Begich urges EPA consideration of negative impact to Alaska

Press Release issued by Sen. Mark Begich on July 8   

Expressing deep concern for the potential negative impact on Alaska, U.S. Sen. Mark Begich has submitted formal comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding a proposed rule which may regulate or even ban the use of leaded gas in piston engine air craft. In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Begich asks for the comment period to be extended to allow Alaskans an opportunity to be heard on this important issue and for the EPA to further consider the consequences in a state with over 10,000 piston engine aircraft.

“The premature regulation of leaded avgas will have a substantially negative impact on transportation, health and safety in Alaska. At this point the potential costs to Alaska associated with regulating avgas far outweigh the benefits and threaten to leave Alaska’s rural communities without a reliable means of transportation,” Begich writes.

In his letter, Begich outlines the geographic challenges of transportation in Alaska, noting the state has six times more pilots and 16 times more planes per capita than the rest of the country. He says the predominance of piston engine aircraft is a direct result of Alaska’s expansive geography and limited road infrastructure. Over 80 percent of Alaska communities have no road access and rely completely on piston engine aircraft to stay connected to the rest of the state.
“When Alaskans in a remote village require medical treatment at a hospital, most frequently they travel to the larger community via piston engine aircraft. The EPA’s regulatory announcement for the proposed rulemaking on avgas states, ‘lead is not used in jet fuel, the fuel utilized by most commercial aircraft.’ While this statement may hold true for the Lower 48 states, the vast majority of commercial aircraft in Alaska are smaller piston-driven aircraft, which use avgas,” Begich says.

While acknowledging the transition to an unleaded aviation gas is a desirable goal, Begich says the FAA and EPA need to first find a replacement fuel that will work for Alaska. With no substitute fuel for 100 Low Lead, the most common type of avgas, the EPA should not phase out or eliminate the fuel until a suitable, affordable replacement is found.

“I implore you to carefully consider the comments submitted by Alaskans who will be most directly affected by the EPA’s decision,” Begich said. “I am extremely concerned the EPA may move to regulate emission standards from piston engine aircraft through phasing out or eliminating avgas. This would have a direct and significant negative impact on Alaskans,” he said.

Begich asks the EPA to extend the comment period on this rulemaking to October 31, 2010 to accommodate Alaskans, especially aviators and small businesses, who are significantly busier in the summer months. The current deadline is August 27, 2010.

Sen. Begich is co-chair of the bi-partisan, 31-member Senate General Aviation Caucus and says he plans to hold a briefing on the avgas topic to make sure fellow caucus members are informed of the potential ramifications of the rule change on the GA community.







 

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.

EPA reported to have granted a 60-day extension on ANPRM comment period

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA-(June, 22, 2010)--Staffers inside of U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK office have reported that an extension to the Environmental Protection Agency's public comment period on an Advanced Notice of Public Rule Making about the future use of 100 Low Lead Avgas has been extended.

According to a Washington D.C. staffer who met with government affairs officials with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on Tuesday, a 60-day extension was granted to allow further comment on how banning the fuel would affect the aviation industry.

The Alaska delegation, Sen. Murkowski, Sen. Mark Begich, Congressman Don Young, R-AK and the AOPA petitioned the EPA for the extension in May.

The comment period was previously scheduled to terminate on June, 28, 2010. See other posts on this blog for additional information that details the issue from an Alaskan aviation perspective.

When more information or press releases are available they will be posted on this blog site.

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

Will Alaska Continue To Receive Aviation Fuel?

 Alaska is not on the list of states that Chevron will market and distribute its aviation fuel (100 Octane Low Lead)? Is this the beginning of a shift away from providing 100LL fuel for Alaska? We intend to find this out and post it here.


Here is a press release from Chevron issued this week.

CHEVRON RESTRUCTURES GENERAL AVIATION DIVISION
Effective June 1, 2010, Chevron's General Aviation business will only market Chevron- and Texaco-branded aviation fuels in the following states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. The planned market withdrawal will be completed by November 15, 2010.
Chevron will continue to be a manufacturer of jet fuel and aviation gasoline but is changing its branded distribution channel to reduce costs while continuing to serve the aviation industry. Chevron will utilize its major distributor, Hiller/Air Petro, to sell aviation fuel to the general aviation market. The move is part of its downstream restructuring efforts to adapt to changing market conditions and to successfully compete in the marketplace. Learn more at www.ChevronGlobalAviation.com.

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.

Alaskan Aviation Industry Against EPA ban of 100 Low Lead AvGas

Taking a stand for 100 Low Lead AvGas

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA (April 13, 2010)--When Alaskan's see eye-to-eye on anything it is unusual. When Alaskan Aviators gather together to fight for an issue look out. And this is just what has happened.


On April 12 a gathering of 26 people and Alaska Congressman Don Young, R, AK met at the Alaska Aviation Museum located at the world's largest seaplane base to discuss how to curb the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency's agenda to abolish 100LL AvGas (100 octane Low Lead Aviation gasoline) and the effects it will have on Alaska.


While most of us believe in protecting the earth for future generations, to abolish the use of this fuel will hamper, harm, and destroy a delicate but working aviation related infrastructure in a state three times larger than Texas. 


Now some will say that this is a myopic statement by a bully Alaskan, but it is meant to make a point. There are few roads in Alaska, there are few rural villages on a road system, the State of Alaska has 256 airports that it owns and maintains...starting to get the idea? Now multiply this times three (3X) and what do you get. Commerce and transportation by air, that's what.


EPA workers are not bad people or anything like that, the real problem here is a lawsuit filed by the Friends of the Earth forcing the EPA to look at this issue. The EPA is just following through with a special interest group's legal demand.


Here is the logic according to Wikipedia: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has noted that exposure to even very low levels of lead contamination has been conclusively linked to loss of IQ in children's brain function tests, thus providing a high degree of motivation to eliminate lead and its compounds from the environment. (What about the countless hours of watching mindless TV shows?)


Well the EPA's conclusion might be so in concentrated amounts, but what we are talking about here in Alaska are 1940-50s ex-military and commercial aircraft that use high octane fuel flying over hundreds of miles of un-populated areas, in cool conditions (density altitude) with highly skilled pilots. 


These pilots work hard to lean their fuel settings to get the best performance, and best efficiency from their aircraft's engines. This means that those 50 and 60 year old engines are working at peak performance in low RPM settings to get the most flight time out of the fuel as they can while they carry everything from diapers to steel pipe into villages that may only have a 3,300 foot gravel runway.


These aircraft are expensive to operate, require constant maintenance, but were designed for what they are doing. 


Some land on beaches to pick up that fresh fish that you ate for lunch at a gourmet restaurant, others are hauling oxygen bottles into villages with regional hospitals to help premature babies who need oxygen to live to the next day. 


In short there are no new aircraft that will use bio-diesels, or Bio Jet fuels that can take these metal flying cargo haulers places. Newer aircraft have large propellers which swing close to the ground...no gravel runways for them. Others have delicate tri-cycle landing gear that can only land on hard surfaces. 


The only newer option that can be considered from an operational standpoint is the Lockheed C-130 Hercules. 


Yes they can land on gravel and yes they can haul a lot of cargo, but they also have four engines and weigh too much for gravel runways built on permafrost that are muddy three months of the year, and covered with snow the other nine.


So where does that leave us should the EPA follow the legal road to lead free air in the Arctic? 


No groceries, fuel, medical emergency evacuations, building supplies, educational materials for local schools, no shipping of generators for production electrical energy...it sort of puts an end to living in rural Alaska, or will make it too damn expensive to live there. 


Perhaps that's the real agenda?


This is just the beginning...we hope to post information that will prove why we stand against the EPA on this issue.