Final ruling preserves avgas availability in California
Forcing unleaded alternatives deemed 'premature'
A California judge signed on May 30 an expected ruling against an environmental group's effort to halt sales of 100LL aviation fuel at dozens of airports in the state, finding such a move is "premature" in light of industry opposition based on unresolved safety concerns.
Aviation advocates welcomed the decision by California Superior Court Judge Somnath Raj Chatterjee to preserve the availability of 100LL until a replacement is approved for use by all aircraft and "commercially available," a key term at the heart of the case that the court defined broadly.
Chatterjee signaled the substance of his May 30 ruling in March, when his preliminary decision sided with the FBOs and fuel distributors serving two dozen California airports that opposed the effort by the Center for Environmental Health to force those airports to dispense—exclusively in many cases—G100UL unleaded aviation fuel made by General Aviation Modifications Inc. in lieu of 100LL.
CEH sought in January to invoke stipulations of a 2014 Consent Judgement that require FBOs and fuel distributors to supply unleaded aviation fuel with the lowest available lead content to all piston aircraft as soon as such fuel is both "approved" and "commercially available." CEH argued that G100UL is just such a fuel based on FAA supplemental type certificate approval, and the limited distribution of G100UL that is now underway at three airports, two of them in California.
The G100UL STC does not apply to helicopters, the judge noted, which, while representing "only about 1.5 [percent] of the fleet… have an outsized importance to public health and safety."
An STC, by definition, also does not apply to light sport aircraft or experimental aircraft, the judge noted. And, while the 2014 Consent Judgment refers specifically to American Society for Testing and Materials International standards, G100UL has not been subject to the ASTM specification approval process anticipated in the 2014 document.
"GAMI elected not to pursue an ASTM specification and has elected not to disclose certain specifications and information regarding G100UL. G100UL has not been subject to 'peer review' because GAMI declines to share information without a confidentiality agreement," Chatterjee wrote in his 19-page decision. "While that might be GAMI’s rational business choice, that decision has inhibited the formation of a general industry consensus by, among other things, preventing industry stakeholders from adequately vetting the fuel. These factors, in light of the concerns raised regarding the safety and compatibility of G100UL, such as whether it degrades tank sealant, further militate against finding that the fuel is commercially available."
Chatterjee wrote that the CEH definition of "commercially available" is "too narrow," and disregards the express disapproval of G100UL by various aircraft and engine makers, based on insufficient available information to evaluate the safety and compatibility of the fuel. NATA (formerly the National Air Transportation Association), which represents FBOs, and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association both told the court that G100UL has not been subject to a consensus review process.
"It is not reasonable that the parties intended to preclude the operations of certain aircraft in California. That was not the purpose of the Consent Judgment. The Court interprets the phrase 'approved for aviation use' to mean that the fuel is approved by the FAA for general aviation use by all aircraft types in the general aviation fleet," Chatterjee wrote.
The FAA Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative and the FAA and industry Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions coalition (of which AOPA is a founding member) both seek to develop an unleaded fuel suitable for all aircraft in the GA fleet, though neither has approved G100UL for the same reasons cited by aircraft and engine manufacturers and industry advocates, the judge noted, leaving the door open for CEH to raise the issue again in the future as "science and industry advance."
"CEH points out the significant health hazards connected with leaded Avgas, which is undisputed and disturbing. Removing leaded Avgas from California would undoubtedly benefit the public health. But using this Prop 65 Consent Judgment to impose that change on this record poses significant consequences that also affect the public’s health and safety as well as the operations of the entire general aviation industry and social and economic sectors that depend on that industry," Chatterjee wrote. "The Legislature and regulatory and industry bodies are addressing the issue."
