ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE  March 13, 2025 1:02 p.m. DRAFT MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Ashley Carrick, Co-Chair Representative Ted Eischeid, Co-Chair Representative Genevieve Mina Representative Louise Stutes Representative Kevin McCabe Representative Elexie Moore MEMBERS ABSENT  Representative Cathy Tilton COMMITTEE CALENDAR  PRESENTATION: PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES MITIGATION AT OUR AIRPORTS - HEARD PRESENTATION: LEADED AVIATION GAS IN ALASKA UPDATE - HEARD PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION  No previous action to record WITNESS REGISTER TROY LARUE, Division Operations Manager Statewide Aviation Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Introduction to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)." AARON DANIELSON, Division Operations Manager Fairbanks International Airport Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Fairbanks, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Introduction to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)." CURT CASTAGNA, Co-Chair; President, CEO Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative; National Air Transportation Association Los Alamitos, California POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative (EAGLE) Update." KAREN HUGGARD, Vice President Government Affairs National Air Transportation Association Washington, DC POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the PowerPoint, titled "Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative (EAGLE) Update." ACTION NARRATIVE 1:02:50 PM CO-CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Moore, Mina, Stutes, McCabe, Eischeid, and Carrick were present at the call to order. ^PRESENTATION: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Mitigation at Our Airports PRESENTATION: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Mitigation at  Our Airports    1:03:58 PM CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business would be a presentation by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances mitigation at Alaska's airports. 1:04:15 PM TROY LARUE, Divisions Operation Manager, Statewide Aviation, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), co- presented the PowerPoint, titled "Introduction to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)" [hard copy included in the committee file]. He explained what constitutes PFAS, as seen on slide 2 and slide 3. He stated that these substances were first introduced in the 1950s, and now they are "found in just about everything." He pointed out that PFAS are difficult to breakdown in the environment because they are heat resistant, transferable by water, and capable of sticking to the soil. For these reasons, he stated that contamination spread is easy. He stated that over 6,000 chemicals make up PFAS. He described them as "forever chemicals" that bioaccumulate in animals and humans, with a minimum toxic contamination level at 70 parts per trillion. He described Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) which is a PFAS product used in consumer products, such as in non- stick cookware, stain resistant furniture, ski waxes, rain gear, cooking utensils, paints, plastics, adhesives, personal care products, convenience food packaging, and some bottled water. He clarified that the contamination from these chemicals is not just from firefighting, and he noted other sources, such as manufacturing and wastewater treatment plants. MR. LARUE moved to slide 4 and described the pathways for PFAS. He noted that these chemicals are not removed in water treatment plants. He pointed out that industrial smoke emits PFAS, and it leaches into the ground at landfills; therefore, these chemicals end up in the groundwater that animals and humans consume, and in the animals that humans eat. On slide 5, he pointed out that firefighting foam with PFAS is more often found at the state's 139 airports that are federally certified. He noted that PFAS are also found on military bases, which are prevalent across the state. He pointed out that these chemicals are difficult to track because they spread so easily in any body of water. MR. LARUE moved to slide 6 and discussed the impacts of PFAS on drinking water in the state. On the slide, he noted the list of the state's contaminated sites. Because of this contamination, he stated that water is shipped into some of these communities. On slide 7, he pointed out that some DOT&PF capital improvement construction projects would have contamination risks, and these risks could cause delay. He added that contamination mitigation could come with a high cost. He stated that DOT&PF has been working with the Department of Environmental Conservation to determine how best to sequester contamination so projects could be completed. He stated that another alternative to sequestration would be to ship the contamination to the Lower 48, where there are systems to mitigate PFAS. He moved to slide 8 and discussed contamination site characterization, which involves the examination of sites to determine where the PFAS plume is located and where it might be moving. 