EPA notice of extension of comment period

This will be official published on 6/24/2010 at:
http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-15340_PI.pdf

6560-50
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 87
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0294; FRL–9167-4]
RIN 2060–AP79
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Lead Emissions From Piston-Engine Aircraft
Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline; Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 60-day extension of the public comment period for the
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Lead Emissions From Piston-Engine Aircraft Using
Leaded Aviation Gasoline (hereinafter referred to as the ANPR). EPA published this ANPR,
which included a request for comment, in the Federal Register on April 28, 2010. The public
comment period was to end on June 28, 2010 (60 days after its publication in the Federal
Register). This document extends the comment period an additional 60 days until August 27,
2010. This extension of the comment period is provided to allow the public additional time to
provide comment on the ANPR.
DATES: The comment period for the ANPR published April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22440) is
extended. Written comments must be received on or before August 27, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–
0294, by one of the following methods:
2
• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566-9744.
• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include two copies.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: 3334 Mail Code: 2822T,
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0294. EPA’s
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and
may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http:// www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
3
cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www. epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742.
How Can I Get Copies of This Document, the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
and Other Related Information?
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–
0294. The EPA has also developed a Web site for aviation, including the ANPR, at: http://
www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm. Please refer to the ANPR for detailed information on accessing
information related to this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marion Hoyer, Assessment and Standards
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
4
48105; telephone number: (734) 214–4513; fax number: (734) 214–4821; e-mail address:
hoyer.marion@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: In the ANPR, EPA described and invited comment from all interested parties on
the data available for evaluating lead emissions, ambient concentrations and potential exposure
to lead from the use of leaded aviation gasoline (avgas) in piston-engine powered aircraft. The
ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to a petition submitted by Friends of the
Earth (FOE) requesting that EPA find endangerment from and regulate lead emitted by pistonengine
aircraft, or if insufficient information exists, to commence a study. In addition to
describing and inviting comment on the current data, the ANPR also describes considerations
regarding emission engine standards and requests comment on approaches for transitioning the
piston-engine fleet to unleaded avgas.
Extension of Comment Period: EPA received requests for an extension of the ANPR comment
period that are available in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294). After
considering the requests, EPA has determined that a 60-day extension of the comment period
would provide the public adequate time to provide meaningful comment on the ANPR.
Accordingly, the public comment period for the ANPR is extended until August 27, 2010. EPA
does not anticipate any further extension of the comment period at this time.
Dated: June 18, 2010
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

User group joins AvGas fray

Here is the link for the government information on the EPA's proposal: EPA ANPRM

The story as reported by AVmail: AVmail_LettersToTheEditor

The PA-46 group has entered the EPA 100LL Avgas fray not trusting the wheels at AOPA and EAA to do the job. Please read the letter from Jonathan Sisk, President, MMOPA Board of Directors

U.S. Senator from Alaska Comments on EPA AvGas Issue

Washington, D.C.-(April 30, 2010)--Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-AK has commented on the EPA's lack of concern for Alaskans by issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for public comment. The EPA may possibly ban 100 Low Lead aviation fuel in Alaska should there be support for this nationwide.
Speaking from Washington D.C. today the senator stated:
"For a state like Alaska where general aviation is so vital, this rule change is especially troubling, since the practical benefits on our State’s air quality are so unproven. It would certainly be better if EPA conducted an Alaska specific air quality study before imposing a fuel rule that could have a real negative impact, especially given the age and the wide variety of engines used in general aviation in the State," said Murkowski."This is just another example where EPA is pushing a one-size-fits-all solution to an issue that might not even be a problem in Alaska without understanding the real economic impacts on Alaskans. Flying in Alaska is a necessity for many, something this proposed rule clearly doesn’t consider.”The statement comes before the opening of the 2010 Alaska Airmen's Association Trade Show and Convention which is host to over 21,000 people interested in Alaska's Aviation industry.

Alaska needs a waiver from EPA 100 Low Lead Ban!

