Mr. Randall Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance and Field Operations Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC 20591

Transcription

1 Mr. Randall Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance and Field Operations Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC RE: EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION DOCUMENT TITLED FUEL AVAILABILITY AT AIRPORTS Dear Mr. Fiertz: The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before the Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA's over 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft and provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation and the military. Please accept the following comments on behalf of the NATA regarding the document titled Fuel Availability at Airports and authored by the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA). GENERAL COMMENTS NATA would like to begin our response to Fuel Availability at Airports by disagreeing with EAA s premise that the lack of availability of ethanol-free premium automotive gasoline (hereafter referred to as EF autogas) at public use airports somehow represents a failure on the part of the FAA to promote the provision of aeronautical services at public use airports and of those airports to ensure that the provision of those aeronautical services occurs without unjust discrimination. In support of its premise, EAA points to three specific items: 1. Language in FAA Order B and AC150/ that creates barriers to the sale of this fuel 2. Fuel distributer contracts that forbid FBOs from selling aviation fuel products other than 100LL and Jet A 3. Airport minimum standards that establish unreasonable standards such as mandating a specific fuel storage tank size and/or mandating the types of aviation fuel that must be sold

2 Page 2 of 5 EAA offers no further support or analysis of those points to establish that they do actually contribute to some failing on the part of the FAA or airport sponsors that is in need of remedy. The fact that a particular grade of alternative fuel is not readily available is not sufficient evidence that there is a problem in need of FAA action. The provision of aeronautical services at public use airports is ultimately an economic decision that is made by airport sponsors and individuals desiring to provide a specific service. Many factors, such as demand for a service, are evaluated in the decision making process. NATA believes that the current low level of availability of EF autogas is related to demand rather than some systemic issue with FAA guidance and airport sponsors minimum standards. The additional cost for a fuel provider to carry a second grade of piston engine fuel is great, and can include the cost of additional segregated storage, segregated filtration systems, segregated dispensing systems and additional manpower for quality control and fuel delivery. The aviation industry moved away from multiple grades of piston engine during the late 70s and 80s due to the cost and safety issues arising from a greater chance of misfueling. Since that time, the economics of production and delivery have continued to cause fuel providers to offer only one grade of aviation gasoline that is capable of meeting the performance requirements of all piston engine aircraft. EAA s document, Fuel Availability at Airports, does not demonstrate with any reasonableness that a problem, other than basic economics of aviation gasoline production and delivery, exists. NATA, therefore, believes that the suggested remedies contained in that document should not be implemented. The following section contains NATA s comments on the specific remedies suggested by EAA. Proposal 1 EAA proposes that the following two definitions be added to appendix Z of FAA Order B 1. Aviation Fuel Avgas, jet fuel, ethanol-free premium auto/mogas, diesel fuel, biofuel, or other fuel approved for aircraft powerplant use, including electric aircraft battery recharging/exchange facility 2. MoGas Automotive gasoline. Also referred to as autogas. Ethanol-blended mogas is not approved for use in type-certificated aircraft engines in accordance with FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) CE NATA sees no reason why these definitions would need to be added to appendix Z. Rather, NATA finds both of these definitions to be very confusing. NATA wonders why an aircraft battery exchange facility would need to be defined as aviation fuel. The addition of these

