Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52241 

1FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan, dated April 

1997, is available in the Docket. 

2Published in the Federal Register on December 

8, 1997 (62 FR 64621). 

Laramie, WY, Laramie Rgnl, VOR/DME RWY 

30, Amdt 7A 

[FR Doc. 2011–21052 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No.: FAA–2009–0675; 

Amendment No. 121–356] 

RIN 2120–AJ43 

Activation of Ice Protection 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action revises the 

operating rules for flight in icing 

conditions. For certain airplanes 

certificated for flight in icing, the new 

standards require either installation of 

ice detection equipment or changes to 

the airplane flight manual to ensure 

timely activation of the airframe ice 

protection system. This action is the 

result of information gathered from 

icing accidents and incidents. It is 

intended to increase the level of safety 

when airplanes fly in icing conditions. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective October 21, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

operational questions contact Charles J. 

Enders, Air Carrier Operations Branch, 

AFS–220, Flight Standards Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20591; telephone (202) 493–1422; 

facsimile (202) 267–5229; e-mail 

Charles.J.Enders@faa.gov. 

For aircraft certification questions 

contact Robert Jones, Propulsion/ 

Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM–112, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–1234; facsimile 

(425) 227–1149; e-mail 

Robert.C.Jones@faa.gov. 

For legal questions contact Douglas 

Anderson, Office of Regional Counsel, 

ANM–7, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1601 Lind Ave., SW., 

Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2166; facsimile 

(425) 227–1007; e-mail 

Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov. 

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. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations 

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 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 operation of 

certain airplanes used in air carrier 

service. 

I. Summary of the Final Action 

The FAA is creating new regulations 

in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 121 (Operating 

Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and 

Supplemental Operations) related to the 

operation of certain transport category 

airplanes in icing conditions. To 

improve the safety of these airplanes 

operating in icing conditions, the new 

regulations require either installation of 

ice detection equipment and procedures 

for its use, or changes to the airplane 

flight manual (AFM) to ensure timely 

activation of the airframe ice protection 

system. 

The economic evaluation for the final 

rule shows that the benefits exceed the 

costs for the nominal, seven, and three 

percent present value rates. The 

estimated benefits are $27.2 million 

($16.2 million present value). The total 

estimated costs are $12.7 million ($6.7 

million present value). The following 

table shows these results. 

II. 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 safety in icing conditions and 

determine what changes could be made 

to increase the level of safety. In May 

1996, we sponsored the International 

Conference on Aircraft Inflight Icing, 

where icing specialists made 

recommendations for increasing safety. 

We reviewed these recommendations 

and developed a comprehensive, multiyear icing plan. The FAA Inflight 

Aircraft Icing Plan, dated April 1997,1

described various activities we were 

considering for improving aircraft safety 

in icing conditions. In accordance with 

this plan, we tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) to consider the need for ice 

detectors or other means to give 

flightcrews early indication about action 

required for ice accumulating on critical 

surfaces of the airplane.2 The work was 

carried out by ARAC’s Ice Protection 

Harmonization Working Group 

(IPHWG). Its recommendations may be 

found in the docket for this rulemaking 

(FAA–2009–0675). 

A. Summary of the NPRM 

On November 23, 2009, the FAA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) based on ARAC’s 

recommendations to the FAA (74 FR 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULESER22AU11.051</GPH>
52242 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3The Colgan Air accident occurred on February 

12, 2009, when a Bombardier Model DHC–8–400 

series airplane flying in icing conditions crashed 

outside of Buffalo, NY, killing 50 people. 

61055). That NPRM proposed changes 

to the regulations for operators of 

certain airplanes certificated for flight in 

icing conditions that are operated under 

14 CFR part 121. It proposed 

requirements for installation of ice 

detection equipment and/or changes to 

the AFM to ensure timely activation of 

the airframe ice protection system. The 

comment period for that NPRM closed 

on February 22, 2010. 

B. Definitions 

An appendix to the preamble of this 

rule gives definitions of the terms used 

here. 

C. Related Activity 

The FAA is currently engaged in 

rulemaking that would require operators 

of airplanes to exit icing conditions for 

which the airplane has not been 

certified. Supercooled large droplet 

icing conditions may be an example of 

such conditions. 

D. Summary of Comments 

The FAA received 56 comment 

documents in response to the NPRM. 

Some commenters submitted multiple 

comments. 

• Twenty-two commenters (Boeing, 

Airbus, the Regional Airline Association 

(RAA), Air Line Pilots Association 

International (ALPA), and 16 private 

citizens) expressed support for the 

proposal in the NPRM. 

• Twenty-nine private citizens 

offered general comments on icing and 

ice protection that did not specifically 

address the proposal in the NPRM. 

These commenters stated that the FAA 

had not done enough, early enough, to 

solve the safety problems of flight in 

icing conditions. Because these 

comments were beyond the scope of the 

NPRM’s proposal, we are not 

responding to them in this preamble. 

• BAE Systems, XCEL Jet 

Management, the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), 

and two private citizens provided 

critical or non-supportive comments to 

the proposal in the NPRM. 

