Activation of Ice Protection

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 147 (Monday, August 3, 2009)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 38328-38340] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: E9-18483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No.: FAA-2007-27654; Amendment No. 25-129] RIN 2120-AI90

Activation of Ice Protection

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This amendment becomes effective September 2, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this final rule contact Kathi Ishimaru, FAA, Propulsion and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, Washington 98057- 3356; telephone (425) 227-2674; fax: (425) 227-1320, e-mail: [email protected]. For legal questions concerning this final rule contact Douglas Anderson, FAA, Office of Regional Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., Renton, Washington 98057- 3356; telephone (425) 227-2166; fax: (425) 227-1007, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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, 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. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it prescribes new safety standards for the design of transport category airplanes.

I. Background

On October 31, 1994, an accident involving an Avions de Transport Regional ATR 72 series airplane occurred in icing conditions.\1\ 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,\2\ 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),\3\ 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 rule

[[Page 38329]]

is based on ARAC's recommendations to the FAA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ This accident and an Empressa Brasilia accident resulted in NTSB recommendations nos. A-96-56 and A-98-91. This final rule partially addresses these safety recommendations. \2\ FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan, dated April 1997, available in the Docket. \3\ Published in the Federal Register, December 8, 1997 (62 FR 64621). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Summary of the NPRM

The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 07-07, published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2007 (72 FR 20924), is the basis for this amendment. The comment period closed July 25, 2007. In the NPRM, we proposed to revise the airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category airplanes to add requirements to ensure the timely activation of an airframe ice protection system (IPS). We also proposed to add requirements to reduce the flightcrew workload associated with operation of an airframe IPS that is manually cycled, and to ensure the Airplane Flight Manual includes IPS procedures for operation.

B. Summary of the Final Rule

The FAA is adopting this final rule because accidents and incidents occurred where the flightcrew did not operate the airframe IPS in a timely manner and because of concerns over the flightcrew workload required to operate an airframe IPS that the flightcrew must manually cycle when they observe ice accretions. The final rule addresses these concerns by ensuring that flightcrews are provided with a clear means to know when to activate the airframe IPS. The final rule reduces the workload associated with monitoring ice accretions by requiring a system that operates continuously, a system that automatically cycles the IPS, or an alert to the flighcrew each time the IPS must be cycled. This final rule adopts the proposed rule with minor changes and adds minor conforming changes to rules that were added by the final rule entitled ``Airplane Performance and Handling Qualities in Icing Conditions (72 FR 44656, August 8, 2007) (Amendment 25-121).\4\ Amendment 25-121 added specific requirements for airplane performance and handling qualities for flight in icing conditions. Sections 25.143(j) and 25.207(h), at Amendment 25-121, define requirements that apply if activating the IPS depends on the pilot seeing a specified ice accretion on a reference surface (not just the first sign of ice accretion). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See Docket No. FAA-2005-22840 for complete details. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 25.1419(e) of this final rule requires one of three methods of detecting icing and activating the airframe IPS.\5\ Activation based on the pilot seeing a specified ice accretion on a reference surface (not just the first sign of ice accretion) is not one of the three methods allowed under this rulemaking, so any requirements associated with this method are no longer relevant. Therefore, minor conforming changes have been made to Sec. Sec. 25.143(j) and 25.207(h) to remove the references to, and requirements associated with, activating the IPS in response to the pilot seeing a specified ice accretion on a reference surface. Additional minor changes have been made to Sec. 25.207(h) to improve readability, including moving a portion of existing Sec. 25.207(h)(2)(ii) to a new Sec. 25.207(i). The text of part 25, appendix C, part II(e) has been revised to include a reference to the new Sec. 25.207(i). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The three methods are: (1) Primary ice detection system, (2) visual cues of the first sign of ice accretion combined with an advisory ice detector, and (3) specifying conditions conducive to airframe icing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, minor changes have been made to Sec. 25.207(b) to improve clarity and to correct an error introduced by Amendment 25-121. Section 25.207(b), as amended by Amendment 25-121, states, ``Except for the stall warning prescribed in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section, the stall warning for flight in icing conditions prescribed in paragraph (e) of this section must be provided by the same means as the stall warning for flight in non-icing conditions.'' However, the stall warning prescribed by Sec. 25.207(h)(2)(ii) is an exception only to the Sec. 25.207(b) requirement that stall warning in icing conditions be provided by the same means as for non-icing conditions. It is not an exception to, nor is it associated with, the stall warning margin prescribed by Sec. 25.207(e). The reference to Sec. 25.207(e) is incorrect and potentially confusing. Therefore, it is removed by this final rule. Because of the reformatting of Sec. 25.207(h), as discussed above, the previous Sec. 25.207(h)(2)(ii) is now Sec. 25.207(h)(3)(ii). The reference to this paragraph in Sec. 25.207(b) is changed accordingly. Other minor wording changes have been made to improve clarity. We consider all of these changes to Sec. 25.207(b) to be technical clarifications that do not change the intent of this paragraph or impose an additional burden on applicants. Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule as it relates to the comments we received on the NPRM. Appendix 1 defines terms used in this preamble.

II. Summary of Comments

The FAA received 14 comments concerning the following general areas of the proposal: Acceptable methods to determine if the airframe IPS must be activated. Automatic cycling of the airframe IPS. Four of the commenters, the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), BAE Systems Regional Aircraft, and The Boeing Company (Boeing), expressed support for the rule. ALPA supported the rule without recommendations to revise the rule. Twelve commenters suggested specific improvements or clarifications. They were the NTSB, BAE Systems Regional Aircraft, Boeing, the Air Crash Victims Families Group, Bombardier Aerospace, Marinvent Corporation, the Regional Airline Association, Swan International Sensors, Transport Canada, and three individuals. Ameriflight LLC (Ameriflight) opposed certain provisions of the rule. Summaries of the comments and our responses (including explanations of any changes to the final rule in response to the comments) are provided below.\6\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The full text of each commenter's submission is available in the Docket. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Ice Detection, Activation of Airframe IPS, and Automatic Cycling of Airframe IPS

In the NPRM, we proposed one of the following three methods for ice detection and activation of the airframe IPS to ensure timely activation of the airframe IPS (proposed Sec. 25.1419(e)): A primary ice detection system that automatically activates or alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe IPS; Visual cues for recognition of the first sign of ice accretion combined with an advisory ice detection system that alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe IPS; or Identification of conditions conducive to airframe icing for use by the flightcrew to activate the airframe IPS when those conditions exist. In addition, proposed Sec. 25.1419(g) would require an airframe IPS that operates cyclically (for example, deicing boots) to automatically cycle after the initial activation, or installation of an ice detection system to alert the flightcrew each time the deicing boots must be activated. The following comments were received on these proposals. 1. Oppose Installation of an Ice Detection System Ameriflight opposed the installation of an ice detection system because properly trained flightcrews can easily detect ice accretion by means such as ice forming in the corners of the

[[Page 38330]]

windshield or on windshield wiper arms. An individual commenter believed nothing, including an ice detector, can replace pilots looking out the window to gather information on icing. Ameriflight also suggested that it would be difficult or impossible to design a sufficiently reliable ice detection system that would be economically feasible and a practicable substitute for flightcrew training and vigilance. The individual commenter opposed installation of an ice detection system because of his experience on a military airplane that was equipped with an unreliable icing warning light. The FAA agrees that flightcrew training and vigilance are extremely important to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in icing conditions. However, visual observation of ice accretion alone, as suggested by Ameriflight and the individual commenter, is not sufficient to ensure timely operation of the airframe IPS. The flightcrew's observation of ice accretions can be difficult during times of high workload, nighttime operations, or when clear ice has accumulated. In addition, there have been icing 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 IPS. Therefore, reliance on only flightcrew visual observation of ice accretion alone is not adequate and must be supplemented with an advisory ice detection system to provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA acknowledges that it is not a simple task to design and certificate an ice detection system. However, ice detection systems exist today that meet the reliability requirements of part 25. Section 25.1309 ensures the degree of reliability of an airframe IPS is commensurate with the hazard level associated with the failure of the airframe IPS. In response to the contention that an ice detector would not be economically feasible, the FAA notes that on recent part 25 airplane certifications manufacturers sought and received approval for installation of ice detectors without an FAA requirement for such a system. Therefore, the FAA infers that these manufacturers consider the installation of ice detectors economically feasible. 2. Reliability of Advisory Ice Detection System Transport Canada suggested that the reliability level of the advisory ice detection system should be on the order of 1 x 10\-5\ failure per flight hour. Transport Canada indicated the classification assigned to the unannunciated loss of an advisory ice detection system would appear to depend upon the advisory ice detection system design, the IPS design, and the airplane on which it is installed. Therefore, it is Transport Canada's position that specific cases may need to consider the unannunciated loss of the advisory ice detection system as a major failure. The natural tendency of flightcrews to become accustomed to using the advisory ice detection system may increase the need to make flightcrews aware of failure of the advisory ice detection system. The flightcrews may need to take extra precautions when they have detected a possible failure of the advisory ice detection system. The FAA infers that Transport Canada would like the proposed rule changed to include a minimum reliability requirement for the advisory ice detection system. The FAA finds it is unnecessary to revise this rule to include a minimum reliability requirement for the advisory ice detection system because Sec. 25.1309 requires the determination of the hazard level associated with failure of any airplane system which then drives the required degree of reliability of that system. Additionally it would not be appropriate to pick a specific minimum reliability requirement for the advisory ice detection system because, as pointed out by the commenter, the hazard level associated with the unannunciated loss of the advisory ice detection system may depend upon the advisory ice detection system design, the airframe IPS design, and the airplane on which it is installed. However, the FAA may consider including guidance on advisory ice detection system reliability in the associated advisory circular. 3. Do Not Activate Pneumatic Deicing Boots at First Sign of Ice Accretion Ameriflight did not support activation of pneumatic deicing boots at the first sign of ice accretion, noting that these boots work better and continue to shed ice more effectively for a longer period if airfoil leading-edge ice is allowed to build to a sufficient thickness before cycling the boots. The commenter stated that when the boots are operated at the first indication of ice, the ice is only partially shed. The ice remaining on the boot provides a rough surface on which additional ice accumulates more readily than on a smooth boot surface, shortening the duration of the boots' ability to clean the wing effectively.\7\ Thus, the commenter believed that activating the boots at the first sign of ice was actually contrary to safety and Ameriflight's long experience with this system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The commenter noted that this is particularly true of older boots that have been on the wing for several seasons and which-- although completely airworthy--have leading edges which have become somewhat roughened by the impacts of ice crystals, snow, hail, etc., and provide a better ``tooth'' to which structural ice can adhere. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FAA has issued airworthiness directives requiring activation of pneumatic deicing boots early and often. The airworthiness directives and this rule address icing 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 IPS. The commenter raised concerns over residual ice, which is ice remaining (not shed) after a complete boot cycle. The FAA participated in high and low speed icing wind tunnel tests that contradict the commenter's position that boots work better, and continue to shed ice effectively, for a longer period if airfoil leading ice is allowed to build before cycling the boots. The higher speed icing wind tunnel tests (>=180 KCAS) showed that ice was shed after each boot activation and that after 2 or 3 cycles there was no discernible difference between ice accretions from early versus delayed activation of the boots. The residual ice that remained on the boot after cycling at the first sign of ice accretion was always smaller than the amount of ice that was present on the boot during the time that it took for \1/4\-inch of ice to form. The lower speed icing wind tunnel tests ( A primary ice detection system, automatic or manual; The definition of visual cues for recognition 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. The FAA did not receive comments causing us to change our NPRM determination that the expected costs are minimal. Bombardier indicated future technology may reintroduce cyclical deicing systems. Since 1971, no U.S. manufacturer has certificated cyclical deicing systems. Also, recent part 23 Very Light Jet (VLJ) certification programs have automatic cyclical deicing systems. We do not anticipate manufacturers to certificate manually-cycled deicing systems.

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. 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. Estimate of Costs This section discusses the costs of a new requirement for transport category airplane manufacturers to include a method of ice detection on newly certificated airplanes. The cost estimate included below is not an estimate per manufacturer, rather an estimate per new part 25 airplane certification. This final rule will require manufacturers of part 25 airplanes to provide the flightcrew with an effective method of ice detection. Such a method can provide a means, using an ice detection system (IDS), to alert the flightcrew of icing conditions and enable timely activation of the airframe 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 airframe IPS need not be operated during specific phases of flight. If the airframe IPS operates in a cyclical manner, it must either include a system that automatically cycles the airframe IPS, or there must be a method that alerts the flightcrew each time the airframe ice protection system must be cycled. This final rule requires: (e)(1) A primary IDS that automatically activates or alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe IPS; (e)(2) A definition of visual cues for recognition of the first sign of ice accretion on a specified surface combined with an advisory IDS that alerts the flightcrew to activate the airframe IPS; or (e)(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. Any of the three ice detection methods will enable timely activation of the airframe IPS and satisfy the requirements of this final rule.

[[Page 38336]]

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. The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group provided us with manufacturer cost estimates for System Design, System Qualification, Hardware, Installation, and Maintenance. 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. One commenter to the NPRM, regarding Goodrich costs, stated there was a cheaper alternative system than the Goodrich system. The FAA notes a lower cost alternative is feasible.

Table 1--Costs for Sec. 25.1419(e)(1)--Primary Ice Detection System ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturer non-recurring costs (per aircraft group/type) Additional 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 --------------------------------------------------- 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 is the principal means to determine when the airframe IPS should be activated and has two ice detectors. 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 costs estimates.

Table 2--Costs for Sec. 25.1419(e)(2)--Advisory Ice Detection System and Visual Cues ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturer non-recurring costs (per aircraft group/type) Additional 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 will be used by the flightcrew to activate the airframe IPS. This definition will be included in the Airplane Flight Manual. There are no

[[Page 38337]]

costs imposed on the airplane manufacturers with this option. Table 3 shows a summary of the costs for each alternative.

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

The least cost alternative is to activate the 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 final rule to all phases of flight, so there are no additional costs associated with this section.

Sec. 25.1419(g)

After the initial operation of the airframe IPS, Sec. 25.1419(g) provides alternatives the manufacturer must provide to the operator for safe flight. These alternatives are: The IPS must be designed to operate continuously (Sec. 25.1419(g)(1)), or The airplane must be equipped with a system that automatically cycles the IPS (Sec. 25.1419(g)(2)), or An IDS must be provided to alert the flightcrew each time the IPS must be cycled (Sec. 25.1419(g)(3)). Section 25.1419(g) applies to airplanes with either a thermal anti- icing IPS or an IPS that operates in a cyclical manner. Thermal anti- icing systems typically operate continuously while deicing systems usually operate cyclically. Section 25.1419(g)(1) applies primarily to a thermal anti-icing IPS, which typically uses heat 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-IPS is activated, it is capable of operating continuously. The cost estimates for each option do not include primary and advisory ice detection system maintenance, which would make the costs for these alternatives higher. The FAA has determined that the trend for new part 25 aircraft certification is toward anti-ice protection systems so the maintenance costs associated with deicing ice protection systems are not considered. The cost estimates for Sec. 25.1419(g)(1) do not include the associated maintenance costs for anti-ice protection systems as operators are already incurring these costs. Sections 25.1419(g)(2) and (3) apply to an airframe IPS that operates in a cyclical manner. Past delivery history has shown that about 97% of U.S. manufactured part 25 airplanes delivered have thermal anti-icing IPS and 3% have deicing IPSs that operate in a cyclical manner. Cessna is the only U.S. manufacturer that currently delivers part 25 certificated airplanes with an IPS that operates in a cyclical manner. Those airplanes were certificated in September 1971.\11\ Newer variants of airplanes from that September 1971 type certificate and all newer part 25 new Cessna certifications have thermal anti-icing IPS that operate continuously. We believe the trend for new part 25 aircraft certifications is toward a thermal anti-icing IPS that operates continuously. Because of the trend of part 25 manufacturers to install thermal anti-icing IPS in their newly certificated part 25 airplanes, we believe there are no costs imposed on the airplane manufacturers by Sec. 25.1419(g). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Type Certification Data Sheet No. A22CE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bombardier indicated future technology may reintroduce cyclical deicing systems. No U.S. manufacturer has certificated cyclical deicing systems since 1971. Since recent part 23 Very Light Jet (VLJ) certification programs have automatic cyclical deicing systems, we do not anticipate airplane manufacturers to certificate manually-cycled deicing systems. We received no 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; therefore, we believe Sec. 25.1419(g) will add no additional costs.

Sec. 25.1419(h)

Future Airplane Flight Manuals can be readily prepared to include appropriate icing procedures for future certificated air transport category airplanes. Thus, minimal costs are associated with Sec. 25.1419(h).

B. Benefits

The FAA is adopting this final rule because accidents and incidents occurred where the flightcrew did not operate the airframe IPS in a timely manner and because of concerns over the flightcrew workload required to operate an airframe IPS that the flightcrew must manually cycle. The final rule addresses these concerns by ensuring that flightcrews are provided with a clear means to know when to activate the airframe IPS and by reducing the workload associated with an airframe IPS that operates cyclically. The safety benefit of this final rule is that it will improve the level of safety of new airplane designs for operations in icing conditions.

C. Conclusions

The FAA has determined that this final rule has benefits that justify its minimal costs. However, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final rule is a ``significant regulatory action,'' because it harmonizes U.S. aviation standards with those of other civil aviation authorities.

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

[[Page 38338]]

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. As we stated in the NPRM, all United States transport category aircraft manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration small- entity criteria of 1,500 employees. We received no public comments disputing this determination. Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International 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 final rule and has no basis for believing the rule will impose substantially different costs on domestic and international entities. Thus the FAA believes the rule 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 (in 1995 dollars) 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 $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations 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 appropriate regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, we requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. We did not receive any comments, and we have determined, based on the administrative record of this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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 this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 4(j) and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 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 while it is a ``significant regulatory action,'' it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the Internet by-- 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 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 amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

Appendix 1--Definition of Terms Used in This Preamble

For the preamble of this rulemaking, the following definitions are applicable. These definitions of terms are for use only with this rulemaking's preamble: a. Advisory ice detection system: An advisory ice detection system annunciates

[[Page 38339]]

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. An advisory ice detection system differs from a primary ice detection system in that it usually consists of a single ice detector without redundancies that provide sufficient reliability to comply with Sec. 25.1309. Therefore, 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 the airplane, except for the propulsion system. 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 protected 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 aircraft 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. A primary ice detection system is a system with redundancies that provide sufficient reliability to comply with Sec. 25.1309 so the flight crew does not need to visually monitor the icing accretions that may be building on the airplane. 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.'' i. Total air temperature: The temperature of a parcel of air brought to rest relative to the aircraft resulting from adiabatic compression of the parcel. This temperature is also referred to in other documents as ``stagnation temperature.''

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

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

The Amendment

0 In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends Part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS, TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

0 2. Amend Sec. 25.143 by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 25.143 General.

* * * * * (j) For flight in icing conditions before the ice protection system has been activated and is performing its intended function, it must be demonstrated in flight with the ice accretion defined in appendix C, part II(e) of this part that: (1) The airplane is controllable in a pull-up maneuver up to 1.5 g load factor; and (2) There is no pitch control force reversal during a pushover maneuver down to 0.5 g load factor.

0 3. Amend Sec. 25.207 by revising paragraphs (b) and (h), and adding a new paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec. 25.207 Stall warning.

* * * * * (b) The warning must be furnished either through the inherent aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will give clearly distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight. However, a visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself. If a warning device is used, it must provide a warning in each of the airplane configurations prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section at the speed prescribed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Except for showing compliance with the stall warning margin prescribed in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, stall warning for flight in icing conditions must be provided by the same means as stall warning for flight in non-icing conditions. * * * * * (h) For flight in icing conditions before the ice protection system has been activated and is performing its intended function, with the ice accretion defined in appendix C, part II(e) of this part, the stall warning margin in straight and turning flight must be sufficient to allow the pilot to prevent stalling without encountering any adverse flight characteristics when: (1) The speed is reduced at rates not exceeding one knot per second; (2) The pilot performs the recovery maneuver in the same way as for flight in non-icing conditions; and (3) The recovery maneuver is started no earlier than: (i) One second after the onset of stall warning if stall warning is provided by the same means as for flight in non-icing conditions; or (ii) Three seconds after the onset of stall warning if stall warning is provided by a different means than for flight in non-icing conditions. (i) In showing compliance with paragraph (h) of this section, if stall warning is provided by a different means in icing conditions than for non-icing conditions, compliance with Sec. 25.203 must be shown using the accretion defined in appendix C, part II(e) of this part. Compliance with this requirement must be shown using the demonstration prescribed by Sec. 25.201, except that the deceleration rates of Sec. 25.201(c)(2) need not be demonstrated.

0 4. 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 airframe ice protection system need not be operated during specific phases of flight, the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section are applicable to all phases of flight. (g) After the initial activation of the airframe ice protection system--

[[Page 38340]]

(1) The ice protection system must be designed to 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, including activation and deactivation, must be established and documented in the Airplane Flight Manual.

0 5. Amend appendix C to part 25 by revising part II (e) to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 25

* * * * *

Part II--Airframe Ice Accretions for Showing Compliance With Subpart B

* * * * * (e) The ice accretion before the ice protection system has been activated and is performing its intended function is the critical ice accretion formed on the unprotected and normally protected surfaces before activation and effective operation of the ice protection system in continuous maximum atmospheric icing conditions. This ice accretion only applies in showing compliance to Sec. Sec. 25.143(j) and 25.207(h), and 25.207(i).

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2009. Lynne A. Osmus, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. E9-18483 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P