1:10:17 PM AARON DANIELSON, Division Operations Manager, Fairbanks International Airport (FIA), Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Introduction to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)." On slide 9, he noted that airports have a high concentration of PFAS, and he discussed what is being done to reduce this. He pointed out that new standards have been set for the use of fluorine-free foam (F3), and a new foam provider has been selected. He noted that this new, "green" foam would be a replacement on all airport firetrucks; however, the trucks would need to be cleaned first because these chemicals are very resilient. 1:12:00 PM MR. DANIELSON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Eischeid, expressed uncertainty concerning the difference in cost between F3 foam and PFAS foam. He expressed the understanding that the costs would be comparable. He stated that he would follow up with the committee on this cost comparison. MR. DANIELSON stated that DOT&PF has put out a request for proposals to clean the firetrucks contaminated with PFAS. He noted that these proposals would concern the federally certified airports in the state. He stated that these proposals are currently being evaluated. He moved to slide 11 and discussed the study done in 2023 on contamination remediation. He stated that the study has resulted in some pilot projects. For example, he noted the use of an effective thermal treatment for contaminated soil; however, he pointed out that this takes a high volume of energy and heat. He stated that this treatment was tested at a highly contaminated pit site, which had been used for decades for airport fire training. He noted that after the treatment, there had been a 99 percent reduction of PFAS in a water sample. He added that this result "is very promising." MR. DANIELSON, in response to a question from Representative Stutes, explained that it took years and a large body of research on PFAS for the realization to come about that these chemicals were leaching into the groundwater. Once this was determined, he said that impact studies had to be done on humans and animals; furthermore, dangerous levels had to be determined. He described the impact as bioaccumulative, which means that human health would be affected [as PFAS became concentrated in the body over time]. In response to a follow-up question, he expressed uncertainty on the specific effects on human health. He offered to follow up to with some resources on this. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the mitigation of PFAS in Kodiak, as the U.S. Coast Guard there has a fire-training burn pit next to the ocean. He expressed the understanding that this site has been used for years. He questioned the ability of finding PFAS in the ocean. MR. LARUE, in response, expressed the understanding that these chemicals are found in the water and in the fish, and the Coast Guard is in the process of cleaning up this burn pit area. He stated that PFAS has been around for the last 20 years, and resources to deal with this are now being developed. MR. LARUE, in response to a series of follow-up questions from committee members, stated that there are many class action lawsuits with the chemical companies. He answered that there are many pathways for individuals to seek restitution, especially if the individual knows where and when the exposure happened. In response, he clarified that contamination from PFAS is a countrywide issue. He stated that the processes used for breaking down PFAS would be covered in an upcoming slide. 1:23:52 PM MR. DANIELSON stated that the primary method for breaking down PFAS would require heat, time, and an activated carbon filtration system. On slide 10, he referred to the 2023 study, which had involved onsite methods for PFAS destruction. On slide 11, he discussed the method of injecting activated carbon into the groundwater pathway, as this would hold a PFAS plume in place. He noted that this method has had some success on a fire pit site in Fairbanks. MR. DANIELSON moved to slide 12 and pointed out that options for disposal of contamination in the state are currently limited. He stated that for soil, water, AFFF, or waste products, disposal would require removal from the state, or it would require onsite remediation. He stated that any contract made for removal would include creating onsite remediation. MR. LARUE, in response to a question from Co-Chair Carrick, asserted that because of the vast amounts of contamination in the state, the goal would be to have remediation in state. He also noted the expense of sending the contamination to the Lower 48 for treatment. He expressed optimism concerning the results of tests for onsite remediation in Fairbanks. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that onsite remediation would involve treating the contamination in the area where it occurred. 