III. Discussion of the Final Rule 

This final rule is identical to the rule 

proposed in the NPRM. Its goal is to 

ensure that ice protection systems are 

activated in a timely way. It does this by 

relieving the flightcrew of the need for 

judging when to activate the ice 

protection system. It gives the 

flightcrew— 

• Primary ice detectors that will alert 

them to icing, 

• Specific visual cues to indicate 

icing, supplemented by advisory ice 

detectors, or 

• Specific air temperatures to check 

for which, in the presence of visible 

moisture, will indicate conditions 

conducive to icing and the need to 

follow icing procedures. 

This rule applies to airplanes 

operating under part 121 rules with a 

certified maximum takeoff weight 

(MTOW) of less than 60,000 pounds. It 

requires— 

a. A primary ice detection system and 

appropriate activation equipment and 

procedures to ensure timely activation 

of the ice protection system, 

b. An advisory ice detection system 

plus substantiated visual cues and 

procedures to ensure timely activation 

and, if necessary, repeated operation of 

the ice protection system, or 

c. If the airplane is not equipped to 

comply with either a or b above, that 

flightcrews activate and continuously or 

cyclically operate the ice protection 

system when in icing conditions 

during— 

• The takeoff climb after second 

segment, 

• En route climb, 

• Holding, 

• Maneuvering for approach and 

landing, and 

• Any other operation at approach or 

holding airspeeds. 

Icing conditions will be indicated by 

a specific air temperature and the 

presence of visible moisture. The 

flightcrew must operate the ice 

protection at the first sign of ice 

accumulation for any other phases of 

flight until after exiting the icing 

conditions. When the ice protection 

system is activated, the flightcrew must 

also initiate any additional procedures 

for operation in conditions conducive to 

icing specified in the AFM or the 

manual required by § 121.133. This 

third option of the rule permits 

compliance without additional 

equipment. It supports part 121 

operations of existing airplanes that are 

not equipped with ice detectors and 

new airplanes designed in accordance 

with § 25.1419(e)(3). However, if the 

AFM prohibits these procedures, then 

compliance must be demonstrated with 

either of the first two options. 

To eliminate any guesswork for the 

flightcrew in identifying icing 

conditions, this rule defines icing 

conditions as the presence of visible 

moisture in temperatures of 5° C or less 

static air temperature or 10° C or less 

total air temperature, unless the AFM 

defines it differently. 

The rule requires that ice protection 

procedures be established in the AFM or 

the manual required by § 121.133, and 

that they address— 

• Initial activation of the ice 

protection system, 

• Operation of the ice protection 

system after initial activation, and 

• Deactivation of the ice protection 

system. 

These procedures must address 

whether, after initial activation, the ice 

protection system must be operated 

continuously or cycled automatically or 

manually. The rule also specifies that if 

an operator elects to install an ice 

detection system, it must be approved 

through an amended or supplemental 

type certificate in accordance with part 

21. 

The FAA considers this rule to be a 

necessary increase in the standard of 

safety because there have been accidents 

and incidents in which the flightcrew 

did not start the airframe ice protection 

system soon enough. In some cases, 

crews were completely unaware of ice 

accumulation on the airframe. In other 

cases, they knew that ice was 

accumulating, but thought it not 

significant enough to require activating 

the ice protection system. This rule is 

meant to prevent that from happening 

again by giving flightcrews a clear 

means of knowing when to activate the 

airframe ice protection system. 

Following are the comments requesting 

changes to the rule. 

A. Training 

XCEL Jet Management commented 

that poor training and airmanship in 

relation to operating in icing conditions 

were responsible for both the Colgan 

Air 3 and ATR accidents and that better 

pilot training was the solution. An 

individual commenter suggested that 

improved and more complete pilot 

training were the real solutions for 

reducing icing accidents and suggested 

that pilots should obtain a license 

endorsement for flight in icing. Neither 

of these commenters felt that this 

additional operating rule was 

warranted. 

While icing conditions were present 

at the time of the Colgan accident, the 

NTSB did not find that these conditions 

either caused or contributed to the 

accident. Rather, the NTSB found that 

Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for 

airspeed selection and management 

during approaches in icing condition 

contributed to the accident. The Colgan 

Air flightcrew was operating the ice 

protection system properly, and the 

airplane stall occurred very close to the 

clean wing stall speed. The Bombardier 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52243 

4 Ice bridging is a phenomenon that may have 

occurred on some obsolete de-icing boot systems. In 

theory, ice could form around the outside of a fully 

inflated boot, forming a ‘‘bridge,’’ which then could 

not be removed by subsequent inflation cycles of 

the boot. 

Model DHC–8–400 series airplane that 

those pilots were flying has an advisory 

ice detection system that helped them 

know when to activate the ice 

protection system. Pilots may fail to 

activate an ice protection system for any 

number of reasons that could include 

inattention, a heavy workload that 

causes ice monitoring vigilance to be 

reduced, or failure to detect the ice 

because of environmental conditions. 

Additional training may not effectively 

address any of those issues. Thus, we 

proposed a rule that will require either 

actively alerting the pilot to icing 

conditions or causing the pilot to 

activate the ice protection system when 

a certain temperature exists in 

conditions of visible moisture. The 

exception to this would be during the 

cruise phase, when activation of the ice 

protection system at the first sign of 

icing will be required. This will ensure 

safe flight in icing conditions 

independent of icing flight training. 

Therefore, the proposed rule is not 

changed based on these comments. 

Note that many new training materials 

developed by National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) have 

been released in order to ensure that 

pilots have access to information that 

will give them the knowledge and skills 

to safely and strategically fly in icing 

conditions. 

B. Require Automatic Detection and 

Activation 

An individual commenter indicated 

that the ice protection system should be 

turned on automatically but in a 

‘‘sequence that would allow the crew to 

turn it off both before it activated and 

after it completed a cycle.’’ 

We understand from this that the 

commenter thinks automatic activation 

should be mandatory, but with features 

that allow the pilot to intercede. While 

automatic activation has advantages, we 

have not determined it should be 

mandatory. The FAA does not dictate 

design of aircraft systems. Instead we 

provide performance-based rules. We 

believe it should be up to the operator/ 

applicant to choose the best design for 

its aircraft. Under this approach, an 

automatic activation design would be 

acceptable. Examples of other safe and 

acceptable options include— 

• Primary ice detection with manual 

ice protection system activation, 

• Advisory ice detection and pilot 

monitoring with manual ice protection 

system activation, and 

• Manual ice protection system 

activation based on temperature and 

visible moisture for non-cruise flight 

phases, as well as manual ice protection 

system activation during cruise at the 

first sign of icing. 

We have not changed the rule based 

on this comment. 

C. Does the rule include withdrawn 

airworthiness directives (ADs)? 

BAE stated that it is not clear whether 

the rule applies to airplanes for which 

previously proposed ADs were 

withdrawn. It is the FAA’s intent that 

this new rule will apply to all airplanes 

with a certified MTOW less than 60,000 

pounds, whether or not original ADs 

requiring ice protection system 

activation at the first sign of icing have 

been withdrawn. As discussed in the 

NPRM, the purpose of the ADs was to 

require that the ice protection system be 

activated at the first sign of icing. This 

assumes the flightcrew detects the icing. 

The fact that we concluded there was no 

need to prevent delayed activation on 

certain airplanes, and therefore 

withdrew those ADs, is irrelevant to the 

purpose of this rule. The purpose of this 

rulemaking is to ensure detection and 

activation or, if operating without an ice 

detection system, timely activation in 

non-cruise flight. The FAA also finds 

that, for airplanes not equipped with ice 

detectors, it is acceptable to activate the 

ice protection system at the first sign of 

icing for any phase not identified in 

§ 121.321(a)(3)(i) (for example, cruise). 

D. Existing Procedures Are Safe Enough 

BAE stated that original certification 

of their airplanes for flight in icing was 

based on the most adverse accretions 

determined from Appendix C to part 25, 

and that the procedures established 

during this certification, including 

activation after accumulating one-half 

inch of ice on the airframe, do not result 

in an unsafe condition. 

We agree that following the 

established procedures does not result 

in an unsafe condition, as long as the 

flightcrew detects the icing and 

activates the ice protection system in 

accordance with those procedures. But 

several accidents and incidents have 

occurred because of failure to activate 

the ice protection system in a timely 

fashion. In some of those cases, critical 

ice formed before the crew activated the 

ice protection system. Other cases have 

occurred when, for any number of 

reasons, there was a delay in activating 

the ice protection system. This rule is 

intended to ensure timely detection of 

icing on the airframe and activation of 

the ice protection system. It helps 

ensure that ice protection system 

activation procedures are followed. 

Therefore, the proposed rule is not 

changed based on this comment. 

E. Residual and Intercycle Ice 

BAE suggested that the larger ice 

accretions assessed during certification 

might be safer than ice accumulated 

when operating the ice protection 

system in conditions conducive to icing, 

at the first sign of icing, and at regular 

intervals thereafter. BAE also expressed 

concern that aircraft handling qualities 

and performance have not been 

demonstrated with these new 

procedures. BAE does not recommend 

acceptance of this rule in its current 

form unless we can provide further 

justification for its adoption. 

We believe there is ample justification 

for this rule. In the initial stages of the 

IPHWG’s examination of the problems 

of flight in icing, there was great 

concern about activating boot ice 

protection systems at the first sign of 

icing because of a phenomenon known 

as ice bridging.4 We infer this is the 

reason BAE suggested larger ice 

accretions may be safer than those that 

would be formed under this rule. No 

one has reported ice bridging nor has it 

been seen during testing on modern 

deicing boots. Classical ice bridging was 

associated with older designs that had 

slow inflation and deflation rates; on the 

order of ten seconds. Modern systems, 

with their small-diameter inflation 

chambers and high inflation rates, 

ensure that bridging is not a concern. 

We also infer from this comment a 

concern that residual and intercycle ice 

might be more critical than allowing a 

certain depth of ice to accrete before ice 

protection system activation. This 

concern is limited to booted ice 

protection systems. 