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, April 24, 2010--It is now evident that our Congressional Delegation needs to seek a waiver from the impending ban of 100 Low Lead Aviation fuel.
"This is not just going to affect rural Alaska, it will affect the whole state," said John Hopson, Jr. of Wainwright, AK.
John and other North Slope villagers depend on aircraft to fly from village to village in Cessna 185, 206 and 207 aircraft which have high compression four cycle engines that depend on 100 Low Lead fuel to achieve horsepower, to cool and lubricate efficiently.

While the rest of the country and the aviation groups that we pay yearly fees to represent us are scrambling to find "alternative" fuels for the most efficient engines developed to date, we here in Alaska will need a waiver to allow us to continue to use the fuel in aircraft engines that produce more than 180 horsepower.

The 180 horsepower is the dividing line for aircraft engines who have higher compression to develop horsepower, according to aircraft engine manufacturers like Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM), Textron (AVCO Lycoming) etc.

While we understand those in the industry are making an effort it appears as if there will be too short a period now that the EPA NPRM timeline has been moved forward.

The Alaska Congressional delegation, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, Mark Begich D-AK, and Congressman Don Young R-AK need to work together to ensure that a waiver is issued for Alaskan Aircraft, or better, to kill this effort by using logic.

National Aviation Industry is bowing over to EPA by trying to find Low Lead Alternatives

Alaskan pilots and aircraft owners better prepare your arguments now, the EPA has released an "advance" notice of proposed rule making in regards to eliminating lead from aviation 100 Low Lead fuel. This means that a ban can happen anytime after the public comment period closes IN 60-DAYS!.

This report was posted today by AVweb in a flash:

Industry efforts to find a replacement for 100LL are expected to intensify now that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released its advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the need to eliminate lead from fuel. The ANPRM does not set a date for eliminating the fuel, but invites interested parties to send comments on the issue for the next 60 days. "Converting in-use aircraft/engines to operate on unleaded aviation gasoline would be a significant logistical challenge, and in some cases a technical challenge as well," the EPA said. The EPA also acknowledged that a joint effort with the FAA will be critical in case engine modifications will need to be developed and certified, AOPA said. "Given the potentially large number of affected aircraft and the potential complexities involved," the EPA said, "a program affecting in-use aircraft engines would need careful consideration by both EPA and FAA, and the two agencies would need to work together in considering any potential program affecting the in-use fleet."

The future of GA is up to us....

AOPA's leader Craig Fuller's speech at SunN'Fun on April 15th hit the nail on the head. It's up to us the GA community to reach out, speak up and make things happen or we will loose the privilege of flying.
This may happen due to the attrition of the aging pilot population because this group had flying in the palm of their hands. Many learned how to fly during WWII, and some used the GI bill, or learned to fly on their own later. This same generation is aging, as are the aircraft that they flew.
To counter this change, we must group together to attract more young people to flying, both men and women, as Fuller imply's.
I keep hearing from everyone in the aviation industry that; "flying is too expensive for the younger crowd, isn't it a shame" but how can that be? I see new cars, expensive coats, sunglasses, laptops, cell phones, tattoos, memberships to a fancy gym, lattes, and flying is too expensive?
We need to stress that to fly is a multi-dimensional experience that can't be equaled, and on that note there is this looming issue of banning 100 Low Lead Av gas. If you think flying is expensive now, just wait until a whole new generation of engines are engineered, and manufactured to run off of non-leaded bio fuels. For example price out a Prius,yes, its a Hybrid car, but those who own them are paying a higher price to drive them.
Won't this too happen with our GA aircraft...of course it will.
Another example: Light Sport Aircraft once called Ultralights. They used to be air vehicles (under Part 103) that were powered with two-cycle engines, now the same aircraft that cost $14,500 new in 2002 that has been FAA inspected, and GAMA approved as an LSA costs between $39,000 and $80,000!
Won't this too happen with bio-aircraft engines in the future?
Let's keep the 100LL fuel and the engines that it feeds and keep the costs down, or we will loose yet another rung on the ladder of flight time.
The FAA, EAA, and AOPA are worried about GA accidents rates which are directly affected by pilot proficiency. A lack of regular flying..why? The same argument, flying has gotten too expensive.