[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54946-54950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21575]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135

[Docket Nos. 26930 & 27459]
RIN 2120-AE70 & 2120-AF09


Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program & Training and 
Checking in Ground Icing Conditions

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date, and disposition of 
comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On September 29, 1992, and December 30, 1993, the FAA 
published interim final rules requiring deicing operations in ground 
icing conditions. The interim final rules require part 121 certificate 
holders to develop and comply with an FAA approved ground deicing/anti-
icing program; part 125 certificate holders to provide pilot testing on 
conducting operations in ground icing conditions; part 135 certificate 
holders to provide pilot training on conducting operations in ground 
icing conditions; and part 125 and 135 certificate holders to check 
airplanes for contamination (i.e., frost, ice, or snow) prior to 
takeoff when ground icing conditions exist. These rules were necessary 
to provide an added level of safety to flight operations during adverse 
weather conditions. The FAA invited comments on the interim final 
rules. This document responds to public comments and confirms the 
interim final rules as final rules. This action is part of our effort 
to address recommendations of the Government Accounting Office and the 
Management Advisory Council by reducing the number of aged items in the 
Regulatory Agenda.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action makes final the interim final rules and 
confirms the original effective dates. The interim final rule on 
Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program published at 57 FR 44924 
is effective November 1, 1992. The interim final rule on Training and 
Checking in Ground Icing Conditions published at 58 FR 69620 is 
effective January 31, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete docket for the interim final rules on deicing 
may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915-G, Docket Nos. 
26930 & 27459, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
weekdays (except federal holidays) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Meier, Air Carrier Operations 
Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-3749.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 23, 1992, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(57 FR 32846) that would establish requirements for part 121 
certificate holders to develop and comply with an FAA approved ground 
deicing/anti-icing program. The proposed rule was developed in response 
to a number of airplane accidents caused in part by icing and to 
recommendations from an international conference on aircraft deicing/
anti-icing. Because of the urgency of the rulemaking, the FAA allowed 
for only a 15-day comment period.
    On September 21, 1993, the FAA published proposed requirements for 
ground deicing procedures for parts 125 and 135 certificate holders (58 
FR 49164). Under the proposal when ground icing conditions exist, parts 
125 and 135 certificate holders would be required to check their 
airplanes for contamination prior to beginning takeoff. In addition, 
under the proposed changes to part 125, certificate holders would be 
required to provide pilot testing on ground deicing/anti-icing 
procedures, and under proposed changes to part 135, certificate holders 
would be required to provide pilot training on ground deicing/anti-
icing procedures. The FAA proposed the requirements in response to part 
135 accidents that were caused by pilots beginning takeoff with 
contamination adhering to critical airplane surfaces.
    On September 29, 1992, the FAA published the part 121 interim rule 
(57 FR 44924) and on December 30, 1993, the FAA published the part 135 
interim rule (58 FR 69620). The FAA requested comments on the interim 
final rules because the comment periods on the NPRMs were unusually 
short, and because the FAA anticipated that the first winter of 
implementation of the rules might provide additional information 
supporting either the continuation or modification of the rules. This 
action is in response to those comments and confirms the interim final 
rules as final rules.

Discussion of Comments

General

    The FAA received 22 comments on the part 121 interim rule. 
Generally, most commenters favor the FAA's action. Several commenters 
address specific requirements in the part 121 interim rule and some 
recommend changes in the rule language.
    The most significant issues addressed by commenters on the part 121 
interim rule involve holdover times, pretakeoff checks, hard-wing 
aircraft, and the role of aircraft dispatchers. Additional issues 
addressed by commenters involve applicability, training, research, type 
of fluid, alternate procedures, need for an approved program, and air 
traffic control.
    The FAA received only one comment on the part 135 interim rule. 
This commenter made specific recommendations to delete paragraphs from 
parts 125 and 135 that the

[[Page 54947]]

commenter claims are inconsistent with the ``Clean Aircraft concept.''

Icing Conditions

    The only comment on the part 135 interim rule states that paragraph 
(a)(1) of both Secs. 125.221 and 135.227, which permits takeoffs when 
there is frost adhering to the wings, or stabilizing or controlling 
surfaces, if the frost has been polished to make it smooth, is 
inconsistent with the Clean Aircraft concept. The commenter states that 
if this paragraph is included in the final rule it will allow the same 
type large turbine aircraft to be operated with less safety under parts 
125 or 135 than under part 121.
    FAA Response: While the FAA has no record of an unsafe operational 
history with aircraft operated under the current icing regulations of 
14 CFR parts 125 and 135, we believe there may be validity to this 
comment and we may address the clean aircraft concept in a future 
agency action.

Holdover Times

    The part 121 interim rule requires that a certificate holder's 
ground deicing/anti-icing program must include the certificate holder's 
holdover timetables and the procedures for the use of these tables by 
the certificate holder's personnel. The rule requires that takeoff 
after exceeding any determined holdover time is permitted only after 
(1) A pretakeoff contamination check determines that the wings, control 
surfaces, and other critical surfaces, as defined in the certificate 
holder's program, are free of frost, ice, or snow; or (2) it is 
otherwise determined by an approved alternative procedure that the 
wings, control surfaces, and other critical surfaces, as defined in the 
certificate holder's program, are free of frost, ice, or snow; or (3) 
the critical surfaces are redeiced and a new holdover time is 
determined.
    Four commenters (Swissair, ALPA, Association of European Airlines 
(AEA), and an airline pilot) express concern with the reliability and 
use of holdover times. Swissair states it has always considered the 
holdover times as guideline and does not support the use of holdover 
time guidelines as the only criteria for a go/no-go decision. ALPA 
expresses a similar opinion. Three commenters (Canadair, ALPA, and an 
airline pilot) are concerned that with the wide range of holdover times 
pilots may mistakenly believe that a takeoff is safe, regardless of 
other factors, so long as it is made within the longer time limit. 
Swissair states that the range of holdover times cannot be considered 
``as a minimum/maximum value but rather more correctly as two maximums, 
depending on actual weather conditions.'' Canadair states that it is 
not clear whether a ``certificate holder's program is expected to quote 
a single holdover time for a specific situation or a range * * *'' and 
that if a range is intended, the FAA needs to clarify the significance 
of the minimum time.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters that a holdover 
time should not be used as the sole criteria for a go/no-go decision 
before the expiration of the holdover time. The FAA stated this in the 
preamble to the interim final rule and in paragraph 8c of Advisory 
Circular 120-60, Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program. In the part 121 
interim rule the FAA cautioned that the holdover timetables are for use 
in departure planning only and shall be used in conjunction with 
pretakeoff check procedures. These tables provide only approximate time 
ranges. Each pilot-in-command (PIC) determines the appropriate holdover 
time for the type of fluid and the actual weather conditions. The fact 
that a determined holdover time has not yet expired would not alone 
justify a decision to take off if other conditions, such as the rate or 
type of precipitation, had worsened, or if the PIC has other 
information, such as expected delays, to warrant redeicing or re-
inspecting the aircraft. Conversely, the final rule does not prohibit 
takeoff after a holdover time has expired, if certain additional 
actions are taken, e.g., a pretakeoff contamination check or an 
alternative check that indicates the aircraft is free of contamination.
    The FAA agrees that the stated range in holdover times should not 
be used as a minimum and maximum value. The advisory circular 
specifically states that generally the maximum time within the holdover 
time range applies in light precipitation conditions and the minimum 
time applies to moderate to heavy precipitation conditions. In each 
case the holdover time is determined from within the stated range 
depending on the actual weather conditions. The FAA, therefore, has 
determined that the advisory circular provides sufficient guidance to 
pilots concerning holdover time; therefore, no further changes are 
required.

Aircraft Checks

    If the determined holdover time has been exceeded, the part 121 
interim final rule requires, as one alternative, a pretakeoff 
contamination check (Sec. 121.629(c)(3)(i)). A pretakeoff contamination 
check, as defined in Sec. 121.629(c)(4), is a check to make sure the 
wings, control surfaces, and other critical surfaces, as determined in 
the certificate holders' program, are free of frost, ice, and snow. It 
must be accomplished from outside the aircraft unless the approved 
program specifies otherwise, and it must be completed within five 
minutes before takeoff.
    A pretakeoff check is defined in Sec. 121.629(c)(4) as a check of 
the aircraft's wings or representative aircraft surfaces for frost, 
ice, or snow within the holdover time. As stated in the preamble to the 
part 121 interim rule and to be consistent with the intended use of 
holdover timetables, certificate holders must accomplish a pretakeoff 
check whenever holdover timetables are used. Language has been added to 
Sec. 121.629(c)(3) to make it clear that a pretakeoff check is integral 
to the use of holdover timetables.
    The part 121 interim rule under Sec. 121.629(d) also allows a 
certificate holder to continue to operate without a deicing program if 
the aircraft is checked to ensure that the wings, control surfaces, and 
other critical surfaces are free of frost, ice, and snow anytime 
conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected 
to adhere to the aircraft. The check must be completed within five 
minutes before takeoff and accomplished from outside the aircraft. This 
check is referred to as the ``paragraph (d) outside-the-aircraft 
check.'' As stated in the preamble to the part 121 interim rule, 
accomplishing this check may not be a viable option at certain 
airports, at certain peak departure times, and during certain weather 
conditions.
    Twelve commenters (ALPA, NTSB, ATA, Fokker, Canadair, de Havilland, 
an airline pilot, AEA, Federal Express, Swissair, Association of Flight 
Attendants, and Aviatrends) address the issue of aircraft checks. The 
three sub-issues these commenters address are: (1) The adequacy of any 
check made from within the aircraft; (2) how the five minutes is 
measured; and (3) other aircraft check issues.
    (1) Checks made from within the airplane. The NTSB, ALPA, de 
Havilland, Association Flight Attendants, Aviatrends, and an airline 
pilot all voice concern for the reliability of any check made from 
within the airplane. The NTSB expressed particular concern for visual 
observations involving swept-wing airplanes without leading edge 
devices. Aviatrends cited specific examples in which reports filed 
under NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System indicated problems with 
checks from inside the aircraft. In one case where both Type I and Type 
II fluid had been

[[Page 54948]]

applied, the first officer reported that it was impossible to see 
through Type II fluid on the cabin windows. A second report concluded 
that ``the value of inspecting the wing for ice from inside the cabin, 
especially at night, is questionable'' and the ``Type II deicing fluid 
is the consistency of warm honey and when it covers the cabin windows 
very little can be seen through them.'' ALPA expressed similar concerns 
and concluded that ``the inspection from inside the aircraft is 
therefore turned into a presumption.''
    FAA Response: Pretakeoff contamination checks, defined under 
Sec. 121.629(c)(4) and required under Sec. 121.629(c)(3)(i), must be 
accomplished from outside the aircraft unless the certificate holder's 
approved program specifies otherwise. Checks performed from inside the 
aircraft are not permitted unless the certificate holder has clearly 
defined and demonstrated procedures to allow the flight crew to assess 
the condition of the aircraft from inside the aircraft under various 
conditions (e.g., lighting, weather, visibility, etc.). The certificate 
holder's program should emphasize that if any doubt exists as to the 
condition of the aircraft after conducting this check, takeoff must not 
be attempted. In addition, as stated in the preamble to the part 121 
interim rule, the ultimate authority and responsibility for the 
operation of the aircraft remain with the PIC. Therefore, whenever the 
PIC is not fully satisfied with the reliability of a check conducted 
from inside the aircraft, the PIC is expected to get the aircraft 
redeiced or request that an additional check be conducted from outside 
the aircraft.
    (2) How the 5 minutes is measured. Several commenters (Swissair, 
ATA, Fokker, and AEA) question the intent of the rule language that 
requires that the pretakeoff contamination check must ``be conducted'' 
and the paragraph (d) check must ``occur'' within five minutes prior to 
beginning takeoff. These commenters point out that if this check can 
take five to fifteen minutes to accomplish, as the FAA stated in the 
preamble to the part 121 interim rule, the rule would be impractical 
unless it is interpreted to mean that the takeoff must occur within 
five minutes of completion of the check. While seeking clarification of 
the five-minute time requirement, AEA states that a measurement of five 
minutes after completing the checks would be problematic and could be 
dangerous unless there is a differentiation based on the type of fluid 
used.
    FAA Response: The FAA's intent was that the pretakeoff 
contamination check and the paragraph (d) outside-the-aircraft check 
must be completed within five minutes prior to beginning takeoff. The 
FAA believes that a pretakeoff contamination check or a paragraph (d) 
outside-the-aircraft check completed within no more than five minutes 
prior to beginning takeoff is sufficiently close to takeoff, in most 
weather conditions, to ensure absence of contamination. Five minutes is 
a maximum time. The FAA expects PICs to use good judgment when weather 
conditions might dictate a shorter time.
    (3) Other pretakeoff check issues. Canadair states that there is 
still a possibility of confusion between the two similarly worded terms 
``pretakeoff check'' and ``pretakeoff contamination check'' and 
recommends that the latter be renamed ``external contamination check.'' 
AEA states its concern that since holdover times are only guidelines, 
they should not be used as ``criteria to establish whether a more 
thorough check (pretakeoff contamination check) is required.''
    FAA Response: The FAA believes that the aviation industry has 
become familiar with the distinction between the two checks. As stated 
under item (1) above, a holdover time is never the sole criteria in 
determining whether a takeoff should be attempted or whether another 
check is warranted. The PIC's evaluation of all the relevant factors 
and his or her exercise of good judgment are expected.

Hard Wing Aircraft

    The part 121 interim rule does not contain any specific additional 
requirements for hard wing aircraft (i.e. aircraft without wing leading 
edge devices). The NPRM preamble stated that the FAA has issued 
Airworthiness Directives (AD) requiring a tactile check of specific 
hard wing aircraft in ground icing conditions. The FAA stated in the 
preamble to the part 121 interim rule that it would continue to deal 
with aircraft specific requirements by using ADs.
    Five commenters (NTSB, Fokker, de Havilland, the Air Transport 
Association, and Embraer) comment on the issue of ground deicing as it 
affects aircraft commonly referred to as hard wing aircraft. The NTSB 
believes that special operational procedures are justified for hard 
wing aircraft. Conversely, the other four commenters state that the FAA 
does not have any valid basis for imposing additional requirements 
(e.g. a tactile check) on hard wing aircraft with aft-mounted engines. 
Of these commenters, only Fokker offers specific evidence to support 
its position. Primarily, Fokker disputes the NASA report that served as 
a partial basis for the FAA's conclusions concerning hard wing 
aircraft. Fokker maintains that the NASA report is inaccurate and that 
data produced in subsequent tests conducted by NASA and earlier tests 
conducted in Sweden do not support the need for applying any additional 
procedures to hard wing aircraft.
    FAA Response: The part 121 interim rule imposed no special 
requirements for hard wing aircraft; however, the FAA has issued AD 92-
03-01 and AD 92-03-02, which require special procedures for certain 
model DC-9 and MD-80 airplanes. These special procedures are based on 
the fact that these airplanes have a wing design that is particularly 
susceptible to loss of lift due to wing icing. Minute amounts of ice or 
other contaminates on the leading edge of these hard wings can cause an 
increase in stall speed of up to 30 knots. This increased stall speed 
may be well above the stall warning activation speed. Because of this 
phenomena, special guidance applicable to hard wing aircraft have been 
included in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-60.

Roles of Dispatcher and Pilot-in-Command (PIC)

    The part 121 interim rule addresses the duties and responsibilities 
of the PIC and the aircraft dispatcher in determining whether a takeoff 
can be safely accomplished (Sec. 121.629(b) and (c)).
    Three commenters address the proper roles of PICs and aircraft 
dispatchers. Swissair agrees with the FAA that the ultimate 
responsibility for determining if the aircraft is airworthy is with the 
PIC once the aircraft is released from ground personnel. Two 
commenters, both aircraft dispatchers, believe that Sec. 121.629, as 
amended in the part 121 interim rule, does not give proper recognition 
to what they believe are joint responsibilities of aircraft dispatcher 
and pilot-in-command as reflected in Secs. 1221.395, 121.533, 121.593, 
121.599(a), 121.601(a), 121.605, and 121.627(a). Both commenters state 
that the cited sections indicate a joint responsibility between the 
aircraft dispatcher and the PIC for the safety of a flight and that the 
dispatcher's responsibility does not end with the release of the 
aircraft by the dispatcher. Rather, the dispatcher continues to be 
involved in the operational control of the aircraft throughout the 
flight. One of these commenters recommends that Sec. 121.629 should be 
revised to specifically state that the aircraft dispatcher is involved 
with the PIC in the operational control

[[Page 54949]]

of the aircraft and that this control includes dispatcher concurrence 
in computing or revising a holdover time and dispatcher initiation of 
an exterior tactile contamination check.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that operational control of the 
aircraft is a joint responsibility between the PIC and the aircraft 
dispatcher. As stated in the preamble to the part 121 interim rule, a 
certificate holder's program may include holdover time coordination 
with the aircraft dispatcher; however, the real-time information 
required to determine or update the proper holdover time may be 
available only to the PIC. In this situation the PIC safety 
responsibility may require him or her to determine a holdover time 
without coordinating with the dispatcher. The FAA believes that the 
part 121 interim rule language does not diminish, and is consistent 
with, the traditional role of the aircraft dispatcher as stated in the 
sections cited above and therefore no change is made in the part 121 
interim rule language.

Applicability

    The part 121 interim rule applied to part 121 certificate holders 
only; however, the preamble for the interim final rule stated that the 
FAA would continue to study part 125 and 135 operations to determine if 
future rulemaking is required. Three comments address applicability. 
The NTSB reiterates its concern that the interim rule does not address 
part 125 and part 135 certificate holders. Empire Airlines states that, 
based on its experience as an operator under both parts 121 and 135, it 
believes a part 121-type program should not be imposed on part 135 
operators. Canadair states that part 91 aircraft should also be 
included in any further study.
    FAA Response: The FAA issued an interim final rule tailored to part 
125 and 135 operators on December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69620). Presently, 
the FAA plans no part 91 rulemaking; however, guidance for part 91 
operators on ground deicing/anti-icing practices and procedures is 
available in AC 120-58, Pilot Guide for Large Aircraft Ground Deicing, 
and AC 135-17, Pilot Guide for Small Aircraft Ground Deicing.

Training

    The part 121 interim rule requires initial and recurrent ground 
training and testing for flight crewmembers and qualification for all 
other affected personnel. The training, testing, and qualifications 
must cover the use of holdover times, aircraft deicing/anti-icing 
procedures, contamination, types and characteristics of deicing/anti-
icing fluids, cold weather preflight inspection procedures, and 
techniques for recognizing contamination.
    Four commenters (NTSB, Fokker, Trans World Express and Finnair) 
address the issue of training. The NTSB states that the required 
recurrent training for flight crewmembers and involved ground personnel 
is ``equally applicable to the FAA personnel involved in overseeing the 
airline programs.'' Fokker believes that flight crew training is most 
important in preventing ground icing accidents and recommends that the 
``FAA should emphasize training in the use of rotation techniques 
suited to conditions where ground icing can be anticipated.'' Trans 
World Express states that vendors (e.g. contract personnel who may work 
for several certificate holders) are required to receive the generic 
training over and over when the vendors really need it only once and 
recommends that the certificate holder be permitted to accept another 
certificate holder's qualification program for vendors as it pertains 
to deicing/anti-icing fluid application and dispersal. Finnair states 
that training is the most important short-term safety measure and 
should emphasize the overall picture of the conditions affecting the 
aircraft and not concentrate on any one item such as holdover 
timetables.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the NTSB regarding the need for 
FAA inspector ground deicing/anti-icing training. This training was 
provided to all Principal Aviation Safety Inspectors (Operations and 
Maintenance) before the part 121 interim rule was published.
    The FAA agrees with Finnair and Fokker regarding their comments on 
training except to the extent that Fokker believes that pilots should 
be trained to use a different aircraft rotation technique during 
takeoff that, in its view, is more suited to conditions where ground 
icing can be anticipated. Training pilots in the proposed techniques, 
however, undermines the ``clean aircraft'' concept since the premise 
for using such techniques is that the PIC may be unsure of whether the 
aircraft is free of contamination. If contamination is adhering to 
critical surfaces of the aircraft, the takeoff would not comply with 
Sec. 121.629(a), and the techniques recommended by Fokker are not a 
safe alternative to that compliance.
    Conceptually, the FAA agrees with Trans World Express that 
redundant training is neither necessary nor useful for the trainee. On 
the other hand, the FAA cannot permit a certificate holder to use 
another certificate holder's or a vendor's deicing/anti-icing 
procedures unless those procedures have been approved by the principal 
inspectors of the certificate holder that wishes to use them.

Research

    In the part 121 interim rule preamble, the FAA stated that further 
research is needed on issues such as the effects of airplane design on 
wing contamination and how this would affect pilot flying techniques. 
The preamble states that additional study is needed to assess the value 
of aircraft type specific pilot training for use in ground icing 
conditions. The NTSB and the Federal Express Corporation state support 
for further research of the type the FAA indicated in the part 121 
interim rule preamble. Federal Express states support for further 
research on the use of holdover times and on the effects of airplane 
design and their interaction with contaminants, particularly for hard 
wing aircraft. The NTSB states that the highest research priority 
should be given to determining the possible contaminating effects of 
Type II fluids on runway friction. The NTSB also strongly supports 
continuing initiatives for the development of technical solutions to 
wing contaminant detection.
    FAA Response: Within the past few years research has been initiated 
on several different areas related to the ground deicing problem. The 
FAA has published a report which describes ongoing research, entitled 
``Aircraft Ice Detectors and Related Technologies for Onground and 
Inflight Application.'' It is available to the public through the 
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. The FAA 
is continuing to analyze holdover times in an effort to make them a 
more precise tool for determining an aircraft's contamination status. 
The FAA and the United States Air Force are cooperating with NASA Ames 
Research Center in the development of a new more environmentally 
friendly deicing/anti-icing fluid. Many different corporations and 
individual entrepreneurs are developing detection systems that might be 
used to detect contamination on an aircraft's critical surfaces. The 
FAA's Technical Center has completed initial studies that indicate Type 
II fluids do not have a significant effect on runway friction.

Types of Fluids

    The part 121 interim rule does not require using any specific 
deicing/anti-icing fluid. The ground deicing AC 120-60 gives guidance 
in the use of deicing/anti-icing fluids, stating the advantages and 
disadvantages of Type I and Type II fluids. Two commenters (Fokker and

[[Page 54950]]

Technoshield) address the question of Type II fluids. Fokker states 
that the FAA Advisory Circular incorrectly suggests that there may be 
disadvantages to Type II fluids with respect to decreasing the runway 
coefficient of friction. Technoshield suggests that the entire 
rulemaking will have the effect of precluding the use of Type I fluids.
    FAA Response: As stated in the preamble to the part 121 interim 
rule, each type fluid has its benefits and intended usage. Each 
certificate holder, not the FAA, determines the type(s) of fluid to be 
used in its operations. Recent studies by the FAA indicate that no 
degradation of runway frictions greater than that occurring with water 
covered runway surfaces occurs with the use of Type II fluids.
    The FAA does not believe that the rule affects the choice of fluid. 
Weather conditions and certificate holder practice will continue to 
determine the choice of fluid.

Alternative Procedures

    Canadair suggests that it would be useful if the FAA issues 
advisory material on how to design, develop, and verify an alternative 
procedure for determination that critical surfaces are free of frost, 
ice, or snow, as is authorized under Sec. 121.629(c)(3)(ii).
    FAA Response: As was stated in the preamble to the part 121 NPRM, 
the ``otherwise determined by an alternative procedure'' language was 
included to cover changes in ambient conditions or industry development 
of approved new technologies. The FAA believes that certificate holders 
should take the initiative to develop such alternative procedures and 
submit them to the FAA for approval.

Need for Approved Program

    ALPA states its belief that each carrier operating under part 121 
should have an approved program and that, for the reasons stated in its 
earlier comments on the ground deicing NPRM, Sec. 121.629(d) should be 
deleted.
    FAA Response: The FAA believes that the only certificate holders 
under part 121 who do not have an approved ground deicing/anti-icing 
program are those who conclude it would be more cost effective to 
operate without such a program. These certificate holders might have to 
delay or cancel flights in icing conditions because the outside-the-
aircraft check required under Sec. 121.629(d) is not a viable option 
during certain weather conditions and at certain airports. If a 
certificate holder is able to conduct an outside-the-aircraft check and 
that check ensures that the aircraft is free of contamination, the FAA 
believes the check is an adequate substitute for an approved program.

Air Traffic Control

    The NTSB referenced several of its previous recommendations that 
are not directly related to this rulemaking action but that are related 
to achieving more efficient planning for ground operations. The 
recommendations, if implemented, would reduce the probability that 
airplanes will exceed their deicing holdover times.
    FAA Response: The FAA has undertaken a number of related actions, 
including, as part of certain airports' ground deicing plans, gate hold 
procedures (NTSB Recommendation A-93-19) and procedures that limit the 
time an aircraft spends on the ground after deicing (NTSB 
Recommendation A-93-20). These procedures have contributed to both 
improved safety during ground icing conditions and enhanced the overall 
departure and arrival rates during these conditions.

Environmental Analysis

    These rules are federal actions that are subject to the National 
Environmental Police Act (NEPA). Under applicable guidelines of the 
President's Council on Environmental Quality and agency procedures 
implementing NEPA, the FAA normally prepares an environmental 
assessment (EA) to determine the need for an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) or whether a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 
would be appropriate. (40 CFR 1501.3; FAA Order 1050.1D appendix 7. 
par. 3(a)). In the NPRMs the FAA invited comments on any environmental 
issues associated with the proposed rule, and specifically requested 
comments on the following: (1) Whether the proposed rule will increase 
the use of deicing fluids, (2) whether the proposed part 121 rule will 
encourage the use of Type II deicing fluid, (3) the impact, if any, of 
using these deicing fluids on taxiways ``just prior to takeoff,'' and 
(4) containment methods currently used that can be adapted to other 
locations on an airport. Only a few commenters to the part 121 NPRM 
addressed these environmental issues and most of these commenters 
focused more on the effect of Federal, state, and local environmental 
requirements and the lack of local facilities, than on the questions of 
the potential environmental impact of deicing fluids. A summary of the 
comments received, the FAA's response, and the findings of the FAA's 
Environmental Assessment appear in the preamble to the part 121 interim 
rule.
    The Environmental Assessment (EA) which supported a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is included in the docket for this 
rulemaking. Except for the NTSB suggestion that the FAA conduct further 
research on runway contaminants, no further comments on environmental 
issues associated with this rulemaking were received following 
publication of the part 121 and part 135 interim rules. Nonetheless, as 
part of its long term efforts, the FAA will continue to work with 
certificate holders and with airport operators to monitor the actual 
and potential environmental effects of this rule and will take 
appropriate steps as necessary.

Conclusion

    After consideration of the comments submitted in response to the 
interim final rules, the FAA has determined that no further rulemaking 
action is necessary. The interim final rule amending part 121 of title 
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Amendment No. 121-231, entitled 
Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program, published at 57 FR 
44924 on September 29, 1992, is adopted as a final rule. The interim 
final rule amending parts 125 and 135 of title 14 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, Amendment Nos. 125-18 and 135-46, entitled 
Training and Checking in Ground Icing Conditions, published at 58 FR 
69620 on December 30, 1993, is adopted as a final rule.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19, 2002.
Monte R. Belger,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-21575 Filed 8-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P