SUBJ: Discussions with FAA re:  Airport Deicing ELG

FROM: Jan Matuszko

TO: Record

DATE: March 16, 2012

On August 26, 2011, EPA formally briefed the FAA on the draft final Airport Deicing ELGs that it

submitted to OMB when it initiated Interagency review.  At the time, the overarching concern expressed

by the FAA was that there was no demonstrated environmental need for the rulemaking.  In addition,

the FAA expressed concern about the total costs of the rule, especially in light of other costs being

absorbed by this industry.   

On September 20, 2011, the FAA sent a letter to OMB formally documenting the concerns with the draft

final rule.   Following receipt of this memo, I had at least two phone conversations with the FAA

technical staff assigned to this rulemaking, Ed Malisky.  Eric Strassler also had a follow‐up phone

conversation with Ed Malisky.

The main purpose of these phone conversations was to discuss the draft final NSPS requirements for

aircraft deicing discharges.  In the FAA’s letter to OMB signed by Benito DeLeon, Director of Operation

Planning and Programming (see attachment), they supported our approach of tying the NSPS

applicability for aircraft deicing discharge controls to areas with significant ADF usage.  However, they

questioned making that determination on heating degree (HDD) days.  They suggested basing the

applicability on ADF usage or on SOFP (Snow or Freezing Precipitation) days.   

Eric and I both held follow‐up conversations with Ed Malisky with respect to heating degree days and/or

ADF usage as it relates to the NSPS applicability.  We explained that new airports would not have ADF

usage data during the planning stages and, as such, had explored alternative approaches.   We provided

the information in DCN AD01267 which demonstrates the relationship between ADF usage and Heating

Degree Days at existing airports.   We also explained that we selected HDD days over SOFP days because

the HDD data is reliable, consistent, long term data published by NOAA that is readily available to the

public whereas SOFP is an EPA generated metric.   After providing this subsequent information, Ed

agreed our approach is appropriate.

Noticing that in its September 2011 letter, the FAA was silent on the selected technology basis for the

NSPS collection requirement of available ADF for new airports, centralized deicing pads, I specifically

asked Ed for the FAA’s thoughts on this.   It’s relevant that the FAA had previously indicated it had major

concerns about selecting centralized deicing pads as the technology basis for ADF collection at existing

airports primarily due to space constraints and delays that might be associated with centralized deicing

pads at certain existing airports.  Ed noted that the FAA did not have the same concerns about

centralized deicing pads at new airports as they did at existing airports.  Ed explained that the FAA

agreed with us that new sources would not be impeded by space constraints and that they would be

able to comply with the FAA requirements.  In fact, Ed went on to explain that when designed properly

centralized deicing pads can improve traffic flow and reduce delays.    

Ed and I also discussed new airports in general.  He concurred that Denver is the only airport that has

opened in the past 25 years that would meet the NSPS applicability requirements.  He also indicated
that the FAA is not aware of any new planned airports that would meet the NSPS applicability

requirements.

As part of these conversations, we also discussed pollution prevention approaches.  Ed reiterated the

FAA’s position that they believe the industry had expended significant efforts in reducing ADF discharges

– particularly in the area of pollution prevention.  He urged us to acknowledge these efforts.

Subsequent to these conversations and the FAA’s letter on the draft final rule, the EPA submitted a

revised final rule to OMB for Interagency review.  FAA reviewed the revised final rule and concurred

with the final rulemaking on March 15, 2012 without providing any additional comments to EPA.