1 / 8

The California Avgas Lawsuit

The California Avgas Lawsuit. Prop 65: Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. No person may knowingly discharge or release a listed chemical into water or into or onto land where it will pass into a source of drinking water

raine
Download Presentation

The California Avgas Lawsuit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The California Avgas Lawsuit

  2. Prop 65: Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 • No person may knowingly discharge or release a listed chemical into water or into or onto land where it will pass into a source of drinking water • No person may knowingly expose any individual to a significant amount of a listed chemical without first providing a “clear and reasonable warning” to such individual • Requires the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm

  3. Enforcement • Primarily State Attorney General • Local through District Attorneys • Allows citizens to sue for alleged violations after specific notification procedures • Citizen plaintiffs may collect 25% of state imposed civil penalties

  4. History • May 2011: Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed a notice of violation under Prop 65 alleging violation of Prop 65 by manufacturers, suppliers, and sellers of unleaded aviation gasoline • Notice alleged violation of both discharge and warning provisions • Coalition of cited FBOs formed a joint coalition defense group supported by NATA

  5. Federal Lawsuit • Coalition filed suit in Federal court against CEH and CA Attorney General seeking an injunction preventing CEH from filing a lawsuit under Prop 65 • Coalition lawsuit argued that the issue was federally preempted since avgas standards are approved by FAA and regulated by EPA • August 9 letter from 15 Congressmen to US DOT, FAA, and EPA seeking Federal intervention in the case • October: Federal court dismissed the action holding that the claims were not “ripe” and lack of jurisdiction over CEH

  6. CEH Lawsuit • CEH filed Prop 65 lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court in October the day following the federal dismissal • Named 58 parties: FBO’s, but not manufacturers or suppliers • 200 unnamed parties: entities who “distribute, sell, and/or use avgas in California” • Makes claims under the warning clause but not the discharge clause • Seeks fines and an injunction barring the sale of avgas in the state without clear and reasonable warnings

  7. Status • Case has not been heard in court • Attorneys for CEH and the FBO coalition have been negotiating settlement terms since January • January: AOPA meeting with the Governor’s Deputy General Counsel seeking state intervention • March: Confidential draft settlement agreement language circulated among the FBO coalition • March: Friends of the Earth sued EPA asking for an endangerment finding for leaded avgas

  8. What’s Next? • Depends on what plays out with the settlement, or.. • What happens in court • It is widely believed that if CEH wins a significant settlement, they will go hunting elsewhere

More Related