29168 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 9 and 449 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2004–0038. FRL–9667–6] 

RIN 2040–AE69 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

New Source Performance Standards 

for the Airport Deicing Category 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating 

technology-based effluent limitations 

guidelines (ELGs) and new source 

performance standards (NSPS) under 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) for 

discharges from airport deicing 

operations. The requirements generally 

apply to wastewater associated with the 

deicing of airfield pavement at primary 

airports. The rule requires all such 

airports to comply with requirements 

based on substitution of less toxic 

pavement deicers that do not contain 

urea. The rule also establishes NSPS for 

wastewater discharges associated with 

aircraft deicing for a subset of new 

airports. These airports must also meet 

requirements based on collection of 

deicing fluid and treatment of the 

collected fluid. The ELGs and NSPS will 

be incorporated into National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits issued by the permitting 

authority. EPA expects compliance with 

this regulation to reduce the discharge 

of deicing-related pollutants by 16 

million pounds per year. EPA estimates 

the annual cost of the rule at $3.5 

million. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2004–0038. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either through 

the docket Web site or in hard copy at 

the Office of Water Docket, EPA West 

Building 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 Office of Water Docket 

is 202–566–1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, contact Eric 

Strassler, Engineering and Analysis 

Division, telephone: 202–566–1026; 

email: strassler.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities 

Entities regulated by this action may 

include: 

Category Example of regulated entity 

North American Industry Classification 

System code 

Industry ................................................................................... Primary airports ...................................................................... 481, 4881 

Airlines .................................................................................... 4811 

This section is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities that are 

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 § 449.1 

and the definitions in § 449.2 of the rule 

and detailed further in Section V 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. 

Supporting Documentation 

Today’s final rule is supported by a 

number of documents, including: 

• Technical Development Document 

for Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines 

and Standards for the Airport Deicing 

Category (TDD), Document No. EPA– 

821–R–12–005. 

• Economic Analysis for Final 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards for the Airport Deicing 

Category (EA), Document No. EPA–821– 

R–12–004. 

• Environmental Impact and Benefit 

Assessment for Final Effluent Limitation 

Guidelines and Standards for the 

Airport Deicing Category (EIB), 

Document No. EPA–821–R–12–003. 

These documents are available in the 

public record for this rule and on EPA’s 

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

Overview 

The preamble describes the terms, 

acronyms, and abbreviations used in 

this notice; the background documents 

that support the regulations; the legal 

authority of these rules; a summary of 

the final rule; background information; 

and the technical and economic 

methodologies used by the Agency to 

develop these regulations. 

Table of Contents 

I. Legal Authority 

II. Purpose and Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Background 

A. Clean Water Act 

B. NPDES Permits 

1. General Permits 

2. Individual Permits 

C. Effluent Guidelines and Standards 

Program 

1. Best Practicable Control Technology 

Currently Available (BPT) 

2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control 

Technology (BCT) 

3. Best Available Technology Economically 

Achievable (BAT) 

4. New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) 

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing 

Sources (PSES) 

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources 

(PSNS) 

D. Proposed Rule 

1. ADF Collection 

2. Numeric Limit for Collected ADF 

3. Airfield Pavement Deicers 

4. Other Technology Basis Considered 

IV. Scope and Applicability of Final Rule 

A. Subcategorization 

B. Industry Description 

C. Wastewater Sources and Wastewater 

Characteristics 

1. Aircraft Deicing 

2. Airfield Pavement Deicing 

D. Control and Treatment Technologies for 

the Aviation Industry 

1. ADF Collection Technologies 

2. ADF-Contaminated Wastewater 

Treatment Technologies 

3. Pollution Prevention Technologies 

4. Airfield Pavement Deicing Control 

Technologies 

E. Regulated Pollutants 

V. Final Regulation 

A. BPT and BCT 

B. BAT 

1. Airfield Deicing 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29169 

2. Aircraft Deicing 

3. Options Considered for Today’s Final 

Rule 

4. BAT Options Selection 

C. NSPS 

1. New Source Definition 

2. NSPS Applicability 

3. NSPS Option Selection 

D. PSES and PSNS 

VI. Technology Costs and Pollutant 

Reductions 

A. Compliance Costs 

1. Overview 

2. Approach for Estimating Airfield 

Pavement Deicing Costs 

3. Approach for Developing Aircraft 

Deicing Costs 

4. Calculation of National Costs 

B. Approach to Estimating Pollutant 

Reductions 

1. Overview 

2. Sources and Use of Available Data 

C. Approach to Determining Long-Term 

Averages, Variability Factors, and 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards 

1. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis 

of the Limitations 

2. Data Used as Basis of the Effluent 

Limitations 

3. Statistical Percentile Basis for 

Limitations 

4. Rationale for Establishing Limitation on 

Weekly Averages Instead of Monthly 

Averages for COD in Effluent Discharges 

5. Rationale for Promulgating a Limitation 

Only for Daily Discharges of Ammonia in 

Effluent Discharges 

6. Calculation of Limitations for COD and 

Ammonia 

7. Derivation of Long-Term Average for 

COD and Ammonia: Target Level for 

Treatment 

8. Engineering Review of Effluent 

Limitations 

VII. Economic Analysis 

A. Introduction 

B. Annualized Compliance Cost Estimates 

C. Economic Impact Methodologies 

1. Cost Annualization 

2. Airport Impact Methodology 

3. Co-Permittee Airline Impact 

Methodology 

D. Results of Impact Analysis 

1. Results of Airport Impact Analysis 

2. Results of Co-Permittee Airline Impact 

Analysis 

3. Economic Achievability 

E. Economic Impacts for New Sources 

F. Cost and Pollutant Reduction 

Comparison 

G. Small Business Analysis 

VIII. Environmental Assessment 

A. Environmental Impacts 

B. Environmental Benefits 

IX. Non-Water Quality Environmental 

Impacts 

A. Energy Requirements 

B. Air Emissions 

C. Solid Waste Generation 

X. Regulatory Implementation 

A. Relation of ELGs and Standards to 

NPDES Permits 

B. Effective Date 

C. Compliance With the NSPS 

Requirement 

1. Applicability 

2. Demonstrating Compliance With the 

NSPS Collection Requirement 

3. P2 Approaches 

D. Alternative Compliance Option for 

Pavement Deicers Containing Urea 

E. COD Effluent Monitoring for New 

Source Direct Dischargers 

F. Best Management Practices 

G. Upset and Bypass Provisions 

H. Variances and Modifications 

1. Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) 

Variance 

2. Economic Variances 

3. Water Quality Variances 

I. Information Resources 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) 

Reviews 

A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and 

Review and EO 13563: Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. EO 13132: Federalism 

F. EO 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. EO 13045: Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health and Safety Risks 

H. EO 13211: Energy Effects 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. EO 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

Appendix A to the Preamble: Abbreviations 

and Definitions Used in This Document 

I. Legal Authority 

EPA is promulgating this regulation 

under the authorities of sections 101, 

301, 304, 306, 308, 402, and 501 of the 

CWA, 33 United States Code (U.S.C.) 

1251, 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 the Final 

Rule 

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 in 

surrounding communities, 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. 

Today, EPA is promulgating effluent 

limitations guidelines (ELGs) and new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

for the Airport Deicing Point Source 

Category. The regulations address 

control of the wastewater discharges 

from deicing operations based on 

product substitution, wastewater 

collection practices used by airports, 

and treatment practices for the collected 

wastewater. New source airports within 

the scope of this rule are required to 

collect spent aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) 

and meet numerical discharge limits. 

Those airports and certain existing 

airports performing airfield pavement 

deicing are to use non-urea-containing 

deicers, or alternatively, meet a numeric 

effluent limitation for ammonia. The 

requirements are implemented in CWA 

discharge permits. 

The rule requirements and the 

technologies that serve as the basis for 

the ELGs and standards are explained in 

Sections IV, V, and VI of this preamble. 

III. Background 

A. Clean Water Act 

Congress passed the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972, also known as the 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 United States, except as 

authorized under the CWA. Under 

section 402 of the CWA, EPA and 

delegated state permitting authorities 

authorize discharges by a 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. 

In addition, the CWA authorizes 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), as outlined 

in section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 

1317(b) and (c). EPA establishes 

national pretreatment standards 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29170 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

permits are derived from effluent 

limitations guidelines (CWA sections 

301 and 304, 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1314) 

and new source performance standards 

(section 306) promulgated by EPA, or 

based on best professional judgment 

where EPA has not promulgated an 

applicable effluent guideline or new 

source performance standard (CWA 

section 402(a)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 

1342(a)(1)(B)). Additional limitations 

based on water quality standards (CWA 

section 301(b)(1)(C), 33 U.S.C. 

1311(b)(1)(C)) are also required to 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 ELGs and 

standards of performance for major 

industrial categories for three classes of 

pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants 

(i.e., total suspended solids, oil and 

grease, BOD5, fecal coliform, and pH), as 

outlined in section 304(a)(4) and 40 CFR 

401.16; (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic 

metals such as chromium, lead, nickel, 

and zinc; toxic organic pollutants such 

as benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, phenol, and 

naphthalene), as outlined in section 

307(a) of the Act, 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 

CFR part 423 appendix A; and (3) nonconventional pollutants, pollutants that 

are neither conventional nor toxic (e.g., 

ammonia-N, formaldehyde, and 

phosphorus). 

B. NPDES Permits 

Section 402 of the CWA requires 

permits for point source 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 one 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, that 

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 

airport stormwater permits. 

1. General Permits 

Currently, most airport deicing 

discharges are covered by a general 

permit issued by either EPA or 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 final general permit. 

For airports, the major requirements 

of the current MSGP, include the 

following: 

• Develop a stormwater pollution 

prevention plan, including a drainage 

area site map, documentation of 

measures used for management of 

deicing contaminated stormwater, an 

evaluation of runway and aircraft 

deicing operations, and implementation 

of a program to control or manage 

deicing contaminated stormwater, 

including consideration of various listed 

control practices. 

• Implement deicing source reduction 

measures, including minimizing or 

eliminating the use of urea and glycolcontaining deicing chemicals; 

minimizing contamination of deicing 

contaminated stormwater from runway 

and aircraft deicing operations; 

evaluating whether over-application of 

deicing chemicals occurs; and consider 

use of various listed source control 

measures. 

• For airports using more than 

100,000 gallons of glycol-based deicing 

chemicals and/or 100 tons or more of 

urea containing deicers annually, 

monitor discharges quarterly for the first 

four quarters of the permit cycle, for the 

following pollutants: biochemical 

oxygen demand (BOD 5), 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, as well as routine facility 

inspections at least monthly during the 

deicing season. 

EPA expects to modify the MSGP 

when the next permit is issued, to 

conform it to today’s final Airport 

Deicing rule. 

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 

(BMPs). Some of these permits also 

contain numeric water quality-based 

effluent limitations. 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 NSPS are 

technology-based 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 

has also stated that EPA need not 

consider water quality impacts on 

individual water bodies as the 

guidelines are developed; see Statement 

of Senator Muskie (October 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.) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29171 

There are four types of standards 

applicable to direct dischargers 

(dischargers to surface waters), and two 

standards applicable to indirect 

dischargers (discharges to 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 

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 section 

304(b)(1)(B). If, however, existing 

performance is uniformly inadequate, 

EPA may establish limitations based on 

higher levels of control than what is 

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: 

BOD 5 measured over five days, total 

suspended solids, 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 ELGs 

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 non-water 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. 

Economic achievability is an additional 

statutory factor considered in setting 

BAT. 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) 

NSPS reflect effluent reductions that 

are achievable based on the best 

available demonstrated control 

technology (BADCT). 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 

BADCT 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) 

Section 307(b) calls for EPA to issue 

pretreatment standards for discharges of 

pollutants to POTWs. PSES 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 BPT and 

BAT effluent limitation guidelines. See 

CWA sections 301((b)(1)(B) and 

301(b)(2)(A)), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(B) 

and 1311(b)(2)(A). 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 (January14, 1987). 

6. Pretreatment Standards for New 

Sources (PSNS) 

Section 307(c) of the Act calls for EPA 

to promulgate PSNS. 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 PSNS 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. 

D. Proposed Rule 

EPA published a proposed rule for the 

Airport Deicing Category on August 28, 

2009 (74 FR 44676). The proposed rule 

covered primary commercial airports 

that conduct deicing operations and 

have 1,000 or more annual jet 

departures. An existing airport in the 

scope of the proposal would have been 

required to certify that it uses airfield 

pavement deicers that do not contain 

urea, or alternatively, meet an effluent 

limitation for ammonia. Additionally, 

in-scope airports with 10,000 or more 

annual departures would have been 

required to: 

• Collect at least a specified 

proportion (either 20 or 60 percent, 

based on size) of available ADF after it 

is sprayed on aircraft; and 

• Meet a specified numeric effluent 

limit for ADF wastewater collected and 

discharged directly. 

As proposed, all in-scope new source 

dischargers had the same airfield 

pavement deicing requirements as 

existing sources and were required to 

collect 60 percent of available ADF and 

meet the specified numeric limit for 

direct discharges of the collected fluid. 

EPA estimated that the proposed rule 

would apply to 218 existing airports; 

110 airports for both the pavement 

deicer and ADF collection and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29172 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

discharge requirements, and another 

108 airports for the pavement deicer 

requirement only. Of those 218 airports, 

the Agency estimated that 148 airports 

were already in compliance with the 

proposed requirements. 

1. ADF Collection 

The proposed rule would have 

required all existing primary airports 

that have 10,000 or more annual 

departures to collect at least 20 percent 

of available ADF. The 20 percent 

collection requirement was based on the 

estimated performance of glycol 

collection vehicles (GCVs). Those 

primary airports that use 460,000 or 

more gallons of normalized ADF 

annually, which make up a small subset 

of this group, would have been required 

to collect at least 60 percent of all 

available ADF. (As defined in proposed 

§ 449.2, normalized ADF is ADF less 

any water added by the manufacturer or 

customer before ADF application.) This 

collection requirement was based on the 

estimated performance of centralized 

deicing pads (CDPs). In-scope primary 

airports with less than 10,000 annual 

departures would not have been 

required to meet the national ELG 

requirements to collect their available 

deicing fluid or meet associated 

discharge limitations and would have 

continued to be subject to case-by-case 

Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) 

permitting requirements for ADF 

collection and treatment. 

2. Numeric Limit for Collected ADF 

For airports discharging collected 

ADF directly to surface waters, the 

proposal would have required these 

airports to meet numeric effluent 

limitations for COD. The limits were 

based on anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB) 

treatment technology. 

3. Airfield Pavement Deicers 

EPA proposed BAT for direct 

dischargers associated with airfield 

pavement deicing based on product 

substitution. Specifically, EPA based 

BAT on the substitution of pavement 

deicers containing urea with alternative, 

less toxic products that are also effective 

and not harmful to aircraft. 

4. Other Technology Basis Considered 

In the proposed rule, in addition to 

CDPs and GCVs, EPA described plugand-pump technology with GCVs as a 

possible BAT basis for an ADF 

collection requirement, and calculated 

the cost of this technology. This 

technology, when used in combination 

with GCVs, is estimated to collect at 

least 40 percent of available ADF. 

IV. Scope and Applicability of Final 

Rule 

This final rule applies to primary 

airports. Existing airports with greater 

than or equal to 1,000 annual departures 

by non propeller driven aircraft must 

meet BAT requirements at § 449.10, as 

applicable. 

A new airport with deicing discharges 

and located in specified geographic 

locations (see section V.C.2), that is 

operating less than 1,000 non-propeller 

aircraft departures annually is not 

required to meet the NSPS provisions in 

§ 449.11. However, if the number of 

departures later increases above that 

threshold, then the substantive 

requirements in § 449.11 apply. This 

means that a new airport that expects to 

eventually exceed the 1,000 departure 

threshold must plan to install and 

operate facilities that will comply with 

the requirements of that section once it 

reaches the threshold of 1,000 nonpropeller departures annually. 

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 takes 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 that EPA, in developing 

effluent guidelines, 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 today’s rule, EPA 

considered whether subcategorizing the 

aviation industry was warranted. In 

addition to those factors specified in the 

CWA, EPA evaluated a number of 

factors and potential subcategorization 

approaches, including the presence of 

an onsite glycol reclamation facility, 

amount of ADF applied, number of 

departures, availability of land to install 

collection systems, and FAA airport 

classifications. EPA concluded that 

establishing formal subcategories is not 

necessary for the Airport Deicing 

category. EPA structured the 

applicability and requirements of the 

final rule to account for the relevant 

factors (e.g., amount of ADF applied) 

and has established a set of 

requirements appropriate for the range 

of situations that an airport may 

encounter during deicing operations. 

B. Industry Description 

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. 

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 recent calendar year ending 

before the start of the current fiscal year. 

Early in the regulatory development 

process, EPA focused on deicing 

activities at primary airports, 

particularly those with extensive nonpropeller 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 results of industry 

surveys that EPA conducted prior to the 

proposed rule, the Agency estimated 

that 320 primary airports conduct 

deicing operations. EPA reviewed the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29173 

relative sizes of various airports (based 

on annual departures), the levels of 

deicing activity, traffic characteristics 

(i.e., passenger versus cargo operations), 

the extent of pollution controls and 

treatment in place, and the costs of 

various technologies for these airports. 

EPA further classified airports based on 

the number of annual non-propeller 

departures. EPA found that there were 

some primary airports, typically smaller 

airports, with high percentages of 

propeller aircraft, and therefore 

excluded airports with fewer than 1,000 

annual non-propeller 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). 

C. Wastewater Sources and Wastewater 

Characteristics 

1. Aircraft Deicing 

Airlines apply most ADF 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. 

Most of the ADF sprayed is Type I 

fluid, which is designed for minimal 

adhesion to aircraft surfaces. 

Consequently, the majority of Type I 

ADF is available for discharge due to 

dripping, over-spraying, 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 surfaces; 

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 storm drains discharge directly to 

U.S. waters 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 collection. 

For the purposes of this rule, the 

pollutant loadings are discussed in 

terms of applied ADF and how much of 

that ADF is expected to be discharged. 

A more detailed discussion of loadings 

estimates is presented in Section VI.B. 

Given the highly variable nature of 

storm events, it is difficult to estimate 

flows or concentrations of ADFcontaminated stormwater generated at 

an airport. Those factors are greatly 

dependent on site-specific factors, such 

as 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, 

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, as well as generate BOD5 and 

COD load. 

Most of EPA’s deicing 

characterization data does not reflect 

airfield pavement deicers. However, 

EPA collected samples from a few 

locations at Detroit Metro Airport that 

contain airfield deicing stormwater. 

Detroit Metro and Pittsburgh, both large 

hub airports, 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 

variability of storm events and drainage 

systems makes it difficult to estimate 

flows or concentrations of pavement 

deicing waste streams generated at an 

airport. 

D. Control and Treatment Technologies 

for the Aviation Industry 

The ADF application process has 

presented a challenge for those airports 

attempting to manage their 

contaminated stormwater streams. The 

process of applying ADF to aircraft 

through high pressure spraying, 

combined with the 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. EPA has also identified several 

pollution prevention (P2) approaches 

that may be used to minimize the 

amount of ADF applied. However, no 

single technology or P2 approach is 

capable of collecting or eliminating all 

applied ADF, as a portion of the fluid 

is designed to adhere to the aircraft until 

after takeoff, in order to ensure safe 

operations. Furthermore, with few 

exceptions, tracking by aircraft tires, 

wind dispersion, and dripping during 

taxiing and takeoff ensures that some 

amount of sprayed ADF, even if 

performed in a contained area, will end 

up in the drainage system of the airport. 

For these reasons, EPA concludes that 

all airports that perform aircraft deicing 

operations are direct dischargers. There 

are limited instances where an airport in 

a warm climate that performs only 

defrosting and gets little to no 

precipitation may, in fact, not discharge 

any deicing materials. 

Once the available ADF wastestream 

is collected, it can be treated, and this 

process is similar to many other 

industries that generate wastewater. In a 

similar manner, airfield deicing has 

presented a challenge for airports 

attempting to manage their 

contaminated stormwater streams. 

Airfield deicing is typically conducted 

over a large area, including areas with 

frequent aircraft traffic, such as 

runways, where active collection 

technologies (i.e., GCVs) are impractical 

to implement. At this time, EPA has not 

identified any available economically 

achievable technologies for the 

collection of pavement deicing 

stormwater. As a result, EPA also 

examined P2 technologies, which can 

reduce or eliminate the use of ADF 

chemicals and urea containing deicers 

for pavement deicing in today’s final 

rule. 

The following section discusses the 

technologies EPA considered for ADF 

collection and treatment and for 

addressing airfield deicing. 

1. ADF Collection Technologies 

a. GCV 

A GCV is a truck that utilizes a 

vacuum mechanism to gather 

stormwater contaminated with ADF, 

resulting from deicing operations. GCVs 

are typically stationed near the ADF 

spraying trucks and are deployed either 

during aircraft deicing activities or after 

the aircraft deicing activity has been 

completed. The GCV then transports the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29174 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ADF-contaminated stormwater to an 

onsite storage and/or equalization 

facility, after which the material is 

either treated at the airport or sent 

offsite for treatment. EPA estimates that 

GCVs typically collect at least 20 

percent of the available ADF when 

properly operated and maintained. 

b. Plug and Pump 

The plug and pump collection system 

utilizes an airport’s existing stormwater 

collection system infrastructure to 

contain and collect ADF contaminated 

stormwater. Plug and pump systems 

also commonly utilize GCVs for 

ancillary ADF collection. Typical GCV 

deployment may include collecting ADF 

that has been sprayed beyond the plug 

and pump containment area or as an 

additional collection measure at the 

gate, ramp, and/or apron area after 

deicing operations and active plug and 

pump collection have ceased. The plug 

and pump system operates by placing 

either temporary inflatable balloons or 

storm sewer shutoff valves in the 

existing storm sewer system. During 

deicing events, the balloons are inflated 

and storm sewer shutoff valves are 

closed, trapping the ADF-contaminated 

stormwater in the collection system. 

Vacuum trucks pump the trapped 

contaminated stormwater from the 

storm sewer system and transport the 

liquid to onsite storage and/or 

equalization. In addition, catch basin 

inserts can be placed into manholes to 

collect ADF-contaminated stormwater. 

c. CDPs 

A CDP is a paved area on an airfield 

built specifically for aircraft deicing 

operations. It is typically located 

adjacent to a gate area, taxiway, or 

runway, and constructed with a 

drainage system separate from the 

airport’s main storm drain system. A 

CDP 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 onsite or offsite 

treatment facility. 