1:28:13 PM MR. DANIELSON moved to slide 13 and went into further detail on the methods of remediating and destroying PFAS. He stated that PFAS remediation is a rapidly evolving form of technology. He discussed a proven method for treating water, which would involve filtration, and then moving the contaminant into a solid form for destruction. He pointed out that another method for water treatment would involve foam fractionation. He stated that this would bubble out PFAS for treatment by bioremediation. Concerning foam treatments, he discussed destruction technologies that often use chemical and thermal methods. For soil treatments, he stated that this is done in the traditional method of excavation and disposal, often into another location. He noted that new technologies would involve putting a thermal component directly into the soil, with carbon barriers to keep the contaminants in place. In recap, he stated that there are many technologies that could be used; however, factors in Alaska would need to be considered, such as the size of the remediation, the remote locations, and other contaminants that could be present, as seen on slide 14. MR. DANIELSON moved to slide 15 and summarized DOT&PF's commitment in addressing PFAS. He reiterated that sites are being addressed to determine the level of contaminants, and areas with a known discharge of AFFF are being prioritized. He stated that drinking water is being tested, and water would be provided to residents in contaminated areas. He noted that communities with contamination sites are being educated on the impacts of PFAS. He continued that, except in emergencies with fire, no AFFF has been sprayed to the ground since 2019. 1:31:58 PM MR. LARUE, in response to a question from Representative Stutes, stated that when the department dispenses water to the public, water bottles that do not contain PFAS would be used. In response, he stated that PFAS-free bottles would be marked. MR. LARUE, in response to a question from Representative Mina, stated that DOT&PF is working on the transportation side of the issue, and for advice, it would reference the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and others. He stated that DEC would advise DOT&PF on a construction site project, for example, but DOT&PF would not be in "the loop" concerning people's health. 1:33:54 PM CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned the amount of PFAS firefighting foam that still exists in the state. MR. DANIELSON responded that it is a federal requirement for all firefighting foam in airports to have a PFAS base. He stated that the state would receive its first shipment of non- fluorinated foam this year. CO-CHAIR CARRICK referenced slide 8, which showed airports in the state where site characterization has been done. She suggested that even if an airport is not listed or been tested, it would still have PFAS on site. MR. LARUE, in response, expressed agreement that airports not listed likely have contamination. He stated that DOT&PF had worked with DEC, and it was determined that the sites with shallow groundwater should be tested first. He noted that there is still more work to do on testing. MR. LARUE, in response to Representative Mina, expressed the hope that federal funding would be available for remediation, as it is difficult to find state funds. He reiterated the department's commitment. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that outside of the work being done at airports, the department would partner with other state entities and communities on this effort. MR. DANIELSON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Carrick concerning individual drinking water well sites near FIA, he expressed the understanding that it would not be possible to remediate individual wells because PFAS contamination would come from a continuous plume, and it would not economically viable. He added that a home filtration system could be installed to remove PFAS from the water. MR. LARUE added that in some of the rural areas effected, there are active projects to implement filtration systems in some businesses and homes. In response to a follow-up question, he expressed the understanding that there has been no PFAS detected in vegetables; however, he noted the importance of washing these vegetables. 1:43:16 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:43 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. ^PRESENTATION: Leaded Aviation Gas in Alaska Update PRESENTATION: Leaded Aviation Gas in Alaska Update    1:45:40 PM CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business would be a presentation on leaded aviation gas in Alaska. 1:46:00 PM CURT CASTAGNA, Co-Chair, Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative (EAGLE); President, CEO, National Air Transportation Association (NATA), co-presented a PowerPoint, titled "Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative (EAGLE) Update" [hard copy included in the committee file]. On slide 1, he introduced himself and discussed several recent meetings he has had with stakeholders in Alaska. On slide 2, he overviewed the key objectives of EAGLE, which is to promote the transition to unleaded aviation fuel by 2030. He stated that this transition time has been expanded by two years for Alaska. He clarified that 2030 would not be a deadline, but a goal. He stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came out with a finding that one-hundred low-lead (100LL) fuel is an environmental risk. He added that this fuel has not been banned, but a transition plan is being implemented, along with replacement fuel. He suggested that the transition might take longer than the 2030 goal. MR. CASTAGNA pointed out that the problem with leaded fuel is not just environmental. He explained that the only source of the lead additive used to make this fuel is in Liverpool, England. He stated that this facility would be closing in 2030; therefore, the transition away from 100LL would also be a business decision. He stated that this leaded compound would be stockpiled until 2030. 1:54:29 PM MR. CASTAGNA reiterated EAGLE's goal, as seen on slide 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: "Eliminate the use of leaded aviation fuels for piston-engine aircraft in the United States by the end of 2030 (2033 for Alaska) without adversely impacting the safe and efficient operation of the existing fleet." MR. CASTAGNA noted that the trade organizations listed on the bottom of the slide are working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He discussed the different components of the organizations listed. MR. CASTAGNA overviewed the objectives of EAGLE, as seen on slide 5, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: - Facilitate Stakeholder Support for the Development and Deployment of Viable Replacements for 100LL - Research and Develop Technical Solutions to Mitigate the Potential Impacts on the Existing GA Fleet - Inform the Regulatory & Policy Processes to Safely and Smartly Transition to a Viable Replacement to Eliminate Lead Emissions - Protect the Availability of 100LL During the Transition MR. CASTAGNA added that there is not a replacement for 100LL at this point. He stated that the chemistry is being researched to find a similar additive that would create the same high performance in aircraft. He moved to slide 5 and discussed what a viable unleaded replacement for 100LL avgas would look like, stating that this replacement must meet three elements: safety, production and distribution, and consumer usage. Concerning safety, he said that aircraft must continue to meet FAA requirements, and the components of the new fuel must be acceptable for this. Concerning production and distribution, he said that there must be an understanding of the fuel so business decisions for the needed supply could be made. He added that the fuel must be produced and distributed in quantities and locations to meet the country's needs. He noted the complexities and limitations of transporting fuel in Alaska. Concerning consumer usage, he said that it must be economically reasonable for consumers, and manufacturers must be able to provide technical and warranty support. 1:58:09 PM MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a committee question, clarified that he is currently in California, while Karen Huggard is located in Washington DC. MR. CASTAGNA moved to slide 6 and discussed the factors that are affecting the availability of 100LL avgas. He pointed out the environmental factors, and he gave details on the lawsuits in California. Concerning the economic factors, he reiterated the issue of the single supplier of the lead additive. He added that another factor would be the transition to 100LL avgas by General Aviation. MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a question from Representative McCabe concerning the lawsuits in California, explained that in 2015, [the Center for Environmental Health] in California sued fixed fuel suppliers in the state because the suppliers had not posted the lead content in some products. In the settlement, there was a requirement that the defendants would replace 100LL avgas by 2055. Since the time of the lawsuit, a fuel became available, and [the Center for Environmental Health] took the defendants back to court to stop the use of 100LL. He stated that there is now a temporary ruling in favor of the defendants, as the new fuel is not yet commercially viable. In response to a follow-up question, he clarified that "not commercially viable" in this situation would mean that there is not enough fuel to replace 100LL, a price point has not been established, and engine manufactures have not endorsed the fuel. 2:03:20 PM MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a committee question, said that he is not a resident of Alaska, but he has traveled to Alaska many times for annual meetings. He expressed appreciation for the importance of air travel in the state. KAREN HUGGARD, Vice President, Government Affairs, National Air Transportation Association, responded that she is not a resident of Alaska. She stated that recently she visited Alaska and took a tour of its avgas infrastructure with the state's stakeholders. She stated that EAGLE is advocating for Alaska by helping protect its avgas fuel supply until there is a suitable replacement. She expressed support for Alaska's unique situation concerning its fuel needs. She added that she has worked with the Alaska Congressional Delegation in Washington on legislation that would retain 100LL fuel in Alaska until 2032. She noted that Alaska's supply of avgas comes from Richmond, California, and EAGLE has been working to keep this refinery open. MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a question from Representative Mina on the incentives for developing viable unleaded fuel, stated that currently there are two commercial distributors providing lead-free aircraft fuel. He stated that GAMI provides this fuel in California, but FAA has not approved it for helicopters. He noted aircraft maintenance concerns have resulted from the use of GAMI fuel. He stated that Swift Fuels distribute the other new lead-free aircraft fuel, UL94. He expressed the understanding that this fuel would work for around 80 percent of the aircraft fleet in Alaska; however, the remaining 20 percent of the fleet uses high-octane fuel. He pointed out that this high-octane fuel is used in most of the aircraft nationally, so this creates a challenge. MR. CASTAGNA expressed the understanding that critical services in Alaska rely on this high-octane fuel, so a transition to UL94 avgas would greatly affect the state. Concerning possible incentives, he expressed the opinion that if UL94 were tested on the 80 percent of Alaska's fleet that could utilize it, incentives could be provided; however, he continued that he is not advocating that Alaska do this. He recommended that this testing be done in California where the incentives already exist. He expressed the understanding that UL94 users are "very happy with the fuel," as removing lead from fuel has benefits. He noted the federal government is considering tax credits for the use of this fuel before the 2030 date. MS. HUGGARD added that significant investments are being made to test the unleaded fuels in a methodical manner, and this is being done to understand their viability. She noted that EAGLE would be advocating for a smooth transition to lead-free fuel, especially concerning the price point. REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned the testing of GAMI and UL94 in subzero temperatures. MR. CASTAGNA, in response, pointed out the Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) and Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) tests. He stated that all fuels would go through these tests, which include tests for freezing temperatures. He stated that the results would be proprietary information between fuel developers and FAA, so the tests results are unknown. He pointed to slide 7, which addressed the two paths for fuel approval. He noted that both GAMI and Swift Fuels are pursuing FAA and STC approval for high-octane unleaded fuel. He stated that they are also going through the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International process, which would address temperature and compatibility all the way through the supply chain. He stressed the importance of this in Alaska because of its unique environment and supply chain restrictions. 2:15:46 PM CO-CHAIR EISCHEID opined that because the lead additive comes from England, a trade war could increase the fuel costs of 100LL. MR. CASTAGNA stated that the possibility of tariffs has been a concern. He stated that EAGLE has had talks with Innospec, the company in England that provides this fuel additive. He expressed the understanding that Innospec is in support of this effort; however, it has made the business decision to stop producing its product. He reiterated that both the environmental and business components would motivate the fuel transition. MR. CASTAGNA moved to slide 8 and discussed the STC process for evaluating fuels. He reiterated that this is a proprietary process between the FAA and applicant, as the applicant would have the control of the visibility of the evaluations and fuel specifications. He expressed the importance of this because the fuel industry would be involved in this review. He stated that FAA would not be testing fuel; rather it would be validating the tests in the STC process. He continued that the ASTM standard would provide the transparency in the supply chain. He noted that more details on fuel testing could be found on EAGLE's website. MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a question from Representative Mina, stated that STC would work as an FAA-endorsed certificate for aircraft modifications. He stated that PAFI represents all industry stakeholders, including aircraft manufacturers and fuel companies. He explained that ASTM International develops and publishes voluntary consensus standards. Concerning a lead-free 100LL product, he noted there are around 600 tests being evaluated. He noted that Swift is going through this peer review process, while GAMI is not; however, GAMI would be reviewing Swift's fuel in the peer review process. He further described the production and marketing of fuels after this process. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that having the ASTM standard would not be required to market the product. He added that ASTM has become the standard only because all the refinement and marketing networks use this. He noted that Swift is going through the ASTM process and the parallel process of having their engines approved, and this is so FAA could certify the fuel. He stated that the PAFI program works in parallel with ASTM International. He reiterated that the ASTM standard is not legally required; however, most airports will not sell a non-ASTM approved fuel. MS. HUGGARD clarified that ASTM is a peer review process, where the applicant must submit its methodologies and data to a panel overseeing standards. She added that the panel would consist of industry representatives who understand the data. She asserted that this would create confidence, as it creates a voluntary standard that ensures best practices and best production. She expressed the understanding that all fuels sold in the country would have an ASTM standard. MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a question from Representative Mina, explained that because ASTM is an industry consensus standard, FAA would not engage with this. While GAMI is not pursuing an ASTM standard, he indicated that FAA would still need to validate GAMI's data in STC; however, the industry and the consumer would be the ones deciding whether to buy the fuel. He stated that there has been consumer confidence in the ASTM standard for the past 50 years. He stated that FAA has the discretion to require ASTM, but it has not. MS. HUGGARD added that the most recent FAA legislation has a requirement for an industry standard if a federal grant is involved. She expressed the understanding that if a fuel with a grant does not have a standard consensus evaluation, it cannot be sold in airports. 2:28:04 PM MR. CASTAGNA moved to slide 10, which displayed a graphic of the national supply chain for fuel distribution. He stated that there are 15 distributors in the Lower 48, with 3,500 fixed- based operators selling the fuel. He continued that there are around 460,000 pilots, with 230,000 aircraft using the fuel, and 300,000 mechanics managing this fleet. Along the bottom of the slide, he noted the flow of fuel from the producers, distributors, and fixed-based operators to the owners and operators. In this process, he explained that STC fuels would become approved with the mechanics, as they are the ones making the entries into the aircraft maintenance logbooks. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE opined that requiring STC could become an expense in rural Alaska. MR. CASTAGNA pointed out that if a fuel has fleet-wide authorization in the PAFI program, this will give FAA authorization, and an STC authorization would not be required. MS. HUGGARD expressed the understanding that Swift Fuels is considering this process. MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a follow-up question from Representative McCabe, stated that through the PAFI process, the fleet would be approved. 2:33:10 PM MR. CASTAGNA moved to slide 11 and pointed out the graph on the volume of fuel sales in the country. He stated that in 2023, there were 176 million gallons of avgas sold in the country. He noted the top five states that sell high volumes of avgas, with Alaska listed as the fourth highest seller. He made a comparison, stating that for every four hours on the freeway system in the Lower 48, more than 176 gallons of fuel would be burned. Concerning this volume of fuel, he pointed out that the decision-making process would be complex for refineries and businesses. He moved to slide 12, which mapped out the 7 refineries in the Lower 48 that make 100LL. He pointed out the terminals in the country distributing the fuel, including those in Alaska. He stated that these terminals in Alaska receive fuel on barges from the refinery in Richmond, California. He stated that slide 13 shows the fuel sales and distribution once it reaches Alaska. On slide 14, he pointed out the national supply chain infrastructure and deployment in Alaska, with Alaska being one of the top 10 states for buying avgas volume. The map shows where the refineries are in relation to volume consumption. MR. CASTAGNA stated that it is important to note that the refinery in Richmond, California, has an old distillation tower. Because of this, he explained that the refinery would be incapable of producing the high-quality base required for the unleaded fuel for GAMI and Swift. On slide 14, he noted the map of the country marked with the refineries and the states with the highest 100LL fuel consumption. On the next slide, he broke down how Alaska compares to the rest of the country for producers and distributors. He noted that Alaska has around 3 distributors, with 68 fixed-based operators selling avgas fuel. He continued that the state has around 6,400 pilots, 8,100 aircraft, and 3,300 mechanics who manage this fleet. He noted that per population, this is the highest number of pilots and aircraft in the country. MS. HUGGARD added that Alaska has the highest per capita consumption of avgas in the country. MR. CASTAGNA, in conclusion, pointed out EAGLE's contact information on the last slide. He expressed the opinion that Alaska's supply of 100LL would need protecting until a safe transition to unleaded fuel could be made. He advised the committee that the movement to ban 100LL would need to be monitored by the state. He said, "Your voice is really important to be heard, and it needs to be heard." 2:38:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned the 20 percent of aircraft in Alaska that Swift fuel would not be compatible with. MR. CASTAGNA clarified that Swift has two products, with UL94 working for around 80 percent of the fleet. He stated that 100R is Swift's other product, and the intention would be for it to reach the goal needed for the remaining 20 percent of the fleet. He pointed out that this fuel is being tested now. He noted that this would still not work for a few aircraft engines, with some of these being in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE MINA expressed appreciation for the information presented. She expressed the understanding that leaded fuel is "bad," yet there would be a high cost to transition. She questioned the biggest barrier for Alaska's transition to unleaded avgas. MR. CASTAGNA responded that barriers would include the cost, the bureaucracy, and the safety of alternative fuels. He discussed the difficulties with the supply chain in the state, as the fuel would need to be barged and then transported in barrels, which would complicate the testing. He noted the discussions he has had with Everts Air in Alaska, and the potential for this company to do the testing. He encouraged a discussion with fuel suppliers, as this transition must be done safely. CO-CHAIR MERRICK thanked the presenters, and she made closing comments. 2:45:50 PM ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business before the committee, the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.