3 Page 3 of 5 definitions would provide no clarity on the terminology used in the body of the text of Order B and would more than likely create confusion that would later require more clarification. NATA asks that the FAA reject this proposal, Proposal 2 EAA proposes adding the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph of section 10.5 (a) of FAA Order B: If that same FBO serviced only Ultralight Vehicles, Light-Sport Aircraft, or Typecertificated aircraft which use autofuel, it would be unreasonable to establish a commercial aeronautical activity standard that would prevent the FBO (or SASO) from selling ethanolfree premium unleaded autofuel or ASTM 6227 standard avgas, or established a minimum fuel storage tank size that is unreasonable for the type of fuel sold. Section 10.5 deals with developing and applying minimum standards. The examples used in this section tend to be common and broadly based so they are effective for illustrative purposes. The example that EAA proposes to insert is very narrow, to the point that NATA questions whether any FBOs actually exist that only serve the numerated types of aircraft. NATA agrees that minimum standards should not be used to prevent the sale of a valid FAArecognized aviation fuel but believes that the proposed example adds nothing to the illustrative purpose of section NATA asks that the FAA reject this proposal. Proposal 3 EAA has proposed inserting text into the caption of a photograph on 11-1 of FAA Order B (for brevity the proposed text is being omitted from these comments). The text proposed by EAA has no place in FAA Order b. The purpose of Order b is to provide guidance to FAA personnel on interpreting and administering the various continuing commitments airport sponsors make to the U.S. Government when they accept grants of federal funds or federal property for airport purposes, not to advocate that airports make specific business decisions regarding how and by whom aviation fuel is sold at airports. The existing caption deals with an aircraft owner s right under federal grant assurances to self-service his own aircraft under reasonable regulation. The proposed text bears no relation to the section in which it would be placed (Text deals with self sufficiency of airports while section 11 focuses on self-service of aircraft) but is rather an exhortation for airports to allow the sale of EF autogas as a means to improve the airports self-

4 Page 4 of 5 sufficiency. Because the proposed text is irrelevant to the section in which it would be placed, NATA asks that the proposal be rejected. Proposal 4 EAA asks that the FAA add the term aviation fuel provider to the list of possible specialized aviation service operations (SASO). This proposal would significantly alter the FAA s policy regarding SASOs and the practice of requiring on-airport fuel providers also to provide additional services. Currently, nothing in the FAA s guidance prohibits an airport from allowing a SASO to provide fuel service (even though very few airports have chosen to exercise this option). This change, proposed by EAA, could have the effect of requiring airports to allow fuel sales to occur as a SASO, thus undoing decades of policy whereby the FAA allowed airports to require entities desiring to provide aviation fuel service to the public also to provide additional services such as maintenance, aircraft storage and parking. This bundling of services has helped to provide a greater range and higher quality of aeronautical service available to the public. Creating a right to provide fuel sales on a single service basis could both destroy the facilities that have invested billions to provide high quality service at our nations public use airports and prevent the development of a wide range of services at smaller airports in the future. NATA asks that this proposal be rejected. Proposal 5 & 6 EAA proposes that the definition of Commercial Self-Service Fueling be changed to incorporate operating as a SASO. Airport sponsors are currently allowed to require entities desiring to provide aviation fuel service to the public also to provide additional aeronautical services. NATA opposes any change to this policy for the reasons detailed under proposal 4. Proposal 6 EAA proposes that a photograph of a commercial self-service fuel storage tank along with a caption encouraging certain airports to install and operate similar tanks to sell EF autogas be inserted after section 17.7 on page 17.3 of FAA Order B. NATA cautions the FAA on adopting blanket statements that attempt to tell airport sponsors what is the best business approach for their airport. Business consulting is not the FAA s role and could lead to disastrous consequences if airports adopt the FAA s advice without performing their due diligence. NATA asks that this proposal be rejected.

5 Page 5 of 5 CONCLUSION Nothing in current FAA policy or guidance prevents the sale of EF autogas at public-use airports. EAA s document Fuel Availability at Airports assumes a false premise and then poses solutions where there is no problem. The reality of the situation is that the demand for EF autogas at public use airports has not risen to a level that would support the additional investments in tankage and manpower needed to provide a second grade of aviation gasoline. The proposals contained within Fuel Availability at Airports disregard the market force explanation for the lack of availability of EF autogas and propose to move the FAA from an enforcement role, in regards to the grant assurance, into the role of a business advisor that assumes to know the best course of action for all airports in regards to what grades of fuel should be offered. NATA completely opposes all of the proposals contained within EAA s document due to their lack of necessity and the strong possibility that they could seriously damage the existing level of services at public-use airports. NATA appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on these proposed changes. Sincerely, Michael France Director, Regulatory Affairs