GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF 

## LAW

ENVIRONMENTAL 

### LAW AND

### JUSTICE CLINIC



### December 12,2003


### Attention Dacket 

### IDNo. OAR 2002-0030 

### By E-Mail: aircraRGkpa,aq & 

### By Facsimile: 202.566.1741
Hon. 

### Mike Leavitt 

### Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 

### Ariel Rios 

### Building 1200 

### Pennsylvania

### Ave.,NW 

### Washington,D.C. 

### 20460 

### Air Docket Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode; 6102T 

### 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

### NW Washington, R.C. 

### 20460 _-__~-rS----­ --/‘

~ ---I J



### Re: Proposed Rule: Control ofAu Pollution fiom 

### Aircraft 

### and Aircraft Engines, 68 

### Fed. Reg. 

### 56.226 (Sept. 30,20035


### Dear Administrator;


### On bebalf of

### Bluewater

### Network, the Environmental

### Law 

### and Justice Clinic 

### is 

### writing to comment on 

### the proposed rule for 

### Control of

### Air 

### Pollutionfiom Atcraft and AircraftEngines, 68 

### Fed. Reg. 

### 56,226 (Sept. 30,2003). 

### Bluewater

### is a 

### national environmental 

### organization

### with members 

### inall fif@ 

### states. Bluewater’s

### mission, among others, 

### is to championinnovative solutions to 

### protect the nation’s environment 

### and ecosystems. Bluewater promotes 

### policy changes 

### in government

### and indusw to 

### reduce fossil 

### fuel use 

### and to 

### eradicate other 

### causes of 

### air and water pollurion. Bluewater

### has largely 

### focusedits 

### work for the last 

### eight years, for 

### exqle,0x1 

### reducing emissions from mobile sources 

### and fuels. 

### Bluewater requests EPA to strengthenits proposedregulations on NOx 

### and take 

### additional actions to 

### reduce 

### aircraftemissions, 

### as follows:
1

- 

### EPA should propose 

### technology-forcing regulations governing NOx 

### emissions, instead of 

### adopting regulationsthat 94%of 

### all comercia1 engines 

### currently 

### in production already meet or 

### exceed.

~lLlNG&DRESS: 536 MISSION STlZlZET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2968 OFP~CES; 62 FIRST STREET, SUITE 240 SAN FRANCISCO, CA PHUNE: (415) 442-6647.FAX: (415) 896-2450003

Page 2 December 12,2003 EPA Adminis-tor Proposed Aircraft Emissions Standatds

2. 

### EPA should regulate emissions 

### korn general 

### aviation

### and military aircraft 

### and aircraft engines, instead of exempting them 

### from regulation.

3. 

### EPA should regulate already certified, newly manufactured engines, instead of exempting 

### them.

4. 

### In addition to thg action on 

### NOx emissions, 

### EPA should revise emissions standards for hydrocarbons, 

### which were last revised 

### in 1.982. 

### The need is particularly awte 

### since the 

### 1982 rulemaking relaxed the hydrocarbons standards. 

### 5, EPA 

### should also make a decision under to section 

### 231 ofthe Clean AL Act, 42 

### U.S.C. 

## 5 7571, that lead 

### (Pb) emissions from aircraft endanger the public 

### health or welfare, so that 

### the Federal Aviation Administration 

### would be required to control or eliminate these emissions.


### LACK OF 

### NOx STRINGENCY 

### IN PROPOSED 

### STANDARDS

EPA is required to 

### issue proposed aircraft 

### emissions standards with sufficientlead time “to permit the development 

### and application 

### ofthe requisite techn0l0gy.” 

### Section23 

### 1of the Clean

### Ah Act, 42 

### U.S.C. fj 757 

### 1. 

### EPA fhu has authority to propose technology-forcingaircraft emissions standards. 

### EPA now 

### proposes, however, merely to “establish consistency between 

### US. and international standarb.” 68 Fed. Reg. 56,226,56226 

### (Sept. 

### 30,2003). That 

### is, the standards are not technology forcing: 94% of all engine models that are curren&ly in production exceed the proposed standards. Id. at 56,2442 n. 98.


