Environmental Group Disputes FBOs’ Fuel Claims

Lawyers for a California environmental group say a collection of FBOs and fuel distributors are trying to convince a court that they know better than the FAA what makes an acceptable aviation fuel. The Center for Environmental Health is trying to compel 17 California FBOs and the four fuel distributors that serve them to switch from 100LL to GAMI's G100UL to comply with a 10-year-old deal they signed to settle a lawsuit over the sale of leaded avgas. CEH says their opposition to making the switch amounts to upending the certification process for new fuels by creating an "an alternative set of facts where equipment manufacturers, not the FAA, approve aviation fuels and that the FAA’s cursory review and approval of G100UL has led to its approval of an unsafe and untested fuel."

As we've reported at length, the FBOs and distributors were sued by CEH in 2011 over the health impacts of lead in fuel and they settled the suit by agreeing to sell the first "commercially available" 100-octane fuel with less lead than the 0.56 percent used in 100LL. CEH says that fuel is G100UL, which has an FAA STC that covers all certified airplanes and is now being sold at two California airports. The signatories refused to sell the fuel, claiming it didn't have the industry acceptance needed for it to be a suitable replacement for 100LL. CEH filed an action to compel the court to enforce the original deal. The defendants filed a vigorous (more than 800 pages of documents) response and this latest salvo from CEH is its "reply to the response."

In that reply, CEH claims most of that mountain of affidavits and other materials are essentially irrelevant because the fundamentals of the agreement have been met because G100UL is approved by the FAA and has been produced in sufficient quantities to ensure a reliable supply to the distributors and ultimately the FBOs. That is and should be the end of the inquiry. "Given that an unleaded fuel is approved and Commercially Available, Settling Defendants must sell it," CEH said in its reply. "Nevertheless, Settling Defendants together with their industry partners, raise a host of hypothetical issues that are flatly wrong and fall far outside the scope of what triggers the requirement for Settling Defendants to sell fuel with a lower lead concentration under the Consent Agreement." The State Superior Court is scheduled to hear the case on Feb. 4.