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Modelling and Databases Group (MDG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Conduct a review of lessons learned from CAEP/11 analyses since the development of the most recent MDG/FESG lessons learned document. This should include: 1) An identification of gaps in analysis assumptions, databases and tools. M.07 Analysis lessons learned 2) Reviewing/discussing potential methodologies to assess the costs, benefits and interdependencies of a "new type" Standard with a view to potential application to future stringency analysis. Report 3) A methodology to quantify and report uncertainties in the noise and emissions trends projections. The objective is to present the benefits and interdependencies of Standards in relative terms (per cent change) compared to the total noise and emissions of aviation, thereby improving the assessment of tradeoffs. Deliverable Date CAEP/12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-23 CAEP/12 Modelling and Databases Group (MDG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Develop and maintain a 20xx Common Operations Database (COD) (preferably including a full 52-weeks of operations) and manage the acquisition and treatment of additional State data. Two versions of the COD will be maintained: 1. A version that can be used by the ICAO Secretariat and those States who contribute data to the COD, with sensitive data removed or deidentified; and M.08 COD Improvement(s) 2. A version that is limited to those organizations who have signed an appropriate agreement Database This task will also include a comparison of the COD and WISDOM, e.g. using 20xx traffic, and identify areas of improvements in the process applied to generate the databases. Further work could be undertaken to refine and harmonize the description of aircraft in the base year operations (airframe, engine, age, seat / freight capacity), which would help improve the fidelity of the future fleet and operations forecast. M.09 ADAP Participation FESG/MDG to ensure coordination with the ICAO Aviation Data and Analysis Panel (ADAP) MultiDisciplinary Working Group on Long-Term Traffic Forecasts (MDWG-LTF). As requested M.10 Airports Database Augment the data included in ICAO Doc 7910 (Location Identifiers) to add information required to support CAEP analyses, in cooperation with the ICAO Secretariat and relevant panels. Airports database M.11 CORSIA Support Provide technical support CORSIA, as requested. to As requested Deliverable Date SG2020 As requested Prior to the start of analyses requiring the data As requested 12B-24 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Modelling and Databases Group (MDG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables M.12 CO2 Goals Assessment Conduct a scoping exercise to assess the contribution of CO2 Standard to ICAO global aspirational goals in CAEP/12 cycle. Report M.13 Exploratory Study For Supersonic Aircraft Conduct the exploratory study for supersonic aircraft as detailed in Sections 4.3.29 to 4.3.31 of the CAEP/11 report. Deliverable Date CAEP/12 Each SG and CAEP/12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-25 CAEP/12 Forecasting and Economic Analysis (FESG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Develop a new CAEP forecast in support to the CAEP/12 analyses (e.g. passenger aircraft and freighter fleet forecasts, forecast for aircraft New CAEP with less than 20 seats, retirement Forecast curves, and supersonics) using as an consistent with input the long-term (passenger and F.01 the long-term traffic forecasts cargo) traffic forecasts developed by Forecast and the ADAP MDWG-LTF. Report developed by the ADAP MDWG- Agree with ADAP on a regular LTF schedule for new forecast development, including base year, which would allow CAEP to use the same forecast for all their analyses in a given CAEP cycle Review of economic models as needed for the future analyses. A review of the underlying economic cost assumptions used in the fleet evolution modelling tools is needed. These include crew, route, capital, F.02 Review of Economic Models and landing costs, all of which will need to be re-estimated and updated in concert with the development of a Report new fleet forecast. A review of the data and methodologies used to assess manufacturer and airline costs in stringency analyses should also be performed, in coordination with WG1 and WG3. F.03 ADAP Participation FESG/MDG to ensure coordination with the ICAO Aviation Data and Analysis Panel (ADAP) MultiDisciplinary Working Group on Long-Term Traffic Forecasts (MDWG-LTF). Status report Deliverable Date SG2020 SG2020 CAEP/12 Per ADAP MDWG-LTF schedule 12B-26 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Forecasting and Economic Analysis (FESG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date 1. Assessing the methodology and results of a modelling tool suite Methodology F.04 Influence of airport capacity constraints on global air traffic developed at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) with a focus on airport capacity constraints and its effects on global air traffic, fleets and emissions 2. Assessing the potential and and results on traffic forecast to consider current & future Airport Capacity CAEP/12 identifying options to improve the Constraints ICAO forecast Report F.05 Exploratory Study For Supersonic Aircraft Conduct the exploratory study for supersonic aircraft as detailed in Sections 4.3.29 to 4.3.31 of the CAEP/11 Report. Each SG and CAEP/12 Coordinate with other working group Each SG F.06 Interdependencies Rapporteurs on interdependencies within the integrated approach to Coordinated WP meeting and final report CAEP work items. to CAEP/12 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-27 CAEP/12 Aviation Carbon Calculator Support Group (ACCS) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables A.01 Support updates to the ICAO Carbon Calculator Assist the Secretariat in updating the current methodology used in the Carbon Calculator, identifying areas of improvement and potential changes to improve functionality. Recommendations for enhancements to the Calculator to be implemented by the Secretariat Deliverable Date Report to SG meetings CAEP/12 12B-28 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 CAEP/12 Sustainability Certification Schemes Evaluation Group (SCSEG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date G.01 SCS evaluation Evaluate whether Sustainability Certification Schemes (SCS) comply with the SCS requirements defined in the CORSIA SARPs SCS evaluation reports Ongoing Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 12B-29 CAEP/12 Impacts and Science Group (ISG) Work Programme Task Number Task Title Task Description Deliverables Deliverable Date I.01.01 Coordination (internal Coordination on activities. group) Coordination Ongoing I.01.02 Coordination Coordination with other WGs, TFs, (internal RFPs, etc. Rapporteurs and ICAO Coordination Ongoing ICAO) Secretariat on activities. I.01.03 ISG membership As per the ISG Terms of Reference, the ISG co-rapporteurs, in conjunction with the ICAO Secretariat, will identify suitable scientific experts. This will involve requesting that CAEP Members and observers nominate experts who are appropriately qualified and who conduct research in a subject area relevant to the CAEP/11 work programme. Membership SG2019 ISG to focus on a bottom-up approach to analysis of the aviation sector's efforts to address climate change including implementation of the "basket" of technical solutions and market-based I.02 Aviation Emissions in context measures, and would be conducted through a staged approach that focuses first on carbon dioxide (CO2), acknowledging that further expansion to Report integrate short-lived climate pollutants would require more detailed climate modelling, and noting that the task should not be to define a share of a global carbon budget. Progress Report: SG2019 Assessment of: the impact of airport emissions on local levels of NOx and I.03 NOx Impacts human health, impacts of cruise emissions of NOx on human Report health; impacts of cruise NOx on climate. Status Report: SG2019 Status Report: SG2020 Status Report: SG2021 Final report: CAEP/12 12B-30 I.04 I.05 I.06 Appendix B to the Report on Agenda Item 12 nvPM and fuel composition Exploratory Study For Supersonic Aircraft White Paper on nonacoustic factors Assessment of the role of fuel composition in nvPM emission characteristics and eventual trade-offs associated Report Conduct the exploratory study for supersonic aircraft as detailed in Sections 4.3.29 to 4.3.31 of the CAEP/11 Report. Report ISG to develop a white paper on nonacoustic factors accounted to be responsible for about 70% of community annoyance related to aircraft noise. White paper Status Report: SG2019 Status Report: SG2020 Status Report: SG2021 Final report: CAEP/12 Status Report: SG2019 Status Report: SG2020 Status Report: SG2021 Final report: CAEP/12 CAEP/12 -- END --

Microsoft Word 2010

Philbin, Anthony

航空环境保护委员会 - 中国民用航空局国际合作服务中心