Removal of Regulations Allowing for Polished Frost on Wings of Airplanes, 26049-26054 [E8-10246]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 90 (Thursday, May 8, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26049-26054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 125, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29281; Notice No. 08-06]
RIN 2120-AJ09


Removal of Regulations Allowing for Polished Frost on Wings of 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to remove provisions in its regulations 
that allow for operations with ``polished frost'' (i.e., frost polished 
to make it smooth) on the wings of airplanes operated under parts 125, 
135, and certain airplanes operated under part 91. The rule would 
increase safety by not allowing operations with polished frost, which 
the FAA has determined increases the risk of unsafe flight.

DATES: Send your comments on or before August 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2007-
29281 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you 
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can 
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of 
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment 
(or signing the comment for an association, business,

[[Page 26050]]

labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement 
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), 
or you may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
https://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket. Or, go to Docket Operations in 
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this proposed rule contact Mike Frank, AFS-260, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-8166 ; facsimile (202) 267-5299, e-mail 
mike.frank@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this proposed rule contact Bruce 
Glendening, Operations Law Branch--AGC-220, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-3073; facsimile (202) 267-7971, e-mail 
bruce.glendening@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal 
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is 
related information about the docket, privacy, and handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

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, including the authority to 
issue, rescind, and revise regulations. 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, Chapter 447--Safety Regulation. Under section 
44701 (a)(5), the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil 
aircraft by, among other things, prescribing regulations the FAA finds 
necessary for safety in air commerce.

I. Background

    Currently, 14 CFR 91.527 (a), 125.221 (a), and 135.227 (a) allow 
pilots to take off with frost adhering to wings or stabilizing or 
control surfaces if that frost has been polished to make it smooth. 
This frost is referred to as ``polished frost.'' This procedure first 
appeared in the Federal Register as Civil Air Regulation Draft Release 
No. 60-13, a proposed revision of part 47 of the Civil Air Regulations, 
on August 6, 1960.
    Since 1960, the FAA and others have accumulated an extensive amount 
of data that would indicate that any amount of contaminants on wings or 
critical surfaces could be detrimental to the flight characteristics of 
an aircraft. In Advisory Circular (AC) 135-17, the FAA recommends that 
all wing frost be removed prior to takeoff, and states that if an 
operator desires to polish the frost, the aircraft manufacturer's 
recommended procedures should be followed (https://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/
MainFrame?OpenFrameSet). No current aircraft manufacturer, however, has 
issued any recommended procedures for (1) polishing frost, or (2) 
conducting operations with polished frost. In addition, the FAA has no 
data to support practical guidance on determining how to polish frost 
on a surface to make it acceptably smooth, other than completely 
removing the frost and returning the airplane's critical lifting 
surfaces to uncontaminated smoothness. Moreover, the term ``polished 
frost'' is ambiguous since no standard of acceptable smoothness is 
provided. Also, means to ensure that the ``polished frost'' surface 
smoothness is equivalent to that of the uncontaminated airplane surface 
is operationally impractical. Subsequently, the FAA issued two Safety 
Alerts for Operators (SAFOs)--06002 and 06014-- advising against the 
practice of polishing frost (https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_
industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/).
    In addition, there are at least 11 known accidents in which 
individuals attempted to ``smooth'' or polish frost, but the aircraft 
failed to generate enough lift and crashed shortly after takeoff.\1\ 
There have been a number of other takeoff accidents and fatalities that 
have occurred when flightcrews have consciously decided to take off 
without removing frost from the wings of their aircraft. Following the 
January 4, 2002 accident at Birmingham, England, the United Kingdom 
Aircraft Accident Investigation Board recommended in its Safety 
Recommendation 2003-54 that the FAA, and all Authorities who follow FAA 
practice, delete all reference to `Polished Frost' within their 
regulations and ensure that the term is expunged from Operations 
Manuals. In addition, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) has issued numerous safety alerts urging operators to ensure 
that critical surfaces are free of all contamination prior to take off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Nine of the 11 accidents would not have been prevented by 
this proposed rule, since the aircraft were involved in non-part 91 
subpart F operations. Nevertheless, the FAA believes they illustrate 
the risk involved in flying with polished frost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. General Discussion of the Proposals

    As previously mentioned, numerous FAA ACs and Safety Alerts have 
been issued since 1960 clearly pointing out the hazards of attempting 
to take off with any frost on aircraft wings or control surfaces, 
polished or not. Adverse aerodynamic effects for lifting surfaces begin 
as soon as frost begins to adhere to the surfaces. Determining either 
when sufficient polishing achieves a smooth surface or the smoothness 
of the contaminated surface without instrumentation is impracticable. 
The sheen of polished frost and its tactile smoothness can be 
misleading. In addition, the FAA believes achieving uniform smoothness 
on all lifting and control surfaces or even symmetrical smoothness in 
an operational environment is impossible to determine.
    Technical literature well documents the adverse aerodynamic effects 
of surface roughness, such as frost and other ice that adhere to 
aircraft surfaces. The literature indicates that surface roughness 
formed by frost and adhering ice can result in significant adverse 
aerodynamic effects for lifting surfaces, such as wings and flight 
control surfaces. For example, (1) a contaminated wing's maximum lift 
may be reduced by 30 percent or more; (2) the angle of attack for 
maximum lift may be reduced by several degrees; (3) drag may be 
increased significantly; and (4) the airplane's handling qualities and 
performance may change unexpectedly from that of the uncontaminated 
aircraft. The severity of these adverse aerodynamic effects varies 
significantly (1) with the magnitude (height and density) and location 
of the surface roughness, and (2) with the location of the roughness 
relative to the surface leading edge where significant variations may 
occur in the local airspeed and surface air loads. Therefore, the FAA 
has determined that complete removal of frost from critical surfaces to 
achieve uncontaminated surface smoothness is necessary to ensure 
acceptable airplane airworthiness. If all wing surfaces, other than 
those under the wing in the area of

[[Page 26051]]

the fuel tank \2\, and control surfaces are not uniformly smooth upon 
take off, the FAA believes an unsafe condition exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing area of the 
fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA. (See e.g., 14 CFR 125.221 
(a)(2) and 135.227 (a)(2).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. Sec.  91.527 (a)(3), 125.221 
(a), and 135.227 (a) to remove language permitting pilots to take off 
with ``polished frost'' adhering to the wings or stabilizing or control 
surfaces.
    Within part 91 subpart F, the current text of Sec.  91.527 (a) 
states that no pilot may take off an airplane that has-- (1) frost, 
snow, or ice adhering to any propeller, windshield, or powerplant 
installation or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight 
attitude instrument system; (2) snow or ice adhering to the wings or 
stabilizing or control surfaces; or (3) any frost adhering to the wings 
or stabilizing or control surfaces, unless that frost has been polished 
to make it smooth. The FAA would amend the paragraph to remove the 
words ``unless that frost has been polished to make it smooth.''
    Part 91 subpart F provides for the operation of large and turbine-
powered multiengine airplanes and all fractional ownership program 
aircraft (regardless of category, class, weight, powerplant or number 
of engines). Therefore, the revised provisions in subpart F in this 
NPRM would affect the operation of all fractional ownership program 
aircraft under subpart K, regardless of whether the aircraft is large 
or small and regardless of whether the aircraft is single or multi-
engine.
    Similarly, current Sec. Sec.  125.221 (a) and 135.227 (a) provide 
that no pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow 
adhering to any propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control 
surface, to a powerplant installation, or to an airspeed, altimeter, 
rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system, except that 
takeoffs may be made with frost adhering to the wings, or stabilizing 
or control surfaces, if the frost has been polished to make it smooth. 
The FAA would amend those sections to delete the words ``except * * * 
[t]akeoffs may be made with frost adhering to the wings, or stabilizing 
or control surfaces, if the frost has been polished to make it 
smooth.'' These rule changes may also result in changes to an 
operator's operations specifications (OpSpecs) as they relate to ground 
deicing operations.
    In addition, the FAA is responding to a recommendation from the 
Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee, established on April 8, 
2003, which provided recommendations to the FAA regarding the safety 
and applicability of standards of parts 125, 135, and associated 
regulations. In this proposed rule, the FAA is therefore taking the 
opportunity to correct the structure of Sec. Sec.  91.527(b), 
125.221(c), and 135.227(c). Currently, in each of those paragraphs the 
phrase beginning with the words ``unless the aircraft has * * *'' 
appears to apply only to paragraph (2); however, that clause applies to 
all of the provisions of the paragraph. In 1995, the FAA issued a legal 
interpretation (included in the docket for this rulemaking action) to 
clarify that this language applies to both IFR flight into known or 
forecast light or moderate icing conditions and VFR flight into known 
light or moderate icing conditions. The FAA is therefore proposing to 
re-structure those paragraphs accordingly.

III. 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. We have determined that there 
is no new information collection requirement associated with this 
proposed rule.

IV. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

V. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

V.1. Regulatory Evaluation

    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 Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking 
greater detail 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 proposed 
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) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) would 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.
    Operators and pilots would have at least four alternatives to 
choose from to deal with frost that may have accumulated on the wings 
of their aircraft. These include: using wing covers, waiting for the 
frost to melt, storing the aircraft in a heated hangar, or deicing the 
wing surface. The FAA believes that wing covers are the lowest-cost 
alternative. Assuming operators impacted by this proposed rule choose 
to use wing covers, they would incur total costs of roughly $164,000 
($130,000 discounted) over the ten year period from 2009 to 2018. Of 
these, $155,000 ($123,000 discounted) would accrue to operators in 
Alaska, and $9,500 ($7,500 discounted) would accrue to mainland U.S. 
operators. Benefits total roughly $460,000 ($320,000 discounted). About 
$433,000 ($301,000 discounted) in benefits would accrue in Alaska, 
while the remaining $27,000 ($19,000 discounted) would accrue in the 
mainland U.S. These benefits are attributed to averted accidents, 
injuries, and aircraft damage. Since benefits exceed costs for both

[[Page 26052]]

Alaska and the mainland U.S., the FAA concludes the proposed rule is 
cost beneficial. The FAA calls for comments on this determination and 
requests that all comments be accompanied by clear and detailed 
supporting economic documentation.

V.2. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    This proposed rule would improve aviation safety by removing 
references to the ``polished frost'' technique found in 14 CFR 
91.527(a), 125.221(a), and 135.227(a). At this time there is no part 91 
operator that has an authorized deicing program that incorporates the 
polished frost procedure; therefore, this rulemaking only affects on-
demand and commuter services operating under parts 125 and 135. There 
are 57 operators operating 188 aircraft that would be affected by the 
rule. Based on the SBA size standard defining a small unscheduled air 
carrier as one having 1,500 employees or less per company, all of these 
operators are considered small entities. As a result, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act applies.
    The FAA assumes that most operators would choose to buy and use 
wing covers to comply with the proposed rule. The other alternatives 
(waiting for the frost to melt, storing the aircraft in a heated 
hangar, or deicing the aircraft) are more expensive than using wing 
covers. The FAA estimates that operators would choose to buy wing 
covers at an initial cost of $400, plus minimal additional fuel costs 
and, if needed, an additional cost of $400 after five years to replace 
a worn wing cover.
    In Alaska, there are 21 operators with one aircraft apiece, and 30 
operators operating the remaining 156 aircraft. In the mainland U.S., 
there are six operators operating 11 aircraft. The smallest operators 
operate only one plane, and would incur a cost of approximately $99 per 
year as a result of this rulemaking, a cost that the FAA does not 
consider significant. The operator that would be most impacted by the 
rule operates 16 affected aircraft, and would incur costs of 
approximately $1,584 per year as a result of this rulemaking. This 
operator has annual revenues of $5 million. The cost of this rulemaking 
represents 0.03 percent of the gross revenues of that operator, and the 
FAA does not consider that amount significant. As a result, the FAA 
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA requests 
comments from affected entities on this finding and determination.

V.3. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would 
have only a domestic impact and would not affect international trade.

V.4. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not 
contain such a mandate.

VI. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

VII. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 40113(f) of 49 U.S.C. requires the Administrator, when 
modifying regulations in title 14 of the CFR in a manner affecting 
intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska 
is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to 
establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. Because the majority of 
potentially affected operators are in Alaska, this proposed rule could, 
if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA believes, 
however, that over 60% of aircraft currently operating in Alaska do not 
rely on this procedure. For the remainder of affected operators, the 
cost of compliance would be minimal. The FAA, therefore, specifically 
requests comments on whether there is justification for applying the 
proposed rule differently in intrastate operations in Alaska.

VIII. 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 proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312 and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 
or Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a

[[Page 26053]]

``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

X. Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or 
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments 
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we 
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for 
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has 
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    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. Be 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this 
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from 
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in 
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

    1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 
44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil 
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180).

    2. Amend Sec.  91.527 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  91.527  Operating in icing conditions.

    (a) No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow 
adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; 
to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of 
climb, or flight attitude instrument system or wing, except that 
takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel 
tanks if authorized by the FAA.
    (b) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or 
moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate 
icing conditions, unless--
    (1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment 
protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing 
or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or 
flight attitude instrument system; or
    (2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34 
of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 23; or
    (3) The airplane meets transport category airplane type 
certification provisions.
* * * * *

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING 
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH 
AIRCRAFT

    3. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

    4. Amend Sec.  125.221 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  125.221  Icing conditions: Operating limitations.

    (a) No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow 
adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; 
to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of 
climb, flight attitude instrument system, or wing, except that takeoffs 
may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if 
authorized by the FAA.
* * * * *
    (c) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or 
moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate 
icing conditions, unless--
    (1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment 
protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing 
or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or 
flight attitude instrument system; or
    (2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet appendix C 
of this part; or
    (3) The airplane meets transport category airplane type 
certification provisions.
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS 
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

    5. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.

    6. Amend Sec.  135.227 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  135.227  Icing conditions: Operating limitations.

    (a) No pilot may take off an aircraft that has frost, ice, or snow 
adhering to any rotor blade, propeller, windshield,

[[Page 26054]]

stabilizing or control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an 
airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, flight attitude instrument system, 
or wing, except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in 
the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA.
* * * * *
    (c) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or 
moderate icing conditions or under VFR into known light or moderate 
icing conditions, unless--
    (1) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment 
protecting each rotor blade, propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing 
or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or 
flight attitude instrument system; or
    (2) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet section 34 
of appendix A of this part; or
    (3) The airplane meets transport category airplane type 
certification provisions.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2008.
John M. Allen,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-10246 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P