Some airports use GCVs in 

combination with CDPs to collect ADF 

that lands outside the pad collection 

area 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. 

CDPs reduce the volume of deicing 

wastewater by restricting deicing to 

small areas, and managing the collected 

wastewater through a dedicated drain 

system. EPA estimates that CDPs allow 

airports to collect at least 60 percent of 

the available ADF. 

d. Summary of ADF Collection 

Technology Usage 

EPA estimates the number of airports 

that use each of the above collection 

technologies in Table IV–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 IV–1—ESTIMATED TOTALS OF

ADF COLLECTION TECHNOLOGIES

USED BY AIRPORTS

Collection technology Number of 

airports 

Glycol Collection Vehicle ...... 53 

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

Centralized Deicing Pad ....... 66 

See Section 8.2 of the TDD for further 

explanation of EPA’s estimates of the 

ADF collection rates for the fluid 

collection technologies. 

2. ADF-Contaminated Wastewater 

Treatment Technologies 

In the proposed rule, EPA identified 

four technologies for treating ADFcontaminated wastewater: AFB, 

Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis, 

Mechanical Vapor Recompression and 

Distillation, and Aerated Pond. The 

Agency selected AFB for further 

consideration and rejected the other 

technologies. See 74 FR 44687 and the 

TDD. 

An AFB treatment system uses a 

vertical, cylindrical tank in which the 

ADF-contaminated 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, CO2, 

and new biomass (animal material, 

bacteria). The AFB treatment system 

includes storage as an initial step to 

equalize flows and pollutant 

concentrations that feed into the 

biological treatment unit. 

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 removes over 98 percent of 

BOD5, over 97 percent of COD, and over 

99 percent of propylene glycol from 

deicing wastestreams. This treatment 

reduces 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 International 

Airport in Albany, New York, and 

Akron-Canton Regional Airport, in 

Akron, Ohio. Additionally, Portland 

International Airport in Oregon recently 

installed an AFB system and T.F. Green 

Airport in Providence, Rhode Island is 

planning the installation of this 

technology. 

3. Pollution Prevention Technologies 

EPA has identified several 

technologies currently in use at airports 

across the United States that may reduce 

ADF usage. The following section 

describes the major P2 approaches EPA 

identified during this rulemaking. EPA 

notes that it did not identify these ADF 

P2 approaches as a technology basis for 

BAT or NSPS in today’s final rule due 

to a lack of available quantitative data 

on the actual pollutant reductions that 

these technologies may achieve and, 

moreover, because of a lack of data 

correlating minimized ADF application 

with safe deicing practices. However, 

EPA is aware that many airports use 

these technologies successfully and EPA 

encourages additional use. Furthermore, 

EPA notes that the collection 

technologies evaluated for today’s rule 

are only capable of collecting a portion 

of the applied ADF. Therefore, to the 

extent that P2 technologies are proven 

to be effective, they have the ability to 

considerably reduce or eliminate ADF 

discharges. The ability to reduce the 

amount of applied deicing chemicals 

will not only have a positive 

environmental effect, but may also be 

cost-effective, as the decreases in costs 

of purchased deicing chemicals may 

offset the cost of the technology itself. 

EPA applauds all efforts to develop 

deicing chemicals and approaches that 

reduce or eliminate pollutant 

discharges. In order to ensure that this 

rule doesn’t prevent such approaches as 

they become proven, feasible, and 

available, today’s final rule includes a 

provision to apply a P2 credit against 

the standard ADF collection 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29175 

requirement. See Section X.C., 

‘‘Compliance with the NSPS 

Requirement,’’ in this preamble. 

In addition EPA notes that in 

discussions with the major airline and 

airport industry associations, ATA and 

ACI–NA, they stressed their 

commitment to pollution prevention 

approaches to reduce aircraft deicing 

discharges, while ensuring safety at all 

times, and the great strides they had 

made on pollution prevention 

approaches in addition to employing 

ADF collection technologies (see DCN 

AD01333). As a follow-up to these 

conversations, industry associations 

submitted a description of a voluntary 

pollution reduction program designed to 

further spur the industry towards safely 

reducing ADF discharges to the 

environment. Under the program, these 

associations intend to work together to: 

• Conduct outreach and facilitate 

information exchange on the program 

and available pollution reduction 

technologies; 

• Encourage the development, testing, 

and commercially appropriate 

deployment of pollution reduction 

technologies; 

• Provide information characterizing 

the qualitative and quantitative 

performance and environmental benefits 

of appropriate pollution reduction 

technologies; 

• Develop a quantitative goal for 

environmental benefits to be achieved 

through this program; 

• Inventory pollution reduction 

technologies adopted during this 

program; 

• Develop a comparison of the 

environmental benefits of pollution 

reduction technologies adopted during 

the program with the quantitative goal; 

and 

• Report the results of the above 

components to EPA. 

EPA supports this pollution prevention 

program and believes it has the 

potential to significantly reduce aircraft 

deicing discharges in a safe manner. See 

DCN AD01334 for more details on 

industry’s pollution prevention 

program. 

a. Infrared (IR) Deicing Systems 

A few U.S. airports have used IR 

heating systems for several years and 

these systems have been demonstrated 

to deice aircraft effectively. One type of 

IR system consists of an open-ended 

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. 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 may 

greatly reduce the volume required. 

Vendors claim use of an IR system 

reduces the amount of Type I ADF 

required by up to 90 percent. John F. 

Kennedy International Airport, in New 

York, uses an IR system for a small 

percentage of its flights. 

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 gallons/minute), while other 

systems require separate application of 

deicing fluid. Several vendors are 

currently developing self-contained, 

truck-mounted versions of these forcedair systems, and most systems can be 

retrofitted onto existing deicing trucks. 

The double gantry forced-air spray 

system is a similar method to truckmounted forced-air systems. The 

gantries support a set of high- and lowpressure 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. 

4. Airfield Pavement Deicing Control 

Technologies 

EPA identified product substitution as 

an available control technology for 

airfield pavement deicing chemicals. 

The Agency did not identify an 

available economically achievable 

technology to collect and treat 

wastewater containing pavement 

deicing pollutants. 

Several types of products, such as 

potassium acetate, sodium formate, and 

sodium acetate, are available as 

alternatives to pavement deicers 

containing urea. The results from EPA’s 

airport questionnaire reported that 83 

percent of primary airports use airfield 

pavement deicers that do not contain 

urea. The most widely used substitute 

product, potassium acetate, accounts for 

63 percent (by weight) of the annual 

airfield pavement deicer usage in the 

United States. 

E. Regulated Pollutants 

EPA identified 31 pollutants of 

concern that stem directly from airport 

deicing operations. For today’s final 

rule, EPA identified COD as a pollutant 

of concern to be controlled for 

discharges of collected ADF 

contaminated stormwater and urea and 

ammonia as pollutants of concern to be 

controlled in discharges of airfield 

deicing contaminated stormwater. See 

Section 6 of the TDD for a full 

discussion of pollutants of concern and 

for EPA’s rationale for selecting 

regulated pollutants. 

V. Final Regulation 

A. BPT and BCT 

EPA considered whether, in this rule, 

it was necessary to establish BPT limits, 

given that pavement deicers will be 

controlled at the BAT level, which is no 

less stringent than the BPT limit. 

Because the same wastestream that 

would be controlled by BPT is also 

controlled by BAT, it is not necessary 

for EPA to promulgate BPT effluent 

limitations guidelines for the Airport 

Deicing Category, given that the BAT 

collection and treatment requirements 

on that wastestream would be at least as 

stringent as BPT requirements. 

Similarly, EPA is not establishing BCT 

limitations for this industry because the 

same wastestream that would be 

controlled by BCT is being controlled by 

BAT. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29176 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA notes, however, that many existing airports 

with annualized normalized ADF usage below 

60,000 currently employ deicing collection 

technologies including centralized deicing pads. 

B. BAT 

1. Airfield Deicing 

a. Applicability/Scope of Airfield 

Deicing Discharge Requirements 

EPA did not receive significant 

comments regarding the scope of the 

requirements for controlling airfield 

deicing discharges. EPA has retained the 

scope as described in the proposal: 

primary airports with departures of 

1,000 or more non-propeller aircraft 

departures. 

b. Candidate BAT Airfield Deicing 

Technologies: Product Substitution of 

Pavement Deicers Containing Urea 

In general, airports discharge airfield 

pavement deicing chemicals without 

treatment, due to the difficulty and 

expense of collecting and treating the 

large volumes of contaminated 

stormwater generated on paved airfield 

surfaces. EPA is not aware of an 

available means to control these 

pollutants through collection and use of 

a conventional, end-of-pipe treatment 

system. It is 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 and COD from 

airfield deicing as pollutants of concern, 

and both of these pollutants are a 

byproduct of pavement deicers 

containing urea. Accordingly, to address 

discharges of ammonia from airfield 

pavement, EPA identified one candidate 

for best available technology, namely, 

product substitution, or discontinuing 

the use of pavement deicers containing 

urea and using alternative pavement 

deicers instead. EPA found that the use 

of deicers without urea is the best 

available technology for reducing 

discharges of ammonia from pavement 

deicing, because it is safe, 

technologically feasible, and available 

across the industry. The technology 

does not produce discharges of 

ammonia as produced by deicers 

containing urea. Currently, only about 

10 percent of chemical pavement 

deicers applied nationwide contain 

urea. The most widely used pavement 

deicer is potassium acetate, which 

represents 63 percent of all chemical 

pavement deicers applied nationwide. 

2. Aircraft Deicing 

For today’s final rule, based on 

comments to the proposed rule, EPA 

revised the requirements related to the 

collection and discharge of ADF. 

a. Applicability/Scope of Aircraft 

Deicing Discharge Requirements 

Commenters raised multiple concerns 

with EPA’s proposed approach of using 

departures as a proxy for ADF use. First, 

commenters explained that an airport in 

the very southern portion of the United 

States could have significant departures 

but use little ADF. Second, commenters 

requested that EPA consider a de 

minimis cut-off to account for defrosting 

(i.e. ADF application in the absence of 

active precipitation). Under the 

proposal, defrosting would be counted 

towards the volume of ADF required to 

be collected, yet commenters claim that 

it evaporates and is unable to be 

collected. Finally, airports with low 

overall ADF usage also requested EPA 

consider a de minimis cut-off. They 

cited concerns that the costs of the 

collection and treatment for ADF at 

these airports are disproportionally high 

in relation to the amount of pollutants 

generated. For example, one commenter, 

a non-hub primary airport, explained 

that it typically receives little snow and 

conducts occasional defrosting of 

aircraft, and generates no ADFcontaminated water, yet it would 

effectively be required to purchase a 

GCV if subject to the 20 percent 

collection requirement. 

EPA reviewed its data with respect to 

each of these comments. On further 

review of the data and comments, EPA 

agrees that ADF usage in general is not 

closely related solely to the number of 

departures at airports. As such, in 

considering options for today’s final 

rule, EPA did not base ADF collection 

and associated discharge options on the 

number of departures. Instead, EPA 

considered options based directly on 

estimates of the overall volume of ADF 

use, which EPA indicated in the 

proposal was another possible threshold 

criterion for the rule (74 FR 44714). 

EPA reevaluated ADF usage data for 

all existing airports. This evaluation 

showed that airports with less than 

30,000 gallons of available ADF may 

conduct a significant amount of 

defrosting, rather than deicing. See DCN 

AD01335. Defrosting results in limited 

amounts of ADF available for 

collection—effectively rendering 

collection technologies infeasible. 

Additionally, EPA found that the costs 

and economic impacts of ADF 

collection and treatment technologies 

for airports using less than 60,000 

gallons of normalized ADF annually 

were disproportionally higher than 

those with greater ADF use.1 See DCN 

AD01338 for additional details. As a 

result, in today’s final rule, EPA 

evaluated options based on a cut-off of 

greater than or equal to 60,000 gallons 

of normalized ADF per deicing season. 

Under this option, airports at or above 

this threshold would be subject to these 

requirements, but airports below this 

threshold would have the technologybased limitations for aircraft deicing 

discharges in their NPDES permits 

determined by the permitting authority 

on a case-by-case, best professional 

judgment basis. 

b. Exempted Wastewater (Those 

Associated With Deicing for Safe 

Taxiing) 

EPA also altered its consideration of 

exempting wastewaters associated with 

deicing for safe taxiing. The proposed 

rule included a provision that would 

have exempted ADF-contaminated 

wastewater associated with deicing for 

safe taxiing from the proposed 

collection and treatment requirement. 

EPA proposed to limit deicing for safe 

taxiing to 25 gallons of ADF, based on 

an allowance at Denver International 

Airport (DIA), as the maximum amount 

that could be applied to an aircraft for 

the purposes of safe taxiing. This 

definition was intended to apply to 

airports with CDPs, and to prohibit 

conducting complete deicing of an 

aircraft at a terminal area without a 

collection system, instead of using the 

deicing pad. However, commenters 

expressed concern that climatic 

conditions at airports in the Midwest, 

Alaska, and on the East Coast differ 

greatly from those at DIA: commenters 

claimed that any ‘‘deicing for safe 

taxiing’’ allowances established at DIA 

cannot form a reasonable basis for 

application to airports in other regions 

of the country. In addition, cargo aircraft 

sometimes experience layovers in 

excess of 24 hours, potentially 

increasing the amount of snow or ice 

that must be removed to achieve 

compliance with FAA regulations. EPA 

agrees with the commenters and 

therefore the final rule does not limit 

the amount of ADF sprayed for the 

purposes of safe taxiing, nor does EPA 

require an airport to collect and treat 

ADF applied for safe taxiing purposes. 

c. Candidate BAT Technology Bases for 

Collection and Discharge Requirements 

EPA is not aware of an available and 

economically achievable technology 

that is capable of capturing 100 percent 

of the sprayed ADF. Section IV.D.1 

details the available technologies for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29177 

collecting ADF, which include GCVs, 

plug and pump equipment, and CDPs. 

EPA estimates that these technologies 

collect 20 percent, 40 percent, and 60 

percent of available ADF, respectively. 

Commenters raised multiple concerns 

about CDPs, the technology that EPA 

proposed to identify as the basis for the 

60 percent collection requirement. First, 

commenters raised concerns that CDPs 

are not feasible at all locations because 

of lack of space. Some of these 

commenters provided detailed 

engineering plans and analyses 

demonstrating their specific space 

constraints. Second, commenters raised 

concerns that using CDPs for all deicing 

operations would cause traffic and/or 

safety problems. Third, commenters 

asserted that the use of CDPs would lead 

to flight delays and that EPA had not 

included costs associated with such 

delays in its analyses. In addition, FAA 

indicated that it had similar concerns to 

those raised by industry commenters, 

regarding the identification of 

centralized deicing facilities as BAT. 

FAA indicated that the 60 percent 

collection requirement based on the 

exclusive use of CDPs might adversely 

affect the operational efficiency of some 

of the nation’s largest and busiest 

airports. Further, FAA was concerned 

that for those land-constrained airports, 

construction and operation of CDPs for 

all deicing operations would not be able 

to meet FAA design standards. In 

explaining its concerns, FAA noted that 

delays associated with the use of CDPs 

would be extremely costly to the 

nation’s productivity, economy, 

businesses, and the traveling public. 

After considering these comments and 

reviewing the information in its record, 

EPA is not establishing a 60 percent 

ADF collection requirement based on 

CDPs for BAT. First, in response to 

FAA’s concerns about the exclusive use 

of deicing pads for aircraft deicing, EPA 

contacted a number of large hub airports 

that currently use CDPs. EPA found the 

current percentage of flights for which 

these airports use the CDPs ranges from 

50 to 95 percent. The airports explained 

that various operational or weatherrelated issues may make deicing pad use 

for all flights cumbersome if not 

impossible, (i.e., severe system-wide 

delays), and require them to deice at the 

gate in some circumstances. EPA shares 

the commenters’ and FAA’s concerns 

that moving to exclusive use of CDPs for 

all deicing might lead to operational 

issues and delays. EPA, in discussions 

with FAA, attempted to craft regulatory 

provisions to allow an airport limited 

ability to bypass the use of a centralized 

pad in order to avoid these 

circumstances. However, limited data 

on the site-specific nature of this 

industry left EPA unable to develop 

regulatory provisions that would give 

airports the flexibility they need to 

avoid significant operational issues and 

delays. Second, based on public 

comments and information from FAA, 

EPA is concerned that some large 

airports critical to efficient air traffic 

operations in this country are space 

(land) constrained, and that building 

well-located CDPs for all deicing 

operations at these airports is likely not 

feasible for that reason. At the time of 

the proposal, EPA estimated that 14 

airports would be subject to the 60 

percent collection requirement. Because 

the data in EPA’s record indicate that 

many of these airports currently meet 

this requirement, EPA estimated 

approximately seven airports would 

likely need to install pads as a result of 

the proposed requirement. Of these 

seven airports, four are large hubs, 

which, over years of expansions and 

other improvements, have already built 

out the majority of the land available to 

them. EPA has concluded that the lack 

of remaining available land, coupled 

with their existing layouts, has left these 

airports in a position where a CDP 

conforming to FAA’s Advisory Circulars 

on deicing pad design, (e.g., in a 

location that aircraft can travel to safely 

and efficiently to conduct deicing 

operations) cannot be constructed. 

Therefore, for today’s final rule, EPA 

has not established a 60 percent ADF 

collection requirement, which would 

have been based on identification of 

centralized deicing facilities as BAT for 

100 percent of aircraft departures. This 

technology is not available at a number 

of existing airports due to land 

constraints, and therefore is not 

technologically feasible on a nationwide 

basis. For this and the other reasons 

discussed above, EPA finds that 

centralized deicing facilities should not 

be identified as BAT for this nationwide 

rulemaking. See CWA 304(b)(2)(B)— 

factors relating to the assessment of BAT 

include ‘‘the process employed, the 

engineering aspects of the application of 

various types of control techniques, 

* * * and such other factors as the 

Administrator deems appropriate.’’ EPA 

then considered the other two 

technologies described in the proposal 

as a possible basis of BAT for aircraft 

deicing discharges for today’s final rule: 

40 percent ADF collection requirement 

based on plug and pump with GCVs and 

20 percent ADF collection requirement 

based on GCVs. With either of these 

collection technologies, as was the case 

in the proposed rule, EPA also included 

numeric COD limitations for direct 

discharges of collected ADF based on 

anaerobic treatment. For a discussion of 

other technologies examined but not 

selected as candidates for the basis of 

the COD limitations, see Section VII.E.2 

in the proposed rule preamble (74 FR 

44692) and Section 7 of the TDD. 

3. Options Considered for Today’s Final 

Rule 

Using the technology bases identified 

above for airfield and aircraft deicing 

discharges, EPA developed three 

primary options for today’s final rule. 

All three of these options have the same 

airfield pavement deicing discharge 

requirements based on product 

substitution of deicers that do not 

contain urea, but would vary the 

approach to control aircraft deicing 

discharges: 

• Option 1: 40 percent ADF collection 

requirement for large and medium ADF 

users (based on plug and pump with 

GCVs); numeric COD limitations for 

direct discharges of collected ADF 

(based on anaerobic treatment). 

• Option 2: 40 percent ADF collection 

requirement for the large ADF users 

(based on plug and pump with GCVs) 

and 20 percent ADF collection 

requirement for medium ADF users 

(based on GCVs); numeric COD 

limitations for direct discharges of 

collected ADF (based on anaerobic 

treatment). 

• Option 3: Site-Specific Aircraft 

Deicing Discharge Controls: Do not 

establish effluent limitation guidelines 

in the final rule for aircraft deicing 

discharges, but instead, leave the 

determination of BAT requirements for 

each airport to the discretion of the 

permit writer on a case-by-case, ‘‘best 

professional judgment’’ basis based on 

site-specific conditions. 

Under the first option, in addition to 

the airfield pavement requirements, all 

airports that use greater than or equal to 

60,000 gallons of normalized ADF 

annually would be required to collect 40 

percent of available ADF based on plug 

and pump with GCV technologies. In 

the proposed rule, EPA considered but 

did not identify this as its lead option 

because it found its costs to be 

comparable to those of CDPs, while 

CDPs achieved greater ADF collection. 

In the proposal, EPA therefore identified 

CDPs as BAT. EPA subsequently 

determined that CDPs are not achievable 

nationwide for existing airports and 

dropped it as an option for 

consideration in the final rule. This left 

the plug and pump with GCV option as 

the technology, among those that 

remained under consideration for 

today’s rule, that would achieve the 

greatest collection of ADF. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29178 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Under the second option, in addition 

to the airfield pavement requirements, 

all airports that use greater than or equal 

to 60,000 gallons of normalized ADF 

annually but less than 460,000 gallons 

of normalized ADF (‘‘medium ADF 

users,’’ estimated to be 42 airports) 

would be required to collect 20 percent 

of available ADF based on GCVs, and 

airports that use more than 460,000 

gallons of normalized ADF (‘‘large ADF 

users,’’ estimated to be 14 airports) 

would be required to collect 40 percent 

of available ADF based on the use of 

plug and pump with GCV technology. 

Under both Options 1 and 2, the 

requirement to meet numeric effluent 

limits for COD for the collected ADF 

would need to be met prior to 

commingling with other wastestreams 

prior to discharge. For a discussion of 

other technologies examined but not 

selected as candidates for the basis of 

the nationwide COD limitations, see 

Section VII.E.2 in the proposed rule 

preamble (74 FR 44692) and Section 7 

of the TDD. 

Under the third option, EPA would 

establish national deicing discharge 

controls for airfield pavement deicing 

only. BAT limitations for aircraft 

deicing discharge would continue to be 

established by the permitting authority 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Table V–1 provides the estimated 

national cost of each option along with 

the estimated national removals. 

TABLE V–1—COST OF FINAL RULE OPTIONS

Option 

Total pollutant 

removals 

(million lb) 

Total 

annualized 

costs (2006 

$million) 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 33.0 $78.4 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 30.2 49.4 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 16.4 3.5 

4. BAT Options Selection 

EPA is selecting Option 3 as best 

available technology for controlling 

airport deicing discharges. EPA has 

determined the best available 

technology for controlling airfield 

pavement discharges is product 

substitution. The record shows that 

products without urea are widely 

available in the industry, and in fact are 

already in use at a majority of airports 

across the country. 

With respect to aircraft deicing 

discharge controls, EPA’s record 

demonstrates that ADF collection and 

associated treatment technologies are 

technically feasible for many airports. 

Data supplied from the industry through 

EPA’s nationally representative survey 

of airports indicates that dozens of 

airports currently use GCVs and plug 

and pump collection systems, in 

addition to a myriad of P2 technologies 

and practices, ranging from alternative 

means of applying ADF such as forced 

air nozzles, to alternate deicing 

technologies such as IR deicing. In 

addition, many airports also employ a 

variety of treatment technologies to treat 

collected ADF prior to discharge. Thus, 

EPA concludes this industry has several 

technology options potentially available 

for mitigating the pollutants associated 

with aircraft deicing activities. See the 

TDD for more information about 

collection and P2 technologies. 

However, EPA has determined that 

none of the ADF collection technologies 

considered for today’s final rule 

represents the best available technology 

for the entire category. Rather, EPA 

concludes that best available technology 

determinations should continue to be 

made on a site-specific basis because 

such determinations appropriately 

consider localized operational 

constraints (e.g., traffic patterns), land 

availability, safety considerations, and 

potential impacts to flight schedules. 

Based on the information in its record, 

EPA cannot identify with precision the 

extent to which such limitations may 

preclude, at any particular airport, the 

use of the technologies that it 

considered for BAT control of aircraft 

deicing discharges for today’s final rule. 

However, the record demonstrates that 

such limitations exist and are not 

isolated or insignificant. In light of this 

finding, EPA decided that it should not 

establish national ADF collection (and 

associated discharge requirements) 

based on any one or more of the ADF 

collection technologies as the 

presumptive BAT-level control 

technology. Rather, site-specific 

proceedings are the appropriate forum 

for weighing all relevant considerations 

in establishing aircraft deicing discharge 

controls. 

More specifically, commenters 

provided by airport and airline industry 

on the proposed regulation raised 

concerns about the impacts that ADF 

collection technologies may have on 

safety and operations at airports across 

the country. They also commented on 

the lack of available space at many land 

constrained airports for ADF collection 

and treatment technologies. EPA 

reviewed the information submitted in 

comments, subsequent information 

provided by industry, and information 

obtained from site visits to thoroughly 

evaluate these concerns. After reviewing 

this information, EPA agrees with 

commenters that while many airports 

likely have the ability to implement 

some form of collection or P2 

technologies in order to mitigate 

pollutant discharges associated with 

aircraft deicing, space, safety and 

operational considerations may limit the 

selection of the specific technologies 

and the extent to which they can be 

implemented at any particular airport. 

This finding became particularly 

apparent after reviewing questionnaire 

responses for some of the airports at 

which EPA also conducted site visits. 

EPA found that its ‘‘model facility’’ 

approach was not a suitable substitute 

for a detailed analysis of the site 

constraints at each airport. For example, 

a permit authority may need to evaluate 

existing traffic patterns at an airport, not 

only of the aircraft, but also of the 

service vehicles to determine if 

additional collection vehicles would 

lead to unacceptable safety concerns. 

With respect to land constraints, in the 

absence of detailed airport schematics, 

or without conducting a detailed site 

visit at each airport, EPA cannot 

determine if adequate space exists to 

incorporate the specific treatment and 

collection technologies evaluated as the 

basis for today’s final rule. 

Additionally, industry and FAA, in 

particular, have expressed overarching 

concerns about possible delays and 

economic impact that could result from 

the use of plug and pump and GCVs, 

both at specific airports and nationwide. 

EPA agrees that delays must be a factor 

in considering today’s possible 

requirements and recognizes that such 

delays fundamentally affect U.S and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29179 

international business and recreational 

interests. 

Airplane deicing activities, by their 

very nature, occur during freezing 

precipitation events. For some airports, 

even small amounts of precipitation can 

lead to delayed aircraft departures— 

even without deicing activity and/or 

ADF collection and treatment. As such, 

when delays occur at an airport during 

inclement weather, it is difficult to 

determine whether the delays are 

associated with the weather, the ADF 

collection and treatment technologies, 

or both. Further, even small delays at 

certain hub airports have a ripple effect 

that can affect the entire national air 

traffic schedule. 

Some airports have identified 

procedures to mitigate or prevent delays 

associated with aircraft deicing 

discharge controls. These airports can 

handle large amounts of precipitation 

and/or operate ADF collection and 

treatment technologies with little or no 

delay, but these approaches may not be 

applicable nationwide. Further, the 

extent of delays deemed acceptable is 

likely to vary by airport. As was the case 

with land constraints, the confounding 

factors that need to be considered to 

evaluate possible delays that may be 

associated with the technology bases do 

not lend themselves to a national 

determination using a model facility 

approach. Further, EPA does not have 

detailed site-specific information to 

evaluate delays on an airport-by-airport 

basis. 

While the facts stated above do not 

necessarily preclude the ability of an 

airport to collect and treat spent ADF, 

they do illustrate why EPA did not 

select any of the technologies 

considered as BAT for today’s final rule, 

and why a site-specific BAT 

determination for ADF collection and 

treatment requirements is the proper 

approach for today’s final rule. 

Therefore, for the reasons identified 

above, EPA determined Option 3 is the 

only technologically feasible and 

available option considered for today’s 

final BAT requirements. Option 3 would 

remove 4.4 million pounds of ammonia 

and 12 million pounds of COD, with a 

projected annual cost of $3.5 million. 

The costs of Option 3 are reasonable in 

terms of the pollutant reductions 

achieved ($0.21/lb). Further, as 

discussed in more detail in Section VII, 

EPA finds Option 3 is economically 

achievable. In addition, EPA examined 

the non-water quality impacts 

anticipated from compliance with 

Option 3 requirements and found none 

or only very minor impacts in 

comparison to typical industry energy 

use, emissions generation and sludge 

generation. See Section IX, ‘‘Non-Water 

Quality Environmental Impacts.’’ 

Therefore, based on all the factors 

above, EPA is identifying Option 3 as 

BAT and has based today’s final rule on 

the Option 3 BAT requirements. 

C. NSPS 

1. New Source Definition 

In the proposed rule, ‘‘new source’’ 

would have included both new airports 

and new runways constructed at 

existing airports. Commenters objected 

to the inclusion of new runways at 

existing airports in the new source 

definition. They noted that a new 

runway is not a source of pollutant 

discharges from aircraft deicing activity 

and that a new runway is not 

‘‘substantially independent’’ of an 

existing source as required under the 

regulatory definition of ‘‘new source.’’ 

See 40 CFR 122.2 and 40 CFR 

122.29(b)(1). Commenters acknowledge 

that a new runway may lead to 

additional discharges associated with 

airfield deicing, but noted that the 

requirements for airfield deicing 

discharges are the same for new and 

existing discharges. With respect to the 

requirements associated with discharges 

from aircraft deicing, they explained 

that a new runway is not a source of 

new discharges because aircraft deicing 

is performed at locations away from 

airport runways. Moreover, they 

explained that unlike a plant or factory 

from which a new source of discharge 

associated with a new process, 

production line, or piece of equipment 

can be clearly distinguished as a new 

source of discharge associated with an 

existing source, a new runway is not 

operated independently from other 

runways at an airport. Rather, a new 

runway and associated deicing 

operations are part of a wholly 

integrated airport system. After carefully 

considering these comments, EPA 

agrees that new runways should not be 

treated as new sources because new 

runways are generally too integral to the 

operations of an existing airport to be 

considered ‘‘substantially independent’’ 

of the existing airport. 

2. NSPS Applicability 

For today’s final rule, the 

applicability of the NSPS provisions is 

effectively the same as that in the 

proposed rule. New primary airports 

with greater than or equal to 1,000 

annual departures by non-propellerdriven aircraft are subject to the 

provisions of § 449.11(a) and (b). 

In the proposed rule, § 449.1 defined 

the applicability of the overall category 

as covering primary airports with at 

least 1,000 annual scheduled 

commercial air carrier jet departures. In 

the final rule, the language in § 449.1 

has been simplified to just ‘‘primary 

airports,’’ and the 1,000-departure 

threshold criteria are included in the 

provisions at §§ 449.10 and 449.11. This 

arrangement results in the same 

requirements for new source airports 

that EPA had intended in the proposed 

rule, with a clarification: A new primary 

airport with initially less than 1,000 

departures is a new source, but not 

subject to the requirements of § 449.11. 

If the airport eventually exceeds 1,000 

departures, then the provisions of 

§ 449.11 apply. 

The proposed rule defined the 

threshold for the new source ADF 

collection and associated discharge 

requirements as any new source with 

10,000 or more annual departures. As 

was the case with existing sources, 

commenters explained that the number 

of departures is not a good analog for 

the amount of ADF usage, citing, for 

example, airports in the South that may 

have significant numbers of departures 

but typically need to deice their aircraft 

only once a year. After reviewing these 

comments and the information in its 

record, EPA agrees that departures alone 

are not the most appropriate indicator of 

ADF usage. 

Therefore, for today’s final rule, in 

addition to the proposed departure 

threshold, EPA is adding a geographical 

component to define which new sources 

are subject to the ADF collection and 

discharge requirements. As explained in 

Section V.B, EPA determined that, on a 

national basis, ADF collection may be 

infeasible at airports with annual ADF 

usage below 30,000 gallons. ADF usage 

below 30,000 gallons may reflect 

significant volumes of defrosting 

activity, which does not leave ADF 

available for collection. 

Unlike existing sources, however, 

new sources do not have past ADF 

usage data available for establishing a 

threshold for being subject to ADF 

collection requirements. Therefore, in 

combination with the proposed 

departure threshold, in today’s final 

rule, the Agency is incorporating a 

geographically based component that is 

closely aligned with a 30,000 gallon 

annual ADF usage threshold. In 

addition to applying the proposed 

departure threshold, EPA is making 

NSPS collection requirements for ADF 

applicable based on whether the airport 

is located within specific colder 

climatic zones (called a ‘‘heating degree 

day [HDD] category’’) as documented by 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). For airports 

within the scope of today’s rule, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29180 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2 Includes total costs for controls both for airfield 

pavement and aircraft deicing discharges. 

location in a warmer climate zone is 

generally associated with the use of 

smaller volumes of ADF. 

HDD means the number of degrees per 

day the daily average temperature is 

below 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The daily 

average temperature is the mean of the 

maximum and minimum temperature 

for a 24-hour period. The annual HDD 

value is derived by summing the daily 

HDDs over a calendar year period. HDDs 

are computed using data from the U.S. 

National 1961–1990 Climate Normals, 

published by the National Climatic Data 

Center of NOAA. The original data are 

in whole degrees Fahrenheit. HDD 

values range from 0 to more than 9,000. 

NOAA presents this information in 

1,000-HDD increment groups. EPA used 

the NOAA information to create HDD 

groups. These groups range from A to I, 

with group A being the lowest HDD 

values (less than 1,000 HDD) and group 

I being the highest (greater than 9,000 

HDD). 

EPA identified the corresponding 

HDD groups for existing airports and 

then compared the HDD group to ADF 

usage at each airport. In general, airports 

with greater than 10,000 departures in 

HDD groups A through C (3,000 HDD or 

less) used less than 30,000 gallons of 

ADF while those in HDD groups D 

through I used more than 30,000 gallons 

of ADF. As a result, these HDD groups 

in combination with the departure cutoff provide a dividing line nationwide 

that corresponds well with the ADF 

usage dividing line that EPA determined 

makes ADF collection feasible. EPA 

concludes that this approach best 

captures those new airports that will 

conduct more frequent deicing 

operations, as opposed to defrosting 

operations, and excludes those new 

airports that will likely conduct 

infrequent deicing. See DCN AD01267 

for EPA’s analysis of HDD categories. 

In addition, EPA received comments 

questioning the feasibility of ADF 

collection technologies for airports 

located in Alaska. These commenters 

stated that deicing wastewater 

generation at Alaskan airports is 

substantially different from airports in 

the lower 48 states. First, often airports 

in Alaska will suspend air traffic as 

opposed to conducting deicing 

operations. Second, commenters stated 

that long periods of below freezing 

temperatures result in runoff 

characteristics that are substantially 

different from those is the lower 48 

states and, as such, deicing materials are 

not available for collection (due to lack 

of runoff) making collection 

technologies infeasible. The data 

provided in the survey responses from 

Alaskan airports show that airports in 

this climactic zone use widely varying 

amounts of ADF per departure. Based 

on this data, EPA is unable to conclude 

that Alaskan airports conduct 

significant deicing, rather than 

defrosting, and as such, today’s final 

new source ADF collection and 

discharge requirements do not apply to 

new airports in Alaska. 

For the airports that are excluded 

from the NSPS requirements in today’s 

final rule, permit authorities would 

determine an applicable new source 

performance standard on a case-by-case, 

best professional judgment basis. 

3. NSPS Option Selection 

For today’s final rule, EPA evaluated 

‘‘best available demonstrated control 

technologies’’ for purposes of setting 

NSPS under CWA section 306. Section 

306 directs EPA to promulgate NSPS 

‘‘for the control of the discharge of 

pollutants which reflects the greatest 

degree of effluent reduction which the 

Administrator determines to be 

achievable through application of the 

BADCT, processes, operating methods, 

or other alternatives, including, where 

practicable, a standard permitting no 

discharge of pollutants.’’ Congress 

envisioned that new treatment systems 

could meet tighter controls than existing 

sources because of the opportunity to 

incorporate the most efficient processes 

and treatment systems into the facility 

design. As a result, NSPS should 

represent the most stringent controls 

attainable through the application of the 

BADCT for all pollutants (that is, 

conventional, nonconventional, and 

priority pollutants). 

After careful consideration of the 

information in its record, EPA is today 

promulgating the same NSPS 

requirements for both airfield pavement 

deicing discharges and airplane deicing 

discharges as it proposed; however, the 

applicability of the NSPS requirements 

has changed. Clearly, product 

substitution, the technology basis for the 

airfield deicing discharge requirements 

promulgated today for existing airports, 

is fully applicable to new airports. EPA 

determined that, just as with existing 

sources, all new sources would be 

capable of using airfield deicing 

products without urea. Furthermore, 

product substitution represents the 

greatest level of reduction in ammonia 

among the available technologies 

considered. Accordingly, EPA identifies 

product substitution of non-ureacontaining airfield deicers as the best 

demonstrated available control 

technology for all new sources. As with 

BAT, there would be two alternatives 

for meeting this effluent limitation: 

either a certification requirement or a 

numeric limit on ammonia for all direct 

discharges of the stormwater from the 

airfields. 

With respect to aircraft deicing 

discharge controls, EPA, in consultation 

with FAA, finds that its determination 

about safety, space, and operational 

constraints that may be present at 

existing airports for all the collection 

and treatment technologies discussed in 

today’s final rule (CDPs, plug and pump 

with GCVs, GCVs alone and AFB 

treatment) would not similarly apply to 

new airports. This finding is supported 

because new airports can be designed to 

minimize space and logistical 

constraints that have been identified for 

retrofits at existing airports (see DCN 

AD01285). Further, among the ADF 

collection technologies that EPA 

considered, CDPs collect the greatest 

level of available ADF and are available 

to new sources in this category. With 

respect to new airports, the use of CDPs 

does not present the space/land, safety, 

or operational issues that would be 

raised in connection with the use of 

deicing pads at existing sources. In 

addition, CDPs in combination with 

AFBs for treatment of collected ADF are 

not so costly in comparison to the cost 

of a new airport 2 that they would be 

considered a ‘‘barrier to entry.’’ 

Moreover, according to FAA, when 

designed properly, CDPs often improve 

traffic flow and reduce delays associated 

with aircraft deicing. When designing a 

new airport, the local operating agency 

plans the site for all needed facilities, 

such as runways, taxiways, terminal(s) 

and other components needed to 

comply with safety and environmental 

requirements, which includes deicing 

facilities. See DCN AD01285. The new 

airport must be designed and built on 

enough land, in total, to accommodate 

a deicing pad and AFB treatment system 

(or other technology that meets the 60 

percent collection requirement and the 

discharge requirements), to be installed 

either during initial construction or at a 

later time when it exceeds the 10,000 

departure threshold. The airport 

sponsor would design its layout of 

runway(s), taxiways, location of 

terminal(s) and other buildings with 

sufficient space so that deicing facilities 

can be installed later without the need 

to acquire additional land. Therefore, 

EPA is promulgating the same NSPS 

requirements for airfield pavement 

deicing discharges as for existing 

sources, but in contrast to existing 

sources, EPA is promulgating NSPS 

requirements for ADF collection and 

discharge requirements at new airports 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29181 

based on the use of CDPs and anaerobic 

biological treatment. Meeting this 

combination of new source 

requirements for both airfield pavement 

deicing discharges and aircraft deicing 

discharges would not be an economic 

barrier to entry for new airports, as the 

cost of new airport construction, even at 

small airports, is significantly greater 

than the costs associated with product 

substitution and collection and/or 

treatment of spent deicing fluids. See 

Section VII.E. 

As a point of clarification, EPA is 

promulgating the same numeric COD 

limitations for collected ADF that is 

discharged directly for new sources as 

was proposed. The technology basis, 

AFB system, is available to new 

airports. In addition, AFB achieves the 

greatest level of pollutant removals of 

those technologies considered during 

the development of this regulation, and 

the installation and use of this 

technology is not economically a barrier 

to entry for new airports. 

Additionally, although EPA did not 

identify pollution prevention 

approaches and technologies as a basis 

for NSPS, these technologies may be 

effective at reducing available ADF. 

Moreover, future pollution prevention 

technologies may become available to 

aid in meeting the NSPS requirements. 

As such, the final rule includes a 

provision that allows dischargers to 

request a credit to be applied to the 

NSPS ADF requirement. See Section 

X.C.3 for additional information and 

examples. 

D. PSES and PSNS 

EPA is not promulgating PSES and 

PSNS for the Airport Deicing Category. 

Although some airports in the United 

States discharge ADF-contaminated 

stormwater to POTWs, EPA received no 

comments or other information 

indicating that POTWs currently have 

problems of pollutant pass-through, 

interference, or sludge contamination 

stemming from these discharges that 

would necessitate the promulgation of 

national categorical pretreatment 

standards. 

Like the biological treatment system 

that forms the basis for today’s COD 

new source performance standard, 

POTWs typically employ biological 

treatment systems and are similarly 

designed to remove organic pollutants 

that contribute to COD and/or BOD5. In 

general, POTWs have the capability to 

achieve comparable removals to the 

NSPS technology basis. However, some 

airports and POTWs may need to make 

operational adjustments in order to 

process the wastewater effectively while 

avoiding POTW upset. EPA received a 

comment about the Downriver 

Treatment Facility in Detroit, Michigan, 

which accepts ADF wastewater from the 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

Airport. The treatment plant 

experienced viscous bulking due to a 

nutrient imbalance that occurred during 

the months that ADF was accepted. The 

issue was resolved by removing 

phosphorus at a later stage in the 

treatment plant system, rather than from 

the raw wastewater. The airport also 

made significant changes in order to 

segregate the deicing wastewater, collect 

and recycle the most concentrated ADF 

wastewater, and control the amount and 

concentration of wastewater discharged 

to the POTW. 

EPA is aware that high concentration 

or ‘‘slug’’ discharges of deicing 

wastewater can create POTW upset. The 

national pretreatment program 

regulations specifically prohibit 

industrial users from discharging high 

concentrations of oxygen-demanding 

pollutants to POTWs if they cause 

interference to the POTW. See 40 CFR 

403.5(b)(4). Under 40 CFR 403.5(c), 

control authorities may set and enforce 

‘‘local limits’’ for airport discharges to 

POTWs to implement the prohibitions 

listed in § 403.5(b)(4). This provision 

ensures that any potential limits would 

protect against POTW interference by 

the oxygen-demanding pollutants in 

airport deicing discharges. See ‘‘Local 

Limits Development Guidance,’’ 

document no. EPA 833–R–04–002A, 

July 2004, available on EPA’s Web site 

at http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/

pretreatment/pstandards.cfm. As a 

result, many airports that discharge to 

POTWs have airport-specific 

requirements on allowable BOD5 or 

COD discharge loading per day. These 

limits on daily pollutant loadings are 

specific to the receiving POTW. Airports 

usually meet this requirement by storing 

deicing stormwater in ponds or tanks 

and metering the discharge to meet the 

POTW permit loading requirements. 

VI. Technology Costs and Pollutant 

Reductions 

A. Compliance Costs 

1. Overview 

EPA estimated industry-wide 

compliance costs for the three options 

considered for today’s 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. 

In general, this approach is the same as 

the approach used in the proposal. 

However, some modifications were 

made for costing specific technology 

pieces in the costing models, including 

the numbers of GCVs per airport and the 

manner in which airports would store 

collected ADF containing wastewater. 

EPA estimated compliance costs 

associated with the three options 

considered for today’s rule using data 

collected through survey responses, site 

visits, sampling episodes, specific 

airport requests, and information 

supplied by vendors. Under the options 

considered, certain airports would have 

limitations based on the substitution of 

non-urea-containing pavement deicers 

and also would be required to collect a 

percentage of their available ADF that 

was applied to aircraft and treat the 

collected wastewater to comply with 

numeric limitations if discharged 

directly. EPA estimated costs for an 

airport to install technology to comply 

with the options, as well as to annually 

operate and maintain equipment and 

perform required monitoring or other 

activities to demonstrate ongoing 

compliance. EPA’s cost estimates 

represent the incremental costs for a 

facility when its existing practices 

would not lead to compliance with the 

option being evaluated. 

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 to 

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. 

EPA first established existing 

conditions (i.e., baseline) for each model 

airport based on information and site 

plans submitted as part of the airport 

questionnaire. EPA then determined 

what upgrades or changes, if any, would 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29182 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

be required to comply with the option 

being considered for today’s final rule. 

For example, in general, when an 

airport lacked a comparable collection 

system to the one used as the basis for 

an option, EPA included costs for 

installation/operation and maintenance 

of the option technology basis (e.g., plug 

and pump systems in conjunction with 

GCVs). 

2. Approach for Estimating Airfield 

Pavement Deicing Costs 

Today’s rule sets requirements for an 

airport to certify it uses non-ureacontaining airfield deicers (unless it 

chooses to meet a numeric limit for 

ammonia). Through the airport 

questionnaire responses, EPA estimates 

that 198 airports will be subject to 

today’s requirements. Of these 198 

airports, 37 airports use deicers 

containing urea for airfield pavement 

deicing. As detailed in Section IV.D.4, 

EPA based its airfield pavement deicing 

requirement on product substitution. 

EPA calculated the cost for facilities to 

substitute the deicers containing urea 

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 63 percent of the applied 

chemical airfield deicer usage (by 

weight) in the United States. These 

incremental costs include capital costs 

associated with application equipment 

and storage, as appropriate, as well as 

the differential chemical costs. EPA 

assumed that those airports that 

currently do not use urea-containing 

deicers as a means of pavement deicing 

would experience no cost associated 

with this portion of today’s regulation. 

Using the facility area usage data as 

provided in the airport questionnaire, 

and available literature on typical ureacontaining pavement deicer application 

rates, EPA estimated the airfield area 

that was annually deiced at each model 

facility. Using the estimated model 

facility deicing area in conjunction with 

the estimated $2.92/1,000 square feet 

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-containing deicer costs to 

determine the incremental costs of 

switching chemical airfield deicers. See 

the TDD for additional details on 

costing for airfield deicing product 

substitution. 

3. Approach for Developing Aircraft 

Deicing Costs 

Under two of the options considered 

for this rule, certain existing airports 

would be required to collect a 

percentage of their available ADF, and 

treat the collected wastewater to comply 

with numeric effluent limitations if it 

discharges directly. EPA estimated the 

costs for an airport to comply with 

collection and treatment requirements, 

as applicable, as well as perform 

required monitoring to demonstrate 

compliance. Of the 198 airports within 

the scope of the aircraft deicing controls 

considered for BAT, EPA expects that 

55 airports would exceed the threshold 

for ADF use that would trigger the 

collection/discharge requirement. 

Costing for ADF collection is not 

relative to baseline practices in all 

instances, as an airport’s existing 

collection technology may not be 

incrementally upgradeable to achieve 

the required collection efficiency. As 

such, EPA assessed all costs to comply 

with the options based on ADF 

collection and treatment with the 

assumption that any airport required to 

make upgrades to its collection and/or 

treatment system to meet the option 

would be starting from a baseline of zero 

collection and treatment. Note that this 

assumption does not carry through to 

pollutant removals, as baseline removals 

are accounted for when assessing 

pollutant removals associated with 

today’s options. See section VI.B for 

more detail on the pollutant removal 

calculations. 

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 an 

option. As explained above, in general, 

when an airport lacked a comparable 

collection system to the one used as the 

basis for the option, EPA included costs 

for installation/implementation of the 

option technology basis such as plug 

and pump systems in conjunction with 

GCVs and an AFB treatment system for 

Option 1. 

For those airports that would be 

required to collect additional ADF and 

meet associated discharge requirements 

to comply with the option, EPA 

estimated costs for storage/equalization 

(and associated piping to transfer 

collected ADF to storage) as part of the 

costs of the treatment technology. The 

option would not require, nor is it based 

on, collecting the full volume of 

wastewater generated in a deicing 

season. Rather, storage is included as 

part of the technology basis for flow 

and/or pollutant equalization to support 

the AFB treatment system. Where EPA 

estimates an airport would incur capital 

costs associated with ADF collection 

and discharge requirements, the Agency 

included costs for above-ground storage 

tanks, since above-ground storage tanks 

will have less of an impact on 

subsurface utilities, for which EPA does 

not have site-specific information. If 

airports needed to install below-ground 

storage tanks for operational reasons, 

this would likely be more expensive. 

For the 15 airports that EPA 

anticipates would need to collect 

additional quantities of ADFcontaminated stormwater to comply 

with Option 1 or 2, EPA assumed these 

additional quantities would be 

discharged directly, thus requiring 

treatment to comply with the COD 

limitations. For example, for Option 1, 

this includes all airports that EPA 

estimates collect less than 40 percent of 

available ADF. Specifically, this 

includes those facilities that currently 

collect some portion of ADFcontaminated stormwater and 

subsequently discharge indirectly to a 

POTW or a centralized waste treatment 

(CWT) facility. EPA recognizes that an 

airport may decide to discharge to a 

POTW or CWT facility rather than 

directly discharge its wastewater. While 

this is likely a lower cost alternative in 

some cases, EPA did not assume that 

airports could discharge to a POTW or 

CWT, because the Agency does not have 

enough information about the capacity 

or willingness of a specific POTWs to 

receive these volumes of wastewater. To 

the extent that an airport selects this 

alternative, EPA may have over-costed 

the option. 

Additionally, airports may have costs 

associated with permit application 

requirements or demonstrating 

compliance with Option 1 or 2, 

including assessing yearly ADF usage, 

determining ADF stormwater collection, 

system inspections, and COD 

monitoring. Monitoring requirements 

will continue to be determined by the 

permitting authority. However, for 

purposes of estimating monitoring costs 

associated with today’s options, EPA 

assumed that airports that directly 

discharge collected ADF would take a 

24-hour composite sample and analyze 

that for COD, and perform that analysis 

seven times per week for the duration 

the treated discharge occurs. EPA made 

a similar assumption for purposes of 

computing the weekly average effluent 

limitation (see the TDD for additional 

details). As a conservative estimate, EPA 

assumed a six-month discharge duration 

season for all modeled facilities. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29183 

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). EPA amortized these 

capital costs over the lifespan of the 

capital improvement. For additional 

information on amortization, see the EA. 

Finally, EPA combined the amortized 

capital costs with the annual O&M costs 

to calculate the total annual cost of the 

option for that model facility. 

EPA then utilized statistical weights 

assigned to each of the 149 model 

facilities to calculate a national 

estimated cost of complying with the 

option. Further discussion of all of the 

calculations discussed can be found in 

the TDD and in the EA. 

B. Approach to Estimating Pollutant 

Reductions 

1. Overview 

The pollutants of concern associated 

with airfield and aircraft deicing and 

anti-icing chemicals are discussed in 

Section 6 of the TDD. These chemicals 

commingle with stormwater and 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. 

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 a 

baseline (or current) pollutant loading 

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. Similar to the 

costing methodology, EPA developed 

facility-specific baseline loads for a 

subset of the industry (i.e., model 

facilities). For those model airports 

where existing practices would not lead 

to compliance with today’s options, 

EPA then calculated the incremental 

pollutant removals associated with 

compliance. EPA subsequently adjusted 

the incremental pollutant removals 

upward to estimate the entire affected 

airport population. This approach is the 

same as the approach taken in the 

proposal. 

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, including 

the number of operations and 

departures by airport, 

• Weather information for each 

airport from 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. 

• Analytical data from EPA sampling 

episodes of airport deicing operations. 

a. Baseline Loading Calculations 

The Agency estimated the total 

amount of pavement deicing chemicals 

and ADF used based on data collected 

in the Airport and Airline 

Questionnaires. The Airport 

Questionnaire respondents reported the 

purchase/usage amount, concentration, 

and brand name of pavement deicing 

materials. Using the Airline 

Questionnaire, EPA collected ADF 

purchase data from airlines with 1,000 

or more departures operating at selected 

airports. During questionnaire 

development, airports indicated they 

did not have information on ADF usage 

and that EPA should direct this question 

to airlines. Purchase data were collected 

because the airlines stated that purchase 

data were most readily available, while 

usage data was not. For the purposes of 

these loading calculations, EPA 

estimated that the annual amount 

purchased was equal to the amount 

used for a deicing season. For instances 

in which EPA did not have ADF 

purchase data for every airline operating 

at a particular model airport, 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 

versus the total number of airport 

operations. In addition to the 56 airports 

for which EPA collected ADF purchase/ 

usage data from the airline tenants, 10 

airports reported the total volume of 

their ADF usage to EPA in their 

comment section of the Airport Deicing 

Questionnaire, resulting in estimates of 

total ADF usage for 66 model airports. 

Using the airline and airport ADF 

purchase and usage data obtained from 

the questionnaire, airport departure 

data, and climate data, EPA developed 

a relationship between the amount of 

ADF used, and the climate and size of 

each model airport. EPA then used this 

equation to estimate the total gallons of 

ADF used at model airports that did not 

have ADF usage data in the Airport or 

Airline Questionnaires. EPA is aware 

that part of the methodology for 

developing today’s regulation involved 

estimating airport-specific ADF usage. 

However, in order to prevent mandatory 

survey responses marked as CBI from 

being released, EPA is not revealing the 

exact methodology for modeling this 

ADF usage due to the potential for the 

deduction of CBI data through back 

calculation. 

Once the amount of ADF used at each 

model airport had been determined, 

EPA needed to determine the amount of 

ADF available for direct discharge to the 

waters. EPA assumed that 75 percent of 

applied Type I ADF falls onto the 

pavement at the deicing area and is 

available for discharge. EPA assumed 

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. EPA then multiplied the total 

amount of applied ADF for each model 

airport by the appropriate percent 

available for discharge to determine the 

amount of ADF available for discharge. 

Note that collection requirements in the 

options 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, 

results in the total amount of discharged 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29184 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3As a point of clarification, in contrast to the 

NSPS requirements for aircraft deicing where an 

airport is only required to meet the standards for 

a portion of the applied deicing chemical, this 

means that an airport that elects to comply with 

today’s BAT or NSPS requirements by meeting the 

ammonia limitation must meet this limitation for all 

airfield deicer that is discharged. 

available ADF. EPA then calculated the 

amount of COD loading associated with 

these discharges, described as follows. 

Airfield pavement deicing chemicals 

are applied at various airside locations 

such as runways, taxiways and ramps. 

Theoretically, the amount of pavement 

deicers being discharged could range 

from approximately 0 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 

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 

the pavement deicers used could be 

discharged to surface waters.3 This 

means the estimates of baseline 

pollutant loadings and removals 

associated with pavement de-icing are 

upper bound estimates. EPA then 

calculated the amount of COD loading 

associated with airfield chemical use 

and discharge as described below. 

To calculate the COD loading 

associated with either ADF or airfield 

chemical discharge, EPA determined the 

theoretical oxygen demand (ThOD) 

associated with the degradation of each 

of the deicing chemicals. EPA based the 

ThOD estimate on the molecular 

formula of the chemical and the 

stoichiometric equation of the 

breakdown of the chemical to the end 

products of CO2 and water. EPA 

assumed that the chemical would 

completely degrade in the environment 

over time and, therefore, the calculated 

ThOD load would be equivalent to the 

COD load. EPA estimated the COD load 

associated with each reported chemical 

based on the calculated mass of the 

chemical discharged, the molecular 

weight of the chemical, the ThOD, and 

the molecular weight of oxygen. EPA 

estimated the ammonia load associated 

with deicers containing urea based on 

the chemical equation for the 

breakdown of urea to ammonia, the 

mass of urea use, and the molecular 

weights of urea and ammonia. See 

Section 9 of the TDD for more 

information and example calculations of 

baseline loadings associated with ADF 

and airfield deicers. 

b. Calculation of Pollutant Removals 

After determining baseline loadings, 

EPA calculated total reductions of COD 

and ammonia associated with a national 

implementation of today’s options. 

i. Aircraft Deicing Related Pollutant 

Removals 

EPA estimated the amounts of COD 

that would be reduced by Option 1 and 

2, by estimating the existing baseline 

loadings associated with aircraft deicing 

at model airports and comparing that to 

the COD load that would be discharged 

after complying with the option (e.g., for 

Option 1, COD load discharged if 40 

percent of available ADF were collected 

and treated to meet the required 

discharge limitation). If a particular 

airport would be subject to a collection 

requirement of 40 percent under this 

option and is currently estimated to 

collect a greater proportion of available 

ADF, then no load removals were 

estimated for that airport. 

ii. Airfield Deicing Related Pollutant 

Removals 

EPA calculated ammonia and COD 

baseline loads for those model facilities 

using deicers containing urea. The 

Agency then calculated ammonia and 

COD loads for those same model 

facilities if they replaced their deicers 

containing urea with the substitute 

product, potassium acetate (which does 

not form ammonia and exerts a lower 

COD than urea). EPA computed the total 

load reduction by subtracting the 

ammonia and COD loadings between 

the baseline and the regulatory 

compliance conditions. 

iii. National Extrapolation 

These calculated loading reductions, 

summed for both airfield and aircraft 

deicing chemicals, as applicable, were 

then extrapolated by multiplying the 

pollutant removals for each model 

facility by the airport survey weighting 

factors to determine national loads for 

the entire industry for each regulatory 

option considered for today’s rule. 

C. Approach to Determining Long-Term 

Averages, Variability Factors, and 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards 

This section describes the statistical 

methodology used to develop the daily 

maximum and the maximum for weekly 

average NSPS representing the BADCT 

levels of control for COD. EPA also used 

the same statistical methodology to 

develop the daily maximum limitation/ 

standard for ammonia that is a 

compliance alternative when deicers 

containing urea are applied to runways. 

The following discussion uses the term 

‘‘limitation’’ to collectively refer to 

effluent limitations guidelines and 

NSPS. 

The following sections describe the 

data selection criteria, the statistical 

percentile basis of the effluent 

limitations, rationales for 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 limitations. 

1. Criteria Used To Select Data as the 

Basis of the Limitations 

Typically, in developing effluent 

limitations for any industry, EPA 

qualitatively reviews all the data before 

selecting the appropriate data to use for 

calculating 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 

proper operation of the technology. A 

fourth criterion typically requires that 

the data cannot represent periods of 

treatment upsets or shutdown and startup 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29185 

generally excludes such data in 

developing the limitations. In contrast, 

EPA expects airports to encounter startup operations at the beginning 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 

has included start-up data in the data 

set used as the basis of the limitations. 

However, through its application of the 

other three criteria, EPA excluded 

extreme conditions that do not 

demonstrate the level of control possible 

with proper operation and control even 

during start-up periods. For detailed 

information on these exclusions, see 

Section 14 of the TDD. 

In part, by retaining start-up data for 

the limitation’s development, the 

limitations will be achievable because 

EPA based these limits on typical 

treatment during the entire season. As a 

point of clarification, once acclimated, 

EPA expects a typically well-designed 

and operated system for the collected 

deicing fluid to run continuously until 

the end of the deicing season, as 

facilities utilize storage/equalization 

prior to the AFB to manage a steady 

flow rate. 

2. Data Used as Basis of the Effluent 

Limitations 

As explained in Section 8 of the TDD, 

the technology basis for the COD 

numerical limitations associated with 

discharges of collected ADF wastewater 

is AFB biological treatment. Of the 

effluent data available to EPA, 2,562 

concentration values for COD met the 

requirements in the criteria described 

above and are the basis of the COD final 

NSPS. The concentration values are 

measurements of filtered effluent 

collected from Albany Airport’s twounit anaerobic treatment system. The 

2,562 COD values were collected by the 

airport during its daily monitoring of 

COD over ten deicing seasons 

(December 1, 1999 through April 10, 

2009). 

Product substitution is the basis for 

today’s effluent limitation regarding 

airfield deicing chemicals. EPA also 

established ammonia discharge 

limitations as a compliance alternative. 

Ammonia naturally occurs in airport 

discharges as a result of excretions from 

wildlife that enter the stormwater; 

therefore, EPA determined it would not 

be appropriate to set this limitation at 

the non-detect level. Moreover, 

depending on a specific airports’ 

drainage system, a portion of airfield 

deicing stormwater may be routed to the 

treatment system utilized in treating the 

collected ADF. Further, the AFB that 

has been identified as the basis for the 

NSPS requirement for treating collected 

ADF will itself produce ammonia 

discharges as a byproduct of treatment. 

Therefore, where airfield deicing 

stormwater that is free of urea 

contamination is routed through the 

AFB treatment system, the discharge 

after treatment may have ammonia 

concentrations higher than the nondetect level (see DCN AD00842). 

Consequently, EPA used ammonia 

effluent discharge data from the same 

AFB system it used to establish NSPS 

discharge requirements for ADF, located 

at Albany, to establish today’s ammonia 

compliance alternative. Five ammonia 

concentration values available from 

Albany met the limitations criteria 

described above. The five ammonia 

values were collected by EPA during its 

sampling episode (February 5 through 

February 9, 2006). 

3. Statistical Percentile Basis for 

Limitations 

EPA uses a statistical framework to 

establish limitations that well-operated 

facilities are capable of complying with 

at all times. According to EPA, welloperated facilities are those that 

represent the BAT/BADCT level of 

control. Statistical methods are 

appropriate for dealing with effluent 

data because the quality of effluent, 

even in well-operated systems, is 

subject to a certain amount of variability 

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 daily maximum 

limitations and weekly average 

limitations. 

The statistical percentiles upon which 

the limitations are based are intended 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 available technologies 

(or BADCT for new sources), including 

proper operation and maintenance of 

these technologies. 

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 a 

well-operated system. 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 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; 

numerous courts have upheld EPA’s 

approach. EPA typically establishes 

limitations based upon statistical 

percentile estimates and has done so for 

the weekly average limitation in today’s 

final rule. In its derivation of the weekly 

average NSPS 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 of a weekly average of the 

daily measurements 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. Consequently, EPA has 

determined that the 97th percentile is 

an appropriate basis for limiting average 

discharges on a weekly basis. EPA 

considers the use of the 97th percentile 

for the weekly average limitation a level 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29186 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

that is achievable for airports using the 

model technology. 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 Establishing Limitation 

on Weekly Averages Instead of Monthly 

Averages for COD in Effluent Discharges 

From a monitoring perspective, EPA 

considers the weekly average standard 

to be a better fit than the monthly 

average standards for the deicing 

discharges. In this situation, the weekly 

average standard would apply to every 

week that the treatment system operates 

during the deicing season. A weekly 

average standard preserves EPA’s 

intention for an additional restriction 

beyond the daily maximum standard 

that supports its objective of having 

airports control their average discharges 

at the long-term average level. 

When EPA establishes monthly 

average standards, 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 

standard requires facilities to provide 

ongoing control that complements 

controls imposed by the daily maximum 

standard. To meet the monthly average 

standard, a facility must counterbalance 

a value near the daily maximum 

standard with one or more values well 

below the daily maximum standard. To 

achieve compliance, these values must 

result in a monthly average value at or 

below the monthly average standard. 

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 

months. Increasing or decreasing 

monitoring frequency does not affect the 

statistical properties of the underlying 

distribution of the data used to derive 

the standard. 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 standard 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. 

5. Rationale for Promulgating a 

Limitation Only for Daily Discharges of 

Ammonia in Effluent Discharges 

Unlike the COD limitations, EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to rely 

only on a daily maximum limitation to 

ensure that airports appropriately 

control ammonia levels. As explained 

above, the technology basis for the COD 

effluent standards is a well operated and 

controlled AFB system whereas the 

technology basis for the ammonia 

limitation is product substitution. It is 

well documented that during start up, 

biological treatment systems, such as 

AFB, may require several days to 

acclimate the microorganisms. Once 

acclimated, well-operated and 

controlled AFB systems operate 

continuously (typically by managing a 

steady flow from their equalization 

tank). If the system only operated during 

storm events, it would have difficulties 

stabilizing and achieving the 

performance levels necessary to comply 

with the COD standards. 

In contrast, with product substitution, 

the operator could consider the 

conditions associated with each storm 

event, and then decide whether to use 

urea. If the operator chose to use urea 

rather than product substitution, the 

operator would have to determine its 

approach for meeting the ammonia 

limitation. Anaerobic systems, such as 

AFB systems, would not be a good 

candidate because they generate, rather 

than treat, ammonia. However, 

depending on a specific airport’s 

drainage system, a portion of airfield 

deicing stormwater may be routed to the 

treatment system utilized in treating the 

collected ADF. For this reason, by using 

the ammonia data from the AFB system 

which was preceded by product 

substitution for urea, EPA created an 

allowance for such situations. Because 

the choice to use urea or product 

substitution can vary on a daily basis, 

EPA has established only the daily 

maximum limitation for ammonia. 

Additionally, EPA expects airports to 

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

alternative that requires collection and 

treatment of runway deicing 

contaminated stormwater. Thus, it is 

possible that no airports will be subject 

to any limitation on ammonia 

discharges. 

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 

standards. 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 percent) of the 

observed data points. 

For the daily maximum standard for 

COD, EPA used the nonparametric 

method to derive a 99th percentile of 

the more than 1,200 daily measurements 

for each unit, and then set the standard 

equal to the median of the two 99th 

percentile estimates, or 271 milligrams 

per liter (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 standard of 

COD, EPA first calculated, for each unit, 

the arithmetic average of the 

measurements observed during each 

week, excluding weekends. EPA then 

used the nonparametric method to 

derive a 97th percentile of the more 

than 200 weekly averages for each unit, 

and set the standard equal to the median 

of the two 97th percentile estimates, or 

154 mg/L. 

For ammonia, EPA used a parametric 

approach in estimating the 99th 

percentile based upon the data collected 

during EPA’s five-day sampling episode. 

The calculations assume the ammonia 

concentrations can be modeled by a 

lognormal distribution. EPA’s selection 

of parametric methods, such as a model 

based on the lognormal distribution, 

used 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], and 

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 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 (such as one or two 

days apart) are more similar than 

measurements taken further apart in 

time, such as a week or month apart. 

The adjusted variance then better 

reflects the underlying variability that 

would be present if the data were 

collected over a longer period. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29187 

4Because many airports do not meet the 

applicability criteria, EPA estimates that 

approximately 184 primary airports, 135 nonprimary airports, and almost 3,000 general aviation 

airports are not required to meet the BAT effluent 

limitations guidelines and NSPS, but rather would 

be subject to site-specific BAT and NSPS 

requirements set on a best professional judgment 

basis. 

the daily maximum standard or the 

weekly average standard, instead of the 

long-term average, may experience 

frequent values exceeding the standards. 

For this reason and as noted previously 

in this section, EPA recommends that 

airports design and operate the 

treatment system to achieve the longterm average for the model technology. 

Thus, a system that is designed to 

represent the BADCT level of control 

will be capable of complying with the 

promulgated standards. 

For COD, EPA recommends that 

airports target treatment systems to 

achieve the long-term average value of 

52.8 mg/L, which is the median of the 

two averages, of 52.28 mg/L and 53.40 

mg/L, of the daily values from the two 

units. The daily allowance for 

variability, or the ratio of the standard 

to the long-term average, is 5.13. EPA 

usually refers to this allowance as the 

‘‘variability factor.’’ In other words, the 

daily maximum standard of 271 mg/L is 

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

technology. The weekly variability 

factor is 2.92. 

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 byproduct of the model 

technology, and EPA expects the 

concentrations of ammonia to have 

similar variability to what is being 

treated (i.e., COD). 

8. Engineering Review of Effluent 

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 effluent limitations. 

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 effluent limitations to the 

data values used to calculate the 

limitations. None of the data selected for 

ammonia were greater than its 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 

standards (i.e., use of percentiles), some 

values were appropriately greater than 

the standards. See Section VI.C.3. Even 

though EPA would expect this 

statistically, EPA looked at the values 

that exceed the standards from an 

engineering perspective. EPA wanted to 

ensure there were no underlying 

conditions contributing to such 

exceedances. In particular, EPA looked 

at 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 system 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 standards appear to 

provide adequate allowance for start-up 

operations. 

VII. Economic Analysis 

A. Introduction 

EPA’s EA assesses the costs and 

impacts of the regulatory options 

considered today on the regulated 

industry. This section explains EPA’s 

methodology and the results of its EA. 

With one exception, all costs, airport 

counts and other results in this section 

are presented using sample weights to 

expand results from the surveyed 

airports to represent the entire 

population of airports potentially 

affected by the rule. The single 

exception, the results of the debt service 

coverage analysis, is clearly marked as 

‘‘unweighted.’’ In addition, all cost 

figures are presented in 2006 dollars. 

B. Annualized Compliance Cost 

Estimates 

EPA considered three regulatory 

options for today’s final rule. Under all 

of these options, airports subject to BAT 

or NSPS would have requirements with 

respect to airfield deicing stormwater 

(certify no use of airfield deicing 

products that contain urea, or airfield 

pavement discharges must achieve a 

numeric limit for ammonia). EPA 

estimates that 198 existing airports— 

those that perform deicing operations 

with at least 1,000 annual non-propeller 

aircraft departures—are subject to the 

airfield deicing requirements.4 In 

addition, for two of the options, a subset 

of those airports—airports with annual 

normalized ADF usage equal to or 

exceeding 60,000 gallons per year (55 

airports)—would also need to meet 

requirements related to wastewater from 

aircraft deicing (ADF collection and 

COD discharge limitations). The 

regulatory options that EPA considered 

differ in the level of ADF collection 

required for aircraft deicing at existing 

airports. Option 1 would require 40 

percent collection and treatment for all 

airports with at least 60,000 gallons of 

annual normalized ADF usage. Option 2 

would set a two-tier requirement: 20 

percent collection and treatment for 

airports with at least 60,000, but less 

than 460,000 gallons of annual 

normalized ADF usage, and 40 percent 

collection and treatment for airports 

with at least 460,000 gallons of annual 

ADF usage. Under Option 3, aircraft 

deicing discharge BAT limitations 

would continue to be established by the 

permitting authority on a case-by-case 

basis. Under all three options, new 

airports with at least 10,000 annual 

departures and located in an area with 

at least 3000 HDDs would also have to 

collect 60% of ADF available for 

discharge and store and treat this 

effluent to meet a COD effluent limit. 

For both new and existing airports with 

deicing discharges that do not meet the 

NSPS airfield or aircraft pavement 

applicability requirements, limitations 

would continue to be set by the 

permitting authority on a case-by-case 

basis using BPJ. 

EPA selected Option 3 for 

promulgation in this final rule. EPA 

estimates the technologies identified in 

this notice to comply with the BAT 

limitations will cost existing airports 

$3.5 million annually. EPA has not 

estimated the cost for compliance with 

the NSPS, but separately discusses the 

potential for the NSPS to pose a barrier 

entry in section VII.E below. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29188 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

In estimating costs associated with 

Option 1 and Option 2, EPA projects the 

effective service life of GCVs and blockand-pump technologies to be 10 years; 

all other components necessary to meet 

the options have an effective service life 

of 20 years. Therefore, EPA selected a 

20-year analytic period and 

incorporated replacement capital 

expenditures in year 10, in addition to 

the initial capital expenditure. For 

example, EPA estimated total capital 

costs to include all initial and 

replacement capital expenditures for 

GCV and plug-and-pump for Option 1. 

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. 

EPA uses 3 percent and 7 percent 

interest rates for two purposes. First, the 

interest rates are used to discount future 

capital replacement costs required when 

the 20-year analytic period exceeds the 

effective service life of a technology. 

Second, the interest rates represent the 

opportunity cost of capital to industry, 

and, thus, essentially the interest rate 

the industry may be charged if the 

industry borrows money. 

EPA discounted and annualized the 

stream of capital costs projected to be 

incurred by industry over 20 years using 

two different discount rates, 3 percent 

and 7 percent, in accordance with EPA 

and OMB guidance (‘‘Economic 

Analysis of Federal Regulations under 

Executive Order 12866,’’ January 11, 

1996). The PV of capital costs under the 

final rule over the 20-year analytic 

period is $6.02 million based on the 

discount rate of 3 percent, and $5.27 

million using the 7 percent rate. 

The annual cost of operating and 

maintaining the technologies identified 

as BAT for deicing for this final rule is 

estimated at $3.04 million. Adding this 

O&M cost to the annualized capital 

costs, the rule has aggregate national 

costs of $3.43 million per year using a 

3 percent discount rate and annualized 

costs to industry of $3.5 million using 

a 7 percent rate (in 2006 dollars). Table 

VII–1 presents projected costs for the 

final rule, as well as the other option 

examined. 

TABLE VII–1—COSTS TO EXISTING AIRPORTS THAT DEICE AIRCRAFT AND AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

[2006 $million—198 airports (weighted)] 

Option Total capital 

costs 

Present value 

of capital costs 

Annualized 

capital costs 

Annual O&M 

costs 

Total 

annualized 

compliance 

costs 

3 Percent Real Discount Rate 

1 ................................................................................. $319 .9 $309 .0 $20 .2 $52 .0 $72 .1 

2 ................................................................................. 250 .3 243 .7 15 .9 28 .4 44 .3 

3 a ............................................................................... 6 .83 6 .02 0 .39 3 .04 3 .43 

7 Percent Real Discount Rate 

1 ................................................................................. 319 .9 299 .0 26 .4 52 .0 78 .4 

2 ................................................................................. 250 .3 237 .6 21 .0 28 .4 49 .4 

3 a ............................................................................... 6 .83 5 .27 0 .46 3 .04 3 .50 

aSelected option. 

C. Economic Impact Methodologies 

For the purposes of the economic 

impact analysis, the distinguishing 

feature of airports that makes the 

analysis different from more traditional 

analyses EPA would perform for a forprofit manufacturing industry, is that all 

potentially affected airports are publicly 

owned and operated by local, county, or 

state governments, or by quasigovernmental authorities created to 

operate the airport. As governmental or 

quasi-governmental 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 the airlines that use the 

airport legally required to cover 

expenditures in excess of budgeted 

costs. 

Airlines may also be impacted by 

today’s rulemaking. In the vast majority 

of cases, airlines are not directly subject 

to today’s requirements. In such cases, 

impacts to airlines are considered 

secondary impacts. Historically, EPA 

determines economic achievability 

based on primary or direct impacts only 

(i.e., impacts to NPDES permit holders 

directly subject to ELG requirements) 

and does not evaluate secondary 

impacts. At the time of the proposal, 

EPA elected to evaluate secondary 

impacts to airlines because of the 

unique contractual relationship between 

airports and airlines, because airlines 

are the entities that use ADF, and 

because airlines are occasionally copermittees (but never the principal 

permittee) at an airport. 

In a revision from the proposal and 

consistent with past effluent guideline 

economic achievability analyses, for 

today’s final rule, EPA determined 

economic achievability based on 

primary or direct impacts only. EPA 

returned to its historical approach of 

evaluating economic achievability based 

on only primary impacts (here, impacts 

on airports and airline co-permittees) for 

today’s final rule because the Agency 

concluded that ultimately these entities 

will be responsible for incurring the 

costs and associated impact of any 

additional regulation. 

In the analyses described below, EPA 

first evaluates the economic 

achievability of the options assuming all 

costs are borne by airports, and the 

summaries of impacts to airports are 

based on that assumption. EPA also 

presents an analysis that shares 

compliance costs between affected 

airports and their co-permittee airlines, 

as applicable. Therefore, impacts to copermittee airlines presented as follows 

are not in addition to the impacts to 

airports. To the extent that airports 

share costs with co-permittee airlines 

according to EPA assumptions, the costs 

and impacts to airports are reduced. 

This analysis is described in detail in 

the rulemaking record DCN AD01280. 

The following text describes the 

methodology and the results EPA used 

to evaluate economic impact associated 

with the three regulatory options 

considered for today’s final rule, both 

under the assumption that airports incur 

100 percent of compliance costs, and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29189 

the assumption that airports share 

compliance costs with co-permittee 

airlines. 

1. Cost Annualization 

Cost annualization is the first step in 

projecting the economic and financial 

impacts of the regulatory options rule. 

EPA projected the capital and operating 

and maintenance costs of the three 

regulatory options for each airport, then 

annualized those costs over 20 years. 

The method for estimating each airport’s 

capital and operating costs is described 

in Section VI.A. 

EPA used airport-specific interest 

rates based on recent General Airport 

Revenue Bonds (GARBs) issued to 

annualize compliance costs for the 

proposed rule. Based on public 

comments arguing that EPA 

underestimated the cost of capital to 

airports, EPA used a higher real interest 

rate of 7 percent to annualize airport 

capital costs for the final rule. However, 

EPA believes many airports will issue 

tax-exempt GARBs to fund capital 

expenditures. To the extent that airports 

use GARBs, the use of GARBs will lower 

the cost of capital, and reduce impacts 

to the financial health of the airports. 

EPA does not assume that airports will 

be able to fund capital expenditures 

using Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP) grants or Passenger Facility 

Charges (PFCs) because such funds are 

likely to already be committed to airport 

projects into the foreseeable future. 

However, to the extent that airports 

might use AIP or PFC funds for capital 

expenditures associated with this rule, 

it will also lower the cost of capital, and 

reduce impacts to the financial health of 

the airports relative to what EPA has 

projected in its analysis. 

2. Airport Impact Methodology 

Because all in-scope airports are 

nonprofit government or quasigovernment entities (e.g., port 

authorities), the effect of an effluent 

guideline on airport income statements 

and balance sheets is not best measured 

by a traditional closure analysis. 

Therefore, EPA chose to examine the 

financial impacts of the regulatory 

options using two measures. First, EPA 

compared total annualized compliance 

costs with airport revenues. Second, 

because many airports fund capital 

expenditures using debt financing, EPA 

examined the impact of additional debt 

on each airport’s debt service coverage 

ratio (DSCR). 

a. Revenue Test 

EPA’s ‘‘Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analyses’’ (2010) 

recommends the ‘‘revenue test’’ as a 

measure for impacts of programs that 

directly affect government and not-forprofit entities. EPA finds that the 

revenue test is appropriate in this case. 

The revenue test compares the total 

annualized compliance costs of each 

regulatory option with the revenues of 

the governmental entities. Although the 

current Guidelines do not specify the 

use of one and three percent for the 

revenue test, EPA’s 2000 Guidelines did 

specify that use, and the Agency’s 

analysis for the proposed rule followed 

that guidance; EPA applied the same 

test here. 

The 2000 Guidelines suggest 

evaluating the affordability of a 

regulatory option as follows: 

• If total annualized compliance costs 

are less than 1 percent of revenues, the 

option is generally considered 

affordable for the entity. 

• If total annualized compliance costs 

are greater than 3 percent of revenues, 

the option is generally considered not 

affordable for the entity. 

EPA used operating revenue as 

reported on Form 127 of the FAA’s 

Airport Financial Reporting Program as 

the denominator for the revenue test 

ratio, and total annualized compliance 

costs as described under Cost 

Annualization as the numerator for the 

ratio. 

Industry commenters on the proposed 

rule objected that the revenue test is too 

simplistic. EPA disagrees, and 

moreover, industry commenters were 

unable to provide any alternative test 

that would more accurately project 

economic impacts on the industry. 

Some industry commenters suggested 

that EPA examine different, more 

narrowly defined ratios, such as the 

ratio of compliance costs to aeronautical 

revenues, or the incremental cost per 

enplaned passenger. EPA did not choose 

to replace the revenue test with one of 

these variants because EPA determined 

that total operating revenues are the 

appropriate denominator for the test; the 

sole purpose of the airport is to support 

air transportation services. Landside 

revenues raised through parking, retail, 

and food concessions, for example, are 

not designed to provide a revenue 

stream to support the provision of a 

different service or product, but to allow 

airports to accumulate revenue from 

non-airline sources. Thus, the intent of 

these revenue streams is also to support 

the provision of air transportation 

services and is therefore a component of 

an airport’s resources relevant to its 

implementation of these effluent 

limitation guidelines. Furthermore, 

industry commenters offered no 

suggestions for alternative thresholds for 

finding airport impacts, and, in fact, 

acknowledged that such thresholds do 

not exist in the case of their 

recommended incremental cost per 

enplaned passenger test. EPA did, 

however, perform several of these 

alternative tests as sensitivity analyses 

and determined that the resulting 

projections of economic impacts to the 

industry did not differ qualitatively 

from those under the revenue test 

analysis. 

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 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 its debt 

if the DSCR falls below the relevant 

benchmark. A review of Comprehensive 

Annual Financial Reports for affected 

airports shows that generally the ratio of 

net revenues to debt service for any 

given year cannot fall below 1.25. 

Therefore, EPA estimated the impact 

debt financing will have on the postregulatory DSCR for each airport 

incurring capital expenditures under 

each regulatory option. 

Using 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, for 

each regulatory option, EPA aggregated 

compliance costs for all affected airports 

in the system, and performed a single 

calculation for the post-regulatory 

DSCR. 

Some evidence suggests airports will 

pass on less than 100 percent of costs, 

at least in the short run, if there is 

concern an airline might withdraw 

service if the airport increases fees too 

much. This might occur if the airport 

has nearby competitors, or if airline 

finances are fragile. 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. Thus, the 

Agency calculated post-regulatory 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. 

In the baseline, the DSCR is 

calculated by dividing airport net 

revenues by airport debt service. 

Assuming 100 percent cost pass-through 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29190 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

from airports to airlines, EPA estimated 

the post-regulatory DSCR of each 

regulatory option by: (1) Assuming zero 

change in airport net revenues in the 

numerator (more precisely, EPA 

assumes that annual increase in landing 

fees are exactly equal to incremental 

annual deicing costs, thus leaving net 

revenues unchanged), and (2) adding 

the annualized value of capital 

compliance costs to debt service in the 

denominator. The DSCR decreases even 

when assuming 100 percent cost passthrough; although the value of the 

numerator is unchanged, the 

denominator increases by the amount 

equal to annualized capital cost, 

decreasing the value of the ratio. 

Assuming no cost pass-through from 

airports to airlines, EPA estimated the 

post-regulatory DSCR by for each 

regulatory option by: (1) Subtracting 

incremental annual deicing operating 

and maintenance costs from preregulatory airport net revenues in the 

numerator, and (2) adding the 

annualized value of capital compliance 

costs to debt service in the denominator. 

With zero cost pass-through, the 

numerator in the ratio decreases because 

incremental O&M costs are subtracted 

from existing revenues, while the 

denominator increases because 

incremental debt service is added to 

existing debt service; thus, the DSCR 

clearly falls. 

All additional analyses, their 

methodologies, justifications, and 

results, are presented in the Economic 

Analysis (EA). 

3. Co-Permittee Airline Impact 

Methodology 

In response to public comment, EPA 

examined potential economic impacts to 

airlines that are directly subject to 

today’s final regulation: those that are 

co-permittees on NPDES permits. EPA 

conducted analyses of impacts to 

airlines that are co-permittees at certain 

airports, under the assumption that copermittee airlines would directly pay a 

share of the airport’s compliance costs. 

EPA identified airline co-permittees 

through EPA’s Airport Deicing 

Questionnaire, where airports had been 

asked to identify all co-permittees. 

While the questionnaire responses 

identified co-permittees, they did not 

provide any data or insight into how 

permit-related compliance costs are 

currently distributed to, and among, copermittees, if at all. Although the 

general outlines of standard contractual 

relations between airports and airlines 

can be characterized (see section 2.8 of 

the EA), the inclusion of an airline on 

the airport’s NPDES permit is not a 

common practice. In addition to 

reviewing information supplied in the 

questionnaires, EPA searched publicly 

available information, reviewed 

comment responses, and inquired of 

airline representatives on such 

relationships. Industry representatives 

did not provide EPA with information 

on these contractual relationships in the 

questionnaires or their comments on the 

proposed rule, nor did they provide this 

information to the Agency in preproposal meetings that were arranged to 

discuss the economic methodology of 

the rule. EPA was unable to gather any 

specific insight into these relationships 

or the distribution of compliance costs 

among the principal NPDES permit 

holder and its co-permittees. Thus, for 

purposes of this analysis, EPA assumed 

compliance costs would be distributed 

equally among the principal permittee 

(i.e., airport) and its co-permittee 

airlines. EPA recognizes that some 

individual airports may incur a higher 

percentage of the compliance costs 

relative to their co-permittees and others 

may incur a lower percentage. However, 

for purposes of a national analysis, and 

with a lack of informative data, EPA 

finds a 50 percent distribution 

assumption to be reasonable. 

EPA does not separately assign capital 

costs to airlines and annualize those 

costs using airline-specific costs of 

capital; it seems more likely that with 

responsibility for the physical site, the 

airport would take the lead and have 

those costs reimbursed by the copermittees. Thus, EPA assigned 50 

percent of the total annualized 

compliance costs collectively to the copermittee airlines. For each model 

airport with co-permittees, EPA needed 

to determine how to apportion the copermittee portion of the compliance 

costs to the individual co-permittees. As 

explained in previous text, EPA does 

not have data to determine if copermittees currently incur any permit 

compliance-related costs, nor, if they do 

incur those costs, how they are 

distributed among co-permittees at 

individual airport locations. In the 

absence of specific information, EPA 

chose to attribute airport-specific 

compliance costs to each co-permittee 

based on its share of total landed weight 

at the airport. EPA chose this method 

because ADF usage should be roughly 

proportionate to the number and type of 

aircraft an airline typically uses at the 

airport, and therefore proportionate to 

the costs of collecting and treating that 

ADF. Share of landed weight can be 

considered a simple summary measure 

that reflects both relative usage and 

aircraft size. This approach is also 

consistent with how airports typically 

attribute airside operational costs to 

airlines. EPA then calculated an 

airline’s total compliance costs by 

summing its airport-specific compliance 

costs over all airports at which the 

airline is a co-permittee. Finally, each 

airline’s compliance costs were 

compared to its system-wide operating 

revenue, operating profit, and net 

income. 

The comparison of one year’s average 

annualized compliance costs with 

operating profit and net income is 

consistent with a typical economic 

impact analysis. In a typical economic 

impact analysis, EPA would project the 

affected entities’ discounted compliance 

costs and cash flow over the period of 

analysis. If an entity’s pre-regulatory 

discounted cash flow is positive, and its 

post-regulatory discounted cash flow is 

negative (i.e., projected pre-regulatory 

discounted cash flow less discounted 

compliance costs), the entity would be 

projected to close as a result of the 

effluent guideline. EPA then typically 

examines economic achievability by 

looking at the total number of closures 

relative to the total number of in-scope 

companies. In this case, if average 

compliance costs in one year exceed 

average operating profit or net income 

for that year (i.e., the ratio of compliance 

costs to operating profit or net income 

is greater than 100 percent), the airline 

can be projected to ‘‘close’’ as a result 

of the effluent guideline. 

However, such an analysis is 

problematic for airlines for a number of 

reasons. First, a baseline closure, an 

entity with negative income prior to the 

promulgation of the effluent guideline, 

cannot be evaluated on the basis 

described above because the logic of 

that analysis requires that the entity’s 

pre-regulatory income be greater than 

zero. As amply documented in the EA 

(and updated in DCN AD01285), the last 

decade has been financially difficult for 

the airline industry, and approximately 

half the U.S.-flag airlines incurring 

compliance costs as co-permittees under 

normal circumstances would be 

categorized as baseline closures and 

could not be analyzed by this standard. 

Second, airlines have many options 

they can undertake in response to 

increased costs, short of going out of 

business. For example, airlines have the 

option to change service to a particular 

airport by increasing fares, decreasing 

service frequency, using different 

(typically smaller) aircraft, eliminating 

destinations flown to directly from that 

airport, or even eliminating service 

altogether to that airport. 

To address the baseline closure issue, 

EPA included airline operating revenue 

as a third measure against which 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29191 

compliance costs can be compared, 

along with operating profit and net 

income. The purpose of using operating 

revenue is solely because such a large 

proportion of the airline industry cannot 

be evaluated due to negative baseline 

operating profit and/or net income: 23 

of 46 co-permittee airlines with 

financial data available have negative 

baseline operating profit, and 25 of 46 

have negative baseline net income. 

Furthermore, classifying an entity as a 

baseline closure does not mean it will 

necessarily close; a business entity 

might earn negative operating profit or 

net income at some point in its financial 

history without closing permanently, 

and this appears to be particularly 

prevalent in the airline industry (see, for 

example, the Industry Profile in the EA). 

Rather than ignore roughly half of all copermittee airlines, EPA chose to 

evaluate them using the ratio of 

compliance costs to operating profit to 

determine if the rule imposes costs that 

can be characterized as ‘‘relatively 

small.’’ The primary drawback of using 

operating revenue to measure economic 

impacts is that, unlike with operating 

profit or net income, there is no obvious 

threshold that determines what is 

economically achievable. 

To respond to the issue of changing 

service levels at an airport, it would also 

be informative to perform, if possible, a 

closure analysis at the route level for 

each airline’s routes associated with 

airports. However, EPA does not have 

airline financial data available, nor 

could it reasonably obtain airline 

financial data at either the route level or 

the airport level. Therefore, EPA must 

evaluate impacts to co-permittee airlines 

based on the only level at which airline 

financial data are available: their 

system-wide operations. 

D. Results of Impact Analysis 

1. Results of Airport Impact Analysis 

a. Revenue Test Impact Results 

Table VII–2 shows the projected 

financial impact of the regulatory 

options considered for today’s rule 

based on the revenue test. Under Option 

1, airports would incur $78.4 million in 

annualized costs (7 percent real interest 

rate), and 9 of the 198 airports (4.5 

percent) are projected to incur costs 

exceeding 3 percent of operating 

revenue. Of the 198 BAT airports, 172 

airports (87 percent) are projected to 

incur annualized compliance costs 

composing less than 1 percent of 

operating revenue. Under Option 2, 

airports would incur $49.4 million in 

annualized costs (7 percent real interest 

rate), and 5 of the 198 airports (2.5 

percent) are projected to incur costs 

exceeding 3 percent of operating 

revenue. Of the 198 airports subject to 

BAT, 176 airports (89 percent) are 

projected to incur annualized 

compliance costs composing less than 1 

percent of operating revenue. Under 

both Option 1 and Option 2, five 

airports incur costs but do not have 

airport-specific financial data because 

they are part of Alaska’s Rural Aviation 

System (RAS), and therefore could not 

be analyzed. Under Option 3, airports 

would incur $3.5 million in annualized 

costs (7 percent real interest rate), and 

one of the 198 airports (0.5 percent) are 

projected to incur costs exceeding 3 

percent of operating revenue. Of the 198 

BAT airports, 190 airports (96 percent) 

are projected to incur annualized 

compliance costs composing less than 1 

percent of operating revenue. Under 

Option 3, two airports incur costs but do 

not have airport-specific financial data 

because they are part of Alaska’s RAS, 

and therefore could not be analyzed. 

TABLE VII–2—FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF BAT OPTIONS ON AIRPORTS THAT DEICE

[2006 $million—198 airports (weighted)] 

Option 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

Number of airports with ratio of annualized compliance costs to 

operating revenue of: 

Less than 1% Between 1% 

and 3% 

Greater than 

3% Not analyzed a

1 ........................................................................................... $78.4 172 13 9 5 

2 ........................................................................................... 49.4 176 13 5 5 

3 b ......................................................................................... 3.50 190 6 1 2 

aAirports incurred compliance costs but are owned by the state of Alaska; financial impacts could not be analyzed because Alaska does not 

track revenue data for these airports. bSelected option. 

b. DSCR Impact Results 

For multi-airport systems, the DSCR 

must be evaluated at the level of the 

owner, aggregating compliance costs 

incurred by all system airports. Thus, 

EPA analyzes entities owning single 

airports separately from multi-airport 

systems. Under today’s final rule, 

among owners of single airports, none 

are projected to be in danger of default 

on its debt even if 0 percent of 

compliance costs are assumed to be 

passed through to airlines (see Table 

VII–3). EPA identified three multiairport systems owning four airports 

projected to incur costs under the final 

rule (note these owners also owned 

other airports not projected to incur 

costs); the results presented in Table 

VII–4 show that today’s final rule is 

projected to have no impact on the 

ability of multi-airport authorities to 

finance debt. EPA did not analyze 

impacts to the DSCR for the Alaska RAS 

(one system owning two BAT airports) 

because Alaska does not use debt 

financing to fund this system. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29192 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII–3—IMPACT OF FINANCING BAT OPTIONS ON AIRPORT DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO—SINGLE AIRPORT

OWNERS

[172 Airports (weighted)] 

Option Incur costs a Not 

analyzed a

Owners with pre-regulatory 

DSCR > 1.25 and postregulatory DSCR < 1.25 

100% cost 

pass through 

0% cost 

pass through 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 172 59 2 3 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 172 59 1 2 

3 b ..................................................................................................................... 29 3 0 0 

aOf 198 airports (weighted), each of the 172 airports was estimated to be both subject to BAT under Option 1 and Option 2 and the only airport controlled by its ownership. These columns represent the number of those 172 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. Under Option 3, 29 airports incur costs under 

BAT; three of which cannot be analyzed due to lack of sufficient data. bSelected option. 

TABLE VII–4—IMPACT OF FINANCING BAT OPTIONS ON AIRPORT DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO—MULTI AIRPORT

OWNERS

[Nine airport authorities owning 21 in-scope airports (unweighted) a] 

Option 

Incur costs b Not analyzed b Owners with pre-regulatory 

DSCR > 1.25 and postregulatory DSCR < 1.25 

Owners Airports Owners Airports 100% cost 

pass through 

0% cost pass 

through 

1 ............................................................... 9 21 1 5 0 0 

2 ............................................................... 9 21 1 5 0 0 

3 c ............................................................. 3 4 0 0 0 0 

aSome airports that are part of a multi-airport system have a sample weight greater than one; because airports were not sampled based on 

ownership patterns, it is not appropriate to use the sample weight in this analysis. The results cannot be extrapolated to represent any airports 

and their ownership patterns other than themselves. bEPA found nine distinct airport authorities owning 21 airports that were determined to be subject to BAT under Options 1 and 2. These columns represent the number of airport owners and the number of airports they owned that are projected to incur costs under each option, and of 

those owners and airports incurring costs, the number that cannot be analyzed due to lack of sufficient data. Four airports owned by three airport 

systems incur costs under Option 3. cSelected option. 

For the selected option, the DSCR 

analysis was performed on 26 airports 

owned by single airport authorities and 

4 airports owned by 3 multi-airport 

authorities expected to incur costs 

under BAT (3 airports owned by single 

airport authorities cannot be analyzed). 

EPA projects that none of these airports 

are at risk for default on their debt. 

c. Impacts to Alaska’s RAS 

Five airports operated by Alaska 

could not be analyzed using the revenue 

test or the DSCR as presented above; all 

five airports are projected to incur costs 

under Option 1 and Option 2, while 

only two of these five airports are 

projected to incur costs under Option 3. 

These airports are part of Alaska’s RAS, 

which is not a self-supporting system; 

Alaska has determined these airports 

must remain open despite financial 

loses to provide access to otherwise 

isolated rural communities. EPA 

evaluated economic impacts to these 

airports separately, which is described 

as follows. 

Alaska operates two airport systems. 

The Alaska International Airport System 

(Ted Stevens Anchorage International 

Airport and Fairbanks International 

Airport) is a major enterprise fund of the 

state of Alaska, and considered to be 

self-sufficient; in short, the Alaska 

International Airport System operates in 

the same manner as most other multiairport authorities in the United States. 

Alaska’s second system, the RAS, which 

consists of 256 rural airports, is not a 

self-sufficient government unit and 

loses money every year. EPA 

determined that five RAS airports 

(Bethel, Ketchikan International, Sitka 

Rocky Gutierrez, Nome, and Ralph Wien 

Memorial) would be subject to BAT 

requirements. Due to the nature of 

transportation in Alaska, it is vital that 

these airports remain in operation 

despite not being profitable; 

approximately 82 percent of Alaskan 

communities are not served by roads, 

and these communities rarely have a 

practical alternative to air transportation 

for access (see DCN AD01336). 

According to the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities, 

RAS airports ‘‘are funded through a 

combination of user fees, state, local, or 

tribal funds, and federal funds.’’ 

However, the rural airports have very 

limited opportunities for generating 

revenue; in 2004 revenues from airport 

users, concessions, and leasing of 

airport property comprised less than 17 

percent of the cost of operating the 

system (DCN AD05081). The system is 

largely reliant on state subsidies to pay 

O&M costs at these airports. Therefore, 

EPA evaluated impacts to the RAS 

separately. 

EPA estimated compliance costs for 

the five RAS airports subject to BAT. 

EPA used the estimated yearly 

contribution of $23 to $24 million by 

the state of Alaska to cover the operating 

costs of the RAS (DCN AD05081) as a 

proxy for RAS operating revenues for 

the purpose of measuring economic 

impacts; this is an underestimate of RAS 

revenues because it does not account for 

the unknown revenue stream from other 

sources. Under the selected BAT option 

in the final rule, projected compliance 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29193 

5 DIA opened in 1995, but new, major airports 

built prior to Denver predate it by 20 or more years: 

Dallas-Fort Worth, which opened in 1973, George 

Bush International in Houston, Texas, and 

Washington Dulles, which opened in the 1960s. 

costs for the five RAS airports together 

total $61,000, which compose 0.26 

percent of the state’s contribution to 

airport operations. EPA therefore 

determined that because compliance 

costs to the RAS compose less than 3 

percent of the system’s revenues, the 

rule is economically achievable to the 

RAS. 

2. Results of Co-Permittee Airline 

Impact Analysis 

Under Options 1 and 2, EPA 

determined that 27 airports subject to 

BAT and incurring costs listed 75 

individual airlines as co-permittees. 

However, under the selected Option 3, 

six airports subject to BAT and 

incurring costs listed 28 individual 

airlines as co-permittees. Twenty-seven 

of these co-permittee airlines were U.S.- 

flagged, and one was foreign-owned 

under Option 3. On average, each of the 

27 U.S.-flagged air carriers was a copermittee at two airports, with a range 

of co-permitting of between one to four 

airports. Under an assumption of a 

50:50 split of compliance costs between 

airports and co-permittee airlines, these 

27 carriers would incur $180,000 in 

annualized compliance costs, and the 

foreign-flag carrier would incur less 

than $150 in annualized compliance 

costs. 

Twenty-five of the 27 U.S. copermittee airlines have available 

financial data. Ten co-permittees have 

positive baseline operating profits, 

while nine have positive baseline net 

income, and therefore are eligible to be 

analyzed using these metrics. EPA 

projected that none of these airlines will 

incur costs exceeding 3 percent of 

operating profit or net income under 

Option 3, which is well short of the 100 

percent threshold that would indicate a 

definitive closure. Furthermore, none of 

the 25 airlines were projected to incur 

compliance costs exceeding 1 percent of 

operating revenues under Option 3. 

Finally, to the extent that 50 percent 

of airport compliance costs are shared 

with co-permittee airlines, impacts to 

airports are reduced as measured by the 

ratio of compliance costs to operating 

revenue. EPA projects that no airports 

incur costs exceeding 3 percent of 

revenues under the promulgated option 

using the assumptions of the copermittee airline analysis. Assuming no 

costs are shared with co-permittee 

airlines, EPA projected that one airport 

incurs costs exceeding 3 percent of 

revenues under this option. 

3. Economic Achievability 

Based on the analyses presented 

above, EPA has determined that the 

selected option is economically 

achievable. EPA finds that the 

promulgated option is economically 

achievable both when airports are 

assumed to incur 100 percent of 

compliance costs, and when airports 

and their applicable airline copermittees are assumed to share 

compliance costs. 

Under previous rulemaking efforts 

that directly impose compliance costs 

on government agencies, EPA used the 

revenue test to evaluate impacts to these 

agencies; when projected compliance 

costs exceed 3 percent of operating 

revenues, the rule is judged to be 

unaffordable for a facility. As shown in 

Table VII–2, only one airport, which 

represents 0.5 percent of the airports 

subject to BAT, is projected to incur 

costs exceeding 3 percent of operating 

revenue when airports are assumed to 

incur 100 percent of compliance costs. 

EPA used several conservative 

assumptions in evaluating impacts to 

airports; costs were annualized using a 

real 7 percent interest rate, which is 

significantly higher than airports 

typically pay for debt financing. At the 

7 percent real interest rate, EPA 

demonstrated that airports’ ability to 

service debt would not, in general, be 

negatively affected by the rule. EPA also 

did not take into account airports’ 

ability to access other funding for 

capital expenditure, such as AIP grants 

or PFCs. Also, EPA performed its 

analysis of airport impacts without 

distributing any costs to co-permittee 

airlines. As such, the estimates of 

impacts at airports with co-permittees 

may be overstated. 

As noted in the previous section, EPA 

examined a number of alternative 

measures of economic impacts for 

airports in response to public comments 

on the proposed rule. However, EPA 

found none of these alternative 

approaches to be preferable to the 

revenue test method. None of the 

approaches provided a clear dividing 

line for determining what impacts might 

or might not be economically achievable 

for airports. That is, even if EPA 

selected one of industry’s alternative 

measures, EPA would still have to 

determine some threshold that 

distinguishes impacts that are 

economically achievable from those that 

are not; industry did not provide such 

thresholds with their preferred 

measures, and for one measure 

specifically stated they did not know 

the appropriate threshold. Nevertheless, 

EPA did perform sensitivity analyses to 

determine what affect the use of these 

alternative measures might have on its 

conclusions on economic achievability 

of the final rule. EPA’s sensitivity 

analyses found that using these 

alternative measures would not 

substantively change the overall results 

on the final rule’s economic 

achievability. The results of these 

alternative analyses are not presented in 

this preamble, but are included in the 

EA as sensitivity analyses. 

With respect to airlines that are 

NPDES co-permittees, none of these 

airlines are shown to incur a 

demonstrable impact under the selected 

option on three airline income 

measures: operating revenue, operating 

profit, or net income. Therefore, EPA 

finds the costs to be economically 

achievable for co-permittee airlines for 

today’s final rule. 

Finally, EPA also assumed 

compliance costs would not be passed 

through to airlines and/or their 

passengers in the form of higher rates 

and charges. As previously explained, 

EPA did assume costs would be shared 

by co-permittee airlines. The no-passthrough assumption is conservative and 

EPA believes that airports and, 

ultimately, airlines will likely pass 

through costs to reduce the cost and 

impact of the rule, which is further 

support for EPA’s conclusion that 

today’s final rule is economically 

achievable. 

E. Economic Impacts for New Sources 

EPA has determined that the NSPS in 

the final rule would not impose a barrier 

to entry for new sources. DIA is the only 

‘‘greenfield’’ airport, or an airport built 

on undeveloped land or land not 

previously used for aviation, that 

definitely meets the scope of this 

rulemaking, and was built in the past 25 

years.5 DIA was developed with deicing 

pads and an extensive treatment system 

for collected ADF; information from DIA 

demonstrates that the CDPs, along with 

the extensive treatment system, 

comprised 3.6 percent of the cost of 

building a new airport, and did not pose 

a barrier to entry (DCN AD01260). 

As previously indicated, the building 

of major greenfield airports has become 

a relatively rare occurrence. Conversion 

of ex-military airports (e.g., Orlando 

International) appears to be a much 

more common source of sites for cities 

seeking to increase air transportation 

access. Such conversions would not be 

considered ‘‘new sources’’ under today’s 

rule. EPA reviewed FAA’s National Plan 

of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 

reports published between 2002 and 

2010, and found that the development 

of any new commercial service airports 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29194 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6EPA notes that NSPS for ADF collection and 

treatment only applies to airports that have at least 

10,000 annual departures. Because Panama City is 

the only airport of its size for which EPA has data 

and because it is close to, but does not exceed, the 

size cut-off for NSPS applicability, EPA concludes 

that new airports with greater than 10,000 annual 

departures would similarly not experience a barrier 

to entry. 

is relatively rare, but a smaller 

commercial service greenfield airport is 

more likely to be built, as compared to 

a major airport. In 2002, FAA expected 

125 airports, none of which were 

commercial service airports, to open 

within the next five years. Furthermore, 

when queried in 2011, FAA indicated 

that they had no applications for any 

new airports that would be subject to 

NSPS in today’s rule, nor were they 

aware of any expected applications. 

However, two new primary airports 

recently opened in Panama City, Florida 

(May 2010), and St. George, Utah 

(January 2011). A new, smaller 

commercial airport is more likely than 

a large airport such as DIA, EPA wanted 

to examine the possible barrier to entry 

for new smaller commercial airports 

that might be subject to new source 

requirements. 

Based on incomplete data published 

in the NPIAS, EPA assumes that the St. 

George airport, with a planned service 

level of 55,000 annual enplanements, 

cost $159 million (approximately $145 

million in 2006 dollars). The Panama 

City airport, with a planned service 

level of 225,000 annual enplanements, 

appears to have cost $318 million 

(approximately $289 in 2006 dollars) in 

the same period. Because eligibility for 

the ELG is partly based on non-propeller 

driven aircraft departures, EPA 

estimated departures for these two 

airports based on expected annual 

enplanements. Among the 198 existing 

airports subject to BAT requirements, 

only 14 airports in the lower 48 states 

have fewer than 100,000 annual 

enplanements, and only six airports 

have fewer than 60,000 annual 

enplanements. Thus, EPA believes an 

airport like St. George might be too 

small to be subject to the requirements 

of this new source performance 

standard. 

EPA then looked to Panama City as a 

model for a barrier to entry analysis for 

small, commercial facilities. Clearly, 

due to its location, an airport such as 

Panama City airport will not be subject 

to NSPS requirements. However, this 

airport is the only airport EPA found 

with data available on construction 

costs, and is of sufficient size that it 

might be subject to the ELG were it 

located further north. Therefore, EPA 

used Panama City’s cost data to 

represent a new, relatively small airport 

that could be subject to NSPS. 

Based on the costs of constructing 

CDPs and related ADF wastewater 

treatment system at Denver, EPA 

estimated the average capital cost per 

departure of constructing a CDP and 

treatment system of appropriate size to 

meet the Denver airport’s operating 

requirements as total capital cost of the 

deicing pad and treatment system 

divided by average annual departures. 

Thus, the average capital cost of a CDP 

and related ADF wastewater treatment 

system is approximately $897 per 

average annual departure at Denver. In 

addition, EPA estimated annual 

departures at Panama City; existing 

commercial service airports with annual 

enplanements between 200,000 and 

300,000 have, on average, about 32.3 

passengers per departure, so EPA 

expects Panama City will average 

somewhat less than 6,959 departures 

per year 6. Therefore, EPA estimates that 

should an airport the size of Panama 

City need to build a CDP and ADF 

wastewater treatment system, the capital 

cost of that pad will be about $6.2 

million, or about 2.2 percent of the 

initial cost of the airport. 

Therefore, after comparing costs for 

CDPs and associated treatment systems 

at small and large airports in 

comparison to overall airport 

construction costs and finding that such 

pads and treatment systems cost from 

2.2 percent to 3.3 percent of the cost of 

building a new airport, EPA has 

determined that the NSPS in the final 

rule would not impose a barrier to entry 

to new sources (DCN AD01260). 

F. Cost and Pollutant Reduction 

Comparison 

Today’s final rule is expected to 

reduce COD and ammonia loads by 16.4 

million pounds at an annualized cost of 

$3.5 million, for a cost of $0.21 per 

pound of pollutant removed. 

TABLE VII–5—POLLUTANT REMOVALS, COSTS AND COST-REASONABLENESS OF BAT OPTIONS FOR AIRPORTS THAT

DEICE (WEIGHTED) 

Option 

Total pollutant 

removals 

(million lb) 

Total 

annualized 

costs 

(2006 $ million) 

Cost/lb pollutant removed 

Incremental 

cost/lb pollutant 

removed 

1 ................................................................................................................... 33.0 $78 .4 $2.37 $10 .4 

2 ................................................................................................................... 30.2 49 .4 1.64 3 .3 

3 a ................................................................................................................. 16.4 3 .50 0.21 0 .21 

aSelected 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 final airport deicing rule is 

similar to or less expensive than many 

guidelines promulgated to date 

including Aluminum Forming (40 CFR 

part 467), $2.42/lb; Landfills (40 CFR 

part 445), $15.00/lb; and Waste 

Combustors (40 CFR part 444), $38.83/ 

lb. EPA notes that the selected option is 

eight times more cost effective than the 

next more stringent option based on 

average cost/lb removed, and sixteen 

times more cost effective than the next 

more stringent option based on 

incremental cost/lb removed. 

G. Small Business Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (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. 

Airport ownership is composed of 

states, county, city governments, and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29195 

single and multi-purpose port 

authorities. Single and multi-purpose 

port authorities are quasi-governmental 

agencies created by 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: 

• 72 airports are owned by small 

government entities. 

• 20 airports owned by small 

government entities are subject to BAT 

requirements in today’s final rule. 

• Three airports owned by small 

government entities and subject to BAT 

requirements incur costs under the 

promulgated option in today’s final 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 

the purposes of the RFA; 10 of the 11 

surveyed Alaskan airports are not small 

by this standard. 

One of the 20 BAT airports owned by 

small government entities is expected to 

incur total annualized compliance costs 

exceeding three percent of airport 

operating revenues. 

TABLE VII–6—FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF BAT OPTIONS ON SMALL AIRPORTS THAT DEICE a

[2006 $million—20 airports (weighted)] 

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 ........................................................................................... $0.34 19 0 1 0 

2 ........................................................................................... 0.34 19 0 1 0 

3 c ......................................................................................... 0.31 19 0 1 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. 

cSelected option. 

EPA found that 18 airlines that are copermittees at BAT airports are small by 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

standards; 16 of these airlines had 

available financial data. Six airlines that 

are small by SBA standards are copermittees at BAT airports that incur 

costs under the promulgated option, and 

five of these airlines have available 

financial data. None of the five small copermittee airlines were projected to 

incur compliance costs exceeding 1 

percent of operating revenues under 

Option 3. When comparing compliance 

costs with operating profits and net 

income, three small airlines had 

positive baseline operating profits and 

net income, and none are projected to 

incur costs exceeding 3 percent of either 

measure under Option 3. Again, these 

findings are well short of the 100 

percent threshold that would indicate a 

definitive closure. 

One airport with airline co-permittees 

on its NPDES permit is small by SBA 

standards. This airport’s projected 

compliance costs exceed 3 percent of 

airport revenue if it does not share 

compliance costs with its co-permittee 

airlines. Its costs do not exceed 3 

percent of revenue if it does share 

compliance costs with its co-permittee 

airlines. 

EPA concludes that small entities are 

not disproportionately affected by this 

effluent limitations guideline. Only a 

fraction of in-scope airports are small by 

SBA standards, and only one of those 

airports is projected to incur costs 

exceeding 3 percent of operating 

revenues. Furthermore, this airport is 

not projected to exceed that threshold if 

50 percent of its compliance costs are 

shared with co-permittee airlines. EPA 

also concludes that small airlines are 

not disproportionately affected by the 

rule. Airlines are only subject to the rule 

if they are co-permittees on an airport’s 

NPDES permit. Six co-permittee airlines 

are small by SBA standards; five of 

these airports have available financial 

data. As previously described, analysis 

of these airlines shows that under the 

assumption of 50:50 costs sharing with 

affected airports, none come close to a 

threshold that indicates a significant 

impact of their financial situation. 

VIII. 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 [EIB]). As discussed 

in Section VI.B, 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 

incidence of algal 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 additives 

include nonylphenol ethoxylates, 

alcohol ethoxylates, triazoles, and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29196 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7This diesel fuel price was the average reported 

by the Energy Information Administration for the 

2004 to 2005 winter season, the same period that 

EPA is analyzing for airport deicing activity. 

polyacrylic acid, among others. 

Although toxic, these additives directly 

influence the effectiveness and safety of 

deicing and anti-icing formulations and 

are therefore essential components. 

Because deicer formulations change 

periodically, some of the additives EPA 

identified may not be present in current 

formulations. Deicing fluid 

manufacturers are also investigating 

ways to formulate deicing and anti-icing 

compounds with the use of less toxic, or 

non-toxic, additives. 

Airports in the United States 

discharge deicing wastewater to a wide 

variety of water body 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 experienced 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 today’s final 

rule to reduce the discharge of 

pollutants from airport deicing 

activities. This assessment is described 

in detail in the EIB. The final rule is 

expected to decrease COD discharges 

associated with airport runway deicing 

and anti-icing activities by 

approximately 12.0 million pounds per 

year. The rule is also estimated to 

reduce ammonia discharges by 4.4 

million pounds. Note these do not count 

benefits from the NSPS, which were not 

estimated quantitatively, due to the 

difficulty of predicting when and where 

in-scope new airports may be built. 

However, EPA projects qualifying new 

airport construction over the next 

decade to be minimal. 

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 final rule will decrease 

pollutant loadings to multiple surface 

waters currently listed as impaired 

under CWA section 303(d). The rule 

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. 

IX. Non-Water Quality Environmental 

Impacts 

Sections 304(b) and 306 of the CWA 

require EPA to consider non-waterquality environmental impacts 

(including energy requirements) 

associated with effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards. As explained 

in Section V, EPA evaluated three 

regulatory options for today’s rule. The 

first two options are based on 

technologies to control aircraft and 

airfield deicing discharges and the third 

option is based on technology to control 

only airfield deicing discharges. Section 

V also explains that EPA selected 

Option 3 as the basis for the final 

requirements. 

To comply with the requirements to 

consider non-water quality 

environmental impacts, EPA first 

performed a formal analysis of the 

potential impact of the Option 1 

technologies on energy consumption, air 

emissions, and solid waste generation. 

Because Option 2 is similar to Option 1, 

but would result in less operational 

changes at a subset of airports and 

therefore lead to less non-water quality 

impacts than Option 1, EPA did not 

perform a formal analysis of non-water 

quality impacts associated with Option 

2. Instead, EPA concluded that the 

results for Option 2 will be similar to or 

less than Option 1. Because Option 3 is 

based only on technology to control 

airfield deicing discharges, EPA also 

analyzed impacts for Option 3. As 

described below, there are no non-water 

quality impacts associated with the 

regulatory option selected for the basis 

of the final regulation, Option 3. There 

are no increases in energy usage, air 

emissions, or solid waste generation 

associated with substituting one airfield 

deicing product with another. For a 

more in-depth discussion of EPA’s 

formal analysis of non-water quality 

impacts, see the TDD. 

A. Energy Requirements 

1. Options 1 and 2 

Net energy consumption associated 

with Option 1 and Option 2 considers 

electrical requirements for pumping 

ADF-contaminated stormwater from 

collection areas to storage, electrical 

requirements for operating AFB 

bioreactors, and fuel requirements for 

GCVs. There is no net energy 

consumption associated with product 

substitution, the technology basis for 

Option 3. 

EPA estimates that the total 

incremental electrical usage for Option 

1 to pump ADF-contaminated 

stormwater into storage tanks would be 

approximately 1.2 million kilowatt 

hours per year (kWh/yr). EPA also 

developed a relationship between 

electrical use and COD removal by the 

AFB bioreactors based on information 

provided by Albany International (ALB) 

airport. Using the information from 

ALB, EPA estimated the electrical 

requirement for COD removal for Option 

1 as approximately 1.3 kWh/lb COD 

removed. Using this unit rate, EPA 

estimated total electrical requirements 

to remove COD for Option 1 to be a 

maximum additional 22 million kWh/ 

yr. 

EPA also analyzed fuel use by GCVs 

collecting ADF-contaminated 

stormwater. EPA used Airport 

Questionnaire data for diesel fuel costs 

for GCVs, and then estimated an average 

diesel fuel use based on the unit cost for 

diesel fuel of $2.07/gallon.7 EPA then 

estimated annual fuel usage per gallon 

of applied ADF to be 0.08 gallons per 

gallon of ADF applied. Using this 

relationship, EPA estimated that the 

total incremental consumption of No. 2 

diesel fuel, at all airports subject to BAT 

and installing additional collection 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29197 

equipment, to be 354,500 gallons per 

year. 

EPA compared incremental diesel fuel 

use by GCVs as a result of Option 1 to 

diesel fuel use on a national basis. 

Approximately 25.4 million gallons of 

No. 2 diesel fuel was consumed per day 

in the United States in 2005. The diesel 

fuel requirement associated with Option 

1 is less than 0.004 percent of the 

annual amount of diesel fuel consumed. 

EPA also considered qualitatively the 

potential for Options 1 and 2 to cause 

flight delays and possibly greater jet fuel 

use as a result. EPA was not able to 

quantify this effect, because EPA was 

not able to project how many flights 

would be delayed for how long or how 

much extra fuel use this might entail. 

However, EPA’s selection of Option 3 

will also ensure that there are no 

unacceptable energy impacts associated 

with increased jet fuel use. 

2. Option 3 

EPA did not identify any additional 

energy consumption associated with the 

Option 3 technology. There is no change 

in energy consumption associated with 

substituting one airfield deicer with 

another. 

B. Air Emissions 

1. Options 1 and 2 

Additional air emissions as a result of 

Option 1 could be attributed to added 

diesel fuel combustion by GCVs 

collecting ADF-contaminated 

stormwater and from anaerobic 

treatment of ADF. Emissions from these 

sources are discussed below. There 

could also be increases in emissions 

from aircraft operations associated with 

Option 1, but EPA was not able to 

quantify this effect. 

a. Emissions From GCV Collection 

EPA estimated the air emissions from 

the Option 1 ADF collection 

requirement. As discussed in Section 

IX.A above, EPA conservatively 

estimated that GCVs collecting ADFcontaminated stormwater at airports 

will consume an additional 354,500 

gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel per year. To 

estimate air emissions related to 

combustion of No. 2 diesel fuel in the 

internal combustion engines on GCVs, 

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 

GCVs, EPA first converted the 

additional 354,500 gallons of diesel fuel 

to million British thermal units and 

then applied the appropriate emission 

factors. The calculated annual emissions 

indicate that an additional 4,070 tons 

per year of CO2 will be emitted from 

GCVs combusting additional diesel fuel 

to comply with the rule. CO2 is the 

primary greenhouse gas attributed to 

climate change, and the 4,070 additional 

tons per year that would be associated 

with the rule is very small, as relative 

to other sources. For example, in 2006, 

industrial facilities combusting fossil 

fuels emitted 948 million tons of CO2

equivalents. An additional 4,070 tons 

per year from GCVs is less than a 0.0004 

percent increase in the overall CO2

emissions from all industrial sources. 

b. Emissions From AFB Treatment 

Systems 

Anaerobic digestion of glycols found 

in ADF-contaminated stormwater 

generates biogas containing 

approximately 60 percent methane and 

40 percent CO2. Airports installing 

AFBs for treatment of ADFcontaminated stormwater are expected 

to burn a portion of the gas in onsite 

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 CO2, the 

primary greenhouse gas. EPA calculates 

a maximum 3,730 additional tons per 

year of CO2 generation for 40 percent 

ADF collection, 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 3,730 

tons per year of CO2 from AFB treatment 

is less than 0.0004 percent of the annual 

industrial CO2 emissions nationwide. 

2. Option 3 

EPA did not identify any additional 

air emissions associated with the Option 

3 technology. There is no change in air 

emissions associated with substituting 

one airfield deicer with another. 

C. Solid Waste Generation 

1. Options 1 and 2 

AFB bioreactors will generate sludge 

that will require disposal, probably in 

an offsite landfill. To estimate annual 

sludge generation by the AFB 

bioreactors that may be installed at 

airports to treat ADF-contaminated 

stormwater under Option 1, EPA first 

estimated the potential COD removal for 

the 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 were produced in 2010. EPA 

estimates that AFB bioreactors treating 

ADF-contaminated stormwater will 

increase biosolids generation in the 

United States by approximately 271 dry 

tons/year or less than 0.003 percent of 

dry ton biosolids produced in the 

United States in 2010. 

2. Option 3 

EPA did not identify any additional 

sludge generation associated with the 

Option 3 technology. There is no change 

in sludge generation associated with 

substituting one airfield deicer with 

another. 

X. Regulatory Implementation 

A. Relation of ELGs and Standards to 

NPDES Permits 

Effluent guidelines act as a primary 

mechanism to control the discharge of 

pollutants to waters of the United 

States. Today’s final rule will be applied 

to airports through incorporation in 

individual or general NPDES permits 

issued by EPA or authorized states 

under section 402 of the Act. 

The Agency has developed the 

limitations for this final rule to cover 

the discharge of pollutants from this 

point source category. Those permits 

issued after this rule is effective must 

incorporate the effluent limitations 

guidelines and NSPS in this rule. For 

airports below the regulatory thresholds 

in this rule, EPA intends to allow 

permitting authorities to apply 

technology-based requirements on a best 

professional judgment basis. Also, for 

any airport discharges, under section 

510 of the CWA, states may require 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29198 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

effluent limitations under state law as 

long as they are no less stringent than 

the requirements of this rule. Finally, in 

addition to requiring application of the 

technology-based effluent limitations 

guidelines and standards in this rule, 

section 301(b)(1)(C) of CWA requires the 

permitting authority to impose more 

stringent effluent limitations on 

discharges as necessary to meet 

applicable water quality standards. 

For individual permits, ELG 

provisions are typically incorporated 

when those permits are renewed, 

although permit authorities may require 

modification upon promulgation upon 

consent of the permittee. EPA will 

revise its MSGP to include the airport 

deicing provisions when the permit is 

renewed, and authorized states will 

proceed likewise with their respective 

general permits. 

B. Effective Date 

The effective date for today’s final 

rule is June 15, 2012. 

C. Compliance With the NSPS 

Requirement 

1. Applicability 

The final rule establishes airfield 

pavement deicing effluent controls for 

new primary airports with 1,000 nonpropeller aircraft departures annually. 

For a subset of these airports—certain 

airports located in cold climatic zones— 

it also establishes ADF effluent controls. 

A new airport that opens with less 

than 1,000 departures would not be 

subject to today’s requirements. 

However, if the number of departures at 

this new airport later increases above 

the departure threshold, then § 449.11 

becomes applicable. For the ADF 

collection and treatment NSPS 

requirements, if a new airport located in 

an area that has more than 3,000 annual 

heating degree days and estimates that 

within five years of commencing 

operations it will exceed 10,000 annual 

departures, EPA expects it to plan 

during initial construction to be able to 

install facilities that comply with the 

ADF collection and treatment 

requirement should the departure 

threshold of the ADF collection and 

treatment threshold be exceeded. If the 

new airport elects not to do so, it must 

still meet all applicable ADF collection 

and discharge requirements in the event 

it exceeds the departure threshold 

within five years of construction. During 

the planning process for a new airport, 

FAA requires the airport sponsors to 

prepare long-range aviation forecasts, 

including estimates of passenger 

enplanement levels and use of jet 

aircraft. See FAA Advisory Circular 

150/5070–6B, Chapter 7, ‘‘Aviation 

Forecasts.’’ These forecasts will provide 

a sufficient basis for a new source 

airport to estimate if it will be likely to 

exceed the departure threshold. 

2. Demonstrating Compliance With the 

NSPS Collection Requirement 

The NSPS ADF collection 

requirement differs from end-of-pipe 

effluent limitations with regard to 

demonstrating compliance. Compliance 

with the collection requirement may not 

always be determined through end-ofpipe 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. As 

in the proposed rule, today’s final rule 

provides three procedures for selection 

by the permittee, for demonstrating 

compliance with the ADF collection 

requirement. 

To use the first procedure, at 

§ 449.20(b), a permittee certifies to the 

permitting authority that it is operating 

its collection system in accordance with 

specifications for the applicable 

technology. The specifications describe 

design and 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 

is for the permitted facilities to certify 

to the permit authority that it is 

operating according to the 

specifications. 

Since it is not practical for EPA to 

provide operating specifications for all 

potential collection technologies, the 

procedure at § 449.20(b)(2) allows an 

airport with an individual permit to 

propose performing ADF collection with 

a technology other than those described 

in the regulations. The permit authority 

may allow, on a case-by-case basis, an 

alternative ADF collection technology as 

the manner in which the permittee must 

demonstrate compliance with its 

collection requirement. The Director 

may also allow alternate operating 

parameters for one of the technologies 

listed elsewhere in § 449.20, as 

requested and demonstrated by the 

permittee. For example, an airport may 

operate a CDP, and through more 

aggressive collection measures, have 

data to show that 60 percent of available 

ADF for its aircraft deicing operations as 

a whole is collected, without necessarily 

having all flights deiced in the 

designated collection area(s). Another 

example would be an airport that uses 

a technology other than CDPs, with 

clearly detailed technical specifications 

and data demonstrating it achieves 60 

percent collection of the available ADF. 

A third example would be an airport 

that is unable or unwilling to use a 

standard set of collection technologies 

and operating procedures, and instead 

elects to demonstrate compliance with 

the ADF collection requirement by 

regular monitoring of applied and 

collected ADF. See § 449.20(a)(3). EPA 

has not published a specific monitoring 

methodology for a permittee to 

demonstrate its compliance with the 

collection requirement, but expects that 

such a demonstration would involve 

some type of mass-balance analysis. 

This procedure would be developed by 

the permittee, prior to the permitting 

authority proposing the permit, so that 

the method would be subject to public 

comments prior to incorporation into 

the permit. As long as the permittee is 

able to demonstrate to the permit 

authority’s satisfaction that the specified 

technology is designed to achieve the 

collection requirement as set forth in 

§ 449.11(a)(1), the only reporting 

requirement for this provision is for the 

permittee to certify that it is operating 

and maintaining its technology as 

required in its permit. 

3. P2 Approaches 

Several P2 approaches and 

technologies are described above in 

Section IV.D.3. Although EPA did not 

identify any of these technologies as a 

basis for NSPS, these technologies may 

be effective at reducing available ADF. 

Moreover, future P2 technologies may 

become available to aid in meeting the 

NSPS requirements. Permittees using P2 

technologies that reduce the volume of, 

or quantity of, pollutants in, available 

ADF may request a credit to be applied 

to the ADF collection requirement. 

Under § 449.20 (b)(2)(ii), a permittee 

may request a credit by providing 

documentation of the volumes or loads 

associated with the available ADF that 

would be generated in the absence of 

the P2 approach and the volumes or 

loads associated with the available ADF 

reduced through the use of P2. Once the 

permit authority determines that the 

reduction values are demonstrated, it 

will adjust the ADF collection 

requirement by subtracting the P2-based 

available ADF reductions from the 

original ADF collection requirement. 

The following two examples show how 

an airport may use the P2 provisions to 

reduce the amount of ADF that is 

required for collection. 

a. P2 Example #1 

On average, Airport X uses 600 

gallons of Type I ADF and 500 gallons 

of Type IV ADF per flight and has 1,000 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29199 

flights during a deicing season. In order 

to meet the 60 percent collection 

requirement, the airport must 

demonstrate the collection and 

treatment (or equivalent source 

reduction of) 300,000 gallons of 

available ADF. 

• 600 gallons Type I × 75% available 

for collection + 500 gallons × 10% 

available for collection = 500 gallons 

available ADF/flight 

• 500 gallons available ADF/flight × 

1,000 flights × 60 percent collection = 

300,000 gallons for collection. 

The airport decides to install an IR 

deicing system and wants to use it in 

combination with GCVs as the basis for 

its 60 percent collection requirement. 

The airport provides data to its permit 

authority that use of an IR deicing 

system reduces 90 percent of the 

available ADF per aircraft and that the 

new IR facility has the capability of 

comfortably handling 600 flights per 

deicing season. This reduction is 

equivalent to the collection of 270,000 

gallons of available ADF as shown 

below: 

• 500 gallons available ADF/flight × 

90 percent reduction in available ADF = 

450 gallons ADF reduction per flight 

• 600 flights × 450 gallon reduced = 

270,000 gallons ADF reduced. 

Therefore, the airport would need to 

collect an additional 30,000 gallons of 

available ADF during the deicing 

season: 

• 300,000 gallons of ADF required for 

control ¥270,000 gallons of ADF 

reduced = 30,000 gallons to collect. 

EPA’s documentation shows that 

GCVs collect 20 percent of available 

ADF. In order to collect the remaining 

30,000 gallons, the airport would need 

to use GCVs when deicing 300 flights 

during the deicing season. 

• 500 gallons of available ADF/flight 

× 20 percent collection = 100 gallons of 

ADF collected per flight. 

• 300 flights × 100 gallons collected 

per flights = 30,000 gallons of ADF 

collected. 

In this example, for every 1,000 flights 

where deicing would be appropriate, the 

airport could use the IR for 600 flights, 

GCVs for 300 flights, and may elect to 

collect nothing for 100 flights. More 

generically, for every one flight deiced 

with no collection, three flights must be 

deiced in an area with GCV collection 

and six flights must be sent through the 

IR system. The airport would have the 

flexibility to apply these technologies as 

appropriate for each event. For example, 

if the airport was experiencing 

exceptional delays for a particular 

event, the airport could forgo collection 

during that event as long as it had 

documentation to demonstrate that over 

the deicing season the combination of 

these technologies was applied in a 

manner to theoretically achieve the 

required percentage. 

b. P2 Example #2 

On average, Airport Y uses 300 

gallons of available ADF per flight and 

has 8,000 flights during the deicing 

season. In order to meet the 60 percent 

collection requirement, the airport must 

demonstrate the collection and 

treatment (or equivalent source 

reduction of) 1,440,000 gallons of 

available ADF. 

• 300 gallons available ADF/flight × 

8,000 flights × 60 percent collection = 

1,440,000 gallons for collection. 

Airport Y has recently installed forced 

air nozzles and covered deicing booms, 

and has provided data to its permit 

authority that use of these technologies 

together reduces 65 percent of the 

available ADF per aircraft. 

Airport Y deices all of its aircraft 

using these forced air nozzles and 

covered deicing booms, resulting in a 

source reduction of 1,560,000 gallons of 

ADF per deicing season. 

• 300 gallons of Available ADF/flight 

× 65 percent reduction = 195 gallons of 

ADF reduced per flight 

• 8000 flights × 195 gallons reduced 

per flights = 1,560,000 gallons of ADF 

reduced. 

As a result, Airport Y is in 

compliance with the 60 percent 

collection requirement simply through 

the use of the P2 technologies. 

D. Alternative Compliance Option for 

Pavement Deicers Containing Urea 

While EPA expects that most airports 

will choose product substitution to meet 

the pavement deicer requirement in 

§ 449.10(b) or § 449.11(b), airports may 

continue to use pavement deicers 

containing urea if they meet the 

alternative effluent limitation. An 

airport that chooses this alternative is 

required to perform an analysis for 

ammonia in airfield pavement 

discharges at all locations where 

pavement deicing with deicers 

containing urea is occurring and must 

achieve the numeric limitations for 

ammonia prior to any dilution or 

commingling with other non-deicing 

discharges. The sampling frequency, 

analytical method, and reporting 

procedures are determined by the 

permit authority. 

E. COD Effluent Monitoring for New 

Source Direct Dischargers 

New source direct dischargers subject 

to § 449.11(a) are required to sample and 

analyze the discharges from their 

treatment system for COD prior to any 

dilution or commingling with other 

non-deicing waters. The sampling 

frequency, analytical method, and 

reporting procedures are determined by 

the permit authority. Permittees must 

follow the sampling protocol specified 

in Appendix A of Part 449. 

F. Best Management Practices 

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

501(a) of the CWA authorize the 

Administrator to prescribe best 

management practices (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 BMPs to 

control or abate the discharge of 

pollutants when numeric limitations 

and standards are infeasible. In 

addition, CWA section 402(a)(2), read in 

concert with CWA 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. 

There are no BMPs specified in 

today’s final rule. However, existing 

NPDES permits for airports include 

BMP requirements, and some permits 

may have included, as required BMPs, 

the technologies that EPA has identified 

as a basis for BAT or NSPS in today’s 

rule. Other BMPs included in airport 

permits include dikes, curbs, and other 

control measures to contain leaks and 

spills as part of good ‘‘housekeeping’’ 

practices. Under section 510 of the CWA 

or section 301(b)(1)(C), a permitting 

authority on a facility-by-facility basis 

may choose to incorporate BMPs into 

the permit. See the TDD for a detailed 

discussion of P2 and BMPs used by 

airports and airlines. 

G. 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). The bypass 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29200 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

provisions could be used to address 

situations where an emergency 

application of ADF or pavement deicer 

was necessary to ensure safe operation 

of an aircraft or airfield, provided the 

conditions for its use are met. 

H. Variances and Modifications 

The CWA requires application of 

effluent limitations established pursuant 

to Section 301 to all direct dischargers. 

However, the statute provides for the 

modification of these national 

requirements in a limited number of 

circumstances. The Agency has 

established administrative mechanisms 

to provide an opportunity for relief from 

the application of the national effluent 

limitations guidelines for categories of 

existing sources for toxic, conventional, 

and nonconventional pollutants. 

1. Fundamentally Different Factors 

(FDF) Variance 

EPA, with the concurrence of the 

state, may develop effluent limitations 

different from the otherwise applicable 

requirements if an individual discharger 

is fundamentally different with respect 

to factors considered in establishing the 

limitation of standards applicable to the 

individual discharger. Such a 

modification is known as an FDF 

variance. EPA, in its initial 

implementation of the effluent 

guidelines program, provided for the 

FDF modifications in regulations, which 

were variances from the BCT effluent 

limitations, BAT limitations for toxic 

and nonconventional pollutants, and 

BPT limitations for conventional 

pollutants for direct dischargers. 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 CWA 

Section 301(n). This provision explicitly 

authorizes modifications of the 

otherwise applicable BAT effluent 

limitations, if a discharger is 

fundamentally different with respect to 

the factors specified in CWA Section 

304 (other than costs) from those 

considered by EPA in establishing the 

effluent limitations. CWA 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 must be no less stringent than 

justified by the difference and must not 

result in markedly more adverse nonwater quality environmental impacts 

than the national limitation. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, 

subpart D, authorizing the regional 

administrators to establish alternative 

limitations, 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 

discharger is fundamentally different. 

The Agency must determine whether, 

based on one or more of these factors, 

the discharger in question is 

fundamentally different from the 

dischargers 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. 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. 

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. 

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,’’ 

dated 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. 

I. Information Resources 

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, titled 

‘‘Deicing Planning Guidelines and 

Practices for Stormwater Management 

Systems.’’ This report (DCN AD01191) 

and the fact sheets (DCN AD01192) are 

available in the docket for today’s rule. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) 

Reviews 

A. EO 12866: Regulatory Planning and 

Review and EO 13563: Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

EPA submitted this action to OMB for 

review under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and EO 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes 

made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

OMB has approved the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this rule under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2040–0285. Section 

449.10(a) requires that airports certify 

annually on the non-use of airfield 

pavement deicers containing urea 

(unless they choose to comply with a 

numeric limit for ammonia instead). 

EPA estimates it will take an annual 

average of 198 hours and $6,534 for 

permittees to collect and report the 

information required by the rule. This 

estimate is based on average labor rates 

obtained from EPA’s airport 

questionnaire. EPA estimates that the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29201 

time and cost for permit authorities to 

review the information submitted in 

response to requirements in the rule is 

negligible. EPA estimates that there will 

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 in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In 

addition, EPA is amending the table in 

40 CFR part 9 of currently approved 

OMB control numbers for various 

regulations to list the regulatory 

citations for the information 

requirements contained in this final 

rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The 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 include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, EPA determined that all 

airports expected to be subject to BAT 

requirements 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 

considering the economic impact of 

today’s final rule on small entities, 

including consideration of alternative 

regulatory approaches, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. After matching 

each airport-owning governmental 

entity with its population, EPA 

estimates that 20 of 198 airports subject 

to BAT, or 10 percent, are owned by 

small government entities. EPA 

projected impacts on these small 

airports using the revenue test described 

in Section VII.C.2.a. EPA found that one 

of the 20 small BAT airports are 

expected to incur annualized 

compliance costs exceeding 3 percent of 

airport operating revenues. 

In general, airlines are not directly 

subject to the final rule. In a small 

number of cases, airlines are copermittees on NPDES permits at certain 

airports, and such co-permittee airlines 

are therefore subject to the final rule. 

EPA determined that 18 airlines 

considered small by SBA standards are 

co-permittees, but based on the analytic 

approach described in Section VII.C.3, 

none are expected to be significantly 

impacted by the rule 

Although this final rule will not have 

a 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 

NPIAS (2007–2011), there are almost 

3,000 public use general aviation and 

reliever airports in the United States, 

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 non-primary 

commercial service airports. EPA has 

chosen not to regulate any general 

aviation, reliever, or non-primary 

commercial service airports under 

today’s final rule. EPA also estimates 

that in addition to the 20 small 

government-owned primary commercial 

airports, another 52 primary commercial 

airports are owned by small government 

entities, but will be out-of-scope of the 

regulation because little or no ADF is 

used at those airports. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This 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 VII and the TDD, 

the annual cost of the rule is $3.5 

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 

section 203 of UMRA 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 rule focuses on the airports 

that are the largest users of ADF. The 

rule is not projected to exceed $100 

million in aggregate annual compliance 

costs. Further, as discussed in Section 

XI.C, EPA has determined the rule will 

not have significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

E. EO 13132: Federalism 

This action 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 EO 

13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

Today’s final rule requires airports to 

implement water pollution control 

requirements through a long-established 

regulatory mechanism (i.e., NPDES) 

which is jointly administered by EPA 

and states. EPA expects the rule will 

have little effect on the relationship 

between, or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities among, the federal 

and state governments. Thus, EO 13132 

does not apply to this action. In the 

spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with 

EPA policy to promote communications 

between EPA and state and local 

governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed action from 

state and local officials, however, none 

were received on the topic of 

federalism. 

F. EO 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in EO 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 rule contains no federal 

mandates for tribal governments and 

does not impose any enforceable duties 

on tribal governments. Thus, EO 13175 

does not apply to this rule. In the spirit 

of EO 13175 and consistent with EPA 

policy to promote communications 

between EPA and tribal governments, 

EPA specifically solicited comment on 

the proposed rule on tribal impacts. No 

comments were received on this topic. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29202 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

G. EO 13045: Protection of Children 

From Environmental Health and Safety 

Risks 

This rule is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not an economically significant rule 

pursuant to EO 12866. 

H. EO 13211: Energy Effects 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in EO 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 explained in Section IX.A, EPA 

determined that today’s final rule will 

not require any additional energy usage. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, 

(Pub. L. 104–113, sec. 12(d); 15 U.S.C. 

272) 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 rulemaking involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the Agency 

conducted a search to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. However, EPA 

identified no such standards, and none 

were brought to EPA’s attention in 

comments. Therefore, EPA decided to 

use the technology-based controls for 

aircraft and airfield pavement deicing 

discharges described in Section V. 

J. EO 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 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 final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases 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 rule will 

reduce the negative effects of discharges 

from airports to the nation’s waters, to 

benefit all of society, including minority 

communities. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the FR. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

FR. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective June 15, 2012. 

Appendix A to the Preamble: 

Abbreviations and Definitions Used in 

This Document 

AAIA: Airport and Airway Improvement Act 

ACI–NA: Airports Council International– 

North America 

ADF: Aircraft deicing fluid (includes antiicing fluid) 

AFB: Anaerobic fluidized bed 

AIP: Airport Improvement Program 

ALB: Albany International Airport 

ATA: Air Transport Association 

BADCT: Best available demonstrated control 

technology 

BAT: Best available technology economically 

achievable, as defined by sec. 301(b)(2)(A) 

and sec. 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA 

BCT: Best conventional pollutant control 

technology 

BMP: Best management practice 

BOD5: Biochemical oxygen demand 

BPJ: Best Professional Judgment 

BPT: Best conventional pollutant control 

technology 

CBI: Confidential Business Information 

CDP: Centralized deicing pad 

CO2: Carbon dioxide 

COD: Chemical oxygen demand 

CWA: Clean Water Act 

CWT: Centralized waste treatment 

DIA: Denver International Airport 

DSCR: Debt service coverage ratio 

EA: Economic Analysis 

EIB: Environmental Impact and Benefit 

EO: Executive Order 

EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ELG: Effluent limitation guideline 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration 

FDF: Fundamentally different factor 

GARB: General airport revenue bonds 

HDD: Heating degree day 

IR: Infrared 

GCV: Glycol collection vehicle 

MSGP: Multi-Sector General Permit 

Net income: Operating profit minus interest, 

taxes, depreciation, and non-operating 

profits and losses 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NOI: Notice of Intent to discharge under a 

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

Normalized ADF: ADF less any water added 

by the manufacturer or customer before 

ADF application. 

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System, as defined by sec. 402 

of the CWA 

NPIAS: National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems 

NSPS: New Source Performance Standards, 

as defined by sec. 306 of the CWA 

NTTAA: National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

O&M: Operations and maintenance 

Operating profit: Revenues minus cost of 

providing those services 

P2: Pollution prevention 

PFC: Passenger Facility Charges 

POTW: Publicly owned treatment works 

PSES: Pretreatment standards for existing 

sources 

PSNS: Pretreatment standards for new 

sources 

PV: Present value 

RAS: Rural Aviation System 

Revenues: Money received for services 

rendered 

RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBA: Small Business Administration 

TDD: Technical Development Document 

ThOD: Theoretical oxygen demand 

TRB: Transportation Research Board 

UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C.: United States Code 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 449 

Environmental protection, Airline, 

Airport deicing, Airports, Waste 

treatment and disposal, Water pollution 

control. 

Dated: April 25, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended 

as follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29203 

PART 9—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 United States Code (U.S.C.) 

135 et seq., 136–136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 

2005, 2006, 2601–2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 

348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 

1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 

1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 

11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–1975 

Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 

300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 300g–3, 300g–4, 

300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 300j–2, 300j–3, 300j– 

4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 6901–6992k, 7401– 

7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 11023, 11048. 

■ 2. In § 9.1, the table is amended by 

adding a new heading and entry to read 

as follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

40 CFR citation OMB control 

No. 

* * * * * 

Airport Deicing Point Source Category 

449.10(a) .............................. 2040–0285 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Part 449 is added 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 representing the 

best available technology economically 

achievable (BAT). 

449.11 New source performance standards 

(NSPS). 

449.20 Monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Subpart B—[Reserved] 

Appendix A to Part 449—Sampling Protocol 

for Soluble COD 

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. 

§ 449.2 General definitions. 

The following definitions apply to 

this part: 

Aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) means a 

fluid (other than hot water) applied to 

aircraft to remove or prevent any 

accumulation of snow or ice on the 

aircraft. This includes deicing and antiicing 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 non-propeller aircraft 

departures means the average number of 

commercial turbine-engine aircraft that 

are propelled by jet, i.e., turbojet or 

turbofan, that take off from an airport on 

an annual basis, as tabulated by the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 

Available ADF means 75 percent of 

the normalized Type I aircraft deicing 

fluid and 10 percent of the normalized 

Type IV aircraft deicing fluid, excluding 

aircraft deicing fluids used for 

defrosting or deicing for safe taxiing. 

Centralized deicing pad means a 

facility on an airfield designed for 

aircraft deicing operations, typically 

constructed with a drainage system 

separate from the airport main storm 

drain system. 

COD means Chemical Oxygen 

Demand. 

Collection requirement means the 

requirement in § 449.11 for the 

permittee to collect available ADF. 

Defrosting means the removal of frost 

contamination from an aircraft when 

there has been no active precipitation. 

Deicing mean procedures and 

practices to remove or prevent any 

accumulation of snow or ice on: 

(1) An aircraft; or 

(2) Airfield pavement. 

Deicing for safe taxiing means the 

application of ADF necessary to remove 

snow or ice to prevent damage to a 

taxiing aircraft. 

FAA Advisory Circular means a 

guidance document issued by the FAA 

on methods, procedures, or facility 

design. 

Heating degree day means the number 

of degrees per day the daily average 

temperature is below 65 degrees 

Fahrenheit. The daily average 

temperature is the mean of the 

maximum and minimum temperature 

for a 24-hour period. The annual heating 

degree day value is derived by summing 

the daily heating degree days over a 

calendar year period. 

Normalized Type I or Type IV aircraft 

deicing fluid means ADF less any water 

added by the manufacturer or customer 

before ADF application. 

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 with at least 1,000 annual nonpropeller aircraft departures must 

comply with the following requirements 

representing the degree of effluent 

reduction attainable by the application 

of BAT. The BAT requirements for point 

sources with less than 1,000 annual 

non-propeller aircraft departures are 

beyond the scope of this regulation and 

shall be determined by the permit 

authority on a site-specific basis. 

(a) Airfield pavement deicing. There 

shall be no discharge of airfield 

pavement deicers containing urea. To 

comply with this limitation, any 

existing point source must certify 

annually that it does not use airfield 

deicing products that contain urea or 

alternatively, airfield pavement 

discharges at every discharge point must 

achieve the numeric limitations for 

ammonia in Table I, prior to any 

dilution or commingling with any nondeicing discharge. 

TABLE I—BAT LIMITATIONS

Wastestream Pollutant Daily maximum 

Airfield Pavement Deicing ......................................................... Ammonia as Nitrogen .............................................................. 14.7 mg/L. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 449.11 New source performance 

standards (NSPS). 

New sources with at least 1,000 

annual non-propeller aircraft departures 

must achieve the following new source 

performance standards. The new source 

performance standards for point sources 

with less than 1,000 annual nonpropeller aircraft departures are beyond 

the scope of this part and shall be 

determined by the permit authority on 

a site-specific basis. 

(a) Aircraft deicing. Except for new 

airports located in Alaska, all new 

sources located in an area that, at the 

time of construction, had more than 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
29204 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3,000 annual heating degree days, and 

are estimated, within five years of 

commencing operations, to exceed 

10,000 annual departures, must comply 

with the following requirements upon 

the date the facility exceeds 10,000 

annual departures. New source 

performance standards that apply prior 

to that date, new source performance 

standards for sources that project they 

will not exceed 10,000 annual 

departures within five years of 

commencing operations, and new 

performance standards for airports in 

Alaska, are beyond the scope of this 

regulation and shall be determined by 

the permit authority on a site-specific 

basis. 

(1) Collection requirement. The new 

source must collect at least 60 percent 

of available ADF. 

(2) Numerical effluent limitation. The 

new source must achieve the 

performance standards in Table II for 

available ADF collected pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The 

limitation must be met at the location 

where the effluent leaves the onsite 

treatment system utilized for meeting 

these requirements and before 

commingling with any non-deicing 

discharge. 

TABLE II—NSPS 

Wastestream Pollutant Daily maximum Weekly average 

Aircraft Deicing ........................................................... COD .......................................................................... 271 mg/L .......... 154 mg/L. 

(b) Airfield pavement deicing. There 

shall be no discharge of airfield 

pavement deicers containing urea. To 

comply with this limitation, any new 

source must certify annually that it does 

not use airfield deicing products that 

contain urea or alternatively, airfield 

pavement discharges at every discharge 

point must achieve the numeric 

limitations for ammonia in Table III, 

prior to any dilution or commingling 

with any non-deicing discharge. 

TABLE III—NSPS 

Wastestream Pollutant Daily maximum 

Airfield Pavement Deicing ......................................................... Ammonia as Nitrogen .............................................................. 14.7 mg/L. 

§ 449.20 Monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) Demonstrating compliance with 

the ADF collection requirement for 

dischargers subject to NSPS collection 

requirements in § 449.11. Except as 

provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 

125.32, an individual permittee shall 

select a procedure under either 

paragraphs (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this 

section in its permit application as the 

procedure for the permittee to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable collection, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of this Part. 

A procedure selected by the permittee 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section 

may be included in the permit only with 

the Director’s approval, as described in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. For 

general permits, use of alternative 

methods for determining compliance 

with the ADF collection requirement for 

dischargers subject to NSPS collection 

requirements in this part will be at the 

discretion of the Director. 

(1) The permittee shall maintain 

records to demonstrate, and certify 

annually, that it is operating and 

maintaining one or more centralized 

deicing pads. This technology shall be 

operated and maintained according to 

the technical specifications set forth in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 

section. For both individual and general 

permits, these technical specifications 

shall be expressly set forth as 

requirements in the permit. The 

permittee’s demonstration and valid 

certification are sufficient to meet the 

applicable NSPS collection requirement 

without the permittee having to 

determine the numeric percentage of 

available ADF collected. 

(i) Each centralized deicing pad shall 

be sized and sited in accordance with 

all applicable FAA advisory circulars. 

(ii) Drainage valves associated with 

the centralized deicing pad shall be 

activated before deicing activities 

commence, to collect available ADF. 

(iii) The centralized deicing pad and 

associated collection equipment shall be 

installed and maintained per any 

applicable manufacturers’ instructions, 

and shall be inspected, at a minimum, 

at the beginning of each deicing season 

to ensure that the pad and associated 

equipment are in working condition. 

(iv) All aircraft deicing shall take 

place on a centralized deicing pad, with 

the exception of defrosting and deicing 

for safe taxiing. 

(2) Alternative technology or 

specifications. (i) An individual permit 

(or a general permit at the discretion of 

the Director) may allow one of the 

following alternative procedures for 

demonstrating compliance with its 

collection requirement, instead of the 

procedure in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. The permittee must submit all 

information and documentation 

necessary to support this request. An 

individual permittee may request this 

alternative procedure in its initial 

permit application or permit renewal 

application. During the term of an 

individual permit, the permittee may 

also request this alternative procedure 

as a permit modification, subject to the 

requirements and procedures at 40 CFR 

122.62 and 40 CFR part 124. If the 

Director determines, in his or her 

discretion, that the requested alternative 

procedure will achieve the collection 

requirement in the permit, the Director 

shall approve the request: 

(A) The use of a different ADF 

collection technology from the 

centralized deicing pad technology 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section; or 

(B) The use of the same ADF 

collection technology, but with different 

specifications for operation and/or 

maintenance. 

(ii) Pollution prevention credit. A 

permittee may apply for, and obtain, full 

or partial credit towards compliance 

with the available ADF collection 

requirement. To obtain credit the 

permittee must demonstrate to the 

Director’s satisfaction that it employs a 

pollution prevention technique that 

reduces the volume of, or quantity of, 

pollutants in, available ADF. The credit 

shall be equivalent to the demonstrated 

reduction, as determined by the 

Director. 

(iii) The Director shall set forth 

technical specifications for proper 

operation and maintenance of the 

chosen collection technology, as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 29205 

appropriate, and compliance with these 

technical specifications must be 

required by the permit. The permit shall 

also require the permittee to maintain 

records sufficient to 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 

approve an alternate technology under 

this subsection, the permittee must 

demonstrate to the Director’s 

satisfaction that the alternate technology 

will achieve the applicable percent 

capture requirement. 

(3) The permittee shall maintain 

records, by means deemed acceptable by 

the Director, and report at a frequency 

determined by the Director, on the 

volume of ADF sprayed and the amount 

of available ADF collected in order to 

determine the compliance with the 

collection requirement. 

(b) Monitoring requirements—(1) COD 

limitation. Permittees subject to the 

ADF collection and discharge 

requirements specified in § 449.11 must 

conduct effluent monitoring to 

demonstrate compliance with the COD 

limitation for all ADF that is collected. 

Compliance must be demonstrated at 

the location where the effluent leaves 

the on-site treatment system utilized for 

meeting these requirements and before 

commingling with any non-deicing 

discharge. Effluent samples must be 

collected following the protocol in 

Appendix A to this part. 

(2) Ammonia limitation. If a permittee 

chooses to comply with the compliance 

alternative specified in § 449.10(a) or 

§ 449.11(b), the permittee must conduct 

effluent monitoring at all locations 

where pavement deicing with a product 

that contains urea is occurring, prior to 

any dilution or commingling with any 

non-deicing discharge. 

(c) Recordkeeping. (1) The permit 

shall provide that the permittee must 

maintain on site, during the term of the 

permit, up to five years, records 

documenting compliance with 

paragraphs (a) through (b) of this 

section. These records include, but are 

not limited to, documentation of 

wastewater samples collected and 

analyzed, certifications, and equipment 

maintenance schedules and agreements. 

(2) At the Director’s discretion, a 

requirement may be included in the 

permit for the permittee to collect, and 

maintain on site during the term of the 

permit, up to five (5) years of data on 

the annual volume of ADF used. 

Subpart B—[Reserved] 

Appendix A to Part 449—Sampling 

Protocol for Soluble COD 

This sampling protocol applies only to 

samples collected for use in measurement of 

COD when demonstrating compliance with 

the regulations set forth in this part. Collect 

a representative sample of the effluent from 

the airport deicing treatment system, based 

on the discharge permit requirements (e.g., a 

grab sample or a composite sample). Because 

only the COD sample is filtered, do not use 

in-line filters if collecting a sample with a 

compositing device. 

A. Grab Samples 

1. Cap the container and shake the grab 

sample vigorously to mix it. Remove the 

plunger from a 10-milliliter (mL) or larger 

Luer-lock plastic syringe equipped with an 

Acrodisc Luer-lock filter containing a 1.5-mm 

glass fiber filter (Whatman 934–AH, or 

equivalent), and fill the syringe body with 

sample. 

2. Replace the plunger and filter the 

sample into a clean 50-mL screw-cap glass, 

plastic, or fluoropolymer bottle. 

Note: If testing is being done in the field, 

or with a test kit product (e.g., Hach Method 

8000), the filtrate may be collected in the test 

kit vial or container. 

3. Additional 10-mL volumes of sample 

may be filtered and the filtrate added to the 

same sample bottle. This additional volume 

may be used to repeat sample analyses or to 

prepare Quality Control (QC) samples, as 

needed. 

4. Unless the filtered sample will be 

analyzed within 15 minutes, preserve the 

filtered sample with H2SO4 to pH <2. Cap the 

bottle and label with the sample number. 

Place in a cooler on ice prior to shipping. 

5. Once at the analytical laboratory, the 

sample must be stored at ≤6 degrees Celsius 

and analyzed within 28 days of collection 

(see the requirements for COD in Table II at 

40 CFR part 136). 

6. Analyze the sample using a method 

approved for COD in Table IB at 40 CFR part 

136. 

Note: Because this procedure is specific to 

this point source category, it does not appear 

by name in 40 CFR part 136. 

7. Report the sample results as Soluble 

COD in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L). 

There is no Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) 

Registry Number for soluble COD. 

B. Composite Samples 

1. If the sample will be analyzed in a fixed 

laboratory (as opposed to field testing), 

transfer at least 50 mL of well-mixed sample 

from the compositing device into a clean 50- 

mL screw-cap glass, plastic, or fluoropolymer 

bottle. Preserve the sample with H2SO4 to pH 

<2. Cap the bottle and label with the sample 

number. Place in a cooler on ice prior to 

shipping. 

2. Once at the analytical laboratory, the 

sample must be stored at ≤6 degrees Celsius 

and analyzed within 28 days of collection 

(see the requirements for COD in Table II at 

40 CFR part 136). 

3. Prior to analysis, remove the sample 

from cold storage and allow it to warm to 

room temperature. Shake the sample 

vigorously to mix it. 

4. Remove the plunger from a 10-mL or 

larger Luer-lock plastic syringe equipped 

with an Acrodisc Luer-lock filter containing 

a 1.5-mm glass fiber filter (Whatman 934–AH, 

or equivalent), and fill the syringe body with 

sample. 

5. Replace the plunger and filter the 

sample into a clean COD vial or other 

suitable container. 

6. Additional 10-mL volumes of sample 

may be filtered and the filtrate added to 

separate containers, as needed, to provide 

samples for repeat analyses or to prepare QC 

samples. 

7. Analyze the sample using a method 

approved for COD in Table 1B at 40 CFR part 

136. 

Note: Because this procedure is specific to 

this point source category, it does not appear 

by name in 40 CFR part 136. 

8. Report the sample results as Soluble 

COD in units of mg/L. There is no CAS 

Registry Number for soluble COD. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10633 Filed 5–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES5