[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20924-20931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7944]



[[Page 20923]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



 Activation of Ice Protection; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 20924]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27654; Notice No. 07-07]
RIN 2120-AI90


Activation of Ice Protection

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the 
airworthiness standards applicable to transport category airplanes 
certificated for flight in icing conditions. The proposed standards 
would require a means to ensure timely activation of the airframe ice 
protection system. This proposed regulation is the result of 
information gathered from a review of icing accidents and incidents, 
and is intended to improve the level of safety for new airplane designs 
for operations in icing conditions.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 25, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
27654 using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. For 
more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of 
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathi Ishimaru, FAA, Propulsion/
Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 
98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2674; facsimile (425) 227-1320, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written 
comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
    Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket web site, 
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, 
including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing 
the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider 
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring 
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments 
we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35(b), when 
we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not 
place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the 
public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we 
have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this 
information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of 
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT 
procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs,

[[Page 20925]]

describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum 
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and 
performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the 
interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft; 
and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures the 
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This 
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it 
prescribes--
     New safety standards for the design of transport category 
airplanes.
     New safety requirements that are necessary for the design, 
production, operations, and maintenance of those airplanes, and for 
other practices, methods and procedures relating to those airplanes.

Background

    On October 31, 1994, an accident involving an Avions de Transport 
Regional ATR 72 series airplane occurred in icing conditions. This 
prompted the FAA to initiate a review of aircraft inflight icing safety 
and determine changes that could be made to increase the level of 
safety. In May 1996, the FAA sponsored the International Conference on 
Aircraft Inflight Icing where icing specialists recommended 
improvements to increase the level of safety of aircraft operating in 
icing conditions. The FAA reviewed the conference recommendations and 
developed a comprehensive multi-year icing plan. The FAA Inflight 
Aircraft Icing Plan (Icing Plan), dated April 1997,\1\ described 
various activities the FAA was contemplating to improve safety when 
operating in icing conditions. In accordance with the Icing Plan, the 
FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC),\2\ 
through its Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group, to consider the 
need for ice detectors or other acceptable means to warn flightcrews of 
ice accretion on critical surfaces requiring crew action. This proposed 
rule is based on ARAC's recommendations to the FAA. Appendix 1 defines 
terms used in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan, dated April 1997, 
available in the Docket.
    \2\ Published in the Federal Register, December 8, 1997 (62 FR 
64621).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Existing Regulations for Flight in Icing Conditions

    Currently, the certification regulations applicable to transport 
category airplanes for flight in icing conditions require: ``the 
airplane must be able to operate safely in the continuous maximum and 
intermittent maximum icing conditions of appendix C.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 25.1419, Ice Protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parts 91, 121, and 135 contain regulations that apply to airplane 
operations in icing conditions. Operating regulations under part 91 and 
135 address limitations in icing conditions for airplanes operated 
under these regulations.\4\ Part 121 addresses operations in icing 
conditions that might adversely affect safety and installation of 
certain types of ice protection equipment and wing illumination 
equipment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 14 CFR 91.527, Operating in icing conditions; and Sec.  
135.227, Icing conditions: Operating limitations.
    \5\ 14 CFR 121.629(a), Operation in icing conditions and Sec.  
121.341, Equipment for operations in icing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither the operating regulations nor the certification regulations 
require a means to warn flightcrews of ice accretion on critical 
surfaces requiring crew action.

B. National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the 
following safety recommendations related to airframe icing that are 
partially addressed by this proposal:
     NTSB Safety Recommendation No. A-96-56 \6\ is a result of 
the Avions de Transport Regional ATR 72 series airplane accident in 
Roselawn, Indiana on October 31, 1994, where 68 people died. The 
accident airplane crashed during a rapid descent after an uncommanded 
roll excursion while operating in icing conditions. The NTSB 
recommended that the FAA require a means for flightcrews to positively 
determine when they are in icing conditions that exceed the limits for 
aircraft certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NTSB recommendation A-96-56; available in the Docket and on 
the Internet at: http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1996/A96_48_69.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NTSB Safety Recommendation No. A-98-91 \7\ is a result of 
the Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica, S/A (Embraer) EMB-120 series 
airplane accident near Monroe, Michigan, on January 9, 1997, where 29 
people died. The accident airplane crashed while operating in icing 
conditions. The flightcrew may not have activated the airframe ice 
protection system. The NTSB recommended that the FAA require 
manufacturers and operators to revise their manuals and training to 
emphasize that leading edge deicing boots should be activated as soon 
as the airplane enters icing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NTSB recommendation A-98-91, available in the Docket and on 
the Internet at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1998/A98_88_106.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Authorities

1. Federal Aviation Administration
    Title 14 CFR part 25 contains the U.S. airworthiness standards for 
type certification of transport category airplanes. These standards 
apply to airplanes manufactured within the U.S. and to airplanes 
manufactured in other countries and imported to the U.S. under a 
bilateral airworthiness agreement.
2. Joint Aviation Authorities
    The Joint Airworthiness Requirements (JAR)-25 contain the European 
airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category 
airplanes. Thirty-seven European countries accept airplanes type 
certificated to JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in 
the U.S. that are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to 
Europe.
3. European Aviation Safety Agency
    A new aviation regulatory body, the European Aviation Safety Agency 
(EASA), was established by the European community to develop standards 
to ensure the highest level of safety and environmental protection, 
oversee their uniform application, and promote them internationally. 
The EASA formally became operational for certification of aircraft, 
engines, parts, and appliances on September 28, 2003. The EASA will 
eventually absorb all functions and activities of the Joint Aviation 
Authorities, including its efforts to harmonize EASA's airworthiness 
certification regulations with those of the U.S.
    The JAR-25 standards have been incorporated into EASA's 
``Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes,'' (CS)-25, in 
similar if not identical language. The EASA's CS-25 became effective 
October 17, 2003.

D. Harmonization of U.S. Standards With Those of Other Countries

    The airworthiness standards proposed in this NPRM were developed 
before EASA began operations. They were developed in coordination with 
the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), United Kingdom Civil Aviation 
Authority, and Transport Canada.

[[Page 20926]]

E. Related Rulemaking Activity

1. Docket No. 2005-22840; Notice No. 05-10
    The proposed rulemaking would amend part 25 by adding specific 
requirements for airplane performance and handling qualities for flight 
in icing conditions. Further, the proposal amends Sec.  25.1419 to 
address certification approval for flight in icing conditions for 
airplanes without ice protection features. Those proposed changes do 
not impact this rulemaking. However, this rulemaking may result in 
minor conforming changes to the airplane performance and handling 
qualities for flight in icing conditions rules.
2. ARAC Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group Recommendations
    The ARAC has submitted additional rulemaking recommendations to the 
FAA to improve the safety of operations in icing conditions:
     Part 121 recommendations to address activation of ice 
protection systems.
     Part 121 recommendations to require certain airplanes to 
exit icing conditions.
     Part 25 and 33 recommendations to address operations in 
supercooled large droplet, mixed phase, and glaciated icing conditions.
    The recommendations may lead to future rulemaking, but do not 
directly impact this NPRM.

F. Advisory Material

    In addition to this NPRM, the FAA is developing Advisory Circular 
(AC) 25.1419-2x, Compliance with the Ice Protection Requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  25.1419(e), (f), (g), and (h). This proposed AC would 
provide guidance material for one acceptable means, but not the only 
means, of demonstrating compliance with this proposed rule. The 
proposed AC will be posted on ``Aircraft Certification Draft Documents 
Open for Comment'' Web site, http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs, 
on the same date this NPRM is published in the Federal Register The 
date comments are due is indicated on that Web site.

Discussion of the Proposal

A. Safety Concern

    The ARAC Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group reviewed icing 
events and found accidents and incidents where the flightcrew was 
either completely unaware of ice accretion on the airframe, or was 
aware of ice accretion, but judged that it was not significant enough 
to warrant operation of the airframe ice protection system (IPS). The 
ARAC Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group concluded and 
recommended to the FAA that flightcrews must be provided with a clear 
means to know when to activate the IPS.

B. Means To Address the Safety Concern

    The FAA has issued airworthiness directives to address the safety 
concern of when to activate the IPS on certain airplanes. These 
airworthiness directives require activation of pneumatic deicing boots 
at the first signs of ice accretion on the airplane. This requirement 
relieves the pilot of the responsibility for determining if the amount 
of ice accumulated on the wing warrants activation of the IPS. However, 
activation of the deicing boots is still subject to the flightcrew's 
observation of ice accretions, and such observations can be difficult 
during times of high workload, operations at night, or when clear ice 
has accumulated. Also, the difficulties of observing ice accretions are 
applicable to any IPS that relies on the flightcrew's observations for 
activating the system, not just pneumatic deicing boots.
    The ARAC Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group concluded that 
installing a device to alert the flightcrew to activate the IPS would 
be an improved means to address these situations for future airplanes. 
A primary ice detection system would be one acceptable means. A primary 
ice detection system typically consists of two independent detectors. 
It could either automatically activate the IPS, or provide an 
indication to the flightcrew when the system must be activated 
manually. An advisory ice detection system, in conjunction with 
substantiated visual cues, would also be an acceptable means. The 
acceptability is contingent upon:
     An advisory ice detection system that annunciates when 
icing conditions exist or when the substantiated visual cues are 
present.
     The substantiated visual cues rely on the flightcrew's 
observation of the first sign of ice accretion on the airplane and do 
not depend on the pilot determining the thickness of the accretion.
     The flightcrew activates the ice protection system when 
they observe the ice accretion or when the ice detector annunciates, 
whichever occurs first.
    An advisory ice detection system typically consists of one 
detector. Such a system does not have sufficient reliability to be the 
primary means of determining when the IPS must be activated. However, 
the advisory ice detection system would provide a much higher level of 
safety than visual cues alone and would mitigate the effects of human 
sensory limitations and inadequate attention due to workload.
    The ARAC Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group also concluded 
that an acceptable alternative to requiring an ice detector would be to 
require operating the IPS whenever the airplane is operating in 
conditions conducive to airframe icing. In this case, the flightcrew 
would activate the IPS in response to a specific air temperature 
threshold and the presence of visible moisture. Because ambient 
temperature is indicated by flightdeck instruments and the flightcrew 
can readily observe visible moisture, deciding when to initiate the 
system would require little increased effort by the flightcrew.
    The IPS activation method should be applicable during all phases of 
flight, unless it can be shown that the IPS need not be activated 
during certain phases of flight. For example, if the IPS is not 
operated during takeoff until after the second segment climb, then the 
applicant must substantiate that the airplane can operate safely with 
ice accretions that could form prior to this point.
    The FAA concurs with the safety concern that flightcrews must be 
provided with a clear means to know when to activate the IPS. To ensure 
timely activation of the IPS, the proposed Sec.  25.1419(e) requires 
one of the three acceptable methods recommended by the ARAC Ice 
Protection Harmonization Working Group: a primary ice detector, visual 
cues and an advisory ice detector, or operation based on temperature 
and visible moisture.
    Specifically, proposed Sec.  25.1419(e) requires one of the 
following methods of icing detection and activation of the airframe 
IPS:
    (1) A primary ice detection system that automatically activates or 
alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe IPS; or
    (2) A definition of visual cues for recognition of the first sign 
of ice accretion on a specified surface combined with an advisory ice 
detection system that alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe 
IPS; or
    (3) Identification of conditions conducive to airframe icing as 
defined by an appropriate static or total air temperature and visible 
moisture for use by the flightcrew to activate the airframe IPS.

[[Page 20927]]

    Proposed Sec.  25.1419(f) requires the activation method be 
applicable to all phases of flight unless it can be shown that the ice 
protection system need not be operated during specific phases of 
flight. Proposed Sec.  25.1419(h) requires that the procedures for 
operating the ice protection system be included in the Airplane Flight 
Manual.

C. Flightcrew Workload

    The FAA is concerned with the flightcrew workload created if an IPS 
must be manually cycled. Manual operation of the IPS could be a 
distraction during the approach and landing phases of flight which 
typically involve higher pilot workloads. During these critical phases 
of flight, flightcrews have less time to devote to managing the 
airplane ice accretions. An IPS that is automatically cycled or 
operates on a continuous basis (for example, an anti-icing system) does 
not create this additional workload and, therefore, is not a concern. 
Section 25.1419(g) of this proposed rule alleviates the workload 
concerns by requiring airplanes to be equipped with an IPS that would 
operate in a cyclical manner. This would include a system that would 
automatically cycle the IPS or an ice detection system that would alert 
the flightcrew whenever IPS cycling is necessary.

D. Applicability of the Proposed Rule

    A review of icing events found discriminating design factors, such 
as wing chord length or airplane weight, significantly influence the 
risk of icing accidents and incidents. The FAA and the ARAC Ice 
Protection Harmonization Working Group, however, determined that a 
certification rule dealing with ice detectors should not be limited to 
a specific group of airplanes because of past performance. Since future 
airplane designs could change, a similar safety record might not be 
achieved. Relying solely on past performance data for future airplane 
designs would not be prudent. Therefore, the proposed rule is 
applicable to all part 25 airplanes.

E. Technology

    The FAA and ARAC Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group 
reviewed the current state of ice detector technology and found that it 
provides a viable means of compliance with the proposed rule. Several 
methods exist that can reliably alert the flightcrew to activate the 
IPS. This technology has been certificated for use on airplanes to 
alert or advise the pilot of ice or as the primary means of determining 
when the IPS should be activated.
    One ice detection system that is commercially available indicates 
when a deicing IPS should be initially activated and subsequently 
activated if the IPS operates in a cyclical manner. This system has 
sensors installed on the protected airplane surfaces that sense the 
accretion of ice sufficient to warrant cycling of a deicing system. 
Other ice detection systems are capable of sensing the rate of ice 
accretion and are able to indicate when a deicing IPS should be cycled 
based on ice accretion since the preceding cycling of the system.

F. Differences From the ARAC Recommendation

    The ARAC Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group recommended 
identification of conditions conducive to airframe icing as one method 
of icing detection and activation of the airframe ice protection 
system. However, identification of conditions conducive to airframe 
icing is only a method of icing detection and not of activation. 
Therefore, the FAA revised the ARAC recommendation by clarifying that 
identification of conditions conducive to airframe icing is to be used 
for both icing detection and activation of the IPS. The revision is 
considered a minor change and does not affect the intent of the ARAC 
recommendation.

Rulemaking Notices and Analyses

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. An Airplane Flight Manual is 
required by existing part 25 regulations and must contain information 
that is necessary for safe operation of the airplane. The proposed rule 
requires that the procedures for operating the ice protection system be 
included in the Airplane Flight Manual. The proposed rule is applicable 
to future certification programs and does not require changes to 
existing Airplane Flight Manuals. Therefore, we have determined that 
there are no new information collection requirements associated with 
this proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' dated 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51736) directs the FAA to assess both the 
costs and the benefits of a regulatory change. We are not allowed to 
propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs. Our 
assessment of this rulemaking indicates that its economic impact is 
minimal. Because the costs and benefits of this action do not make it a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Order, we have not 
prepared a ``regulatory evaluation,'' which is the written cost/benefit 
analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking under the DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do a full 
evaluation where the economic impact of a rule is minimal.

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact 
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and

[[Page 20928]]

procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If 
the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows.
    An assessment has been conducted of the economic cost impact of the 
proposed rule amending Sec.  25.1419 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 25. The FAA proposes to change the 
regulations applicable to transport category airplanes certificated for 
flight in icing conditions. This proposal would require newly 
certificated part 25 transport category airplanes certificated for 
flight in icing to have one of the following methods to detect ice and 
activate the airframe IPS:
     A primary ice detection system, automatic or manual;
     The definition of visual cues for recognition of the first 
sign of ice accretion on a specified surface combined with an advisory 
ice detection system that alerts the flightcrew; or
     The identification of icing conditions by an appropriate 
static or total air temperature and visible moisture cues.
    This proposal is the result of information gathered from a review 
of historical icing accidents and incidents. This proposal is intended 
to improve the level of safety when part 25 airplanes are operated in 
icing conditions.
A. Cost Discussion
    1. Major Assumptions. This evaluation makes the following 
assumptions:
     We used a $50 hourly rate for a mechanic/technician and a 
$75 hourly rate for an engineer working for an airplane manufacturer or 
modifier.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``APO-300 Guidance on Labor Costs'', May 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whenever various compliance options are available to the 
manufacturers, we chose the least costly option in our analysis.
    Other data and derived assumptions are discussed in the following 
sections on costs and benefits.
    2. Industry Estimate of Costs. This section discusses the costs to 
require part 25 manufacturers to include a method of ice detection for 
newly certificated transport category airplanes.
    This proposal would require manufacturers of part 25 airplanes to 
provide the flightcrew with an effective method of ice detection. Such 
a method would provide a means, via an ice detection system (IDS), to 
alert the flightcrew of icing conditions and enable timely activation 
of the airframe ice protection system (IPS) for the initial and any 
subsequent cycles.
    The requirements for ice detection and activation of the airframe 
IPS are applicable to all phases of flight, unless it can be shown that 
the IPS need not be operated during specific phases of flight. If the 
IPS operates in a cyclical manner, it must either include a system that 
automatically cycles the IPS, or there must be a method that alerts the 
flightcrew each time the IPS must be cycled. In addition, this proposal 
would require that the Airplane Flight Manual contain procedures for 
activation and operation of the IPS.
    The Goodrich Corporation and the ARAC Ice Protection Harmonization 
Working Group provided us with manufacturer cost estimates for System 
Design, System Qualification, Hardware, Installation, and Maintenance.
    3. Section-by-Section Estimate of Costs. The cost estimates, by 
section, are discussed next.

Sec.  25.1419(e)

    This section proposes three alternative methods of ice detection:
     A primary IDS, automatic or manual; or
     The definition of visual cues for recognition of the first 
sign of ice accretion on a specified surface combined with an advisory 
ice detection system that alerts the flightcrew; or
     The identification of icing conditions by an appropriate 
static or total air temperature and visible moisture cues.
    Any of the three proposed ice detection methods would enable timely 
activation of the airframe IPS and satisfy the intent of this proposal.
    The first method of ice detection is the use of a primary IDS. A 
primary IDS usually has two ice detectors. The cost of an ice detector 
used in this analysis is based on the Goodrich Corporation's average 
price of $6,000 per ice detector for a production airplane. Assuming 
the primary IDS has two ice detectors, we estimate the average cost for 
a primary IDS to be about $485,000 per certification, $12,000 ($6,000 x 
2) for the hardware and $2,500 for the installation, or $14,500 
($12,000 + $2,500) per airplane. Table 1 shows a detailed breakout of 
these cost estimates.

                     Table 1.--Costs for Sec.   25.1419(e)(1)--Primary Ice Detection System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Manufacturer non-recurring costs (per aircraft                                     Additional
                group/type) 2006$                      Hours        Hourly rate        cost            Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Design:
    System architecture/Integration.............           3,000             $75  ..............        $225,000
    Ice detector positioning....................             300              75  ..............          22,500
    Procedures for AFM, AOM/FCOM & MMEL.........             200              75  ..............          15,000
System Qualification/certification:
    Ice detector qualification..................             300              75  ..............          22,500
    Ice detection system certification..........             600              75  ..............          45,000
    Flight tests................................             400              75        $100,000         130,000
Installation Design:
    Installation drawings.......................             500              50  ..............          25,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................           5,300  ..............  ..............         485,000
Costs (per airplane):
    Hardware (Primary Ice Detection System).....  ..............  ..............          12,000          12,000
    Installation................................              50              50  ..............           2,500
    Additional weight is 5-10 kg................  ..............  ..............  ..............               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 20929]]

 
        Total...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............          14,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second method of ice detection is the use of an advisory IDS 
along with visual cues. The major difference between a primary and an 
advisory IDS is that the primary IDS is the principal means to 
determine when the airframe IPS should be activated. In contrast, an 
advisory IDS is a backup to the flightcrew and has only one ice 
detector. The average cost for an advisory IDS is estimated to be 
$447,500 per certification, $6,000 for the hardware and $1,250 for the 
installation, or $7,250 ($6,000 + $1,250) per airplane. Table 2 shows a 
detailed breakout of these cost estimates.

             Table 2.--Costs for Sec.   25.1419(e)(2)--Advisory Ice Detection System and Visual Cues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Manufacturer non-recurring costs (per aircraft                                     Additional
                group/type) 2006$                      Hours        Hourly rate        cost            Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Design:
    System architecture/Integration.............           2,500             $75  ..............        $187,500
    Ice detector positioning....................             200              75  ..............          15,000
    Visual cue determination/design.............             200              75  ..............          15,000
    Procedures for AFM, AOM/FCOM & MMEL.........             200              75  ..............          15,000
System Qualification/certification:
    Ice detection qualification.................             300              75  ..............          22,500
    Visual cue substantiation...................             200              75  ..............          15,000
    Ice detection system certification..........             300              75  ..............          22,500
    Flight tests................................             400              75        $100,000         130,000
Installation Design:
    Installation drawings.......................             500              50  ..............          25,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................           4,800  ..............  ..............         447,500
Costs (per airplane):
    Hardware (Advisory Ice Detection System)....  ..............  ..............           6,000           6,000
    Installation................................              25              50  ..............           1,250
    Additional weight is 5-10 kg................  ..............  ..............  ..............               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............           7,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third method of ice detection is a definition of conditions 
conducive to airframe icing that would be used by the flightcrew to 
activate the airframe IPS. This definition would be included in the 
Airplane Flight Manual. There are no costs imposed on the airplane 
manufacturers with this option.
    A summary of the costs for each alternative is shown in Table 3:

                Table 3.--Cost Summary--Sec.   25.1419(e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Costs
                                         -------------------------------
       Sec.   25.1419 Alternatives              Per
                                           certification   Per airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e)(1) Primary IDS......................        $485,000         $14,500
(e)(2) Advisory IDS and Visual Cues.....         447,500           7,250
(e)(3) Temperature and Moisture.........               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The least cost alternative is to activate the existing airframe IPS 
whenever the airplane is operating in conditions conducive to airframe 
icing based on a specific air temperature threshold and the presence of 
visible moisture. Since there are no additional certification or 
production costs to manufacturers by complying with Sec.  25.1419(e)(3) 
through this alternative, we have determined there are no costs 
associated with compliance with Sec.  25.1419(e).
    We are aware some manufacturers may choose to install more complex 
systems ((e)(1) or (e)(2)), and want to note these more complex systems 
are acceptable alternatives to (e)(3).
    Sec.  25.1419(f). Section 25.1419(f) describes the applicability of 
the proposed rule, so there are no additional costs associated with 
this section.
    Sec.  25.1419(g). After the initial operation of the IPS, Sec.  
25.1419(g) provides alternatives the manufacturer must provide to the 
operator for safe flight. These alternatives are:
     The IPS must operate continuously, or
     The airplane must be equipped with a system that 
automatically cycles the IPS, or
     An ice detection system must be provided to alert the 
flightcrew each time the IPS must be cycled.
    Section 25.1419(g) applies to airplanes with either a thermal anti-
ice protection system or an IPS that operates in a cyclical manner. 
Thermal anti-ice protection systems operate continuously while deicing 
systems usually operate cyclically.

[[Page 20930]]

    Section 25.1419(g)(1) applies primarily to thermal anti-ice 
protection systems. Thermal anti-ice protection systems typically use 
heat or freezing point depressant fluids to keep protected surfaces of 
the airplane free of ice accretions.
    No additional manufacturing costs are associated with Sec.  
25.1419(g)(1) because once a thermal anti-ice protection system is 
activated, it is capable of operating continuously.
    Section 25.1419(g)(2) and (3) applies to IPS that operate in a 
cyclical manner. Past delivery history has shown that about 97% of U.S 
manufactured part 25 airplanes delivered have thermal anti-ice 
protection systems and 3% have deicing IPSs that operate in a cyclical 
manner. Cessna is the only U.S. manufacturer that currently delivers 
new part 25 certificated airplanes with an IPS that operates in a 
cyclical manner. Those airplanes delivered with an IPS that operates in 
a cyclical manner were certificated in September 1971.\9\ Later 
variants from that September 1971 type certificate and all later part 
25 new Cessna certifications have thermal anti-ice protection systems 
that operate continuously. We believe the trend for new part 25 
aircraft certifications is toward thermal anti-ice protection systems 
that operate continuously. Because of the trend of part 25 
manufacturers to install thermal anti-ice protection systems in their 
newly certificated part 25 airplanes, we believe there are no costs 
imposed on the airplane manufacturers by Sec.  25.1419(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Type Certification Data Sheet No. A22CE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek comments from U.S. manufacturers on their plans to produce 
a newly part 25 certificated aircraft with deicing systems that operate 
cyclically and the associated certification costs.
    Sec.  25.1419(h). Future Airplane Flight Manuals can readily be 
prepared to include appropriate icing procedures for future 
certificated air transport category airplanes. Thus minimal costs are 
associated with Sec.  25.1419(h).
    4. Conclusion. Since this final rule has minimal costs, a full 
regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with 
supporting justification about our determination of a minimal impact 
from this proposal.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    All United States transport category aircraft manufacturers exceed 
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees.
    Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would 
impose the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus 
has a neutral trade impact.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not 
contain such a mandate.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action would not have a substantial direct effect 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, and therefore would not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in 14 CFR 
in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the 
extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than 
aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she 
considers appropriate. Because this proposed rule would apply to the 
certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and 
their subsequent operation, it could, if adopted, affect intrastate 
aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically requests comments on 
whether there is justification for applying the proposed rule 
differently in intrastate operations in Alaska.

Plain English

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each 
agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We 
invite your comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier 
to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain unnecessary technical 
language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
they were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
     Is the description in the preamble helpful in 
understanding the proposed regulations?


[[Page 20931]]


Please send your comments to the address specified in the ADDRESSES 
section.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined that this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 4(j).

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Appendix 1--Definition of Terms Used in This NPRM

    For the purposes of this NPRM, the following definitions are 
applicable. These definitions of terms are intended for use only 
with this NPRM:
    a. Advisory ice detection system: An advisory system annunciates 
the presence of icing conditions or ice accretion. The advisory ice 
detection system provides information advising the flightcrew of the 
presence of ice accretion or icing conditions. It can only be used 
in conjunction with other means (most commonly, visual observation 
by the flightcrew) to determine the need for, or timing of, 
activating the anti-icing or deicing system. The flightcrew is 
responsible for monitoring the icing conditions or ice accretion as 
defined in the AFM (typically using total air temperature and 
visible moisture criteria or visible ice accretion) and activating 
the anti-icing or deicing system(s).
    b. Airframe icing: Airframe icing is ice accretions on portions 
of the airplane, with the exception of the propulsion system, on 
which supercooled liquid droplets may impinge.
    c. Anti-icing: Anti-icing is the prevention of ice accretions on 
a protected surface, either:
     By evaporating the impinging water; or
     By allowing it to run back and off the surface or 
freeze on non-critical areas.
    d. Automatic cycling mode: An automatic cycling mode is a mode 
of operation of the airframe deicing system that provides repetitive 
cycles of the system without the need for the pilot to select each 
cycle. This is generally done with a timer, and there may be more 
than one timing mode.
    e. Deicing: Deicing is the removal or the process of removal of 
an ice accretion after it has formed on a surface.
    f. Ice Protection System: An ice protection system (IPS) is a 
system that protects certain critical airframe parts from ice 
accretion. To be an approved system, it must satisfy the 
requirements of Sec.  25.1419.
    g. Primary ice detection system: A primary ice detection system 
is used to determine when the IPS must be activated. The system 
annunciates the presence of ice accretion or icing conditions, and 
may also provide information to other aircraft systems. A primary 
automatic system automatically activates the anti-icing or deicing 
IPS. With a primary manual system, the flightcrew activates the 
anti-icing or deicing IPS upon indication from the primary ice 
detection system.
    h. Static air temperature: The air temperature as would be 
measured by a temperature sensor not in motion with respect to that 
air. This temperature is also referred to in other documents as 
``outside air temperature,'' ``true outside temperature,'' or 
``ambient temperature.''

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

    1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.

    2. Amend Sec.  25.1419 by adding new paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and 
(h) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1419  Ice Protection.

* * * * *
    (e) One of the following methods of icing detection and activation 
of the airframe ice protection system must be provided:
    (1) A primary ice detection system that automatically activates or 
alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe ice protection system;
    (2) A definition of visual cues for recognition of the first sign 
of ice accretion on a specified surface combined with an advisory ice 
detection system that alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe 
ice protection system; or
    (3) Identification of conditions conducive to airframe icing as 
defined by an appropriate static or total air temperature and visible 
moisture for use by the flightcrew to activate the airframe ice 
protection system.
    (f) Unless the applicant shows that the ice protection system need 
not be operated during specific phases of flight, the requirements of 
paragraph (e) are applicable to all phases of flight.
    (g) After the initial activation of the ice protection system--
    (1) The ice protection system must operate continuously;
    (2) The airplane must be equipped with a system that automatically 
cycles the ice protection system; or
    (3) An ice detection system must be provided to alert the 
flightcrew each time the ice protection system must be cycled.
    (h) Procedures for operation of the ice protection system must be 
established and documented in the Airplane Flight Manual.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2007.
John J. Hickey,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-7944 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P