The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is updating its Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant assurances to include a new mandate requiring continued access to 100-octane low lead (100LL) aviation gasoline at federally funded airports through at least Dec. 31, 2030—or until an FAA-approved unleaded alternative becomes widely available.
This does not solve the long term leaded fuel availability issue but will help for now.
I doubt there will be a long term leaded fuel solution. The only manufacturer of the lead additive has already announced their intention to get out of the lead business at 2030. Once that happens there will no longer be any choice but to use unleaded avgas.
And if the FAA did the same thing by mandating 94UL as a 2nd fuel some 40 years ago…
Manufacturers and overhaul shops and experimentals and training planes would have already solved the need for replacing 100LL.
The FAA … making simple sh$% … stuff … hard since 1958.
Sorry Matt, but there is more than one supplier of TEL in the world and there has been for some years now, so your statement isn’t factual at all.
Never mind all that, I just want to know what airport that is in the picture that has 100LL for $2.49/gallon!
Ah, the moldy carrot - it won’t help transition to UL fuel. Now, pair that with additional grants for airports that sell both, now you’re talking.
Lead is bad for engines and people.
GAMI produces an approved unleaded fuel; which works better than 100LL.
Avgas is a very profitable product for the present producers/distributors.
So; why this roadblock?
Money?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Innospec claims on their website that they are “the world’s only manufacturer of tetraethyl lead (TEL) products”. So if you know of other manufacturers of the additive, you’ll need to provide some evidence of that. The only “alternative” I’m aware of are apparently some manufacturers in China producing it illegally.
So then respond to the proposed changes with your suggestion.
Roadblocks?
The policy of “one fuel” is what drove the entire industry to design and support it’s products and components around 100LL for almost half a century. Roadblocks to change were thus cooked into the system.
As far as money, pilots who just dropped nearly $900K for a new Cirrus are going to be against losing 100LL so it’s not just producers/distributors.
GaryB beat me to it. A search of the internet shows only one non-clandestine producer of TEL (ie, Innospec). If you know of another one, please share the information with us. Otherwise, the claim of other legitimate TEL manufacturers is not credible.
That’s not the per gallon price. It’s per quart. Or maybe per teaspoon. At least that’s what my wallet feels like…
2.49 $ =iin 66 I was buying pump gas for my vw bus for .25 cents gallon . Renting a 150 wet for 8$ an hour 
Yeah, in ‘69 I worked as a mechanic in a full-serve gas station, sold hundreds of thousands of gallons at 26.9. But, was one of the highest paid there at $3.50 per, so it’s all relative!
Obviously the picture is a quite old file photo, or that airport will have a great deal of traffic with fuel prices at 2.47
I’m sorry, but I must be missing something here. The FAA seems to be saying that they will not allow any airport accepting government money to stop selling 100LL until there is a “readily available (and approved) unleaded substitute fuel”. Does GAMI 100UL not meet that definition?
The FAA says that the fuel has to be approved by the Administrator - check, (GAMI has full STC approval from the FAA).
It has to be able to be used in nearly all spark-ignition aircraft engines - check.
It has to meet an industry consensus standard or other standard approved by the Administrator - check (FAA’s STC standard).
It has to be “readily available” - check (~one million gallons ready to ship, plus a manufacturer standing by to make more).
Seems to me that the FAA is trying to do an end run on the state of California by threatening to take action against any airport or FBO that stops selling 100LL. The problem is that California (or any other state) has the legal authority to impose stricter environmental standards within their borders than those imposed by the federal EPA - you know, that states’ rights thing. And, since the Fed EPA has already issued a Finding of Endangerment against TEL, that gives the states the legal right to pursue such prohibitions. So, unless President Trump has issued an Executive Order overriding the Finding of Endangerment, the FAA is just putting airports and FBOs in a no-win situation. Sell 100LL in violation of California law or face legal action from a federal agency. I’m neither promoting GAMI’s fuel nor advocating for the early demise of 100LL. I’m simply pointing out that the FAA is, once again, trying to have it both ways. They want to control the process (through PAFI and EAGLE) but have already been outflanked - legally - through their own alternate procedure. As Larry S is fond of saying; “The FAA; making simple sh*t hard since 1958.”
To your point about the state of California being able to impose stricter environmental standards at federally funded airports, does that also apply to the interstate highway system, rail system, federal waterways?