Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 8257 

be the respective grade, size, quality, 

and maturity requirements for imports 

of all other round type potatoes. 

(2) Through the entire year the grade, 

size, quality, and maturity requirements 

of Marketing Order 945, as amended 

(part 945 of this chapter) applicable to 

potatoes of all long types shall be the 

respective grade, size, quality, and 

maturity requirements for imported 

potatoes of all long types. 

(3) The grade, size, quality, and 

maturity requirements as provided for 

in this paragraph shall apply to imports 

of similar types of potatoes, unless 

otherwise ordered, on and after the 

effective date of the applicable domestic 

regulation or amendment thereto, as 

provided in this paragraph or 3 days 

following publication of such regulation 

or amendment in the Federal Register, 

whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 6, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03043 Filed 2–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0929; Amdt. No. 

121–369] 

RIN 2120–AJ17 

Prohibition on Personal Use of 

Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule will prohibit 

flightcrew members in operations under 

part 121 from using a personal wireless 

communications device or laptop 

computer for personal use while at their 

duty station on the flight deck while the 

aircraft is being operated. This rule, 

which conforms FAA regulations with 

legislation, is intended to ensure that 

certain non-essential activities do not 

contribute to the challenge of task 

management on the flight deck or a loss 

of situational awareness due to attention 

to non-essential tasks. 

DATES: Effective April 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see the ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ section of this 

document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air 

Transportation Division (AFS–200), 

Flight Standards Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8166; email Nancy.L.Claussen@

faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Nancy Sanchez, Office of 

the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, 

AGC–200, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3073; email 

Nancy.Sanchez@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 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

and minimum standards for other 

practices, methods, and procedures 

necessary for safety in air commerce and 

national security, and 49 U.S.C. 44732, 

which prohibits the personal use of 

electronic devices on the flight deck by 

flightcrew members. Additionally, this 

rule fulfills a statutory mandate found 

in Section 307 of Public Law 112–95, 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

II. Background 

A. Related Rule 

B. Statement of the Problem 

C. National Transportation Safety Board 

Recommendations 

D. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

E. General Overview of Comments 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final 

Rule 

A. Requirements 

B. Current Air Carrier Programs 

C. Operational Timeframes for Prohibition 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

G. Environmental Analysis 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

VI. How to Obtain Additional Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (the Act) was enacted on February 

14, 2012. Section 307 of the Act, 

Prohibition on Personal Use of 

Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck, 

makes it ‘‘unlawful for a flight 

crewmember of an aircraft used to 

provide air transportation under part 

121 of title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, to use a personal wireless 

communications device or laptop 

computer while at the flight 

crewmember’s duty station on the flight 

deck of such an aircraft while the 

aircraft is being operated.’’ The 

legislation also states that this 

prohibition does not apply to the use of 

a personal wireless communications 

device or laptop computer for a purpose 

directly related to operation of the 

aircraft, or for emergency, safety-related, 

or employment-related 

communications, in accordance with 

procedures established by the air carrier 

and the FAA. 

The FAA is amending part 121 to 

conform to this legislation. The FAA is 

amending § 121.542 to add language to 

prohibit flightcrew members operating 

under part 121 from using a personal 

wireless communications device or a 

laptop computer for personal use while 

at their duty station on the flight deck 

while the aircraft is being operated. The 

amended regulatory language defines 

what is considered to be a personal 

wireless communications device. The 

regulatory language also clarifies that 

the prohibition on use of a personal 

wireless communications device or 

laptop computer does not apply to the 

use of a personal wireless 

communications device or laptop 

computer for a purpose directly related 

to the operation of the aircraft, or for 

emergency, safety-related, or 

employment-related communications, 

in accordance with procedures 

established by the air carrier and 

approved by the FAA. The amended 

regulatory language also uses the term 

‘‘flight crewmember’’ to conform with 

other paragraphs in amended § 121.542. 

However, the preamble to this final rule, 

as well as all recent FAA rulemakings, 

uses the term ‘‘flightcrew member’’ to 

conform with the definition contained 

in § 1.1; therefore, these terms are used 

interchangeably. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
8258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1 46 FR 5500 (Jan. 19, 1981). 

