The Path to Unleaded Avgas: A Critical Transition for Aviation – Fall 2024 Update
Notice Number: NOTC4142

Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE)

Fall 2024 Update
The aviation community has long recognized the need to eliminate lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft, a goal set to be achieved by the end of 2030 through the leadership of the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative. This ambitious endeavor brings together government and industry partners committed to finding a safe and reliable unleaded aviation fuel that is viable throughout the aviation supply chain.

As the general aviation community works toward this goal, the role of aircraft owners cannot be overstated. They are, after all, the ultimate end-users of any new fuel, and their buy-in will be critical to its success.

This transition is about more than meeting regulatory requirements—it’s about ensuring that aircraft owners feel confident in the safety and reliability and availability of the new fuel. The solution must be robust enough to meet the diverse needs of the piston-engine fleet, ranging from the World War II era planes to modern helicopters.

Currently, there are three promising unleaded fuel candidates. Their developers are pursuing either the Fleet Authorization (FA) under the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) or the traditional Supplemental Type Certification (STC) process via an approved model list (AML). Both pathways ensure that engines and aircraft can safely operate on the new fuel, however, regardless of the path to approval to use in the aircraft, consumer acceptance will hinge on more than FAA approval.

Fuel developers must not only prove their products’ safety and compatibility with the existing fleet but also demonstrate to key industry stakeholders that their product is reliable. Aircraft owners need assurance that switching to a new fuel won't void manufacturer warranties. They also need to be confident that it won't cause damage to paint, electronics, engine components or fuel systems. The aviation supply chain will need assurances as well. This next fuel must be produced, distributed, stored, possibly comingled with other fuels, pumped, and consumed without causing damage or requiring significant equipment modifications. Industry stakeholders understand that any new fuels must meet the needs of aircraft owners and be compatible with production, distribution and dispensing systems.

EAGLE has worked diligently over the past 18 months to keep stakeholders informed, providing updates on the progress of key unleaded fuel developers. General Aviation Modifications Inc.'s (GAMI) G100UL and Swift Fuels’ 100R are advancing through the STC process.  GAMI has already secured a broad Approved Model List (AML) STC for its fuel in 2022 for piston engines and airplanes. Recently, the FAA granted Swift Fuels its first STC for the use of its 100R in Cessna 172 R & S model aircraft powered by Lycoming IO-360-L2A engines, with many additional engines and airframes being evaluated for approval in the weeks ahead. LyondellBasell/VP Racing’s UL100E is progressing through the PAFI pathway, having completed about 25 percent of critical materials compatibility and full-scale engine detonation and performance testing. Both Swift Fuels and LyondellBasell/VP Racing have also begun working through ASTM International on the development of an industry consensus production specification for their respective fuels. 

The recent updates from EAGLE provide optimism. To learn more visit: flyEAGLE.org (See Stakeholder Meetings) Progress is being made, and general aviation’s path to acceptance of unleaded fuel continues.

Congress and the FAA’s commitment to this initiative is underscored by the 2024 FAA Reauthorization, which supports the continued availability of 100-octane low-lead (100LL) avgas until the end of 2030, or when a certified unleaded alternative is available at airports. (Alaska, a state heavily reliant on piston-engine aircraft, has been given a slightly extended timeline protecting continued availability of 100LL through the end of 2032). However, the collaborative industry/government EAGLE goal is clear: the elimination of leaded aviation fuel by the end of 2030.

General aviation is moving to ensure a safe, reliable transition to unleaded avgas without jeopardizing the operational safety of the piston-engine fleet. Aircraft owners must stay informed and engaged as this transition unfolds. It is important that they educate themselves on any restrictions that may accompany an STC and comply with any OEM directives that may be issued.  They are the key players in this process, and their comfort with these new fuels will drive this monumental shift.

It is not enough for the FAA to approve these new fuels. The industry—from aircraft owners to fuel distributors to FBOs that dispense fuel and aircraft manufacturers that provide continued operational support—must accept them. Safety, reliability, and commercial viability must guide this transition, ensuring that by the end of 2030, piston-engine aircraft can take to the skies with unleaded fuel that is dependable. The future of general aviation depends on it.

The Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative is a comprehensive public-private partnership consisting of the aviation and petroleum industries and U.S. government stakeholders, and a wide range of other constituents and interested parties, all working toward the transition to lead-free aviation fuels for piston-engine aircraft by the end of 2030 without compromising the safety or economic health of the general aviation industry. To learn more, visit: https://flyEAGLE.org/

September 16, 2024 Press Release

Washington, DC - Congressman Tom Suozzi (D - Nassau, Queens) led a bipartisan group of 40 members of the House, sending a letter (attached) to Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker urging the agencies to prioritize community engagement as they implement airplane noise provisions in this year’s FAA Reauthorization Act. The letter supports the Aviation-Impacted Communities Alliance's (AICA) July letter to the Transportation Secretary "seeking sufficient representation for FAA committees and community feedback provisions in FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024." 

Suozzi is Vice-Chair of the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus. "Airplane noise is an issue today in part because the FAA has continually failed to consider community input over the years. On the heels of the bipartisan passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, we urge the FAA to ensure robust community participation throughout the implementation of the Reauthorization's airplane noise provisions," Suozzi stated. 

Members of airport-adjacent communities as far as 20 miles away from a major airport have long known what the FAA has only recently acknowledged: that aviation noise poses a far greater daily nuisance and health risk than originally anticipated. Studies show that aviation noise disrupts sleep, causes chronic stress, and leads to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and mental illness. These risks, combined with the FAA's past failures to recognize the effects of its aviation noise policies, underscore the importance of incorporating community feedback into policy conversations.

"I hear from D.C. residents almost daily about the negative impact of aircraft noise on their lives, despite the airspace restrictions related to being the nation’s capital," said Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). "The noise can be damaging to health and quality of life and can even harm the structural integrity of homes. As a co-chair of the Quiet Skies Caucus, I am pleased to join my colleagues to urge the FAA to consider feedback from representatives of airport-adjacent communities when making policy determinations."

“Greater Boston neighborhoods and surrounding towns have been continuously impacted by airplane noise that has disrupted their daily lives for years,” said Congressman Stephen Lynch (MA-08). “It is very concerning that many areas, from South Boston to Dorchester to Milton and the South Shore, are disproportionately impacted by their exposure to airplane noise and poor air quality.  We cannot allow our most burdened areas to continue to be subjected to the increased health risks that come with living in close proximity to the FAA’s designated flight paths. It is vital that the communities that suffer the most have the opportunity to provide input as the FAA begins to implement the airplane noise provisions included in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024.”

“I’m proud to represent communities around Chicago’s O’Hare airport. With that comes the responsibility of listening to residents who are understandably frustrated about excessive airplane noise, which can impact both mental and physical health. This Congress, I worked with my colleagues to include critical provisions in the bipartisan FAA Reauthorization bill to ensure communities impacted by airplane noise can provide feedback to the FAA. I urge the FAA to implement these provisions quickly so communities impacted by airplane noise can have a voice,” said Congressman Mike Quigley (IL-05).

 In addition, Suozzi encouraged the FAA to prioritize the formation of the Aircraft Noise Advisory Committee (ANAC) to meet the statutory deadline of November 12, 2024. The FAA and local airport authorities receive thousands of noise complaints every month, making it clear that the agency's current noise policies are not working for airport-adjacent communities. It is essential that the FAA move quickly to establish the ANAC so that communities can experience relief sooner rather than later. 

Since taking office in 2017, Suozzi has been navigating the complex maze of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), trying to sort out the jurisdictional issues. In 2017, he became Vice Chair of the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus. 

 Over the years, Suozzi testified several times before congressional hearings, chaired multiple meetings with relevant federal agencies, and secured significant noise and safety provisions in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. 

In 2019, Congressman Tom Suozzi brokered multiple deals with the FAA Eastern Regional Office to alter arrival procedures for JFK runway 22L/R. Under this procedure, aircraft landing on runway 22L/R must remain at or above 3,000 ft until they are within 15 miles of the airport. Air traffic controllers implemented this guidance, and airplane noise impacts decreased. However, the guidance was inexplicably abandoned 18 months later. Airplanes are now flying at altitudes closer to 2,000 ft at distances over 15 miles away from JFK, needlessly disrupting residents' daily lives once again.

 In July, Suozzi and local Republicans met with FAA and Port Authority officials to discuss a new plan to evaluate "continuous descent final approach" protocols to optimize noise reduction and to "reevaluate a procedure maintaining a minimum of 3000' altitude on approach to 22L/R at JFK." 

Last month, Tom Suozzi, joined by state and local officials, wrote a strong letter to Administrator Michael Whitaker and Regional Administrator Marie Kennington-Gardiner of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to consider alternate approach procedures for flights into John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). The current procedures bombard Long Island communities with unsustainable noise loads and must be modified as soon as possible.

Senator Hickenlooper and Senator Bennet,

I am writing to you after watching the September 6, 2024 Denver7 news story about the $1,400,633  grant RMMA will receive for a Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Study. Not only does this study cost an exorbitant amount of money, it will take approximately two years to complete. We do have another two years for the results of an outdated “study” based on noise models to document the present and predict the future when we have that information right now.

When Denver7 shared the concerns of the community they reported that: “Bennet's office responded saying the Senator has met with these groups and he's aware of their concerns”.  If you had talked recently to any of the citizens in our very active group, you would know that we have actual real-time data RIGHT NOW that shows flight patterns, time stamps, tail numbers, altitude measures, and decibel readings from each offending plane. We also have expert scientists that can tell you about lead being showered over our homes and children. You would also have been reminded that RMMA has been illegally operating flights over the town of Superior and illegally expanding the airport and its operations without any intervention or oversight.

Denver7 quoted Senator Hickenlooper as saying: "Our Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is still delivering improvements to make air travel safe and accessible for all Coloradans." Bipartisan by definition is: a decision resulting from the cooperation or compromise of two opposing political parties. This law can only be “bipartisan” if you, our representative and our voice, do not see that there are indeed two opposing sides in this matter and instead are in agreement with the airports and flight schools that they need not consider their impact on their surrounding communities.

We know that Senator Hickenlooper is on the subcommittee on Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation, which includes oversight of the FAA. We want to be sure that you both truly understand what a Part 150 Study is and what it will and won’t do for our communities.

We, in Boulder County and beyond, are being subjected to constant noise and lead poisoning from inexperienced pilots in old equipment, flying dangerously low, in congested airspace, over a highly populated area. RMMA, an airport located not in our county, knows that since we have no vote or influence over their decisions, they can export all of their flight school noise, pollution, and risky behavior over neighboring counties while reaping the financial benefits (including grants that we, as taxpayers, fund).

If spending money on a Part 150 Study is your chosen course of action, you must believe that it will somehow benefit us. Are you aware that Centennial Airport is on their second Part 150 Study and despite the results from the first study have seen no relief, only an increase in operations, complaints, and more lead exposure (despite the introduction of unleaded fuel)?  We too used to ask for this study when we attended The Community Noise Roundtable held monthly at RMMA. That was before we realized that the noise contour maps are not based on real-time data, but projections made from some data points. Additionally, the existing Noise Contour Maps contained in RMMA’s current Master Plan and Strategic Business Plan are invented -no data was submitted for their creation (Jefferson County admitted to this in sworn testimony). Yet they are still used by RMMA to apply for and receive grants.

A Part 150 Study does not address that we are being poisoned by leaded fuel and particulates and we are putting ourselves at risk by simply living in our homes and neighborhoods. It does not warn residents that it is just a matter of time before one of these planes crash into our homes and that we may have to relive the fires that ravaged our neighborhood only a few years ago.

A Part 150 Study will not help you understand that we are not allowed to have an eight hour stretch of time to sleep at night, as it does not measure sleep deprivation or the effects of constant noise on our nervous systems and mental health. It does not show you the sick, injured, or stressed-out resident desperate for the required sleep to recover; the babies who are not allowed to nap in order to self-regulate and reach their milestones; or the children, teens, and adults who cannot reenergize and rebalance their bodies and minds because they are constantly having their sleep interrupted.

A Part 150 Study does not show you that the only time we can enjoy the outdoors away from planes is when it is too hot, too windy, too cloudy, or it is snowing. It is only during these extreme weather conditions that the planes stop circling overhead, and ironically prevent us from fully enjoying our time outdoors as well. However, it is also only during these times that we can safely open our windows and let the outside air in (please note: this is not hyperbolic speech… I was one of the nine houses that tested positive for lead in two different tests when the windowsill dust was sampled. I know the simple act of opening a window in my home is putting my family more at risk). 

A Part 150 Study does not produce a map of people who have sold, are selling, and/or are trying to rent their houses to escape the area. It does not show you that prospective buyers/tenants do not want to raise their families in a place where they cannot sleep, fear a plane crashing into their house, or do not want to risk having their children’s blood systems permanently poisoned. It does not adequately represent the feelings that your constituents have of being abandoned by their own elected officials, who keep choosing rich interests and exaggerated economic impacts over the lives and health of hundreds of thousands of affected people.

Denver7 quoted Senator Bennet as saying: "Colorado's regional and municipal airports help connect communities across our state and support local economic development."

As our senators (especially as a representative of the subcommittee), we need you both to be educated, informed, and engaged. That means understanding that “economic development” and economic benefits must include calculating the welfare, safety, and health costs of the affected population, the people you represent, and not just the reported income of airports and corporations.   

We are asking for you to meet with us and to engage us in conversation, so we can share data and problem-solving strategies with you. We are asking you take a stand as our local elected officials, Kyle Brown, Judy Amabile, and Shannon Bird did when they introduced and passed HB24-1235. We are asking you to put people before profits, sound bites, and photo opportunities.

We look forward to your reply.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today in favor of House Bill 24-1235.  I’m very grateful to Representatives Brown and Bird for bringing this bill and for responding to the needs of their communities.

Last October, Boulder County residents invited me to come to their community to listen to concerns about the impacts to their homes and health from aviation noise and leaded fuel.  Senate President Steve Fenberg and Representatives Brown, Dixon, and Amabile joined as well.  Hearing from a crowd of hundreds from Boulder, Arapahoe, and other communities, I was deeply moved by what I heard—parents worried over how lead pollution can harm their infant baby’s health; a woman anguished at incessant flight noise preventing her from ever using her yard; and families fearful to allow their children to play in their backyards or school playgrounds given flights spewing leaded fuel emissions overhead.
What I heard in this town hall convinced me that this is a complex problem that must be addressed—both the incessant noise levels and the harmful lead in aviation fuel.  These issues are deeply impacting these residents and harming their quality of life.

Before I joined the community at that town hall meeting, I received a letter from the national aviation industry lobby groups warning me that any attempt by the State of Colorado to regulate aircraft flights, noise levels, or emissions would run afoul of federal law and be struck down in court.  Now, preemption is a topic that I’m sure you’ll hear a great deal on today.  And that’s a fair question to raise and debate.  But broadly worded statements warning of preemption, lacking details or analysis, are no excuse to not act.  We owe it to those impacted families not to shrug our shoulders and concede nothing can be done, but instead to leverage what tools we do have at our disposal as a State.

I’m quite familiar with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  But the federal preemption doctrine isn’t so simple as to say that the State of Colorado cannot and should not do anything that falls under the broad umbrella term of “aviation.”  To the contrary, there are actions we can take as a state and actions that local governments that own airports can take; to that end, I believe that this bill is thoughtfully crafted to ensure its provisions are defensible.  And I know and expect that the rigor of the legislative process will reveal ways in which this bill can be further refined to be made more defensible.

To be sure, under federal preemption grounds, states cannot impose flight curfews—and this bill does not do that.  Moreover, states cannot regulate aircraft noise levels—and this bill does not do that either.  And, finally, states cannot regulate flight patterns—and again, this bill does not do that.

As you will note in the bill, HB 24-1235 is deliberately crafted not to regulate, but rather to deploy our State’s tools to incentivize (and disincentivize) certain behaviors and operations.  Colorado may be unable to regulate flight patterns, but we can use state funds to reward airports that choose to have effective noise plans in place that are approved by the federal government.  Colorado may be unable to mandate that aircraft transition to safer unleaded fuel, but we can create funding incentives to encourage that transition (and on that topic, I heard from airports that are finding ways to provide that incentive themselves and requested state assistance in that regard).  Similarly, Colorado may be unable to impose flight curfews to restrict after-hours noise, but we can ensure that communities impacted by that noise have a voice and seat on state boards that administer state grants to airports.  This bill does that and more.

In short, there is no federal impediment for local airports to take advantage of the incentives that HB 24-1235 offers to make a safe and responsible transition to safer fuel and a better quality of life for aviation-impacted residents.  Nonetheless, I recognize that federal preemption is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree.  And it is possible, and perhaps likely, that some portions of this bill may be challenged as unconstitutional—including by national lobby groups.  For present purposes, however, I want to reiterate that the conversations that led to this bill were thoughtful and reflective ones, and, if necessary, I am prepared to defend this bill in court.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

See original post here.  See details on HB24-1235 here.

Centennial Airport, (APA) is initiating a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funded noise study. The objective of this noise study, known as a 14 CFR (Code of Federal of Regulation) Part 150 Study, is to update the existing Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) based on current and forecasted future conditions and to find reasonable solutions to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise, as defined by the FAA.

Public participation is crucial to the success of the Part 150 study process. Those who live and work in close proximity to the airport have the opportunity to shape and influence the outcome of the study process.

The meeting is to inform interested parties about the purpose of the Study, outline the general Study process and request comments. The goal of the Study is to work with surrounding communities and stakeholders to reduce the number of people affected by aircraft noise.

To learn more about the Part 150 Study visit: https://apa150noisestudy.com/

More than 50 years after the US began phasing lead out of the gasoline supply for automobiles, leaded fuel remains in use all around the country by small, piston-engine aircraft, poisoning the air breathed in by millions of children who live in close proximity to the country’s general aviation airports.
On July 28, six weeks after Quartz published its investigation into the maddening persistence of leaded aviation gas, a Congressional subcommittee held hearings on the fuel’s toxicity, and on the slow pace of progress in developing unleaded alternatives.
A range of witnesses offered poignant testimony about the problem (more on them below). But some of the most powerful messages came from the dais, where members of the House Oversight Committee’s subcommittee on the environment largely came together in a bipartisan plea for federal agencies to move faster in phasing out leaded airplane fuel—and expressed bipartisan shock at the scope of the problem and how hidden it has been from the public agenda...

Click here to read the rest of the article.

While Jan Burton’s piece in the Camera from May about preserving Boulder Airport (BDU) has several problems, here is one in particular: Burton claims that if airport land was repurposed, the FAA would require reimbursement of $100 million.

Rather than speculation, consider actual data provided by city staff on FAA subsidies listed in a March 3, 2018, memorandum from city staff titled, “Debt Analysis … Including Repayment of Airport Projects and Properties…” which is public information.

If the BDU land was repurposed, the city would need to return unused grant funding. In 2018, the prorated amount was estimated to total $2.9 million. FAA records show BDU has taken around $5 million in subsidies since then.

Separately, FAA subsidies purchased 49 acres of land. (The city owns the balance of roughly 133 acres.) If Boulder were to repurpose that parcel, it would need to be sold at market value and the proceeds given to the FAA. The report assumed a valuation of $2.2 million per acre, for $106 million total.

Thus, if those acres are sold to a third party for development there is no cost to the city.

Only if Boulder buys those acres would there be a $100 million-plus cost. However, the city would gain a precious asset that could generate income in perpetuity, would likely appreciate, and could help achieve city climate and equity goals.

Alternatively, the entire acreage could be sold and Boulder would earn millions.

I believe it is irresponsible to lead people to believe the city would owe $100 million and get nothing in return. I sincerely hope the City Council is using due diligence in gathering accurate information about airport repurposing rather than relying on rumors from parties that have personal interests in BDU.

Anne Wilson, Boulder

See article here.

Jun 29, 2022
Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Quiet Skies Caucus, led by Co-Chairs Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Vice Chairs Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL) and Congressman Tom Suozzi (D-NY), today announced they secured four provisions to combat aircraft noise in the House’s fiscal year 2023 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The provisions direct the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to engage with communities affected by aircraft noise, to prioritize the reduction of aircraft noise, to create a central repository for constituent complaints about aircraft noise, and to encourage the FAA to complete its ongoing evaluation of alternative metrics to current Day Night Level noise standards. The bill also provides support for all studies and programs directed at minimizing aircraft noise in affected communities.
The co-chairs and vice chairs released the statement below.
“As the leadership of the Quiet Skies Caucus, we hear from constituents daily about the negative impact of aircraft noise on their lives and health. The inclusion of these provisions is a victory for our constituents who live in areas heavily affected by aircraft noise.”

Now is a great time to contact your local elected representative and encourage them to support these efforts at a national level. Not sure who to contact? Find up to date information here.