New FAA Reauthorization Bill Would Prohibit Removing 100LL From Airports (Corrected)

July 24, 2023

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Paul Bertorelli (AvWeb) The just-passed House FAA Reauthorization Bill would prevent airports from removing 100LL or offering unleaded fuels in lieu of leaded avgas under penalty of losing airport improvement grants. If the language remains in the Senate version of the bill, it would raise a nearly insurmountable barrier to fielding competitive unleaded fuels because many airports can’t afford or don’t want dual tankage for both leaded and unleaded fuels. The bill requires any fuel being sold on Oct. 5, 2018—the date of the previous reauthorization bill—to remain available to aircraft operators. (See correction at end of story.)

George Braly of General Aviation Modifications Inc., the only U.S. company with an FAA-approved 100-octane fuel, said the bill will “almost certainly stop dead” early efforts to develop an unleaded market in California and other parts of the West. “Our position on the bill is that if it’s adopted into law, it will be impossible for anybody, GAMI or Swift or anybody, to deliver a high-octane unleaded fuel,” says Braly. “There’s not enough money to put in additional tanks and it would be years to get them installed.”

GAMI has been in discussions with several airports to replace 100LL with its G100UL, retaining just one set of tanks. A previous amendment that would have further blocked G100UL required an industry-standard approved fuel and was removed from the bill last week. Despite having STC approval for all spark ignition engines in the FAA database, distribution of G100UL has been problematic. Avfuel, which signed on to manufacture and distribute G100UL, has made little progress in marketing it, according to GAMI.

The House version of the bill now goes on to the Senate where similar language would allow unleaded fuels to replace 100LL when the former is “widely available.” That determination would be made by the Secretary of Transportation. EAGLE, the industry consortium to promote approval of an unleaded fuel, has set the end of 2030 as its deadline. The consortium has pushed back against G100UL, claiming it needs more testing and that an ASTM-approved fuel is a better alternative.

It’s not clear if the House version will run afoul of the 2014 consent decree between the Center for Environmental Health and a group of California FBOs that specified 100LL would be replaced with the lowest lead alternative when it became available. Braly said the only way for G100UL—or any unleaded fuel—to become widely available is for it to be allowed to replace 100LL. READ MORE

House OKs aviation bill with climate, fuel mandates: The Senate version of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization remains in limbo.(Politico Pro)

The Market Will Decide Avgas Winners, Initiative Says (Aviation Week Network)

Reauthorization Amendment Allows Airports To Switch To Unleaded Fuels Only If Consensus Approved (AvWeb)

Excerpt from Politico Pro: The House on Thursday (July 20, 2023) approved broad legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration after voting down some Republican environmental amendments.

The chamber approved H.R. 3935, the “Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act," which is considered one of the year's big must-pass bills. The vote was 351-69.

The House proposal includes provisions to streamline permitting for airport construction, study vulnerable facilities and promote cleaner fuels.

“This bipartisan legislation improves the safety of our system, our airport infrastructure, and the quality of service for passengers," said Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.).

"Not only that, this bill will make the FAA more efficient, encourage the safe adoption of new and innovative technologies, and address growing workforce shortages, from pilots and mechanics to air traffic controllers."

Indeed, lawmakers approved an amendment from Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) to expand the Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and Environment for research on hydrogen to decarbonize aviation. READ MORE

Excerpt from Aviation Week Network: The market will decide which of the candidate unleaded fuels being advanced to replace 100 Low Lead ultimately will make it to the pump at airports and FBOs, leaders of the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative said July 24 at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh.

“We’re going to have a solution,” promised Pete Bunce, General Aviation Manufacturers Association president and CEO. “The marketplace is going to decide which of these fuels makes it. Can it be multiple fuels right now that comingle with eachother, [that] comingle with 100 Low Lead? Maybe, but the marketplace makes the decision.”

The EAGLE executive committee, co-chaired by Lirio Lui, executive director of the FAA Aircraft Certification Service, and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association President and CEO Mark Baker, briefed pilots and operators attending AirVenture on the status of the initiative started in late 2021 to rid the entirety of the U.S. piston-engine aircraft fleet of leaded avgas by 2030. The group invited representatives of each of the four developers of high-octane unleaded fuel to address the audience for 10 min.

Two fuels are progressing through the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), an industry-government testing program, and two through the FAA supplemental type certification (STC) process, which is proprietary between the agency and fuel developers. In September 2022, the FAA approved one of the STC candidate fuels—General Aviation Modification Inc.’s (GAMI) G100UL—for use across most of the GA piston fleet.

GAMI’s fuel is also distinguished as the only one of the four candidates that has not been vetted through the product specification process of standards organization ASTM, for which GA industry associations have expressed a preference.

“The marketplace allows people to take different pathways—we very much support the PAFI program, we support the STC process,” Bunce said. “We as manufacturers, along with the FAA and every one of these associations, [also] feel strongly about standards. Why? Because we get confidence through the standards because everyone in that ecosystem, in that value chain, can ask the right questions and get answers they can verify.”

Bunce noted that three of the four fuel developers have followed the ASTM process. “One company has elected not to go that route, which is fine,” he said. “The marketplace then decides, and the marketplace is where the winner or winners is going to predominate.”

GAMI’s head of engineering George Braly said his company started working on a high-octane unleaded avgas in December 2009. “We need to stop loving this problem and just fix it,” he said. “General Aviation Modifications Inc. has fixed the problem. We had it fixed on Sept. 1, 2022, because that’s the day the FAA issued the STC with an Approved Model List [approving] the use of G100UL without exception on every single spark-ignition piston engine found anywhere in the FAA’s type certificate database.”

Looming in the background, the FAA and GA industry associations expect the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will issue a final “endangerment finding” this fall that lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft that use leaded fuel endanger public health. Once that happens, the EPA will formulate a new regulation governing lead emissions from aircraft—a federal rulemaking process that will not lead to an immediate ban on 100LL, EAGLE officials assured.

“Don’t panic,” Swift Fuels CEO Chris D’Acosta exhorted the audience. “Ninety days from now, when the [EPA finding] comes out, a lot of people across the country are going to panic. Don’t invite emotional uncertainty at this time; it’s really counterproductive to everybody’s interest.”

D’Acosta said Swift Fuels has been supplying lower-octane UL94 unleaded avgas in the U.S. for eight years and has seen its fuel sales doubling every few months. As with UL94, which can be used by 60-70% of the piston fleet, Swift’s 100-octane 100R unleaded fuel is being certified through the STC as well as the ASTM processes. “94UL, 100R—it’s all coming,” he said.

Representatives of the two partnerships developing unleaded fuels through the PAFI program also addressed the audience. A fourth-generation candidate fuel from LyondellBasell and VP Racing is undergoing detonation and durability testing at the FAA Technical Center near Atlantic City, New Jersey, and has been tested on two Continental piston engines. Another fuel from Afton Chemical and Phillips 66 has been tested on a Lycoming engine. The latter fuel is using a manganese-based octane booster instead of tetra-ethyl-lead. READ MORE

Excerpt from AvWeb: Airports will have an easier time switching from 100LL to unleaded 100-octane fuels thanks to a last-minute amendment to the 2023 FAA Reauthorization Bill. The bill was just passed by the House and awaits Senate review no sooner than September. Original language in the bill, carried over from the 2018 bill, appeared to require airports to continue selling the same leaded fuels they offered in 2018 without respect to switching to unleaded avgas.

California Rep. Jay Obernolte, who offered the amendment, explained the legislation in this video interview. He said airport operators were complaining that to sell unleaded fuel, they would have to install additional tankage or trucks, which few airports can afford. As currently amended, the bill allows airports to switch to unleaded fuels as long as the fuel is approved under an industry consensus standard. That generally means a spec provided by ASTM.

There currently are no 100-octane ASTM-spec fuels, but Rep. Obernolte told AVweb that he thought an industry-consensus fuel could emerge within a year or two. The only FAA-approved 100-octane unleaded fuel is G100UL, developed by General Aviation Modifications Inc. It’s approved by the FAA under STC, but does not have an ASTM spec.

What was the problem with the STC-approved fuel? “Only that people have to buy [the STC],” Rep. Obernolte told us in this interview last week. Obernolte is a pilot and flight instructor and has served in airport boards. “That’s why we put the language in there requiring an industry consensus standard, because if you are going to require someone, maybe a transient aircraft … and the only fuel available is one that requires an STC, you’re going to require them to buy the STC to fuel that aircraft. That could be a problem,” he added.

GAMI’s George Braly said that the consensus standard requirement would complicate if not stop dead its efforts to begin developing a market for G100UL. Although Obernolte says the amended language is an improvement, Braly said under its terms, airports would still need a second tank or truck if the fuel lacked consensus approval.

The FAA has restarted its Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) testing program and is currently examining two fuels, one from Phillips/Afton and a second from Lyondell/VP Racing. It’s unknown when, or even if, PAFI will disgorge a drop-in fuel. The previous iteration of PAFI conducted testing for four years and failed to find a suitable fuel. If one or both current candidate fuels prove suitable, they will still have to wind through a separate process for an ASTM consensus standard.

When asked why a consensus standard was necessary, Obernolte said it would make fielding the fuel more efficient. “The number one concern we have is that it’s widely available to everyone. We want to make sure everyone is able to use that new fuel and that’s why we require a consensus in the industry that that fuel is a replacement,” Obernolte said. He concedes that the amendment doesn’t give GAMI a clear path to fielding G100UL. “The barrier was higher before the amendment because no airport would be allowed to switch at all if they only had single tankage. It might not be everything GAMI wanted, but it’s certainly better than the language was before,” Obernolte said.

Also in the bill is a provision requiring the FAA to launch a study to eliminate delays on designated pilot examiners administering practical tests. Because of a shortage of DPEs, delays in scheduling checkrides of up to a year have been reported. The bill would require the FAA to reduce that to no more than two weeks.

“I think they will need more DPEs. DPEs aren’t something that necessarily costs the FAA a lot of money. A DPE, by definition, is not an FAA employee,” Obernolte said. “The first thing that needs to be done is to create a plan for getting it done. And that’s what we’re requiring the FAA to do,” he added. READ MORE