Persistent ice accretions occur in icing 

conditions even when pneumatic 

deicing boots are operating. Whether 

one-quarter or one-half inch of ice is 

allowed to accumulate before activation, 

or the icing boots are activated at the 

first sign of ice accumulation, or they 

are activated at annunciation by an ice 

detector system and periodically 

afterwards, residual and intercycle ice 

will exist. The procedure will minimize 

residual and intercycle ice accretions 

because the ice will shed when the 

minimum thickness or mass required for 

shedding is reached. Adverse airplane 

flying qualities resulting from ice 

accretions typically are affected by the 

thickness, shape, texture, and location 

of the ice. The thickness of the residual 

and intercycle ice resulting from this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52244 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

procedure is less than what is typically 

allowed to accumulate before deicing 

boot operation when the manufacturer 

has recommended delayed activation. 

The FAA has written many ADs 

requiring airplane operators to include 

in their AFM procedures to activate 

deicing boots at the first sign of ice 

accumulation. The airplane models to 

which these ADs were directed have 

many different wing and stabilizer 

design characteristics and different 

deicing boot configurations. In addition, 

they represent a large proportion of the 

airplane fleet that is equipped with 

pneumatic deicing boots. We have not 

received any reports of these airplanes 

suffering adverse effects of ice from 

early activation of the deicing boots. 

In addition, a number of airplane 

models are equipped with deicing boot 

systems with automatic operating 

modes. These systems automatically 

cycle at specific time intervals after 

being initially activated. Such automatic 

cycling has certainly resulted in 

operation of the boots with less than the 

recommended thickness of ice accretion 

originally included in the AFMs. We 

have received no reports indicating any 

adverse effects from use of the 

automatic mode. Boot ice protection 

systems operated early and often to 

remove ice, including intercycle and 

residual ice, have performed safely and 

effectively. We have not changed the 

rule based on this comment. 

F. Additional Certification Will Be 

Necessary 

BAE noted that crews operating under 

§ 121.321(a)(3) (without ice detectors) 

need to activate the ice protection 

system in conditions conducive to icing 

irrespective of whether ice is actually 

accreting. For aircraft that do not have 

an automatic mode to cycle the ice 

protection system, the continuous 

manual cycling of the system would 

result in an increased workload for the 

flightcrew. Section 121.321(d)(iv) 

requires that, for airplanes without 

automatic cycling modes, procedures 

will be needed for a specific time 

interval for repeated cycling of the ice 

protection system. BAE said that 

validation of this procedure could 

require further icing certification 

testing, and that this issue had not been 

raised in the NPRM. 

With respect to increasing workload, 

currently pilots have to monitor for ice. 

Sometimes in these conditions it may be 

difficult to determine whether 

activation of the ice protection system is 

needed. This final rule requires that, 

after initial activation of the ice 

protection system, the pilot periodically 

activate the ice protection system. To do 

this, the pilot only has to monitor time, 

not ice accretion thickness. Therefore, 

we do not believe there will be any 

significant increase in workload, and 

that the workload may decrease in some 

circumstances. 

With respect to BAE’s comment that 

validating ice protection system cycling 

procedures and the potential for icing 

certification testing was not raised in 

the NPRM, every airplane that uses a 

manual deicing system has established 

procedures for its operation until the 

airplane has exited icing conditions. 

Models with periodic cycling 

procedures should require no 

incremental certification testing because 

they already have an approved periodic 

cycling procedure. For airplanes in 

which flightcrews have in the past 

activated boots based on ice accretion 

thickness, calculating a conservative 

cycling interval based on Appendix C to 

part 25 is a relatively straightforward 

process. It should not require flight 

testing. In addition, AC 121.321–X 

provides guidance recommending that 

intervals should not exceed three 

minutes. Thus, we do not believe that 

validation of this procedure should 

require additional certification testing. 

G. Include All Airplanes 

The NTSB expressed support for the 

proposed rule. However, the NTSB 

stated that the rule should apply to all 

deicing-boot-equipped airplanes 

currently in service. This would include 

airplanes weighing more than 60,000 

pounds. The NTSB also suggested that 

the Bombardier Model DHC–8–400 

series airplane (which has a MTOW of 

slightly more than 60,000 pounds and 

was involved in the Colgan Air 

accident) might have been better 

protected if this rule had been applied 

to it. 

The FAA appreciates the NTSB’s 

support for the proposed rule. We do 

not believe, however, that it is necessary 

to expand the rule to cover airplanes 

with higher weights. The IPHWG data 

and analysis showed that only airplanes 

falling below the weight level in the rule 

have had problems associated with 

delayed activation of the ice protection 

system. 

As for the Bombardier Model DHC–8– 

400 series airplane, while icing 

conditions were present at the time of 

the Colgan accident, the NTSB did not 

find that these conditions either caused 

or contributed to the accident. Rather, 

the NTSB found that Colgan Air’s 

inadequate procedures for airspeed 

selection and management during 

approaches in icing condition 

contributed to the accident. In fact, the 

accident airplane had an ice detector 

and would have been in compliance 

with this rule through the majority of its 

flight profile. Therefore, increasing the 

maximum applicable weight to capture 

the Bombardier Model DHC–8–400 

series airplane would have very little, if 

any, safety benefit. Increasing the rule’s 

weight applicability to encompass other 

airplanes of this size and larger is not 

justified by available data. We have not 

changed the rule as a result of this 

comment. 

Another reason the NTSB suggested 

that the rule should encompass heavier 

airplanes is that it believes such 

procedures would also help protect 

these airplanes in conditions that fall 

outside of Appendix C to part 25. This 

rule does not address conditions outside 

of Appendix C. In supercooled large 

droplet (SLD) conditions (which are not 

included in Appendix C), ice may form 

aft of the ice protection system 

equipment. To suggest that this rule 

may help address the SLD issue is not 

correct. The most significant item to 

consider, however, is that data show 

that these heavier airplanes have not 

had any safety problems associated with 

delayed activation of the ice protection 

system. Therefore, the rule is not 

changed as a result of this comment. 

H. Include Parts 91 and 135 Operations 

The NTSB supported applying the 

proposed rule to airplanes operated 

under part 121, but stated that a similar 

rule should also be levied on all 

airplanes operated under 14 CFR parts 

91 and 135. The NTSB stated that on 

parts 91 and 135 airplanes with ADs 

directing flightcrews to activate the ice 

protection system at the first sign of 

icing, it can be difficult for crews to 

identify icing on the airplanes. The 

NTSB noted that a Circuit City Citation 

Model 560 series airplane involved in 

an icing accident was operated under 

part 91 and had an AD for activation of 

deicing boots at the first sign of icing, 

which had been withdrawn. This left 

the flightcrew to observe a prescribed 

amount of ice before activation. The 

NTSB believed that similar accidents 

may occur if parts 91 and 135 airplanes 

are not included in this rule. 

We considered including parts 91 and 

135 operations during deliberations of 

the IPHWG and during drafting of the 

NPRM. We determined, however, that 

the increased flexibility afforded by 

unscheduled operations (the types of 

operations governed by parts 91 and 

135), coupled with appropriate 

direction on when pilots should activate 

the ice protection systems (usually at 

the first sign of icing or in conditions of 

visible moisture and specific 

temperatures), provides an adequate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52245 

level of safety for ice protection system 

activation. Pilots flying scheduled 

operations, on the other hand, may not 

have the flexibility to avoid flying into 

weather that would otherwise be 

avoided. This rule ensures that part 121 

operators of applicable airplanes will be 

directed to operate the ice protection 

systems appropriately. 

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. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

This final rule will impose the 

following new information collection 

requirements. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted 

these proposed information collection 

amendments to OMB for its review. 

This final rule requires— 

a. A primary ice detection system and 

appropriate activation equipment and 

procedures to ensure timely activation 

of the ice protection system, 

b. An advisory ice detection system 

plus substantiated visual cues and 

procedures to ensure timely activation 

and, if necessary, repeated operation of 

the ice protection system, or 

c. If the airplane is not equipped to 

comply with either a or b above, that 

flightcrews activate and continuously or 

cyclically operate the ice protection 

system when in icing conditions 

during— 

• The takeoff climb after second 

segment, 

• En route climb, 

• Holding, 

• Maneuvering for approach and 

landing, and 

• Any other operation at approach or 

holding airspeeds. 

This rule may require operators to 

revise their airplane flight manuals or 

the manual required by § 121.133. 

Adding these new procedures may 

require the addition of a page or two to 

those manuals. This is classified as a 

record keeping item and no data will be 

collected. 

We have received no comments about 

the recordkeeping burden of this rule. 

The OMB control number for this 

information collection will be published 

in the Federal Register after the Office 

of Management and Budget approves it. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

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, this Trade 

Agreements 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 final rule. 

Readers seeking greater detail should 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this final rule: (1) 

Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) has 

been designated as a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ by the Office of 

Management and Budget, and is 

therefore ‘‘significant’’ under DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The estimated cost of this final rule is 

about $12.7 million in nominal dollars 

($6.7 million in seven percent present 

value terms). The estimated potential 

benefits of averting one accident and 

five fatalities are about $22.1 million in 

nominal dollars ($11.4 million in seven 

percent present value terms). Table 1 

shows these results. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULESER22AU11.052</GPH>
52246 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

5 ‘‘Treatment of the Economic Value of a 

Statistical Life in Departmental Analysis,’’ March 

18, 2009, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Memorandum. 

6 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Occupational Employment and Wages. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

Operators of transport category 

airplanes with a certified MTOW under 

60,000 pounds operating under 14 CFR 

part 121. 

Assumptions 

(1) The base year is 2010. 

(2) This final rule will be effective in 

2011. 

(3) The compliance date of the rule is 

24 months from the effective date of the 

final rule. 

(4) The analysis period extends for 

20 years from 2013 through 2032. We 

believe this analysis period captures 

nearly all of the expected benefits and 

costs. 

(5) All monetary values are expressed 

in constant 2010 dollars. The present 

value of the potential 10-year benefit 

stream was calculated by discounting 

the monetary values using three and 

seven percent present value rates over 

the 2013 to 2032 analysis period. 

(6) The value of an averted fatality is 

$6.0 million.5

(7) The FAA used a $104.99 hourly 

rate for a mechanic/technician working 

for an airplane manufacturer or modifier 

and an $86.48 hourly rate for an 

engineer working for an airplane 

manufacturer or modifier. These hourly 

rates include overhead costs.6

Benefits of This Rule 

The benefits of this final rule consist 

of the value of averted fatalities, 

airplane loss, and investigation cost 

from avoiding accidents involving 

transport category airplanes with a 

certified MTOW under 60,000 pounds 

operating under 14 CFR part 121. We 

estimate that one accident and five 

fatalities could potentially be avoided, 

over the analysis period, by adopting 

the final rule. The value of an averted 

fatality is assumed to be $6.0 million. A 

series of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 

were issued for airplanes with 

pneumatic de-icing boots to activate the 

systems at the first sign of ice accretion. 

Due to the similarity of requirements 

between the ADs and this proposal, we 

accounted for the effects of the ADs by 

reducing the estimated benefits. Over 

the analysis period, the potential 

benefits of the final rule will be $22.1 

million in nominal dollars ($11.4 

million in seven percent present value 

terms). 

Estimated Costs of This Rule 

We estimate the total cost of the final 

rule, over the analysis period, to be 

about $12.7 million in nominal dollars 

using airplane compliance costs 

developed by the IPHWG. The seven 

percent present value cost of this final 

rule over the analysis period is about 

$6.7 million. We estimate the initial 

costs for a new certification program for 

operating the deicing boots based on 

visible moisture and temperature are 

about $400,000. We estimate the 

operating and training costs are about 

$12.3 million. 

Alternatives Considered 

Alternative One 

Maintain the status quo: Simply 

maintaining the status quo for flight in 

icing procedures would not be a 

practice that is responsive to NTSB 

recommendations and the FAA Inflight 

Aircraft Icing Plan. The FAA has 

rejected this alternative because the 

final rule will enhance passenger safety 

and prevent ice-related accidents for 

airplanes with a certified MTOW less 

than 60,000 pounds. As it stands, the 

final rule is the reasoned result of the 

FAA Administrator carrying out the 

FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan. 

Alternative Two 

Issue more ADs requiring a means to 

know when to activate the icing 

protection system: The FAA has already 

issued ADs to address activation of icing 

protection systems. An evaluation of 

accidents and incidents led to the 

conclusion that the ADs do not provide 

adequate assurance that the flightcrew 

will be made aware of when to activate 

the icing protection system. Because 

this problem is not unique to particular 

airplane designs, but exists for all 

airplanes susceptible to the icing 

hazards described previously, it is 

appropriate to address this problem 

through an operational rule, rather than 

by ADs. 

Alternative Three 

Issue new standards: The third 

alternative is this final rule. The FAA’s 

judgment is that this is the most viable 

option because the final rule will 

increase the safety of the flying public 

by reducing icing-related accidents in 

the future in the least costly way. 

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-forprofit 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. 

The FAA has determined that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The FAA 

made the same determination in the 

NPRM. There were no comments 

regarding small entities for the NPRM. 

The following briefly describes the 

history leading up to this rulemaking 

and the methodology used to determine 

that this final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

On October 31, 1994, at 1559 Central 

Standard Time, an Avions de Transport 

Regional model ATR 72, operated by 

Simmons Airlines, Incorporated, and 

doing business as American Eagle flight 

4184, crashed during a rapid descent 

after an uncommanded roll excursion. 

The FAA, Aerospatiale, the French 

Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation Civile, 

Bureau Enquete Accident, NASA, 

NTSB, and others conducted an 

extensive investigation of this accident. 

This accident and the investigation 

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. The final 

rule is responsive to NTSB 

recommendation A–07–14. The final 

rule is also one of the items listed in the 

FAA Inflight Aircraft Icing Plan, dated 

April 1997. The Inflight Aircraft Icing 

Plan details the FAA’s plans for 

improving the safety of airplanes when 

they are operated in icing conditions. 

This final rule specifically applies to 

part 121 operators of airplanes that have 

a certified MTOW of less than 60,000 

pounds. We have determined which 

small entities could be affected by 

associating airplanes with a certified 

MTOW of less than 60,000 pounds with 

part 121 operators. For this section of 

the analysis, only those operators 

meeting the above criteria that have 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52247 

1,500 or fewer employees are 

considered. 

To estimate the number of affected 

airplanes, the FAA analyzed the current 

active fleet of airplanes, a forecast of 

airplanes affected by the final rule 

entering the fleet, and a forecast of the 

retired affected airplanes exiting the 

fleet during the analysis period. 

A list of all U.S. operated civilian 

airplanes operating under part 121 was 

generated by the FAA Flight Standards 

Service. Each airplane group was 

matched with its current (as of May 

2010) MTOW and average age through 

the use of the OAG FleetPCTM database. 

All airplanes with a MTOW greater than 

60,000 pounds were eliminated. 

Using industry sources, the FAA 

determined which airplanes currently 

had primary or advisory icing detection 

systems. Airplanes equipped with either 

a primary or advisory ice detection 

system are in compliance, and this final 

rule will impose no costs to operators of 

those airplanes. All turbojets affected by 

this proposal are in compliance because 

those airplanes are equipped with either 

a certificated primary or advisory ice 

detection systems. 

The FAA used the OAG FleetPCTM

database and determined that 

turboprops are retired from U.S. 

certificated service at an average age 

(mean) of 25.9 years. Thus, we assume 

that each of the small operators’ 

airplanes is retired when their airplanes 

reach the average retirement age of 25.9 

years. 

Using information provided by the 

World Aviation Directory, SEC filings, 

and the Internet, scheduled and nonscheduled commercial operators that are 

subsidiary businesses of larger 

businesses were eliminated from the 

database. An example of a subsidiary 

business is Continental Express, Inc., 

which is a subsidiary of Continental 

Airlines. Using information provided by 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Form 41 filings, the World Aviation 

Directory Winter 2009, and the Internet, 

all businesses with more than 1,500 

employees were eliminated. The FAA 

obtained company revenue from the 

remaining businesses. Following this 

approach, five small entities operate 

airplanes that will be affected by this 

proposal. 

The FAA estimated the cost of 

compliance per airplane and multiplied 

this cost by the total fleet of affected 

airplanes per operator, over the analysis 

period, to obtain the total compliance 

cost for each small entity. The nonrecurring costs, for updating the 

airplane flight manual for each major 

airplane group, were distributed equally 

among the airplanes in each major 

airplane group. These non-recurring 

costs occurred in year four of the 

analysis period. Note that the more 

airplanes in a major airplane group, the 

less expensive, per airplane, the nonrecurring costs are to the operators of 

those airplanes. In addition to the 

airplane flight manual cost, the 

additional incremental recurring costs 

include boot maintenance, replacement 

and installation labor. These recurring 

costs started in 2013 and continued 

either until the airplane retired or 

through the end of the analysis period. 

The degree to which small air 

operator entities can ‘‘afford’’ the cost of 

compliance is determined by the 

availability of financial resources. The 

initial implementation costs of the final 

rule may be financed, paid for using 

existing company assets, or borrowed. A 

proxy for the firm’s ability to afford the 

cost of compliance is the ratio of the 

total annualized cost of the final rule as 

a percentage of annual revenue. No 

small business operator potentially 

affected by this final rule incurred costs 

greater than one percent of its annual 

revenue. On that basis, we believe firms 

can afford the compliance costs of this 

final rule. We used a similar metric for 

the initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

and received no comments. Table 2 

shows the economic impact on the 

small entity air operators affected by 

this final rule. 

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), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULESER22AU11.053</GPH>
52248 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. 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 

determined that the proposed standards 

are necessary for aviation safety and 

will not create unnecessary obstacles to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States. 

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 

$143.1 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 

have 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 312f 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 

considered a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures, 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 notice, amendment, 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—Definition of Terms Used in 

This Rule 

For purposes of this final rule, the 

following definitions are applicable. Note 

that some of these definitions are common to 

those used in the preamble to the final rule 

for § 25.1419 Ice protection, and that rule’s 

accompanying guidance material. 

a. Advisory ice detection system—A system 

that advises the flightcrew of the presence of 

ice accretion or icing conditions. Both 

primary ice detection systems and advisory 

ice detection systems can either direct the 

pilot to manually activate the ice protection 

system or provide a signal that automatically 

activates the ice protection system. However, 

because it has lower reliability than a 

primary system, an advisory ice detection 

system 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 antiicing or deicing system. With an advisory ice 

detection system, the flightcrew is 

responsible for monitoring icing conditions 

or ice accretion as defined in the airplane 

flight manual (AFM), typically using total air 

temperature and visible moisture criteria or 

visible ice accretion. With an advisory ice 

detection system, the flightcrew is 

responsible for activating the anti-icing or 

deicing system(s). 

b. Airframe icing—Ice accretion on the 

airplane, except for on the propulsion 

system. 

c. Anti-icing—Prevention of ice accretions 

on a protected surface, either by: 

• Evaporating the impinging water, or 

• Allowing the impinging water to run 

back and off the protected surface or freeze 

on non-critical areas. 

d. Automatic cycling mode—A mode of 

operation of the airframe de-icing 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. Conditions conducive to airframe icing— 

Visible moisture at or below a static air 

temperature of 5°C or total air temperature of 

10°C, unless otherwise substantiated. 

f. Deicing—The removal or the process of 

removal of an ice accretion after it has 

formed on a surface. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52249 

g. Ice protection system (IPS)—A system 

that protects certain critical aircraft parts 

from ice accretion. To be an approved 

system, it must satisfy the requirements of 

§ 23.1419 or § 25.1419 and other applicable 

requirements. 

h. Primary ice detection system—A 

detection system used to determine when the 

IPS must be activated. This system 

announces the presence of ice accretion or 

icing conditions, and it may also provide 

information to other aircraft systems. A 

primary automatic system automatically 

activates the anti-icing or deicing IPS. A 

primary manual system requires the 

flightcrew to activate the anti-icing or deicing 

IPS upon indication from the primary ice 

detection system. 

i. Reference surface—The observed surface 

used as a reference for the presence of ice on 

the monitored surface. The reference surface 

may be observed directly or indirectly. Ice 

must occur on the reference surface before— 

or at the same time as—it appears on the 

monitored surface. Examples of reference 

surfaces include windshield wiper blades or 

bolts, windshield posts, ice evidence probes, 

the propeller spinner, and the surface of ice 

detectors. The reference surface may also be 

the monitored surface. 

j. Static air temperature—The air 

temperature that would be measured by a 

temperature sensor that is not in motion in 

relation to that air. This temperature is also 

referred to in other documents as ‘‘outside air 

temperature,’’ ‘‘true outside temperature,’’ or 

‘‘ambient temperature.’’ 

k. Total air temperature—The static air 

temperature plus the rise in temperature due 

to the air being brought to rest relative to the 

airplane. 

l. Visual cues—Ice accretion on a reference 

surface that the flightcrew observes. The 

visual cue is used to detect the first sign of 

airframe ice accretion. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 

Aircraft, Air carriers, Aviation safety, 

Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 121 of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711, 

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903– 

44904, 44912, 46105. 

■ 2. Revise § 121.321 to read as follows: 

§ 121.321 Operations in Icing. 

After October 21, 2013 no person may 

operate an airplane with a certificated 

maximum takeoff weight less than 

60,000 pounds in conditions conducive 

to airframe icing unless it complies with 

this section. As used in this section, the 

phrase ‘‘conditions conducive to 

airframe icing’’ means visible moisture 

at or below a static air temperature of 

5°C or a total air temperature of 10°C, 

unless the approved Airplane Flight 

Manual provides another definition. 

(a) When operating in conditions 

conducive to airframe icing, compliance 

must be shown with paragraph (a)(1), or 

(2), or (3) of this section. 

(1) The airplane must be equipped 

with a certificated primary airframe ice 

detection system. 

(i) The airframe ice protection system 

must be activated automatically, or 

manually by the flightcrew, when the 

primary ice detection system indicates 

activation is necessary. 

(ii) When the airframe ice protection 

system is activated, any other 

procedures in the Airplane Flight 

Manual for operating in icing conditions 

must be initiated. 

(2) Visual cues of the first sign of ice 

formation anywhere on the airplane and 

a certificated advisory airframe ice 

detection system must be provided. 

(i) The airframe ice protection system 

must be activated when any of the 

visual cues are observed or when the 

advisory airframe ice detection system 

indicates activation is necessary; 

whichever occurs first. 

(ii) When the airframe ice protection 

system is activated, any other 

procedures in the Airplane Flight 

Manual for operating in icing conditions 

must be initiated. 

(3) If the airplane is not equipped to 

comply with the provisions of 

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, 

then the following apply: 

(i) When operating in conditions 

conducive to airframe icing, the 

airframe ice protection system must be 

activated prior to, and operated during, 

the following phases of flight: 

(A) Takeoff climb after second 

segment, 

(B) En route climb, 

(C) Go-around climb, 

(D) Holding, 

(E) Maneuvering for approach and 

landing, and 

(F) Any other operation at approach 

or holding airspeeds. 

(ii) During any other phase of flight, 

the airframe ice protection system must 

be activated and operated at the first 

sign of ice formation anywhere on the 

airplane, unless the Airplane Flight 

Manual specifies that the airframe ice 

protection system should not be used or 

provides other operational instructions. 

(iii) Any additional procedures for 

operation in conditions conducive to 

icing specified in the Airplane Flight 

Manual or in the manual required by 

§ 121.133 must be initiated. 

(b) If the procedures specified in 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section are 

specifically prohibited in the Airplane 

Flight Manual, compliance must be 

shown with the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(c) Procedures necessary for safe 

operation of the airframe ice protection 

system must be established and 

documented in: 

(1) The Airplane Flight Manual for 

airplanes that comply with 

§ 121.321(a)(1) or (2), or 

(2) The Airplane Flight Manual or in 

the manual required by § 121.133 for 

airplanes that comply with 

§ 121.321(a)(3). 

(d) Procedures for operation of the 

airframe ice protection system must 

include initial activation, operation after 

initial activation, and deactivation. 

Procedures for operation after initial 

activation of the ice protection system 

must address— 

(1) Continuous operation, 

(2) Automatic cycling, 

(3) Manual cycling if the airplane is 

equipped with an ice detection system 

that alerts the flightcrew each time the 

ice protection system must be cycled, or 

(4) Manual cycling based on a time 

interval if the airplane type is not 

equipped with features necessary to 

implement (d)(i)–(iii) of this section. 

(e) System installations used to 

comply with § 121.321(a)(1) or (2) must 

be approved through an amended or 

supplemental type certificate in 

accordance with part 21 of this chapter. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 

2011. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21247 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 3 and 4 

Rules of Practice 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’). 

ACTION: Final rule amendments. 

SUMMARY: The FTC is amending its 

Rules of Practice for its adjudicative 

process, including those regarding the 

initiation of discovery, limitations on 

discovery, the Standard Protective 

Order, the admission of certain hearsay 

evidence, the video recording of 

proceedings, the designation of 

confidentiality on documents, the 

timing for oral argument on appeal, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES