# EPA sets sights on general aviation aircraft

### Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

#### Daleandee

##### Well-Known Member
Go here and get your one hundred and three dollar STC (if you're on the list):

Now we just need some airports that have this stuff available ...

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Also, the FAA Administrator gets a say in the EPA emission standards.
That section gives virtually all authority to the head of EPA It just says the head of the FAA has to be "consulted".
A traffic cop "consults" with a motorist before writing a ticket. Still, few of us would claim we "had a say" in the matter.

The FCC consulted the FAA before permitting use of the new 5G freqs. We see how that worked.

#### 12notes

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
That section gives virtually all authority to the head of EPA It just says the head of the FAA has to be "consulted".
A traffic cop "consults" with a motorist before writing a ticket. Still, few of us would claim we "had a say" in the matter.

The FCC consulted the FAA before permitting use of the new 5G freqs. We see how that worked.

The FCC is funded by regulatory fees, they pretty much ignore everything and everyone to get more money, and have for decades. The EPA isn't funded that way. What they are responding to with this ruling was a petition filed in 2006 and a lawsuit filed in 2012 - the EPA has had plenty of time, with both parties in power, to do something, they've delayed pretty much as long as they can. This is not the behavior of an agency pushing this through, they were pretty much forced to do this analysis and waited until the last minute to do so. Although they are calling it an "endangerment finding", it's an analysis to see if it causes endangerment, not that they already found it does and are awaiting the final write up. So it certainly looks like the FAA Administrator has been consulted and listened to repeatedly through this process, or the EPA has it's own reasons for not wanting to touch this. End result is the same.

If they ban 100LL tomorrow and replace it with unleaded, I don't really care, and most pilots won't really be affected other than maybe having to spend $100 for an STC. All the actual (non-paperwork) problems are with a tiny fraction of planes, and it really only will cause a minor inconvenience to them when they refuel. #### Kyle Boatright ##### Well-Known Member Supporting Member If they ban 100LL tomorrow and replace it with unleaded, I don't really care, and most pilots won't really be affected other than maybe having to spend$100 for an STC. All the actual (non-paperwork) problems are with a tiny fraction of planes, and it really only will cause a minor inconvenience to them when they refuel.

It won't impact me, but the folks flying turbocharged aircraft or anything with a compression ratio above about 8.5:1 will have some work to do, including retarding timing and things like that which reduce power. If the engine has reduced power, now we're into some sort of recertification for those aircraft because they no longer fit the TC and don't perform the way the POH indicates. It is a huge problem for that segment of aviation.