Waypoints

General aviation dodged a bullet a few weeks ago — a bullet that would surely have destroyed the industry in parts of California and probably would have ricocheted around the rest of the country. Actually, it's more like a shotgun blast than a bullet. In fact, it might be analogous to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's using a shotgun to kill a fly.

It's a frightening story with a mostly happy ending. As is seemingly always the case when writing about the feds, the story is full of acronyms — FIP, NOx, VOCs, GA, EPA, LTOs — OK?

It all started in 1990 when Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act. As the name implies, this sweeping legislation was meant to clean up the nation's air. It sets acceptable limits for certain types of pollution, but mostly leaves it up to the states to comply with the federal mandates. The states are free to take whatever actions necessary to meet the regulations. However, some states failed to meet the dictates in a timely manner. Lawsuits ensued, and eventually the courts ruled that the EPA should step in and force the states to comply with the federal legislation.

Like many states, California was late in meeting its goals for certain regions and for certain pollutants. Among them were oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the South Coast Basin (Los Angeles and a few adjoining counties), Ventura County (near Los Angeles), and Sacramento County (northeast of San Francisco). VOCs and NOx are byproducts of combustion. The internal combustion engines in cars and trucks are the primary producers of the pollutants. General aviation aircraft engines produce the pollutants, too, of course, but the small total amount of fuel burned by GA engines creates an almost unmeasurable amount of pollution relative to the other pollutants in the air.

VOCs are also released during painting, a fact that has driven more than a few aircraft paint shops out of business. Paint shops are required to either prevent the VOCs from escaping into the atmosphere or use paints with low VOC content.

With the pollutant clock ticking away and goals unmet in California, in came the EPA with a proposed federal implementation plan (FIP) to compel the state to meet the federal mandates. The EPA's proposal would force many changes in California, including even tougher pollution control devices on cars and changes in, or elimination of, the simple engines that power lawn mowers, for example. From general aviation, the agency wanted VOC and NOx emission reductions of between 20 and 45 percent from the baseline inventory conducted in 1990.

Instead of outlining how the industry might comply with the proposed regulations through operational or equipment changes, the agency proposed meeting the goals simply by reducing the amount of flying in the three regions where the overall emissions were too high. To discourage operations there, the EPA proposed punitive fines against every general aviation landing and takeoff cycle (LTO in EPA-speak).

Now, you have to give the EPA credit for at least being up front with their motives. They stated openly that the intent of the fines was to reduce general aviation activity. The fines would continue to rise until the desired results were achieved. Eventually the price for an LTO would be so high that many pilots would simply stay on the ground or move out of the affected areas. Never mind that general aviation in California is used for medevac, police surveillance, traffic reporting, overnight shipping and freight, carrying checks, pipeline and powerline patrol, aerial ag applications, urban and forest management, and following O. J.'s Ford Bronco down the freeway. As it does everywhere, general aviation touches the life of every person in California in one way or another; and it provides a paycheck for millions of people, particularly in Southern California.

Unlike other industries, general aviation airplanes were not going to be given an opportunity to meet some specified level of pollutants. Automobiles, for example, must individually meet certain emission standards. Instead, each and every aircraft would be fined for any emission. Most frustrating, the agency proposed putting the revenue from the fines into the general fund, not into a research fund that might develop better aircraft emission control technology.

To administer the program, the EPA was going to require "airport operating certificates" and monthly activity reports from the airports. The intent was to help the EPA track the reduction in general aviation activity. But most of the airports listed in the FIP are non-towered facilities and many are unmanned altogether. Would the EPA pay people to sit in lawn chairs along the runways and record LTOs?

Fortunately, general aviation industry representatives weighed in with lengthy and reasoned comments to the EPA's proposal. And believe it or not, the agency actually listened.

AOPA's Government and Technical Affairs staff was among the most active and thorough of all those commenting. In comments to the FIP proposal, Douglas C. Macnair, AOPA's director of aviation standards, noted that not only have general aviation activities decreased on their own in Southern California, but the EPA had it all wrong on the amount of pollution that general aviation produces. Of all the NOx and VOCs in the three areas, general aviation produces only .075 percent of the total NOx inventory and .032 percent of the total VOC inventory — an almost unmeasurable amount, even by the EPA's own standards.

There is an astounding statement in Macnair's comments: "It is important to recognize that if the EPA could ground every flight,...there would be no measurable improvement in ambient air quality, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the California economy annually. Clearly, this would be a tragic economic, as well as policy, decision." Doug is a master of the understatement.

To counter EPA's efforts to reduce VOCs and NOx by 20 to 45 percent relative to the 1990 baseline, AOPA presented data showing that the depressed state of the GA economy has already had that effect. In fact, from 1990 to 1992, the number of active GA aircraft in California declined by 15 percent and the number of hours flown declined by 32 percent. Between January 1989 and February 1994, the 12-month average number of gallons of avgas sold in California declined by 28 percent. In effect, a tort system out of control, a lousy general aviation economic situation, and a host of other factors have combined to drive general aviation down across the state to a point where the activity level is already as low — or lower — than EPA had hoped to achieve.

While it's obvious that general aviation is not a significant polluter of the skies, that doesn't mean we should not try to do better. In its comments to the EPA, AOPA proposed a number of ways that the industry might further decrease emissions in lieu of future fees. The most dramatic decrease would come with the introduction of unleaded fuel to replace the 100LL burned by piston-powered aircraft. Several companies are at work on such fuels, but development and testing will take years.

In the shorter term, a number of simple steps could reduce the amount of pollutants from general aviation. The bulk of VOC emissions from general aviation come from evaporation of fuel during storage or transfer, and while on board aircraft on the ground. Changes in the way pilots and fuel companies handle the fuel could reduce those emissions. Instead of pouring fuel samples on the ground, pilots could instead capture the samples in sealed containers placed around the airport. Recovery of vapor during fuel transfer from storage tanks to fueling trucks and aircraft offers an additional chance to reduce pollutants. Such recovery devices are now common at automobile fueling stations. In a recent survey, more than 90 percent of AOPA members nationwide said they would support the implementation of such measures in lieu of the proposed EPA fees.

A few weeks ago, in its response to comments to the FIP, the EPA acknowledged AOPA's research several times and concurred that GA operations in California in particular have dropped dramatically in the last few years. "While these reductions are not necessarily permanent, they reflect the potential fragility of general aviation activity," the agency wrote. "Imposition of an operations fee would devastate an industry that has been hard hit by numerous detrimental economic forces.... Decline within this aviation segment makes it likely that emissions are being reduced without the need for regulations."

In its comments, EPA committed itself to work with the FAA and AOPA to find ways to reduce pollutants, a welcome alternative to ridiculous and unworkable fees.

The good news is that, for now, general aviation has sidestepped the onerous EPA measures. The bad news is that the success comes only because the industry is in such poor condition. Maybe we should look forward to the day when a vibrant and growing general aviation industry will have to take on the EPA again.