Congress subsidizes unleaded aviation fuel to cut lead exposure for pilots and communities.

What it does

This bill creates a federal tax credit for aviation fuel producers who make unleaded aviation gasoline, paying $1.25 per gallon in 2026, declining to $1.05 by 2030. The credit applies only to fuel meeting federal aviation standards, produced in the U.S., and sold to commercial operators or retail distributors. The bill aims to incentivize the replacement of leaded aviation fuel (which still contains toxic tetra-ethyl-lead) with unleaded alternatives, and requires a GAO study to assess whether the credit's cost savings reach consumers.

Why we flagged it

The bill uses a tax credit (subsidy) to incentivize producers to switch to unleaded aviation fuel, addressing a documented public-health problem (lead exposure). The mechanism is transparent but the benefit to consumers is contingent on producer behavior.

What the text implies

• The credit declines from $1.25 to $1.05 per gallon over five years, creating a cliff at end-2030; producers may stockpile or cease production if no extension is enacted, potentially reversing the fuel transition.
• The bill does not cap total credit expenditure or set a production volume limit, creating open-ended fiscal exposure; cost to the Treasury is unspecified.
• The GAO study (due one year post-enactment) may reveal that producers are not passing savings to end-users, but the bill contains no enforcement mechanism or clawback if savings are captured by producers.
• Leaded aviation fuel remains legal and in use; the credit incentivizes but does not mandate the transition, leaving the toxic fuel in circulation indefinitely unless producers voluntarily switch.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Unleaded aviation fuel reduces lead exposure—a documented neurotoxin—for pilots, mechanics, and communities near airports. The tax credit incentivizes a public-health transition. However, the benefit depends on whether producers pass savings to consumers; the GAO study signals uncertainty on this point, and the credit's cost to taxpayers is unquantified.

Who stands to gain

• aviation fuel producers and refiners
• aviation fuel distributors

Named in the bill

Internal Revenue Service, Secretary of Transportation, Comptroller General (GAO), aviation fuel producers, aircraft operators, fuel retailers

Where it stands

1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.

• Apr 17, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Apr 17, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

3 lobbying clients named this bill on 3 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,512,100 in lobbying spend. A filing names 21 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.

Robert Garcia, the sponsor, reported $652,299 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Association of Airport Executives — $1,172,100 on 1 filing
• Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association — $320,000 on 1 filing
• Southern Methodist University — $20,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.