![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program & Training and Checking in Ground Icing Conditions
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 27, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 166)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54946-54950]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27au02-2]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135
[Docket Nos. 26930 & 27459]
RIN 2120-AE70 & 2120-AF09
Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program & Training and
Checking in Ground Icing Conditions
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date, and disposition of
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 29, 1992, and December 30, 1993, the FAA
published interim final rules requiring deicing operations in ground
icing conditions. The interim final rules require part 121 certificate
holders to develop and comply with an FAA approved ground deicing/anti-
icing program; part 125 certificate holders to provide pilot testing on
conducting operations in ground icing conditions; part 135 certificate
holders to provide pilot training on conducting operations in ground
icing conditions; and part 125 and 135 certificate holders to check
airplanes for contamination (i.e., frost, ice, or snow) prior to
takeoff when ground icing conditions exist. These rules were necessary
to provide an added level of safety to flight operations during adverse
weather conditions. The FAA invited comments on the interim final
rules. This document responds to public comments and confirms the
interim final rules as final rules. This action is part of our effort
to address recommendations of the Government Accounting Office and the
Management Advisory Council by reducing the number of aged items in the
Regulatory Agenda.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action makes final the interim final rules and
confirms the original effective dates. The interim final rule on
Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program published at 57 FR 44924
is effective November 1, 1992. The interim final rule on Training and
Checking in Ground Icing Conditions published at 58 FR 69620 is
effective January 31, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The complete docket for the interim final rules on deicing
may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the
Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Room 915-G, Docket Nos.
26930 & 27459, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591,
weekdays (except federal holidays) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Meier, Air Carrier Operations
Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-267-3749.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 23, 1992, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(57 FR 32846) that would establish requirements for part 121
certificate holders to develop and comply with an FAA approved ground
deicing/anti-icing program. The proposed rule was developed in response
to a number of airplane accidents caused in part by icing and to
recommendations from an international conference on aircraft deicing/
anti-icing. Because of the urgency of the rulemaking, the FAA allowed
for only a 15-day comment period.
On September 21, 1993, the FAA published proposed requirements for
ground deicing procedures for parts 125 and 135 certificate holders (58
FR 49164). Under the proposal when ground icing conditions exist, parts
125 and 135 certificate holders would be required to check their
airplanes for contamination prior to beginning takeoff. In addition,
under the proposed changes to part 125, certificate holders would be
required to provide pilot testing on ground deicing/anti-icing
procedures, and under proposed changes to part 135, certificate holders
would be required to provide pilot training on ground deicing/anti-
icing procedures. The FAA proposed the requirements in response to part
135 accidents that were caused by pilots beginning takeoff with
contamination adhering to critical airplane surfaces.
On September 29, 1992, the FAA published the part 121 interim rule
(57 FR 44924) and on December 30, 1993, the FAA published the part 135
interim rule (58 FR 69620). The FAA requested comments on the interim
final rules because the comment periods on the NPRMs were unusually
short, and because the FAA anticipated that the first winter of
implementation of the rules might provide additional information
supporting either the continuation or modification of the rules. This
action is in response to those comments and confirms the interim final
rules as final rules.
Discussion of Comments
General
The FAA received 22 comments on the part 121 interim rule.
Generally, most commenters favor the FAA's action. Several commenters
address specific requirements in the part 121 interim rule and some
recommend changes in the rule language.
The most significant issues addressed by commenters on the part 121
interim rule involve holdover times, pretakeoff checks, hard-wing
aircraft, and the role of aircraft dispatchers. Additional issues
addressed by commenters involve applicability, training, research, type
of fluid, alternate procedures, need for an approved program, and air
traffic control.
The FAA received only one comment on the part 135 interim rule.
This commenter made specific recommendations to delete paragraphs from
parts 125 and 135 that the
[[Page 54947]]
commenter claims are inconsistent with the ``Clean Aircraft concept.''
Icing Conditions
The only comment on the part 135 interim rule states that paragraph
(a)(1) of both Secs. 125.221 and 135.227, which permits takeoffs when
there is frost adhering to the wings, or stabilizing or controlling
surfaces, if the frost has been polished to make it smooth, is
inconsistent with the Clean Aircraft concept. The commenter states that
if this paragraph is included in the final rule it will allow the same
type large turbine aircraft to be operated with less safety under parts
125 or 135 than under part 121.
FAA Response: While the FAA has no record of an unsafe operational
history with aircraft operated under the current icing regulations of
14 CFR parts 125 and 135, we believe there may be validity to this
comment and we may address the clean aircraft concept in a future
agency action.
Holdover Times
The part 121 interim rule requires that a certificate holder's
ground deicing/anti-icing program must include the certificate holder's
holdover timetables and the procedures for the use of these tables by
the certificate holder's personnel. The rule requires that takeoff
after exceeding any determined holdover time is permitted only after
(1) A pretakeoff contamination check determines that the wings, control
surfaces, and other critical surfaces, as defined in the certificate
holder's program, are free of frost, ice, or snow; or (2) it is
otherwise determined by an approved alternative procedure that the
wings, control surfaces, and other critical surfaces, as defined in the
certificate holder's program, are free of frost, ice, or snow; or (3)
the critical surfaces are redeiced and a new holdover time is
determined.
Four commenters (Swissair, ALPA, Association of European Airlines
(AEA), and an airline pilot) express concern with the reliability and
use of holdover times. Swissair states it has always considered the
holdover times as guideline and does not support the use of holdover
time guidelines as the only criteria for a go/no-go decision. ALPA
expresses a similar opinion. Three commenters (Canadair, ALPA, and an
airline pilot) are concerned that with the wide range of holdover times
pilots may mistakenly believe that a takeoff is safe, regardless of
other factors, so long as it is made within the longer time limit.
Swissair states that the range of holdover times cannot be considered
``as a minimum/maximum value but rather more correctly as two maximums,
depending on actual weather conditions.'' Canadair states that it is
not clear whether a ``certificate holder's program is expected to quote
a single holdover time for a specific situation or a range * * *'' and
that if a range is intended, the FAA needs to clarify the significance
of the minimum time.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters that a holdover
time should not be used as the sole criteria for a go/no-go decision
before the expiration of the holdover time. The FAA stated this in the
preamble to the interim final rule and in paragraph 8c of Advisory
Circular 120-60, Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program. In the part 121
interim rule the FAA cautioned that the holdover timetables are for use
in departure planning only and shall be used in conjunction with
pretakeoff check procedures. These tables provide only approximate time
ranges. Each pilot-in-command (PIC) determines the appropriate holdover
time for the type of fluid and the actual weather conditions. The fact
that a determined holdover time has not yet expired would not alone
justify a decision to take off if other conditions, such as the rate or
type of precipitation, had worsened, or if the PIC has other
information, such as expected delays, to warrant redeicing or re-
inspecting the aircraft. Conversely, the final rule does not prohibit
takeoff after a holdover time has expired, if certain additional
actions are taken, e.g., a pretakeoff contamination check or an
alternative check that indicates the aircraft is free of contamination.
The FAA agrees that the stated range in holdover times should not
be used as a minimum and maximum value. The advisory circular
specifically states that generally the maximum time within the holdover
time range applies in light precipitation conditions and the minimum
time applies to moderate to heavy precipitation conditions. In each
case the holdover time is determined from within the stated range
depending on the actual weather conditions. The FAA, therefore, has
determined that the advisory circular provides sufficient guidance to
pilots concerning holdover time; therefore, no further changes are
required.
Aircraft Checks
If the determined holdover time has been exceeded, the part 121
interim final rule requires, as one alternative, a pretakeoff
contamination check (Sec. 121.629(c)(3)(i)). A pretakeoff contamination
check, as defined in Sec. 121.629(c)(4), is a check to make sure the
wings, control surfaces, and other critical surfaces, as determined in
the certificate holders' program, are free of frost, ice, and snow. It
must be accomplished from outside the aircraft unless the approved
program specifies otherwise, and it must be completed within five
minutes before takeoff.
A pretakeoff check is defined in Sec. 121.629(c)(4) as a check of
the aircraft's wings or representative aircraft surfaces for frost,
ice, or snow within the holdover time. As stated in the preamble to the
part 121 interim rule and to be consistent with the intended use of
holdover timetables, certificate holders must accomplish a pretakeoff
check whenever holdover timetables are used. Language has been added to
Sec. 121.629(c)(3) to make it clear that a pretakeoff check is integral
to the use of holdover timetables.
The part 121 interim rule under Sec. 121.629(d) also allows a
certificate holder to continue to operate without a deicing program if
the aircraft is checked to ensure that the wings, control surfaces, and
other critical surfaces are free of frost, ice, and snow anytime
conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected
to adhere to the aircraft. The check must be completed within five
minutes before takeoff and accomplished from outside the aircraft. This
check is referred to as the ``paragraph (d) outside-the-aircraft
check.'' As stated in the preamble to the part 121 interim rule,
accomplishing this check may not be a viable option at certain
airports, at certain peak departure times, and during certain weather
conditions.
Twelve commenters (ALPA, NTSB, ATA, Fokker, Canadair, de Havilland,
an airline pilot, AEA, Federal Express, Swissair, Association of Flight
Attendants, and Aviatrends) address the issue of aircraft checks. The
three sub-issues these commenters address are: (1) The adequacy of any
check made from within the aircraft; (2) how the five minutes is
measured; and (3) other aircraft check issues.
(1) Checks made from within the airplane. The NTSB, ALPA, de
Havilland, Association Flight Attendants, Aviatrends, and an airline
pilot all voice concern for the reliability of any check made from
within the airplane. The NTSB expressed particular concern for visual
observations involving swept-wing airplanes without leading edge
devices. Aviatrends cited specific examples in which reports filed
under NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System indicated problems with
checks from inside the aircraft. In one case where both Type I and Type
II fluid had been
[[Page 54948]]
applied, the first officer reported that it was impossible to see
through Type II fluid on the cabin windows. A second report concluded
that ``the value of inspecting the wing for ice from inside the cabin,
especially at night, is questionable'' and the ``Type II deicing fluid
is the consistency of warm honey and when it covers the cabin windows
very little can be seen through them.'' ALPA expressed similar concerns
and concluded that ``the inspection from inside the aircraft is
therefore turned into a presumption.''
FAA Response: Pretakeoff contamination checks, defined under
Sec. 121.629(c)(4) and required under Sec. 121.629(c)(3)(i), must be
accomplished from outside the aircraft unless the certificate holder's
approved program specifies otherwise. Checks performed from inside the
aircraft are not permitted unless the certificate holder has clearly
defined and demonstrated procedures to allow the flight crew to assess
the condition of the aircraft from inside the aircraft under various
conditions (e.g., lighting, weather, visibility, etc.). The certificate
holder's program should emphasize that if any doubt exists as to the
condition of the aircraft after conducting this check, takeoff must not
be attempted. In addition, as stated in the preamble to the part 121
interim rule, the ultimate authority and responsibility for the
operation of the aircraft remain with the PIC. Therefore, whenever the
PIC is not fully satisfied with the reliability of a check conducted
from inside the aircraft, the PIC is expected to get the aircraft
redeiced or request that an additional check be conducted from outside
the aircraft.
(2) How the 5 minutes is measured. Several commenters (Swissair,
ATA, Fokker, and AEA) question the intent of the rule language that
requires that the pretakeoff contamination check must ``be conducted''
and the paragraph (d) check must ``occur'' within five minutes prior to
beginning takeoff. These commenters point out that if this check can
take five to fifteen minutes to accomplish, as the FAA stated in the
preamble to the part 121 interim rule, the rule would be impractical
unless it is interpreted to mean that the takeoff must occur within
five minutes of completion of the check. While seeking clarification of
the five-minute time requirement, AEA states that a measurement of five
minutes after completing the checks would be problematic and could be
dangerous unless there is a differentiation based on the type of fluid
used.
FAA Response: The FAA's intent was that the pretakeoff
contamination check and the paragraph (d) outside-the-aircraft check
must be completed within five minutes prior to beginning takeoff. The
FAA believes that a pretakeoff contamination check or a paragraph (d)
outside-the-aircraft check completed within no more than five minutes
prior to beginning takeoff is sufficiently close to takeoff, in most
weather conditions, to ensure absence of contamination. Five minutes is
a maximum time. The FAA expects PICs to use good judgment when weather
conditions might dictate a shorter time.
(3) Other pretakeoff check issues. Canadair states that there is
still a possibility of confusion between the two similarly worded terms
``pretakeoff check'' and ``pretakeoff contamination check'' and
recommends that the latter be renamed ``external contamination check.''
AEA states its concern that since holdover times are only guidelines,
they should not be used as ``criteria to establish whether a more
thorough check (pretakeoff contamination check) is required.''
FAA Response: The FAA believes that the aviation industry has
become familiar with the distinction between the two checks. As stated
under item (1) above, a holdover time is never the sole criteria in
determining whether a takeoff should be attempted or whether another
check is warranted. The PIC's evaluation of all the relevant factors
and his or her exercise of good judgment are expected.
Hard Wing Aircraft
The part 121 interim rule does not contain any specific additional
requirements for hard wing aircraft (i.e. aircraft without wing leading
edge devices). The NPRM preamble stated that the FAA has issued
Airworthiness Directives (AD) requiring a tactile check of specific
hard wing aircraft in ground icing conditions. The FAA stated in the
preamble to the part 121 interim rule that it would continue to deal
with aircraft specific requirements by using ADs.
Five commenters (NTSB, Fokker, de Havilland, the Air Transport
Association, and Embraer) comment on the issue of ground deicing as it
affects aircraft commonly referred to as hard wing aircraft. The NTSB
believes that special operational procedures are justified for hard
wing aircraft. Conversely, the other four commenters state that the FAA
does not have any valid basis for imposing additional requirements
(e.g. a tactile check) on hard wing aircraft with aft-mounted engines.
Of these commenters, only Fokker offers specific evidence to support
its position. Primarily, Fokker disputes the NASA report that served as
a partial basis for the FAA's conclusions concerning hard wing
aircraft. Fokker maintains that the NASA report is inaccurate and that
data produced in subsequent tests conducted by NASA and earlier tests
conducted in Sweden do not support the need for applying any additional
procedures to hard wing aircraft.
FAA Response: The part 121 interim rule imposed no special
requirements for hard wing aircraft; however, the FAA has issued AD 92-
03-01 and AD 92-03-02, which require special procedures for certain
model DC-9 and MD-80 airplanes. These special procedures are based on
the fact that these airplanes have a wing design that is particularly
susceptible to loss of lift due to wing icing. Minute amounts of ice or
other contaminates on the leading edge of these hard wings can cause an
increase in stall speed of up to 30 knots. This increased stall speed
may be well above the stall warning activation speed. Because of this
phenomena, special guidance applicable to hard wing aircraft have been
included in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-60.
Roles of Dispatcher and Pilot-in-Command (PIC)
The part 121 interim rule addresses the duties and responsibilities
of the PIC and the aircraft dispatcher in determining whether a takeoff
can be safely accomplished (Sec. 121.629(b) and (c)).
Three commenters address the proper roles of PICs and aircraft
dispatchers. Swissair agrees with the FAA that the ultimate
responsibility for determining if the aircraft is airworthy is with the
PIC once the aircraft is released from ground personnel. Two
commenters, both aircraft dispatchers, believe that Sec. 121.629, as
amended in the part 121 interim rule, does not give proper recognition
to what they believe are joint responsibilities of aircraft dispatcher
and pilot-in-command as reflected in Secs. 1221.395, 121.533, 121.593,
121.599(a), 121.601(a), 121.605, and 121.627(a). Both commenters state
that the cited sections indicate a joint responsibility between the
aircraft dispatcher and the PIC for the safety of a flight and that the
dispatcher's responsibility does not end with the release of the
aircraft by the dispatcher. Rather, the dispatcher continues to be
involved in the operational control of the aircraft throughout the
flight. One of these commenters recommends that Sec. 121.629 should be
revised to specifically state that the aircraft dispatcher is involved
with the PIC in the operational control
[[Page 54949]]
of the aircraft and that this control includes dispatcher concurrence
in computing or revising a holdover time and dispatcher initiation of
an exterior tactile contamination check.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that operational control of the
aircraft is a joint responsibility between the PIC and the aircraft
dispatcher. As stated in the preamble to the part 121 interim rule, a
certificate holder's program may include holdover time coordination
with the aircraft dispatcher; however, the real-time information
required to determine or update the proper holdover time may be
available only to the PIC. In this situation the PIC safety
responsibility may require him or her to determine a holdover time
without coordinating with the dispatcher. The FAA believes that the
part 121 interim rule language does not diminish, and is consistent
with, the traditional role of the aircraft dispatcher as stated in the
sections cited above and therefore no change is made in the part 121
interim rule language.
Applicability
The part 121 interim rule applied to part 121 certificate holders
only; however, the preamble for the interim final rule stated that the
FAA would continue to study part 125 and 135 operations to determine if
future rulemaking is required. Three comments address applicability.
The NTSB reiterates its concern that the interim rule does not address
part 125 and part 135 certificate holders. Empire Airlines states that,
based on its experience as an operator under both parts 121 and 135, it
believes a part 121-type program should not be imposed on part 135
operators. Canadair states that part 91 aircraft should also be
included in any further study.
FAA Response: The FAA issued an interim final rule tailored to part
125 and 135 operators on December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69620). Presently,
the FAA plans no part 91 rulemaking; however, guidance for part 91
operators on ground deicing/anti-icing practices and procedures is
available in AC 120-58, Pilot Guide for Large Aircraft Ground Deicing,
and AC 135-17, Pilot Guide for Small Aircraft Ground Deicing.
Training
The part 121 interim rule requires initial and recurrent ground
training and testing for flight crewmembers and qualification for all
other affected personnel. The training, testing, and qualifications
must cover the use of holdover times, aircraft deicing/anti-icing
procedures, contamination, types and characteristics of deicing/anti-
icing fluids, cold weather preflight inspection procedures, and
techniques for recognizing contamination.
Four commenters (NTSB, Fokker, Trans World Express and Finnair)
address the issue of training. The NTSB states that the required
recurrent training for flight crewmembers and involved ground personnel
is ``equally applicable to the FAA personnel involved in overseeing the
airline programs.'' Fokker believes that flight crew training is most
important in preventing ground icing accidents and recommends that the
``FAA should emphasize training in the use of rotation techniques
suited to conditions where ground icing can be anticipated.'' Trans
World Express states that vendors (e.g. contract personnel who may work
for several certificate holders) are required to receive the generic
training over and over when the vendors really need it only once and
recommends that the certificate holder be permitted to accept another
certificate holder's qualification program for vendors as it pertains
to deicing/anti-icing fluid application and dispersal. Finnair states
that training is the most important short-term safety measure and
should emphasize the overall picture of the conditions affecting the
aircraft and not concentrate on any one item such as holdover
timetables.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the NTSB regarding the need for
FAA inspector ground deicing/anti-icing training. This training was
provided to all Principal Aviation Safety Inspectors (Operations and
Maintenance) before the part 121 interim rule was published.
The FAA agrees with Finnair and Fokker regarding their comments on
training except to the extent that Fokker believes that pilots should
be trained to use a different aircraft rotation technique during
takeoff that, in its view, is more suited to conditions where ground
icing can be anticipated. Training pilots in the proposed techniques,
however, undermines the ``clean aircraft'' concept since the premise
for using such techniques is that the PIC may be unsure of whether the
aircraft is free of contamination. If contamination is adhering to
critical surfaces of the aircraft, the takeoff would not comply with
Sec. 121.629(a), and the techniques recommended by Fokker are not a
safe alternative to that compliance.
Conceptually, the FAA agrees with Trans World Express that
redundant training is neither necessary nor useful for the trainee. On
the other hand, the FAA cannot permit a certificate holder to use
another certificate holder's or a vendor's deicing/anti-icing
procedures unless those procedures have been approved by the principal
inspectors of the certificate holder that wishes to use them.
Research
In the part 121 interim rule preamble, the FAA stated that further
research is needed on issues such as the effects of airplane design on
wing contamination and how this would affect pilot flying techniques.
The preamble states that additional study is needed to assess the value
of aircraft type specific pilot training for use in ground icing
conditions. The NTSB and the Federal Express Corporation state support
for further research of the type the FAA indicated in the part 121
interim rule preamble. Federal Express states support for further
research on the use of holdover times and on the effects of airplane
design and their interaction with contaminants, particularly for hard
wing aircraft. The NTSB states that the highest research priority
should be given to determining the possible contaminating effects of
Type II fluids on runway friction. The NTSB also strongly supports
continuing initiatives for the development of technical solutions to
wing contaminant detection.
FAA Response: Within the past few years research has been initiated
on several different areas related to the ground deicing problem. The
FAA has published a report which describes ongoing research, entitled
``Aircraft Ice Detectors and Related Technologies for Onground and
Inflight Application.'' It is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. The FAA
is continuing to analyze holdover times in an effort to make them a
more precise tool for determining an aircraft's contamination status.
The FAA and the United States Air Force are cooperating with NASA Ames
Research Center in the development of a new more environmentally
friendly deicing/anti-icing fluid. Many different corporations and
individual entrepreneurs are developing detection systems that might be
used to detect contamination on an aircraft's critical surfaces. The
FAA's Technical Center has completed initial studies that indicate Type
II fluids do not have a significant effect on runway friction.
Types of Fluids
The part 121 interim rule does not require using any specific
deicing/anti-icing fluid. The ground deicing AC 120-60 gives guidance
in the use of deicing/anti-icing fluids, stating the advantages and
disadvantages of Type I and Type II fluids. Two commenters (Fokker and
[[Page 54950]]
Technoshield) address the question of Type II fluids. Fokker states
that the FAA Advisory Circular incorrectly suggests that there may be
disadvantages to Type II fluids with respect to decreasing the runway
coefficient of friction. Technoshield suggests that the entire
rulemaking will have the effect of precluding the use of Type I fluids.
FAA Response: As stated in the preamble to the part 121 interim
rule, each type fluid has its benefits and intended usage. Each
certificate holder, not the FAA, determines the type(s) of fluid to be
used in its operations. Recent studies by the FAA indicate that no
degradation of runway frictions greater than that occurring with water
covered runway surfaces occurs with the use of Type II fluids.
The FAA does not believe that the rule affects the choice of fluid.
Weather conditions and certificate holder practice will continue to
determine the choice of fluid.
Alternative Procedures
Canadair suggests that it would be useful if the FAA issues
advisory material on how to design, develop, and verify an alternative
procedure for determination that critical surfaces are free of frost,
ice, or snow, as is authorized under Sec. 121.629(c)(3)(ii).
FAA Response: As was stated in the preamble to the part 121 NPRM,
the ``otherwise determined by an alternative procedure'' language was
included to cover changes in ambient conditions or industry development
of approved new technologies. The FAA believes that certificate holders
should take the initiative to develop such alternative procedures and
submit them to the FAA for approval.
Need for Approved Program
ALPA states its belief that each carrier operating under part 121
should have an approved program and that, for the reasons stated in its
earlier comments on the ground deicing NPRM, Sec. 121.629(d) should be
deleted.
FAA Response: The FAA believes that the only certificate holders
under part 121 who do not have an approved ground deicing/anti-icing
program are those who conclude it would be more cost effective to
operate without such a program. These certificate holders might have to
delay or cancel flights in icing conditions because the outside-the-
aircraft check required under Sec. 121.629(d) is not a viable option
during certain weather conditions and at certain airports. If a
certificate holder is able to conduct an outside-the-aircraft check and
that check ensures that the aircraft is free of contamination, the FAA
believes the check is an adequate substitute for an approved program.
Air Traffic Control
The NTSB referenced several of its previous recommendations that
are not directly related to this rulemaking action but that are related
to achieving more efficient planning for ground operations. The
recommendations, if implemented, would reduce the probability that
airplanes will exceed their deicing holdover times.
FAA Response: The FAA has undertaken a number of related actions,
including, as part of certain airports' ground deicing plans, gate hold
procedures (NTSB Recommendation A-93-19) and procedures that limit the
time an aircraft spends on the ground after deicing (NTSB
Recommendation A-93-20). These procedures have contributed to both
improved safety during ground icing conditions and enhanced the overall
departure and arrival rates during these conditions.
Environmental Analysis
These rules are federal actions that are subject to the National
Environmental Police Act (NEPA). Under applicable guidelines of the
President's Council on Environmental Quality and agency procedures
implementing NEPA, the FAA normally prepares an environmental
assessment (EA) to determine the need for an environmental impact
statement (EIS) or whether a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
would be appropriate. (40 CFR 1501.3; FAA Order 1050.1D appendix 7.
par. 3(a)). In the NPRMs the FAA invited comments on any environmental
issues associated with the proposed rule, and specifically requested
comments on the following: (1) Whether the proposed rule will increase
the use of deicing fluids, (2) whether the proposed part 121 rule will
encourage the use of Type II deicing fluid, (3) the impact, if any, of
using these deicing fluids on taxiways ``just prior to takeoff,'' and
(4) containment methods currently used that can be adapted to other
locations on an airport. Only a few commenters to the part 121 NPRM
addressed these environmental issues and most of these commenters
focused more on the effect of Federal, state, and local environmental
requirements and the lack of local facilities, than on the questions of
the potential environmental impact of deicing fluids. A summary of the
comments received, the FAA's response, and the findings of the FAA's
Environmental Assessment appear in the preamble to the part 121 interim
rule.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) which supported a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is included in the docket for this
rulemaking. Except for the NTSB suggestion that the FAA conduct further
research on runway contaminants, no further comments on environmental
issues associated with this rulemaking were received following
publication of the part 121 and part 135 interim rules. Nonetheless, as
part of its long term efforts, the FAA will continue to work with
certificate holders and with airport operators to monitor the actual
and potential environmental effects of this rule and will take
appropriate steps as necessary.
Conclusion
After consideration of the comments submitted in response to the
interim final rules, the FAA has determined that no further rulemaking
action is necessary. The interim final rule amending part 121 of title
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Amendment No. 121-231, entitled
Aircraft Ground Deicing and Anti-Icing Program, published at 57 FR
44924 on September 29, 1992, is adopted as a final rule. The interim
final rule amending parts 125 and 135 of title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Amendment Nos. 125-18 and 135-46, entitled
Training and Checking in Ground Icing Conditions, published at 58 FR
69620 on December 30, 1993, is adopted as a final rule.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19, 2002.
Monte R. Belger,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 02-21575 Filed 8-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P