[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