### To make matters worse, total yearly 

### emission$will likely herease with EPA’s proposed standards, which are rate-based 

### and do 

### not mandate total tonnage 

### reductions. 

### Air travel 

### is predicted to increase, despite the 

### temporary setback 

### in air carrier 

### operations 

### following the tragic events of September 11,2001. Id. at 56,230-56,231 nn. 16 & 19. The 

### NOx emissions will likely increaseby about 

### IS, 000 tons per year from 1990 levels, evenjust at the airports in 

### tenmajor 

### urban areas. 

### Evaluation of Pollutant 

### Emissions mSm Subsonic Commercial Jet Aircrafi, 

### U.W. EPA Ofjk of 

### Air aad 

### Radiation (Apr. 19991, Table 3-2, available 

### at the 

### US. EPA website eleclronic docket

### page, 

### in Docket # OAR-2002-0030.’ 

### EPA is accordingly 

### carefil to

While that figure dbes 

### not 

### accomt for the setback

### h the pmjected grow of 

### air carrier operations, the 

### FAA does expect the demand,to recover 

### and then to ‘‘continue 

### a long-termtrend 

### of annual growth 

### in the United States.’’ 68 Fed. Reg. 

### at 56,230. 

### Even without the expected growth, airports are 

### a significantsources 

### of 

### air pollution. For example, 

### just the NOx emissions from 

### airports 

### within the South Coast 

### Air 

### QualityManagement District totaled out 

### 3,000tons per year in the early 

### 1990s. Enera 

### and Envirrmmental,Analysis, Lnc, hventory of Civil Aircraft 

### Emissions 

### for Twenty-Five Nonattainnient Areas, 

### 22-2 (1991) 

### [“EEA Inventory”] (cited

### in Michael 

### Gerard Green, Control of

### Air PolZutuntEmissions fromAircraftEngines; Local Impacts ofNationuZ Concern, 5 End.Law. 513 (Feb. 1999) [(CGreen”’] at 520 n-25). 

### Of the 8,000 tons, about 80% ofthe emissions are estimatedto be 

### from Los Angeles International Axport. Green 

### at 520

### n.25. 

### In New 

### York 

### City., LaGuardia 

### and John

### F. Kennedy Internarioa91

### Airports were,GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY

Page 3 Decsmber 12,2003 EPA Administrator ProposedAircraft Emissions Stsndards

characterbe the proposed 

### rulemaking as locking in “recent or past technology gains:’ not as 

### ensuring total emissions reductions? 

### EPA’s timidity 

### in failing to propose technology-forcing standards

### is extremely unfortunate for severalreasom. First, 

### mobile source 

### pollution, which contributes substantiallyto ozone pollution, can 

### only be?effectively controlled

### by EPA. Even though 

### much ofthe NOx pollution 

### in metropolitan areas come 

### fiom mobile sources, state 

### and local entities cannot effectively regulate them. 

### See, eg.,sections 

### 116 and 209 

### ofthe Act, 

### 42 U.S.C. 

## $5 7416,7543: Only 

### EPA an effectivelyregulate- aircraft emissions,for example. See section233 ofthe Act, 

### 42

### U.S.C.

## 9 7573 (prohibitingindependent state and local regulations). 

### EPA should therefore act to the fullest extent it’cm 

### to control aircrafi polhtion.
As 

### EPA achowledges,

### many metropolitan 

### air 

### quality control regions are currently out 

### of attainmentwith 

### the one-hourozone standard and 

### will be out 

### of attainment 

### with the as-yet unimplementecl, eight-hour ozone standard. Based on data fiom 

### 1999 to 2001, 

### EPA expects 

### 11 1 million people will live in nonatkainment areas where they 

### will be forced to breathe 

### unhealthful air. 

### 68 Fed. Reg. at 56,234. In 

### addition, according to data not included 

### in EPA’s 

### analysis, 2002 

### was the worst smog year 

### in recent history,

### with 41 states 

### and the District 

### of Columbia exceeding the eight-hour ozone standards 

### nearly 9,000 times, a 90% increase 

### over 

### 2001 figures. 

### See Danger 

### in the Air: 

### Unln~dhy Levels ofSmog 

### in 2002, 

### US. PIRG Education Fund (ADg. 3, accordingto 

### a 1995 study, 

### among the five biggest sources of

### NOx. And, 

### in the early 1990s,the airports 

### in the New 

### York ConsalidaredMetropolitan Sratistical Area emitted over 23,000tons per 

### year of

### NOx. Id. at 522. 

### In Phoenix, airplane traffic constituted the largest source of industrial

### NOx emissions 

### in 1998. Id. at 

### 523.
Most 

### afthe NOx fiom airports is 

### fiom aircraft itself. For example, about 85% ofthe total NOx emissions 

### Born Logan Intarnationd 

### Airport were found to 

### be fiom &craft sources, See 

### “Controlling Airport-Related Air 

### Pollution,”Northeast States 

### for Coordinated Air 

### Use Management (June 2003), 

### available at 

### httD://www.nescaum.org (last ilccessed

### Dec, 8,2003).



### EPA cannot be satisfied

### with simply loclung 

### in technology standards, particularly 

### because landing/t&eoff emissions of NOx have increased as aircraft 

### engine efficiencyhas improved. See 

### Aviation 

### and the 

### Envkonment, Strategic Framewwk Needed to Address Challenges Posed

### by Aircraft 

### Emissions, 

### U,$. General Accounting Ofice (Feb. 2003), available 

### at 

### the 

### U.S.EPA website electronic 

### docket page, 

### in Docket # 

### OAR-2002-0030.

For example, mobile sources made up 

### about 82% 

### ofthe total 

### NOx emissions 

### in &the San Fmncisco

### Bay Area in 200 1 

### ad about 89% of

### NOx emissions in the 

### Los Angeles region in 

### 1997, See SanFrancisco 

### Bay Mea 

### Ozone Attainment 

### Plan

### for the 1-Hour

### National Ozone 

### Standard (Oct. 24, ZOOl), available at 

### httD://www.brtaclmdnov/pIn/Plarrs/plans oz 2001 .asp (last accessed 

### Dee. 9, 2003), and the 

### California South Coast

### Air District’s 2003 

### Air Quality Management Plan 

### (Aug. 1? 2003) available at h~://WWW.~~tamd.9lov/aamb/ 

### AQMD03AQMP.hlm 

### (last accessed Dec. 9,2003).GOLDEN GATE TJNIVERSITY @lo05

Page 4 Deccmber 12,2003 EPA AdminiEU2%br Propased Aircraft Emissions Standards



### 20031, available at http://www.uspirg.org/reports/dange~~e~~2003/~g~~~~ir2003.pdf (last accessed

### DeF. 4,20031,at 10. Twenly-nine states and the District of Columbia also violated the one-hour 

### standard over 800 times 

### in 2002. Id.


### For these nonattainment regions, aircraft emissions are problematic. See Green at 5 17; 68 Fed. 

### Reg. at 56,230; 62 

### Fed. Reg. 25356,25358 

### (May 8,1997) (final 

### regulations on aircraft emissions) (C‘Maintenanceof tha 

### NAAQS requkes that 

### ai~crefi 

### engines be subject to a program of 

### control compatible with their significance as pollution sources”). 

### Highlighting the problem, these regions 

### are 

### now asserting that Mer redudons from stationary sources are increasingly difficult 

### to find! Given the hamthat 

### NOx pollution causes and the historical nonattainment 

### problem, EPA should seize 

### this opporbmity to adopt standards that 

### would contribute to attainment, which 

### has been 

### denied 

### to the 

### American public 

### for nearly Wee 

### decades.
Second, 

### EPA’sfailure ta propose meaningful reduction results 

### in environmental

### injustice for communities 

### near some airports, 

### incontravention of 

### EPA’s obligation under Executive 

### Order 12898 (Executive Order 

### on EnvironmentalJustice), 59 Fed. 

### Reg. 7,629 (Feb. 16, 1994), and 

### EPA’s Policies 

### on Environmental Justice, available at 

### httD://~.eoa.rrav/comuliance/ enviro~Entaliusticdindex.htm1 (last accessed 

### Dec. 10,2003). 

### Fox example, 

### in the Atlanta, Georgia area, Black or Africarr.-Americaa residents make up 81% of the population 

### living 

### near Hartsfield Atlanta International hiport (the four nearest 

### zip code areas), cornpaTed to about 32% 

### in the urban 

### area ofAtlanta. 

### The median 

### household income 

### in the same area near the airport range from $28,155 to $39,141, compared $52,512 

### the Atlanta urban area. See 

### Exhibit 

### A. Even 

### in the absence of statistica.1

### testing, 

### this demographicdata strongly imply that people of color 

### and low-income commmi.ties

### may experience increased exposure 

### to 

### airpollution 

### from airpons. Third, technology-forcing aircraft regulations are long overdue. Even though Congress gave 

### EPA authorityto promulgate technology-forcingregulations in 1970

### when section 23 1 was enacted,

### Pub- L. 

### No. 91-604, 

### 9 1

### l(a)(l), 84 

### Stat. 1676, 1703-04 (1970), 

### EPA has not ever exercised 

### that authority. 

### For example, 

### in 1997, the 

### last the 

### EPA revised the aircraft 

### emissions standards, EPA adopted 

### standards ht rnost or all ofthe engines 

### were already meeting, ’ See 

### 62 Fed. Reg. at 25,356. 

### Compounding the problem, EPA’s adoption of 

### those standards came after ten years of inaction. 

### Now, sk years aRer the last 

### sot of standards was adopted,EPA is again adopting 

### standards 

### that 

### most engines already meet. With 

### so many Americans forced to breathe 

### unhealthful air, 

### it is time 

### EPA changedits course to 

### adopt techology-forcing 

### standards that

4 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 

### for example, 

### has claimed that further reductions necessary for attainmentmust 

### ofkncome 

### from “minor emission sources,” most of the 

### significant sources 

### having already been regulated. San 

### FranciscoBay ha Ozone Attainment 

### Plan for 

### the I-Hour’Nati~~~l 

### Ozone Standard (July 18,2001) 

### at 47, available at 

### htto://~.baaqmd.~o~/u~~l~s/ul~s oz 2001 .asg (last accessed December 9,2003). 

### The agency 

### has also clakned that, even after reviewing stringent controls from other regions, it found limited opportunities for pollution reduction. For example, the agency will regulate architectural coatings 

### and solvent cleaning as a result ofthe nationwide assessmentbut found no other
measures to emulate. Id. at 48.

## -__12/12/2003 13:57 FAX 415 896 2450

.

Page 5 December 12,2063 EPA Administrator Proposed Aircra Emissions Standards GOLDEN GATE TJNIVERSITY @ 006

Congress authorked h section 

### 23

### i ofthe Act. Finally, 

### EPA should take independent action envisioned

### by Congress to set 

### technologyforcing standards, 

### rather thanto adopt merely the intemtional standards. 

### Had Congress intended the International 

### Civil

### Aviation 

### Organization (r‘XCA0’’) 

### ~t.an&ds to be the ceiling, Congress 

### would have explicitly 

### said so. In 

### addition, concerned that the 

### FAA might regulate 

### aircraftemissions, Congress explicitly 

### gave that responsibility to 

### EPA.’ Ironically,by 

### adopting the standards developedby 

### ICAO’s Committee 

### on Aviation Environmental Proteotion, 

### in which the 

### official United States’ representative is 

### the 

### FAA, 

### EPA is

### doing exactly 

### the 

### opposite ofthat 

### which Congress intended.


### EXEMPTION FOR ALREADY 

### CERTIFIED, 

### NEWLY MANUFACTURER ENGINES



### EPA proposes to exempt from coverage 

### aU enghe 

### families that were 

### productionbefore the 

### rulemaking. 68 

### Fed. Reg. at 56,226. As 

### EPA concedes, however, it has historically applied aircraft engine emissions standards to already certified engines, 

### and regulating themwould prevent indefinite 

### contjnuedproduction 6f such 

### engines. Id. at 56,244. When 

### an agency departs fram its 

### own precedent, it must explain

### why that 

### departure is 

### reasonable. Sea

### Motor Vi?hicle MaPrufacturers 

### Ass 

### ‘n v. StateFann 

### Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 

### 463 

### US.29,57 (1983); Citizens Awareness 

### Network,hac. 

### v. 

### UnitedStatesNuclear Regulatory Commission, 59 F.3d 

### 284, 

### 290-91 (1“ Cir. 1995); State 

### of

### Ohio v. EnvirmzmentaZ ProtectionAgency, 997F.2d 1526, 1542 

### @-C. Cir. 1993). Here, 

### EPA does not explain wby it 

### is proposing a sudden depsrhm ;Fromthe past practice 

### ofregulating already certified, newly manufactured 

### engines 

## - is., what is difEerent about 

### this phcularrulemakiug thatjustifies the exemption of such 

### engines. Without a 

### reasoned explanation, EPA’s proposal to exempt 

### such engines 

### would be considered 

### arbitrary 

### and capricious,particularly 

### in light 

### ofthe harm of ozone pollution, the nonattainment problem nationwide, 

### and the contribution of aircraft emissions to local 

### air problems. Indeed, not 

### regulating &e 

### enginw would allow 

### these engines to be made far into the future. With the 

### long useful 

### life of these aircraft engines

- Le., about 

### twentyyears 

# -- and the availability of newly manufactcared 

### engines 

### in the future, 

### there 

### is need to regulate this category of

Speaking 

### of the possibilitythat 

### FAAmight 

### regulate aircraft emissions, SenatorMuslcie stated


### Air quality dataminations 

### should 

### be made by agencies charged with 

### air quality responsibilities. Clearly, the agency with the respozisibility for promoting air commerce 

### should not be rhe agency which determinesthe extent to 

### which aircraft emission controls

### will be 

### necessary to protect 

### the public 

### heallkt and welfie.

115 Cong. 

### Rec. 38,210, at 32,211 (1.969) (Congressional senate debates).

6 Green at 537 

### n. 187.12/12/2003 13:57 FAX 415 896 2450 GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY

PagG 6 Dcccmber 12,2003 EPA Adminirrlrator PIDPOE~~ Standaids AircraftE~~h~iions



### In connection 

### with the 

### proposed exemption, EPA requests comments 

### on whether 

### an avcragingprogram for already certified engines mightbe 

### usefil. 68 

### Fed. Reg. at 56,245. We believe that an 

### averagingprogram 

### would pose auditing and enforcement challengesthat would require 

### significant resources, 

### EPA also requests comments 

### on whether it 

### should 

### apply the 

### proposal to 

### already certified engines at a date 

### 2,4and 

### 6 years 

### after the implementationdate for new designs. 

### Id- at 56,244 to 56,245. 

### EPA should consider information on

### why 

### such lead 

### time is necessary and 

### selectthe shortestlead time.



### The proposed rule 

### exempts all general aviation, 

### air taxi 

### and military aircraft engines 

### Born regulation. Failure to regulate 

### them 

### would be arbitraq 

### and capricious and inconsistent 

### with the law, againin light 

### of the 

### harm ofozone pollution, 

### the nonattahent problem nationwide, and the contribution of aircraft pollution to local 

### air problems. 

### First, Congressrequired 

### EPA to regulate emissions from “my class or classes 

### of aircraft engines.’’ 

### Jleterms “aircraft“ and “aircraft engines’” 

### are defrned to include all 

### kinds of aircraft and engines. 

### They do not exchde 

### military or general aviation engines. 

### Section234 

### of che Act, 

### 42 

### U.S.C. Q 7574; sections 

### 101(6) (aircraft) 

### and 161(7) (aircraft engines) 

### ofthe 

### Federal Aviation 

### Act 

### of 1958 

### ,49 

### U.S.C. 

### 8 40102(a)(6) & (71.7
Second, 

### EPA has excecded its authority by exempting

### military aircraft and 

### aircraft engines 

### because only the President may 

### mant 

### such exemptionsunder section 1 18 of the Act, 42 

### U.S.C. 4 741 8. That 

### section provides 

### that federal agencies 

### and instrumentaxity ofthe executive branch of 

### the federal governmentmust comply with 

### air pollution control requirements “in the
same manner, and to 

### the 

### same extent as any nongovernmentalentity.”’ 

### EPA has iuterpretedthis requirement to mcan that federal agencies “comply with any air pollution rule establishedunder 

### the Act: to no less an extent than nongovernmental entities.” 58

### Fed. Reg. 63,214, 

### at 63,214 Wov. 30, 

### 1993).

Other 

### than 

### the term 

### “Administrator,”

### the terms used 

### in section 23 1 of &e Act have the meaning accorded 

### by section 

### 101 ofthe Federal 

### Aviation Act of 1958. Under the Federal AviatiQn Act,
as 

### amended, the definitions are 

### no longer in 

### section 101,but in 

### various sections oftbatAct. “Aircraft”is 

### defined to mean 

### %my contrivance invented, used., or designed to navigate, or fly 

### in, the ak” 49 

### U.S.C.Q 40102(a)(6). 

### “Aircraft engine” 

### is defined 

### to 

### mean “anengine used, Qr intended to be used, to propel an aircraft, including a 

### paxt, appurtenance, and accessory of the engine, except 

### a propeller.” 

### Id. 

### Q 40102(a)(7).


# ’ Congress enacted this sectionbecause the federal government was often seen as 

### laggingbehind n.on-governmenta1 entities in environmental compliance instead of setking 3positive example. See 

### Clean

### Air Act Arnendments of 

### 1977, 

### H,RRep. 95-294, 

### P.L.95-95 (19771,at 

### 1277-78.Pagc 7 Decernbm 12,2003 EPA Administrator ProposedAircraft Emissions SEandards
Exemption from section 1 

### 18’s requkements can only be given 

### by the President for 

### reasons determined to be “in the 

### paramount interest 

### ofthc United States.” 

### 42 

### U.S.C.

### 4 7428(b). Specificto 

### military aircraft, section 

### 1 18provides as follows:
the President 

### may, if he detemines it to 

### be 

### in the paramout interest 

### of the United States to do 

### so, issue regulations exempting 

### from compliance with the requirements of 

### this section

### any weaponty, equipment, aircraft,



## . . - 

### which are 

### owned or operatedby tb,~ Armed Forces ofthe United States



## . . . and which are 

### uniquely rniZitmy 

### innature.
Id. (emphasis added).


### Ifexemptionsfor

### the military 

### could be accomplished at the 

### rulemaking level, the requirement 

### for a presidential exemption 

### would become meaningless. Moreover, Congress’ intent

- that the 

### military be governed by the same rules that apply to non-governmental 

### entities

would 

### be easily frustrated 

### if EFA were allowed to exempt the military 

### in its rulemakhg. 

### Third,emissions 

### fiom axempted 

### aircraft engines, at between 146% ofemissions &om 

### dl aircraft engines, are significant

### and 

### thus EPA 

### must explain its basis for the exemption? 

### EPA does not explainwhy such emissions are 

### proposed to be exempted. EPA’s failure to regulate these sources isthus arbitrary and capricious. 

### REXXLATIOlU 

### OF 

### HYDROCARBONS
EPA is required to regulate “my air pollutant from


## .- , aircraft

### engines which 

### in his judgment causes, 

### or contributes

### to, air pollution which

### may reasonably be anticipatedto endangerpublic 

### health or welfare.” Section 23 

### 1 of 

### the Act, 42 

### U-S.C. 

## 0 7571. 

### EPA is 

### mer instructed 

### to revise aircraft 

### emissions standards

### from time to the. Section 

### 23 1(a)(3) 

### ofthe 

### Act, 42 

### U.S.C. ij 7571(a)(3).
The last time 

### EPA regulated hydrocarbons was in 1982. See 

### 47 

### Fed. Reg. 58,462 (Dec. 30,1982). 

### At that time, 

### EPA relaxed the standards for 

### hydrocarbons, by 

### withdrawhig many of the 

### standards 

### promulgated 

### in 1973 

### and 

### choosing not 

### to adopt the 

### 1981 ICAO standards. See 

### id. Since hydrocarbons are 

### ozone precursors, 

### formany of the same reasons 

### BPA 

### now proposes to revise 

### NOx omissions, 

### EPA shouldrevisit 

### the 

### hydrocarbonregulations to strengthen them,”



### The figure is derived 

### fiom 

### EPA’s statementthat commercial aircraft 

### emissions contribute from 

### 7499% 

### of the 

### NOx aircraft emissions

### in the United States. See 

### 68 Fed. Reg. at 56,230.

lo 

### la addition, hydrocarbons add to the toxic exposureburden on airport workers, passengers, and local residents.12(12/2003 13:58 FAX 415 896 2450 GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY

Page 8 Decernbcr 12,2003 EPA Adminisbator Proposed Aircrafi Emissions Standards



### LEAD EMISSIONS
Airborne 

### emissions oflead 

### and lead compounds 

### have decreased substantiallyin the United States beeween 1970 andl 

### 1996. See 

### PBT National Action 

### Plan for Alkyl-bad, 

### US.EPA Persistent, Bioaccumulative, 

### dToxic Pollutants (PBT) 

### Program [June 2002) rcPET 

### Action Plm”] at 12. 

### In this period, 

### total lead 

### emissions decreased 

### fiom 220,869 to,3,869 tons 

### per year, largely due to 

### thephase-out of leaded gasoline as a he1

### for on-road vehicles. SeeId at 11. Elimination of lead from gasoline, along with the regulation oflead-based paint 

### and associated 

### hazards,has been responsible fix a significantreduction in blood-lead levels in the 

### United States population.” 

### For example, 

### geometric 

### mean blood-lead levels 

### in childrenhave decreased 

### Born 

### 15 micrograms

### per deciliter 

### (‘hcg/dV) 

### in 1976,to 

### 2 mcg/dL in 1999. See 

### id at 2.
While this downward 

### trend in

### meanblood levels 

### is encouraging, certain 

### subpopulations
are still being exposed to lead. For example, accordingto 

### EPA, residents near “general aviation 

### airports where leaded gasoline is stillbeing used as fkel

### may have an increased

### risk of lead exposure.” See Draft PBT National Action Plan 

### for Alkyl-Lead, 

### US. 

### EPA Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Pollutants 

### (PBT) Alkyl-lead

### Work Group (May 

### 8,2000) [‘%)raft 

### PBT Action Plan”] at 4. Lead 

### from aikraft may 

### also impact aircraft workers 

### and maintenance personnel, as well as aircraftpassengers. Lead 

### emissions an also 

### be deposited 

### in wetlands and 

### other ecologically sensitive areas adjacent to airports.”

__ 11 Reduced blood-lead levels equate to reduced health risks. horganic lead 

### is a systemic toxicant that cancause a wide range ofhealth effects in

### hwmans, including increased blood 

### premre, disruption of 

### vitamin D metabolism, hearing 

### loss, delayedreaction times, anemia, and kidney 

### and neurological toxicity. Chilalrrcn ate n sensitive subpopulation at increased 

### risk of neurological damage

### when blood-lead levels 

### are 

### in the range of 10mcddL 

### and possibly lower. See 

### Risk Analysis to 

### Support Standards for Lead 

### in Paint, Dust, 

### and Soil, U.S. 

### EPA (June 

### 199S), available at 

### httD://www.e~a.eov/ouut~~/lead/403ri (last accessed 

### Pec. 10,2003). 

# ’’ Regarding the potential ecological impacts 

### of lead emissions, 

### EPA has stated the following:
Airborne lead can also have adverse impacts OR the environment. Wild 

### and domestic grazing 

### animals may ingest lead that 

### has deposited onplant or soil surfaces or that has 

### been absorbedby plants 

### rhough leaves or 

### roots.



## . ..
At relatively 

### low concentrations (2-10 pg/m3),lead can inhibitplant growth and result in a 

### shiftto more tolerant plant species growing near roadsides and 

### stationary source emissions. 

### Although the majority of 

### soil lead becomes 

### bound so thtit 

### is insoluble, immobile, and biologically unavailable, elevated soil. 

### Pb cancentrationshave 

### berm observed

### to cause 

### shifts

### in the microbial community (fungi and bacteria),reduced numbers of invertebrates, and reduced decompositionand nitrjificationmtes and has altered other soil parameters. Because lead remains 

### in, the soil, soil. concentratkns conthue to build over the,
even when deposition

### rates are low. 

### Thus, another concern 

### is that acid12/12/2003 13:58 FAX 415 896 2450 GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY 010

Rage 9 Decembcr 12,2003 EPA AWnistrator Proposed Aircraft Emissions Standards



### In 1970, 

### Congress gave 

### EPA the authority and 

### responsibility to 

### decide 

### under section 23 

### 1 of the 

### Clean Air Act 

### whether elnissiom 

### from aircraft endangerthe 

### public health 

### or welfme. Pub, 

### L. No. 91-604, 

### 8 I. X(a)(l), 84 

### Stat. 1676, 1703-04 (1970). At 

### the 

### same 

### me, Congress gave the 

### FAA 

### authority to 

### prescribe standards for 

### aircrafk fuel 

### and fW-additives to 

### oontrol or 

### eliminate aircraftemissions that 

### EPA “decidesunder section23 1 of the 

### CleanAir Act 

### endangerspublic health or 

### welfkre.” 

### Pub. L. 

## No. 91-604, 

### 0 @)(I), 84 Stat. 1676, 1705 

### @ec. 3 

### 1, 19701, now codified at 

### 49 U.S.C-A.

## 5 4714 (ofiginally codified at 49 U.S.C. 

### 6 1421).


### h 1972, ERA carried out its frst 

### assessmcnt ofpollution fiom 

### aircraft emissions as 

### requiredby the 

### 1970Amendments. See Airmaft Emissions: Impact on 

### Air Quality and 

### Feasibilily of 

### Control, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection

### Agency 

### (Rept-72-02452) 

### r‘1972Aircraft Report”]. 

### In 

### this study, EPA compiled an 

### emissions inventory 

### for priority pollutants fiom 

### five representativeaizports 

### and concluded, in part, 

### that 

### “the existing 

### and potential 

### air quality 

### impact of sulfur oxides 

### and lead 

### is considered to be 

### negligible in contpari3on to other soursof th�?sse 

### polhtanrs” (emphasis 

### added). See 

### 1972 Aircraft 

### Rcport at 

### 16. 

### EPA justified not fkrher analyzing 

### the two 

### pollutants on that 

### basis. Id.


### Two developments since 1972, however, have underminedEPA’s

### justificationfor not kther studying lead 

### pollution 

### from aircraft. 

### First, 

### lead is 

### now recognized 

### as being much 

### more toxic 

### than was 

### believed 

### in the 

### early 1970s. 

### In 1972, the 

### medical community 

### and regulatory agenciesbelieved that the safe 

### blood-leadlevel for 

### children was 40 mcg/dL See 

### Preventing Lead 

### Poisoning 

### in Yowag Childma A 

### Statement

### by the Centers 

### for Disease Control 

### and Prevention 

### (Oct 

### 19911, 

### available at httD:Nwww.cdc.Pov/ncelnfleadluublicat~~~ooks/ pluvc/contenta.htm(last accessed

### December 9,2003). 

### More recently, 

### EPA has defined a 

### bloodlead level of 

### 10 mcg/dT, 

### as the “cmcenlration of

### concern-’for 

### the purposes 

### of regulahg 

### lead

### based paint contaminationin 

### residences. See 66 

### Fed, Reg. 1206 

### (Jan- 5,2001) 

### (Identification of Dangerous 

### Levels of

### Lead, Fhal Rule). At 

### the same 

### time, EPA 

### also emphasized that 10 rncg/dL 

### is not 

### a threshold of exposure below 

### which safety 

### may be asswed, since 

### scientific studies do 

### not indicate 

### any clear toxicity threshold 

### for lead. 

### Id. Second, since 

### lead emissions 

### fromon-roadmobile sources 

### have been vhtually eliminated, lead pollution 

### ftom aircraft now 

### comprises 

### a much higherpercentage of total 

### lead emissions, 

### In 1999, 

### EPA’sNational Emissions Inventory 

### O\TEI) reportedthat 

### total emissions of lead from 

### akcraft nationwide were 

### 534 tans 

### per year, 

### whercas total lead emissions from 

### all

precipitation

### may be increasingfhe 

### mobility 

### andbioavailability of 

### soil lead 

### in
some places.
EPA’s “Air Trends” web 

### page ath~://www.eDa.~ov/a~~nds~ea~ 

### .html(last 

### accessed 

### Dec. 10, 2003).Page 10 Decembcr 12,2003 BPA Administrator Propostd A~c& Emidons Standarczs

sources were 3355 

### tonsper lead emissions. 

### Aircraft emissions

### thus represent about 16 percent oftotal



### Given these 

### changed circumstances, as well as the 

### hazard to residents 

### and 

### workers at and 

### near general 

### avia~on airports 

### and adverse environmentalimpacts on wetlands and other ecologically sensitive habitats near ahports 

## ,EPA should make a decision 

### ‘under to section 

### 23 1 of the 

### Clean

### Air Act, 42 

### U.S.C. 

### fi 7571 I that lead emissions 

### from aircrafi endanger

### the public health
or welfare. Such a step 

### would triggerthe 

### FAA’s 

### duty to 

### control 

### or eliminate lead 

### emissions 

### fiom aircraft.
While 

### EPA 

### is working with 

### the FAA in a voluntary program to eLiminate lead from aviation gas, Bluewater 

### is concerned that 

### this volunw process will 

### not result 

### in a phase-out of lead 

### in any reasonableperiod of

### time. Inthe 

### Draft 

### PBT Action 

### Plan, 

### EPA stated that developmentofunleaded alternatives 

### would take 8 

### to 10years. 

### Inthe 

### PBT Action 

### Plan, however, any 

### reference to a 

### tinieline for 

### completionwas 

### removed 

### Bluewater

### is con,cerned 

### that without regulatory

### pressuse, &e goal 

### of clhinating lead 

### &om aviation gas could

### be postponed indefinitely. 

### In fact, 

### concamthat voluntary measures were not accomplishing the air pollution 

### control goals motivated 

### Congress to add section 

### 23 1

### to the Act 

### in the 

### firstplace. See 1 15 

### Cong. Rec. 38,210, at 38,211 (1969) 

### (Congressional senate debates).


### We therefore request that 

### EPA exercise its duty 

### under the section 

### 23 1 

### of 

### the Clean 

### Air Act to determinethat emissions fiom aircraftusing leaded fuels endanger the public 

### health or welfare. 

### Sincerely,

HElm 

### HA Kang 

# &- Ken Kloc, 

### Ph.D.,

### M”PH M. Patrick Williams (PTLS Certification

### No. 13600) 

### Jason Hasley 

### (PTLSCerWication

### No. 13717)14



### Aircraft and 

### Total lead 

### emissions were tabulated fi-om 1999

### MI summary 

### files for non-road 13
sources and all SOUICES by source category. 

### Both ofthese files 

### are available at ftD://ftP- eaa. 

### ~~v/~ub~~s~v~ntorv/finaltlei99ver3/h (last accessed

### Dee. 9,2003

### 1,

l4 

### Patrick 

### Williams and JasonHasley 

### are I.awstudents certifiedunder the California State 

### Bar Rules goveming the 

### Practical Trainiug of

### Law Students 

### (rrPrXZS’’),working under the supemision of

### Helen 

### H.Kang, 

### pursuant to the 

### PTLS rules.