_________________________

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING & COLLATERAL RELIEF

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

Petitioner

1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 600 

Washington, DC 20036-2002

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SEEKING THE REGULATION OF

LEAD EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT

UNDER § 231 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

October 3, 2006

Pursuant to the Right to Petition Government Clause contained in the First Amendment

of the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Clean Air Act, 

petitioner files this petition for Rulemaking and Collateral Relief with the Administrator and 

respectfully requests him to undertake the following duties:

(1) Make a finding that lead emissions from general aviation aircraft endanger public

health and welfare and issue a proposed emissions standard for lead from general

aviation aircraft under § 231 (a) (2) (A) of the Clean Air Act; alternatively, 

(2) If the Administrator believes that insufficient information exists to make such a

finding, commence a study and investigation of the health and environmental impacts

of lead emissions from general aviation aircraft, including impacts to humans, 

animals and ecosystems, under § 231 (a) (2) of the Clean Air Act, and issue a public

report on the findings of the study and investigation. 

1
BACKGROUND

On September 30, 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for proposed amendments to existing emission 

standards for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for newly certified commercial aircraft gas turbine

engines with rated thrust greater than 26.7 kilonewtons (kN).  68 Fed. Reg. 56, 226.  On 

December 12, 2003, on behalf of Bluewater Network, (currently a division of Friends of the

Earth), the Golden Gate University Environmental Law and Justice Clinic commented on the

proposed rule, as well as on the lack of regulation of lead emissions from general aviation 

aircraft.  Regarding the latter issue, Bluewater argued that the combination of the lack of a

threshold for safe lead exposure and the relatively high proportion of air lead pollution from

general aviation aircraft should trigger the EPA’s duties under Clean Air Act §231 to determine

that lead emissions from this source endanger the public health and welfare.

1

  Bluewater also 

noted that subpopulations living in the vicinity of general aviation airports, as well as aircraft

workers and passengers, may be at particular risk for lead exposure.

2

In November 2005, the EPA issued a response. The EPA claimed that there is insufficient

information to enable the agency to determine that aircraft lead emissions may reasonably be

anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.

3

  The EPA further maintained that since a

suitable, safe, unleaded aviation fuel has not been developed, regulating leaded aviation fuel

would ground all general aviation aircraft, resulting in severe economic repercussions to the

businesses that use the craft.

4

Despite the volumes of studies pointing to the hazards of lead, the extent of the EPA’s

actions to address this problem have been to merely encourage the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to develop an unleaded aviation gasoline and to pursue voluntary 

initiatives to reduce the use of lead in aviation gasoline, while collecting information when 

possible.

5

  The EPA is reluctant to take a more assertive stance on the problem of lead emissions

from general aviation aircraft.  Further reluctance is no longer appropriate, given the facts below.

PETITIONER

Petitioner FRIENDS OF THE EARTH is an environmental advocacy organization 

founded in 1969, with approximately 30,000 members across the nation.  It’s mission is to 

protect the planet from environmental degradation, including protecting clean air and healthy 

communities.  BLUEWATER NETWORK is a non­profit organization founded in 1996 that

works to protect air and water quality from harm caused by the transportation sector.  Bluewater

Network works to end environmental damage from cars, crafts, vessels, and to protect human 

1 Letter from Golden Gate University Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, on behalf of Bluewater Network, to the

U.S. EPA (December 12, 2003). 2 Id. 3 Emission Standards and Test Procedures for Aircraft and Aircraft Engines: Summary and Analysis of Comments,

US EPA (November 2005) [EPA Comments] at 45. 4 Id. at 42. 5 Id. at 43.

2
health and the planet by reducing dependence on fossil fuels.  In March, 2005, Friends of the

Earth merged with Bluewater Network.  As a result of the merger, Bluewater Network is now a

division of Friends. 

STATEMENT OF LAW

On behalf of Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Law and Justice Clinic submits this

petition to the EPA under the authority granted by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 

553. 

In 1970, Congress gave the EPA authority through Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7571, to issue proposed emission standards when it determines that aircraft

emissions from any class of aircraft engines “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public

health or welfare.”  Indeed, the EPA itself has confirmed that it has the authority to do so.6  EPA

must consult with the FAA regarding these standards.  Section 231(a)(2)(B)(i).  Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. § 44714, the FAA shall prescribe fuel standards to control or eliminate aircraft emissions

that the EPA decides under section 231 endanger the public health or welfare.  Only if the

consultation determines that the proposed changes “would significantly increase noise and 

adversely affect safety,” shall the changes not take effect.  Section 231(a)(2)(B)(ii).

ARGUMENT

EPA action regarding lead in general aviation aircraft is long overdue.  Studies

increasingly show that lead in any quantity threatens the public welfare. Lead emissions from

general aviation aircraft constitute a substantial proportion of all current lead air emissions.  

Congress gave EPA the authority through Section 231(a)(2)(A) to issue proposed emission 

standards when it determines that aircraft emissions “endanger public health or welfare.”  Based 

on the facts presented below, the petitioner contends that sufficient data exists to conclude that

lead emissions from general aviation aircraft endanger the public heath and welfare, thus creating 

a duty for the EPA to propose emission standards.  In the alternative, sufficient data regarding 

the dangers of airborne lead exist to commence a study concerning the extent of the health and 

environmental effects of general aviation lead emissions.  Failure to do so in either instance

would constitute arbitrary and capricious action under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706. 

I.   LEAD EXPOSURE IS HAZARDOUS TO HUMAN HEALTH

The EPA has repeatedly concluded that “lead is a very toxic element, causing a variety of

effects at low dose levels.”7 Numerous federal agencies, including the EPA, the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of

Health and Urban Development, have implemented regulations controlling lead content and use.

8

6 Id. at 5. 7 Lead Compounds Hazard Summary, U.S. EPA (April 1992, modified January 2000), available at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/lead.html 8 Toxicological Profile for Lead, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (September 2005) [Toxicological

Profile] at 14­17, available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf

3
  Acute high lead exposure can cause grave physiological consequences, including death 

and brain damage.

9

  The severity of lead exposure differs according to time and levels of

exposure, and is usually measured by blood lead levels.

10

  However, blood lead levels reflect

only recent exposure to lead.11  Of the lead that is retained in the human body, most is ultimately 

deposited in the bones.

12

  The inert lead deposited in bones can later reenter the blood stream in 

periods of physiological stress, pregnancy, lactation, chronic disease, and old age.

13

   This

reentry is exacerbated by calcium deficiency, because lead can inhibit or mimic the actions of

calcium. 14  Hence, lead can affect an organism long after initial exposure. 

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), “lead 

could potentially affect any system or organs in the body.”15  Common targets for lead toxicity 

are the cardiovascular, renal, and nervous systems.

16

  The most common cardiovascular effect is

increased blood pressure.

17

  At the same time, lead exposure may compromise the renal system, 

especially by depressing the kidneys’ glomerular filtration rate.

18

  However, the most sensitive

target for lead toxicity is the nervous system, resulting in malaise, forgetfulness, irritability, 

weakness, headache, and impaired concentration.

19

The pervasive and multi­faceted hazards of lead are well documented.  Therefore, as the

Agency for Toxic Substances states, it is important to interdict all lead exposures.

20

II.    STUDIES INCREASINGLY SHOW THAT NO LEVEL OF LEAD IS SAFE.

The health hazards of lead are especially worrisome because studies increasingly show

that no exposure to lead is safe.  The levels at which adverse health effects are believed to occur

have been revised downward several times in recent regulatory history.

21

 For example, in 1972, 

the blood level considered safe for children was 40 mcg/dL.

22

  More recently, the EPA defined 

the blood level of 10 mcg/dL as the “concentration of concern,” but emphasized that this

standard is not a threshold below which safety may be assured since scientific studies do not

indicate any clear toxicity threshold for lead.23

9 Lead Toxicity Environmental Alert, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (October 1992,

revised October 2000) [ATSDR Report] at 16, available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/lead/docs/lead.pdf 10 Id. 11 Id. at 14. 12 Id. 13 Id. at 15. 14 Id. 15 Toxicological Profile at 21. 16 Id. at 8, 21. 17 Id. at 27. 18 Id. at 28. 19 ATSDR Report at 17. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children: A Statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(October 1991), available at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/publications/books/plpyc/contents.html. 23 Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead, Final Rule, U.S. EPA (January 5, 2001), 66 Fed. Reg. 1206.

4
 Indeed, recent studies show that lead blood levels well below 10 mcg/dL are associated 

with increases in serious health effects in both children and adults.

24

  For example, increases in 

chronic kidney disease have been observed in hypertensive adults at blood lead levels of between 

2.5 to 3.8 �g/dL.

25

Children have generally been shown to absorb a larger fraction than adults of both 

inhaled and ingested lead, 26 and are more sensitive to lead induced toxicity than adults,

27

especially in relation to the nervous system.  At lower levels of exposure, lead may compromise

cognitive development and cause learning disabilities and lower IQ levels.

28

  For example, 

Lanphear et. al. estimated a decline of 6.2 points in full scale IQ for an increase in blood lead 

levels from <1 to 10 �g/dL.

29

  Low­level exposure has also been associated with neurological

effects such as hearing impairment and peripheral nerve dysfunction.30

New data increasingly shows that health effects occur in both children and adults at low

levels of lead exposure.  Therefore, to protect the health and welfare of the public, especially of

children, the EPA should strive to eliminate every source of lead to which the public could be

exposed. 

III. LEAD EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT POSE HUMAN

HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS. 

The use of leaded aviation gasoline results in the emission of both organic and inorganic

lead­containing compounds.  Organic alkyl lead compounds such as tetraethyl lead (“TEL”) are

emitted into the air mostly from fueling operations.  TEL decomposes fairly quickly to inorganic

forms of lead once dispersed into the air, water, or soil.  For example, the half­life of TEL in 

summer atmospheres is approximately 2 hours and is on the order of several days in winter

atmospheres.

31

Inorganic forms of lead enter the environment from the decomposition of organic alkyl

lead compounds, and more significantly, as tailpipe emissions from the gasoline combustion 

process.  Inorganic forms of lead are highly persistent in the environment.  Wet or dry deposition 

removes lead particles from the atmosphere and deposits them on soil and water surfaces.

32

  Lead 

emitted as particles may remain airborne for up to ten days and may thus be transported far from

the original source.

33

24 ATSDR Report at 17. 25 Muntner, P.; He, J.; Vupputuri, S.; Coresh, J.; Batuman, V. (2003) Blood lead and chronic kidney disease in the

general United States population: results from NHANES III. Kidney Int. 63: 1044­1050. 26ATSDR Report at 9. 27 Toxicological Profile at 9. 28 Toxicological Profile at 25. 29 Lanphear, B. P. (2005) Childhood lead poisoning prevention: too little, too late. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 293:

2274­2276. 30 ATSDR Report at 17. 31 PBT National Action Plan for Alkyl­Lead, U.S. EPA Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Pollutants (PBT)

Program (June 2002) [PBT Action Plan] at 13. 32 Id. 33 Id.

5
As a result of the use of leaded aviation gasoline, humans and ecological receptors at or

near general aviation airports may be exposed to elevated levels of lead.  The main routes of

human exposure to lead compounds at or near general aviation airports in urban areas include: (i)

inhalation of airborne organic and inorganic lead, (ii) ingestion of lead­contaminated dusts

formed via deposition of airborne lead, and (iii) ingestion of contaminated home­grown fruits

and vegetables (also via particulate deposition).  In farming areas, additional exposure could 

result from the contamination of food­animals via lead deposition onto soils, forage areas, and 

farm ponds. 

Inhalation and ingestion exposures are likely to occur to workers, pilots, passengers and 

other individuals at general aviation airports.  Inhalation, ingestion, garden­produce and other

indirect exposures are likely to occur to residents and others located on the periphery of general

aviation airports. 

In addition, lead emissions from general aviation airports may also accumulate in local

and regional surface waters:

Transport of lead to surface waters can occur through direct deposition from the

atmosphere, via industrial waste water discharge, or as runoff (e.g., lead associated with 

suspended solids in the erosional process) [...] Inorganic lead may bioconcentrate in 

some aquatic animals, especially benthic organisms such as bottom feeding fish and 

shellfish such as mussels....34

In this way, lead from general aviation airports is likely to contaminate sources of drinking water

and fishing resources, and could also cause various adverse ecological impacts.

While the greatest source of lead air emissions comes from stationary sources like lead 

smelters, general aviation is the one major mobile source, constituting at least 13% all lead air

emissions.

35

  Other mobile sources of airborne lead emissions are recreational marine vehicles

and racing automobiles.

36

  The latter of these lead sources is being phased out.  The National

Association of Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) has announced that by 2008, NASCAR will

switch to unleaded gasoline.

37

  This is the result of the EPA’s 2002 Persistent, Bioaccumulative, 

and Toxic Pollutants (PBT) Action Plan, in which it identified the removal of lead from

NASCAR vehicle fuel as its key priority over the next five years.

38

  The EPA has not made the

removal of lead from general aviation fuel a similar priority even though, in 1996, U.S. refineries

produced over 3,000 times as many gallons of aviation gasoline as NASCAR fuel used in 1998.39

EPA’s concern with removing lead from NASCAR fuel indicates the importance of

removing mobile source lead emissions, and yet EPA has not acted to address lead fuel use in 

general aviation fuel.  General aviation constitutes a substantially higher percentage of lead air

34 Id. 35 National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report, U.S. EPA (2003). 36 PBT Action Plan at 7. 37 Viv Bernstein, NASCAR Plans to Switch to Unleaded Fuel in ‘08, New York Times, January 20, 2006, at 2. 38 PBT Action Plan at 3. 39 Id. at 25.

6
emissions than auto racing.  In 2002, general aviation comprised 125.5 annual tons, or about

88% of lead from all mobile sources.

40

  This percentage will increase with NASCAR adopting 

unleaded fuel.  Now that leaded gasoline use in NASCAR has been addressed, it is time for the

EPA to focus on the more important task of removing lead from general aviation fuel.

IV.  SAFE UNLEADED ALTERNATIVES TO AVIATION GASOLINE EXIST AND

SHOULD BE BETTER UTILIZED. 

As described below, contrary to the EPA’s assertions,

41

 safe unleaded alternatives to 

aviation gasoline do exist.  Since 1999, the research and development process has produced 

unleaded fuels that have received approval from the FAA for current use.  Tens of thousands of

low­performance aircraft have received supplemental type certificates allowing them to run on 

unleaded automobile gasoline (commonly referred to as “mogas” in the aviation community).  

Additionally, a mogas alternative, 82UL, has been developed for use by some low­performance

planes.  The combination of these two fuels can be utilized by nearly seventy percent of all

piston­driven aircraft.  Additionally, the FAA allows a select number of planes to run on an 

ethanol based aviation fuel (AGE85); the remaining thirty percent of general aviation planes can 

potentially use this unleaded gasoline.   

A.  A LARGE PORTION OF GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT CAN

CURRENTLY USE UNLEADED AUTOMOBILE GASOLINE SAFELY

ONCE ISSUED A SUPPLEMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATE BY THE FAA.

Seventy percent of general aviation aircraft are capable of running on mogas upon being 

issued a supplemental type certificate (STC).

42

To ensure the production of safe aircraft, the FAA puts all planes through a certification 

process.  Once the FAA determines that an aircraft meets the prescribed safety standards, it

shows its approval by issuing a “type certificate.”  49 U.S.C.S. § 44704(a)(1).  For alterations to 

an airplane or its engine, each applicant must show that the changes comply with the

aforementioned safety standards.  14 C.F.R. § 21.115 (2006).  When the FAA confirms

compliance, they issue a “supplemental type certificate.”  49 U.S.C.S. § 44704(b)(1).  Since

changes in fuel usage involve the plane’s engine, approval to begin using automotive gasoline

(mogas) rather than aviation gasoline (avgas) requires the applicant to obtain an STC.  Indeed, 

the FAA has issued STCs for airplanes and engines using mogas since 1982,43 including over

40,000 through the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).

44

As long as pilots use mogas in accordance with their STC, safety is no more an issue than 

with avgas.  The FAA first issued a STC approving the use of mogas twenty­four years ago.  

40 National Emissions Inventory for Lead, U.S. EPA (2002). 41 EPA Comments at p.42. 42 Michael A. Dornheim, 100LL Demise Expected Over Next Decade, Aviation Week & Space Technology, July 23,

2001, at 51. 43 Id. 44 Experimental Aircraft Association, http://www.eaa.org/education/fuel/index.html (last visited March 13, 2006).

7
Since then, the FAA has determined that aircraft using mogas are as safe as those running on 

avgas:

Autogas

45

 use has been extensively compared, tested, and analyzed.  Autogas has been

shown to be an acceptable alternative to avgas for airplanes and engines approved for

such use.  Airplanes and engines approved for autogas have met the FAA certification 

requirements for engine detonation, engine cooling, fuel flow, hot fuel testing, fuel

system compatibility, vapor lock, and performance....In summary, there are numerous

studies and technical reports available comparing autogas to avgas for use in certified 

airplanes and engines.  The service history for airplanes and engines using autogas has

been good and is comparable to avgas.

46

A plane’s mogas STC specifies which grade of mogas it can use.  Many of these STCs

allow the use of regular grade unleaded mogas in place of Grade 80/87 avgas.

47

  However, some

allow premium grade mogas, usually for planes that would otherwise run on 91/96 or 100LL

avgas.

48

  Given these specifications, the FAA,

49

 Experimental Aircraft Association,50 and other

aviation commentators

51

 emphasize that pilots should strictly adhere to the terms of their STCs.  

Nonetheless, since STCs allow the use of a variety of grades of mogas to replace multiple grades

of avgas, the number of general aviation aircraft able to run on mogas is greatly increased. 

In 2000, the FAA Small Airplane and Engine and Propeller Directorate approved the use

of another unleaded fuel, 82Unleaded (82UL) gasoline, as an alternative to mogas.

52

  82UL is a

variation of mogas designed specifically for piston­driven aircraft, produced from the same fuel

stocks but with fewer of the additives found in automobile gasoline.

53

  Planes can use it with 

STCs that approve the use of mogas with an octane rating of 82 or less.  While 82UL is not yet

commercially available, it has already completed the FAA’s rigorous approval process.  Given 

its certification, 82UL could be phased into production if needed. 

From a cost standpoint, increased utilization of mogas would lead to significant savings

for general aviation pilots.  Nationally, 100LL avgas averages $3.72 per gallon with the price

exceeding six dollars in several areas.

54

  By comparison, mogas pumped at airports averages just

$2.77 per gallon with a high of four dollars in only one region.

55

  Gasoline pumped from the

neighborhood station costs even less: the national average is $2.36 per gallon with the price

45 In aviation circles, “Autogas” and “Mogas” are used interchangeably. 46 Letter from Michael Gallagher, Manager of the FAA Small Airplane Directorate, to Earl Lawrence, Executive

Director of the Experimental Aviation Association (June 4, 1998), available at

http://www.eaa.org/education/fuel/letter.pdf 47 FAA Revised Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin, April 5, 2000, available at

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/saib/media/CE­00­19R1.htm (last visited March 15, 2006). 48 Id. 49 Supra note 46. 50 Supra note 44. 51 John Ruley, Avgas vs. Autogas, May 5, 2004, http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/187232­1.html. 52 Supra note 47. 53 Id. 54 AirNav, http://www.airnav.com/fuel/report.html (last visited March 13, 2006). 55 Id.

8
falling between $2.05 and $2.93.56

  Based on the average prices, a pilot would save ninety­five

dollars for every one hundred gallons of fuel bought at the airport; the savings increases to 

$141.00 when purchased at a gas station.   

Increasing the use of mogas in aircraft would prove highly beneficial to the public

generally and to general aviation pilots specifically.  If all seventy percent of those planes able to 

use mogas did so, it would result in a thirty percent reduction of overall avgas use.

57

  Such a

decrease would result in the removal of more than thirty­seven tons of lead emissions from the

air and a significant overall diminution of lead exposure to the American people.

58

  Similarly, 

less avgas use would reduce the more direct lead exposure experienced by residential

communities adjacent to airports as well as pilots and airport personnel, in addition to reducing 

the cost of operating general aviation aircraft.  With the FAA already deeming mogas use safe

through its certification program, an exercise of the EPA’s section 231 authority would prompt

the FAA to expand a program already in existence.  Increased issuance of mogas STCs would 

have a positive impact on the general aviation community and the public at large. 

B.  HIGH-PERFORMANCE AIRCRAFT WITH PROPER CERTIFICATION

CAN SAFELY RUN ON ETHANOL BASED FUEL. 

In April 1999, the FAA issued STCs for aircraft and engines to use Aviation Grade

Ethanol 85 (AGE85).

59

  AGE85 is an unleaded, “’high­performance, high­octane fuel ­­ just

what newer, high­performance, high­compression aircraft engines need [­­]’” designed 

specifically to replace 100LL fuel.

60

While high­performance aircraft comprise only thirty percent of general aviation planes, 

they consume nearly seventy percent of the total avgas due to the increased energy needs of their

200+ horsepower engines.  Though AGE85 is not widely available at present, current and 

continued expansion of commercial ethanol production facilities

61

 could potentially cover the

fuel needs of most high­performance engines, resulting in the removal of nearly eighty­eight tons

56 GasWatch, http://www.gaswatch.info/ (last visited March 13, 2006). 57 Supra note 42. Generally speaking, approximately 70% of general aviation aircraft are considered “lowperformance.” According to 14 C.F.R. § 61.31(f) (2006), planes with engines of greater than 200 Horsepower are

classified as “high­performance” and require additional pilot training. Only 30% of general aviation aircraft are

high­performance; however they use nearly 70% of consumed avgas. 58 2002 National Emissions Inventory for Lead, U.S. EPA (General Aviation emitted 125.5 tons of lead in 2002). 59 STCs are available for the Cessna 180 and 182s as well as the O­470 and UTS engines. Additionally, dual­fuel

STCs are available for the same aircraft and engines. STCs for the Lycoming IO­360 and Pratt and Whitney R­1340

are in progress. See http://www.age85.org/STCs.htm (last visited March 15, 2006). 60 At Last, A Low­Cost Aviation Gasoline That Gets The Lead Out, Science Daily, July 20, 1999, available at

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990720083151.htm (last visited March 15, 2006). 61 At the end of 2005, construction of new refineries and ongoing expansions were expected to add as much as 1.5

billion gallons of annual ethanol production capacity in the United States. Since 2001, U.S. ethanol production has

increased by 126%. Renewable Fuels Association, From Niche to Nation: Ethanol Industry Outlook 2006, at 2,

available at http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/pdf/outlook/outlook_2006.pdf (last checked April 5, 2006). Also,

Richard Branson, owner of Virgin Atlantic, recently announced plans to invest $400 million in ethanol fuel factories

for use in his planes and trains; $30­ $40 million of the initial investment will be made in the United States as soon

as this year. Jason Niss, Branson to put $400 million into making ‘green’ fuel, London Independent, April 2, 2006,

News at 1.

9
of lead emissions.  Additionally, since dual­fuel STCs are also available,

62 blends of AGE85 

with 100LL, while not as substantial as exclusive AGE85 use, could still result in significant lead 

emission decreases.  As 100LL availability decreases and AGE85 availability increases, blending 

of the two offers a viable solution for a transition from one fuel to the other. 

As with mogas, AGE85 offers significant cost­benefits to general aviation pilots.  

Nationally, 100LL avgas averages $3.72 per gallon.63 When the FAA first approved AGE85 in 

2000, pure ethanol cost $0.95 per gallon and AGE85 was expected to sell for $1.10 per gallon; a

16% increase over the initial price.

64

  Today, ethanol averages $2.39 per gallon in the Midwest

65

and $2.45 nationally.

66

  Calculating the price as a 16% increase over the averages, AGE85 would 

cost from $2.77 to $2.84.  That amounts to a cost­savings of $88 to $95 for every one­hundred 

gallons of fuel. 

Recently, a Brazilian aircraft company, Embraer, developed and received type

certification (from the Brazilian equivalent of the FAA) for the ethanol fueled Ipanema

cropduster.  This plane is the first “series production aircraft in the world coming out of the

factory certified for flying with ethanol.”67  In addition to running exclusively on ethanol fuel, 

the new engine provides a five percent boost in power, improving takeoff, climbing rate, speed, 

and maximum altitude.

68

  The reception of the Ipanema has been overwhelmingly positive:

Scientific American named it one of the top­50 worldwide inventions of 2005.69

While the Ipanema is not yet approved for use in the United States, it is important to note

that the plane’s engine is an altered version of the American made Lycoming motor,

70

 suggesting 

that it would be either relatively easy to develop an American version or quickly adopt the

Brazilian one for use in the United States.  Furthermore, the French company Aero­Alcohol has

developed a kit to convert non­ethanol Ipanema planes for ethanol use.  This development has

attracted the attention of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) which hopes

to consolidate international ethanol standards using the Ipanema’s specifications as a starting 

point.

71

AGE85 has already received approval for use by the FAA as a safe and viable fuel even 

though it is not yet available nationwide.  With aviation­related ethanol fuel research on the rise

at the FAA Hughes Technical Center, in Brazil, and elsewhere, and with American ethanol

62 Supra note 59. 63 Supra note 54. 64 Perspectives: A newsletter covering the research, demonstration and education projects of the Iowa Energy

Center, January/February 2000, available at

http://www.energy.iastate.edu/news/newsletters/perspectives/JanFeb2000.pdf (last visited March 31, 2006). 65 State average fuel ethanol rack prices, available at http://ethanolmarket.com/fuelethanol.html (last visited March

31, 2006). 66 Fuel ethanol terminal market price history – 18 months, available at

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/graphs/ethanol_18­month.html (last visited March 31, 2006). 67 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/10/embraerrsquos_e.html (last visited March 15, 2006). 68 Id. 69 James E. Hardwick, The Ethanol­Fueled, Brazilian­Built Ipanema Agricultural Aircraft, Business & Commercial

Aviation, February 1, 2006. 70 E­mail from a Brazilian Diplomat (March 14, 2006) (on file with author). 71 Id.

10
production increasing and President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address encouraging the

industry’s growth, use of AGE85 should increase in the near future.  This will provide unleaded 

aviation fuel for high­performance aircraft of a similar quality to avgas. 

Finally, European development of a diesel­cycle jet fuel general aviation engine offers

yet another possible solution: jet fuel is unleaded and readily available at airports in Europe.

72

CONCLUSION

As described above, nearly seventy percent of general aviation aircraft can safely use

either standard unleaded automobile gas or 82UL gas.  Switching to these alternatives would 

reduce lead emissions from general aviation aircraft by almost 38 tons.  Likewise, the ethanolbased AGE85, which has received FAA approval, has the potential to be used by the remaining 

thirty percent of planes, eliminating an additional 87.85 tons of lead emissions. 

These are just some of the current alternatives to leaded avgas.  As energy independence

becomes a more prevalent societal and economic issue, alternative fuel research is increasing and 

bound to produce even more choices.  In such a dynamic environment, the EPA has the

opportunity to adopt rules forcing this technology ­­ authority the EPA agrees it has under

section 231.73  Indeed, since mogas, 82UL, and AGE85, are already in existence and have the

approval of the FAA, the EPA does not even need to force technology development: it only 

needs to encourage its present utilization.  

WHEREFORE, petitioners request that the Administrator:

(1) Make a finding that lead emissions from general aviation aircraft endanger public

health and welfare and issue a proposed emissions standard for lead from general

aviation aircraft under § 231 (a) (2) (A) of the Clean Air Act; or, in the alternative, 

(2) Commence a study and investigation of the health and environmental impacts of lead 

emissions from general aviation aircraft, including impacts to humans, animals and 

ecosystems, under § 231 (a) (2) of the Clean Air Act, and issue a public report on the

findings of the study and investigation. 

As required by law, the EPA is required to give this petition prompt consideration.  

Additionally, under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency action includes a failure to act.  

Therefore, petitioners request a substantive response to this petition within 180 calendar days.

74

72 Michael A. Taverna, SMA Diesel Revs Up, Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 24, 2004, at 68. 73 Supra note 3 at 4 (EPA conclusion that section 231 does not preclude a technology forcing standard). 74 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a) (requiring notice of 180 days prior to commencing an action for unreasonable delay).

11
________________________ ________________________

Respectfully submitted, 

      Damir Kouliev David Zizmor

Golden Gate University School of Law

Environmental Law and Justice Clinic

536 Mission Street

San Francisco, CA  94105­2968 

STUDENT CLINICIANS FOR PETITIONER

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

12