Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Notices 15931 

1See e.g., Administrator v. Boger, N.T.S.B. Order 

No. EA–4525 (Feb. 14, 1997); Administrator v. 

Groszer, NTSB Order No. EA–3770 (Jan. 5, 1993); 

Administrator v. Bowen, 2 N.T.S.B. 940, 943 (1974). 

a.k.a. Sazemane Sanaye Defa; a.k.a. 

‘‘Sasadja’’), P.O. Box 19585–777, 

Pasdaran Street, Entrance of Babaie 

Highway, Permanent Expo of Defence 

Industries Organization, Tehran, Iran 

[NPWMD]. 

Dated: March 28, 2007. 

John C. Rood, 

Assistant Secretary, International Security 

and Nonproliferation, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. E7–6152 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27758] 

Known Icing Conditions 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of draft letter of 

interpretation. 

SUMMARY: This draft letter of 

interpretation addresses a request by the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA) that the FAA rescind a letter of 

interpretation dated June 6, 2006 

regarding ‘‘known icing conditions’’. 

Because of the controversy surrounding 

this issue, the FAA is publishing a draft 

of its response to seek public comment. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before May 3, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by docket number, using any 

of the following methods: 

1. DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

2. Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

3. Facsimile: (202) 493–2251. 

4. Hand delivery: Docket Management 

Facility; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Room PL–401, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bruce Glendening, Regulations Division, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., Washington, DC 

20591; telephone (202) 267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 17, 2006, Luis Gutierrez, 

Director of Regulatory and Certification 

Policy for AOPA, requested the FAA’s 

Office of the Chief Counsel rescind a 

letter of interpretation issued by the 

FAA’s Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Eastern Region, regarding flight in 

known icing conditions. The letter of 

interpretation, dated June 6, 2006, 

responded to a request by Robert Miller 

that the FAA clarify when ‘‘known ice’’

exists for purposes of enforcement 

action. 

The FAA recognizes that the term 

‘‘known icing condition’’, the term 

addressed in the June 2006 letter of 

interpretation, could be misconstrued. 

Based on one’s interpretation of the 

term, the FAA’s prohibitions against 

flying into known icing conditions 

under certain circumstances could 

either have the effect of placing severe 

constraints on when individuals in 

aircraft without deicing equipment 

could fly or allowing these individuals 

to fly in conditions where there is a real 

risk of ice accretion with no means of 

removing the ice. Because the FAA has 

been asked to rescind the June 6, 2006 

letter of interpretation, we have decided 

to publish a draft of our response in the 

Federal Register and seek comment on 

it. Based upon comments received in 

the docket, the FAA may decide to 

reevaluate its position on known icing 

conditions. The text of the draft 

response is as follows: 

Luis M. Gutierrez, Director, Regulatory 

and Certification Policy, Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association, 421 

Aviation Way, Frederick, MD 21701–

4798. 

Re: Legal Interpretation of Known Icing 

Conditions 

Dear Mr. Gutierrez: 

In a letter dated November 21, 2006, 

to the FAA Chief Counsel’s Office, you 

requested the rescission of a letter of 

interpretation regarding flight in known 

icing conditions, issued by this office on 

June 6, 2006. The Chief Counsel’s Office 

has referred your letter to us for 

response. After considering the points 

you and other stakeholders have raised, 

we are replacing our June 6 letter 

through the issuance of this revision. 

Our letter of June 6, 2006, responded 

to a request by Robert J. Miller for a 

legal interpretation of ‘‘known ice’’ as it 

relates to flight operations. We 

construed the request as seeking 

clarification of the meaning of ‘‘known 

icing conditions’’ as that term appears 

in the Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM) 

or Pilot Operating Handbooks for many 

general aviation aircraft. That is also the 

term addressed in legal proceedings 

involving violations of FAA safety 

regulations that relate to in-flight icing. 

The NTSB has held that known icing 

conditions exist when a pilot knows or 

reasonably should know of weather 

reports in which icing conditions are 

reported or forecast.1

While various FAA regulations 

contain limitations on flight in known 

icing conditions, the regulatory 

provision that most commonly affects 

general aviation operators in this respect 

applies the term only indirectly. 14 CFR 

91.9 precludes pilots from operating 

contrary to the operating limitations in 

their aircraft’s approved AFM. The 

operating limitations identify whether 

the aircraft is equipped to operate in 

known icing conditions and may 

prohibit or restrict such flights for many 

general aviation aircraft. 14 CFR 91.103 

requires pilots to become familiar with 

all available information concerning 

their flights before undertaking them. 

Permutations on the type, 

combination, and strength of 

meteorological elements that signify or 

negate the presence of known icing 

conditions are too numerous to describe 

exhaustively in this letter. Any 

assessment of known icing conditions is 

necessarily fact-specific. However, the 

NTSB’s decisionmaking reflects the 

common understanding that the 

formation of structural ice requires two 

elements: visible moisture and an 

aircraft surface temperature at or below 

zero degrees Celsius. Even in the 

presence of these elements, there are 

many variables that influence whether 

ice will actually form on and adhere to 

an aircraft. The size of the water 

droplets, the shape of the airfoil, or the 

speed of the aircraft, among other 

factors, can make a critical difference in 

the initiation and growth of structural 

ice. 

Whether a pilot has operated into 

known icing conditions contrary to any 

limitation will depend upon the 

information available to the pilot, and 

his or her proper analysis of that 

information in connection with the 

particular operation (e.g., route of flight, 

altitude, time of flight, airspeed, and 

aircraft performance characteristics), in 

evaluating the risk of encountering 

known icing conditions. The FAA, your 

own association, and other aviation- or 

weather-oriented organizations offer 

considerable information on the 

phenomenon of aircraft icing. Pilots are 

encouraged to use this information for a 

greater appreciation of the risks that 

flying in potential icing conditions can 

present. Likewise, a variety of sources 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES
15932 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Notices 

2Enforcement action could also be taken for 

operation of an aircraft into icing conditions that 

exceed the certification limitations of the aircraft. 

provide meteorological information that 

relates to forecast and actual conditions 

that are conducive to in-flight icing. 

Pilots should carefully evaluate all of 

the available meteorological information 

relevant to the proposed flight, 

including applicable surface 

observations, temperatures aloft, 

terminal and area forecasts, AIRMETs, 

SIGMETs, and pilot reports. As new 

technology becomes available, pilots 

should incorporate use of that 

technology into their decision-making 

process. 

The ultimate decision whether, when, 

and where to make the flight rests with 

the pilot. A pilot also must continue to 

reevaluate changing weather conditions. 

If the composite information indicates 

to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he 

or she will encounter visible moisture at 

freezing or near freezing temperatures 

and that ice will adhere to the aircraft 

along the proposed route and altitude of 

flight, then known icing conditions 

likely exist. If the AFM prohibits flight 

in known icing conditions and the pilot 

operates in such conditions, the FAA 

could take enforcement action.2

Pilots should also remain aware that 

14 CFR § 91.13(a) prohibits the 

operation of an aircraft for the purpose 

of air navigation in a careless or reckless 

manner so as to endanger the life or 

property of another. Meteorological 

information that does not evidence 

known icing conditions, or the extent 

thereof, may regardless support a 

finding that a pilot’s operation under 

the circumstances was careless. 

This response constitutes an 

interpretation of the Chief Counsel’s 

Office and was coordinated with the 

FAA’s Flight Standards Service. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 

2007. 

Rebecca MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 07–1620 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2007–26852] 

Notice of Request To Revise a 

Currently-Approved Information 

Collection: Request for Revocation of 

Authority Granted 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), FMCSA announces its plan to 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) its request to revise a 

currently-approved information 

collection (IC) entitled, ‘‘Request for 

Revocation of Authority Granted,’’

docketed as OMB Control Number 

2126–0018. This information collection 

notifies the FMCSA of a voluntary 

request by a motor carrier, freight 

forwarder, or property broker to amend 

or revoke its registration of authority 

granted. FMCSA will seek OMB’s 

review and approval of this revised IC 

and invites public comment on this 

request. The Paperwork Reduction Act 

requires the publication of this notice. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before June 4, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by any of the following 

methods. Please identify your comments 

by the FMCSA Docket Number FMCSA–

2007–26852. 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow instructions for submitting 

comments to the Docket. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Management 

Facility, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Plaza 

level, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Plaza level of the 

Nassif Bulding, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Docket: For access to the Docket 

Management System (DMS) to read 

background documents or comments 

received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any 

time or to the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

DMS is available electronically 24 hours 

each day, 365 days each year. If you 

desire notification of receipt of your 

comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope, or 

postcard or print the acknowledgement 

page that appears after submitting 

comments online. 

Privacy Act: 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 on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Stephanie Haller, Supervisory 

Transportation Specialist, Commercial 

Enforcement Division, Department of 

Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–

0001. Telephone Number: (202) 385–

2362; E-mail Address: 

Stephanie.haller@dot.gov. Office hours 

are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Request for Revocation of 

Authority Granted. 

OMB Approval Number: 2126–0018. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently-approved information 

collection. This IC is being revised due 

to an increase in the number of Form 

OCE–46s filings from 1,000 to 3,250 per 

year. 

Form Number: OCE–46. 

Respondents: Motor carriers, freight 

forwarders and property brokers. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

3,250. 

Estimated Time Per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Expiration Date: June 30, 2007. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 813 

hours [3,250 annual Form OCE–46 filers 

× 15 minutes/60 minutes per filing = 

812.5 hours, rounded to 813 hours]. 

Background: Title 49 of the United 

States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes the 

Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 

to promulgate regulations governing the 

registration of for-hire motor carriers of 

regulated commodities (49 U.S.C. 

13902), surface transportation freight 

forwarders (49 U.S.C. 13903), and 

property brokers (49 U.S.C. 13904). The 

FMCSA carries out this registration 

program under authority delegated by 

the Secretary. Under 49 U.S.C. 13905, 

each registration is effective from the 

date specified and remains in effect for 

such period as the Secretary determines 

appropriate by regulation. Section 

13905(c) of title 49, U.S.C., grants the 

Secretary the authority to amend or 

revoke a registration at the registrant’s 

request. On complaint, or on the 

Secretary’s own initiative, the Secretary 

may also suspend, amend, or revoke any 

part of the registration of a motor 

carrier, broker, or freight forwarder for 

willful failure to comply with the 

regulations, an order of the Secretary, or 

a condition of its registration. 

Form OCE–46 is used by 

transportation entities to voluntarily 

apply for revocation of their registration 

authority in whole or in part. FMCSA 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with NOTICES