44676 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 449 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2004–0038 FRL–8948–2] 

RIN 2040–AE69 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New 

Source Performance Standards for the 

Airport Deicing Category 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing technologybased effluent limitation guidelines 

(ELGs) and new source performance 

standards (NSPS) under the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) for discharges from airport 

deicing operations. The requirements 

generally would apply to wastewater 

associated with the deicing of aircraft 

and airfield pavement at primary 

commercial airports. The ELGs would 

be incorporated into the NPDES permits 

issued by EPA, states or tribes. EPA 

expects compliance with this regulation 

to reduce the discharge of deicingrelated pollutants by at least 44.6 

million pounds per year. EPA estimates 

the annual cost of the rule would be 

$91.3 million. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 28, 2009. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

must be received by the Office of 

Management and Budget on or before 

September 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2004–0038 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http:www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: OW–Docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2004–0038. 

• Mail: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2004– 

0038. Please include a total of 3 copies. 

In addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West Building 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2004–0038. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information by 

calling 202–566–2426. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No EPA–HQ–OW–2004–0038. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. A detailed 

record index, organized by subject, is 

available on EPA’s Web site at http:// 

epa.gov/guide/airport. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is 202– 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Water Docket is 202–566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Strassler, Engineering and Analysis 

Division, telephone: 202–566–1026; 

e-mail: strassler.eric@epa.gov or Brian 

D’Amico, Engineering and Analysis 

Division, telephone: 202–566–1069; 

e-mail: damico.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities 

Entities potentially regulated by this 

action include: 

Category Example of regulated entity 

North American Industry 

Classification 

System Code 

Industry ..................................................... Primary airports with over 1,000 annual jet departures that conduct deicing operations.481, 4881 

This section is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. Other types of 

entities that do not meet the above 

criteria could also be regulated. To 

determine whether your facility is 

regulated by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria listed in § 449.01 and the 

definitions in § 449.02 of the rule and 

detailed further in Section IV of this 

preamble. If you still have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult one of the 

persons listed for technical information 

in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44677 

How To Submit Comments 

The public may submit comments in 

written or electronic form. (See the 

ADDRESSES section above.) Electronic 

comments must be identified by the 

docket no. EPA–HQ–OW–2004–0038 

and must be submitted as a 

WordPerfect, MS Word or ASCII text 

file, avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption. 

EPA requests that any graphics included 

in electronic comments also be provided 

in hard-copy form. EPA also will accept 

comments and data on disks in the 

aforementioned file formats. Electronic 

comments received on this notice may 

be filed online at many Federal 

Depository Libraries. No confidential 

business information (CBI) should be 

sent by e-mail. 

Supporting Documentation 

The rule proposed today is supported 

by a number of documents including: 

• Technical Development Document 

for Proposed Effluent Limitation 

Guidelines and Standards for the 

Airport Deicing Category (TDD), 

Document No. EPA–821–R–09–004; 

• Economic Analysis for Proposed 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards for the Airport Deicing 

Category (EA), Document No. EPA–821– 

R–09–005; 

• Environmental Impact and Benefit 

Assessment for Proposed Effluent 

Limitation Guidelines and Standards for 

the Airport Deicing Category (EIB), 

Document No. EPA–821–R–09–003. 

These documents are available in the 

public record for this rule and on EPA’s 

Web site at http://epa.gov/guide/airport. 

They are available in hard copy from the 

National Service Center for 

Environmental Publications (NSCEP), 

U.S. EPA/NSCEP, P.O. Box 42419, 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45242–2419, telephone 

800–490–9198, http://epa.gov/ 

ncepihom. 

Overview 

The preamble describes the terms, 

acronyms, and abbreviations used in 

this notice; the background documents 

that support these proposed regulations; 

the legal authority of these rules; a 

summary of the proposal; background 

information; and the technical and 

economic methodologies used by the 

Agency to develop these regulations. 

This preamble also solicits comment 

and data on specific areas of interest. 

Table of Contents 

I. Legal Authority 

II. Purpose and Summary of Proposed Rule 

III. Background 

IV. Scope/Applicability of Proposed Rule 

V. Industry Profile 

VI. Summary of Data Collection 

VII. Technology Options, Costs, Wastewater 

Characteristics, and Pollutant Reductions 

VIII. Economic Analysis for Airports 

IX. Airline Impacts 

X. Environmental Assessment 

XI. Non-Water Quality Environmental 

Impacts 

XII. Regulatory Implementation 

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments 

XV. Guidelines for Submission of Analytical 

Data 

Appendix A: Abbreviations and Definitions 

Used in This Document 

I. Legal Authority 

EPA is proposing this regulation 

under the authorities of sections 301, 

304, 306, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 

1316, 1318, 1342 and 1361 and pursuant 

to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 

42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. 

II. Purpose and Summary of Proposed 

Rule 

Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by 

the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires 

EPA to establish schedules for (1) 

reviewing and revising existing effluent 

limitation guidelines and standards 

(‘‘effluent guidelines’’) and (2) 

promulgating new effluent guidelines. 

On September 2, 2004, EPA published 

an Effluent Guidelines Plan (69 FR 

53705) that established schedules for 

developing new and revised effluent 

guidelines for several industry 

categories. One of the industries for 

which the Agency established a 

schedule was the Airport Deicing 

Category. Today EPA proposes to set 

national standards for control of 

wastewater discharges from deicing 

operations at airports. Deicing 

operations include removal of ice from 

aircraft, application of chemicals to 

prevent initial icing or further icing 

(anti-icing), and removal of (and 

preventing) ice from airfield pavement 

(runways, taxiways, aprons and ramps). 

Commercial airports and air carriers 

conduct deicing operations as required 

by the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA). Airport discharges from deicing 

operations may affect water quality, 

including reductions in dissolved 

oxygen, fish kills, reduced organism 

abundance and species diversity, 

contamination of drinking water sources 

(both surface and groundwater), creation 

of noxious odors and discolored water 

in residential areas and parkland, and 

other effects. 

The proposed effluent guidelines and 

standards address both the wastewater 

collection practices used by airports, 

and the treatment of those wastes. 

Airports within the scope of this 

proposed rule would be required to 

collect spent aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) 

and treat the associated wastewater. 

Additionally, airports performing 

airfield pavement deicing would be 

required to use non-urea-based deicers. 

The requirements would be 

implemented in CWA discharge 

permits. 

III. Background 

A. Clean Water Act 

Congress passed the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972, also known as the Clean Water 

Act (CWA), to ‘‘restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters.’’ (33 

U.S.C. 1251(a)). The CWA establishes a 

comprehensive program for protecting 

our nation’s waters. Among its core 

provisions, the CWA prohibits the 

discharge of pollutants from a point 

source to waters of the U.S. except as 

authorized under the CWA. Under 

section 402 of the CWA, EPA authorizes 

discharges by a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit. The CWA also authorizes EPA 

to establish national technology-based 

effluent limitation guidelines and 

standards (effluent guidelines or ELGs) 

for discharges from different categories 

of point sources, such as industrial, 

commercial and public sources. 

Congress recognized that regulating 

only those sources that discharge 

effluent directly into the nation’s waters 

would not be sufficient to achieve the 

CWA’s goals. Consequently, the CWA 

requires EPA to promulgate nationally 

applicable pretreatment standards that 

restrict pollutant discharges from 

facilities that discharge wastewater 

indirectly through sewers flowing to 

publicly owned treatment works 

(POTWs). See section 307(b) and (c), 33 

U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). National 

pretreatment standards are established 

for those pollutants in wastewater from 

indirect dischargers that may pass 

through, interfere with or are otherwise 

incompatible with POTW operations. 

Generally, pretreatment standards are 

designed to ensure that wastewaters 

from direct and indirect industrial 

dischargers are subject to similar levels 

of treatment. In addition, POTWs are 

required to implement local treatment 

limits applicable to their industrial 

indirect dischargers to satisfy any local 

requirements. See 40 CFR 403.5. 

Direct dischargers must comply with 

effluent limitations in NPDES permits. 

Indirect dischargers, who discharge 

through POTWs, must comply with 

pretreatment standards. Technologybased effluent limitations in NPDES 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44678 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

permits are derived from effluent 

limitation guidelines (CWA sections 301 

and 304) and new source performance 

standards (sec. 306) promulgated by 

EPA, or based on best professional 

judgment where EPA has not 

promulgated an applicable effluent 

guideline or new source performance 

standard. Additional limitations based 

on water quality standards (sec. 303) 

may also be included in the permit in 

certain circumstances. The ELGs are 

established by regulation for categories 

of industrial dischargers and are based 

on the degree of control that can be 

achieved using various levels of 

pollution control technology. 

EPA promulgates national effluent 

limitation guidelines and standards of 

performance for major industrial 

categories for three classes of pollutants: 

(1) Conventional pollutants (i.e., total 

suspended solids, oil and grease, 

biochemical oxygen demand, fecal 

coliform, and pH); (2) toxic pollutants 

(e.g., toxic metals such as chromium, 

lead, nickel, and zinc; toxic organic 

pollutants such as benzene, benzo-apyrene, phenol, and naphthalene); and 

(3) non-conventional pollutants (e.g., 

ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and 

phosphorus). 

B. NPDES Permits 

Section 402 of the CWA requires 

permits for discharges of pollutants to 

waters of the United States. In most 

states, the permits are issued by a state 

agency that has been authorized by EPA. 

Currently 46 states and 1 U.S. territory 

are authorized to issue NPDES permits. 

In the other states and territories, EPA 

issues the permits. 

Section 402(p) of the Act, added by 

the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 

100–4, February 4, 1987), requires 

stormwater dischargers ‘‘associated with 

industrial activity’’ to be covered under 

an NPDES permit. In its initial 

stormwater permit regulations, called 

the ‘‘Phase I’’ stormwater regulations (55 

FR 47990, November 16, 1990), EPA 

designated air transportation facilities, 

including both airlines and airports, 

which have vehicle maintenance shops 

(including vehicle rehabilitation, 

mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, 

and lubrication), equipment cleaning 

operations, or airport deicing operations 

as subject to NPDES stormwater 

permitting requirements. See 40 CFR 

122.26(b)(14)(viii). 

Airport stormwater discharges may be 

controlled under a general NPDES 

permit, which covers multiple facilities 

with similar types of operations and/or 

wastestreams, or by an individual 

permit. (An airport may have additional 

NPDES permits for non-stormwater 

discharges, such as from equipment 

repair and maintenance facilities. The 

following discussion pertains only to 

stormwater permits.) 

1. General Permits 

Currently most airport deicing 

discharges are covered by a general 

permit issued either by EPA or by an 

NPDES-authorized state agency. In most 

areas where EPA is the permit authority, 

the Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) 

covers airport deicing discharges (73 FR 

56572, September 29, 2008). Many 

NPDES-authorized state agencies have 

issued general permits in their 

respective jurisdictions with 

requirements similar to the MSGP. An 

airport seeking coverage under a general 

permit submits a Notice of Intent (NOI) 

to the permit authority rather than a 

detailed permit application. By 

submitting an NOI, the permittee is 

agreeing to comply with the conditions 

in the published permit. 

For airports, the major requirements 

of the MSGP are: 

• Develop a stormwater pollution 

prevention plan (SWPPP), including a 

drainage area site map, documentation 

of measures used for management of 

runoff, an evaluation of runway and 

aircraft deicing operations, and 

implementation of a program to control 

or manage contaminated runoff, 

including consideration of various listed 

control practices; 

• Implement deicing source reduction 

measures, including minimizing or 

eliminating the use of urea and glycolbased deicing chemicals; minimizing 

contamination of stormwater runoff 

from runway and aircraft deicing 

operations; evaluating whether overapplication of deicing chemicals occurs; 

and consider use of various listed 

source control measures; 

• For airports using over 100,000 gal. 

of glycol based deicing chemicals and/ 

or 100 tons or more of urea annually, 

monitor discharges quarterly for the first 

four quarters of the permit cycle, for the 

following pollutants: biochemical 

oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical 

oxygen demand (COD), ammonia and 

pH; 

• If the average of the four monitoring 

values for any parameter exceeds its 

benchmark, implement additional 

control measures where feasible, and 

continue monitoring; 

• Conduct an annual site inspection 

during the deicing season, and during 

periods of actual deicing operations if 

possible; and routine facility 

inspections at least monthly during the 

deicing season. 

2. Individual Permits 

Some EPA and state NPDESpermitting authorities have required 

certain airports to obtain individual 

permits. In these situations, an airport 

must submit a detailed application and 

the permit authority develops specific 

requirements for the facility. 

Some individual permits contain 

specialized requirements for monitoring 

and/or best management practices. 

Some of these permits also contain 

numeric water quality-based effluent 

limitations (WQBELs). Information on 

water quality-based permitting is 

available on EPA’s Web site at http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/generalissues/ 

watertechnology.cfm. 

C. Effluent Guidelines and Standards 

Program 

Effluent guidelines and new source 

performance standards are technologybased regulations that are developed by 

EPA for a category of dischargers. These 

regulations are based on the 

performance of control and treatment 

technologies. The legislative history of 

CWA section 304(b), which is the heart 

of the effluent guidelines program, 

describes the need to press toward 

higher levels of control through research 

and development of new processes, 

modifications, replacement of obsolete 

plans and processes, and other 

improvements in technology, taking into 

account the cost of controls. Congress 

also directed that EPA not consider 

water quality impacts on individual 

water bodies as the guidelines are 

developed. See Statement of Senator 

Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in 

Legislative History of the Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972, at 170. (U.S. Senate, Committee 

on Public Works, Serial No. 93–1, 

January 1973.) 

There are four types of standards 

applicable to direct dischargers 

(dischargers to surface waters), and two 

standards applicable to indirect 

dischargers (discharges to publicly 

owned treatment works or POTWs). 

1. Best Practicable Control Technology 

Currently Available (BPT) 

Traditionally, EPA establishes BPT 

effluent limitations based on the average 

of the best performances of facilities 

within the industry, grouped to reflect 

various ages, sizes, processes, or other 

common characteristics. EPA may 

promulgate BPT effluent limits for 

conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants. In specifying 

BPT, EPA looks at a number of factors. 

EPA first considers the cost of achieving 

effluent reductions in relation to the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44679 

effluent reduction benefits. The Agency 

also considers the age of the equipment 

and facilities, the processes employed, 

engineering aspects of the control 

technologies, any required process 

changes, non-water quality 

environmental impacts (including 

energy requirements), and such other 

factors as the Administrator deems 

appropriate. See CWA sec. 304(b)(1)(B). 

If, however, existing performance is 

uniformly inadequate, EPA may 

establish limitations based on higher 

levels of control than currently in place 

in an industrial category when based on 

an Agency determination that the 

technology is available in another 

category or subcategory, and can be 

practically applied. 

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control 

Technology (BCT) 

The 1977 amendments to the CWA 

required EPA to identify additional 

levels of effluent reduction for 

conventional pollutants associated with 

BCT technology for discharges from 

existing industrial point sources. In 

addition to other factors specified in 

section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires 

that EPA establish BCT limitations after 

consideration of a two part ‘‘costreasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its 

methodology for the development of 

BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 

24974). Section 304(a)(4) designates the 

following as conventional pollutants: 

biochemical oxygen demand measured 

over five days (BOD5), total suspended 

solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any 

additional pollutants defined by the 

Administrator as conventional. The 

Administrator designated oil and grease 

as an additional conventional pollutant 

on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501; 40 CFR 

401.16). 

3. Best Available Technology 

Economically Achievable (BAT) 

BAT represents the second level of 

stringency for controlling direct 

discharge of toxic and nonconventional 

pollutants. In general, BAT effluent 

limitation guidelines represent the best 

economically achievable performance of 

facilities in the industrial subcategory or 

category. The factors considered in 

assessing BAT include the cost of 

achieving BAT effluent reductions, the 

age of equipment and facilities 

involved, the process employed, 

potential process changes, and nonwater quality environmental impacts 

including energy requirements, and 

such other factors as the Administrator 

deems appropriate. The Agency retains 

considerable discretion in assigning the 

weight to be accorded these factors. An 

additional statutory factor considered in 

setting BAT is economic achievability. 

Generally, EPA determines economic 

achievability on the basis of total costs 

to the industry and the effect of 

compliance with BAT limitations on 

overall industry and subcategory 

financial conditions. As with BPT, 

where existing performance is 

uniformly inadequate, BAT may reflect 

a higher level of performance than is 

currently being achieved based on 

technology transferred from a different 

subcategory or category. BAT may be 

based upon process changes or internal 

controls, even when these technologies 

are not common industry practice. 

4. New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) 

New Source Performance Standards 

reflect effluent reductions that are 

achievable based on the best available 

demonstrated control technology. 

Owners of new facilities have the 

opportunity to install the best and most 

efficient production processes and 

wastewater treatment technologies. As a 

result, NSPS should represent the most 

stringent controls attainable through the 

application of the best available 

demonstrated control technology for all 

pollutants (that is, conventional, 

nonconventional, and priority 

pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA 

is directed to take into consideration the 

cost of achieving the effluent reduction 

and any non-water quality 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources (PSES) 

Pretreatment standards apply to 

discharges of pollutants to publicly 

owned treatment works (POTW) rather 

than to discharges to waters of the 

United States. Pretreatment Standards 

for Existing Sources are designed to 

prevent the discharge of pollutants that 

pass through, interfere with, or are 

otherwise incompatible with the 

operation of POTWs. Categorical 

pretreatment standards are technologybased and are analogous to BAT effluent 

limitation guidelines. The General 

Pretreatment Regulations, which set 

forth the framework for the 

implementation of categorical 

pretreatment standards, are found at 40 

CFR part 403. These regulations 

establish pretreatment standards that 

apply to all non-domestic dischargers. 

See 52 FR 1586 (Jan. 14, 1987). 

6. Pretreatment Standards for New 

Sources (PSNS) 

Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA 

to promulgate pretreatment standards 

for new sources at the same time it 

promulgates new source performance 

standards. Such pretreatment standards 

must prevent the discharge of any 

pollutant into a POTW that may 

interfere with, pass through, or may 

otherwise be incompatible with the 

POTW. EPA promulgates categorical 

pretreatment standards for existing 

sources based principally on BAT 

technology for existing sources. EPA 

promulgates pretreatment standards for 

new sources based on best available 

demonstrated technology for new 

sources. New indirect dischargers have 

the opportunity to incorporate into their 

facilities the best available 

demonstrated technologies. The Agency 

typically considers the same factors in 

promulgating PSNS as it considers in 

promulgating NSPS. 

IV. Scope/Applicability of Proposed 

Rule 

EPA solicits comments on various 

issues specifically identified in this 

preamble as well as any other issues 

related to this rule that are not 

specifically addressed in today’s notice. 

A. Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 449 

EPA is proposing to establish effluent 

limitation guidelines and standards for 

primary commercial airports that 

conduct deicing operations and have 

more than 1,000 annual departures of 

scheduled commercial jet aircraft. 

Further information on the rationale for 

the proposed scope is provided in 

Section VII.D.1 of this preamble and in 

both the TDD and the EA. 

B. Overview of Technology 

Requirements 

The proposed rule would require an 

airport subject to this Part to: 

• Collect at least a specified 

proportion (either 20 or 60 percent) of 

available ADF after it is sprayed on 

aircraft; 

• Meet a specified numeric effluent 

limit for ADF wastewater collected and 

discharged on site; and 

• Certify that it uses airfield 

pavement deicers that do not contain 

urea. 

All references to ADF in today’s 

proposed rule are for normalized ADF, 

which is ADF less any water added by 

the manufacturer or customer before 

ADF application. 

The technologies that serve as the 

basis for the proposed ELGs are 

summarized in Table IV–1 and Figure 

IV–1. These provisions are explained in 

Section VII of this preamble. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44680 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV–1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AIRPORT DEICING EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

Regulatory 

level Technology basis 

Technical components 

Airports > 1,000 annual jet departures and 

>= 10,000 annual departures 

Airports > 1,000 annual jet departures and 

< 10,000 annual departures 

BAT ............ 1. 60% or 20% ADF 

capture.

1. Capture 60% of available ADF (for airports 

having >= 460,000 gal. ADF usage) or capture 

20% (for airports < 460,000 gal. ADF usage).

1. Certify use of non-urea-based pavement deicers or Meet effluent limit for ammonia. 

2. Biological treatment ... 2. Treat wastewater to meet effluent limit for 

chemical oxygen demand (COD). 

3. Pavement deicer 

product substitution.

3. Certify use of non-urea-based pavement deicers or Meet effluent limit for ammonia. 

NSPS ......... 1. 60% ADF capture ...... 1. Capture 60% of available ADF .......................... 1. Certify use of non-urea-based pavement deicers or Meet effluent limit for ammonia. 

2. Biological treatment ... 2. Treat wastewater to meet effluent limit for 

chemical oxygen demand (COD). 

3. Pavement deicer 

product substitution.

3. Certify use of non-urea-based pavement deicers or Meet effluent limit for ammonia. 

Note: All references to ADF are for normalized ADF, which is ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF 

application. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44681 

V. Industry Profile 

A. Airport Population 

The Airport and Airway Improvement 

Act (AAIA), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 471, 

defines airports by categories of airport 

activities, including Commercial Service 

(Primary and Non-Primary), Cargo 

Service, and Reliever. These categories 

are not mutually exclusive; an airport 

may be classified in more than one of 

these categories. Another group of 

generally smaller airports, not 

specifically defined by AAIA, is 

commonly known as ‘‘general aviation’’ 

airports. EPA estimates that there are 

approximately 500 commercial service 

airports. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP28AU09.006</GPH>
44682 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Commercial service airports are 

publicly owned airports that have at 

least 2,500 passenger boardings each 

calendar year and receive scheduled 

passenger service. Passenger boardings 

refer to revenue passenger boardings on 

an aircraft in service in air commerce, 

whether or not in scheduled service. 

The definition also includes passengers 

who continue on an aircraft in 

international flight that stops at an 

airport in any of the 50 States for a nontraffic purpose, such as refueling or 

aircraft maintenance rather than 

passenger activity. Passenger boardings 

at airports that receive scheduled 

passenger service are also referred to as 

‘‘enplanements.’’ 

Primary commercial service airports 

(primary airports) have more than 

10,000 passenger boardings each year. 

Primary airports are further subdivided 

into Large Hub, Medium Hub, Small 

Hub and Non-Hub classifications, based 

on the percentage of total passenger 

boardings within the United States in 

the most current calendar year ending 

before the start of the current fiscal year. 

B. FAA Deicing Requirements 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

requires airlines to deice aircraft and 

airfield pavement to protect the safety of 

passenger and cargo operations. FAA 

regulations in 14 CFR Part 121 require 

a complete deicing/anti-icing program. 

The regulations in 14 CFR Parts 121, 

125 and 135 regulate takeoff when 

snow, ice, or frost is adhering to wings, 

propellers, control surfaces, engine 

inlets, and other critical surfaces of the 

aircraft. FAA does not require airlines to 

use a specific technology when deicing 

aircraft. In fact, airlines develop their 

own deicing protocols to meet the 

requirements of 14 CFR 125.221. 

Additionally, FAA has released 

Advisory Circulars (AC) which provide 

guidance for aircraft and airfield 

deicing, including AC 20–73A (Aircraft 

Ice Protection), AC 135–16 (Ground 

Deicing & Anti-icing Training & 

Checking), AC 120–58 (Pilot Guide: 

Large Aircraft Ground Deicing) and AC 

150/5300–14B (Design of Aircraft 

Deicing Facilities). Advisory Circulars 

are available on FAA’s Web site at 

http://www.airweb.faa.gov. 

C. Description of Deicing Operations 

A major concern for the safety of 

passengers is the clearing of ice and 

snow buildup on runways, taxiways, 

roadways, gate areas, and aircraft. Two 

basic types of deicing/anti-icing 

operations are generally performed at an 

airport: the deicing/anti-icing of aircraft, 

and the deicing/anti-icing of paved 

areas, including runways, taxiways, 

roadways, and gate areas. The most 

common technique for the deicing/antiicing of aircraft is the application of 

chemical deicing/anti-icing agents. 

Deicing of runways, taxiways, and 

roadways is most commonly performed 

using mechanical means, but may also 

be performed using chemical agents. 

The anti-icing of paved areas is typically 

conducted with anti-icing chemicals. 

1. Aircraft Deicing 

Aircraft deicing involves the removal 

of frost, snow, or ice from an aircraft. 

Aircraft anti-icing generally refers to the 

prevention of the accumulation of frost, 

snow, or ice. The responsibility for 

performing deicing/anti-icing varies 

between airports, but it is usually 

performed by a combination of 

individual airlines and support 

contractors, commonly called fixed-base 

operators (FBOs) or ground service 

providers. Airlines typically select 

procedures for deicing/anti-icing their 

aircraft, which are then approved by the 

FAA. 

a. Chemical Deicing Practices 

In the deicing/anti-icing process, 

aircraft are usually sprayed with 

deicing/anti-icing fluids (ADF) that 

contain chemical deicing agents; 

however, non-chemical methods are 

also performed. Deicing/anti-icing 

occurs when the weather conditions are 

such that ice or snow accumulates on an 

aircraft. During snowstorms, freezing 

rain, or cold weather that causes frost to 

accumulate on aircraft surfaces 

including the wings, deicing is 

necessary to ensure the safe operation of 

aircraft. Studies have concluded that 

even a small amount of ice, if located on 

critical aircraft surfaces (e.g., leading 

edge of the wing), can cause significant 

decreases in lift. 

The typical deicing season runs from 

October through April for most airports 

in the northern U.S. In colder areas, the 

deicing season may extend over a longer 

period. In warmer climates, the deicing 

season may be shorter or deicing may 

rarely occur. However, it is important to 

note that deicing may be needed in hot, 

humid areas at any time. Some aircraft 

may experience frost build-up after 

landing at an airport in a hot, humid 

area. (The phenomenon is similar to 

frost forming on a cold glass of water 

exposed to hot, humid air and occurs for 

the same reason that the cold glass 

developed frost. Fuel chills when a 

plane operates at high altitudes where 

the temperature is very cold. When the 

plane lands in a hot, humid area, the 

cold fuel chills the fuel tank. If the tank 

is very close to the surface of the wing, 

it causes frost to form on the wing.) 

ADF works by adhering to aircraft 

surfaces to remove and/or prevent snow 

and ice accumulation. Non-chemical 

methods include the use of mechanical 

or thermal means (e.g., infrared heating) 

to prevent, remove, or melt ice and 

snow. Two types of deicing are 

performed: Wet-weather and dryweather deicing, depending on a 

number of climatic and operational 

factors. Wet-weather deicing is 

performed during storm events that 

include precipitation such as snow, 

sleet, or freezing rain. Dry-weather 

deicing is performed when changes in 

the ambient temperature cause frost or 

ice to form on aircraft but no 

precipitation is present. Dry-weather 

deicing may also be performed on some 

types of aircraft whose fuel tanks 

become super-cooled during highaltitude flight, resulting in ice formation 

at lower altitudes and after landing. Dryweather deicing may occur at 

temperatures up to 55° Fahrenheit (F), 

but generally requires a significantly 

smaller volume of deicing fluid than 

wet-weather deicing. 

During typical wet-weather 

conditions, 150 to 1,000 gallons of ADF 

may be used on a single commercial jet, 

while as little as 10 gallons may be used 

on a small corporate jet. An estimated 

1,000 to 4,000 gallons may be needed to 

deice a larger commercial jet during 

severe weather conditions. Aircraft antiicing fluids are applied in much smaller 

volumes than their deicing counterparts 

are. A commercial jet requires 

approximately 35 gallons of fluid for 

anti-icing after deicing. Generally, dryweather deicing requires 20 to 50 

gallons of deicing fluid, depending on 

the size of the aircraft. 

Chemical aircraft deicers are 

categorized into four classes. Not all 

types are currently used. Fluid types 

vary by composition and allowed 

holdover time (the estimated time for 

which deicing/anti-icing fluid will 

prevent the formation of frost or ice and 

the accumulation of snow on the treated 

surfaces of an aircraft). Type I is the 

most commonly used fluid and is used 

primarily for aircraft deicing. These 

types of fluids typically contain glycol 

as the active ingredient (usually 

ethylene glycol or propylene glycol), 

along with water and additives, and 

remove accumulated ice and snow from 

aircraft surfaces. Types II, III, and IV 

were developed for anti-icing. These 

fluids form a protective anti-icing film 

on aircraft surfaces to prevent the 

accumulation of ice and snow. Antiicing fluids are composed of either 

ethylene glycol or propylene glycol, a 

small amount of thickener, water, and 

additives. The additives in aircraft 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44683 

deicing and anti-icing fluids may 

include corrosion inhibitors, flame 

retardants, wetting agents, identifying 

dyes, and foam suppressors. Type IV 

fluids can provide up to a 70 minute 

holdover time, depending on 

atmospheric conditions. (Holdover time 

is the amount of time a given aircraft 

treatment by ground anti-icing fluid 

remains effective. Holdover time 

effectively runs out when frozen 

deposits start to form or accumulate on 

treated aircraft surfaces.) Most large 

airlines use both Type I and Type IV 

fluids. 

Aircraft deicing and anti-icing 

operations usually occur at terminal 

gates, gate aprons, taxiways, or 

centralized deicing pads. Centralized 

deicing pads may be located near 

terminals and gates, along taxiways 

serving departure runways, or near the 

departure end of runways. Each airport 

may use only one or a combination of 

all of these locations for deicing/antiicing. The amount and type of deicing 

performed at each location may vary. 

For example, an airport with deicing 

pads may allow air carriers to perform 

minimal deicing at gates, at a level 

sufficient to move the aircraft safely, 

and require all other deicing operations 

to be conducted at a pad. 

If deicing is not conducted at the gate, 

then, prior to takeoff, an aircraft will 

taxi to an airport-approved deicing/antiicing location. Depending on the deicing 

location design, several aircraft may be 

deiced simultaneously on a single 

deicing pad. Deicing trucks and/or spray 

equipment mounted on fixed booms 

apply the appropriate ADF. One to four 

deicer trucks may be used for deicing a 

single aircraft, depending on its size and 

weather conditions. When holdover 

times are exceeded prior to takeoff, 

secondary deicing/anti-icing is 

necessary. If an aircraft must return to 

the gate or another designated location 

for secondary deicing/anti-icing, its 

departure may be substantially delayed. 

The need for secondary deicing will 

likely decrease as more airlines use 

Type IV fluids to extend the allowable 

holdover time. 

While the FAA has issued regulations 

and guidance on conducting deicing/ 

anti-icing operations, the aircraft pilot is 

ultimately responsible for determining 

whether the deicing performed is 

adequate. The pilot may inspect the 

aircraft after deicing and order 

additional deicing or anti-icing. 

Dry-weather deicing, also referred to 

as clear ice deicing, may be performed 

whenever ambient temperatures are 

cold enough to form ice on aircraft 

wings (below 55° F). Dry-weather 

deicing is also used to defrost 

windshields and wingtips on commuter 

planes and is usually conducted 

throughout the entire deicing/anti-icing 

season. 

b. Non-Chemical Deicing Practices 

Non-chemical deicing methods 

involve mechanical or thermal means to 

remove ice and snow from aircraft 

surfaces. Dry, powdery snow can be 

swept from aircraft using brooms or 

brushes. Hot air blowers can also be 

used to remove snow mechanically with 

forced air and to melt ice and snow. In 

addition, some smaller aircraft are 

equipped with inflatable pneumatic or 

hydraulic boots that can expand to 

break ice off the leading edges of wings 

and elevators. 

Mechanical snow removal methods 

(e.g., using nylon brooms and ropes to 

remove snow from parked aircraft) are 

typically only used in the early morning 

because they are time-intensive and 

labor-intensive, and would be too 

disruptive to airline schedules during 

the day. Mechanical methods are 

typically also used in conjunction with 

fluid application and are dependent on 

climate and operational variables. 

Personnel must be properly trained and 

provided with appropriate equipment so 

as not to damage navigational 

equipment mounted on aircraft. Airlines 

typically use brooms to remove as much 

snow and ice as possible before 

applying conventional aircraft deicing 

fluids. 

Other non-chemical deicing 

practices—infrared heating, forced air 

and hot air systems—are being used at 

several airports throughout the U.S. 

These technologies are described in 

Section VII.B.3, Pollution Prevention 

Technologies. 

2. Airfield Pavement Deicing 

Pavement snow removal and deicing/ 

anti-icing removes or prevents the 

accumulation of frost, snow, or ice on 

runways, taxiways, aprons, gates, and 

ramps. A combination of mechanical 

methods and chemical deicing/antiicing agents is used for pavement 

deicing at airports. Runway deicing/ 

anti-icing is typically performed by 

airport personnel or a contractor hired 

by the authority. Some ramp, apron, 

gate, and taxiway deicing/anti-icing may 

be performed by other entities, such as 

airlines and FBOs that operate on those 

areas. Pavement deicing typically occurs 

during the same season as aircraft 

deicing, but may be shorter or longer 

than the aircraft deicing season. 

a. Mechanical Methods 

Mechanical methods, such as plows, 

brushes, blowers, and shovels for snow 

removal, are the most common form of 

runway deicing, and may be used in 

combination with chemical methods. 

Airports generally own multiple pieces 

of snow removal equipment and have 

employees trained to operate them. 

Sand may be used to increase the 

friction of icy paved areas. Because 

winter storm events can be 

unpredictable, personnel trained in 

pavement deicing/anti-icing may be 

available at an airport 24 hours a day 

during the winter season. 

b. Chemical Methods 

Because ice, sleet, and snow may be 

difficult to remove by mechanical 

methods alone, most airports use a 

combination of mechanical methods 

and chemical deicing agents. Common 

pavement deicing and anti-icing agents 

include potassium acetate, sodium 

acetate, urea, ethylene glycol-based 

fluids, propylene glycol-based fluids, 

and sodium formate. Road salt (i.e., 

sodium chloride or potassium chloride) 

may be used to deice/anti-ice paved 

areas that are not used by aircraft (e.g., 

automobile roadways and parking areas) 

but are not considered suitable for 

deicing/anti-icing taxiways, runways, 

aprons, and ramps because of their 

corrosive effects on aircraft. 

Many airports perform deicing of 

heavy accumulations of snow and ice 

using mechanical equipment followed 

by chemical applications. Pavement 

anti-icing may be performed based on 

predicted weather conditions and 

pavement temperature. Deicing and 

anti-icing solutions are applied using 

either truck-mounted spray equipment 

or manual methods. 

3. Estimates of Deicing Activity 

a. Aircraft Deicing Chemical Usage 

Airlines use approximately 25 million 

gallons of ADF annually, consisting of 

22.1 million gallons of propylene glycolbased deicers and almost 3 million 

gallons of ethylene glycol-based deicers. 

EPA estimates that approximately 320 

primary airports conduct deicing 

operations annually and that 

approximately 85 percent of this ADF 

(21.6 million gallons) is used at 110 of 

the 320 airports. 

b. Airfield Pavement Deicing Chemical 

Usage 

Primary airports use approximately 71 

million pounds of chemical deicers on 

airfield pavement (runways, taxiways 

and ramps) annually. The six most 

frequently used deicers, with estimated 

percentages by weight, are as follows: 

potassium acetate (63 percent); urea (12 

percent); propylene glycol-based fluids 

(11 percent); sodium acetate (9 percent); 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44684 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

sodium formate (3 percent); and 

ethylene glycol-based fluids (2 percent). 

VI. Summary of Data Collection 

A. Previous EPA Data Collection 

Activities 

1. 1993 Screener Questionnaire 

In 1992, EPA began developing 

effluent guidelines and standards for the 

Transportation Equipment Cleaning 

(TEC) category (40 CFR Part 442). The 

scope of the TEC regulation at that time 

included facilities that clean the 

interiors of tank trucks, rail tank cars, 

and tank barges; facilities that clean 

aircraft exteriors; and facilities that 

deice/anti-ice aircraft and/or airport 

pavement. Initial data collection efforts 

for this project related to airport deicing 

operations included development and 

administration of a ‘‘screener’’ 

questionnaire that was administered in 

1993. The screener questionnaire was 

developed, in part, to enable EPA to: (1) 

Identify facilities that perform TEC 

aircraft operations; (2) evaluate facilities 

based on wastewater, economic, and 

operational characteristics; and (3) 

develop technical and economic profiles 

of the industry. Subsequent to 

distribution of the screener 

questionnaire, EPA decided not to 

include the aircraft segment as part of 

the TEC effluent guidelines that were 

promulgated in 2000 (65 FR 49665, 

August 14, 2000). The Agency indicated 

that its recently-issued stormwater 

regulations and permits under the 

NPDES program imposed new 

requirements for airport discharges, and 

that aircraft cleaning and airport deicing 

operations were significantly different 

from other portions of the TEC category. 

EPA mailed the screener 

questionnaire to 760 entities that 

potentially perform aircraft exterior 

cleaning and/or aircraft or pavement 

deicing/anti-icing operations. Following 

the screener questionnaire mail-out and 

analyses of responses, EPA estimated 

that, in 1993, there were 588 entities 

(i.e., airlines and FBOs) that perform 

deicing/anti-icing operations. 

2. 1998–99 Preliminary Data Summary 

EPA conducted a study of airport 

deicing practices in 1998–99 and 

published a report in 2000. (Preliminary 

Data Summary: Airport Deicing 

Operations (Revised), Document No. 

821–R–00–016, August 2000). The study 

described deicing operations in the 

industry, wastewater characteristics and 

procedures for its collection and 

treatment. The study was conducted to 

comply with CWA sec. 304(m), which 

requires the Agency to publish a 

biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan, and a 

consent decree in Natural Resources 

Defense Council and Public Citizen, Inc. 

v. Browner (D.D.C. 89–2980, as modified 

February 4, 1997). As part of the study, 

EPA distributed short questionnaires to 

several aviation sectors, including those 

involved in deicing; conducted site 

visits to airports; and conducted 

wastewater sampling episodes. 

a. Questionnaires 

In 1999, EPA sent questionnaires to 

airports, an airline industry association, 

equipment vendors, and publicly owned 

treatment works (POTW), and requested 

data about the 1998–99 deicing season. 

The Airport Questionnaire was sent to 

nine airports and asked for information 

on aircraft and airfield deicing 

activities; wastewater handling and 

treatment; and airport structure, 

finances and operations. A 

questionnaire requesting financial data 

was sent to an airline industry 

association, which provided 

information about the deicing 

operations of 12 of its members, and 

eight regional airlines also received 

questionnaires. The Vendor 

Questionnaire was sent to nine 

businesses and requested information 

about equipment used to collect, 

control, recycle/recover, treat or reduce 

the generation of glycol-contaminated 

wastewater from aircraft and airfield 

deicing operations. The POTW 

Questionnaire was sent to nine facilities 

and requested information about 

potential pollutants in wastewater 

discharges from airports, and the 

potential environmental impacts 

stemming from POTWs’ acceptance of 

these wastes. 

b. Wastewater Sampling 

EPA conducted six sampling episodes 

for the study. Two of these episodes 

obtained data on ADF, and four 

episodes obtained data on ADFcontaminated wastewater and final 

effluent data from airports with various 

collection and treatment systems. 

c. Airport Site Visits 

EPA visited 16 airports between 1997 

and 1999 (including one visit before the 

formal commencement of the study). 

Information gathered included deicing 

operations, names and quantities of 

deicing chemical products used, 

wastewater characterization, treatment 

technologies and costs, and financial 

data. The Agency obtained effluent selfmonitoring data from some of the 

airports that were visited. 

d. Other Data Sources 

EPA collected data on NPDES permits 

and from the Toxic Release Inventory 

database, which have wastewater 

discharge information. EPA also 

collected data from state, local, and 

other federal agencies, including the 

FAA, Department of Transportation and 

the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS); and Canadian federal agencies 

involved with airport environmental 

issues. These included interviews 

conducted during site visits, airport 

effluent monitoring data, airline 

operations data (i.e., departures and 

enplanement statistics), and economic 

and financial information about the 

industry. All of the collected data are 

available in the record for this proposed 

rule. 

B. 2006–07 Industry Surveys 

For this proposed rule, EPA 

developed a series of survey 

questionnaires to compile a complete 

profile of the industry with regard to 

type and amounts of deicing chemicals 

used, collection systems, and 

wastewater treatment systems. These 

questionnaires expanded on the 

Agency’s earlier survey efforts by the 

design of a scientific national statistical 

sample of airports and development of 

a reasonable national estimate of deicing 

activity by major airlines. A 

comprehensive set of questions and data 

tables was also developed. In designing 

the questionnaires, EPA consulted with 

airport and airline industry 

representatives, including the American 

Association of Airport Executives 

(AAAE), Airports Council 

International—North America (ACI–NA) 

and the Air Transport Association 

(ATA). The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approved the 

questionnaires on January 13, 2006, and 

EPA distributed the questionnaires 

during 2006 and 2007. 

1. Airline Screener 

EPA designed a short ‘‘screener’’ 

questionnaire to obtain basic 

information from air carriers on which 

organizations actually performed 

deicing services for a particular carrier, 

at specified airport locations (i.e., the 

airline conducted its own deicing, it 

contracted with another airline, or it 

used an FBO). EPA used the results of 

this questionnaire to select respondents 

for the Detailed Airline Questionnaire. 

The screener was distributed to 72 

airlines and requested information on 

deicing activities at 149 airports. EPA 

distributed the screener to the industry 

in April 2006. 

2. Airport Questionnaire 

EPA designed the Airport Deicing 

Questionnaire to serve as the Agency’s 

primary data source for airport-specific 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44685 

information. The questionnaire 

requested information on a number of 

topics including, general airport 

information, deicing operations, deicing 

stormwater collection and conveyance, 

deicing stormwater treatment, sampling 

data, pollution prevention, receiving 

waters, and airport financial 

information. 

EPA distributed the Airport Deicing 

Questionnaire to the industry in April 

2006. The questionnaire was sent to 153 

airports, including a census of all large 

and medium hub airports, as well as a 

sample survey of all Small and Non-Hub 

Airports. (General aviation airports were 

not included in the survey, except for a 

few with large cargo operations, because 

these airports are used mainly by small 

private airplanes that typically do not 

fly during icing conditions, and 

therefore are sites where little or no 

ADF use occurs.) 

3. Detailed Airline Questionnaire 

EPA designed the Detailed Airline 

Questionnaire in order to learn more 

about the airlines’ role in deicing 

operations, as well as to get information 

that is more precise on ADF usage. This 

questionnaire was EPA’s primary data 

source for airline-specific information. 

The questionnaire asked questions on 

topics including deicing operations, 

ADF purchase and usage, pollution 

prevention practices, and operational 

costs. The questionnaire was sent in 

March 2007 to 58 air carriers, covering 

deicing operations at 57 airports. This 

questionnaire requested information on 

a number of topics including: General 

airline information, airline deicing 

practices, pollution prevention practices 

and deicing costs. 

C. Site Visits 

In order to become familiar with the 

day-to-day operations at airports, as 

well as learn some of the more sitespecific issues that arise with deicing, 

EPA conducted site visits at more than 

20 airports. EPA visited airports that 

had specific treatment technologies in 

place, in order to learn more about these 

technologies. Some of the airports 

included were Denver, Pittsburgh and 

General Mitchell (Milwaukee). All site 

visits were documented with Site Visit 

Reports (SVRs), which are in the record 

for today’s proposed rule (Record Index, 

Section 2.3). 

D. Wastewater Sampling Episodes 

EPA collected several wastewater 

samples for chemical analysis during 

sampling episodes at six airports to 

characterize pollutants found in ADFcontaminated runoff, and to assess the 

performance of treatment systems. The 

Agency conducted episodes at these six 

airports in 2005 and 2006: Minneapolis/ 

St. Paul International Airport, Detroit 

Metropolitan Wayne County 

International Airport, Albany 

International Airport, Denver 

International Airport, Greater Rockford 

(Illinois) Airport, and Pittsburgh 

International Airport. At the first two 

airports, EPA conducted one-day 

sampling episodes, to provide a general 

characterization of wastewater from 

deicing operations. The subsequent four 

events were multiple-day performance 

sampling episodes, which were 

designed to document the performance 

of wastewater treatment systems. 

For each analytical chemical class or 

parameter, EPA collected 24-hour 

composite samples when possible, in 

order to capture the variability in the 

waste streams containing ADF generated 

throughout the day. EPA used the data 

from the laboratory analyses of these 

samples to develop a list of pollutants 

of concern, and characterize the raw 

wastewater at airports. EPA used the 

data collected from the influent, 

intermediate, and effluent points to 

analyze the efficacy of treatment at the 

facilities, and to develop current 

discharge concentrations, loadings, and 

the treatment technology options for the 

Airport Deicing effluent guideline. EPA 

used effluent data, along with data 

provided by industry in the 

questionnaires and other sources, to 

calculate the long-term averages and 

limitations for each of the proposed 

regulatory options. During each 

sampling episode, EPA collected flow 

rate data corresponding to each sample 

collected and production information 

from each associated production system 

for use in calculating pollutant loadings. 

EPA has included in the public record 

all information collected for which a 

facility has not asserted a claim of 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or which would indirectly reveal 

information claimed to be CBI. 

After conducting the sampling 

episodes, EPA prepared sampling 

episode reports for each facility. These 

reports included descriptions of the 

wastewater treatment processes, 

sampling procedures, and analytical 

results. EPA documented all data 

collected during sampling episodes in 

the sampling episode report for each 

sampled site. Non-confidential business 

information from these reports is 

available in the public record for this 

proposal. For detailed information on 

sampling and preservation procedures, 

analytical methods, and quality 

assurance/quality control procedures 

see the Quality Assurance Project Plans 

and the Sampling and Analysis Plans 

(Record Index, Section 2.4). 

E. Other Data Collection 

EPA collected other information from 

various other data sources including: 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 

information on current permit 

requirements; industry correspondence 

on technology costs and long-term 

wastewater monitoring data; and 

searches of technical and scientific 

literature, covering current deicing 

practices and treatment technologies, 

current airport deicing runoff data, 

chemical information and 

environmental impact studies, and 

current stormwater regulations in the 

United States and other countries. 

F. Summary of Public Participation 

EPA has met or corresponded with 

many airport and airline 

representatives, citizen and 

environmental groups, vendors of 

deicing chemicals and equipment, state 

permit agencies, other Federal agencies 

and engineering consulting firms. The 

Agency has attended conferences on 

airport deicing and has given 

presentations at several of those 

conferences. Correspondence from these 

organizations about the proposed rule is 

in the Record for the proposed rule. 

VII. Technology Options, Costs, 

Wastewater Characteristics, and 

Pollutant Reductions 

A. Wastewater Sources and Wastewater 

Characteristics 

1. Aircraft Deicing 

Most ADF is applied to aircraft 

through pressurized spraying systems, 

mounted either on trucks that move 

around an aircraft, or on large fixed 

boom devices located at a pad dedicated 

to deicing. Airlines typically purchase 

ADF in concentrated form (normalized) 

and dilute it with water prior to 

spraying. 

Most of the aircraft deicing fluid is 

Type I fluid, which is not designed to 

adhere to aircraft surfaces. Consequently 

the majority of Type I ADF is available 

for discharge due to dripping, 

overspraying, tires rolling through or 

sprayed with fluid, and shearing during 

takeoff. Once the ADF has reached the 

ground, it will then mix with 

precipitation, as well as other chemicals 

found on airport pavements. (These 

chemicals typically include aircraft fuel, 

lubricants and solvents, and metals from 

aircraft, ground support and utility 

vehicles.) Water containing these 

substances enters an airport’s storm 

drain system. At many airports, the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44686 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

storm drains discharge directly to 

waters of the United States with no 

treatment. 

Type IV fluid, an anti-icing chemical, 

is designed to adhere to the aircraft. 

Because of this adherence characteristic, 

EPA estimated that the majority of Type 

IV fluid is not available for discharge. 

For the purposes of this proposed 

rule, the pollutant loadings are 

discussed in terms of applied ADF and 

how much of that is expected to be 

discharged. A more detailed discussion 

of loadings estimates is presented later 

in this section. Given the highly variable 

nature of storm events, it is difficult to 

estimate flows or concentrations of 

ADF-contaminated stormwater 

generated at an airport. Those factors are 

greatly dependent on the size of the 

storm event associated with the 

discharge, drainage characteristics, ADF 

collection systems (if present), and 

airport operations. Additionally, due to 

the design of drainage systems at some 

airports, their discharges may occur 

well after a storm event has completed. 

2. Airfield Pavement Deicing 

Most solid airfield deicing chemical 

products are composed of an active 

deicing ingredient (e.g., potassium 

acetate, sodium acetate) and a small 

amount of additives (e.g., corrosion 

inhibitors). Liquid airfield deicing 

chemical products are composed of an 

active ingredient (e.g., potassium 

acetate, propylene glycol), water, and 

minimal additives. The airfield deicing 

products that include salts (i.e., 

potassium acetate, sodium acetate, and 

sodium formate) will all ionize in water, 

creating positive salt ions (K+, Na+), 

BOD5 and COD load as the acetate or 

formate ion degrades into carbon 

dioxide (CO2) and water. Pavement 

deicers containing urea will degrade to 

ammonia, and generate BOD5 and COD 

load as well. 

Most of EPA’s sampling data does not 

include airfield pavement deicers. 

However, EPA collected samples from a 

few locations at Detroit Metro Airport 

that contain airfield deicing stormwater. 

Large hub airports, both Detroit Metro 

and Pittsburgh, provided sampling data 

associated with stormwater 

contaminated by airfield pavement 

deicers. More information on these 

sampling activities is provided in the 

TDD. As with the aircraft deicers, the 

variablity of storm events and drainage 

systems make it difficult to estimate 

flows or concentrations of pavement 

deicing waste streams generated at an 

airport. 

B. Control and Treatment Technologies 

in the Aviation Industry 

The ADF application process has 

presented a challenge for airports 

attempting to manage their 

contaminated stormwater streams. The 

airlines’ process of applying ADF to 

aircraft through high pressure spraying, 

combined with their typical practices of 

spraying the aircraft outdoors in 

multiple, large unconfined (but usually 

designated) spaces, results in pollutants 

being dispersed over a wide area and 

entering storm drains at multiple 

locations. This process contrasts sharply 

with many other industries where 

pollutants are generated in confined 

areas, managed through a piping system, 

and not commingled with precipitation. 

EPA has identified several 

technologies that are available to collect 

and manage portions of the ADF 

wastestream. Some of these collection 

technologies are more effective than 

others; however, EPA has not identified 

any single technology that is capable of 

collecting all applied ADF. Typically, 

ADF that is not captured becomes 

available for discharge, either through 

an airport’s drainage system, or from 

shearing off the aircraft during takeoff. 

Once the ADF wastestream is 

collected, it can be treated, and this 

process is similar to many other 

industries that generate wastewater. 

EPA identified four technologies 

available for treating ADF wastewater. 

EPA also examined pollution 

prevention technologies, which can 

reduce or eliminate use of ADF 

chemicals and urea for pavement 

deicing. 

1. Aircraft Deicing Fluid Collection 

Technologies 

a. Glycol Recovery Vehicle 

A glycol recovery vehicle (GRV) is a 

truck that utilizes a vacuum mechanism 

to gather stormwater contaminated with 

ADF resulting from deicing operations. 

A GRV is a modular technology, in that 

collection capacity can be increased by 

using additional units, without the 

complicating factors of in-ground 

construction associated with some other 

technologies. An airport may increase 

its overall ADF collection capacity by 

purchasing or leasing larger units and/ 

or additional units. 

GRV trucks are typically stationed 

near the ADF spraying trucks and are 

deployed either during aircraft deicing 

activities or, after the aircraft deicing 

activity has completed. The truck then 

transports the ADF-contaminated 

stormwater to an on-site storage facility, 

after which the material is either treated 

at the airport or sent off site for 

treatment. EPA estimates that GRVs 

typically capture approximately 20 

percent of the available ADF when 

properly operated and maintained. 

b. Plug and Pump 

The plug-and-pump collection system 

involves simple alterations to an 

airport’s existing storm drain system, 

typically the insertion of blocking plugs 

or similar devices in storm drains, 

combined with use of GRVs, to contain 

and collect ADF-contaminated 

stormwater. Drainage system 

modifications involve the placement of 

temporary blocking devices at storm 

drain inlets, and/or installation of 

shutoff valves at one or more points in 

the storm sewer system. Before a deicing 

event begins, airport personnel activate 

the blocking devices, which trap the 

ADF-contaminated stormwater in the 

collection system. After the deicing 

activity ceases, the vacuum trucks pump 

the contaminated stormwater from the 

storm sewer system and transport the 

liquid to on-site storage and subsequent 

treatment. EPA estimates that plug-andpump systems, which incorporate 

GRVs, may capture approximately 40 

percent of the available ADF when 

properly operated and maintained. 

c. Centralized Deicing Pads 

A centralized deicing pad is a facility 

on an airfield built specifically for 

aircraft deicing operations. It is typically 

a paved area adjacent to a gate area, 

taxiway, or runway, and constructed 

with a drainage system separate from 

the airport’s main storm drain system. It 

is usually constructed of concrete with 

sealed joints to prevent the loss of 

sprayed ADF through the joints. The 

pad’s collection system is typically 

connected to a wastewater storage 

facility, which then may send the 

wastewater to an on-site or off-site 

treatment facility. 

Some airports use GRVs in 

combination with centralized deicing 

pads in order to maximize collection 

and containment of ADF-contaminated 

stormwater. Airports typically locate the 

pads near the gate areas or at the 

threshold of a runway to minimize 

delays in aircraft takeoff and to enhance 

the effectiveness of the ADF applied by 

limiting time between application and 

takeoff. 

Centralized deicing pads reduce the 

volume of deicing wastewater by 

restricting deicing to very small areas, 

and managing the captured wastewater 

through a dedicated drain system. EPA 

estimates that central deicing pads 

allow airports to capture about 60 

percent of the available ADF. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44687 

In addition, although the name 

implies a small collection area, central 

pads designed to accommodate more 

than one commercial aircraft generally 

encompass several acres. A deicing pad 

is specially graded and designed to 

capture highly contaminated runoff, 

which can then be sent to storage ponds, 

tanks or directly to treatment. By 

capturing high concentrations of spent 

ADF, the feasibility of recycling 

increases. Recovered glycol is typically 

sold to chemical manufacturers for use 

in a variety of products, including 

coatings, paints, plastics and polyester 

fibers. 

d. Summary of ADF Collection 

Technology Usage 

EPA estimates the number of airports 

that use each of the above collection 

technologies in Table VII–1. Some 

airports use more than one technology, 

and some of the airports in the estimate 

use the technology for only a portion of 

their ADF-contaminated stormwater. 

TABLE VII–1—ESTIMATED TOTALS OF

ADF COLLECTION TECHNOLOGIES

USED BY AIRPORTS

Collection technology Number of 

airports 

Glycol Recovery Vehicle .......... 53 

Plug and Pump ......................... 29 

Centralized Deicing Pad ........... 66 

See the Technical Development 

Document for further explanation of 

EPA’s estimates of the ADF capture 

rates for the fluid collection 

technologies. 

2. Wastewater Treatment and Recycling 

Technologies 

EPA identified four potential BAT 

wastewater technologies. Two of these 

technologies are biological in that they 

use microorganisms to break down the 

glycol. The other two technologies are 

mechanical and produce two 

wastestreams, one a high concentrated 

glycol stream, and one that is primarily 

water for discharge. The high glycol 

stream can, in some instances, be 

recycled and used for a variety of 

products. There have been limited 

instances in the U.S. of recycled glycol 

used for ADF formulation. 

a. Anaerobic Fluidized Bed 

An Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (AFB) 

treatment system uses a vertical, 

cylindrical tank in which the ADFcontaminated stormwater is pumped 

upwards through a bed of granular 

activated carbon at a velocity sufficient 

to fluidize, or suspend, the media. A 

thin film of microorganisms grows on 

and coats each granular activated carbon 

particle, providing a vast surface area 

for biological growth. These 

microorganisms provide treatment of 

the ADF-contaminated stormwater. 

Byproducts from the AFB treatment 

system include methane, carbon dioxide 

and new biomass (animal material, e.g. 

bacteria). 

Treating wastes using an anaerobic 

biological system as compared to an 

aerobic system offers several 

advantages. The anaerobic system 

requires much less energy since aeration 

is not required and the anaerobic system 

produces less than 10 percent of the 

sludge of an aerobic process. In 

addition, because the biological process 

is contained in a sealed reactor, odors 

are eliminated. Based on EPA sampling 

results, the AFB treatment system 

successfully removed over 98 percent of 

BOD5, over 97 percent of COD, and over 

99 percent of propylene glycol from the 

wastestream. This reduced the BOD5

and COD loads discharged to receiving 

waters by over 98 and 97 percent, 

respectively. Two airports in the United 

States use the AFB technology: Albany 

County Airport in Albany, New York, 

and Akron-Canton Regional Airport, 

Akron, Ohio. 

b. Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis 

Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis 

(UF/RO) technology filters ADFcontaminated stormwater at a high 

temperature (75 °C) using an 

ultrafiltration membrane as its first 

stage. Next, the deicing fluid (filtrate) 

can be dewatered using a reverse 

osmosis membrane as a second stage. 

Since the ultrafiltration membrane is 

effective at removing contaminants, the 

RO stage is used for dewatering and 

glycol separation. This process produces 

a glycol-laden stream that can be 

distilled in an additional stage to 

increase its glycol concentration. 

Concentrated glycol streams can be 

recycled as a feedstock in chemical 

manufacturing. The effluent from the 

UF/RO system contains small amounts 

of glycol, carbonaceous BOD (cBOD) 

and COD, and can either be discharged 

to surface water, or sent to a POTW for 

further treatment. 

Based on EPA sampling results, the 

RO treatment system successfully 

removed over 99 percent of BOD5, over 

99 percent of COD, and over 99 percent 

of propylene glycol. UF/RO technology 

is used at Pittsburgh International 

Airport. 

c. Mechanical Vapor Recompression 

and Distillation 

Mechanical Vapor Recompression 

(MVR) followed by distillation is 

typically used when glycol 

concentrations in ADF-contaminated 

stormwater are greater than 5 percent. 

This type of a system is not generally 

practical for lower concentration glycol 

contaminated stormwater, which would 

typically be discharged directly to a 

POTW for treatment. The MVR/ 

distillation technology generates a 

concentrated glycol stream (containing 

greater than 99 percent glycol) that can 

be sold as a chemical feedstock. The 

effluent from the MVR/distillation 

system contains propylene glycol, cBOD 

and COD and it must be discharged to 

a POTW for further treatment. 

MVR and distillation is used at 

Denver International Airport for recycle 

and recovery of spent ADF. The system 

first treats ADF-contaminated 

stormwater using the MVRs, which 

increase the glycol concentration to 

approximately 40 percent. Effluent from 

the MVRs is then treated by distillation 

to increase the glycol concentration to 

approximately 99 percent. The glycol 

product is passed through polishing 

filters to remove residual contaminants 

allowing for resale of the product as a 

chemical feedstock. Overheads 

(distillate) from both the MVRs and 

distillation columns contain propylene 

glycol and they are sent to a POTW for 

additional treatment. 

Based on EPA sampling results, the 

MVR/Distillation treatment system 

successfully removed over 93 percent of 

BOD5, over 97 percent of COD, and over 

98 percent of propylene glycol. 

d. Aerated Pond 

An aerated pond uses mechanical 

aerators either to inject air into the 

wastewater or to cause violent agitation 

of wastewater and air in order to 

achieve oxygen transfer to the 

wastewater. Bacteria are suspended in 

the wastewater, and aid in the 

biodegradation of glycol. Contaminated 

stormwater is retained in the detention 

pond during the deicing season and 

discharged later, after microorganisms 

present in the pond have biodegraded 

the glycols. The detention pond is 

monitored and nutrients are added, pH 

is adjusted, and anti-foaming agents are 

added as needed. The biodegradation of 

glycol is temperature-dependant and 

predominantly occurs during the spring 

and early summer months when 

ambient temperatures are higher. When 

the BOD5 concentration has been 

sufficiently reduced, the volume is 

discharged to surface waters. 

Based on EPA sampling results, the 

aerated pond treatment system 

successfully removed 100 percent of 

BOD5, and over 93 percent of COD. An 

aerated pond system is currently in use 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44688 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

at Greater Rockford Airport, in 

Rockford, Illinois. 

3. Pollution Prevention Technologies 

EPA has identified several 

technologies that reduce ADF usage to 

some extent while safely deicing 

aircraft, and one applicable to airfield 

pavement deicing, that are in use at 

airports across the United States. 

However, there are limited data on the 

actual pollutant reductions that these 

technologies may achieve. While the 

effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of 

these technologies has not been 

documented, these technologies can 

reduce the amount of deicing chemicals 

required to deicing aircraft and airfields. 

The reduction of chemicals will not 

only have a positive environmental 

effect, but may also be cost-effective, as 

the decrease in costs of purchased 

deicing chemicals may offset the cost of 

the technology itself. 

a. Infrared Deicing Systems 

A few U.S. airports have used infrared 

(IR) heating systems for several years. 

The systems have been demonstrated to 

deice aircraft effectively, which 

substantially reduces ADF usage. One 

type of IR system consists of an openended hangar-type structure with IR 

generators mounted inside, suspended 

from the ceiling. The IR equipment is 

designed to use specific wavelengths 

that heat ice and snow, and minimize 

heating of aircraft components. The IR 

energy level and wavelength may be 

adjusted to suit the type of aircraft. 

Although the system can deice an 

aircraft, it cannot provide aircraft with 

anti-icing protection. Consequently, 

when the ambient temperature is below 

freezing, anti-icing fluid is typically 

applied to the aircraft after it leaves the 

hangar. Since the aircraft surfaces are 

dry, the volume of anti-icing fluid 

required is less than for typical antiicing operations. In addition, a small 

amount of deicing fluid may be required 

for deicing areas of the aircraft not 

reached by the IR radiation, such as the 

flap tracks and elevators. The system, 

therefore, does not completely replace 

glycol-based fluids, but greatly reduces 

the volume required. 

Documents provided by a vendor 

describe use of an IR system that 

reduces the amount of Type I ADF 

required by up to 90 percent. Two large 

hub airports, Newark Liberty 

International, Newark, New Jersey, and 

John F. Kennedy International Airport, 

New York, use IR systems for some of 

their flights. If this technology can be 

applied widely, it may prove to be a 

highly effective means of reducing ADF 

pollution. 

EPA has not obtained substantial data 

documenting the amount of reduced 

glycol usage from use of IR systems, nor 

information on the availability of the 

technology for broader or industry-wide 

installation. EPA is interested in 

receiving any available data on those 

topics to documenting IR costs 

including (e.g., the capital costs of 

installing an IR facility, operating and 

maintenance costs, especially energy 

costs, glycol used during deicing and 

siting/sizing requirements for an IR 

facility). Because IR is not widely 

available or used, EPA does not propose 

to identify IR as an available technology 

for purposes of establishing ELGs. 

However, the Agency may reconsider 

this technology, if sufficient data 

support a conclusion that this 

technology is available. Specifically, 

EPA would require information proving 

that IR is an available technology for a 

sufficient percentage of an airports total 

deicing activity, as well as information 

on the amount of time required for 

deicing, as well as any sizing and siting 

requirements for placing an IR facility. 

b. Forced Air/Hot Air Deicing Systems 

Forced air/hot air deicing systems are 

currently in operation at a few U.S. 

airports. These systems use forced air to 

blow snow and ice from aircraft 

surfaces. Some systems allow deicing 

fluids to be added to the forced air 

stream at different flow settings (e.g., 9 

and 20 gpm), while other systems 

require separate application of deicing 

fluid. Several vendors are currently 

developing self-contained, truckmounted versions of these forced-air 

systems, and most systems can be 

retrofitted onto existing deicing trucks. 

A similar method to truck-mounted 

forced-air systems is the double gantry 

forced-air spray system. The gantries 

support a set of high- and low-pressure 

nozzles, which blast the aircraft surfaces 

with heated air at a pressure of 40 to 500 

pounds per square inch. When weather 

conditions are severe, a small volume of 

water and glycol may be added to the 

air stream to remove dense coverings of 

snow and ice. Airfield use of the gantry 

system has been limited perhaps 

because it is a permanently mounted 

system that has been known to cause 

delays in aircraft departures. 

c. Product Substitution 

Another solution to environmental 

problems associated with deicing 

chemicals is to replace chemical deicers 

with more environment-friendly 

products. In the ADF products category, 

initially the predominant deicers were 

based on ethylene glycol, whereas in 

recent years propylene glycol-based 

deicers, which are less toxic to 

mammals, have become more widely 

used. Chemical manufacturers, the 

aviation industry and the U.S. Air Force 

are continuing to explore development 

of deicers that could generate lower 

levels of pollutants compared to the 

glycol-based products. 

In the field of airfield pavement 

deicers, several types of products are 

available as alternatives to glycol-based 

and urea-based deicers, such as 

potassium acetate, sodium formate and 

sodium acetate. 

d. Transportation Research Board 

Report 

The Transportation Research Board 

(TRB), a division of the National 

Academies of Science, established a 

research panel to develop fact sheets on 

deicing practices to assist airports in 

reducing their deicing chemical usage 

and discharges. A report was prepared 

in 2009 under TRB’s Airport 

Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), 

titled ‘‘Deicing Planning Guidelines and 

Practices for Stormwater Management 

Systems.’’ This report (DCN AD01191) 

and the fact sheets (DCN AD01192) are 

in the docket for today’s proposed rule. 

C. Pollutants of Concern 

Airport deicing stormwater is 

generated when airfield and aircraft 

deicing/anti-icing chemicals mix with 

snow, freezing precipitation or 

rainwater. In addition, other airportrelated activities, including aircraft 

fueling and maintenance activities, may 

contribute pollutants to stormwater. 

Because of the difficulties in 

characterizing airport deicing 

stormwater, EPA evaluated pollutants 

detected in the stormwater, pollutants 

present in source water (i.e., prior to 

contamination with ADF), and 

pollutants that are present in ADF prior 

to use to determine which pollutants are 

present in deicing stormwater. The 

primary source of information used to 

identify potential pollutants of concern 

from deicing stormwater was EPA’s 

sampling episodes, detailed in Section 

VI, as well as information presented in 

available NPDES permits and the 

Airport Questionnaire. 

1. Aircraft Deicers 

EPA, through its review of sampling 

data, discussions with experts in the 

field of chemical deicers, and review of 

NPDES permits, identified over 90 

pollutants associated with ADFcontaminated stormwater. 

EPA shortened the list of pollutants to 

those that were directly associated with 

aircraft deicing. This was done by 

reviewing information provided by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44689 

experts and excluding pollutants that 

were thought to be associated with one 

of the following sources; source water, 

aircraft and vehicle fueling operations, 

maintenance-related operations, or 

runoff from building roofs. 

Having identified pollutants that are 

present in airport deicing stormwater, 

the Agency next needed to consider 

which pollutants should be controlled. 

EPA did not consider a pollutant as a 

potential pollutant of concern if it 

possesses the following characteristics: 

• The pollutant is present in the 

deicing stormwater from a source other 

than deicing chemical use; 

• The pollutant is discharged in 

relatively small amounts and is neither 

causing nor likely to cause toxic effects; 

• The pollutant is detected in the 

effluent from only a small number of 

airports and is uniquely related to those 

facilities; or 

• The pollutant cannot be analyzed 

by EPA-approved or other established 

methods. 

2. Airfield Deicers 

While field information on the 

constituents of airfield deicing and antiicing chemicals is scarce, EPA 

determined which chemicals are 

commonly used based on the Airport 

Questionnaire responses. EPA did not 

identify an available technology to 

collect and treat pavement deicing 

pollutants, and therefore did not collect 

wastewater samples from pavement 

deicing discharges. Some of the most 

common airfield deicing and anti-icing 

chemicals include potassium acetate, 

sodium acetate, urea, sodium formate, 

and glycols. 

3. Summary 

After reviewing these criteria, EPA 

identified 21 chemicals or parameters as 

pollutants of concern. Based on our 

knowledge of usage volumes, and 

known effects, EPA focused on the 

glycols in ADF fluids, and the ammonia 

in urea-based pavement deicers. Section 

VII.D.2 below discusses how EPA 

determined which of these pollutants of 

concern should become regulated 

pollutants in today’s proposed rule. See 

the TDD and the EIB for further 

discussion of pollutants of concern. 

D. Options Considered for Proposal 

Current airport deicing operations 

involve application of chemicals to both 

aircraft and airfield pavement. ADF may 

be dispersed over a large area due to the 

high-pressure spraying process used 

with aircraft as well as shearing during 

aircraft taxiing and takeoff. Pavement 

chemicals, while not sprayed at high 

pressure, are nonetheless similarly 

dispersed over a large area, namely 

runways, taxiways and aprons. The 

deicing chemicals mix with stormwater 

and are conveyed through a 

combination of overland flow and 

conveyance structures (ditches and 

pipes). At some airports, the 

contaminated stormwater is discharged 

untreated directly to waters of the 

United States. At other airports, the 

wastewater is treated before discharge, 

sent to a POTW or off-site waste 

contractor, and/or discharged to 

groundwater. 

In order to reduce discharges of 

untreated ADF wastewater for this 

industry, EPA concluded that the best 

available technology would need to 

include two basic components. The first 

component is a requirement to capture 

(collect) a certain percentage of 

available ADF. The second component 

is a requirement to treat the collected 

ADF to meet specified end-of-pipe 

discharge limitations. In many other 

industrial sectors, wastewater is 

typically generated and handled in 

confined systems such as reactors, pipes 

and pumps. Wastewater flows are 

carefully managed in these systems, and 

under normal operations all wastewater 

is directed to the facility’s treatment 

system or to a POTW. In aircraft deicing 

operations, the chemicals are sprayed 

outdoors in a comparatively 

unconfined, usually designated setting, 

and there is a high likelihood that some 

pollutants will bypass the treatment 

system. Setting a minimum collection 

rate in the proposed rule, based on 

available technology, will require an 

airport to reduce significantly its level 

of uncontrolled discharges in an 

economically achievable manner. 

1. Regulated Facilities 

Early in the regulatory development 

process, EPA focused on deicing 

activities at primary airports, 

particularly those with extensive jet 

traffic. Operators of general aviation 

aircraft, as well as smaller commercial 

non-jet aircraft, typically suspend flights 

during icing conditions, whereas 

commercial airlines operating at 

primary airports are much more likely 

to deice their jets in order to meet 

customer demands. 

Based on the survey results, EPA 

estimated that 320 primary commercial 

airports conduct deicing operations. 

Any effluent guidelines that EPA might 

develop for these airports must be 

‘‘economically achievable’’ as required 

by the CWA, so the Agency proceeded 

to analyze various industry 

characteristics that would be an 

indicator of affordability for the 

candidate control and treatment 

technologies. This included a review of 

the relative sizes of various airports 

(based on annual departures), the levels 

of deicing activity, traffic characteristics 

(i.e., passenger vs. cargo operations), the 

extent of pollution controls and 

treatment in place, and the costs of 

various technologies. EPA further 

classified airports based on the number 

of annual jet departures. EPA found that 

there were some primary airports, 

typically smaller airports, with high 

percentages of non-jet traffic, and so it 

excluded airports with 1,000 or fewer 

annual jet departures from the scope of 

the proposed rule. These airports have 

a higher proportion of propeller-aircraft 

flights, which are typically delayed or 

cancelled during icing conditions (i.e., 

far less deicing takes place at these 

airports, and far less deicing fluid is 

used, than at airports serving more jets). 

The Agency estimated that the 

remaining 218 largest primary airports 

account for approximately 85 percent of 

the deicing fluid used nationally, and 

including these airports in the scope of 

today’s proposed rule is economically 

achievable. Moreover, not applying the 

1,000 annual jet departure cutoff would 

only increase the volume of deicing 

fluid that is within the scope of today’s 

proposed rule by 1 to 2 percent yet 

would potentially result in high costs to 

smaller airports that have minimal 

pollutant contributions. Accordingly, it 

is appropriate to establish this exclusion 

because it avoids projected significant 

adverse economic impacts on this 

segment of the industry without 

excluding from the national standards a 

significant pollutant load. 

2. Regulated Pollutants 

As described in Section VII.C, EPA 

identified 21 pollutants of concern that 

stem directly from airport deicing 

operations. EPA estimates, however, 

that many of these pollutants, such as 

metals, are generally present in airport 

stormwater discharges irrespective of 

deicing activities that are taking place. 

These pollutants would be also present 

in discharges at airports where no 

deicing takes place and as such are 

beyond the scope of today’s proposed 

rule. 

EPA determined that pollutants 

directly associated with aircraft deicing 

chemicals could be associated with an 

indicator pollutant. Initially, both COD 

and BOD5 were identified as possible 

indicator parameters. The Agency 

determined that COD is the best 

indicator for the following reasons: 

• COD captures the oxygen demand 

from nitrogen and other organic 

components of the contaminated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44690 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

stormwater that may not be represented 

in a BOD5 analytical result. 

• Toxic aircraft deicing fluid additive 

compounds in deicing stormwater may 

have a negative and variable impact on 

the acclimation of the active cultures 

used in BOD5 analysis, making that 

method less accurate than a COD 

analysis. 

• COD analyses are simple to conduct 

and can be measured in real time, 

compared to the 5-day test required by 

the BOD5 analytical method. 

• The COD analytical method does 

not require measurement of the 

receiving water temperature. 

Further discussion of analytical 

methods is provided in a memorandum, 

‘‘Regulation of COD for Airport Deicing 

Operations’’ (DCN AD00845) in the 

docket for today’s proposed rule. 

While EPA has an understanding 

generally of ADF composition—i.e., 

each product is a glycol-based 

compound with several additives— 

deicing fluid manufacturers did not 

provide us with information on specific 

ADF formulations. These manufacturers 

declined several requests to provide 

information on formulations, citing 

concerns about confidential business 

information. EPA has learned about a 

number of the additives, but not 

necessarily their concentration, from 

other sources. Because of incomplete 

information on these ADF additives, 

EPA is not proposing numeric effluent 

limits for any of these additives. 

Ammonia is the principal pollutant 

generated by urea-based pavement 

deicers, and EPA determined that 

ammonia is an appropriate indicator 

pollutant for urea-based airfield 

pavement deicers. 

See the TDD and EIB for further 

information on regulated pollutants. 

3. Technology Options Considered for 

Basis of Regulation 

The effluent limitations that EPA is 

proposing to establish today are based 

on well-designed, well-operated 

collection and treatment systems. Below 

is a summary of the technology basis for 

the proposed limitations and the 

alternative options considered by the 

Agency. As is the case for any effluent 

guideline containing numeric effluent 

limitations, a facility would be able to 

use any combination of wastewater 

treatment technologies and pollution 

prevention strategies at the facility to 

meet effluent limitations. 

a. Subcategorization 

EPA may divide a point source 

category into groupings called 

‘‘subcategories’’ to provide a method for 

addressing variations among products, 

processes, and other factors, which 

result in distinctly different effluent 

characteristics. See Texas Oil & Gas 

Ass’n. v. US EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 939–40 

(5th Cir. 1998). Regulation of a category 

by subcategories provides that each 

subcategory has a uniform set of effluent 

limitations that take into account 

technological achievability and 

economic impacts unique to that 

subcategory. In some cases, effluent 

limitations within a subcategory may be 

different based on consideration of these 

same factors, which are identified in 

CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). The CWA 

requires EPA, in developing effluent 

guidelines, to consider a number of 

different factors, which are also relevant 

for subcategorization. The CWA also 

authorizes EPA to take into account 

other factors that the Agency deems 

appropriate. 

In developing the proposed rule, EPA 

considered whether subcategorizing the 

aviation industry was warranted. EPA 

evaluated a number of factors and 

potential subcategorization approaches, 

including the presence of an on-site 

glycol reclamation facility, amount of 

ADF applied, number of departures, 

availability of land to install collection 

systems, and FAA airport 

classifications. 

Establishing formal subcategories is 

not necessary for the Airport Deicing 

category because the proposed rule is 

structured to address the relevant 

factors (i.e., amount of ADF applied and 

number of departures) and establish a 

set of requirements that encompasses 

the range of situations that an airport 

may encounter during deicing 

operations. Both the aircraft deicing and 

pavement deicing requirements include 

an airport size threshold, which 

excludes smaller facilities. The use of a 

performance standard, as compared to a 

technology specification, provides 

flexibility for airports in meeting the 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

establish a set of effluent limitations 

that take into account the factors that 

EPA determined are relevant for 

subcategorizing this point source 

category. 

b. Aircraft Deicing 

EPA is proposing capture and 

treatment requirements for spent ADF. 

EPA is not aware of an available and 

economically achievable technology 

that is capable of capturing 100 percent 

of the spent ADF, and therefore the 

Agency is focusing on collection 

technologies and their efficacy. 

i. ADF Collection 

The available technologies for 

collecting ADF—glycol recovery 

vehicles, plug-and-pump equipment, 

and deicing pads—are described above. 

EPA evaluated various different 

combinations of these collection 

technologies for different-sized airports. 

See Table VII–2. These various options 

were developed to represent a wide 

range of collection requirements and 

corresponding costs. EPA’s objective 

was to find a combination of 

requirements that would result in the 

greatest level of pollutant removals 

while still being economically 

achievable. 

Specifically, EPA finds that the 

number of aircraft departures is an 

appropriate criterion for grouping 

airports by size and applying different 

collection requirements to the various 

size groups. EPA’s review of airline and 

airport deicing practices revealed that 

the amount of ADF required to deice a 

single aircraft varies widely. This is 

primarily due to the type of weather 

conditions to which an aircraft is 

exposed, or aircraft size. However, the 

Agency has concluded that an airport’s 

overall ADF usage level directly 

correlates to the amount of wastewater 

generated and pollutant loadings. 

Because direct ADF usage data were not 

available for every airport, EPA 

determined that the annual number of 

aircraft departures at an airport, 

considered simultaneously with 

precipitation data, is a reliable predictor 

of ADF usage, based on extrapolations 

of data provided in the questionnaires. 

Based on the available technologies, 

EPA developed four ADF collection 

options as listed in Table VII–2 below 

as candidates for identification as best 

available technology for the collection 

of ADF. 

TABLE VII–2—ADF COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR BAT 

Option Requirement (applies to primary airports with more than 1,000 

annual jet departures) Estimated airports in scope Technology basis 

1 ............ 20% ADF Capture (Airports w/10,000 or more annual departures).110 ............................................ Glycol recovery vehicle (GRV). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44691 

TABLE VII–2—ADF COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR BAT—Continued 

Option Requirement (applies to primary airports with more than 1,000 

annual jet departures) Estimated airports in scope Technology basis 

2 ............ 40% ADF Capture (Airports w/10,000 or more annual departures).110 ............................................ Plug & Pump. 

3 ............ 60% ADF Capture (Airports w/460,000 gals. or more annual 

ADF usage and 10,000 or more departures) + 20% ADF Capture (Airports w/10,000 or more annual departures and less 

than 460,000 gals. annual ADF usage).

110 (14 @ 60% + 96 @ 20%) .. Centralized Deicing Pad + 

GRV. 

4 ............ 60% ADF Capture (Airports w/460,000 gals. or more ADF 

usage) + 20% ADF Capture (Airports w/1,000 or more jet departures).

218 (14 @ 60% + 204 @ 20%) Centralized Deicing Pad + 

GRV. 

Note: All references to ADF are for normalized ADF, which is ADF less any water added by the manufacturer or customer before ADF 

application. 

Not all airports estimated to be in the 

scope of this proposed rule would incur 

ADF collection costs under it, because 

many of these airports already have 

ADF collection systems in place 

(Section VIII.C below). For example, of 

the estimated 14 airports that would 

have to meet the 60 percent ADF 

collection requirement in this proposal, 

seven already have installed deicing 

pads that would capture at least 60 

percent of the ADF. 

ii. Treatment 

All airports subject to the ADF 

collection requirement would also be 

required to treat their ADF wastewater 

prior to discharge, unless they send this 

wastewater to a POTW or commercial 

treatment/recycle facility. EPA 

examined the four wastewater treatment 

technologies described above in Section 

VII.B.2 as candidates for the model BAT 

technology. 

Under this proposal, the collected 

ADF wastewater would need to be 

treated to a specified numeric effluent 

limit for COD. This limit would be 

based on the long-term averages of 

effluent from the treatment system 

identified at BAT (see Section VII.E.2 

below). 

Further discussion of other ADF 

treatment technologies that EPA 

considered can be found in the TDD. 

c. Airfield Pavement Deicing 

In general, airports discharge airfield 

pavement deicing chemicals without 

treatment due to the difficulty and 

expense required in collecting and 

treating the large volumes of 

contaminated stormwater generated on 

paved airfield surfaces. EPA is not 

aware of an available, economically 

achievable means for controlling these 

pollutants through collection and use of 

a conventional, end-of-pipe treatment 

system. It may be possible, however, to 

reduce or eliminate certain pollutants 

by modifying deicing practices, such as 

using alternative chemical deicing 

products. In particular, EPA has 

identified ammonia as the primary 

pollutant of concern from airfield 

deicing, while COD from airfield 

deicing is also a pollutant of concern, 

and both of these pollutants are a 

byproduct of urea-based pavement 

deicers. 

Accordingly, to address discharges of 

ammonia from airfield pavement, EPA 

identified one candidate for best 

available technology, namely, 

discontinuing the use of urea-based 

pavement deicers and using alternative 

pavement deicers instead. EPA 

researched product substitution for 

urea-based deicers and found that 

airfield pavement deicers other than 

urea are widely available in the market 

and that these alternate deicers do not 

produce ammonia. Eighty-nine percent 

of primary airports currently use airfield 

pavement deicers that do not contain 

urea. The most widely used substitute 

product, potassium acetate, accounts for 

64 percent (by weight) of the annual 

airfield pavement deicer usage in the 

U.S. Urea stood out as an airfield deicer 

that was not predominantly used in the 

industry to begin with. Where it is still 

used, one of the main reasons for its use 

appears to be low cost compared to 

other products. Alternatives to urea are 

available that are equally effective and 

safe, and would greatly reduce 

discharges of ammonia from airfield 

deicing. These alternative airfield 

deicers include potassium acetate, 

sodium formate and sodium acetate. In 

suggesting these alternative deicers, 

EPA considered environmental impacts 

and safety issues. The Agency solicits 

specific data on those issues. EPA has 

also determined that the use of 

substitute airfield deicers would be 

economically achievable in the industry 

(see Section VIII below). 

Discontinuing the use of urea-based 

deicers would greatly reduce ammonia 

discharges from airfield runoff, but it 

would not eliminate them entirely 

because of the background levels of 

ammonia present in the general runoff 

from airfields. One method of ensuring 

that airports discontinue use of ureabased airfield deicers is to require them 

to certify that they use an alternative 

deicer. Alternatively, EPA could set a 

numeric BAT limit on ammonia based 

on no use of urea that accounts for the 

remaining sources of ammonia in 

airport discharges. Product substitution 

would also result in significant 

reductions of COD discharges. See the 

further discussion of this issue in the 

options selection discussion in the next 

section below. 

E. BAT Options Selection 

EPA is proposing to identify Best 

Available Technology Economically 

Achievable based on Option 3 in Table 

VII–2. Specifically, this BAT option has 

the following three components: 

collection of ADF sprayed onto aircraft 

based on either GRV or deicing pads 

(depending on the amount of ADF 

used), treatment of the collected ADF, if 

appropriate, based on anaerobic 

fluidized bed technology, and 

certification of non-urea-based airfield 

pavement deicing. 

Under Option 3, all primary airports 

that have over 1,000 annual jet 

departures and 10,000 or more annual 

departures would be required to collect 

at least 20 percent of all available spent 

ADF. This collection requirement is 

based on the estimated performance of 

glycol recovery vehicles. A subset of 

this group, those primary airports that 

have more than 1,000 annual jet 

departures, 10,000 or more annual 

departures and use 460,000 or more 

gallons of normalized ADF annually, 

would be required to collect at least 60 

percent of all available spent ADF. (As 

defined at proposed § 449.2, normalized 

ADF is ADF less any water added by the 

manufacturer or customer before ADF 

application.) This collection 

requirement is based on the estimated 

performance of centralized deicing 

pads, which are present at 8 of the 14 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44692 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

primary airports currently meeting the 

departure/annualized ADF usage 

criteria noted above. Primary airports 

with less than 10,000 annual departures 

would not be required to collect or treat 

their spent deicing fluid. 

The proposed rule would reduce 

pollutant discharges by 44.6 million 

pounds annually, comprised of 39.9 

million pounds of COD (from both ADF 

and urea reductions) and 4.7 million 

pounds of ammonia (from urea alone). 

The proposed BAT requirements for 

ADF would reduce the aviation 

industry’s discharges of COD associated 

with ADF by 27.9 million pounds per 

year. This represents almost a 22 

percent reduction in discharges of ADFcorrelated COD relative to current 

practices used by airlines and airports 

that conduct deicing. Additionally, the 

proposed BAT requirements for airfield 

pavement deicing would reduce 

discharges of COD (from urea deicers) 

by 12.7 million pounds per year, and 

reduce discharges of ammonia by 4.7 

million pounds per year. 

EPA finds that the proposed BAT 

technologies are generally available to 

be installed or used by those in the 

industry. Further, as will be discussed 

in more detail in Section VIII below, 

EPA has determined that the proposed 

BAT technologies are economically 

achievable. The Agency also examined 

the non-water quality environmental 

impacts of the rule and found them to 

be acceptable. The technology basis for 

each requirement—ADF collection, 

treatment of the collected ADF, and 

non-urea-based airfield pavement 

deicing—is discussed below. 

1. ADF Collection 

For each of the four options in Table 

VII–2, EPA finds that the collection 

technology is widely available to the 

industry. See the summary of collection 

technologies used by airports in Table 

VII–1. EPA finds that for the top 

fourteen airports in terms of annual 

ADF usage, collection of ADF based on 

the use of deicing pads is 

technologically available. EPA’s record 

indicates that at least seven of the 

fourteen airports already have installed 

deicing pads. For the remaining seven, 

EPA examined what appeared to be the 

most land-constrained airports and 

using a formula based on number of 

departures and number of runways, 

estimated the amount of land that 

would be required for installation of 

deicing pads. EPA then reviewed airport 

site plans provided in the 

questionnaires and determined that 

these constrained airports have 

sufficient land to install the necessary 

collection technologies. See the TDD for 

further discussion on the estimated land 

availability for deicing pads. Therefore, 

the Agency determined that economic 

achievability is the controlling factor in 

identifying which option represents 

BAT for collection of ADF. 

EPA rejected Option 2, Plug-andPump technology, as a basis for BAT for 

ADF collection. Although Plug-andPump is estimated to capture 40 percent 

of spent ADF, as compared to the other 

options considered, the equipment has 

comparatively high operating and 

maintenance costs. In many cases, EPA 

estimated that Plug-and-Pump costs 

would be higher than the cost of deicing 

pads for a comparable airport, yet 

deicing pads achieve greater pollutant 

removals than Plug-and-Pump. Overall, 

Option 2 achieves lower levels of 

pollutant removals, and it would 

impose higher costs than Option 3. 

Therefore, EPA finds that Option 2 is 

not the best available technology for 

ADF collection. 

Of the remaining options, Options 1 

and 3 are economically achievable 

while Option 4 is not. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to identify Option 3 as BAT 

because it achieves the greatest level of 

pollutant removals among the remaining 

options and is economically achievable 

by the industry. The 60 percent ADF 

capture and treatment standard for the 

14 airports at which the largest ADF 

usage occurs is expected to result in 

approximately a 70 percent increase in 

pollutant removals compared to Option 

1 (an increase from 26.4 million pounds 

to 44.6 million pounds of COD and 

ammonia removals; see Section 13 of 

the TDD). Thus, EPA projects that 

Option 3 will result in significantly 

greater pollutant removals but little 

increase in the economic impacts of the 

rule compared to Option 1. Under 

Option 3, only two additional airports 

would incur costs beyond Option 1 that 

would exceed 3 percent of operating 

revenue. These two airports are among 

the largest airports in the U.S. and 

therefore have the greatest ability to take 

on these additional costs without undue 

financial burden. See Section VIII below 

for EPA’s analysis of economic 

achievability. 

Although EPA’s analysis indicates 

that airports have sufficient land to 

install deicing pads, the Agency invites 

commenters to provide site-specific data 

and documentation on any space 

limitations that would affect an airport’s 

ability to install deicing pads, along 

with recommendations for alternative 

ADF collection techniques if deicing 

pads are not feasible. 

EPA is also proposing to allow credit 

for facilities that might adopt new 

technologies, such as infrared heating, 

that use less ADF, but may not change 

the percent of ADF captured. See 

proposed § 449.20(b)(2)(i)(C). 

2. Treatment 

The Agency proposes to identify 

Anaerobic Fluidized Bed (AFB) as the 

best available treatment technology for 

reductions of COD. EPA finds this 

technology to be widely available to the 

industry. It is currently in use at two 

hub airports, Albany International (New 

York) and Akron-Canton Regional 

(Ohio). 

The other three wastewater treatment 

technologies that EPA considered were 

less effective at pollutant removal 

compared to AFB systems. In addition, 

treating spent ADF with the mechanical 

methods, UF/RO and MVR/DC results in 

a concentrated waste stream that also 

must be disposed of. While these 

technologies have potential as a part of 

an airport’s pollutant control strategy, 

they are not as effective as AFB when 

used as stand-alone treatment options, 

i.e. the pollutant removals they achieve 

are not as great as the removals achieved 

by AFB systems. 

The second biological control option, 

the aerated pond, was not selected as 

the technology basis for BAT for mainly 

logistical reasons. The ponds require 

large areas for installation, and the 

normal operations of these systems 

require treatment for many months after 

the end of the annual deicing season, 

before the wastewater can be 

discharged. Additionally, FAA 

discourages the installation of new 

stormwater detention ponds at airports, 

as they can be a lure for migratory birds. 

In those situations, birds and aircraft are 

safety hazards to each other. For airports 

with existing detention ponds, however, 

where adequate storage capacity is 

available, aerated pond systems may be 

able to provide efficient treatment that 

meets the standard. 

EPA has determined that AFB, as the 

proposed best available treatment 

technology for reductions of COD, will 

also achieve significant reductions of 

many of the other known pollutants 

associated with ADF, including 97 

percent removal of propylene and 

ethylene glycol. The AFB treatment 

system removes over 75 percent of many 

phenol-ethoxylate compounds as well. 

Moreover, choosing to set a numeric 

limit on COD provides an approach that 

is both effective and is relatively easier 

and more inexpensive for airports to 

comply with than a numeric limit on 

glycols, the active ingredient of aircraft 

deicing fluids, would be. Monitoring 

costs for COD are modest relative to 

some other parameters considered by 

EPA. Permittees may conduct 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44693 

monitoring with the use of portable 

COD meters, which provide immediate, 

real-time information on the efficacy of 

their treatment systems and facilitate 

timely adjustments of system operation 

where necessary. Overall, EPA’s 

economic analysis shows that the use of 

AFB technology for treating spent ADF 

would be economically achievable in 

the industry. See Section VIII below for 

more information on economic 

achievability. 

3. Airfield Pavement Deicers 

In addition to the requirements that 

EPA is proposing for ADF sprayed onto 

airplanes, EPA is also proposing today 

to identify BAT for the control of 

deicers that are applied directly to 

airfield pavement areas. Specifically, as 

described in Section VIII.D.3, for airfield 

pavement deicers, EPA is proposing to 

identify a BAT of discontinuing use of 

urea-based pavement deicers in favor of 

alternative, less toxic products that are 

not harmful to aircraft. Thus, BAT 

would be based on product substitution 

rather than treatment of the wastestream 

that runs off from airfield pavements. To 

demonstrate that they have used only 

non-urea based pavement deicers, 

permittees would be required to submit 

a certification to that effect. 

EPA considered two possible methods 

for eliminating discharges of ammonia 

associated with the application of ureabased pavement deicers. One option 

would be to set a performance-based 

numeric limit on discharges of ammonia 

that could be met by using non-ureabased deicers. A second option would 

require airports to certify that they do 

not use urea-based airfield deicing 

products. EPA is proposing today to 

adopt the certification option. EPA is 

proposing the certification because it 

ensures compliance while minimizing 

compliance costs. Certification allows a 

facility to demonstrate compliance with 

this product substitution-based BAT 

without the expense of conducting 

monitoring activities. Collecting and 

analyzing samples of airfield runoff 

would also present significant practical 

difficulties. Measuring ammonia 

discharges from airfield pavement is 

generally difficult due to the design of 

airport drainage systems. Wastestreams 

from multiple areas of an airport may be 

combined into a single pipe, which 

complicates the calculation of pollutant 

concentrations. In addition, the 

‘‘building block’’ approach, which has 

been used to calculate combined 

wastestream concentrations for other 

industrial categories, is generally very 

difficult to perform at airports, due to 

the variability and unpredictability of 

the volume of stormwater runoff. 

Therefore, as a practical matter, a 

permittee who wanted to take samples 

and demonstrate compliance with a 

numeric limit for ammonia would need 

to show that the ammonia limit is met 

for all deicing runoff, not just airfield 

discharges. 

While EPA is proposing to identify 

product substitution as BAT, in order to 

allow flexibility to regulated facilities, 

the Agency is also proposing a 

compliance alternative to the 

certification requirement. This 

provision would accommodate facilities 

that might wish to continue using ureabased deicers and install treatment to 

eliminate urea-based ammonia 

discharges instead. Facilities that elect 

to comply using the compliance 

alternative would be required to 

monitor and comply with a proposed 

ammonia limit. To establish the 

proposed compliance alternative 

limitation for ammonia, the Agency had 

to take into account the ammonia that 

is a by-product of an AFB wastewater 

treatment system. This is because AFB 

discharges could have higher ammonia 

concentrations than that of background 

levels found in airfield runoff. While 

this results in a proposed compliance 

alternative ammonia effluent limit 

higher than concentrations in airfield 

runoff where AFB technologies are not 

used, the Agency estimates that these 

concentrations are lower than those 

from airfield pavement discharges 

where urea-based deicers are used. See 

‘‘Evaluation of Proposed Compliance 

Alternative Ammonia Limitations with 

Respect to Airport Deicing Stormwater 

Typical Ammonia Discharges,’’ DCN 

AD01194, for additional discussion. 

Although EPA has developed 

compliance alternative ammonia 

effluent limitations for this proposal, it 

estimates that the cost associated with 

capturing and treating these waste 

streams would be prohibitively high for 

most airports. Therefore, EPA 

anticipates that most or all airports 

would choose the certification option 

rather than the ammonia numeric limits 

option in order to avoid compliance 

monitoring. EPA requests comment on 

implementation challenges associated 

with and the extent to which regulated 

facilities may select the compliance 

alternative. To the extent that comments 

indicate the compliance alternative 

would not be utilized, EPA might not 

include it in the final rule. 

F. NSPS 

EPA evaluated which technologies 

should be identified as the ‘‘best 

available demonstrated control 

technologies’’ for purposes of setting 

new source performance standards 

under CWA section 306. Among the 

collection technologies that EPA 

considered, deicing pads capture the 

greatest level of available ADF and are 

widely available in the industry. Among 

the treatment technologies considered, 

treatment of the captured ADF with an 

anaerobic fluidized bed system 

represents the greatest level of removals 

of the pollutants of concern and is 

widely available for use in connection 

with new airports and new runways at 

existing airports. In considering 

economic impacts, EPA believes that a 

standard based on the use of deicing 

pads for ADF collection followed by 

treatment with an AFB system would 

not represent a barrier to entry for new 

sources in this industry. See the 

economic analysis discussion in Section 

VIII. Accordingly, EPA proposes to base 

NSPS for aircraft deicing on these 

technologies. As with the BAT 

requirement for existing sources, the 

proposed NSPS would require 

dischargers to collect 60 percent of 

available spent ADF, and treat the 

collected wastewater to a specified 

numeric limit for COD. 

Additionally, EPA considered which 

technology should be considered the 

basis for setting NSPS with respect to 

airfield deicing. EPA determined that, 

just as with existing sources, all new 

sources would be capable of eliminating 

the use of urea for airfield deicing in 

favor of substitute deicing products. 

Product substitution represents the 

greatest level of reduction in ammonia 

among the available technologies 

considered and product substitution 

does not appear to represent a barrier to 

entry. See the economic analysis 

discussion in Section VIII. Accordingly, 

EPA proposes to identify elimination of 

urea followed by product substitution of 

non-urea-based airfield deicers as the 

best demonstrated available control 

technology for purposes of all new 

sources. 

Based on this identified technology, 

all new sources would be required to 

meet the same certification requirement 

proposed for BAT. In addition, as 

proposed today for existing sources, 

EPA proposes the same compliance 

alternative ammonia effluent limitations 

for new sources. 

For the purpose of this regulation, 

EPA proposes that a ‘‘New Source’’ 

would include, first, a new airport. The 

cost of construction of even small 

airports is significantly greater than the 

costs associated with collection and/or 

treatment of spent deicing fluids. 

Accordingly, meeting the new source 

requirements proposed today would not 

be a barrier to entry for them 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44694 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

economically. See further discussion in 

Section VIII below. 

In addition, EPA proposes to specify 

that a new runway at an existing airport 

is also a new source. EPA anticipates 

that few new airports will be 

constructed in the foreseeable future, 

and that most of the anticipated increase 

in airport capacity will be accomplished 

through the expansion of existing 

airports. The term ‘‘new source’’ is 

defined in EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

122.2 and 122.29. EPA proposes to 

specify in the final rule that a new 

runway meets the terms of those 

regulations for being defined as a new 

source, because in EPA’s view a new 

runway is a ‘‘structure, facility or 

installation from which there is or may 

be a discharge of pollutants’’ (§§ 122.2 

and 122.29(a)(2)) and because a new 

runway is ‘‘substantially independent of 

an existing source at the same site’’ 

(§ 122.29(b)(iii)). EPA does not believe 

in general that new runways will be 

significantly integrated with existing 

airport facilities in a way that should 

prevent them from being identified as 

new sources (see § 122.29(b)(iii)). In 

addition, it is possible that permit 

authorities, on a case-by-case basis, 

would be able to deem other types of 

construction activity for aircraft 

movement areas to constitute a new 

source as well. For example, a permit 

authority might deem the substantial 

improvement or replacement of an 

existing runway to be a new source if 

that activity is deemed to ‘‘totally 

replace the process or production 

equipment that causes the discharge of 

pollutants’’ (see § 122.29(b)(ii)). In all of 

the situations discussed above, the new 

runway or other runway construction 

activity would be deemed to be a new 

source only if it meets all of the criteria 

in the regulations cited above for 

definition as a new source. 

G. BPT and BCT 

The CWA provides for two 

increasingly stringent levels of 

technology-based controls on discharges 

of pollutants. See EPA v. National 

Crushed Stone Association, 449 U.S. 64 

(1980). BPT represents the first level of 

control applicable to all pollutants. BCT 

and BAT represent the second level of 

control for conventional and toxic/ 

nonconventional pollutants, 

respectively. EPA considered whether 

in this rule, it was necessary to establish 

BPT and BCT limits, given that ADF and 

pavement deicing fluid will be 

controlled at the more stringent BAT 

level. Because the BAT controls in this 

rule also control the same pollutants as 

would be controlled by BPT or BCT 

limits, it is not necessary for EPA to 

analyze options and propose BPT and 

BCT effluent limitation guidelines for 

the Airport Deicing Category. EPA 

recognizes that it has proposed, in the 

past, all three levels of control, BPT, 

BCT and BAT for various industries 

even where the same pollutants and 

wastestream were at issue. In this rule 

however, the Agency solicits comments 

on this approach because it represents 

significant resource savings for EPA in 

terms of analysis and rulemaking 

process while not sacrificing any 

environmental protection. Additionally, 

EPA is not establishing BCT limitations 

for this industry because these 

limitations apply only to conventional 

pollutants such as BOD5 and total 

suspended solids and this effluent 

guideline regulates only nonconventional pollutants (chiefly COD 

and ammonia). 

H. Pretreatment Standards 

Some airports in the U.S. discharge 

ADF-contaminated runoff to POTWs. 

EPA does not have any information 

indicating that POTWs currently have 

problems of pollutant pass-through, 

interference or sludge contamination 

stemming from these discharges. For 

this reason, the Agency is not proposing 

PSES or PSNS. EPA is aware that high 

concentration or ‘‘slug’’ discharges of 

deicing wastewater can create POTW 

upset, and many of the airports that 

discharge to POTWs have airportspecific requirements on allowable 

BOD5 or COD discharge loading per day. 

They may also have requirements for 

discharging at various concentration 

levels over time. Airports usually meet 

this requirement by storing deicing 

stormwater in ponds or tanks and 

metering the discharge to meet the 

POTW permit requirements. 

I. Compliance Costs 

1. Overview 

EPA estimated industry-wide 

compliance costs for this proposed rule. 

This section summarizes EPA’s 

approach for estimating compliance 

costs, while the TDD provides detailed 

information on these estimates. All final 

cost estimates are expressed in terms of 

2006 dollars and represent the cost of 

purchasing and installing equipment 

and control technologies, annual 

operating and maintenance costs, and 

associated monitoring and reporting 

requirements. 

EPA estimated compliance costs 

associated with today’s proposal using 

data collected through survey responses, 

site visits, sampling episodes, specific 

airport requests and information 

supplied by vendors. As applicable, 

EPA estimated the costs for an airport to 

comply with today’s proposal initially, 

as well as maintaining equipment and 

performing required monitoring or other 

activities to demonstrate ongoing 

compliance. These costs may include 

upgrading/installing and operating a 

collection system and/or a treatment 

system, chemical analysis for 

compliance as well as the costs 

associated with substituting potassium 

acetate in place of urea as a chemical 

airfield deicer. EPA’s cost estimates 

represent the incremental costs for a 

facility when its existing practices 

would not lead to compliance with 

today’s proposed rule. 

EPA calculated costs based on a 

computerized design and cost model 

developed for each of the technology 

options considered. EPA developed 

facility-specific costs for each of the 

Airport industry questionnaire 

respondents (149 facilities), where each 

facility was treated as a ‘‘model’’ airport. 

Because the questionnaire respondents 

represent a subset of the industry, EPA 

subsequently modeled the national 

population by adjusting the costs 

upward to estimate the entire affected 

airport population. 

The questionnaire responses provided 

EPA with information on three 

consecutive deicing seasons (2002– 

2005) for each of the model facilities. 

Some portions of EPA’s costing effort 

reflect the airports’ operations as 

reported for the three seasons. For 

example, estimates of applied deicing 

chemicals were taken as an average of 

the years for which the information was 

reported. In instances where aspects of 

an airport’s operation changed over the 

three-year period, EPA used the most 

recent information. For example, if an 

airport installed a deicing pad in 2005, 

EPA’s costing estimates would reflect 

any incremental changes required above 

the current ADF collection rate, to meet 

the collection rate in the proposed rule. 

2. Approach for Developing Aircraft 

Deicing Costs 

Under this proposed rule, an airport 

would be required to collect a 

percentage of its sprayed ADF, and treat 

that wastewater to comply with numeric 

effluent limitations. EPA estimated the 

costs for an airport to comply with 

collection and treatment requirements, 

as well as performing required 

monitoring to demonstrate compliance. 

These costs include estimates of 

upgrading airports’ current collection 

systems, installing the required 

technology to treat the wastewater, 

maintaining equipment and conducting 

chemical analyses for compliance. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44695 

EPA first established existing 

conditions for each model airport based 

on information and site plans submitted 

as part of the Airport Questionnaire. 

EPA then determined what upgrades, if 

any, would be required to comply with 

today’s proposal. In general, when an 

airport lacked a comparable collection 

system to the one used as the basis for 

the options considered in today’s 

proposal, EPA included costs for 

installation/implementation of one of 

the following collection technologies: 

GRVs, GRVs used in conjunction with 

plug-and-pump systems, or deicing 

pads. 

For estimating wastewater treatment 

costs, EPA assumed costs for storage of 

anticipated volumes of collected ADF. 

Airport-specific costs were assessed for 

storage options, including ponds, 

permanent tanks (both underground and 

aboveground), or mobile/temporary 

fractional distillation tanks. 

EPA based its selection of a particular 

storage option on an airport’s current 

storage facilities, and on what would be 

the easiest for that airport to implement. 

The Agency assumed that it is likely 

that an airport with a pond already in 

place would use that for storage, as 

opposed to constructing permanent 

tanks; and assumed that an airport with 

limited available land would install an 

underground tank. 

Based on questionnaire responses and 

engineering judgment, EPA assessed the 

current level of treatment for each 

model facility that discharges directly to 

waters of the U.S. Except in limited 

circumstances, when a model facility 

was determined to require additional 

treatment, EPA assigned costs 

associated with installing an AFB 

treatment system as the most likely 

means of compliance. 

Of the direct discharging model 

facilities that were modeled for 

treatment costs, EPA assumed that 

approximately five percent would use 

off-site hauling for waste treatment, 

based on the Agency’s estimate that this 

percentage will find this choice to be 

the most cost-effective alternative. 

These facilities have relatively limited 

deicing operations and off-site hauling 

is more cost-effective than installing an 

on-site biological treatment system. 

Additionally, an on-site biological 

treatment system would require a 

regular wastestream flow in order to 

keep the biological system functioning 

properly, and an airport with limited 

deicing operations may have trouble 

maintaining a regular wastestream. 

EPA recognizes that an airport may 

decide to use a POTW rather than 

directly discharging its wastewater. 

While this may be a lower cost 

alternative in some cases, EPA did not 

estimate costs for such a change, 

because the Agency does not have 

enough information about the capacity 

of specific POTWs to receive these 

volumes of wastewater. EPA also was 

not able to determine if a specific POTW 

would be unwilling to accept the 

wastewater from a particular airport, 

and for other reasons, such as 

inconsistencies with its future growth 

plans. For these reasons, EPA did not 

include this alternative in its model. 

An airport that has upgraded its 

collection and treatment systems may 

have additional monitoring costs. While 

the permit authority determines the 

required monitoring frequency for an 

individual permittee, EPA estimated the 

overall costs of the anticipated 

monitoring requirements associated 

with the proposed rule. EPA estimated 

the cost per airport for the ADF 

collection requirement, and the cost of 

analyzing COD in the treated effluent. 

For costing purposes, EPA assumed that 

an airport would take a 24-hour 

composite sample and analyze that for 

COD, and perform that analysis five 

times per week throughout the deicing 

season. EPA made a similar assumption 

for purposes of computing the proposed 

weekly average effluent limitation. As a 

conservative estimate, EPA assumed a 

six-month deicing season for all 

modeled facilities. Additionally, EPA 

assumed that the model facility would 

perform an assessment of their 

collection system once every permit 

cycle. 

3. Approach for Estimating Airfield 

Pavement Deicing Costs 

Under today’s proposal, in addition to 

the requirements set forth for capture/ 

treatment of aircraft deicing fluid, an 

airport would be required to certify it 

uses non-urea-based airfield deicers. 

Through the results of the Airport 

Questionnaire, EPA learned that 29 

model facilities (a subset of the 149 

model facilities referenced above) use 

urea for airfield pavement deicing. As 

detailed in Section VII.D.3, EPA based 

its certification requirement on product 

substitution. EPA calculated the cost for 

these 29 model facilities to substitute 

the urea used for deicing with another 

widely available pavement deicer that 

does not produce ammonia in the 

wastewater. EPA chose to model the 

substitution costs on what it would cost 

to switch to potassium acetate, 

specifically because that product 

accounts for 64 percent of the applied 

chemical airfield deicer usage (by 

weight) in the U.S. 

EPA identified 16 airports that used 

both urea and potassium acetate for 

airfield deicing, and 8 of these airports 

provided usage data. The Agency 

calculated that the average cost of urea 

was $274.24/ton and the average cost of 

potassium acetate was $3.16/gallon. The 

questionnaire responses indicated that 

between 2002 and 2005 an average of 

over 7 million pounds of urea were used 

annually, costing an estimated $1.06 

million. 

Urea deicers are applied at a different 

rate to have an efficacy equivalent to 

potassium acetate. EPA had to 

determine what amount of potassium 

acetate would be required to replace the 

estimated 7 million pounds of urea used 

annually. EPA could not locate any 

information on the relative application 

rates between potassium acetate and 

urea directly; however, we did develop 

a comparison to sodium acetate, another 

solid pavement deicer. Both urea and 

potassium acetate application rates vary 

depending on the weather conditions 

and the thickness of the ice layer at the 

time of application. Using the 

information available, EPA assessed 

comparable application rates and costs 

between urea and potassium acetate to 

treat 1,000 ft 2 of area for thin ice 

conditions at 32 °F and 1-inch-thick ice 

conditions at less than 10 °F. DCN 

AD00843 provides additional details 

about the calculations on product 

substitution. 

Using the reported urea usage in the 

Airport Questionnaire, EPA estimated 

the airfield area that was annually 

deiced at each model facility. Finally, 

using the estimated model facility 

airfield area in conjunction with the 

estimated $2.32/1,000 ft2 cost of 

potassium acetate, EPA was able to 

calculate the cost per model facility to 

perform airfield deicing with potassium 

acetate. This cost was compared to the 

questionnaire reported urea costs to 

determine the incremental costs of 

switching chemical airfield deicers. 

4. Calculation of National Costs 

EPA categorized all of the costs as 

either capital costs (one-time costs 

associated with planning or installation 

of technologies), or as operations and 

maintenance (O&M) costs (costs that 

occur on a regular ongoing basis such as 

monitoring or annual purchases of 

deicing materials). 

For each model facility, EPA 

calculated an annualized cost based on 

the sum of all the associated O&M costs 

as well as amortized capital costs. 

Capital costs were amortized over the 

lifespan of the capital improvement, as 

reported by the facility. No capital costs 

were amortized over more than 20 years, 

even if an estimated lifespan of an 

airport exceeded 20 years. Finally, EPA 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44696 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

combined the amortized costs with the 

annual O&M to calculate the total 

annual cost of the regulation for that 

model facility. 

EPA then utilized statistical weights 

assigned to each of the 149 model 

facilities in order to calculate a national 

estimated cost of $91.3 million for 

complying with the proposed rule. 

Further discussion of all of the 

calculations discussed above can be 

found in the TDD. 

J. Approach to Estimating Pollutant 

Reductions 

1. Overview 

The pollutants of concern associated 

with airfield and aircraft deicing and 

anti-icing chemicals are discussed 

earlier in this preamble. These 

chemicals commingle with stormwater 

and they may be discharged to the 

environment. These discharges are of 

environmental concern because the 

biodegradation of deicing chemicals 

results in oxygen depletion in the 

receiving water body. Moreover, some of 

these pollutants, such as ammonia, have 

toxic properties. The oxygen demand of 

compounds can be measured as five-day 

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and 

chemical oxygen demand (COD), or 

calculated as theoretical oxygen demand 

(ThOD). 

Pollutant loadings from airport 

deicing operations are challenging to 

estimate because they are highly 

variable and airport-specific. Because 

the use of deicing and anti-icing 

chemicals is weather dependent, the 

pollutant loadings at each airport vary 

based on weather conditions. The 

pollutant loadings also vary from airport 

to airport based on each airport’s 

climate. In addition, the amount of 

applied chemical that is discharged to 

surface water is airport specific, based 

on the existing stormwater separation, 

collection, and/or containment 

equipment present at each airport. 

Due to the variable nature of these 

pollutant loads, EPA developed an 

estimation methodology based on the 

usage of ADF and airfield chemicals at 

the airports responding to the survey 

questionnaires. The methodology takes 

into account EPA’s existing data sources 

and provides a better estimate of the 

loadings than those based on sporadic 

monitoring data alone. 

2. Sources and Use of Available Data 

While developing the pollutant 

loading models, EPA considered the 

following data sources: 

• Pavement deicing chemical usage/ 

purchase information for the 2002/2003, 

2003/2004, and 2004/2005 deicing 

seasons, as reported by airport 

authorities in the Airport Deicing 

Questionnaire; 

• ADF purchase information for the 

2002/2003, 2003/2004, and 2004/2005 

deicing seasons, as reported by air 

carriers in the Airline Deicing 

Questionnaire; 

• Standard airport information 

available from the FAA and the Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics (BTS), 

including the number of operations and 

departures by airport; 

• Weather information for each 

airport from National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

including temperature, freezing 

precipitation, and snowfall data; 

• Existing airport stormwater 

collection and containment systems, as 

reported by airport authorities in the 

Airport Deicing Questionnaire; 

• Standard chemical information 

about ADF and pavement deicing 

chemicals, including molecular 

formulas and densities; and 

• Analytical data from EPA sampling 

episodes of airport deicing operations. 

a. Baseline Loading Calculations 

To estimate pollutant loadings from 

deicing operations, EPA analyzed 

airports’ questionnaire responses and 

information provided during the site 

visits. The Agency estimated the total 

amount of pavement deicing chemicals 

and ADF used based on data collected 

in the Airport and Airline 

Questionnaires. 

In the Airport Questionnaire, EPA 

requested that airport authorities report 

the purchase/usage amount, 

concentration, and brand name of 

pavement deicing materials. EPA 

evaluated each reported chemical to 

determine the most appropriate way to 

estimate the average amount used over 

the past three winter seasons. EPA also 

requested the purchase amount, 

concentration, and brand names of ADF 

chemicals in the Airline Questionnaire. 

The responses to the Airline 

Questionnaire provided sufficient data 

to estimate ADF usage at 56 airports. In 

some cases, data were not available for 

every airline operating at a particular 

airport. In these instances, EPA 

extrapolated the amount of ADF used by 

the reporting airlines to estimate the 

total amount of ADF used by the entire 

airport. This was done based on the 

number of airport operations 

(departures) at the reporting airlines and 

the total amount of airport operations. 

In addition to the ADF data reported in 

the Airline Detailed Questionnaire, 10 

airports reported total gallons of ADF 

usage to EPA in their comment section 

of the Airport Deicing Questionnaire. 

These ADF data were combined with 

the ADF data reported in the Airline 

Deicing Questionnaires, resulting in 

estimates of total ADF usage for 66 

airports. 

Using the Airline and Airport 

Questionnaire ADF purchase data, 

airport departure data, and climate data, 

EPA developed a relationship between 

the estimate of amount of ADF used, the 

climate and size of each airport. EPA 

used this equation to estimate the total 

gallons of ADF used at airports that did 

not have available ADF data in the 

Airport or Airline Questionnaires. 

Once the amount of ADF applied at 

each airport had been determined, EPA 

needed to determine the amount of ADF 

available for direct discharge. EPA 

assumes that 80 percent of applied Type 

I and Type II ADF falls onto the 

pavement at the deicing area and is 

available for discharge. EPA assumes 

that 10 percent of Type IV ADF falls to 

the pavement in the deicing area and is 

available for discharge; the remaining 90 

percent adheres to the plane. (See the 

TDD for more information on these 

estimates.) The total amount of applied 

ADF was multiplied by the appropriate 

percent available for discharge to 

determine the amount of ADF that is 

available for discharge. Note that 

compliance capture requirements in the 

proposed rule are specified as 

percentages of ADF available for 

discharge, not percentages of total ADF 

applied. 

Evaluating the amount of ADF 

available for discharge, coupled with 

the estimated baseline collection rate, 

would result in the total amount of 

discharged ADF. After excluding the 

ADF removed via baseline capture, EPA 

calculated the amount of COD and BOD5

loading associated with the degradation 

of the applied deicing/anti-icing 

chemicals. EPA later decided that COD 

was a more accurate and practical 

indicator to regulate than BOD5 (see the 

discussion in Section 7 of the Technical 

Development Document). 

Airfield pavement deicing chemicals 

are applied at various airside areas 

where differing activities occur. 

Theoretically, the amount of pavement 

deicers being discharged could range 

from approximately zero percent, for 

chemicals that infiltrate highly 

permeable soils in unpaved areas during 

a thaw, to virtually 100 percent for 

paved areas near storm drains. In 

general, soil in unpaved areas is frozen 

during deicing season and is 

impermeable, promoting the overland 

flow of stormwater and pollutants to 

surface waters. Estimating the amount 

or proportion of pavement deicers 

discharged at a particular airport is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44697 

difficult without performing a detailed 

study at the airport. EPA has not 

received any such detailed studies, nor 

other information from airports 

indicating that pavement deicers are 

absorbed into soil during the deicing 

season. Therefore, the Agency assumed 

for this rulemaking that 100 percent of 

pavement deicers are discharged to 

surface waters. This means the estimates 

of baseline pollutant loadings and 

removals associated with pavement deicing are upper bound estimates. 

EPA calculated the amount of 

pollutant loadings discharged to surface 

waters by using standard published 

chemical information and 

stoichiometric equations. This 

methodology is preferable to using 

empirical data because it can be applied 

to all deicing chemicals being used by 

the aviation industry. In addition, this 

methodology allows for a clear 

presentation of the calculations and 

assumptions used. EPA confirmed the 

validity of the COD concentrations for 

propylene glycol and ethylene glycol 

calculated using this methodology 

against the available empirical data. See 

Section 10 of the TDD for more 

information on calculations of baseline 

loadings due to airfield deicers. 

b. Calculation of Pollutant Removals 

EPA estimated the amounts of COD 

that would be reduced by the proposed 

rule, by estimating the existing capture 

and treatment levels at individual 

airports and comparing that to the levels 

that would be required by the proposed 

rule. If a particular airport would be 

subject to a collection requirement of 20 

percent under the proposed rule and it 

currently is estimated to capture a 

greater proportion, then no load 

removals were estimated for that airport. 

Additionally, if an airport was estimated 

to use urea for pavement deicing, EPA 

assumed that the airport would use 

product substitution to meet the 

proposed effluent limit. The ammonia 

and COD loads associated with urea 

were calculated and then EPA 

computed the total load reduction by 

subtracting the ammonia loadings and 

the COD loadings of the substitute 

product, potassium acetate. (Although 

some studies indicate that alternative 

pavement deicers can be toxic to aquatic 

organisms, the combined impact of the 

COD content, toxicity, and nutrient 

content of urea is greater than effects 

associated with alternative pavement 

deicers.) 

These calculated loading reductions, 

for both airfield and aircraft deicing 

chemicals, were then extrapolated by 

multiplying the direct discharge loads 

or load removals by the airport survey 

weighting factors to determine national 

loads for the entire industry for baseline 

and each regulatory scenario. EPA 

estimates the total annual pollutant 

removal for the proposed rule at 44.6 

million pounds, comprised of 39.9 

million pounds of COD and 4.7 million 

pounds of ammonia. The pollutant 

removal estimates for the other 

regulatory options range from 26 million 

pounds to 46 million pounds. 

K. Approach to Determining Long-Term 

Averages, Variability Factors and 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards 

This section describes the statistical 

methodology used to develop the 

proposed daily maximum and 

maximum for weekly average effluent 

limitations for BAT and new source 

performance standards for COD. EPA 

also used the same statistical 

methodology to develop the daily 

maximum limitation/standard for 

ammonia that is a proposed compliance 

alternative when urea is applied to 

runways. For simplicity, the following 

discussion uses the term ‘‘limitation’’ to 

refer to effluent limitations, standards, 

and the compliance alternative. EPA has 

proposed the same limitations for each 

level of recovery requirements, because 

the treatment technology and 

performance are the same regardless of 

the amount of fluid recovered. 

The following sections describe the 

data selection criteria; the statistical 

percentile basis of the proposed 

limitations; rationales for proposing 

certain limitations; the calculations; the 

recommended long-term average value 

for treatment operations; and the 

engineering evaluation of the model 

technology’s ability to achieve the levels 

required by the proposed limitations. 

1. Criteria Used To Select Data as the 

Basis of the Proposed Limitations 

Typically, in developing effluent 

limitations for any industry, EPA 

qualitatively reviews all the data before 

selecting a subset as the basis of the 

limitations. EPA typically uses four 

criteria to assess the data. One criterion 

generally requires that the influent and 

effluent represent only wastewater from 

the regulated operations (e.g., deicing), 

and do not include wastewater from 

other sources (e.g., sanitary wastes). A 

second criterion typically ensures that 

the pollutants were present in the 

influent at sufficient concentrations to 

evaluate treatment effectiveness. A third 

criterion generally requires that the 

facility must have the technology and 

demonstrate good operation. A fourth 

criterion typically requires that the data 

cannot represent periods of treatment 

upsets or shutdown and start-up 

periods. (Shutdown periods can result 

from upset conditions, maintenance, 

and other atypical operations.) 

EPA has adapted the application of 

the fourth general criterion for data 

corresponding to start-up periods to 

reflect some unique characteristics of 

treating discharges from aircraft deicing 

operations. Most industries incur startup conditions only during the 

adjustment period associated with 

installing new treatment systems. 

During this acclimation and 

optimization process, the concentration 

values tend to be highly variable with 

occasional extreme values (high and 

low). After this initial adjustment 

period, the systems should operate at 

steady state for years with relatively low 

variability around a long-term average. 

Because start-up conditions reflect onetime operating conditions, EPA 

generally excludes such data in 

developing the limitations. In contrast, 

EPA expects airports to encounter startup operations at the start of every 

deicing season because they probably 

will cease treatment operations during 

warmer months. Because this 

adjustment period will occur every year 

for the Airport Deicing Category, EPA is 

proposing to include start-up data in the 

data set used as the basis of the 

limitations. However, through its 

application of the other three criteria, 

EPA would exclude extreme conditions 

that do not demonstrate the level of 

control possible with proper operation 

and control even during start-up 

periods. 

In part, by retaining start-up data for 

limitations development, the limitations 

will be achievable because EPA based 

these limits on typical treatment during 

the entire season. Once the treatment 

system reaches steady state, EPA 

expects a typically well-designed and 

operated system to run continuously 

until the end of the deicing season. 

Conversely, EPA might determine that 

systems that operated only during 

relatively short periods, such as during 

each winter storm event (i.e., of only 

several days duration), might be poorly 

operated because the model technology 

requires more time to reach steady state. 

In other words, it would be ineffective 

and disruptive to turn the system on 

and off throughout the deicing season, 

particularly for biological systems, such 

as the model technology, and EPA may 

reject data if it determines that it reflects 

this type of operation. 

2. Data Used as Basis of Proposed 

Limitations 

Of the effluent data available to EPA, 

2,562 concentration values for COD and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44698 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

5 concentration values for ammonia met 

the requirements in the criteria and are 

the basis of the proposed limitations. 

The concentration values are 

measurements of effluent collected from 

Albany Airport’s anaerobic treatment 

system. The 2,562 COD values were 

collected by the airport during its daily 

monitoring of COD over ten deicing 

seasons (i.e., December 1, 1999 through 

April 10, 2009). The five ammonia 

values were collected by EPA during its 

sampling episode (February 5 through 

February 9, 2006). (As explained in 

Section VII.E.3, EPA transferred the 

ammonia data from the anaerobic 

fluidized bed (AFB) technology because 

an AFB system by design creates 

ammonia as a by-product of wastewater 

treatment. Consequently, AFB 

discharges could have higher ammonia 

concentrations than typically found in 

airfield runoff when urea is not present. 

If the treated aircraft deicing effluent 

then were discharged through the same 

pipe as the runway runoff, the airport 

might have difficulties complying with 

the ammonia limitation.) 

For the final rule, EPA might further 

explore factors contributing to 

variability observed in the available 

data, assess whether some modes of 

operations do not reflect the 

performance expected from the model 

technology (as required by criterion 3), 

and thus decide whether to exclude any 

of the corresponding data as the basis of 

any limitation. 

EPA is soliciting additional data on 

airport discharges (see Section XIV for 

a detailed request for data). When 

applying the data selection criteria for 

the final limitations, EPA will consider 

new information from commenters and 

other sources. Consequently, EPA may 

reach new conclusions about whether 

some or all of the proposal data should 

be included or excluded as the basis of 

the final limitations; and/or revisions to 

its statistical approach are appropriate. 

As a result of its evaluation of the new 

information, EPA may promulgate final 

limitations that are more or less 

stringent than the proposed limitations. 

3. Statistical Percentile Basis for 

Limitations 

EPA uses a statistical framework to 

establish limitations that facilities are 

capable of complying with at all times. 

Statistical methods are appropriate for 

dealing with effluent data because the 

quality of effluent, even in welloperated systems, is subject to a certain 

amount of fluctuation or uncertainty. 

Statistics is the science of dealing with 

uncertainty in a logical and consistent 

manner. Statistical methods together 

with engineering analysis of operating 

conditions, therefore, provide a logical 

and consistent framework for analyzing 

a set of effluent data and determining 

values from the data that form a 

reasonable basis for effluent limitations. 

Using statistical methods, EPA has 

derived numerical values for its 

proposed daily maximum limitations 

and weekly average limitations. 

The statistical percentiles are 

intended, on one hand, to be high 

enough to accommodate reasonably 

anticipated variability within control of 

the facility. The limitations also reflect 

a level of performance consistent with 

the CWA requirement that these 

limitations be based on the best 

technologies that are properly operated 

and maintained. 

In establishing daily maximum 

limitations, EPA’s objective is to restrict 

the discharges on a daily basis at a level 

that is achievable for an airport that 

targets its treatment system design and 

operation at the long-term average while 

allowing for the variability around the 

long-term average that results from 

normal operations. This variability 

means that at certain times airports may 

discharge at a level that is greater than 

the long-term average. This variability 

also means that airports may at other 

times discharge at a level that is 

considerably lower than the long-term 

average. To allow for possibly higher 

daily discharges, EPA has established 

the daily maximum limitation at a 

relatively high level (i.e., the 99th 

percentile). EPA has consistently used 

the 99th percentile as the basis of the 

daily maximum limitation in 

establishing limitations for numerous 

industries for many years and numerous 

courts have upheld EPA’s approach. 

EPA has not promulgated weekly 

average limitations for other industries, 

and thus, is soliciting comment on its 

approach for this industry. Because EPA 

typically establishes limitations based 

upon statistical percentile estimates, it 

is proposing to do so for the weekly 

average limitation. In its derivation of 

the weekly average limitation for COD, 

EPA used an estimate of the 97th 

percentile of the weekly averages of the 

daily measurements. This percentile 

basis is the midpoint of the percentiles 

used for the daily maximum limitation 

(i.e., 99th percentile of the distribution 

of daily values) and the monthly average 

limitation (i.e., 95th percentile of the 

distribution of monthly average values). 

Courts have upheld EPA’s use of these 

percentiles, and the selection of the 97th 

percentile is a logical extension of this 

practice. Compliance with the daily 

maximum limitation is determined by a 

single daily value; therefore, EPA 

considers the 99th percentile to provide 

a reasonable basis for the daily 

maximum limitation by providing an 

allowance for an occasional extreme 

discharge. Because compliance with the 

monthly average limitation is based 

upon more than one daily measurement 

and averages are less variable than daily 

discharges, EPA has determined that 

facilities should be capable of 

controlling the average of daily 

discharges to avoid extreme monthly 

averages above the 95th percentile. In a 

similar manner to the monthly average 

limitation, compliance with the weekly 

average limitation also would be based 

upon more than one daily measurement. 

However, the airport would monitor for 

a shorter time and thus would have 

fewer opportunities to counterbalance 

highly concentrated daily discharges 

with lower ones. For this reason, EPA is 

proposing and seeks comment on the 

choice to use a larger percentile for the 

weekly average limitation than the one 

used for the monthly average limitation. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing the 

97th percentile as an appropriate basis 

for limiting average discharges on a 

weekly basis. EPA also considers this 

level of control in avoiding extreme 

weekly average discharges to be possible 

for airports using the model technology. 

4. Rationale for Proposing Limitation on 

Weekly Averages Instead of Monthly 

Averages for COD in Effluent Discharges 

From a monitoring perspective, EPA 

considers the weekly average limitation 

to be a better fit than the monthly 

average limitation for the circumstances 

associated with monitoring during the 

deicing season. In this situation, the 

weekly average limitation would apply 

to every week that the treatment system 

operates during the deicing season. 

When it establishes monthly average 

limitations, EPA’s objective is to 

provide an additional restriction to help 

ensure that facilities target their 

treatment systems to achieve the longterm average. The monthly average 

limitation requires facilities to provide 

on-going control that complements 

controls imposed by the daily maximum 

limitation. To meet the monthly average 

limitation, a facility must 

counterbalance a value near the daily 

maximum limitation with one or more 

values well below the daily maximum 

limitation. To achieve compliance, these 

values must result in a monthly average 

value at or below the monthly average 

limitation. 

The deicing season is unlikely to start 

at the beginning of a calendar month 

and close exactly at the end of a 

calendar month. This means that the 

facility would be monitoring at a 

reduced frequency during those two 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44699 

months. Increasing or decreasing 

monitoring frequency does not affect the 

statistical properties of the underlying 

distribution of the data used to derive 

the limitations. However, monitoring 

less frequently theoretically results in 

average values that are more variable. 

For example, monthly average values 

based on 10 monitoring samples per 

month would be (statistically) expected 

to include some averages that are 

numerically larger (as well as some that 

are numerically smaller) than monthly 

average values based upon 20 

monitoring samples. Because of this 

reduced monitoring, an airport might 

have trouble in complying with the 

monthly average limitation even with an 

otherwise well-operated and controlled 

system. In other words, because it was 

not monitoring as frequently, the airport 

would have fewer opportunities to 

counterbalance high concentrations 

with lower values. 

A weekly average limitation preserves 

EPA’s intent for an additional restriction 

beyond the daily maximum limitation 

that supports EPA’s objective of having 

airports control their average discharges 

at the long-term average. EPA is 

proposing and soliciting comment on 

use of a weekly average instead of a 

monthly average limitation because it 

appears to be a better fit for this 

industry from a monitoring perspective. 

However, two factors may warrant 

another approach in the final rule. First, 

a week may be too short a period to 

ensure that airports will optimize their 

systems appropriately over a longer 

period to achieve the long-term average. 

Second, the industry and permit writers 

are unlikely to have experience with 

weekly average limitations and may 

prefer other alternatives. Other 

approaches may include the monthly 

average limitation and/or the annual 

average limitation sometimes used for 

intermittent dischargers in other 

industries. For example, for the Pulp, 

Paper and Paperboard Category (40 CFR 

Part 430), EPA promulgated an annual 

average limitation that was set equal to 

the value of the long-term average 

derived from the data used to develop 

the daily maximum and monthly 

average limitations for continuous 

dischargers. (It does not have an 

allowance for variability.) EPA solicits 

comment on whether weekly average 

limitations, monthly average limitations 

or some other approach would be 

appropriate to ensure that airports have 

well-operated, maintained, and 

controlled treatment systems that 

discharge at a level consistent with the 

long-term average. 

5. Rationale for Proposing a Limitation 

Only for Daily Discharges of Ammonia 

in Effluent Discharges 

EPA believes that it appropriate to 

rely on a daily maximum limitation to 

ensure that airports appropriately 

control ammonia levels as airports 

might have difficulties in complying 

with any average limitation due to 

monitoring less frequently than 

assumed in the statistical calculations 

(see discussion related to monitoring for 

COD). Unlike COD, EPA is not 

proposing a weekly ammonia effluent 

limitation. The technology basis for the 

COD effluent limitations would operate 

throughout the deicing season with 

continuous discharges allowing for 

weekly monitoring. In contrast, urea is 

applied to airfield pavement as needed, 

and discharges would occur for a short 

time after the initial application, as the 

urea works its way through the 

stormwater collection and any 

associated treatment system that may be 

present. Most airports would have noncontinuous and somewhat infrequent 

urea discharges. Consequently, it would 

be difficult to assume a single value for 

the monitoring frequency that could 

reasonably be applied to all airports, 

regardless of climatic conditions. In 

developing the average limitations, this 

assumed monitoring frequency is used 

in the statistical calculations. Although 

EPA has concerns about establishing 

average limitations on a national basis, 

a permit authority may choose to 

establish weekly or monthly average 

limitations for a specific airport, and 

would presumably assume a monitoring 

frequency based upon local climatic 

conditions. 

Additionally, EPA expects airports to 

select product substitution (i.e., nonurea deicers) rather than the compliance 

alternative that requires collection and 

treatment of runway runoff. Thus, it is 

possible that no airports will be subject 

to any limitation on ammonia 

discharges. For the final rule, after 

reviewing any supplementary 

information and comments, EPA may 

reevaluate whether weekly and/or 

monthly average limitations are 

necessary for proper control of 

ammonia. 

6. Calculation of Limitations for COD 

and Ammonia 

For COD, EPA used nonparametric 

statistical methods to estimate the 

percentiles used as the basis of the daily 

maximum and weekly average 

limitations. A simple nonparametric 

estimate of a particular percentile (e.g., 

99th) of an effluent concentration data 

set is the observed value that exceeds 

that percent (e.g., 99) of the observed 

data points. 

For the proposed daily maximum 

limitation for COD, EPA used the 

nonparametric method to derive a 99th 

percentile of the more than 1200 daily 

measurements for each unit, and then 

set the proposed limitation equal to the 

median of the two 99th percentile 

estimates, or 271 mg/L. The median is, 

by definition, the midpoint of all 

available data values ordered (i.e., 

ranked) from smallest to largest. In this 

particular case, because there are two 

units, the median is equal to the 

arithmetic average (or mean). 

For the weekly average limitation of 

COD, EPA first calculated, for each unit, 

the arithmetic average of the 

measurements observed during each 

week, excluding weekends (to be 

consistent with the assumed monitoring 

costs, although permit authorities may 

specify different monitoring 

requirements). EPA then used the 

nonparametric method to derive a 97th 

percentile of the more than 200 weekly 

averages for each unit, and set the 

proposed limitation equal to the median 

of the two 97th percentile estimates, or 

154 mg/L. 

For comparison purposes, EPA 

tentatively estimated 112 mg/L as the 

95th percentile of the monthly averages 

using a statistical model based upon the 

lognormal distribution. If EPA were to 

establish a monthly average limitation, 

it would examine the statistical 

properties of the data to determine the 

appropriate model and statistical 

assumptions. 

For ammonia, EPA used a parametric 

approach in estimating the 99th 

percentile based upon the data collected 

during EPA’s 4-day sampling episode. 

The calculations assume the ammonia 

concentrations can be modeled by a 

lognormal distribution. EPA’s selection 

of parametric methods, such as the 

lognormal distribution, in developing 

limitations for other industries is well 

documented (e.g., Iron and Steel (40 

CFR Part 420), Pulp, Paper and 

Paperboard (40 CFR Part 430), Metal 

Products and Machinery (40 CFR Part 

438) categories). Variance estimates 

based upon parametric methods can be 

adjusted for possible biases in the data. 

The proposed limitation of 14.7 mg/L 

includes such an adjustment for 

possible bias from positive 

autocorrelation. When data are 

positively autocorrelated, it means that 

measurements taken close together in 

time are more closely interrelated than 

measurements taken farther apart in 

time. The adjusted variance then better 

reflects the underlying variability that 

would be present if the data were 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44700 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

collected over a longer period. For 

comparison purposes, EPA estimated 

values of 9.75 and 6.98 mg/L for the 

weekly average limitation and monthly 

average limitation. 

7. Derivation of Long-Term Average for 

COD and Ammonia: Target Level for 

Treatment 

Due to routine variability in treated 

effluent, an airport that discharges 

consistently at a level near the values of 

the daily maximum limitation or the 

weekly average limitation, instead of the 

long-term average, may experience 

frequent values exceeding the 

limitations. For this reason and as noted 

previously in this section, EPA 

recommends that airports design and 

operate the treatment system to achieve 

the long-term average that it derived for 

the model technology. Thus, a welloperated and designed system will be 

capable of complying with the proposed 

limitations. 

For COD, EPA recommends that 

airports target treatment systems to 

achieve the long-term average value of 

41 mg/L, which is the median of the 

50th percentiles, of 37 and 45 mg/L, of 

the daily values from the two units. The 

daily allowance for variability, or the 

ratio of the limitation to the long-term 

average, is 6.6. (EPA usually refers to 

this allowance as the ‘‘variability 

factor.’’) In other words, the daily 

maximum limitation of 271 mg/L is 

about seven times greater than the longterm average achievable by the model 

technology. The weekly variability 

factor is 3.8. 

For ammonia, EPA derived its 

recommended long-term average value 

of 5.24 mg/L from the (statistical) 

expected value of the lognormal 

distribution. The daily maximum 

limitation of 14.7 mg/L is about three 

times greater than the long-term average, 

of 5.24 mg/L, achievable by the ADF 

treatment model technology. Ammonia 

is generated as a by-product of the 

model technology, and EPA expects the 

concentrations of ammonia to have 

similar variability to what is being 

treated (i.e., COD). In contrast to the 

COD limitations, which are based on a 

mixture of start-up and steady state 

periods, the ammonia limitation is 

based upon data collected only during 

steady state operations. EPA requests 

additional data that reflect ammonia 

discharges during start-up operations. 

8. Engineering Review of Proposed 

Limitations 

In conjunction with the statistical 

methods, EPA performs an engineering 

review to verify that the limitations are 

reasonable based upon the design and 

expected operation of the control 

technologies and the facility conditions. 

During the site visit and sampling trip 

at the Albany treatment plant, EPA 

confirmed that the airport used the 

model technologies, specifically AFB. 

EPA subsequently contacted the plant 

personnel to obtain more information 

about the installation and operation of 

the model technologies. EPA used this 

engineering information to select the 

subset of data from which to develop 

the proposed limitations. In doing so, 

EPA excluded one extreme value 

because plant personnel considered it to 

be atypical, and likely, the result of high 

solids content. Plant personnel also 

noted that they had removed and 

reinstalled the carbon for one unit prior 

to the last deicing season. Because the 

performance for the next deicing season 

was among the best demonstrated for 

this system EPA concluded that the data 

with the new carbon characterized 

variability that operators could expect 

from periodic maintenance for longterm operation. 

As part of this engineering review, 

EPA concluded that the values of the 

limitations were consistent with the 

levels that are achievable by the model 

technologies. Next EPA compared the 

value of the proposed limitations to the 

data values used to calculate the 

limitations. None of the data selected for 

ammonia were greater than its proposed 

daily maximum limitation which 

supports the engineering and statistical 

conclusions that the limitation value is 

appropriate. Because of the statistical 

methodology used for the COD 

limitations some values were greater 

than the proposed limitations. Of the 

2,562 data points selected for COD, 27 

data points had daily values that were 

greater than the proposed daily 

maximum limitation of 271 mg/L. Of the 

460 weekly averages, 14 averages had 

values that were greater than the 

proposed weekly average limitation of 

154 mg/L. Of those 14 averages, 11 were 

during weeks when the unit also had 

one or more daily values that were 

greater than the daily maximum 

limitation. EPA considered, from an 

engineering perspective, whether any 

factors were likely to have led to the 

larger daily discharges of COD. These 

factors included deicing season, influent 

concentrations, and start-up operations. 

In evaluating the impact of the deicing 

seasons, EPA concluded that the higher 

values did not seem to be predominant 

in any one season. In particular, the 

higher values occurred one to seven 

times in each of eight seasons. In 

evaluating influent concentrations, EPA 

found that influent concentrations were 

generally well-controlled into the 

treatment plant. In general, the 

treatment systems adequately treated 

even the extreme influent values, and 

the high effluent values did not appear 

to be the result of high influent 

discharges. In considering start-up 

operations, EPA noted that the higher 

values occurred in every month from 

December through May, except in April, 

and thus, the limitations appear to 

provide adequate allowance for start-up 

operations. 

For the final rule, EPA may further 

assess the range of the operating 

conditions and resulting performance of 

the treatment units used at the Albany 

airport that were the basis of the COD 

limitation. For example, EPA may 

contact this airport about the 27 COD 

values greater than the proposed daily 

maximum limitation. In the final rule, 

EPA may consider adjustments (upward 

or downward) to the limitations to 

ensure that they adequately reflect 

normal operations of the model 

technology. These final limitations may 

require some dischargers to improve 

treatment systems and/or operations to 

meet consistently the effluent 

limitations. EPA determined that this 

consequence is consistent with the 

Clean Water Act statutory framework, 

which requires that discharge 

limitations reflect the best available 

technology. 

L. Complying With Regulatory 

Requirements 

1. Compliance Dates 

EPA proposes that the compliance 

date for today’s proposed requirements 

will be 30 days after promulgation. 

Permits issued after this date will need 

to include limits consistent with the 

final rule. 

2. Determination of Number of Annual 

Departures 

Airports, in determining whether they 

are subject to this proposed rule, will 

need to refer to the number of annual 

departures over a five-year period prior 

to submittal of a permit application or 

NOI. Air traffic controllers tabulate 

departure data, which are then 

compiled in the BTS T–100 database 

(available at http://transtats.bts.gov). 

These data, along with ADF usage data 

collected pursuant to proposed 

§ 449.20(a), will allow permittees, 

permit authorities, and the public to 

easily determine which ADF collection 

requirements would apply to a 

particular airport. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44701 

3. Alternate Means of Demonstrating 

Compliance 

a. ADF Collection Requirement 

EPA is aware that the ADF collection 

requirement differs from traditional 

end-of-pipe effluent limitations with 

regard to a mechanism for 

demonstrating compliance. Compliance 

with the collection requirement cannot 

be determined through end-of-pipe 

sampling and analysis. Additionally, the 

amount of ADF available for collection 

can vary depending on the weather and 

icing conditions at the time of 

application. EPA is proposing three 

procedures for demonstrating 

compliance with the ADF collection 

requirement. 

The first procedure would require an 

airport to certify to the permitting 

authority that it is operating its 

collection system in accordance with 

specifications for the applicable 

technology described at proposed 

§ 449.20(b)(1). The proposed 

specifications describe operating 

practices for the technologies. As long 

as these technologies are operated and 

maintained as required, the permittee 

will be deemed in compliance with the 

associated collection rate. The only 

reporting requirement for this procedure 

would be for the permitted facilities to 

certify to the permit authority that it is 

operating according to the 

specifications. 

It is not practical for EPA to provide 

operating specifications for all potential 

collection technologies. In the instance 

where an airport wants to perform ADF 

collection with a technology other than 

those described in the regulations, 

under proposed § 449.20(b)(2) the 

permit authority may consult with the 

permittee and specify, on a case-by-case 

basis, an alternative ADF collection 

technology as the manner in which the 

permittee must demonstrate compliance 

with its capture requirement. Under this 

provision, the Director would also be 

able to specify alternate operating 

parameters for one of the technologies 

listed in the proposed rule, in 

consultation with the permittee. As part 

of the permit application, the permittee 

would be required to demonstrate, to 

the Permit authority’s satisfaction, that 

the specified technology is designed to 

achieve the capture requirement as set 

forth in today’s proposal. Again, the 

only reporting requirement for this 

scenario would be for the permitted 

facilities to certify to their permit 

authorities that they are operating and 

maintaining their permitted technology 

as required. 

A third procedure, under proposed 

§ 449.20(b)(3), would be for the 

permitted facility to periodically 

monitor, through a mass balance 

analysis or other means deemed 

acceptable by the permitting authority. 

The permittee would report, at a 

frequency determined by the permit 

authority, the amount of ADF sprayed 

and the amount of available ADF 

collected, in order to determine the 

percentage of available ADF collected. 

b. Ammonia Limits 

While EPA proposed a non-ureabased airfield deicing certification 

requirement, it is also proposing that an 

airport may choose a compliance 

alternative in which it would monitor 

all runway outfalls to demonstrate 

compliance with a proposed alternative 

compliance ammonia limit. However, as 

described further in Section VII.E.3, 

EPA anticipates that most if not all 

permittees would certify rather than 

choose the proposed compliance 

alternative ammonia limitation. 

VIII. Economic Analysis for Airports 

A. Introduction 

EPA’s economic analysis assesses the 

costs and impacts of the proposed 

effluent guidelines on the regulated 

industry. This section explains EPA’s 

methodology and the results of its 

economic analysis. The EA contains 

more detailed results of this analysis. 

B. Economic Data Collection Activities 

EPA obtained the following data 

submitted by airlines to the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS): 

• Aircraft departures, enplaned 

passengers, and cargo by airport of 

origination, destination, airline, aircraft, 

and service type (passenger or cargo 

only) maintained in the Form 41 Traffic 

Database; 

• Air carrier summary traffic and 

capacity statistics such as available seatmiles, available ton-miles, revenue seatmiles, and revenue ton-miles 

maintained in the Form 41 Traffic 

Database; 

• Operating revenues, profits, and net 

income for large certificated carriers 

maintained in the Form 41 Financial 

Database; 

• Operating revenues, profits, and net 

income for small certificated and 

commuter air carriers submitted by 

airlines to the BTS and maintained in 

the Form 298c Financial Database. 

These financial data are confidential 

business information and cannot made 

public until three years after the 

reporting year. EPA obtained them 

through a special request to the BTS, 

and they will not be included in the 

rulemaking public docket. 

EPA obtained data on airport 

revenues, expenses and other financial 

information that were submitted under 

FAA’s Financial Reporting Program by 

commercial service airports receiving 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

grants. As noted in Section VI above, 

EPA surveyed: All U.S. primary airports 

with more than 30,000 annual 

departures by commercial air carriers; a 

sample of small hub and non-hub 

primary airports with fewer than 30,000 

commercial air carrier annual 

departures (excluding Alaska); and 

selected General Aviation/Cargo airports 

and Alaskan airports. The Airport 

Questionnaire collected data on airport 

ownership, financial management, 

signatory airlines, sources of capital 

funding, and non-airline aircraft 

operations. These data were collected to 

provide EPA with a context to 

understand better the data that were 

obtained through the Financial 

Reporting Program. 

In addition, EPA surveyed a sample of 

airlines that operated at each of the 

surveyed airports; all airlines with more 

than 20,000 annual departures at a 

surveyed airport received a 

questionnaire, as well as a sample of 

airlines with more than 1,000 annual 

departures at each surveyed airport. The 

Airline Questionnaire collected data on 

deicing operations at each airport, 

including the airline’s deicing budget, 

costs included in the budget, whether 

the airport is an operational hub for the 

airline, and whether its aircraft were 

deiced by another airline or a fixed base 

operator providing ground services at 

that airport. 

EPA also used journal articles, 

academic publications, and data and 

reports from trade organizations, FAA, 

DOT, and other government agencies 

and other publications to inform the 

analysis of the effluent guidelines. 

C. Annualized Compliance Cost 

Estimates 

EPA estimates that 218 primary 

airports that perform deicing operations 

and have more than 1,000 annual jet 

departures will be regulated by the 

proposed rule. EPA estimated the 

economic cost to each potentially 

affected airport of complying with the 

BAT limitations being proposed today 

using the BAT technologies identified 

by EPA in this proposal. Thus, EPA 

assumed that airports would: 

• Discontinue urea usage for airfield 

deicing and use substitute deicing 

products instead; 

• Collect at least 60 percent of 

applied ADF and treat to the specified 

numeric discharge limit using anaerobic 

fluidized bed technology if the airport 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44702 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

has more than 10,000 annual 

departures, and on average 460,000 or 

more gallons of ADF is applied annually 

at the airport; 

• Collect at least 20 percent of 

applied ADF and treat to the specified 

numeric discharge limit using anaerobic 

fluidized bed technology if the airport 

has more than 10,000 annual 

departures, and on average less than 

460,000 gallons of ADF is applied 

annually at the airport. 

Because many airports do not meet the 

above criteria, EPA estimates that 

approximately 164 primary airports, 135 

non-primary airports, and almost 3,000 

general aviation airports are not 

regulated under the proposed rule. 

EPA projects that 70 of the 218 inscope airports would incur costs under 

this proposal associated with deicing of 

aircraft. EPA’s assessment of the 

remaining 148 airports indicates they 

are already in compliance with the 

performance standard, and therefore 

would not incur additional costs 

because of this proposal. The 

technologies that are the basis for 

today’s proposal are projected to cost 

affected airports $714.0 million in total 

capital costs over the 20-year analytic 

period. EPA believes the effective 

service life of deicing pads is at least 20 

years, but the effective service life of 

GRV and plug-and-pump technologies is 

10 years. (Plug-and-pump technologies 

are not part of the proposed option.) 

Therefore, for any airport modeled using 

GRV and/or plug-and-pump 

technologies, EPA incorporated capital 

expenditures in year 10 for replacement 

in addition to the initial capital 

expenditure. The total capital cost figure 

in Table VIII–1 includes all initial and 

replacement capital expenditures. 

However, because the replacement 

capital expenditures occur 10 years after 

promulgation, the discounted present 

value (PV) of those expenditures is less 

than their current value. Thus, the PV 

of capital costs is also presented in 

Table VIII–1 to allow a fair comparison 

between technologies requiring 

replacement with those only requiring 

initial investment over the 20-year 

analytic period. The PV of capital costs 

under the proposed option 3 is $701.7 

million over the 20-year analytic period. 

The annual cost of operating and 

maintaining the technologies identified 

as BAT for aircraft deicing for this 

proposed rule, which includes the cost 

of using potassium acetate instead of 

urea to deice airfield pavement, is 

estimated at $45.9 million. Adding this 

operation and maintenance cost to the 

$45.4 million in capital costs of 

installing deicing pads at the seven 

airports who are not currently meeting 

the 60 percent capture requirement, the 

rule would have a total annualized cost 

of $91.3 million ($2006). Of the 70 

airports projected to incur costs under 

this proposed rule: 40 airports only 

incur costs associated with the urea ban, 

17 airports only incur costs associated 

with the collection and treatment of 

ADF, and 13 airports incur costs 

associated with both the urea ban and 

ADF collection and treatment. Table 

VIII–1 presents projected costs for the 

proposed rule, as well as the other three 

options examined (see Section VII.D.3). 

TABLE VIII–1—BAT COSTS TO AIRPORTS THAT DEICE AIRCRAFT AND AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

[2006 $ millions—218 airports] a

Option 

Airports 

incurring 

costs 

Total capital 

costs 

Present 

value of 

capital costs 

Annualized 

capital costs 

Annual 

O&M costs 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

1 ....................................................................................... 67 $311.4 $299.5 $19.2 $17.1 $36.4 

2 ....................................................................................... 75 457.8 435.2 28.0 82.1 110.1 

3 b ..................................................................................... 70 714.0 701.7 45.4 45.9 91.3 

4 ....................................................................................... 121 871.8 848.7 54.9 50.0 105.0 

a EPA used a discount rate of 5.25% as provided by the airport industry. See Section 5 of the Economic Analysis for further information. b Proposed option. 

D. Economic Impact Methodologies 

EPA’s analysis of the economic 

impacts of the proposed effluent 

guidelines and new source performance 

standards for airport deicing operations 

examined the impacts of the proposed 

regulations on the economic viability of 

airports and their customer airlines. We 

note that there are a number of 

distinguishing features of this industry 

that make the analysis here different 

from the type of more traditional 

analysis EPA would perform for a forprofit manufacturing industry. 

First, almost all potentially affected 

airports are publicly owned and 

operated by local, county, or state 

governments, or by quasi-governmental 

authorities created to operate the 

airport. As governmental or quasigovernmental entities, airports do not 

earn a profit or loss in the traditional 

financial sense; in fact, many airports 

have been operated with the expectation 

that they will break even financially, 

with airline customers legally required 

to cover expenditures in excess of costs. 

Second, if compliance costs are 

passed through to airlines serving the 

affected airports, those airlines would 

likely determine economic achievability 

on a route and/or airport basis, as well 

as how that route/airport fits into the 

airline’s entire route structure. Further, 

a decision to drop a route at one airport 

if the route is no longer financially 

viable may affect the financial viability 

of connecting routes associated with the 

same or different airports. However, 

airline cost and revenue data are only 

available at the airline level, not on a 

route-specific basis. 

Third, recent years have been 

financially difficult for the air 

transportation industry. In aggregate, 

airlines earned negative operating profit 

(operating revenues less operating 

expenses) from 2001 through 2004, and 

negative net income from 2001 through 

2005. A comparison of the expected 

compliance costs of this proposed 

regulation with industry profits is not a 

useful benchmark here (as it usually 

would be for evaluating the impacts of 

effluent guidelines on for-profit 

industries in better financial condition) 

where many airlines are actually losing 

money prior to this proposal. 

1. Cost Annualization 

The first step in projecting the 

economic and financial impacts of this 

proposed rule on airports is cost 

annualization. For each airport, EPA 

projected the capital and operating and 

maintenance costs of the technology 

basis for each ADF target removal 

percentage over 20 years, discounted 

future costs using an airport-specific 

opportunity cost of capital, and 

annualized those costs to represent 20 

equal annual cost payments incurred by 

the airport. Based on their expected 

service lives, the capital cost estimates 

incorporate periodic replacement of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44703 

GRVs and plug-and pump-technologies. 

For the purposes of projecting capital 

costs, EPA expects both these 

technologies will require replacement 

after 10 years, while a deicing pad is 

expected to last 20 years before 

requiring replacement. The method for 

projecting each airport’s capital and 

operating costs is described in Section 

VII.I. 

EPA assumed airports will issue taxexempt, fixed coupon rate serial General 

Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs) to fund 

capital expenditures. EPA assumed 

airports will issue bonds equivalent to 

the net present value of capital costs 

plus 3 percent to account for bond 

issuance costs. Capital costs were 

annualized using each airport’s nominal 

bond rate for its most recent GARB 

issue. This was converted to a real rate 

using an average annual inflation rate of 

2.3 percent over the last 5 years. The 

average nominal discount rate for costed 

airports was 5.25 percent, which is 

equivalent to 2.87 percent after 

accounting for inflation. Costs were 

annualized over 20 years. Table VIII–1 

presents the total net present value and 

annualized value of capital costs as well 

as the operating and maintenance costs 

for each option. 

2. Impacts 

Because airports are generally nonprofit government or quasi-government 

(e.g., port authorities) enterprise funds, 

the effect of an effluent guideline on 

airport income statements and balance 

sheets is not equivalent to the impact on 

income of a for-profit private-sector 

business. Therefore, EPA chose to 

examine the financial impacts of the 

proposed effluent guidelines using two 

measures. First, EPA compared airport 

revenues with annualized compliance 

costs. Second, because EPA expects 

many, if not all, airports will fund 

capital expenditures by issuing debt 

(GARBs), EPA examined the impact of 

additional debt on each airport’s debt 

service coverage ratio. 

a. Revenue Test 

EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses (2000) recommends 

the ‘‘revenue test’’ as a measure for 

impacts of programs that directly affect 

government and not-for-profit entities. 

The revenue test compares the 

annualized compliance costs of the 

regulation with the revenues of the 

governmental entity. The guidance 

suggests evaluating the affordability of a 

regulatory option as follows: 

• If annualized compliance costs are 

less than 1 percent of revenues, the 

option is generally considered 

affordable; 

• If annualized compliance costs are 

greater than 1 percent, but less than 3 

percent of revenues, the option may be 

considered affordable if only a few 

entities are affected and the majority 

incurs costs less than one percent of 

revenues; 

• If annualized compliance costs are 

greater than 3 percent of revenues, the 

option is not generally considered 

affordable. 

EPA found that only one surveyed 

airport is privately owned, and because 

that airport is not a commercial service 

airport, it would not be within the scope 

of coverage of today’s proposed rule. All 

other surveyed airports are owned by 

state, city or county governments, or by 

airport or multi-port authorities. Thus, 

use of the revenue test is appropriate to 

measure impacts to airports. EPA used 

operating revenues as reported on Form 

127 of the FAA’s Airport Financial 

Reporting Program as the denominator 

for the revenue test ratio, and 

annualized compliance costs for each 

option as described under Cost 

Annualization (see Section VIII.D.1) as 

the numerator for the ratio. 

b. Debt Service Coverage Ratio 

When creating quasi-governmental 

agencies such as port authorities, the 

legislation that created the agency 

typically includes a lower limit on the 

authority’s debt service coverage ratio 

(DSCR). Airports owned and operated 

directly by a state or local government 

might also have direct limits on airport 

debt (if the airport has authority 

independent of the city or county 

government to incur debt). The 

authority will be in default on all bond 

issues if its DSCR falls below the 

relevant benchmark. Review of 

Comprehensive Annual Financial 

Reports (CAFR) for affected airports 

shows that the ratio of net revenues to 

debt service for any given year cannot 

fall below 1.25. 

EPA assumed capital financing will 

occur through the issue of GARBs; this 

can only be done if the additional debt 

does not cause the issuer’s DSCR to fall 

below the benchmark. Therefore, EPA 

estimated the post-regulatory DSCR for 

each airport incurring capital 

expenditures under the proposed rule. 

From the Airport Questionnaire 

responses, EPA collected each airport’s 

current DSCR, and the net revenues and 

debt service used to calculate that ratio. 

For airports that belonged to multiairport systems under the same 

ownership, DSCR was reported at the 

level of the entire system. Therefore, 

EPA aggregated compliance costs for all 

affected airports in the system, and 

performed a single calculation for the 

entire system. EPA calculated the postregulatory DSCR in two ways: (1) 

Assuming costs are passed through to 

airlines in the form of higher landing 

fees, and (2) assuming no costs are 

passed through. Some evidence suggests 

airports do not pass through 100 percent 

of costs, at least in the short run, if there 

is concern an airline might withdraw 

service if the airport increases fees. This 

might occur if the airport has nearby 

competitors, or if airline finances are 

fragile. Therefore, EPA wanted to 

determine if an airport would be in 

danger of default on its debt even if it 

was unable to pass through compliance 

costs to its airline customers. 

Assuming 100 percent cost passthrough from airports to airlines, EPA 

estimated the post-regulatory DSCR by: 

(1) Adding the net increase in landing 

fees associated with compliance (that is, 

total annualized compliance costs less 

incremental annual deicing operating 

and maintenance costs) to preregulatory airport net revenues, and (2) 

adding the annualized value of capital 

compliance costs to the debt service 

figure. Assuming no cost pass-through 

from airports to airlines, EPA estimated 

the post-regulatory DSCR by: (1) 

Subtracting incremental annual deicing 

operating and maintenance costs from 

pre-regulatory airport net revenues, and 

(2) adding the annualized value of 

capital compliance costs to the debt 

service figure. 

3. Cost Pass-Through 

Historically, most or all airport costs 

are eventually paid for by airlines and 

the airlines’ customers. Airlines paid 

airports for operating costs through rates 

and charges, and for airport capital 

expansion through aviation user taxes 

that formed the basis for AIP grants or 

by providing the revenue stream to 

finance bond issues. In recent years, 

airports have developed new revenue 

streams from concessions, parking, and 

car rentals. In addition, much capital 

expenditure is now funded through 

Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), 

although airlines view PFCs as similar 

to other fees that affect ticket prices, and 

thus reflect costs passed through to 

them and their passengers. Although 

these recent trends have modified 

airport finance, EPA’s overall 

understanding is still that in the long 

run, a large percentage of airport costs 

are passed through to airlines and 

airline passengers in the form of 

increased fees. 

However, in the short run, cost passthrough (CPT) from airports to airlines 

might be significantly smaller than 100 

percent. For example, due to the severe 

financial distress experienced by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

airlines in the wake of 9/11, a 

Department of Transportation report 

showed that airports suspended or 

reduced airline rates and charges, 

contributed discretionary cash flow to 

reduce airline charges, and found other 

means of reducing (or at least refrained 

from increasing) airport costs to airlines. 

In addition, airports compete among 

themselves for airline service. 

Anecdotally, some airports in relatively 

close proximity to other significant 

airports have indicated to EPA that they 

are reluctant to increase airline rates 

and charges for fear of losing traffic to 

competitors. 

Although the general economic 

pressures that affect an airport’s ability 

to pass through costs are well 

understood, EPA found no studies that 

have attempted to quantify this 

relationship. Therefore, to study the 

range of possible impacts, EPA has 

chosen to model CPT in the form of 

three scenarios: the two endpoints of the 

spectrum (0 percent and 100 percent 

CPT), and an intermediate scenario of 

50 percent CPT. 

In addition, airlines pass through 

costs to passengers in the form of higher 

ticket prices. The ability of airlines to do 

this depends largely on market-specific 

factors such as the desirability of an 

airport as a final destination, whether 

the trip to that final destination is for 

business or pleasure, and whether other 

airports with acceptable standards of 

airline service are close to that 

destination. If an airport serves a highly 

desirable final destination, with a high 

percentage of business travel, and no 

alternative airports nearby, airlines 

might be able to pass through significant 

costs to their passengers. However, 

although studies have measured the 

intensity of demand for airline services 

in general, there are very few studies 

examining airport-specific demand 

factors. 

In addition, the ability of airlines to 

pass through costs to passengers also 

depends on the supply of air 

transportation services. In some 

respects, airline tickets have become 

something of a commodity, where 

passengers largely base their choice on 

ticket price. This acts to drive prices 

down to a similar low level. The results 

of this might be observed in the recent 

behavior of airlines. With airline fuel 

costs projected to increase by 50 to 70 

percent in 2008, airlines have found it 

difficult to raise fares, at least in the 

short run. Announced fare increases by 

one airline have not been followed by 

others, forcing the airline raising its 

fares to return them to their initial level. 

While airlines have recently started 

charging or increasing fees for checked 

bags, phone reservations, and in-flight 

meals and snacks, these fees are 

expected to cover only a fraction of 

increased fuel costs. Thus, it appears 

that at least in the short run, it is 

difficult in today’s business climate for 

airlines to pass through a significant 

percentage of costs to their passengers. 

E. Selection, Costs and Impacts of BAT 

Options 

Table VIII–2 summarizes the 

projected annualized compliance costs 

and the number and percent of in-scope 

airports projected to incur compliance 

costs greater than 3 percent of operating 

revenues under each option analyzed by 

EPA. 

TABLE VIII–2—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS UNDER ANALYZED OPTIONS

Option 

Total annualized 

compliance costs 

(2006 $millions) 

In-scope airports with projected compliance costs exceeding 3% of operating 

revenues a b

Number Percent 

1 ........................................................................................................................................... $36.4 9 4.2 

2 ........................................................................................................................................... 110.1 20 9.2 

3 c ......................................................................................................................................... 91.3 11 5.1 

4 ........................................................................................................................................... 105.0 58 26.6 

aAssuming zero percent cost pass-through. 

b Impacts were not projected for 3 airports under Options 1 through 3, and 5 airports under Option 4. All 5 airports are owned by the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Impacts to these airports could not be projected because the airport owner does not maintain 

airport-specific revenue figures. cProposed option. 

Under Option 2, airports are projected 

to incur the largest total annualized 

costs of all four options examined, yet 

projected removals of COD are less than 

under either Option 3 or Option 4 (see 

Section 13 of the TDD). Because Option 

2 costs more but would remove fewer 

pounds of pollutants than either Option 

3 or Option 4, EPA eliminated Option 

2 as a candidate for selection as best 

available technology for this ELG. 

EPA also rejected Option 4 as a 

candidate for selection as BAT, because 

more than one-quarter of in-scope 

airports (i.e., 59 out of 218 in-scope 

airports) are projected to incur costs 

exceeding 3 percent of operating 

revenue under this option. The 

difference between Option 3 and Option 

4 is that Option 4 would extend the 20 

percent ADF capture and treatment rate 

requirement from primary commercial 

service airports with more than 10,000 

annual departures to primary 

commercial service airports with more 

than 1,000 annual departures (see Table 

4–1 in the EA). Extending the capture 

requirement would cause 51 small 

airports with relatively low operating 

revenues that were not projected to 

incur costs under Option 3 to incur 

compliance costs under Option 4. Fortyseven of these 51 airports are projected 

to incur costs exceeding 3 percent of 

revenues (see Table 5–5 in the EA), 

which means that these entities would 

experience a heavy economic burden if 

required to meet this option, as 

described above. Based on the large 

number of airports that EPA projects 

would experience this heavy economic 

burden, EPA determined that Option 4 

is not economically achievable. 

Under Option 3, the proposed 

regulations would require the 14 

airports where average ADF usage has 

been estimated to exceed 460,000 

gallons annually to capture and treat 60 

percent of ADF. Airports with greater 

than 10,000 annual departures but less 

than 460,000 gallons of ADF usage 

would be required to meet a 20 percent 

ADF capture and treatment rate. Under 

Option 1, the regulations would require 

all airports with greater than 10,000 

annual departures to meet the 20 

percent ADF capture and treatment rate. 

Thus, the difference between Option 1 

and Option 3 in projected compliance 

costs, economic impacts, and pollutant 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44705 

removals is entirely attributable to the 

stricter standard for the 14 airports with 

the largest ADF usage; this stricter 

standard would add a projected $54.9 

million in annualized compliance costs 

to the rule. 

EPA determined that both options are 

economically achievable. The 9 airports 

projected to incur costs exceeding 3 

percent of operating revenues under 

Option 1 would incur identical impacts 

under Option 3. Due to the 60 percent 

ADF capture and treatment standard, 

two additional airports are projected to 

incur costs exceeding 3 percent of 

operating revenues under Option 3 (see 

Table 5–5 in the EA). However, as 

discussed in Section 2.6 of the EA, very 

large airports such as these have 

significantly better access to financial 

resources than smaller airports and 

serve more passengers and aircraft. 

Thus, they are less vulnerable to a 

potential loss of service in response to 

increased rates and charges and earn 

higher revenue flows. Consequently, 

EPA believes these airports will be less 

affected than smaller airports by 

compliance costs that comprise a 

similar percentage of revenues. In 

addition, both of these airports are 

currently undergoing significant capital 

expansion and improvement programs; 

as part of these programs both airports 

are installing deicing pads, however 

EPA’s costing assumed no deicing pads. 

Although EPA does not have sufficient 

information to determine if these pads 

will enable the airports to meet the 60 

percent capture and treatment target 

without further capital expenditure, 

their installation should decrease the 

incremental costs necessary to reach 

that standard relative to those estimated 

for our analysis. 

Airports with less than 10,000 total 

annual departures have been excluded 

from ADF collection and treatment 

requirements based on possible 

economic achievability concerns. EPA’s 

analysis shows that approximately 46 

percent of the next approximately 100 

airports (in terms of ADF usage) would 

incur costs of greater than 3 percent of 

their revenue if required to comply with 

these additional requirements. 

Moreover, airports with less than 10,000 

annual departures are smaller airports 

and may have greater difficulty raising 

funds to meet these ADF requirements. 

For these reasons, we have decided to 

exclude airports with less than 10,000 

total annual departures from the ADF 

collection and treatment requirements 

of this proposed rule. 

As a check on whether Option 3 is the 

best combination of technologies to be 

selected as BAT, EPA also examined 

whether there might be an additional 

option that would result in more 

removals than Option 3 (but less than 

Option 4) while still being economically 

achievable. Option 3 would impose a 60 

percent capture requirement on the 14 

airports that are the largest by ADF 

usage. EPA therefore considered 

whether the 60 percent requirement 

could be extended to additional airports 

beyond the top 14 (i.e., extended to 

airports with somewhat less ADF usage) 

without going beyond the limits of 

economic achievability. EPA reviewed 

the projected costs of installing deicing 

pads at airports with less than 460,000 

gallons of annual ADF usage as well as 

those airports’ operating revenues. From 

this review, EPA concluded that the set 

of airports immediately following the 

‘‘top 14’’ by ADF usage would incur 

significantly greater economic impacts 

relative to their resources than would 

the top 14 airports. Specifically, of those 

airports that would incur costs under 

today’s proposal, 5 of the first 6 airports 

that immediately follow the top 14 by 

ADF usage would be projected to incur 

costs greater than 3 percent of revenues 

and therefore would incur a heavy 

economic burden. In addition, 29 of the 

57 airports in all that follow the top 14 

by ADF usage would be projected to 

incur costs over 3 percent of revenues. 

This confirms, in EPA’s view, that 

imposing the 60 percent requirement on 

only the top 14 airports under Option 3 

is the appropriate cutoff point for 

determining economic achievability for 

this industry. Moreover, these 

additional airports, if subjected to a 60 

percent capture requirement, would be 

expected to achieve few additional 

pounds of pollutant removals relative to 

Option 3. This additional analysis 

confirms EPA’s proposal to identify the 

Option 3 technologies as the BAT basis 

for this effluent limitation guideline. 

See ‘‘Regulatory Option Development 

for the Airport Deicing Operations 

Rulemaking Proposal’’ (DCN AD01168) 

in the docket for additional information. 

Tables VIII–3 through VIII–5 below 

present more detailed estimated costs 

and impacts of the options that EPA 

considered for BAT. 

Table VIII–3 presents the results of 

the revenue test for affected airports. 

Under Option 3, 174 of 218 in-scope 

airports (80 percent) are projected to 

incur zero annualized compliance costs 

or annualized compliance costs 

composing less than 1 percent of 

revenues. Of the remainder, 11 (5 

percent) are projected to incur costs 

exceeding 3 percent of revenues, and 29 

(13 percent) are projected to incur costs 

exceeding 1 percent, but less than 3 

percent of revenues. 

TABLE VIII–3—FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF BAT OPTIONS ON AIRPORTS THAT DEICE

[2006 $ millions—218 airports] 

Option 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

Number of airports with ratio of annualized compliance 

costs to operating revenues of: a

Less than 

1% 

Between 

1% and 3% 

Greater 

than 3% 

Not 

analyzed b

1 ............................................................................................................... $36.4 178 27 9 3 

2 ............................................................................................................... 110.1 165 30 20 3 

3 c ............................................................................................................. 91.3 174 29 11 3 

4 ............................................................................................................... 105.0 130 25 58 5 

a Number of airports may not sum to 218 due to rounding. 

bAirports incurred compliance costs but financial impacts could not be analyzed due to lack of airport revenue data. 

cProposed option. 

Tables VIII–4 and VIII–5 present the 

projected impact of the rule on the 

ability of the airports to finance their 

debt. To complete this analysis, EPA 

first had to distinguish multiple airport 

owners from single airport owners. 

Multiple airport owners might incur 

costs for several airports, and debt is 

typically held at the ownership level, 

not at the level of the individual 

airports. EPA used question B–4 of the 

Airport Deicing Questionnaire to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

identify all multiple airport owners, and 

how many airports under that 

ownership received a survey. 

EPA found 10 airport owners received 

surveys for 31 airports; of these, 9 

airport owners received surveys for 21 

airports that were determined to be inscope of the proposed regulation. All 

results for multiple airport owners are 

presented unweighted because each 

airport was individually identified and 

therefore does not represent any other 

airports but itself with respect to 

ownership. EPA aggregated projected 

costs for all in-scope airports under that 

ownership pattern and analyzed them 

using the owning organization’s debt 

service coverage ratio obtained from the 

Comprehensive Annual Financial 

Report. The remaining 93 (unweighted) 

in-scope airports were evaluated 

individually as single-owner airports. 

Although EPA did not stratify the 

survey based on ownership, and 

therefore the survey weights cannot be 

considered statistically reliable for 

determining the count of single-owner 

airports, the weights generally reflect 

the relative frequency of single airport 

ownership. EPA presents both the 

weighted and unweighted results for 

this group of airports. 

Some airports did not provide 

sufficient data to analyze impacts on the 

DSCR. This could occur because: (1) 

The airport does not use debt to finance 

capital projects, (2) data were not 

provided through the survey or the 

airport’s annual financial report, or (3) 

data are available but the pre-regulatory 

DSCR is less than 1.25. For single-owner 

airports, the impact on DSCR could be 

projected for all airports expected to 

incur capital costs under the proposed 

option. Among multi-airport owners, 

the impact on DSCR could be projected 

for all except one airport owner that was 

expected to incur capital costs for three 

airports under the proposed option. 

This airport owner is described in 

greater detail below. 

Table VIII–4 presents the projected 

impact of the rule on the ability of 

single airport owners to finance their 

debt. Assuming no costs are passed 

through to their air carrier customers, 

two airports are projected to incur costs 

under the proposed rule that would 

result in their post-regulatory debt 

service ratio falling below the threshold 

that indicates default. However, one of 

these airports installed a deicing pad 

after the survey was submitted, and 

therefore would incur lower compliance 

costs than projected here. Under the 

proposed rule, no single airport owners 

are projected to be in danger of default 

when 100 percent of compliance costs 

are assumed to be passed through to 

airline customers. 

TABLE VIII–4—IMPACT OF FINANCING BAT OPTIONS ON AIRPORT DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO—SINGLE AIRPORT

OWNERS

[192 airports] 

Option Incur costs Not analyzed a

Owners with pre-regulatory DSCR 

>1.25 & post regulatory DSCR 

<1.25 

100% CPT 0% CPT 

1 ....................................................................................................... 54 6 0 3 

2 ....................................................................................................... 62 6 1 7 

3 b ..................................................................................................... 55 6 0 3 

4 ....................................................................................................... 99 42 0 3 

aOf the 218 airports (weighted), 192 were estimated to be both in-scope, and the only airport controlled by its ownership. These columns represent the number of those 192 airports projected to incur costs under each option, and of those airports incurring costs, the number that cannot 

be analyzed due to lack of sufficient data. bProposed option. 

Table VIII–5 presents the projected 

impact of the rule on the ability of the 

owner to finance debt for the 6 multiairport systems that own the 13 airports 

projected to incur costs under the 

proposed rule. For the 5 airport systems 

owning the 10 airports projected to 

incur costs for which the DSCR analysis 

could be performed, none of the four 

options considered for the proposed 

rule are projected to have an impact on 

the ability of airport authorities to 

finance debt. 

EPA could not analyze one multiairport system, which is responsible for 

five airports projected to incur costs 

under at least one option. This is the 

Rural Aviation System of the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities, which owns 256 rural 

airports. EPA projects that three of those 

airports would be affected by the 

proposed rule. The Alaska Rural 

Aviation system does not use debt 

financing; therefore, it has no DSCR to 

analyze. Instead, it relies on state and 

federal grants to fund capital 

expenditures. 

TABLE VIII–5—IMPACT OF FINANCING BAT OPTIONS ON AIRPORT DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO—MULTI AIRPORT

OWNERS

[9 airport authorities owning 21 in-scope airports] a

Option 

Incur costs b Not analyzed b Owners with pre-regulatory 

DSCR >1.25 & post regulatory 

DSCR <1.25 

Owners Airports Owners Airports 

100% CPT 0% CPT 

1 ............................................................... 5 11 1 3 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 5 11 1 3 0 0 

3 c ............................................................. 6 13 1 3 0 0 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44707 

TABLE VIII–5—IMPACT OF FINANCING BAT OPTIONS ON AIRPORT DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO—MULTI AIRPORT

OWNERS—Continued 

[9 airport authorities owning 21 in-scope airports] a

Option 

Incur costs b Not analyzed b Owners with pre-regulatory 

DSCR >1.25 & post regulatory 

DSCR <1.25 

Owners Airports Owners Airports 

100% CPT 0% CPT 

4 ............................................................... 6 16 1 5 0 0 

aBecause these airports and their ownership were individually identified, the results cannot be assumed to represent any airport owners other 

than themselves. Therefore, these results are not weighted. bOf 114 surveyed airports (unweighted), 21 (unweighted) under the control of 9 distinct ownership authorities were determined to be in-scope 

of the proposed rule. These columns represent the number of those airports and the number of airport ownership authorities projected to incur 

costs under each option, and of those airports incurring costs, the number that cannot be analyzed due to lack of sufficient data. cProposed option. 

In light of the foregoing analysis, EPA 

does not believe that the projected 

impacts of the rule on the ability of 

airports to finance their debt are 

significant enough to change our 

proposed findings on which BAT 

options are economically achievable. 

F. Economic Impacts for New Sources 

As explained in Section VII.F above, 

EPA has determined that the proposed 

NSPS would not impose a barrier to 

entry, in both the new runway and new 

airport scenarios. The costs for a 

centralized deicing pad are estimated at 

ten percent or less of the total cost for 

a new runway, and this proportion is 

even smaller when compared to the cost 

of building a new airport. An analysis 

of these costs is contained in the record 

for today’s proposal. 

G. Cost and Pollutant Reduction 

Comparisons 

EPA compared the projected 

compliance costs for the proposed rule 

with the estimated reduction in 

pollutants resulting from the effluent 

guidelines. Table VIII–6 presents 

projected compliance costs and 

estimated pounds of COD and ammonia 

removed from airport stormwater under 

the proposed rule. Option 3 is expected 

to reduce COD and ammonia loads by 

45.2 million pounds at an annualized 

cost of $91.3 million, for a cost of $2.02 

per pound of pollutant removed. 

TABLE VIII–6—POLLUTANT REMOVALS, COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF BAT OPTIONS FOR AIRPORTS THAT DEICE

Option 

Total pollutant 

removals 

(million lb) 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

(2006 $ mil.) 

Cost/lb 

pollutant 

removed 

1 ................................................................................................................................................... 26.6 $36.4 $1.37 

2 ................................................................................................................................................... 36.6 110.1 3.01 

3 a ................................................................................................................................................. 45.2 91.3 2.02 

4 ................................................................................................................................................... 47.4 105.0 2.22 

aProposed option. 

EPA has reviewed the relative cost per 

pound of pollutants removed in 

previous effluent guidelines and has 

found that the cost per pound presented 

in today’s proposal is similar or less 

expensive than many guidelines 

promulgated to date including: 

Aluminum Forming, $2.42/Lb; 

Landfills, $15.00/Lb and; Waste 

Combustors, $38.83/Lb. 

H. Small Business Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA; hereinafter referred to as 

RFA), acknowledges that small entities 

have limited resources, and makes it the 

responsibility of regulating federal 

agencies to avoid burdening such 

entities unnecessarily. The ultimate goal 

of RFA is to ensure that small entities 

do not incur disproportionate adverse 

economic impacts as a result of a 

regulation. The first step in this process 

is to determine the number and type of 

small entities potentially affected by the 

regulation. 

The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601) defines three 

types of small entities: small business, 

small not-for-profit organization, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. To 

determine airport ownership, EPA 

examined FAA Airport Data (Form 

5010) and the Contact Information data 

file for National Flight Data Center 

(NFDC) facilities, which list the owner 

of each airport. EPA matched all 153 

surveyed airports (representing 359 

airports, both in-scope and out-of-scope) 

to their owners and determined that 

with the exception of one privately 

owned airport, ownership is composed 

of states, county, city governments, and 

single and multi-purpose port 

authorities. Single and multi-purpose 

port authorities are quasi-governmental 

agencies created by governmental 

legislation to maintain and operate 

airports, shipping ports, and other 

government-owned facilities such as 

bridges. 

The RFA defines a small government 

entity as governments of cities, counties, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than 50,000. After 

matching each airport-owning 

governmental entity with its population, 

EPA estimates that: 

• 16 surveyed airports representing 

76 airports are owned by small 

government entities 

• 8 surveyed airports representing 34 

airports owned by small government 

entities are in the scope of the proposed 

rule. 

Although many Alaskan airports are 

relatively small when measured by 

service level, most of these airports are 

owned by the State of Alaska and 

therefore are not considered small for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44708 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the purposes of the RFA; 10 of the 11 

surveyed Alaskan airports are not small 

by this standard. 

EPA projected impacts on these small 

government entities that own airports 

using the revenue test described in 

Section VIII.D.2. EPA found that 3 of the 

34 in-scope airports owned by small 

government entities are expected to 

incur annualized compliance costs 

exceeding three percent of airport 

operating revenues. These results are 

presented in Table VIII–7. 

TABLE VIII–7—FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF BPT/BAT OPTIONS ON SMALL AIRPORTS THAT DEICE a

[2006 $ millions—34 airports] 

Option 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

Number of airports with ratio of annualized compliance costs to 

operating revenues of: 

Less than 1% Between 1% 

and 3% 

Greater than 

3% 

Not 

analyzed b

1 ........................................................................................... $1.8 23 8 3 0 

2 ........................................................................................... 4.8 23 8 3 0 

3 c ......................................................................................... 1.8 23 8 3 0 

4 ........................................................................................... 3.0 23 0 11 0 

aAn airport is considered small if the governmental entity that owns the airport serves a region with less than 50,000 people. 

bAirports incurred compliance costs but financial impacts could not be analyzed due to lack of airport revenue data. 

cProposed option. 

As privately owned, for-profit 

businesses, air carriers are subject to the 

small business definitions set forth by 

the Small Business Administration’s 

size standards. For EPA’s purposes, the 

size standards for the North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) Scheduled Passenger and 

Freight Air Transportation (NAICS 

481111 and 481112) sectors are 

appropriate for determining potentially 

affected small airlines. Thus, air carriers 

with fewer than 1,500 employees will be 

considered small for the purposes of 

this analysis. 

Available employment data for air 

carriers are provided by the BTS in their 

Employment Statistics—Certificated 

Carriers report. This data set does not 

contain records for all affected air 

carriers. For some air carriers with 

missing data, EPA obtained employment 

figures from annual reports or the 

annual report of the Regional Airline 

Association. For the remaining carriers, 

EPA compared their departure and 

enplanement data to the same data for 

air carriers with employment data. EPA 

determined that annual departures 

could be used as a suitable proxy for 

size. Using BTS T–100 data, EPA found 

139 U.S. air carriers had at least one 

departure from an in-scope airport in 

2006. Based on employment, or annual 

departures for air carriers without 

employment data, EPA estimates that of 

these 139 U.S. air carriers operating 

from in-scope airports in 2006, 36 are 

not small (27.5 percent) and 103 (72.5 

percent) are small business owned. 

IX. Airline Impacts 

The economic and operational 

structure of airport deicing differs 

significantly from most industries for 

which EPA has promulgated effluent 

limitations and guidelines. For most 

industries, EPA evaluates direct impacts 

to affected entities, and only secondarily 

considers impacts on those entities’ 

suppliers and customers. In the case of 

airport deicing, the airport is typically 

the holder of the NPDES permit and 

thus responsible for collection and 

treatment of ADF-contaminated 

stormwater; air carriers that use the 

airport are occasionally co-permittees, 

but never the principal permittee at the 

airport. However, the air carrier (or a 

contractor to the air carrier such as 

another airline or an FBO) is the entity 

that uses the ADF at the airport under 

rigorous safety guidelines set by the 

FAA. Furthermore, in the long run, air 

carriers (and their passengers) pay for 

much of the airport’s infrastructure and 

operating expenses. Therefore, EPA has 

chosen to evaluate these secondary 

impacts of the proposed regulation on 

air carriers in addition to airports. 

EPA examined impacts to airlines 

with compliance costs passed through 

from airports in the form of higher 

landing fees. EPA compared compliance 

costs with airline operating revenues 

(‘‘sales test’’); this test was 

supplemented with a comparison of 

compliance costs with operating profit 

and net income for those airlines with 

positive earnings. EPA also analyzed the 

impact of costs relative to common air 

carrier benchmarks for unit measures of 

cost and capacity such as cost per 

available seat-mile. EPA examined 

impacts of the preferred option on 

airline operating revenue between 2004 

and 2006. Only in 2005, and for only 

one airline out of roughly 120 during 

that period were compliance costs 

greater than three percent of operating 

revenue. EPA does not believe that these 

impacts are significant enough to 

change our findings on which BAT 

options are economically achievable. 

For a more detailed discussion of these 

impacts, see Sections 3.3 and 5.3, 

respectively, of the EA. 

X. Environmental Assessment 

A. Environmental Impacts 

EPA has evaluated environmental 

impacts associated with the discharge of 

wastewater from airport deicing 

activities (Environmental Impact and 

Benefit Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for 

the Airport Deicing Category (EIB)). As 

discussed in Section VII.E, deicing 

wastewater discharges can increase the 

loadings of multiple pollutants to 

receiving surface waters. 

The most widely recognized pollutant 

from deicing activity is oxygendemanding material, measured as either 

COD or BOD5. All primary ingredients 

in both aircraft and airfield deicers exert 

oxygen demand. Propylene glycol and 

ethylene glycol are the primary 

ingredients in aircraft deicers. Acetate 

salts, formate salts, propylene glycol, 

ethylene glycol and urea are the primary 

ingredients in airfield deicers. 

Propylene glycol and ethylene glycol, in 

particular, exert extremely high levels of 

oxygen demand when they decay in the 

environment. Acetates, formates, and 

urea exert lower, though still significant, 

levels of oxygen demand. 

Acetate or formate salts, the primary 

ingredients in many airfield deicers, 

also contain potassium or sodium. 

Potassium and sodium can raise overall 

salinity levels or cause ion imbalances 

in surface waters. Urea, another primary 

airfield deicer ingredient, decomposes 

in water to produce ammonia, a toxic 

compound, and nitrates, a nutrient 

pollutant that can increase the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44709 

incidence of organism blooms in surface 

waters. 

Aircraft and airfield deicers also 

contain additives in addition to the 

primary ingredients. These additives 

serve a variety of purposes such as 

reducing fluid surface tension, 

thickening, and fire and corrosion 

inhibition. Because deicer 

manufacturers consider the identity and 

quantity of additives in their 

formulations to be proprietary 

information, EPA was unable to obtain 

complete information on the nature and 

use of these additives. 

EPA was able to obtain some limited 

information through various public 

sources, and identified several additives 

with toxic properties. These include 

nonylphenol ethoxylates, alcohol 

ethoxylates, triazoles, and polyacrylic 

acid. Because deicer formulations 

change periodically, some of the 

additives EPA identified may not be 

present in current formulations. 

Nevertheless, the properties of the 

additives EPA identified may be 

indicative of deicer additive properties 

in general. EPA solicits additional 

information on the identity of deicer 

ingredients, and on the quantities in 

which they are used in current 

formulations. EPA also solicits 

information about potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

ingredients in deicer formulations. 

Airports in the United States 

discharge deicing wastewater to a wide 

variety of waterbody types including 

streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries. 

Many airports discharge deicing 

wastewater to small streams with 

limited waste dilution and assimilation 

capacities. Impacts from deicing 

wastewater discharges have been 

documented in a variety of surface 

waters adjacent to or downstream of a 

number of airports in the United States. 

Some locations experienced acute 

impact events, whereas other locations 

have chronically degraded conditions. 

Observed impacts to surface waters 

include both physical and biological 

impacts. Some surface waters have been 

listed as impaired under section 303(d) 

of the CWA because they do not meet 

applicable state water quality standards. 

Physical impacts include elevated levels 

of glycol, salinity, ammonia, and other 

pollutants; depressed oxygen levels; 

foaming; noxious odors; and 

discoloration. Biological impacts 

include reduced organism abundance; 

fish kills; modified community 

composition; and reduced species 

diversity. 

Deicing wastewater discharges have 

impaired both aquatic community 

health and human uses of water 

resources. Available documentation 

indicates multiple cases of hypoxic 

conditions and severe reduction in 

aquatic organism levels in surface 

waters downstream of deicing 

wastewater discharge locations. 

Documented human use impacts 

include contamination of surface 

drinking water sources, contamination 

of groundwater drinking water sources, 

degraded surface water aesthetics due to 

noxious odors and discolored water in 

residential areas and parklands, and 

degradation of fisheries. 

B. Environmental Benefits 

EPA has evaluated environmental 

benefits associated with regulatory 

proposals to reduce the discharge of 

pollutants from airport deicing 

activities. This assessment is described 

in detail in the EIB. The proposed BAT 

requirement would decrease COD 

discharges associated with airport 

deicing activities by approximately 39.9 

million pounds per year. The proposed 

BAT requirement would also reduce 

ammonia discharges by 4.7 million 

pounds. The proposed rule would also 

reduce loadings of additives in aircraft 

deicer formulations to the environment. 

EPA estimates that a reduction in 

pollutant loadings will take place at 

approximately 70 airports around the 

country. The decline in pollutant 

loadings will reduce environmental 

impacts to surface waters adjacent to 

and downstream of these airports. A 

variety of surface waters have improved 

in quality after reductions in deicing 

pollutant loadings. Documented 

improvements have included abatement 

of noxious odors, decline in fish kill 

frequency, and partial recovery of 

community species diversity, and 

organism abundance in small water 

bodies. 

Today’s proposed rule would 

decrease pollutant loadings to multiple 

surface waters currently listed as 

impaired under sec. 303(d). The 

proposal will also reduce pollutant 

loadings to surface drinking water 

intakes, parks, and residential areas 

downstream of airports. Groundwater 

aquifers will also benefit. See the EIB for 

additional details. 

XI. Non-Water Quality Environmental 

Impacts 

Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean 

Water Act require EPA to consider nonwater-quality environmental impacts 

(including energy requirements) 

associated with effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards. To comply 

with these requirements, EPA 

considered the potential impact of the 

collection and treatment technologies 

on energy consumption, air emissions, 

and solid waste generation. EPA 

prepared these analyses only for 

technologies associated with the BAT 

and NSPS requirements. 

A. Energy Requirements 

Net energy consumption considers 

electrical requirements for pumping 

collected fluid from centralized deicing 

pads, and electrical requirements for 

operating the anaerobic fluidized bed 

(AFB) bioreactors and the aerated ponds 

and fuel requirements for glycol 

recovery vehicles (GRVs). Detailed 

calculations regarding net energy 

consumption for the collection and 

treatment technologies are provided in a 

separate memorandum entitled ‘‘Energy 

Requirements for ADF Contaminated 

Stormwater Collection and Treatment 

Alternatives’’ (DCN AD011167), 

available in the public record for this 

rule. 

To estimate incremental electrical 

requirements associated with pumping 

collected ADF to either tanks or ponds, 

EPA assumed airports would 

continuously operate three 40- 

horsepower (hp) electric motors during 

each deicing day. EPA also 

conservatively assumed that all airports 

would use pumps rather than allow 

ADF-impacted stormwater to flow by 

gravity to holding tanks or ponds. Using 

that assumption, EPA estimated the 

total incremental electrical usage 

associated with the proposed rule 

would be approximately 1.2 million 

kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr). 

EPA developed another relationship 

between electrical use and chemical 

oxygen demand (COD) removal by the 

AFB bioreactors based on information 

provided by Albany International 

Airport. Using the information from 

Albany Airport, EPA estimated the 

electrical requirement for COD removal 

and used that rate to estimate electrical 

usage associated with COD removal. 

The AFB treatment systems also 

generate biogas that can be used as a 

source of heat when burned in facility 

boilers or when converted to electricity 

using technologies such as 

microturbines or fuel cells. To estimate 

the potential electricity that could be 

generated if all AFB treatment systems 

installed microturbines to generate 

electricity, EPA developed a 

relationship between biogas generation 

and COD removal based on data 

provided by Albany Airport. EPA used 

these data to determine the potential 

energy of the associated biogas. 

The comparison of the potential 

electrical generation from converting 

biogas to electricity to the electrical 

requirements for AFB operation 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44710 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1This diesel fuel price was the average reported 

by the Energy Information Administration for the 

2004–05 winter season, the same period that EPA 

is analyzing for airport deicing activity. 

indicates that treatment of ADFcontaminated stormwater could 

generate nearly the same amount of 

electricity that is needed to operate the 

treatment systems. Based on this 

analysis, there will not be a net increase 

in electricity to operate the collection 

and treatment systems for ADFcontaminated stormwater. 

EPA also analyzed fuel use by GRVs 

collecting ADF-contaminated 

stormwater. EPA used Airport 

Questionnaire data for diesel fuel costs 

for GRVs, and then estimated an average 

diesel fuel use based on the unit cost for 

diesel fuel of $2.07/gal.1 EPA then 

estimated annual fuel usage per gallon 

of applied ADF to be 0.08 gal/gal ADF 

applied. Using this relationship, EPA 

estimated total incremental No. 2 diesel 

fuel consumption at all in-scope airports 

installing additional collection 

equipment to be 604,000 gallons per 

year. 

EPA compared incremental diesel fuel 

use by GRVs at all airports to diesel fuel 

use on a national basis. Approximately 

25.4 million gallons per day of No. 2 

diesel fuel was consumed in the United 

States in 2005. The diesel fuel 

requirement associated with this 

proposed rule is less than 0.005 percent 

of the annual amount of diesel fuel 

consumed. 

B. Air Emissions 

Additional air emissions as a result of 

the proposed rule could be attributed to 

added diesel fuel combustion by GRVs 

collecting ADF-contaminated 

stormwater, from additional jet engine 

taxi time related to deicing pads, and 

from anaerobic treatment of ADF. 

Emissions from these sources are 

discussed below. 

1. Emissions From GRV Collection 

As discussed in Section XI.A above, 

EPA conservatively estimated that GRVs 

collecting ADF-contaminated 

stormwater at airports will consume an 

additional 604,000 gallons per year of 

No. 2 diesel fuel. To estimate air 

emissions related to combustion of No. 

2 diesel fuel in the internal combustion 

engines on GRVs, EPA used published 

emission factors for internal combustion 

engines. The Agency selected emission 

factors for gasoline and diesel industrial 

engines because EPA assumed this class 

to be a more representative population 

of engines. To estimate emissions from 

the GRVs, EPA first converted the 

additional 604,000 gallons of diesel fuel 

to million British Thermal Units 

(MMBtu) and then applied the 

appropriate emission factors. The 

calculated annual emissions indicate 

that an additional 4,781 tons per year of 

carbon dioxide (CO2) will be emitted 

from GRVs combusting additional diesel 

fuel to comply with the proposed rule. 

Carbon dioxide is the primary 

greenhouse gas attributed to climate 

change, and the 6,900 additional tons 

per year that would be associated with 

the proposed rule is very small relative 

to other sources. For example, in 2006, 

industrial facilities combusting fossil 

fuels emitted 948 million tons of CO2

equivalents. An additional 6,900 tons 

per year from GRVs is less than a 0.001 

percent increase in the overall CO2

emissions from all industrial sources. 

2. Emissions From Transportation to 

Aircraft Deicing Pads 

To estimate aircraft emissions 

associated with the additional time 

spent taxiing to and from newly 

installed deicing pad and idling during 

deicing, EPA used the seven busiest 

airports where deicing pads would 

likely be installed to comply with the 

proposed rule. To estimate aircraft 

emissions for each airport from 

transportation to newly installed 

deicing pads, input files such as 

departure information, types of aircraft 

being deiced, and deicing days were 

compiled and applied to the Emissions 

and Dispersion Modeling System 

(EDMS), an emission-estimating tool 

developed by the FAA for activities 

relative to airports. Typically, the EDMS 

input file quantifies aircraft activity 

relative to an aircraft’s landing and 

takeoff (LTO) cycle. The cycle begins 

when the aircraft approaches the airport 

on its descent from cruising altitude, 

then lands and taxis to the gate, where 

it idles during passenger deplaning. The 

cycle continues as the aircraft idles 

during passenger boarding, taxis back 

out onto the runway, takes off, and 

ascends (climbout) to cruising altitude. 

Thus, the six specific operating modes 

in an LTO cycle are as follows: 

• Approach; 

• Taxi/idle-in; 

• Taxi/idle-out; 

• Idling; 

• Takeoff; and 

• Climbout. 

The LTO cycle provides a basis for 

calculating aircraft emissions. During 

each mode of operation, an aircraft 

engine operates at a specific power 

setting and fuel consumption rate for a 

given aircraft make and model. 

Emissions for one complete cycle are 

calculated using emission factors for 

each operating mode for each specific 

aircraft engine combined with the 

typical period of time the aircraft is in 

the operating mode. 

For this assessment, EPA ran the 

EDMS model using default time-inmode values for each component of the 

LTO cycle. Next, the Agency adjusted 

the time-in-mode values in the model to 

account for additional time spent 

traveling to the deicing pad (15 

minutes), engine idling while deicing 

(30 minutes), and taxing away from the 

deicing pad (15 minutes) and reran the 

model with these adjusted time-in-mode 

values. Then, EPA subtracted the 

baseline model run from the second 

model run to estimate the additional 

emissions associated with deicing. 

EPA then adjusted these values to 

reflect the snow or freezing 

precipitation (SOFP) days for each 

airport by multiplying the annual values 

by the SOFP days divided by 365 days 

per year. 

EPA also estimated total annual LTO 

aircraft emissions for the seven airports 

to compare aircraft emissions associated 

only with deicing. The calculations 

indicate that the proposed rule could 

increase carbon monoxide emissions 

from aircraft at the impacted airports by 

as much as 6.9 percent due to additional 

ground-time needed for pad deicing. 

Although the annual percentage 

increase in criteria pollutant emissions 

from the seven airports included in this 

analysis is a concern, the actual increase 

in emissions (e.g., 903 tons per year of 

carbon monoxide) is insignificant when 

compared to total criteria pollutant 

emissions for the aircraft sector. For 

example, in 2002, EPA estimated total 

carbon monoxide emissions from the 

aircraft sector at approximately 260,000 

tons. The increase in criteria pollutant 

emissions resulting from additional 

aircraft deicing time account amounts to 

less than a 0.3 percentage increase in 

the aircraft sector annual criteria 

pollutant emissions. 

3. Emissions From AFB Treatment 

Systems 

Anaerobic digestion of glycols found 

in ADF contaminated stormwater 

generates biogas containing 

approximately 60 percent methane and 

40 percent carbon dioxide. Airports 

installing AFBs for treatment of ADF 

contaminated stormwater are expected 

to burn a portion of the gas in on-site 

boilers in order to maintain reactor 

temperature. The remainder of gas can 

be either combusted in a microturbine 

for electricity generation or flared. 

Regardless of the combustion 

technology, nearly all biogas generated 

by AFBs is converted to carbon dioxide, 

the primary greenhouse gas. EPA 

calculates 17,300 additional tons per 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44711 

year for 60% ADF capture, which is 

very small relative to other sources. For 

example, in 2006, industrial facilities 

combusting fossil fuels emitted 948 

million tons of CO2 equivalents. An 

additional 17,300 tons per year of 

carbon dioxide from AFB treatment is 

less than 0.002 percent of the annual 

industrial carbon dioxide emissions 

nationwide. 

C. Solid Waste Generation 

AFB bioreactors will generate sludge 

that will require disposal, likely in an 

off-site landfill. To estimate annual 

sludge generation by the AFB 

bioreactors that may be installed at 

airports to treat ADF-contaminated 

stormwater, EPA first estimated the 

potential COD removal for the proposed 

collection and treatment scenarios and 

then applied published anaerobic 

biomass yield information to estimate 

total sludge generation on a national 

basis. The biomass yield calculation, 

which simply multiplies the COD 

removal by the yield, is a rough method 

of estimating sludge generation and 

does not account for other factors such 

as degradation or inorganic material 

(e.g., AFB media) that may be entrained 

into the sludge. However, this method 

does provide an order of magnitude 

estimate of sludge generation that can be 

compared to other types of common 

biological treatment systems to 

determine if AFB sludge generation 

would be unusually high at airports 

treating ADF-contaminated stormwater. 

To provide some perspective on the 

potential total amount of biomass 

produced annually by the AFB 

biological reactors treating ADFcontaminated stormwater, EPA 

compared the most conservative 

biomass generation estimate with its 

national biosolids estimates for all 

domestic wastewater treatment plants 

throughout the United States. 

Approximately 8.2 million dry tons of 

biosolids will be produced in 2010. EPA 

estimates that AFB bioreactors treating 

ADF-contaminated stormwater will 

increase biosolids generation in the 

United States by less than 0.01 percent. 

XII. Regulatory Implementation 

A. Relationship of ELGs to NPDES 

Permits 

Effluent guidelines act as a primary 

mechanism to control the discharge of 

pollutants to waters of the U.S. Once 

finalized, the regulations would be 

applied to airports through 

incorporation in individual or general 

NPDES permits issued by EPA or 

authorized states or tribes under section 

402 of the Act. 

The Agency has developed the 

limitations for this proposed rule to 

cover the discharge of pollutants for this 

point source category. In specific cases, 

the NPDES permit authority may elect 

to establish technology-based permit 

limits for pollutants not covered by this 

regulation. In addition, if state water 

quality standards or other provisions of 

state or federal law require limits on 

pollutants not covered by this regulation 

(or require more stringent limits or 

standards on covered pollutants to 

achieve compliance), the permit 

authority must apply those effluent 

limitations or standards. 

For individual permits, ELG 

provisions are typically incorporated 

when those permits are renewed, 

although permit authorities may require 

modification upon promulgation. 

B. Best Management Practices 

Sections 304(e), 308(a), 402(a), and 

501(a) of the CWA authorize the 

Administrator to prescribe BMPs as part 

of effluent guidelines and standards or 

as part of a permit. EPA’s BMP 

regulations are found at 40 CFR 

122.44(k). Section 304(e) of the CWA 

authorizes EPA to include BMPs in 

effluent limitation guidelines for certain 

toxic or hazardous pollutants to control 

‘‘plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, 

sludge or waste disposal, and drainage 

from raw material storage.’’ CWA 

section 402(a)(1) and NPDES regulations 

(40 CFR 122.44(k)) also provide for best 

management practices to control or 

abate the discharge of pollutants when 

numeric limitations and standards are 

infeasible. In addition, section 402(a)(2), 

read in concert with section 501(a), 

authorizes EPA to prescribe as wide a 

range of permit conditions as the 

Administrator deems appropriate in 

order to ensure compliance with 

applicable effluent limitations and 

standards and such other requirements 

as the Administrator deems appropriate. 

Dikes, curbs, and other control 

measures are being used at some airport 

facilities to contain leaks and spills as 

part of good ‘‘housekeeping’’ practices. 

However, on a facility-by-facility basis a 

permit writer may choose to incorporate 

BMPs into the permit. See the TDD for 

this proposed rule for a detailed 

discussion of pollution prevention and 

best management practices used by 

airports. 

C. Upset and Bypass Provisions 

A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion 

of the streams from any portion of a 

treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an 

exceptional incident in which there is 

unintentional and temporary 

noncompliance with technology-based 

permit effluent limitations because of 

factors beyond the reasonable control of 

the permittee. EPA’s regulations 

concerning bypasses and upsets for 

direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR 

122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect 

dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and 

403.17. 

D. Variances and Modifications 

The CWA requires application of 

effluent limitations established pursuant 

to section 301 or pretreatment standards 

of section 307 to all direct and indirect 

dischargers. However, the statute 

provides for the modification of these 

national requirements in a limited 

number of circumstances. Moreover, the 

Agency has established administrative 

mechanisms to provide an opportunity 

for relief from the application of the 

national effluent limitations guidelines 

and pretreatment standards for 

categories of existing sources for toxic, 

conventional, and nonconventional 

pollutants. 

1. Fundamentally Different Factors 

Variance 

EPA, with the concurrence of the 

State, may develop effluent limitations 

or standards different from the 

otherwise applicable requirements if an 

individual discharging facility is 

fundamentally different with respect to 

factors considered in establishing the 

limitation of standards applicable to the 

individual facility. Such a modification 

is known as a ‘‘fundamentally different 

factors’’ (FDF) variance. EPA, in its 

initial implementation of the effluent 

guidelines program, provided for the 

FDF modifications in regulations. These 

were variances from the BCT effluent 

limitations, BAT limitations for toxic 

and nonconventional pollutants and 

BPT limitations for conventional 

pollutants for direct dischargers. For 

indirect dischargers, EPA provided for 

FDF modifications from pretreatment 

standards. FDF variances for toxic 

pollutants were challenged judicially 

and ultimately sustained by the 

Supreme Court. (Chemical 

Manufacturers Association v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, 479 U.S. 

116 (1985)). 

Subsequently, in the Water Quality 

Act of 1987, Congress added new sec. 

301(n) of the Act. This provision 

explicitly authorizes modifications of 

the otherwise applicable BAT effluent 

limitations or categorical pretreatment 

standards for existing sources, if a 

facility is fundamentally different with 

respect to the factors specified in 

section 304 (other than costs) from those 

considered by EPA in establishing the 

effluent limitations or pretreatment 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44712 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

standard. Section 301(n) also defined 

the conditions under which EPA may 

establish alternative requirements. 

Under section 301(n), an application for 

approval of a FDF variance must be 

based solely on (1) information 

submitted during rulemaking raising the 

factors that are fundamentally different 

or (2) information the applicant did not 

have an opportunity to submit. The 

alternate limitation or standard must be 

no less stringent than justified by the 

difference and must not result in 

markedly more adverse non-water 

quality environmental impacts than the 

national limitation or standard. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 125, 

subpart D, authorizing the Regional 

Administrators to establish alternative 

limitations and standards, further detail 

the substantive criteria used to evaluate 

FDF variance requests for direct 

dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) 

identifies six factors (e.g., volume of 

process wastewater, age and size of a 

discharger’s facility) that may be 

considered in determining if a facility is 

fundamentally different. The Agency 

must determine whether, based on one 

or more of these factors, the facility in 

question is fundamentally different from 

the facilities and factors considered by 

EPA in developing the nationally 

applicable effluent guidelines. The 

regulation also lists four other factors 

(e.g., inability to install equipment 

within the time allowed or a 

discharger’s ability to pay) that may not 

provide a basis for an FDF variance. In 

addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a 

request for limitations less stringent 

than the national limitation may be 

approved only if compliance with the 

national limitations would result in 

either (a) a removal cost wholly out of 

proportion to the removal cost 

considered during development of the 

national limitations, or (b) a non-water 

quality environmental impact 

(including energy requirements) 

fundamentally more adverse than the 

impact considered during development 

of the national limits. EPA regulations 

provide for an FDF variance for indirect 

dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The 

conditions for approval of a request to 

modify applicable pretreatment 

standards and factors considered are the 

same as those for direct dischargers. The 

legislative history of section 301(n) 

underscores the necessity for the FDF 

variance applicant to establish 

eligibility for the variance. EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are 

explicit in imposing this burden upon 

the applicant. The applicant must show 

that the factors relating to the discharge 

controlled by the applicant’s permit 

which are claimed to be fundamentally 

different are, in fact, fundamentally 

different from those factors considered 

by EPA in establishing the applicable 

guidelines. The criteria for applying for 

and evaluating applications for 

variances from categorical pretreatment 

standards are included in the 

pretreatment regulations at 40 CFR 

403.13(h)(9). In practice, very few FDF 

variances have been granted for past 

ELGs. An FDF variance is not available 

to a new source subject to NSPS or 

PSNS. 

2. Economic Variances 

Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes 

a variance from the otherwise applicable 

BAT effluent guidelines for 

nonconventional pollutants due to 

economic factors. The request for a 

variance from effluent limitations 

developed from BAT guidelines must 

normally be filed by the discharger 

during the public notice period for the 

draft permit. Other filing periods may 

apply, as specified in 40 CFR 

122.21(m)(2). Specific guidance for this 

type of variance is provided in ‘‘Draft 

Guidance for Application and Review of 

Section 301(c) Variance Requests,’’ 

August 21, 1984, available on EPA’s 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/ 

pubs/OWM0469.pdf. 

3. Water Quality Variances 

Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes 

a variance from BAT effluent guidelines 

for certain nonconventional pollutants 

due to localized environmental factors. 

These pollutants include ammonia, 

chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols. 

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under EO 12866 and 

any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in today’s proposed rule 

have been submitted for approval to 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document has been prepared by EPA 

and has been assigned EPA ICR No. 

2326.01. Proposed § 449.20 would 

require airports to collect ADF usage 

data and demonstrate compliance with 

requirements for ADF capture and ureabased pavement deicers. 

EPA estimates it would take an 

annual average of 14,213 hours and 

$706,051 for airport respondents, and 

11,440 hours and $377,420 for airline 

respondents to collect and report the 

information required by the proposed 

rule. This estimate is based on average 

labor rates from EPA’s airport 

questionnaire for the airport personnel 

involved in collecting and reporting the 

information required. EPA estimates it 

would take an average of 218 hours and 

$7,195 for permit authorities to review 

the information submitted in response 

to requirements in the proposed rule as 

part of permit applications, renewals, 

and NOIs. EPA estimates that there 

would be no start-up or capital cost 

associated with the information 

described above. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320(b). 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OW–2004–0038. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after August 28, 2009, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by September 28, 2009. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44713 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, EPA determined that all 

airports expected to be within scope are 

owned by government entities. The RFA 

defines a small government entity as 

governments of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(5)). After 

matching each airport-owning 

governmental entity with its population, 

EPA estimates that 34 (8 unweighted) of 

218 (114 unweighted) airports in the 

scope of the proposed rule, or 16 

percent, are owned by small government 

entities. EPA projected impacts on these 

small airports using the revenue test 

described in Section VIII.D.2. EPA 

found that 3 of the 34 small in-scope 

airports are expected to incur 

annualized compliance costs exceeding 

three percent of airport operating 

revenues. After considering the 

economic impact of today’s proposed 

rule on small entities, including 

consideration of alternative regulatory 

approaches, I certify that this action will 

not have significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

EPA undertook a number of steps to 

minimize the impact of this rule on 

small entities. According to the FAA 

National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (2007–2011), there are 

approximately 2,800 public use general 

aviation and reliever airports in the 

U.S., some of which have substantial 

cargo service. Many, if not most, of 

these airports are likely to be owned by 

small government entities. Also likely to 

be owned by small governmental 

entities are approximately 135 nonprimary commercial service airports. 

EPA has chosen not to regulate any 

general aviation, reliever, or nonprimary commercial service airports 

under the proposed regulation. EPA also 

estimates that in addition to the 34 

small government-owned primary 

commercial airports, another 42 primary 

commercial airports are owned by small 

government entities, but will be out-ofscope of the proposed regulation 

because little or no ADF is used at those 

airports. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. As explained in Section 

VIII and the TDD, the annual cost of the 

proposal is $91.3 million. Thus, this 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

By statute, a small government 

jurisdiction is defined as a government 

with a population less than 50,000 (5 

U.S.C. 601). Because all in-scope 

airports are owned by a government or 

governmental agency, the definition for 

a small airport is identical for the 

purposes of both UMRA and SBREFA. 

If the rule exceeds annual compliance 

costs of $100 million in aggregate all 

provisions of UMRA will need to be 

met. If the rule does not exceed $100 

million in aggregate costs, but small 

airports are significantly or uniquely 

affected by the rule, EPA will be 

required to develop the small 

government agency plan required under 

sec. 203 because these airports are 

owned by small governments. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

scope of the proposed rule focuses on 

the airports that are the largest users of 

ADF. The proposed rule is not projected 

to exceed $100 million in aggregate 

annual compliance costs. Further, as 

discussed in Section XIII.C above, EPA 

has determined the rule will not have 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The proposed 

rule would not alter the basic statefederal scheme established in the Clean 

Water Act under which EPA authorizes 

states to carry out the NPDES permit 

program. EPA expects the proposed rule 

would have little effect on the 

relationship between, or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities among, 

the federal and state governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 2000). It will not have 

substantial direct effects on Tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Today’s proposed rule contains no 

Federal mandates for Tribal 

governments and does not impose any 

enforceable duties on Tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. In the 

spirit of Executive Order 13175, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and 

Tribal governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) applies to rules that are 

economically significant according to 

EO 12866 and involve a health or safety 

risk that may disproportionately affect 

children. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not satisfy 

either criterion. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Energy 

Effects 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, as 

described in Section XI of today’s 

proposal. EPA determined that the 

additional fuel usage would be 

insignificant, relative to the total fuel 

consumption by airports and airlines, 

and the total annual U.S. fuel 

consumption. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44714 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–113, 

section 12(d); 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standard bodies. 

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The Agency is not aware of any 

consensus-based technical standards for 

the types of controls contained in 

today’s proposal. EPA welcomes 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify potentially 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards and to explain why such 

standards should be used in this 

regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations. 

The proposal would increase the level 

of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. The 

proposed rule will reduce the negative 

effects of discharges from airports to the 

nation’s waters, to benefit all of society, 

including minority communities. 

XIV. Solicitation of Data and Comments 

A. General and Specific Comment 

Solicitation 

EPA solicits comments on issues 

specifically identified in the preamble 

as well as any other issues that are not 

specifically addressed in today’s notice. 

Comments are most helpful when 

accompanied by specific examples or 

supporting data. In addition, EPA 

solicits information and data on the 

following topics. 

1. Airport-specific data on current 

ADF capture rates. 

2. Technology-specific data on ADF 

capture rates. 

3. Available ADF is defined at 

proposed 40 CFR 449.2 in terms of 

percentages. EPA solicits comments and 

data to support any alternative figures or 

flexibility for a permit writer to modify 

these percentages on a case-by-case 

basis. In addition, please provide 

comment on whether the permit writer 

should have the flexibility to modify the 

80 percent default based on site-specific 

conditions and please suggest 

appropriate criteria on which to base the 

decision. 

4. The identity and amount of the 

chemicals in formulations of ADF. 

5. EPA invites comment on other 

possible minimum threshold criteria for 

the scope of the rule, such as the 

amount of ADF used, or number of 

deicing operational days. Please provide 

a rationale for any suggested alternate 

criteria. 

6. Detailed information on additional 

best management practices that improve 

collection of ADF, and/or control and 

treatment of ADF discharges. 

7. Information on start-up and O&M 

costs of pollution prevention 

technologies that improve collection of 

ADF or reduce use of ADF, such as 

infrared heating systems, and similar 

information about technologies that 

improve the cost-effectiveness of aircraft 

deicing and anti-icing practices. 

8. Information about deicing practices 

at military facilities, including ADF 

usage, other operational characteristics 

and environmental impacts to help us 

decide whether to include them in the 

scope of this rule. If EPA decides to 

expand the scope, it may solicit 

additional public comment on the 

application of these requirements to 

military facilities. 

9. Recommended operational 

practices for GRVs and deicing pads. 

10. For the ADF collection 

requirement in proposed § 449.10, EPA 

may extend the usual 30-day 

compliance date to allow the additional 

time typically needed by publicly 

owned airport authorities to arrange 

financing for capital improvements. The 

extended compliance date could be as 

much as three years from date of 

promulgation. The Agency invites 

comment on the appropriate compliance 

period for this provision, and 

recommendations for interim measures. 

11. Site-specific data and 

documentation on space limitations, 

available adjacent land and possible 

cost, along with recommendations for 

alternative ADF collection techniques, if 

deicing pads are not feasible. 

12. Environmental impacts or safety 

issues associated with use of alternative 

pavement deicers instead of urea-based 

deicers. 

13. To what extent, if any, do airports 

anticipate they will choose to monitor 

their discharges for ammonia rather 

than certify non-use of urea? 

14. Deicing for safe taxiing. For 

airports choosing to comply with 

technology specifications as proposed in 

§ 449.20(b)(1), the proposed rule would 

require all deicing activities to be 

conducted in locations were the ADF is 

actively collected, either by GRV or 

centralized pads, depending on the 

specific requirements. However, there 

may be situations where ice build-up 

prevents an aircraft from taxiing to the 

location where collection is conducted. 

For such situations, the proposed rule 

would allow up to 25 gallons of 

normalized ADF to be applied to allow 

for safe taxiing, without actively 

collecting the spent ADF. This volume 

is based on a current requirement at 

Denver International Airport. EPA 

requests comment on whether this is the 

appropriate ADF amount. 

15. The alternative technology 

provisions in proposed § 449.20(b)(2) 

would require approval by the permit 

authority. EPA requests comment on 

whether any airports intend to use these 

provisions, and whether these 

provisions would be burdensome to 

permit authorities. 

16. Criteria used to select data as the 

basis of the proposed effluent 

limitations for COD and the compliance 

alternative for ammonia. EPA also 

requests comment on whether data from 

start-up conditions should be included 

as a basis of the limitations. 

17. Substitution of the weekly average 

effluent limitation for the monthly 

average effluent limitation for COD. EPA 

is proposing this substitution because of 

compliance monitoring concerns. EPA 

requests comments that identify other 

alternatives that may better address the 

issues with compliance monitoring, but 

still provide ongoing incentive for 

airports to target the system 

performance to the long-term average 

concentration of COD. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44715 

18. EPA requests comment on 

whether there are situations, such as 

extreme weather, in which operational 

or safety concerns would pose a 

challenge to the complete elimination of 

urea use for airfield pavement deicing. 

If so, please provide specific data or 

information documenting these 

concerns. 

19. EPA requests comment on its 

proposal to treat new runway 

construction at existing airports as new 

sources. EPA specifically requests 

comment on its proposed determination 

that a new runway would be 

‘‘substantially independent of an 

existing source at the same site.’’ EPA 

also requests any data relevant to the 

question of whether the proposed NSPS 

would pose a barrier to entry for new 

runway construction (e.g., at smaller 

airports within the rule scope) or 

otherwise pose a barrier to entry for new 

sources. 

20. EPA requests comment on 

whether there are situations where it 

may or may not be achievable for an 

airport with one or more deicing pads 

to use them for all commercial flights 

without exception. Should some 

provision be included in the rule to 

accommodate such situations? 

Commenters should give specific 

examples of such situations and explain 

clearly why it would not be feasible or 

economically achievable to use deicing 

pads for all commercial flights without 

exception. 

21. EPA requests comment on 

whether there are airports in semi-warm 

climates for which de-icing is only 

required occasionally (at most several 

days per year), and whether it would be 

appropriate to make some provision for 

such airports, such as including a 

criterion related to ADF usage, number 

of de-icing days, or departures during 

certain seasons, in the scope criteria for 

the rule. In suggesting any such criteria, 

commenters should be mindful of 

implementation issues, such as 

availability and verification of 

appropriate data. 

XV. Guidelines for Submission of 

Analytical Data 

EPA requests that commenters on 

today’s proposed rule submit analytical, 

flow, and aircraft departure data to 

supplement data collected by the 

Agency during the regulatory 

development process. To ensure that 

EPA may effectively evaluate these data, 

EPA suggests these guidelines for 

submission of data. 

A. Types of Data Requested 

EPA requests paired influent and 

effluent treatment data for each of the 

technologies identified in the 

technology options (see Section VII.B) 

as well as any additional technologies 

applicable to the treatment of deicing 

and anti-icing wastewater. EPA prefers 

paired influent and effluent treatment 

data, but solicits unpaired data as well. 

EPA will not evaluate data from systems 

treating only non-deicing wastewater 

(e.g., sanitary wastewater). 

For the systems treating deicing 

wastewater, EPA requests paired 

influent and effluent treatment data 

from samples of flowing wastewater 

streams. This includes end-of-pipe 

treatment technologies and in-process 

treatment, recycling, or water reuse. If 

commenters submit only effluent data, 

commenters should provide evidence 

that the influent is highly concentrated. 

EPA also prefers individual 

measurements, rather than averages, to 

better evaluate variability, but will 

consider averages if individual 

measurements are unavailable. EPA 

prefers that the measurements are for 

24-hour composite samples, but also 

will consider data for grab samples. 

EPA prefers that commenters submit 

data in an electronic format. In addition 

to providing the measurement of the 

pollutant in each sample, EPA requests 

that sites provide the detection limit 

(rather than specifying zero or ‘‘ND’’) if 

the pollutant is not detected in the 

wastestream. Identify each measurement 

with a sample collection date, the 

sampling point location, and the flow 

rate at that location. For each sample or 

pollutant, identify the analytical method 

used. 

In support of the treatment data, 

commenters should submit the 

following items if they are available: A 

process diagram of the treatment system 

that includes the sampling point 

locations; treatment chemical addition 

rates; laboratory reports; influent and 

effluent flow rates for each treatment 

unit during the sampling period; sludge 

or waste oil generation rates; a brief 

discussion of the treatment technology 

sampled; and a list of deicing operations 

contributing to the sampled 

wastestream. If available, information 

and/or estimates of capital cost, annual 

(operation and maintenance) cost, and 

treatment capacity should be included 

for each treatment unit within the 

system. If specific flows or costs are not 

available but can reasonably be 

estimated, commenters should provide 

the assumptions used for the estimation 

procedure. 

B. Analytes Requested 

EPA considered metal, organic, 

conventional, and other 

nonconventional pollutant parameters 

for regulation. Based on analytical data 

collected, EPA initially identified 21 

pollutants of concern for deicing 

operations (see Section VII.C and the 

TDD). The Agency requests analytical 

data for any of the pollutants of concern 

and for any other pollutant parameters 

that commenters believe are of concern. 

Of particular interest are COD, BOD5,

glycols, ammonia as nitrogen, and pH 

data. Commenters should submit data 

acquired with EPA or equivalent 

methods (generally, those approved at 

40 CFR Part 136 for compliance 

monitoring), and should document the 

analytical method used for all data 

submissions. 

C. Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

(QA/QC) Requirements 

Although EPA requests and prefers 

that submissions of analytical data 

include any available documentation of 

QA/QC procedures, EPA will consider 

data submitted without detailed QA/QC 

information. If commenters sample 

wastewaters to respond to this proposal, 

EPA encourages them to provide 

detailed documentation of the QA/QC 

checks for each sample. EPA also 

requests that collection and analysis of 

ten percent field duplicate samples to 

assess sampling variability, and data for 

equipment blanks for volatile organic 

pollutants when automatic compositors 

are used to collect samples. 

Appendix A: Abbreviations and 

Definitions Used in This Document 

ADF—Aircraft deicing fluid (includes antiicing fluid) 

AFB—Anaerobic fluidized bed treatment 

technology 

AIP—Airport Improvement Program 

BAT—Best available technology 

economically achievable, as defined by sec. 

301(b)(2)(A) and sec. 304(b)(2)(B) of the 

CWA 

BOD5—Biochemical oxygen demand 

CAFR—Comprehensive annual financial 

reports 

COD—Chemical oxygen demand 

CPT—Cost pass-through 

CWA—Clean Water Act 

DSCR—Debt service coverage ratio 

FAA—Federal Aviation Administration 

FBO—Fixed base operator 

GARB—General airport revenue bonds 

LTO—Landing and takeoff cycle 

Net income—Operating profit minus interest, 

taxes, depreciation, and non-operating 

profits and losses 

NOI—Notice of Intent to discharge under a 

general permit (40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)) 

NSPS—New Source Performance Standards, 

as defined by sec. 306 of the CWA 

O&M—Operations and maintenance 

Operating profit—Revenues minus cost of 

providing those services 

Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains and 

other conduits from which a facility 

effluent discharges into receiving waters 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44716 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

PFC—Passenger facility charges 

Revenues—Money received for services 

rendered 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RPM—Revenue passenger miles 

RTM—Revenue ton miles 

SOFP—Snow or freezing precipitation 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 449 

Environmental protection, Airport 

deicing, Airport, Airline, Waste 

treatment and disposal, Water pollution 

control. 

Dated: August 17, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackon, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended by adding part 449 to read as 

follows: 

PART 449—AIRPORT DEICING POINT 

SOURCE CATEGORY 

Subpart A—Airport Deicing Category 

Sec. 

449.1 Applicability. 

449.2 General definitions. 

449.10 Effluent limitations reflecting the 

best available technology economically 

achievable (BAT). 

449.11 New source performance standards 

(NSPS). 

449.20 Monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements 

Subpart B—[Reserved] 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 

1318, 1342, 1361 and 1370. 

Subpart A—Airport Deicing Category 

§ 449.1 Applicability. 

This part applies to discharges of 

pollutants from deicing operations at 

Primary Airports with at least 1,000 

annual scheduled commercial air carrier 

jet departures. 

§ 449.2 General definitions. 

The following definitions apply to 

this part: 

Aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) means a 

fluid applied to aircraft to remove or 

prevent any accumulation of snow or 

ice on the aircraft. This includes deicing 

and anti-icing fluids. 

Airfield pavement means all paved 

surfaces on the airside of an airport. 

Airside means the part of an airport 

directly involved in the arrival and 

departure of aircraft, including runways, 

taxiways, aprons and ramps. 

Annual jet departures means the 

average number of commercial jet 

aircraft that take off from an airport on 

an annual basis, as tabulated by the 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

calculated over the five-year period 

prior to submittal of a permit 

application or NOI. 

Annual normalized ADF usage means 

the average amount of normalized 

aircraft deicing fluid used annually, 

calculated over the five year period 

prior to submittal of a permit 

application or Notice of Intent. 

Available ADF means 80 percent of 

the sprayed deicing fluid and 10 percent 

of the sprayed anti-icing fluid. 

Certification statement means a 

written submission to the Director 

stating that the discharger does not use 

airfield deicing products that contain 

urea. 

COD means Chemical Oxygen 

Demand. 

Deicing for safe taxiing means the 

minimal extent of deicing activity that 

would remove snow or ice to the level 

needed to prevent damage to a taxiing 

aircraft, and that is performed at a 

location not having ADF collection 

equipment. 

Deicing operations mean procedures 

and practices to remove or prevent any 

accumulation of snow or ice on: 

(1) An aircraft; or 

(2) Paved surfaces within an airport’s 

aircraft movement area (runway, 

taxiway, apron, or ramp). 

New source. For the purpose of the 

definitions at 40 CFR 122.2 and 40 CFR 

122.29(b)(1), a new source includes: 

(1) Any new Primary Airport 

constructed after [date of promulgation]; 

and 

(2) Any new runway constructed at a 

Primary Airport, the deicing operations 

associated with the departures on the 

new runway and the deicing of paved 

surfaces associated with the new 

runway. 

Normalized aircraft deicing fluid 

means ADF less any water added by the 

manufacturer or customer before ADF 

application. 

Notice of Intent (NOI) means a Notice 

of Intent to discharge under a general 

permit, as described at 40 CFR 

122.28(b)(2). 

Percent capture requirement means 

the requirement in §§ 449.10 and 449.11 

for the permittee to collect at least 60 

percent or 20 percent (as applicable) of 

the available ADF. 

Primary Airport means an airport 

defined at 49 U.S.C. 47102 (15). 

§ 449.10 Effluent limitations representing 

the best available technology economically 

achievable (BAT). 

Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 

through 125.32, any existing point 

source subject to this part must comply 

with the following requirements 

representing the degree of effluent 

reduction attainable by the application 

of the best available technology 

economically achievable (BAT). 

(a) Collection of runoff from aircraft 

deicing. (1) All dischargers subject to 

this Part, with 10,000 or greater annual 

departures and annual normalized ADF 

usage of 460,000 gallons or greater, must 

collect at least 60 percent of available 

ADF and comply with applicable 

discharge standards in paragraph (b) of 

this section. 

(2) All dischargers subject to this part, 

with annual departures of 10,000 or 

greater, and annual normalized ADF 

usage less than 460,000 gallons, must 

collect at least 20 percent of the 

available ADF and comply with 

applicable discharge standards in 

paragraph (b) of this section for all the 

collected ADF. 

(b) Treatment of collected runoff from 

aircraft deicing. Except for ADF 

collected and transported to off-site 

treatment facilities, any existing point 

source subject to this Part must achieve 

the numeric effluent limitations in 

Table I. These limitations must be met 

for all ADF collected pursuant to 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

Compliance must be measured at the 

outfall of the on-site treatment system 

utilized for meeting these limitations: 

TABLE I—BAT LIMITATIONS

Wastestream Pollutant or pollutant property 

Daily maximum 

mg/L 

Weekly average 

mg/L 

Aircraft Deicing ............................................................. COD .............................................................................. 271 154 

(c) Airfield pavement discharges. 

Except as provided in § 449.10(d), any 

discharger subject to this Part must 

certify that it does not use airfield 

deicing products that contain urea. The 

responsible officer as defined in 40 CFR 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44717 

122.22 must sign this certification 

statement. 

(d) Compliance alternative for airfield 

BAT requirements. A discharger may 

select and implement the following 

compliance alternative, which is 

deemed to meet the relevant BAT 

requirement specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section: 

(1) Airfield pavement discharges must 

achieve the numeric limitations for 

ammonia in Table II. 

TABLE II—BAT LIMITATIONS

Wastestream Pollutant or 

pollutant property 

Daily maximum 

mg/L 

Airfield Pavement Deicing ........................................................... Ammonia as Nitrogen ................................................................ 14.7 

§ 449.11 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

New sources subject to this Part must 

achieve the following new source 

performance standards: 

(a) Collection of runoff from aircraft 

deicing. All new sources subject to this 

Part, with annual departures of 10,000 

or greater, shall collect at least 60 

percent of available ADF and comply 

with applicable discharge standards in 

paragraph (b) of this section for all 

collected ADF. 

(b) Treatment of collected runoff from 

aircraft deicing. Except for ADF 

collected and transported to off-site 

treatment facilities, any new source 

subject to this Part must achieve the 

new source performance standards in 

Table III. These standards must be met 

for all ADF collected pursuant to 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

Compliance must be measured at the 

outfall of the on-site treatment system 

utilized for meeting these standards: 

TABLE III—NSPS 

Wastestream Pollutant or pollutant property 

Daily maximum 

mg/L 

Weekly average 

mg/L 

Aircraft Deicing ............................................................. COD .............................................................................. 271 154 

(c) Airfield pavement discharges. 

Except as provided in § 449.11(d), any 

new source subject to this Part must 

certify that it does not use airfield 

deicing products that contain urea. The 

responsible officer as defined in 40 CFR 

122.22 must sign this certification 

statement. 

(d) Compliance alternative for airfield 

NSPS requirement. A discharger may 

select and implement the following 

compliance alternative, which is 

deemed to meet the relevant NSPS 

requirement specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section: 

(1) Airfield pavement discharges must 

achieve the numeric limitations for 

ammonia in Table IV. 

TABLE IV—NSPS 

Wastestream Pollutant or pollutant property 

mg/L 

Daily maximum 

mg/L 

Airfield Pavement Deicing ........................................................... Ammonia as Nitrogen ................................................................ 14.7 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 449.20 Monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) Reporting ADF use. Dischargers 

subject to § 449.10 or § 449.11 must 

report the annual normalized ADF usage 

when submitting a permit renewal 

application. 

(b) Demonstrating the percent of ADF 

collected. Except as provided in 40 CFR 

125.30 through 125.32, the Director 

shall select one of the following three 

methods and specify it in the permit as 

the required method for the permittee to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

percent capture requirement in § 449.10 

or § 449.11 as applicable. 

(1) The permittee shall demonstrate 

that it is operating and maintaining one 

of the following ADF collection 

technologies according to the technical 

specifications set forth in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. These 

technical specifications shall be 

expressly set forth as requirements in 

the permit. This demonstration 

constitutes compliance by the permittee 

with the applicable percent capture 

requirement without the permittee 

having to determine the numeric 

percentage of ADF that it has collected. 

(i) Glycol Recovery Vehicle (GRV). 

Operation of a GRV in accordance with 

these technical specifications is 

sufficient to demonstrate compliance 

with a requirement to collect at least 20 

percent of the available ADF: 

(A) All deicing activities shall take 

place in an area where available ADF is 

actively collected by GRVs, unless 

deicing for safe taxiing is also required. 

When deicing for safe taxiing is 

required, the volume of ADF used must 

not exceed 25 gallons of normalized 

ADF per aircraft. 

(B) An emulsifier must be used to aid 

in ADF recovery, in accordance with 

manufacturer requirements. 

(C) ADF collection by GRV shall 

commence as soon after deicing 

activities begin, and as is practicable 

and safe. 

(D) The permittee shall ensure that 

GRVs are maintained in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s specifications 

and shall inspect them at the beginning 

and end of each deicing season to verify 

that proper maintenance is taking place. 

(ii) Centralized Deicing Pad. 

Operation of a centralized deicing pad 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4
44718 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 166 / Friday, August 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

collection system in accordance with 

these technical specifications is 

sufficient to demonstrate compliance 

with a requirement to collect at least 60 

percent of the available ADF. 

(A) All aircraft deicing shall take 

place on a centralized deicing pad, with 

the exception of deicing for safe taxiing. 

(B) The volume of ADF used while 

deicing for safe taxiing shall not exceed 

25 gallons of normalized ADF per 

aircraft. 

(C) Drainage valves associated with 

the centralized deicing pad shall be 

activated to collect spent ADF before 

deicing activities commence. 

(D) Deicing facilities shall be sized to 

accommodate the airport’s peak hourly 

departure rate. 

(E) The minimum width of the 

centralized deicing pad shall equal the 

upper wingspan of the most demanding 

airplane design group using the deicing 

pad. 

(F) The minimum length of the 

centralized deicing pad shall equal the 

fuselage length of the most demanding 

aircraft using the pad. 

(G) Each centralized deicing pad must 

be equipped with a fluid collection 

system, such as a perimeter trench and 

diversion valve, to capture spent ADF 

and ADF-contaminated water. 

(2) Alternate technology or 

specifications. (i) The Director, on a 

case-by-case basis, may require: 

(A) The use of a different ADF 

collection technology from the 

technologies specified in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section; or 

(B) The use of the same technology, 

but with different specifications for 

operation and maintenance; or 

(C) The use of an alternative pollution 

prevention technology that may result 

in a reduction of applied ADF relative 

to current practices at the facility. At the 

Director’s discretion, this reduction may 

be applied towards the collection 

requirement. 

(ii) The Director shall set forth 

technical specifications for proper 

operation and maintenance of the 

chosen collection technology and these 

technical specifications must be 

expressly included as requirements in 

the permit. The permittee must 

demonstrate compliance with these 

requirements. This demonstration 

constitutes compliance by the permittee 

with the percent capture requirement 

without the permittee having to 

determine the numeric percentage of 

ADF that it has collected. Before the 

Director may specify an alternate 

technology under this subsection, the 

permittee must demonstrate to the 

Director’s satisfaction that the alternate 

technology will achieve the percent 

capture requirement applicable under 

the permit. 

(3) The permittee shall be required to 

monitor periodically, by means deemed 

acceptable by the Director, and at a 

frequency determined by the Director, 

the amount of ADF sprayed and the 

amount of available ADF collected in 

order to determine the compliance with 

the percent capture requirement. 

(c) Airfield pavement discharge 

certification. Except as provided in 

§§ 449.10(d) and 449.11(d), dischargers 

subject to § 449.10 or § 449.11 must 

submit a certification statement that 

they do not use airfield deicing products 

that contain urea. The discharger must 

provide the certification statement to 

the Director when submitting a permit 

renewal application and on an annual 

basis. 

(d) Monitoring requirements. 

Dischargers subject to § 449.10 or 

§ 449.11 must conduct compliance 

monitoring to demonstrate compliance 

with the COD limitation. 

(1) If a discharger chooses to comply 

with the compliance alternative 

specified in §§ 449.10(d) or 449.11(d), 

the discharger must conduct compliance 

monitoring to demonstrate compliance 

with the alternative ammonia 

limitations. 

(e) Recordkeeping. The permittee 

must maintain on-site, for a period of 

five years from the date they are created, 

records documenting compliance with 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section. 

Subpart B—[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. E9–20291 Filed 8–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS4