TagAviation Fuel(72)

A 2023 federal audit found that the FAA has made progress confirming whether state and local governments comply with rules governing how aviation fuel tax revenue must be used, but has not yet verified that compliant jurisdictions are actually spending those funds on aviation-related purposes. Five jurisdictions remain out of compliance and have not faced enforcement action, largely due to congressional guidance encouraging the FAA to delay penalties. The audit resulted in three recommendations to strengthen FAA oversight and prevent airport revenue from being diverted to non-aviation purposes.

The Washington State Department of Revenue submitted this 2021 report to the Legislature updating the state's action plan regarding Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy on airport revenue. The FAA requires that any state or local taxes on aviation fuel enacted after December 30, 1987—including the hazardous substance tax, petroleum products tax, and local sales and use taxes—be spent exclusively on airport and aviation purposes. The report also recommends a method for separately tracking the amounts collected from these taxes on aviation fuel, developed in consultation with the Washington State Department of Transportation's Aviation Division.

This U.S. Department of Energy report, prepared by researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the University of Dayton, reviews the technical pathways for producing Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) — alternative fuels designed to reduce the environmental impact of commercial aviation. The report synthesizes findings from multiple expert workshops and evaluates various methods for converting renewable resources into jet fuel. It is intended to inform policymakers, fuel producers, and aviation stakeholders about viable routes toward cleaner air travel.

An analysis of FAA and industry data argues that the 'Greener Skies' flight procedure changes at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport provided negligible environmental benefits, saving only about 1.6 million gallons of fuel annually — less than one-third of one percent of the airport's total fuel consumption. Meanwhile, actual fuel use at Sea-Tac grew by hundreds of millions of gallons per year due to increased flight operations, completely overshadowing the claimed savings. The article contends that the program was essentially a public relations campaign that shifted noise burdens onto surrounding neighborhoods without delivering meaningful environmental improvements.

This section of U.S. transportation law restricts how airports receiving federal assistance can spend their revenues, generally limiting spending to airport capital and operating costs. However, it explicitly clarifies that nothing in the law prevents the use of airport revenue—on or off airport grounds—for noise mitigation purposes, which is directly relevant to communities affected by airport noise such as those near Sea-Tac. Additional provisions outline exceptions for prior financing agreements and the sale of private airports to public sponsors.