GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY 

SCHOOL OF LAW 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWANDJUSTICECLINIC 

December 12,2003 

Attention Dacket IDNo.OAR2002-0030 

By E-Mail: aircraRGkpa,aq & 

By Facsimile: 202.566.1741 

Hon. Mike Leavitt 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 PennsylvaniaAve., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Air Docket 

Environmental ProtectionAgency 

Mailcode; 6102T 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington,R.C. 20460 

_-__~-rS----­--/‘ 

~ ---I 

J 

Re: Proposed Rule: Control of Au Pollution fiom Aircraft and Aircraft 

Engines, 68 Fed. Reg.56.226 (Sept. 30,20035 

Dear Administrator; 

On bebalf of BluewaterNetwork,the EnvironmentalLaw and Justice Clinic is 

writingto comment on the proposed rule for Controlof Air Pollutionfiom Atcraft and 

Aircraft Engines, 68 Fed. Reg. 56,226 (Sept. 30,2003). Bluewater is a national 

environmental organizationwith members inall fif@states. Bluewater’smission,among 

others, is to champion innovative solutionsto protect the nation’s environment and 

ecosystems. Bluewater promotes policy changesin government and indusw to reduce 

fossil fuel use and to eradicate other causes of air and water pollurion. Bluewater has 

largely focused its work for the last eight years, for exqle, 0x1 reducing emissions from 

mobile sources and fuels. 

Bluewater requestsEPA to strengthen its proposed regulations on NOx and take 

additional actions to reduce aircraftemissions, as follows: 

1- EPA should propose technology-forcing regulations governingNOx 

emissions, instead of adopting regulationsthat 94%of all comercia1 engines 

currently inproduction already meet or exceed. 

~lLlNG&DRESS: 536MISSION STlZlZET SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94105-2968 

OFP~CES; 62FIRSTSTREET,SUITE240 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 

PHUNE: (415)442-6647.FAX: (415) 896-2450 
003 

Page 2 

December 12,2003 

EPA Adminis-tor 

Proposed AircraftEmissions 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 actionon NOx emissions, EPA should revise emissions 

standards for hydrocarbons, which were last revised in 1.982. The need is particularly 

awte since the 1982rulemaking relaxed the hydrocarbons standards. 

5, EPA should also make a decision under to section 231 ofthe Clean ALAct, 42 

U.S.C. 5 7571, that lead (Pb)emissionsfrom 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 INPROPOSED STANDARDS 

EPA is required to issue proposed aircraft emissions standards with sufficient lead time 

“to permit the development and application ofthe requisite techn0l0gy.” Section231 ofthe 

Clean Ah Act, 42 U.S.C.fj 757 1. EPA fhuhas 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&lyin 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 56,230-56,231nn. 16& 19. The NOx emissionswill likely 

increase by about IS,000 tons per year from 1990 levels, even just at the airports in tenmajor 

urban areas. Evaluationof 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, inDocket# OAR-2002-0030.’ EPA is accordingly carefil to 

While that figure dbes not accomt for the setback hthe pmjected grow of air carrier 

operations, the FAA does expect the demand,to recover and then to ‘‘continue a long-term trend 

of annual growth in the United States.’’ 68 Fed. Reg. at 56,230.Even without the expected 

growth, airports are a significant sources of air pollution. For example,just the NOx emissions 

from airports within the South Coast Air Quality Management District totaled out 3,000tons per 

year inthe early 1990s. Enera and Envirrmmental,Analysis, Lnc, hventory ofCivil Aircraft 

Emissions for Twenty-FiveNonattainnient Areas, 22-2(1991)[“EEA Inventory”] (citedin 

Michael Gerard Green, Control of Air PolZutunt Emissionsfrom AircraftEngines; Local Impacts 

ofNationuZ Concern, 5 End. Law. 513 (Feb.1999) [(CGreen”’]at 520 n-25). Ofthe 8,000 tons, 

about 80% ofthe emissions are estimated to be fromLos Angeles International Axport. Green 

at 520 n.25. In New York City.,LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy Internarioa91Airports were, 
GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY 

Page3 

Decsmber 12,2003 

EPA Administrator 

Proposed Aircraft Emissions Stsndards 

characterbe the proposed rulemaking as locking in “recent orpast technology gains:’ not as 

ensuring total emissions reductions? 

EPA’s timidity in failing to propose technology-forcing standards is extremely 

unfortunate for several reasom. First, mobile source pollution,which contributessubstantially to 

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 116and 209 ofthe Act, 42U.S.C. $5 7416,7543: 

Only EPA an effectively regulate-aircraft emissions,for example. See section233 ofthe Act, 

42U.S.C.9 7573 (prohibiting independent state and local regulations). EPA should therefore act 

to the fullest extent it’cmto control aircrafi polhtion. 

As EPA achowledges, many metropolitan air quality control regions are currently out of 

attainment with the one-hourozone standard and will be out of attainment with the as-yet 

unimplementecl, eight-hour ozone standard. Based on data fiom 1999to 2001, EPA expects 11 1 

million people will live in nonatkainment areas where they will be forced tobreathe 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, with41 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 theAir:Unln~dhyLevels of Smog in 2002, US.PIRG Education Fund (ADg. 3, 

according to a 1995 study, among the five biggest sources ofNOx. And, in the early 1990s, the 

airports in the New York Consalidared Metropolitan Sratistical Area emitted over 23,000tons 

per year ofNOx. 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 LoganIntarnationd 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 withsimply 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 Posedby 

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 emissionsin the Los Angeles region in 

1997, See San Francisco Bay Mea Ozone Attainment Planfor the 1-HourNational Ozone 

Standard (Oct. 24, ZOOl), available at httD://www.brtaclmdnov/pIn/Plarrs/plansoz 200 1.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 theDistrict of Columbia also violated 

the one-hour standard over 800 times in2002.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~crefiengines 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 ham that 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 tothe 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 Environmental Justice), 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.-Americaaresidents make up 81% of the population living near 

Hartsfield Atlanta International hiport (the four nearest zip code areas), cornpaTed to about 32% 

inthe urban area of Atlanta. 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.1testing, this demographic data strongly imply that people of 

color and low-income commmi.tiesmay experience increased exposure to air pollution from 

airpons. 

Third, technology-forcing aircraft regulations are long overdue. Even though Congress 

gave EPA authorityto promulgate technology-forcingregulationsin 1970when section23 1 was 

enacted, Pub-L. No. 91-604, 9 1l(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 standardsht rnost or all ofthe engines were already meeting,’ See 62 

Fed. Reg.at 25,356. Compoundingthe problem, EPA’s adoption ofthose standards came after 

ten years of inaction. Now, sk years aRer the last sot of standardswas adopted, EPA is again 

adopting standards that most engines already meet. With so many Americans forced to breathe 

unhealthful air, it is time EPA changed its course to adopt techology-forcing standards that 

4 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District,for example, has claimed that further 

reductions necessary forattainment must ofkn come from “minor emission sources,” most of the 

significant sourceshaving already been regulated. San FranciscoBay ha Ozone Attainment 

Planfor 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 reviewingstringentcontrols fromother regions,it found 

limited opportunities for pollution reduction. For example, the agency will regulate architectural 

coatings and solvent cleaning as a result ofthe nationwide assessment but foundno 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 authorkedhsection23i 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 of that 

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 them would 

prevent indefinite contjnuedproduction 6fsuch engines. Id. at 56,244. When an agency departs 

fram its own precedent, it must explain whythat departure is reasonable. Sea Motor Vi?hicle 

MaPrufacturers Ass ‘nv. State Fann Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463US.29,57 (1983); Citizens 

Awareness Network, hac. v. UnitedStates Nuclear Regulatory Commission,59 F.3d 284,290-91 

(1“ Cir. 1995); State of Ohio v.EnvirmzmentaZ Protection Agency, 997 F.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 phcular rulemakiug that justifies the exemption of such engines. Without a reasoned 

explanation, EPA’s proposal to exempt suchengines would be considered arbitrary and 

capricious, particularly inlight ofthe harm of ozone pollution, the nonattainment problem 

nationwide,and the contribution ofaircraft emissionsto local air problems. 

Indeed, not regulating &e enginw would allow these engines to be made far into the 

future. With the long useful life ofthese 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 possibility that FAA might regulate aircraft emissions, Senator Muslcie 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 determines the 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~~ Aircraft E~~h~iions Standaids

In connection with the proposed exemption, EPA requests comments on whether an 

avcraging program for already certified enginesmight be usefil. 68 Fed. Reg. at 56,245. We 

believe that an averagingprogram would pose auditing and enforcement challengesthat would 

require significantresources, 

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 fornew designs. Id- at 56,244 to 

56,245. EPA should consider information on why such lead time is necessary and select the 

shortest lead time. 

The proposed rule exempts all general aviation, air taxi and military aircraft engines Born 

regulation. Failureto regulate them would be arbitraq and capricious and inconsistent with the 

law, again in light of the harm of ozonepollution, the nonattahent problem nationwide, and 

the contribution of aircraft pollution to local airproblems. 

First, Congress required EPA to regulate emissions from “my class or classes ofaircraft 

engines.’’ Jle terms “aircraft“ and “aircraft engines’”are defrned to include all kinds of aircraft 

and engines. They do not exchde military or general aviation engines. Section234 ofche Act, 

42 U.S.C.Q 7574; sections 101(6) (aircraft) and 161(7) (aircraft engines) oftheFederal Aviation 

Act of 1958 ,49U.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 118 ofthe Act, 42 

U.S.C.4 7418. That section provides that federal agencies and instrumentaxity ofthe executive 

branch of the federal government must comply with air pollution controlrequirements “in the 

same manner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmentalentity.”’ EPA has iuterpreted this 

requirement to mcan that federal agencies “comply with any air pollution rule established under 

the Act:to no less an extent than nongovernmental entities.” 58 Fed. Reg. 63,214, at 63,214 

Wov. 30, 1993). 

Other than theterm “Administrator,”the terms used insection 231of &e Act have the meaning 

accorded by section 101 ofthe Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Under the Federal AviatiQnAct, 

as amended, the definitions are no longer in section 101, but in various sections oftbat Act. 

“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 ofthe 

engine, except a propeller.” Id. Q 40102(a)(7). 

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

n.on-governmenta1entities in environmental compliance instead of setking 3 positive example. 

See Clean Air Act Arnendments of 1977, H,R Rep. 95-294, P.L.95-95 (19771,at 1277-78. 
Pagc 7 

Decernbm 12,2003 

EPA Administrator 

Proposed Aircraft Emissions SEandards 

Exemption from section 118’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 118 provides as follows: 

the President may, if he detemines it to be in the paramout interest ofthe United 

States to do so, issue regulations exempting fromcompliance with the 

requirements of this sectionany weaponty, equipment, aircraft, ..- which are 

owned or operated by tb,~Armed Forces of the United States . ..and which are 

uniquely rniZitmy innature. 

Id. (emphasis added). 

Ifexemptions for 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 entitieswould be easily frustrated if EFA were allowed to exempt the military inits rulemakhg. 

Third,emissions fiom axempted aircraft engines, at between 146% ofemissions &om dl 

aircraft engines,are significant and thusEPA 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 is thus arbitrary and capricious. 

REXXLATIOlU OF HYDROCARBONS 

EPA is required to regulate “my air pollutant from . - ,aircraft engines which in his 

judgment causes, or contributesto, air pollutionwhich may reasonably be anticipated to 

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 231(a)(3) of the Act, 

42 U.S.C.ij 7571(a)(3). 

The last time EPA regulated hydrocarbons was in 1982. See 47Fed.Reg. 58,462 (Dec. 

30,1982). At that time, EPA relaxed the standards for hydrocarbons,by withdrawhig many of 

the standards promulgatedin 1973 and choosing not to adopt the 1981ICAO standards. See id. 

Since hydrocarbons are ozone precursors, for many of the same reasons BPA nowproposes to 

revise NOx omissions,EPA should revisit the hydrocarbonregulations to strengthen them,” 

The figure is derived fiom EPA’s statement that commercial aircraft emissions contribute from 

7499%of the NOx aircraft emissions in the United States. See 68Fed. Reg. at 56,230. 

lo la addition, hydrocarbons add to the toxic exposure burden 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 of lead and lead compounds have decreased substantiallyin the 

United States beeween 1970 andl 1996.See PBTNational ActionPlanforAlkyl-bad, US.EPA 

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, dToxic Pollutants (PBT) Program [June 2002)rcPETAction 

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. See Id at 11. 

Elimination oflead from gasoline, along with the regulation of lead-based paint and associated 

hazards,has been responsible fix a significant reduction inblood-lead levels in the United States 

population.” For example, geometric mean blood-lead levels in childrenhave decreased Born 

15micrograms per deciliter (‘hcg/dV) in 1976, to 2 mcg/dL in 1999. See id at 2. 

While this downward trend inmeanblood levels is encouraging, certain subpopulations 

are still being exposed to lead. For example, according to EPA, residents near “general aviation 

airports where leaded gasoline is stillbeing usedas fkel may have an increasedrisk oflead 

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 andmaintenance 

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 inhwmans, including increased blood premre, 

disruption of vitamin D metabolism, hearing loss, delayed reaction 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 forLead 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 absorbed by plants rhough leaves or roots. ... 

At relatively low concentrations (2-10 pg/m3),lead can inhibit plant 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 

tht it is insoluble, immobile, and biologically unavailable, elevated soil. Pb 

cancentrationshave berm observed to cause shiftsin the microbial community 

(fungiand 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 depositionrates are low. Thus,another concern is that acid 
12/12/2003 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 responsibilityto decide under section 231 

of the Clean Air Act whether elnissiom from aircraft endanger the public health or welfme. Pub, 

L. No. 91-604, 8 I. X(a)(l), 84 Stat. 1676, 1703-04 (1970). At the same me, Congressgave the 

FAA authority to prescribe standards for aircrafk fuel and fW-additives to oontrol or eliminate 

aircraft emissions that EPA “decidesunder section 231 of the Clean Air 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 of pollution fiom aircraft emissions as 

requiredby the 1970 Amendments. See Airmaft Emissions: Impact on Air Quality and 

Feasibilily of Control, U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (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 sours of th�?sse 

polhtanrs” (emphasis added). See 1972Aircraft Rcport at 16. EPA justified not fkrher 

analyzing the two pollutants on that basis. Id. 

Two developments since 1972, however, have undermined EPA’sjustification for not 

kther studying lead pollution from aircraft. First, lead is now recognized as being much more 

toxic thanwas believed in the early 1970s. In 1972, the medical community and regulatory 

agencies believed that the safe blood-lead level for childrenwas 40 mcg/dL See Preventing 

Lead Poisoning inYowag 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 leadbased paint contaminationinresidences. See 66 Fed, Reg. 1206 (Jan- 5,2001) (Identification of 

DangerousLevels 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-road mobile sources have been vhtually 

eliminated, lead pollution ftom aircraftnow comprises a much higher percentage of total lead 

emissions, In 1999, EPA’s National Emissions Inventory O\TEI) reported that total emissions of 

lead from akcraft nationwide were 534 tans per year,whercas total lead emissions from all 

precipitation may be increasing fhe mobility andbioavailability of soil lead in 

some places. 

EPA’s “Air Trends” web page at h~://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~onairports and adverse environmental impacts on wetlands and other 

ecologically sensitive habitats near ahports,EPA should make a decision ‘underto section231 of 

the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. fi 7571I that lead emissions from aircrafi endangerthe public health 

or welfare. Such a step would trigger the FAA’s duty to controlor 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 inany reasonable period of time. Inthe Draft PBT Action Plan, EPA stated that 

developmentof unleaded alternatives would take 8 to 10 years. Inthe PBT Action Plan, 

however, any reference to a tinieline for completion was removed Bluewateris con,cernedthat 

without regulatory pressuse, &e goal ofclhinating lead &om aviation gas could be postponed 

indefinitely. In fact, concam that voluntary measures were not accomplishing the air pollution 

control goals motivated Congressto add section 231 to the Act inthe first place. See 115 Cong. 

Rec. 38,210, at 38,211 (1969) (Congressionalsenate debates). 

We therefore request that EPA exercise its duty under the section 231ofthe Clean Air 

Act to determinethat emissions fiom aircraft using leaded fuels endanger the public health or 

welfare. 

Sincerely, 

HElm HAKang &-

Ken Kloc,Ph.D., M”PH 

M. Patrick Williams (PTLS CertificationNo. 13600) 

Jason Hasley (PTLSCerWicationNo. 13717)14 

Aircraft and Totallead emissions were tabulated fi-om 1999MI 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. 9,20031, 

l4 Patrick Williamsand JasonHasley are I.awstudents certified under the California State Bar 

Rules goveming the Practical Trainiug of Law Students(rrPrXZS’’), working under the 

supemision ofHelen H.Kang, pursuant to the PTLSrules.