http://waxman.house.gov/sites/waxman.house.gov/files/documents/UploadedFiles/Letter%20to%20FAA%20on%20Leaded%20AvGas%2010-23-12.pdf
Glad someone is taking notice, but the debate isn't that simple as we all know. The turbocharged twin charters and light cargo and life flights are still going to burn 100LL.
Sure would be nice to see more clear 91/92UL available on the field though. I always wondered why more smaller fields don't store it. Twin Oaks, here in the Portland area for instance; Most of their fuel sales are for the flight school and hobbyist guys like me. Why not offer mogas? It's probably the cost involved with getting another tank/pump installed, right? There's no clear profit to be made by offering a different fuel, so that investment is lost. They already have the best price in the area on 100LL generally, so it's not they'll attract more fuel buyers.
What I hope this congressman's appeal does, if anything, is to battle the ethanol mandate by creating another case for clear gas, because without FAA funds earmarked for fuel dispensing equipment, few of the places that want this most will implement it.