2See http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/ 

aar1001.pdf. 

3The NTSB closed recommendation A–10–30 as 

unacceptable on June 14, 2012. Summaries of the 

NTSB and FAA letters on A–10–30 can be found 

at http://www.ntsb.gov/SafetyRecs/Private/ 

history.aspx?rec=A-10-030&addressee=FAA. 

II. Background 

A. Related Rule 

In 1981, the FAA published the 

Elimination of Duties and Activities of 

Flight Crewmembers Not Required for 

the Safe Operation of Aircraft Final 

Rule.1 This rule, better known as the 

‘‘Sterile Cockpit’’ rule, required air 

carriers operating under parts 121 and 

135, as well as flightcrew members in 

those operations, to ensure that the 

environment on the flight deck was free 

from potentially dangerous distractions. 

The 1981 final rule states that air 

carriers shall not require their flightcrew 

members to perform non-safety related 

duties during critical phases of flight 

and that flightcrew members shall not 

conduct non-safety related activities 

which could cause distractions on the 

flight deck during critical phases of 

flight. 

The 1981 rule further states that the 

pilot-in-command (PIC) shall not permit 

any activity during a critical phase of 

flight which would distract flightcrew 

members from the performance of their 

duties. This in effect extends the sterile 

cockpit provisions to other 

crewmembers, such as flight attendants. 

The 1981 rule also defines the critical 

phases of flight as all ground operations 

involving taxi, take-off and landing, and 

all other flight operations conducted 

below 10,000 feet, except cruise flight. 

The personal use of personal wireless 

communications devices and laptop 

computers for non-safety related 

activities is prohibited by the broad 

restrictions in the 1981 ‘‘Sterile 

Cockpit’’ rule during ground operations 

involving taxi, take-off and landing, and 

all other flight operations conducted 

below 10,000 feet. This final rule 

extends the prohibition on personal use 

of personal wireless communications 

devices and laptop computers to all 

phases of flight. 

B. Statement of the Problem 

Several incidents involving a 

breakdown of cockpit discipline 

prompted Congress to address this issue 

via legislation. In one instance, two 

pilots were using their personal laptop 

computers during cruise flight and lost 

situational awareness, leading to a 150 

mile fly-by of their destination. In 

another instance, a pilot sent a text 

message on her personal cell phone 

during the taxi phase of the flight after 

the aircraft pushed back from the gate 

and before the take-off sequence. These 

incidents illustrate the potential for 

such devices to create a hazardous 

distraction during critical phases of 

flight. 

This rule will ensure that certain nonessential activities do not contribute to 

the challenge of task management on the 

flight deck and do not contribute to a 

loss of situational awareness due to 

attention to non-essential activities, as 

highlighted by these incidents. See 78 

FR 2912 (Jan. 15, 2013). 

C. National Transportation Safety Board 

Recommendations 

In its recommendations to the FAA 

regarding the Colgan accident in 2009, 

the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) concluded that because of 

the continuing number of accidents 

involving a breakdown in sterile cockpit 

discipline, collaborative action by the 

FAA and the aviation industry to 

address this issue was warranted. 

Therefore, the NTSB recommended (A– 

10–30) that the FAA require all part 121, 

135, and 91 subpart K operators to 

incorporate explicit guidance to pilots, 

including checklist reminders as 

appropriate, prohibiting the use of 

personal portable electronic devices on 

the flight deck.2

In response to NTSB recommendation 

A–10–30, the FAA issued Information 

for Operators (InFO) 10003, Cockpit 

Distractions, on April 26, 2010. The 

NTSB responded that this action did not 

fully address the recommendation 

because the InFO was advisory only.3

With this final rulemaking, the FAA 

will amend current § 121.542 to prohibit 

the use of personal wireless 

communications devices and laptop 

computers by flightcrew members, for 

personal use, while the aircraft is being 

operated. 

On August 26, 2011, a Eurocopter 

AS350 B2 helicopter, operating under 

part 135, impacted terrain following an 

engine failure near the airport in Mosby, 

Missouri. The helicopter experienced 

fuel exhaustion because the pilot 

departed without ensuring that the 

helicopter was adequately fueled. The 

investigation determined that the pilot 

engaged in frequent personal texting, 

both before and during the accident 

flight. The pilot, flight nurse, flight 

paramedic, and patient were killed 

(CEN11FA599). As a result of its 

investigation, the NTSB issued the 

following recommendations: 

• Prohibit flight crewmembers in 14 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 

and 91 subpart K operations from using 

a portable electronic device for 

nonoperational use while at their duty 

station on the flight deck while the 

aircraft is being operated. (A–13–7) 

• Require all 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 121, 135, and 91 

subpart K operators to incorporate into 

their initial and recurrent pilot training 

programs information on the 

detrimental effects that distraction due 

to the nonoperational use of portable 

electronic devices can have on 

performance of safety-critical ground 

and flight operations. (A–13–8) 

• Require all 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 121, 135, and 91 

subpart K operators to review their 

respective general operations manuals 

to ensure that procedures are in place 

that prohibit the nonoperational use of 

portable electronic devices by 

operational personnel while in flight 

and during safety-critical preparatory 

and planning activities on the ground in 

advance of flight. (A–13–9) 

With this final rule, the FAA is 

establishing an operational prohibition 

regarding the personal use of personal 

wireless communications devices and 

laptop computers that responds to these 

NTSB recommendations regarding part 

121 operations. 

D. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

On January 15, 2013, the FAA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend part 121 

to conform to the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012. In the NPRM 

the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR 

121.542 to add language to prohibit 

flightcrew members operating under 

part 121 from using a personal wireless 

communications device or a laptop 

computer for personal use while at their 

duty station on the flight deck while the 

aircraft is being operated. The proposed 

regulatory language clarified that the 

prohibition on use of a personal 

wireless communications device or 

laptop computer did not apply to the 

use of a personal wireless 

communications device or laptop 

computer for a purpose directly related 

to the operation of the aircraft, or for 

emergency, safety-related, or 

employment-related communications, 

in accordance with procedures 

established by the air carrier and 

approved by the FAA. The comment 

period for the NPRM closed on March 

18, 2013. 

E. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received 63 comments in 

response to the NPRM. Commenters 

included Delta Airlines (Delta), Airline 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 8259 

4Wickens, C.D., Alexander, A.L. Attentional 

tunneling and task management in synthetic vision 

displays. The International Journal of Aviation 

Psychology, 19(3), 182–199 (2009). 

Pilots Association, International 

(ALPA), Rockwell Collins, the NTSB, 

and individuals. Delta, Rockwell 

Collins, the NTSB and many individuals 

generally supported the rule and stated 

that it would have a positive effect on 

safety. Several of these commenters 

suggested edits to the final rule 

requirements to clarify the proposed 

requirements, to add additional 

limitations to the proposed 

requirements or to broaden the scope of 

the requirements to cover operations 

under part 135 and part 91 subpart K. 

ALPA and many individuals opposed 

the rule. They generally stated that the 

rule was unnecessary, unenforceable 

and may have a negative effect on 

safety. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

Expand the Scope of the Final Rule 

The NTSB commented that the FAA 

should expand the proposed rule to 

include part 135 and part 91 subpart K 

operations. Expanding the final rule to 

include part 135 and part 91 subpart K 

operations is outside the scope of the 

final rule, as the NPRM only discussed 

and solicited comments on applying 

this prohibition to part 121 operations. 

Additionally, the provisions of the final 

rule are consistent with the 

Congressional mandate to prevent 

distractions to flightcrew members in 

operations under part 121. However, the 

FAA may address part 135 and part 91 

subpart K operations in future 

rulemaking. 

One individual commenter noted that 

the provisions in the final rule should 

apply to all required crewmembers on 

the aircraft, including flight attendants, 

and should also apply to aircraft 

dispatchers while on duty. Expanding 

the final rule to include flight attendants 

and aircraft dispatchers is outside the 

scope of the final rule, as the NPRM 

only discussed and solicited comments 

on applying this prohibition to 

flightcrew members while at their duty 

station on the flight deck. Additionally, 

the provisions of the rule are consistent 

with the Congressional mandate to 

prevent distractions to flightcrew 

members. 

Definition of Personal Wireless 

Communications Device 

Delta commented in support of the 

proposed rule and noted that they 

currently have company policies similar 

to the proposed regulations. Delta also 

suggested that the FAA add language to 

the final rule to state that the PIC may 

allow the use of a personal electronic 

device by individuals who are 

occupying the flight deck jumpseat. 

Delta also suggested that the FAA 

replace the term ‘‘personal wireless 

communications device’’ with the term 

‘‘mobile wireless communications 

device.’’ Delta noted that the word 

‘‘personal’’ implies that these devices 

are owned by the pilot and wanted it to 

be clear that the rule should include any 

mobile wireless communications device 

being used for personal purposes, 

including company provided devices. 

The FAA clarifies that the prohibition 

in the final rule only extends to 

crewmembers at a flightcrew member 

duty station; therefore, the prohibition 

does not apply to a person occupying 

the flight deck jumpseat. Additionally, 

the provisions of the final rule do not 

require an ‘‘ownership’’ test regarding 

the laptop computer or personal 

wireless communications device. These 

devices can be owned by the air carrier 

or the flightcrew member. The 

provisions of the final rule require a 

‘‘use’’ test. These devices (regardless of 

who owns them) may not be used for 

personal use (e.g. personal 

communications, personal emails, 

leisure activities, etc.) while the 

flightcrew member is at his or her duty 

station while the aircraft is being 

operated. In the final rule, the FAA has 

amended the regulation to include the 

statutory definition for the term 

‘‘personal wireless communications 

devices.’’ 

Increased Restrictions 

One individual commenter suggested 

that the prohibition on the personal use 

of these devices commence when the 

pilot first enters the flight deck prior to 

the flight, instead of at taxi, as proposed 

in the NPRM. The FAA has determined 

that the proposed operational timeframe 

for this prohibition, commencing at taxi 

and ending when the aircraft is parked 

at the gate at the end of the flight 

segment, maintains an appropriate level 

of safety because it reflects the current 

provisions in the ‘‘sterile cockpit’’ rule. 

The FAA will maintain this requirement 

in the final rule. 

One individual pilot generally 

supported the final rule but offered an 

alternative that would be more 

restrictive than the proposed rule. This 

individual recommended that the FAA 

extend the ‘‘sterile cockpit’’ prohibitions 

to cover the entire flight, including 

operations above 10,000 feet. 

Conversely, other pilots noted that for 

decades, pilots have stayed mentally 

engaged and active during long flights 

with newspapers, magazines, books, and 

crosswords. These commenters noted 

that these cruise activities enable 

flightcrew members to address boredom 

and fatigue. Additionally, these 

commenters noted that now 

newspapers, magazines, books, and 

crosswords are replaced by e-readers 

and tablets. These commenters 

reiterated that flightcrew members are 

able to manage themselves and their 

flight activities in a professional 

manner. Several commenters also cited 

safety concerns regarding pilots who 

may become bored, lethargic, inattentive 

and fatigued without the ability to 

engage in the personal use of personal 

electronic devices. 

The FAA notes that activities that 

promote mental engagement during 

operations at cruise altitude have a 

benefit of keeping a pilot engaged and 

alert. However, as discussed in the 

NPRM, there is a difference in the 

potential for certain activities to 

negatively impact a pilot’s situational 

awareness. 

The NPRM cited a study 4 that noted 

that the high fidelity attributes of certain 

displays could be a causal factor that 

amplified the likelihood of display 

induced attentional tunneling of pilots. 

The study also noted that ‘‘realistic 3D 

displays . . . tend to become an 

attention sink.’’ Additionally, the study 

notes that ‘‘. . . attentional tunneling 

would operate to engage pilots’ 

attention on these displays more than 

when situation and guidance 

information was presented . . . in a less 

compelling format.’’ It is this potential 

safety risk that is addressed by the 

requirements in the final rule. 

One individual commenter suggested 

that the limitation regarding the 

approved operational use of a personal 

electronic device apply to only one pilot 

at a time during cruise flight to ensure 

that one pilot is always able to focus on 

the flight deck displays and is able to 

maintain situational awareness. The 

FAA notes that this proposal only 

affects ‘‘personal use’’ of personal 

wireless communications devices and 

laptop computers. FAA approved air 

carrier programs regarding ‘‘approved 

operational use’’ (e.g. electronic flight 

bags (EFB), digitized charts or manuals) 

of personal wireless communications 

devices and laptop computers are 

beyond the scope of this proposal. 

Fewer Restrictions 

A pilot commented that the FAA 

should limit the prohibition on personal 

use of these devices to critical phases of 

flight. The FAA notes that the 

provisions of current § 121.542 already 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
8260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

prohibit any activity during a critical 

phase of flight which could distract any 

flightcrew member from the 

performance of his or her duties or 

which could interfere in any way with 

the proper conduct of those duties. 

Another pilot commented that 

flightcrew members should be able to 

use any personal electronic device, as 

long as the purpose is ‘‘aviation 

related’’, such as calling dispatch or 

maintenance to update operational or 

weather information or to receive the 

latest radar images to ensure a safe flight 

path on departure. 

The provisions of the final rule allow 

those ‘‘aviation related’’ activities as 

long as they are in accordance with FAA 

approved air carrier procedures. It is not 

the FAA’s intent to limit the use of 

personal wireless communications 

devices and laptop computers on the 

flight deck, as long as those devices 

support safe operation of the aircraft. 

The FAA reiterates that activities 

outside of an air carrier’s standard 

operating procedures that may seem 

innocuous, such as making phone calls 

or texting, can create a hazardous 

distraction during critical phases of 

flight. Additionally, as stated in the 

NPRM, receiving radar images on 

personal wireless communications 

devices can cause flightcrew members 

to lose situational awareness when a 

personal electronic device used on the 

flight deck is inconsistent with the type 

certified flight deck design philosophy. 

This inconsistency could provide 

distraction, confusion, and ultimately 

contribute to a loss of situational 

awareness. 

Another commenter suggested that 

the final rule should allow one pilot to 

be able to use a portable electronic 

device for personal use, as long as the 

other pilot is not using a portable 

electronic device for personal use. The 

FAA notes that the Act extends the limit 

to both pilots at all times ‘‘while at the 

flight crewmember’s duty station on the 

flight deck while the aircraft is being 

operated.’’ 

Current Rules Are Sufficient 

Many individual commenters noted 

that the current ‘‘sterile cockpit’’ rule 

should already be sufficient and that the 

additional provisions of this rule are not 

necessary. The FAA notes that this final 

rule is responsive to the legislative 

mandate in Section 307 of the Act, 

Prohibition on Personal Use of 

Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck, 

which exceeds the current requirements 

in § 121.542 (i.e. the ‘‘sterile cockpit’’ 

rule). Section 307 makes it ‘‘unlawful 

for a flight crewmember of an aircraft 

used to provide air transportation under 

part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, to use a personal wireless 

communications device or laptop 

computer while at the flight 

crewmember’s duty station on the flight 

deck of such an aircraft while the 

aircraft is being operated.’’ 

Pilot-In-Command Authority 

ALPA noted that individual airlines 

must retain the ability to define the 

appropriate use of such devices, tailored 

to their overall operations. ALPA added 

that every flight presents a unique set of 

challenges that must be addressed by 

professional flightcrew members. ALPA 

further noted that in the event of an 

inflight emergency or other abnormal 

situation, PICs must retain the authority 

to determine how and when to use 

equipment on board the aircraft. 

The FAA notes that the final rule 

allows air carriers to determine 

operational requirements and 

procedures, subject to approval by the 

FAA. Also, as stated by another 

individual commenter, this regulation 

in no way impedes the function of the 

flightcrew members since the rule does 

not apply to the use of a personal 

wireless communication device for a 

purpose that is directly related to the 

operation of the aircraft, for emergency 

and safety-related concerns, in 

accordance with FAA approved air 

carrier procedures. The FAA clarifies, in 

response to ALPA’s concern, that the 

provisions of § 91.3, Responsibility and 

authority of the pilot in command, 

remain unchanged. The pilot in 

command of an aircraft is directly 

responsible for, and is the final 

authority as to, the operation of that 

aircraft and in an in-flight emergency 

requiring immediate action, the PIC may 

deviate from any rule of this part to the 

extent required to meet that emergency. 

Enforcement 

Several individual commenters 

suggested that all personal wireless 

communications devices and laptop 

computers that are used for approved 

operational use should be provided by 

the air carrier, so the air carrier could 

download history, monitor use or block 

access to certain material. These 

commenters noted that this would help 

to ensure that the device would be used 

by the flightcrew member only for 

approved operational procedures and 

would assist in enforcement of the rule. 

Several other commenters generally 

noted that it would be difficult for the 

FAA to enforce the provisions of this 

rule. 

Requiring air carriers to provide all 

personal wireless communications 

devices or laptop computers that are 

approved for operational use is not 

necessary for safety. In addition, this is 

not necessary for enforcing the 

provisions of the final rule. 

The final rule is intended to ensure 

that certain non-essential activities do 

not contribute to the challenge of task 

management on the flight deck or a loss 

of situational awareness due to attention 

to non-essential tasks. The safety 

provisions in the final rule address 

‘‘use’’. The ‘‘ownership’’ of the personal 

wireless communications device or 

laptop computer is not important. 

Additionally, when the FAA 

published the proposed rule that 

established the ‘‘sterile cockpit’’ 

provisions in 1980, the agency received 

several similar comments that the 

provisions of that rule would be 

difficult to enforce. The FAA responds 

to current comments in the same way 

the FAA responded to the comments for 

the ‘‘sterile cockpit’’ final rule (46 FR 

5501). In that final rule, the FAA 

generally responded that the FAA does 

not agree that the rule is too difficult to 

enforce. The FAA stated that principal 

operations inspectors will assure air 

carrier compliance through review of 

manuals and procedures. Individual 

compliance will be assured through en 

route surveillance as in the past. The 

FAA’s position remains the same and 

violations of this rule will be pursued 

similarly as those of any other rule. 

Inhibit Innovation 

Several individual commenters noted 

that the rule would impede the use of 

innovation and technology by 

prohibiting the use of all electronic 

devices on the flight deck. Several 

commenters were concerned that this 

rule would affect innovations in the use 

of EFB and use of similar technology on 

the flight deck. These commenters noted 

that it was important to allow air 

carriers and crewmembers to take 

advantage of this new technology, as 

deemed appropriate, to increase 

operational efficiency and safety. 

As stated previously, the FAA 

encourages the use of new electronic 

technologies that as stated by 

commenters, will allow air carriers to 

‘‘. . . . take advantage of this new 

technology as deemed appropriate to 

increase operational efficiency and 

safety.’’ However, due to potential 

hazards to safe operation of the aircraft, 

the FAA carefully regulates the use of 

EFB hardware and software by 

crewmembers through FAA approval of 

air carrier EFB programs. The 

prohibitions in the final rule only 

extend to the personal use of such 

devices when the device, software, and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 8261 

5See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(C)(i). 

procedures are not approved by the 

FAA. 

Prohibited Devices 

Several commenters asked if the 

limitations in the rule extended to 

specific devices, such as iPods, used to 

listen to music. As stated in the NPRM, 

Section 307 of the Act defines ‘‘personal 

wireless communications device’’ as a 

device through which personal wireless 

services (as defined in Section 

332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications 

Act of 1934) are transmitted.5 The 

Communications Act of 1934 states that 

personal wireless services means 

commercial mobile services, unlicensed 

wireless services, and common carrier 

wireless exchange access service. 

In general, wireless 

telecommunications is the transfer of 

information between two or more points 

that are not physically connected. In the 

final rule, the FAA retains the same 

broad category of included devices 

because a list of specific devices would 

ignore the reality of evolving 

technology. This broad category 

includes, but is not limited to, devices 

such as cell phones, smartphones, 

personal digital assistants, tablets, ereaders, some (but not all) gaming 

systems, iPods and MP3 players, as well 

as netbooks and notebook computers. 

Evolving technology makes it difficult 

to develop an inclusive list of devices 

that are addressed by the provisions of 

the final rule. The FAA notes that the 

final rule establishes a clear definition 

of personal wireless communications 

devices. The provisions of the final rule 

do not prohibit the use of devices that 

do not meet the definition of personal 

wireless communications devices. 

Interference With Aircraft Systems 

Several commenters supported the 

proposed rule and noted that the 

indiscriminate use of personal wireless 

communications devices and laptop 

computers by flightcrew members has 

the potential to interfere with 

communications systems on the 

airplane. The FAA notes that the 

potential for electromagnetic 

interference on the flight deck is beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. This 

rulemaking is intended to ensure that 

certain non-essential activities do not 

contribute to the challenge of task 

management on the flight deck or a loss 

of situational awareness due to attention 

to non-essential tasks. 

A. Requirements 

The requirements in the final rule 

prohibit the personal use of a personal 

wireless communications device or 

laptop computer while a flightcrew 

member is at his or her duty station 

during all ground operations involving 

taxi, takeoff and landing, and all other 

flight operations. The final rule does not 

prohibit the use of personal wireless 

communications devices or laptop 

computers if the purpose is directly 

related to operation of the aircraft, or for 

emergency, safety-related, or 

employment-related communications 

and the use is in accordance with air 

carrier procedures approved by the 

Administrator. 

The FAA clarifies that ‘‘emergency’’ 

communications are those related to the 

safe operation of the aircraft and its 

occupants, not a flightcrew member’s 

personal emergency. Additionally, the 

FAA clarifies that ‘‘employmentrelated’’ communications are not at the 

discretion of the pilot, but are part of 

FAA approved operational procedures 

regarding the use of personal wireless 

communications devices or laptop 

computers. For example, in the 

previously noted situation with the 

pilots who became distracted when 

using personal laptop computers while 

discussing the air carrier’s flight 

scheduling software, the flight 

schedules may have been ‘‘employmentrelated,’’ but the personal use of laptop 

computers during the discussion was 

not part of FAA approved operational 

procedures and will be prohibited by 

the final rule. 

B. Current Air Carrier Programs 

Several air carriers currently have 

FAA approved programs or are in the 

process of developing programs for FAA 

approval where laptop computers and 

personal wireless communications 

devices, such as tablets, are used by 

flightcrew members for work-related 

activities during flight operations. In 

some cases, air carriers own the laptop 

computers and/or personal wireless 

communications devices used by 

flightcrew members. In other cases, 

flightcrew members own the laptop 

computers and/or personal wireless 

communications devices. The FAA 

clarifies that the provisions in the final 

rule do not affect these FAA approved 

programs. 

C. Operational Timeframes for 

Prohibition 

Section 307 of the Act states that it is 

unlawful to use a device for personal 

use while an aircraft is being operated. 

The meaning of an ‘‘aircraft being 

operated’’ as it pertains to some FAA 

regulations is very broad, to include 

being parked at the gate while 

passengers are boarding. The FAA 

clarifies that for the purposes of this 

rule, the meaning of an ‘‘aircraft being 

operated’’ mirrors the definition of 

‘‘flight time’’ in 14 CFR 1.1. Therefore, 

the prohibition on the personal use of 

laptop computers and personal wireless 

communications devices commences at 

taxi (movement of the aircraft under its 

own power) and ends when the aircraft 

is parked at the gate at the end of the 

flight segment. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct 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 of 1979 (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, the 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 final rule. 

The Department of Transportation 

Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 

and procedures for simplification, 

analysis, and review of regulations. If 

the expected cost impact is so minimal 

that a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

The FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012, enacted on February 14, 

2012, includes Section 307, Prohibition 

on Personal Use of Electronic Devices 

on the Flight Deck. The FAA is 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
8262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

amending part 121 to conform to this 

legislation. The final rule will prohibit 

flightcrew members in operations under 

part 121 from using a personal wireless 

communications device or laptop 

computer for personal use while at their 

duty station on the flight deck while the 

aircraft is being operated. This final rule 

will ensure that certain non-essential 

activities do not contribute to the 

challenge of task management on the 

flight deck and do not contribute to a 

loss of situational awareness due to 

attention to non-essential activities. The 

FAA expects that this final rule reflects 

current sterile cockpit operating 

procedures and therefore does not 

impose more than a minimum cost on 

any regulated entity. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

B. 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. 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. 

The FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012, enacted on February 14, 

2012, includes Section 307, Prohibition 

on Personal Use of Electronic Devices 

on the Flight Deck. The FAA is 

amending part 121 to conform to this 

legislation. The final rule will prohibit 

flightcrew members in operations under 

part 121 from using a personal wireless 

communications device or laptop 

computer for personal use while at their 

duty station on the flight deck while the 

aircraft is being operated. This rule is 

intended to ensure that certain nonessential activities do not contribute to 

the challenge of task management on the 

flight deck and do not contribute to a 

loss of situational awareness due to 

attention to non-essential activities. 

While this final rule affects small 

entities, it merely revises existing FAA 

rules and does not impose any cost on 

any regulated entity. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b) the head of 

the FAA certifies that this final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

has determined that the objective is to 

ensure aviation safety thus is not an 

unnecessary obstacle. 

D. 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 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate. 

E. 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. The 

FAA has determined that there will be 

no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

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. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

G. 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. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

See the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ 

discussion in the ‘‘Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses’’ section elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 8263 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, will not have Federalism 

implications. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it will not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and will not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s 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.). 

C. 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. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Aviation safety, Safety, Transportation. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I 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 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

40119, 41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 

44709–44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 

44732, 46105; Pub. L. 112–95, 126 Stat. 62 

(49 U.S.C. 44732 note). 

■ 2. Amend § 121.542 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 121.542 Flight crewmember duties. 

* * * * * 

(d) During all flight time as defined in 

14 CFR 1.1, no flight crewmember may 

use, nor may any pilot in command 

permit the use of, a personal wireless 

communications device (as defined in 

49 U.S.C. 44732(d)) or laptop computer 

while at a flight crewmember duty 

station unless the purpose is directly 

related to operation of the aircraft, or for 

emergency, safety-related, or 

employment-related communications, 

in accordance with air carrier 

procedures approved by the 

Administrator. 

Issued under the authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a) and 44732 in 

Washington, DC on January 22, 2014. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02991 Filed 2–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 636 

[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2013–0043] 

RIN 2125–AF58 

Design-Build Contracting 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is revising its 

regulations related to the use of 

alternative technical concepts (ATC) in 

design-build project delivery of highway 

construction. This final rule eliminates 

the requirement to submit a base 

proposal when a contracting agency 

allows design-build proposers to submit 

ATCs in their technical and price 

proposals. 

DATES: Effective March 14, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information: Mr. Gerald 

Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program 

Administration, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

202–366–1562, gerald.yakowenko@

dot.gov. For legal information: Ms. Janet 

Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel, 202– 

366–2019, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This document and all comments 

received may be viewed online through 

the Federal eRulemaking portal at: 

http://www.regulations.gov. The Web 

site is available 24 hours each day, 365 

days each year. Electronic submission 

and retrieval help and guidelines are 

available under the help section of the 

Web site. An electronic copy of this 

document may also be downloaded by 

accessing the Office of the Federal 

Register’s home page, http://

www.federalregister.gov, or the 

Government Printing Office’s Federal 

Digital System, http://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys. 

Background 

The FHWA’s current regulatory policy 

in part 636 allows contracting agencies 

to use ATCs in their procurement 

process subject to two conditions: (1) 

the ATC must not conflict with the 

criteria agreed upon in the 

environmental decisionmaking process, 

and (2) the contracting agency must 

require proposers to submit a base 

proposal in addition to supplemental 

ATC-based proposals. Specifically, 23 

CFR 636.209(b) states: ‘‘At your 

discretion, you may allow proposers to 

submit alternate technical concepts in 

their proposals as long as these alternate 

concepts do not conflict with criteria 

agreed upon in the environmental 

decision making process. Alternate 

technical concept proposals may 

supplement, but not substitute for base 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES