This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

10049 

Vol. 79, No. 36 

Monday, February 24, 2014 

1FCC’s authority on this issue is very broad and 

derives from a number of disparate statutory 

provisions. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 161, 

302a, 303(b), 303(r), 303(y), 308, 309, and 332; see 

also 47 CFR Subpart C of Part 1 (setting forth FCC’s 

rules governing agency’s exercise of authority to 

promulgate and amend rules); § 1.903(c) (stating 

that authority for subscribers to operate mobile or 

fixed stations in the Wireless Radio Services— 

which includes Part 87 Aviation Services—is 

included in the authorization held by the licensee 

providing service to them); Part 87 generally 

(setting forth conditions under which radio stations, 

other than U.S. Government radio stations, may be 

licensed and used in the Aviation Services) and 

Subpart F of Part 87 (setting forth current rules 

governing use of ‘‘aircraft stations’’—i.e., mobile 

radio stations in the aeronautical mobile service, 

other than a survival craft station, located on board 

an aircraft). 

2http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_

industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_

infos/media/2013/InFO13010.pdf. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 251 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–2014–0002] 

RIN 2105–AE30 

Use of Mobile Wireless Devices for 

Voice Calls on Aircraft 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation (DOT or Department) is 

seeking comment on the effects and 

implications of adopting a rule to ban 

voice communications on passengers’ 

mobile wireless devices on flights 

within, to and from the United States. 

The Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) recently issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking that if 

adopted would, among other things, 

revise the FCC’s prohibition on the use 

of cellular telephones (cell phones) or 

other mobile wireless devices to make it 

possible for aircraft operators to permit 

passengers to make or receive calls onboard aircraft. FCC’s proposal to revise 

its rules was prompted by the 

availability of new technology and 

would provide the benefit of expanded 

access to mobile wireless services onboard aircraft, including data, text and 

voice services. See http://www.fcc.gov/

document/review-rules-wirelessservices-onboard-aircraft-nprm. 

However, under the Department’s 

aviation consumer protection authority, 

we are seeking comment on whether 

voice calls on aircraft constitute an 

unfair practice to consumers pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 41712, and/or are inconsistent 

with adequate air transportation 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41702, and if so 

whether such calls should be banned or 

restricted (e.g., not allow voice calls at 

night time). 

DATES: Comments should be filed by 

March 26, 2014. Late-filed comments 

will be considered to the extent 

practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may file comments 

identified by the docket number DOT– 

OST–2014–0002 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9:00 

a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251 

Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

OST–2014–0002 or the Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for the 

rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received in any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http://

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents and 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov or to the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura E. Jennings, Senior Trial Attorney, 

or Blane A. Workie, Acting Assistant 

General Counsel, Office of the Assistant 

General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 

20590, 202–366–9342, 202–366–7152 

(fax), laura.jennings@dot.gov or 

blane.workie@dot.gov (email). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) have distinct areas of 

responsibilities with respect to the use 

of cell phones or other mobile devices 

for voice communications on aircraft. In 

general, as explained below, the FCC 

has authority over various technical 

issues, the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) which is a 

component of DOT has authority over 

safety issues, and DOT’s Office of the 

Secretary (OST) has authority over 

aviation consumer protection issues. 

FCC has responsibility over various 

technical issues—e.g., whether cell 

phones or other mobile devices used 

during flight would interfere with 

cellular networks on the ground and 

should continue to be banned for this 

reason or whether technological 

advances have resolved those concerns 

and FCC should revise its rules to 

enable the airlines to seek authorization 

to provide a service that would allow 

passenger use of such devices during 

flight.1

Pursuant to its aviation safety 

oversight authority in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) 

and 44701(a), DOT’s Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) has authority 

over whether Portable Electronic 

Devices (PEDs) using cellular 

technology can be safely used on 

aircraft. Pursuant to FAA guidance, 

InFO 13010, ‘‘Expanding the Use of 

Passenger Portable Electronic Devices 

(PED),’’ 2 in order to allow passengers to 

use portable electronic devices aircraft 

operators must first make a 

determination that passenger PEDs used 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3See 14 CFR 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, 135.44. 

4Expanding Access to Mobile Wireless Services 

OnBoard Aircraft, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

WT Docket No. 13–301, FCC 13–157 (Dec. 13, 2013) 

(FCC Mobile Wireless NPRM) at 4–5 ¶¶ 5–7; 47 CFR 

22.925, 90.423. 

5 Id. at 5 ¶ 7. 

6 Id. at 9 ¶ 16. 

7 Id. at 10 ¶ 17. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. at 9 ¶ 16. 

10The FCC’s NPRM cites a study predicting that 

by the end of 2013 the number of commercial 

aircraft providing either Wi-Fi or cellular 

connectivity will reach 4,048, representing 21 

percent of the global fleet. FCC Mobile Wireless 

NPRM at 2 ¶ 2. The FCC also cites a consumer 

survey indicating that from May 2012 to May 2013, 

69 percent of airline passengers who brought a PED 

onto an aircraft used their devices during the flight. 

Id. at 3 ¶ 2. Further, the FCC reports that global 

mobile traffic increased by 70 percent from 2011 to 

2012 and is projected to increase thirteen-fold by 

2017. Id. at 11 ¶ 22. 

11See Press Release, FAA, FAA to Allow Airlines 

to Expand Use of Personal Electronics (Oct. 31, 

2013), http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/

news_story.cfm?newsId=15254. 

12 FCC Mobile Wireless NPRM at 1 ¶1. 

13 Id. at 11–12 ¶¶ 23–24. 

14 Id. at 11–12 ¶¶ 23–24. 

15 Id. at 15 ¶ 31. 

16 Id. at 4 ¶ 4. 

17As an example, the FCC states that Aer Lingus 

currently allows texting and Internet access using 

mobile communications devices but does not allow 

voice calls in the cabin, while Virgin Atlantic 

permits access to the Internet, texting, and making 

voice calls through its mobile communications 

system. Id. at 17–18 ¶ 41; See also Statement of 

Chairman Wheeler, Re: Expanding Access to Mobile 

Wireless Services Onboard Aircraft, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket 13–301, FCC 13– 

157 at 45 (Dec. 13, 2013) (Statement of Chairman 

Wheeler). 

on board their aircraft will not cause 

interference with the navigation or 

communication systems. This 

determination includes assessing the 

risks of potential cellular-induced 

avionics problems.3 Expanding 

passenger PED use requires an aircraft 

operator to revise applicable policies, 

procedures, and programs, and to 

institute mitigation strategies for 

passenger disruptions to crewmember 

safety briefings and announcements and 

potential passenger conflicts. 

DOT’s Office of the Secretary (OST) 

has the authority under its aviation 

consumer protection authority to 

determine whether permitting voice 

calls on aircraft is an unfair practice to 

consumers, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41712, 

or would be so disruptive as to be 

inconsistent with adequate air 

transportation, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

41702. The scope of this ANPRM is to 

gather information that will help DOT 

conclude whether or not such 

determinations might be warranted 

under the provisions cited above. This 

ANPRM is not seeking comment on the 

technical or safety aspects of voice 

communications, which fall under the 

regulatory authority of the FCC and the 

FAA, respectively. It is important to 

note that, if DOT does eventually 

determine that permitting voice calls is 

a practice that is unfair or that is 

inconsistent with adequate air 

transportation, one possible outcome is 

that providing passenger voice call 

service will not be permitted on any 

U.S. passenger flights. 

FCC and Cellular Usage Issues 

Currently the FCC’s rules prohibit the 

use of airborne cellular telephones 

(specifically those using the 800 MHz 

frequency) and the use of Specialized 

Mobile Radio (SMR) handsets while 

airborne.4 The cell phone ban was 

adopted in 1991 based on the threat of 

harmful interference from airborne use 

of cellular phones to terrestrial cellular 

networks. The SMR handset rule was 

adopted based on the same rationale— 

to prevent harmful interference with 

land-based operations.5

Regarding other airborne broadband 

access, in 1990 the FCC allocated four 

megahertz of spectrum for commercial 

Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, 

leading to the deployment of seat-back 

phones on aircraft.6 And, since the 

1990s, airlines have been permitted to 

use mobile satellite service (MSS) 

spectrum to provide data service.7 Also, 

starting in 2001, the FCC authorized 

certain parties on an ad hoc basis to use 

Fixed Satellite Service spectrum to 

provide broadband connectivity to 

airborne aircraft.8 In 2005, the FCC 

cleared the way for airlines to begin 

offering Wi-Fi.9

Since the adoption of the FCC’s ban 

on the use of cell phones during flight, 

there has been a proliferation of cell 

phones, smart phones, and other PEDs, 

leading to a significant increase in 

consumer demand for broadband 

connectivity on board aircraft and the 

number of passengers using PEDs 

during flight.10 The FAA recognized as 

much when it announced on October 

31, 2013, that it had determined that 

airlines could safely expand passenger 

use of PEDs during all phases of flight 

and issued Information for Operators 

(InFO 13010, ‘‘Expanding Use of 

Passenger Portable Electronic Devices 

(PED).’’ 11 The FAA did not address 

passenger use of voice communication 

using cellular technology enabled 

devices in the expanded PED policy 

because of FCC’s existing ban on use of 

cell phones during flight. 

In light of the technical viability of 

and increasing public interest in using 

mobile communication services on 

aircraft in flight, on December 12, 2013, 

the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to revise 

outdated rules and to adopt a consistent 

regulatory framework that would allow 

airlines, subject to application of FAA 

and DOT regulations, to choose whether 

to enable mobile communications 

services using an Airborne Access 

System.12 In pertinent part, the FCC’s 

NPRM proposes to harmonize its 

regulations governing the operation of 

mobile devices on aircraft across all 

commercial mobile spectrum bands, and 

to allow mobile communication services 

on aircraft only if managed by Airborne 

Access Systems.13 The FCC’s proposal 

reiterates that the FAA must certify the 

Airborne Access Systems,14 and would 

permit mobile wireless device 

operations only on aircraft traveling 

more than 10,000 feet above the 

ground.15

The FCC’s proposal makes clear that 

it is not proposing a mandate for airlines 

to permit any new airborne mobile 

services; rather, the FCC is proposing to 

revise current prohibitions on the 

operation of wireless devices on aircraft 

to provide the airlines with a regulatory 

path for offering their passengers 

additional airborne mobile broadband 

services across licensed commercial 

spectrum bands. The FCC states that its 

NPRM is ‘‘technology-neutral,’’ in that it 

does not propose to limit the use of 

mobile communications to non-voice 

applications; rather it states that any 

modifications would be at the discretion 

of individual airlines, in addition to any 

rules or guidelines adopted by the FAA 

or OST.16 The FCC proposal explains 

that the Airborne Access Systems will 

provide airlines with the flexibility to 

deploy or not deploy all mobile 

communications services. For instance, 

an airline could program the new 

equipment to block voice calls while 

permitting texting, email, and Web 

surfing.17

FAA and Cellular Usage Issues 

As stated above, even if the FCC 

determines that cell phones or other 

mobile devices used during flight would 

not interfere with cellular networks and 

revises its ban, FAA safety regulations 

would still apply. The FAA is 

responsible for determining whether 

cellular technology can safely be used 

on aircraft. Any installed equipment 

such as Airborne Access Systems would 

be subject to FAA certification, just like 

any other piece of hardware. In 

addition, the aircraft operator would 

have to determine that the use of this 

system will not interfere with the 

navigation and communications systems 

of the particular type of aircraft on 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10051 

18 77 FR 53159–02 (Aug. 31, 2012). 

19 Id. at 53162, question 5. 

20Passengers Use of Portable Electronic Devices 

on Board Aircraft, Docket No. FAA 2012–0752. 21 Id. 22See 74 FR 68983 (December 30, 2009) and 76 

FR 23110 (April 25, 2011). 23 74 FR 68983 (Dec. 30, 2009). 

24 38 FR 12207 (May 10, 1973). 

25The CAB stated, ‘‘unlike persons in public 

buildings, nonsmoking passengers on aircraft may 

be assigned to a seat next to, or otherwise in close 

proximity to, persons who smoke and cannot 

escape this environment until the end of the flight.’’ 

which it will be used before any 

restrictions are lifted. 

We understand that today a number of 

foreign air carriers allow the use of 

passenger cellular telephones with onboard cellular telephone base stations 

(picocells). We solicit comment from 

these carriers and from passengers who 

have flown on these carriers regarding 

their flight experiences. More 

specifically, to what extent have 

passengers used their cell phones for 

voice communications on airplanes that 

are equipped for cell phone 

communications? Have the air carriers 

received passenger comments or 

complaints related to cell phone voice 

communications? If so, what comments 

or complaints have been received? If 

complaints or issues were reported, did 

these issues rise to the level in which 

they would be considered to be an 

unfair practice to consumers, and/or 

inconsistent with adequate 

transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

41712 and 49 U.S.C. 41702? If DOT 

were to make such a determination (that 

voice calls are unfair and/or 

inconsistent with adequate 

transportation), foreign air carriers may 

be subject to these rules. What would be 

the economic impact of such a 

requirement? 

On October 31, 2013, the FAA 

announced, based on the report of the 

PED Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

(ARC), that it had determined that 

airlines could safely expand passenger 

use of PEDs during all phases of flight. 

Cell phones were excluded from the 

scope of the ARC’s report because of the 

FCC’s rules prohibiting airborne calls 

using cell phones. In its announcement 

the FAA stated that passengers with 

PEDs with cellular capabilities must 

continue to disable those capabilities 

during flight (i.e., cellular service turned 

off). 

Prior to the formation of the ARC, the 

FAA, on August 31, 2012, issued a 

Notice of Policy, requesting comment on 

current policy and guidance regarding 

passenger use of PEDs on-board 

aircraft.18 The Notice sought comment 

on several items including passenger 

perspectives on PEDs, and asked: 

• If some PEDs are found to be 

compatible with aircraft systems, should 

there be restrictions on the use of PEDs 

for other reasons? 

• Should voice communications 

using other technologies such as voice 

over IP (internet) be limited or 

restricted? 19

The Association of Flight Attendants 

filed a comment and replied that voice 

over internet or cellular broadband 

should be banned to reduce in-flight 

disruptions, noting that most flight 

attendants and travelers find 

objectionable the possibility of 

numerous simultaneous voice calls.20

Delta Air Lines also filed a comment 

stating that 64 percent of its passengers 

indicated that the ability to make phone 

calls in flight would have a negative 

impact on the onboard experience.21

Office of the Secretary and Cellular 

Usage Issues 

In addition to the FAA’s safety 

responsibilities, the Department (Office 

of the Secretary, Office of Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings) has the 

authority and responsibility to protect 

consumers from unfair or deceptive 

practices in air transportation under 49 

U.S.C. 41712. Using this authority, the 

Department has found acts to be 

‘‘unfair’’ if they are harmful to 

passengers but could not be reasonably 

avoided by passengers. For example, the 

Department relied upon section 41712 

and its ‘‘unfair’’ practice component 

when promulgating the ‘‘Tarmac Delay 

Rule,’’ 22 14 CFR 259.4, in which the 

Department addressed problems 

consumers face when aircraft sit for 

hours on the airport tarmac.23 In doing 

so, the Department considered the harm 

to the consumer and the fact that the 

practice was unavoidable by the 

consumer. The Department concluded 

that regulatory action was necessary and 

that a three-hour time limit is the 

maximum time after which passengers 

must be permitted to deplane from 

domestic flights given the cramped, 

close conditions in aircraft and the 

inability of passengers to avoid lengthy 

tarmac delays. 

Here, as with the tarmac delay rules, 

the Department believes that this 

practice may be harmful or injurious to 

the passenger and there may not be a 

way for the passenger to reasonably 

avoid the harm. Allowing voice calls on 

passenger aircraft may be harmful 

because people tend to talk louder on 

cellphones than when they’re having 

face-to-face conversations. They are also 

likely to talk more and further increase 

the noise on a flight, as passengers 

would not be simply talking to the 

persons sitting next to them but can call 

whomever they like. While some planes 

may already have seat-back phones in 

place, we believe that most are rarely 

used and the Department’s concern is 

not about individual calls but rather the 

cumulative impact of allowing in-flight 

calls in close quarters. 

In this ANPRM the Department is 

seeking comment on whether permitting 

the use of mobile wireless devices for 

voice calls on aircraft amounts to an 

unfair practice under section 41712 

using the test listed above, and whether 

there may be countervailing benefits to 

consumers or competition should voice 

calls be allowed. Further, we seek 

comment on whether other types of 

communications and technologies (like 

seat-back phones), may also be 

considered to be an unfair practice 

under section 41712. 

As noted above, 49 U.S.C. 41702 gives 

the Department the authority and 

responsibility to ensure safe and 

adequate service in domestic air 

transportation. As with section 41712, 

the Department and its predecessor in 

these matters have previously used this 

authority to address actions that have 

harmful effects on air travelers. In this 

instance, the Department feels that the 

potentially harmful effect to consumers 

is discomfort. 

In 1973, the Civil Aeronautics Board 

(CAB) issued a ‘‘smoking rule’’ under its 

economic regulations titled, ‘‘Part 252— 

Provision of Designated ‘No Smoking’ 

Areas Aboard Aircraft Operated by 

Certificated Air Carriers,’’ which 

mandated designated ‘‘no smoking’’ 

areas on commercial flights.24 The rule 

predated a Congressional ban on 

smoking on scheduled flights. In the 

preamble to the rule, the CAB cited a 

joint study by the FAA and the then 

Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare that concluded that the low 

levels of contaminants in tobacco smoke 

did not represent a health hazard to 

nonsmoking passengers on aircraft; 

however, the study found that a 

significant portion of the nonsmokers 

stated that they were bothered by 

tobacco smoke. As such, the principal 

basis for the rule was passenger 

discomfort.25 The CAB relied upon 

section 404(a)(1) of the Federal Aviation 

Act of 1958 (subsequently re-codified as 

section 41702), requiring air carriers ‘‘to 

provide safe and adequate service, 

equipment and facilities,’’ as well as 

section 404(a)(2), requiring air carriers 

to establish, observe, and enforce ‘‘just 

and reasonable . . . practices’’ as its 

statutory authority for this rule. While 

the initial 1973 determination may have 

been based primarily upon passenger 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10052 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

26The Aviation Enforcement Office categorizes 

communications received from consumers as 

complaints, comments, or inquiries. A ‘comment’ 

for this purpose is an expression of opinion on an 

issue, as opposed to a complaint about a specific 

incident that the consumer was involved in. These 

‘comments’ sent to the Aviation Enforcement Office 

are not comments in the rulemaking sense; they 

were not filed in response to this ANPRM and are 

not in the docket. 

27See U.S. airlines want to stay cell phone free, 

CNNMoney, http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/24/

technology/airline-cell-phones/ (Dec. 24, 2013). 

28See DOT says not so fast over FCC call to lift 

ban on in-flight calls, Associated Press, http://

www.cbsnews.com/news/fcc-says-lift-ban-on-inflight-calls-dot-replies-not-so-fast/ (last updated 

Dec. 12, 2013). 

29See U.S. airlines want to stay call phone free, 

supra note 26. 

30S.1811 (Dec. 12, 2013). 31H.R. 3676 (Dec. 9, 2013). 

discomfort issues, it is important to note 

that in more recent actions (statutory 

ban on smoking aboard aircraft in 49 

U.S.C. 41706 and the regulatory ban in 

part 252 on smoking tobacco products), 

health risks were among the concerns 

upon which these actions were based. 

Through this ANPRM we seek to 

explore whether the potential for voice 

communications on mobile wireless 

devices would necessitate rulemaking 

pursuant to our authority to ensure 

adequate service. 

During the past two months, the 

Department’s Aviation Enforcement 

Office has received more than 90 

consumer comments from the public 

expressing dissatisfaction over the 

possibility of permitting in-flight voice 

calls, and no comments in support of 

such calls.26 In addition to the 

consumer comments noted above, some 

entities have made public statements in 

the media indicating various positions 

on the issue of voice calls. The 

Association of Flight Attendants 

released a statement opposing voice 

calls, stating: ‘‘As the last line of defense 

in our nation’s aviation system, flight 

attendants understand the importance of 

maintaining a calm cabin environment, 

and passengers agree.’’ 27 Similar views 

were expressed by several U.S. airlines. 

Delta Air Lines publicly stated it will 

not permit voice calls regardless of what 

the government allows, citing 

‘‘overwhelming sentiment’’ to keep the 

ban in place.28 JetBlue Airways and 

United Airlines have also indicated that 

they intend to keep the ban on calls in 

place.29 In addition, legislation has been 

introduced in the House of 

Representatives and Senate to address 

the concern over in-flight voice calls. 

On December 12, 2013, Senator Diane 

Feinstein and Senator Lamar Alexander 

introduced legislation, titled 

Commercial Flight Courtesy Act,30 to 

ban cell phone conversations on 

commercial airline flights, but permit 

the use of texting and other electronic 

communication, pending FCC approval. 

That same week, Rep. Bill Shuster 

introduced a bill, Prohibiting In-Flight 

Voice Communications on Mobile 

Wireless Devices Act of 2013,31 to 

prohibit in-flight voice communications, 

but permit other types of electronic 

communication. 

The concerns raised by the public, 

airlines, flight attendants, and members 

of Congress regarding the possibility of 

in-flight voice calls on aircraft have 

prompted the Department to issue this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

seeking comment on use of mobile 

wireless devices for voice calls on 

aircraft. Permitting voice calls in an 

enclosed cabin space has the potential, 

according to comments the Department 

received, to drastically alter the flying 

public’s experience. 

Unlike other public environments, the 

option to remove oneself from the 

disruption, inconvenience, and/or 

nuisance of listening to someone else’s 

phone call does not appear to exist on 

an airplane. Further, the Department 

believes that the possibility of 

cumulative impact of having a large 

number of passengers talking on their 

cell phones increases the level of 

passenger discomfort. The Department 

seeks comment, described more 

specifically below, on whether it would 

be feasible to create ‘‘quiet sections’’ as 

exist on Amtrak trains and in other 

public places, or to issue guidelines on 

when airlines should disable passenger 

voice communication technology at 

certain times or under certain 

circumstances (i.e., at night time, on 

flights of a certain length, etc.) . While 

the Department does not oppose the use 

of cell phones and other mobile devices 

for mobile wireless data services, such 

as sending and receiving text messages 

and email, there is concern that the 

pervasiveness of in-flight voice calls 

could create an oppressive environment 

for passengers, especially for those on 

long-haul flights. We note that we are 

not considering the inclusion of seatback phones or other phones installed 

on aircraft in a proposed ban. While 

passengers are able to make voice calls 

in-flight through such phones, the 

service is usually relatively expensive, 

sparingly used, and to our knowledge 

have been in use for years largely 

without incident. We are concerned 

about the cumulative impact of allowing 

in-flight calls across our national 

aviation system, rather than individual 

calls which may be seen as ‘‘petty 

annoyances.’’ 

As we consider whether the passenger 

experience would be so disrupted by inflight calls that to permit those calls 

would be an ‘‘unfair’’ practice and/or 

render the service provided 

‘‘inadequate,’’ we seek comment on the 

following issues. The most helpful 

comments reference a particular part of 

the proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data as well as cost and 

benefit information. 

1. Is it necessary for the Department 

to propose a rule to deem passenger 

voice communications as an unfair 

practice, and ban voice communications 

on passengers’ mobile wireless devices 

on flights conducted under 14 CFR Part 

91 Subpart K (fractional ownership 

programs), Part 121 (generally, 

scheduled airlines and charter operators 

of large aircraft), Part 125 (operations 

with aircraft having 20 or more 

passenger seats where common carriage 

is not involved), Part 129 (foreign air 

carriers), and/or Part 135 (commuter, on 

demand and air-taxi operations) within, 

to and from the United States. If so, on 

what basis is there a need for this 

regulation? We note that when in the 

airspace of a foreign country, a U.S. 

aircraft operator may allow the use of 

PEDs only if it is consistent with that 

country’s rules. 

2. Information on the possible benefits 

of allowing voice communications on 

passengers’ mobile wireless devices on 

flights conducted under 14 CFR Part 91 

Subpart K (fractional ownership 

programs), Part 121 (generally 

scheduled airlines and charter operators 

of large aircraft), Part 125 (operations 

with aircraft having 20 or more 

passenger seats where common carriage 

is not involved), Part 129 (foreign air 

carriers), and/or Part 135 (commuter, on 

demand and air-taxi operations) within, 

to and from the United States. Are there 

airlines that would opt to provide this 

service to passengers, should the 

opportunity arise? Are there passengers 

or passenger groups that would like to 

be allowed to use their mobile devices 

for voice communications while in 

flight (e.g., anytime, for important 

business or personal calls, 

emergencies)? Whether or not the 

Department should refrain from issuing 

a notice of proposed rulemaking on this 

topic and instead allow the airlines to 

develop individual policies. 

3. Whether a proposed ban should 

include all in-flight voice 

communications on mobile wireless 

devices regardless of whether the mode 

is through an Airborne Access System, 

Wi-Fi, or satellite. If so, why? 

4. Whether a proposed ban should 

include exceptions for charter flights, or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10053 

at least certain charter flights such as 

single entity charters. If so, why? 

5. Whether a ban if adopted should 

define ‘mobile wireless devices.’ The 

House bill, Prohibiting In-Flight Voice 

Communications on Mobile Wireless 

Devices Act of 2013, defines mobile 

wireless devices as any portable 

wireless telecommunications equipment 

utilized for the transmission or 

reception of voice data. We would 

consider this definition to include: 

Cellular handsets, computers, tablets, 

electronic games, and any other device 

that uses radio links to establish a voice 

call with another party or parties. 

6. Whether the Department should 

consider text-to-speech technologies as 

an unfair practice under 49 U.S.C. 

41712, and/or inconsistent with 

adequate transportation pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 41702. We seek comment on the 

benefits or costs of including text-tospeech technologies if the Department 

determines that in-flight voice 

communications should be banned or 

restricted as an unfair practice. In the 

alternative, we seek comments on the 

benefits or costs of excluding these 

technologies from a proposed ban. We 

also seek comment on whether the 

Department should consider an 

exemption from any ban on text-to 

speech voice applications for systems 

aimed at facilitating/improving 

accessibility for passengers with 

disabilities. The most helpful comments 

explain the reason or basis for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

7. Whether a proposed ban on voice 

communications on passengers’ mobile 

wireless devices should not apply prior 

to the aircraft door closing for 

departures or after the aircraft door 

opens for arrivals as this is already 

permitted today. In other words, 

whether a proposed ban should begin 

when the aircraft door closes and is 

about to take off and end when the 

aircraft lands and the aircraft door 

opens. We solicit any additional 

comments or considerations regarding 

the duration of the ban on board an 

aircraft. 

8. If the Department issues a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to ban in-flight 

voice communications, should that 

proposed rule account for any of the 

following considerations: 

a. Whether the Department should 

consider permitting exceptions to the 

in-flight voice communications ban 

such as for personal, passenger-related 

emergencies. If so, how would those be 

defined? 

b. Whether the Department should 

exempt from the ban any crewmember 

(where FAA regulations permit), any 

Federal law enforcement officer, Federal 

Air Marshal, FAA Aviation Safety 

Inspector (ASI), or National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

Investigator, conducting official 

business. 

9. The impact on the flying public of 

permitting in-flight voice 

communications. What specifically 

could be harmful, disruptive, or 

injurious to the flying public (e.g., 

impact of allowing in-flight voice calls 

on some passengers’ productivity as 

they work during a flight)? What could 

be beneficial? 

10. Comments on the possible utility 

of a quiet zone or a talking zone, for 

passengers to avoid having to listen to 

in-flight calls. Is a physical structure 

(i.e., some kind of enclosure) necessary 

to create a quiet zone? If so, what are the 

possible costs and benefits of creating 

an enclosed area on an aircraft? Is it 

technically feasible? What design 

changes would need to be made to the 

aircraft? What are the possible costs and 

benefits of such a change to an airline? 

How would that affect the load capacity 

of the plane if such changes were 

implemented? 

11. What other options may exist to 

mitigate the possible disruption of inflight voice calls? Is there a reasonable 

way to mitigate the possible disruption? 

12. Whether permitting in-flight voice 

calls is more or less disruptive than 

other current in-flight ‘‘disruptions,’’ 

such as in-person conversations 

between passengers If so, why? 

13. Whether the benefits of permitting 

in-flight voice calls outweighs the 

benefits of prohibiting in-flight voice 

calls. Describe the nature of those 

benefits and provide supporting data 

where possible. 

14. Whether the costs of permitting 

in-flight voice calls outweighs the costs 

of banning in-flight voice calls. Describe 

the nature of those costs and provide 

supporting data where possible. 

15. Whether permitting passengers to 

use all other mobile wireless 

communications services (e.g., devices 

for texting, emailing and surfing the 

Web) except in-flight voice 

communications would mitigate the 

drawbacks of a proposed ban on voice 

communications. 

16. We understand that today a 

number of foreign air carriers allow the 

use of passenger cellular telephones 

with on-board cellular telephone base 

stations (picocells). We solicit comment 

from these carriers and from passengers 

who have flown on these carriers 

regarding their flight experiences. More 

specifically, to what extent have 

passengers used their cell phones for 

voice communications on airplanes that 

are equipped for cell phone 

communications? Have the air carriers 

received passenger comments or 

complaints related to cell phone voice 

communications? If so, what comments 

or complaints have been received? If 

complaints or issues were reported, did 

these issues rise to the level in which 

they would be considered to be an 

unfair practice to consumers, and/or 

inconsistent with adequate 

transportation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

41712 and 49 U.S.C. 41702? If DOT 

were to make such a determination (that 

voice calls are unfair and/or 

inconsistent with adequate 

transportation), foreign air carriers may 

be subject to these rules. What would 

the economic impact of such a 

requirement? 

17. Is there any other information or 

data that is relevant to the Department’s 

decision? We note that the most useful 

comments will explain the reason the 

information or data is relevant as well 

as rationale for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data as 

well as cost and benefit information. We 

note that we are not addressing in this 

rulemaking any safety-related or 

security-related issues that may exist 

with the use of mobile wireless devices 

for voice calls on aircraft. The 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) exercises authority over the 

security of the traveling public. FAA has 

authority over whether PEDs using 

cellular technology can be safely used 

on aircraft. 

Regulatory Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This action has been determined to be 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and the Department of Transportation’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget under that 

Order. 

Executive Orders 12866 (‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’) and 13563 

(‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’) require agencies to regulate in 

the ‘‘most cost-effective manner,’’ to 

make a ‘‘reasoned determination that 

the benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs,’’ and to develop 

regulations that ‘‘impose the least 

burden on society.’’ Additionally, 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

require agencies to provide a 

meaningful opportunity for public 

participation. Accordingly, we have 

asked commenters to answer a variety of 

questions in order to elicit practical 

information about any cost or benefit 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10054 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 36 / Monday, February 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

figures or factors, alternative 

approaches, and relevant scientific, 

technical and economic data. These 

comments will help the Department 

evaluate whether a proposed 

rulemaking is needed and appropriate. 

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This ANPRM has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This notice does 

not propose any regulation that (1) has 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, (2) imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments, or (3) 

preempts State law. States are already 

preempted from regulating in this area 

by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 

U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

C. Executive Order 13084 

This ANPRM has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’). 

Because none of the topics on which we 

are seeking comment would 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments or impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on them, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

review regulations to assess their impact 

on small entities unless the agency 

determines that a rule is not expected to 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. A 

direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is 

a small business if it provides air 

transportation only with small aircraft 

(i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000 

pound payload capacity). See 14 CFR 

399.73. If the Department proposes to 

adopt the regulatory initiative discussed 

in this ANPRM, it is possible that it may 

have some impact on some small 

entities but we do not believe that it 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We invite comment to facilitate 

our assessment of the potential impact 

of these initiatives on small entities. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), no person is 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. This ANPRM 

does not propose any new information 

collection burdens. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to this notice. 

Issued this 14th Day of February 2014, in 

Washington, DC. 

Anthony R. Foxx, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03684 Filed 2–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–XX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–120282–10] 

RIN 1545–BJ56 

Dividend Equivalents From Sources 

Within the United States; Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Correction to a withdrawal of 

notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of 

proposed rulemaking and notice of 

public hearing. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to a withdrawal of notice of 

proposed rulemaking, notice of 

proposed rulemaking and notice of 

public hearing (REG–120282–10) that 

was published in the Federal Register 

on Thursday, December 5, 2013 (78 FR 

73128). The proposed rules provide 

guidance to nonresident alien 

individuals and foreign corporations 

that hold certain financial products 

providing for payments that are 

contingent upon or determined by 

reference to U.S. source dividend 

payments and to withholding agents. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

and requests for a public hearing for the 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published at 78 FR 73129, December 5, 

2013 are still being accepted and must 

be received by March 5, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. 

Peter Merkel at (202) 317–6938 (not a 

toll free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The withdrawal of notice of proposed 

rulemaking, notice of proposed 

rulemaking and notice of public hearing 

(REG–120282–10) that is the subject of 

these corrections is under section 871 of 

the Internal Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, withdrawal of notice of 

proposed rulemaking, notice of 

proposed rulemaking and notice of 

public hearing (REG–120282–10) 

contains errors that may prove to be 

misleading and are in need of 

clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, withdrawal of notice of 

proposed rulemaking, notice of 

proposed rulemaking and notice of 

public hearing (REG–120282–10), that 

was the subject of FR Doc. 2013–28932, 

is corrected as follows: 

1. On page 73131, in the preamble, 

first column, under paragraph heading 

‘‘B. Definition of ELI’’, second line, the 

language ‘‘specified ELI in the 2012 

proposed’’ is corrected to read ‘‘a 

specified ELI in the 2012 proposed’’ 

2. On page 73134, in the preamble, 

second column, twelfth line from the 

bottom of the page, the language 

‘‘security referenced in the contract’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘security referenced in 

the transaction’’. 

3. On page 73135, in the preamble, 

third column, fifteenth line of the first 

full paragraph, the language ‘‘any of the 

following to has occurred: (a)’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘any of the following 

has occurred: (a)’’. 

4. On page 73135, in the preamble, 

third column, Twelfth line from the 

bottom of the page, the language ‘‘option 

with a delta below 0.7, or both.’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘option with a delta 

below 0.70, or both.’’ 

5. On page 73136, in the preamble, 

second column, seventh line from the 

top of the page, the language ‘‘for April 

11, 2013, beginning at 10 a.m.’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘for April 11, 2014, 

beginning at 10 a.m.’’. 

§ 1.871–15 [Corrected] 

6. On Page 73137, first column, the 

first sentence of paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(B) 

Example. (i) should read ‘‘Stock X and 

Stock Y are underlying securities within 

the meaning of paragraph (a)(11) of this 

section.’’. 

7. On page 73137, third column, the 

first sentence of paragraph (c)(2)(i) 

should read ‘‘A payment pursuant to a 

section 871(m) transaction that 

references a distribution with respect to 

an underlying security is not a dividend 

equivalent to the extent that the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS