Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 53159 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD affects AD 2008–24–08, 

Amendment 39–15748 (73 FR 72320, 

November 28, 2008). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, –900, 

and –900ER series airplanes; certificated in 

any category; with Goodrich Corporation 

door escape slide part number (P/N) 5A3307– 

1, –3, –5, or –301, serial number (S/N) 

BNG0001 through BNG14499 inclusive. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

escape slides failing to deploy from the 

forward and aft right-hand doors during 

scheduled maintenance slide deployments. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of 

an escape slide to deploy, which could result 

in the slide being unusable during an 

emergency evacuation and increased 

likelihood of injury to passengers or 

crewmembers due to the difficulty in 

evacuating the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Slide Modification 

Within 36 months after the effective date 

of this AD: Modify the escape slide in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin 

5A3307–25–389, Revision 2, dated May 4, 

2012. 

(h) Concurrent Requirements 

(1) For slide P/N 5A3307–301: Prior to or 

concurrently with accomplishing the actions 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD, modify 

the escape slide in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich 

Service Bulletin 5A3307–25–339, Revision 5, 

dated May 4, 2012. 

(2) For slide P/N 5A3307–301 or 5A3307– 

5: Prior to or concurrently with 

accomplishing the actions required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, modify the Vespel 

piston in the regulator valves, or replace the 

Vespel piston with a new or serviceable 

Vespel piston P/N 3A3566–2 or 3A3832–2, as 

applicable, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich 

Service Bulletin 25–349, Revision 1, dated 

January 11, 2010. 

(i) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this 

AD, if those actions were performed before 

the effective date of this AD using Goodrich 

Service Bulletin 5A3307–25–339, Revision 1, 

dated September 26, 2003; Revision 2, dated 

March 31, 2004; Revision 3, dated May 8, 

2009; or Revision 4, dated October 1, 2011; 

which are not incorporated by reference in 

this AD. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the 

modification or replacement of the Vespel 

piston in the regulator valves required by 

paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions 

were performed before the effective date of 

this AD using Goodrich Service Bulletin 25– 

349, dated September 15, 2004, which is not 

incorporated by reference in this AD. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Sarah Piccola, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety & Environmental Systems 

Branch, ANM–150S, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: 425–917–6483; fax: 425–917– 

6590; email: sarah.piccola@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Goodrich Corporation, 

Aircraft Interior Products, ATTN: Technical 

Publications, 3414 South Fifth Street, 

Phoenix, Arizona 85040; phone: 602–243– 

2270; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/ 

TechPubs. You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, the FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

24, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21556 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0661; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AWA–4] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Amendment to Class B 

Airspace; Detroit, MI 

Correction 

In proposed rule document 2012– 

19902, beginning on page 48476–48491 

in the issue of Thursday, August 14, 

2012, make the following corrections: 

1. In the first column titled ‘‘Area C’’, 

third paragraph, fifth line, ‘‘5-mile arc’’ 

should read, ‘‘15 mile arc.’’ 

2. In the first column titled ‘‘Area C’’, 

third paragraph, eighth line, ‘‘5-mile 

arc’’ should read, ‘‘15 mile arc.’’ 

3. In the first column titled ‘‘Area C’’, 

third paragraph, twenty-second line, ‘‘5- 

mile arc’’ should read, ‘‘15 mile arc.’’ 

4. In the first column titled ‘‘Area C’’, 

third paragraph, twenty-third line, ‘‘5- 

mile arc’’ should read, ‘‘15 mile arc.’’ 

5. In the second column titled ‘‘Area 

D’’, first paragraph, eighth line, ‘‘5-mile 

arc’’ should read, ‘‘15 mile arc.’’ 

6. In the second column titled ‘‘Area 

D’’, first paragraph, eleventh line, ‘‘5- 

mile arc’’ should read, ‘‘15 mile arc.’’ 

7. In the second column titled ‘‘Area 

E’’, first paragraph, twenty-fourth line, 

‘‘5-mile arc’’ should read, ‘‘15 mile arc.’’ 

8. In the second column titled ‘‘Area 

E’’, first paragraph, twenty-seventh line, 

‘‘5-mile arc’’ should read, ‘‘15 mile arc.’’ 

[FR Doc. C1–2012–19902 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0752] 

Passenger Use of Portable Electronic 

Devices on Board Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of policy; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA seeks comments on 

current policy, guidance, and 

procedures that aircraft operators 

(ranging from pilots of general aviation 

aircraft up to and including air carrier 

certificate holders at the major airlines) 

use when determining if passenger use 

of portable electronic devices (PEDs) 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53160 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 14 CFR 91.19, Docket No. 7247; Amdt 91–35 

(later superseded by §§ 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 

135.144). 

2A spurious emission is any radio frequency not 

deliberately created or transmitted. 

3 Intentional transmission is the transmission of 

signals through free space by electromagnetic waves 

on specific radio frequencies that are used to 

communicate information between devices. 

may be allowed during any phase of 

flight on their aircraft. Current FAA 

regulations generally prohibit the use of 

all PEDs during flight, with the 

exception of portable voice recorders, 

hearing aids, heart pacemakers, and 

electric shavers. These regulations also 

provide an exception for any other PED 

that the aircraft operator has determined 

will not cause interference with the 

navigation or communication systems 

on the aircraft. To better effectuate the 

safety purposes of these regulations, this 

notice requests comments about key 

areas of policy and guidance that are 

used by aircraft operators when making 

these determinations. It also requests 

comments about other technical 

challenges for addressing the problems 

associated with determining if and 

when PEDs can be used. The desired 

outcome of this solicitation is to have 

sufficient information to allow operators 

to better assess whether more 

widespread use of PEDs during flight is 

appropriate, while maintaining the 

highest levels of safety to passengers 

and aircraft. The Agency stresses that 

the existing regulations allow the 

operator to authorize the use of PEDs, 

and that no specific FAA approval is 

required. The aircraft operator is 

responsible for assuring that the 

interference from PEDs does not pose a 

flight risk. Once all the comments have 

been collected, the FAA intends to 

establish an Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (ARC) to review the 

comments and provide 

recommendations that might permit the 

more widespread use of PEDs during 

flight while maintaining the highest 

levels of safety for the passengers and 

aircraft. The FCC will be a key partner 

in this activity working collaboratively 

with the FAA, airlines, and the 

manufacturers to explore broader use of 

PEDS in flight. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2012–0752 

using any of the following methods: 

• Email: Submit your comments via 

email to PEDcomment@faa.gov. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or contact Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions concerning this action, 

contact Timothy W. Shaver, Avionics 

Maintenance Branch, Flight Standards 

Service, AFS–360, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 385–4292; facsimile 

(202) 385–6474; email 

tim.shaver@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

reviewing the policies, guidance, and 

procedures that establish the methods 

and criteria aircraft operators use to 

determine if they can allow PED usage 

during flight. The FAA has long 

recognized that PEDs have the potential 

for causing interference with aircraft 

navigation or communication systems. 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) §§ 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 

135.144 establish the requirements 

prohibiting the use of PEDs without the 

authorization of the aircraft operator. 

The FAA’s first published 

rulemaking 1 to address this issue was in 

1966. That rulemaking was prompted 

after studies of PED interference 

conducted between 1958 to 1961 

concluded that portable frequency 

modulation (FM) radio receivers caused 

interference to navigation systems such 

as very high frequency (VHF) Omni 

Range (VOR) navigation systems. 

During that rulemaking process, the 

FAA received comments on the subject 

of FAA involvement in the 

authorization of use of PEDs. The public 

expressed concerns that authorization of 

devices not specifically excepted in the 

rule (e.g., portable voice recorders, 

hearing aids, heart pacemakers, and 

electric shavers) would subject 

operators to a considerable amount of 

‘‘red tape.’’ In response to those 

comments, the FAA concluded that the 

aircraft operators were best suited to 

make the determination of which PEDs 

would not cause interference with the 

navigation or communication system on 

their aircraft. The FAA also recognized 

that for it to place requirements upon 

itself to conduct or verify tests of every 

conceivable PED, as an alternative to a 

determination made by the operator, 

would thereby place an excessive and 

unnecessary burden on the agency. 

The potential for aircraft interference 

depends on the aircraft and its electrical 

and electronic systems, as well as the 

type of PED being used. Prior to fly-bywire flight controls, the primary concern 

was the susceptibility of sensitive 

aircraft communication and navigation 

radio receivers to spurious radio 

frequency emissions from PEDs. Many 

of these aircraft using this older 

technology are still in service and are as 

susceptible today to interference as they 

were when they first entered service. 

When aircraft included fly-by-wire 

controls and electronic displays, the 

susceptibility of these aircraft systems 

also became a concern. The FAA 

defined requirements for high-intensity 

radiated fields (HIRF) that provide 

assurance that newer aircraft with such 

systems have sufficient protection to 

continue to operate safely when 

exposed to spurious emissions 2 of PEDs 

and intentional transmissions 3 from 

transmitting PEDs. While the highly 

critical fly-by-wire controls and 

electronic displays were designed and 

certified to withstand the fields from 

transmitting PEDs, all aircraft electrical 

and electronic systems were not 

designed to withstand these fields. 

These newer aircraft still have sensitive 

navigation, communication, and 

surveillance radio receivers that may be 

susceptible at certain frequencies to 

spurious radio frequency emissions 

from PEDs. 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 53161 

4Wi-Fi is defined as ‘‘wireless local area network 

(WLAN) products that are based on the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ (IEEE) 802.11 

standards.’’ Wi-Fi is a trademark of the Wi-Fi 

Alliance. 

5Bluetooth is managed by the Bluetooth Special 

Interest Group (SIG). The SIG is the body that 

oversees the development of Bluetooth standards 

and the licensing of the Bluetooth technologies and 

trademarks to manufacturers. The SIG is a privately 

held, not-for-profit trade association founded in 

September 1998. 

6RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that 

functions as a Federal Advisory Committee for the 

FAA. It develops consensus-based 

recommendations regarding communications, 

navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management 

(CNS/ATM) system issues. See FAA Order 

1110.77T, RTCA Inc. (utilized as an Advisory 

Committee) (Apr. 1, 2011). The following are RTCA 

recommendations and guidance documents 

regarding PEDS: 

DO–307, Aircraft Design and Certification for 

Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance, issued 

10–11–07, and Change 1, issued 12–16–08. 

Prepared by SC–202. 

DO–294C, Guidance on Allowing Transmitting 

Portable Electronic Devices (T–PEDs) on Aircraft, 

issued 12–16–08. Prepared by SC–202. 

DO–233, Portable Electronic Devices Carried on 

Board Aircraft, issued 8–20–96. Prepared by SC– 

177. Errata issued 8–18–99. 

DO–199, Potential Interference to Aircraft 

Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard, 

issued 9–16–88. Prepared by SC–156. Supersedes 

DO–119. 

DO–119, Interference To Aircraft Electronic 

Equipment From Devices Carried Aboard, issued 9– 

16–88. Prepared by SC–88. 

7This notice does not address flightcrew member 

use of PEDs during flight. Section 44732 of Title 49 

of the United States Code generally prohibits 

flightcrew member use of PEDs on the flightdeck 

while the aircraft is being operated. 

PEDs have changed considerably in 

the past few decades and output a wide 

variety of signals. Some devices do not 

transmit or receive any signals but 

generate low-power, radio frequency 

emissions. Other PEDs, such as ereaders, are only active in this manner 

during the short time that a page is 

being changed. Of greater concern are 

intentional transmissions from PEDs. 

Most portable electronic devices have 

internet connectivity that includes 

transmitting and receiving signals 

wirelessly using radio waves, such as 

Wi-Fi,4 Bluetooth,5 and various other 

cellular technologies. These devices 

transmit high-powered emissions and 

can generate spurious signals at 

undesired frequencies, particularly if 

the device is damaged. 

Avionics equipment has also 

undergone significant changes. When 

the regulations were first established, 

communication and navigations systems 

were basic systems. In today’s avionics, 

there are various systems—global 

positioning, traffic collision and 

avoidance, transponder, automatic flight 

guidance and control, and many other 

advanced avionics systems—that 

depend on signals transmitted from the 

ground, other aircraft, and satellites for 

proper operation. In addition, there are 

advanced flight management systems 

that use these avionics as a critical 

component for performing precision 

operational procedures. Many of these 

systems are also essential to realize the 

capabilities and operational 

improvements envisioned in the Next 

Generation airspace system. As such, 

harmful interference from PEDs cannot 

be tolerated. 

Under FAA regulation, the aircraft 

operator is responsible for determining 

which PEDs may be used by the 

passengers and during which phase of 

flight this utilization may occur. The 

aircraft operator is best suited to make 

the determination of which PEDs would 

not cause interference with the 

navigation or communication system on 

its aircraft. The operators’ PED policy 

determines what types of devices may 

be used on board their aircraft and 

during which phase(s) of flight. The 

responsibility for enforcing an aircraft 

operator’s PED policy typically falls on 

the cabin crew. On occasion, 

enforcement of a commercial airline’s 

PED policy results in a conflict between 

a flight attendant and a passenger. 

Noncompliance with crewmember 

safety instructions on the use of PEDs 

has resulted in passengers being 

removed from an aircraft and, in some 

cases, has caused in-flight diversions. 

The FAA provides oversight of aircraft 

operators to ensure that they have 

established and are currently following 

robust PED-allowance procedures. 

Policy and Guidance 

As aircraft and consumer electronics 

evolved, the FAA recognized that the 

industry needed assistance to keep up 

with the challenges of determining if 

devices would interfere with the aircraft 

navigation or communication systems. 

In 1958, at the FAA’s request, the first 

RTCA, Inc., (previously Radio Technical 

Commission for Aeronautics) 

documents 6 were written to help 

airlines make the PED allowance 

determination. Since that time, the FAA 

has requested three other activities; the 

most recent concluded in 2008. The 

current guidelines to assist aircraft 

operators in developing their PED 

policy are in Advisory Circular (AC) 91– 

21–1B, Use of Portable Electronic 

Devices Aboard Aircraft, dated August 

25, 2006, which references industrydeveloped guidelines identified in 

RTCA/DO–233 and RTCA/DO–294. 

These joint industry-government 

committees studied the risks associated 

with PED usage and are the basis for the 

FAA’s guidance today. For instance, 

based on these studies, FAA has 

recommended that operators allowing 

passenger use of PEDs do so only during 

non-critical phases of flight and prohibit 

PED use during takeoff and landing. See 

AC 91–21–1B. While these 

recommendations are non-binding, most 

commercial airlines allow the use of 

non-transmitting PEDs in flight after the 

aircraft has reached a safe altitude, and 

those airlines continue to allow PED 

usage until near the end of the flight. 

The FAA has also published AC 20– 

164, Designing and Demonstrating 

Aircraft Tolerance to Portable Electronic 

Devices. This AC is based on RTCA/ 

DO–307, Aircraft Design and 

Certification for Portable Electronic 

Device (PED) Tolerance, dated October 

11, 2007. Further, AC 20–164 provides 

guidance to demonstrate aircraft 

electrical and electronic system 

tolerance to the use of PEDs. This 

approach allows the aircraft designers to 

build in protections to help prevent 

interference to navigation or 

communication systems. 

PEDs Today 

Smart phones, personal computers, 

and wireless technology have become 

ingrained in peoples’ day-to-day lives. 

Passengers not only use these devices to 

remain connected to their work, family, 

and friends, but also to read books, play 

games, and accomplish many of their 

day-to-day tasks. This has naturally led 

to the passengers’ desire to use PEDs 

from the time they board an aircraft 

until they exit the aircraft at their 

destination. In some cases, a 

transmitting radio is embedded in a PED 

so that the operation of the transmitter 

is not apparent to the user. Many of 

these devices incorporate transmitters 

such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular 

phone modems, which may operate 

without specific actions from the 

passenger.7

While FAA regulations allow aircraft 

operators to demonstrate when and 

which PEDs can be safely used, few 

aircraft operators have allowed use of 

devices during critical phases of flight 

(e.g., takeoff and landing). Recognizing 

that some passengers may wish to use 

their devices throughout a flight, the 

FAA is requesting comments regarding 

the FAA’s policies, guidance, and 

procedures that aircraft operators use to 

determine whether to allow a particular 

PED for usage during flight. 

Request for Information 

Considerations for Comment 

The FAA is interested in obtaining 

comments related to the use of PEDs on 

aircraft from the viewpoints of aircraft 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53162 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8Federal Communications Commission’s Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 04–288, in 

WT Docket No. 04–435, adopted December 15, 

2004, and released February 15, 2005. 

operators, passengers, and other 

stakeholders. We are soliciting 

comments on the following: 

• Aircraft operators’ concerns, both 

technical and operational; 

• Flight attendants’ and pilots’ 

concerns; 

• Security concerns; 

• Manufacturers and designers of 

PEDs; 

• Passenger perspectives; and 

• How the FAA can support the 

aviation industry in considering how to 

allow greater use of PEDs. 

The FAA has identified the following 

specific areas for comments. 

(1) Procedures and methods for 

operators to allow the use of PEDs. 

Guidance on the procedures and 

methods that an operator can use to 

determine allowance of PEDs is 

published in AC 91–21–1B. This AC 

references the industry-developed 

guidelines of RTCA/DO–233 and RTCA/ 

DO–294C. Those guidelines address 

testing and analysis procedures for 

advanced avionics system interference 

from both transmitting and nontransmitting PEDs. 

• What processes and methods are 

aircraft operators currently using to 

evaluate PED technology interference? 

• How can those procedures and 

methods be improved? 

• Is additional FAA guidance and 

policy needed? 

One concept is for operators to improve 

the sharing of test and compatibility 

data, so that the same compatibility 

testing could be leveraged to support 

many aircraft operators. Data concerning 

PED and aircraft compatibility could be 

used by the operators to analyze 

incidents involving PED interference. 

• Should the industry develop data 

sharing for this purpose? 

(2) Reliability of aircraft systems. 

Future aircraft could be manufactured to 

be immune to the PED environment. To 

support commercial aircraft operators’ 

authorization of PED use, the FAA has 

issued AC 20–164 describing criteria for 

aircraft manufacturers and modifiers to 

establish PED-tolerance for new and 

existing aircraft. 

• Is it necessary to establish aircraft 

certification regulations to require new 

aircraft to be PED-tolerant? 

In addition, many aircraft systems have 

already qualified for operation in high 

intensity radiated field environments. 

• How can these demonstrations best 

be leveraged to help an operator allow 

the use of PEDs? 

(3) Aircraft Immunity to PED 

Interference. Some aircraft 

manufacturers and avionics equipment 

manufacturers have already 

demonstrated PED and aircraft system 

compatibility. 

• Should aircraft manufacturers and 

avionics equipment manufacturers 

provide documentation of aircraft PED 

tolerance, aircraft systems that meet RF 

susceptibility requirements, interference 

path loss, etc., to the operators to 

support the operator’s PED allowance 

determination? 

• Should it be mandatory that aircraft 

manufacturers and modifiers provide 

this information to the operators for new 

and modified aircraft? 

(4) Promote aircraft-compatible PED 

transmissions. The transmissions from 

PEDs vary widely, making it very 

difficult for an aircraft operator to 

discriminate between PEDs that may be 

acceptable and those that may not. 

• Could the consumer electronics 

industry develop standards for aircraftfriendly PEDs, or aircraft-compatible 

modes of operation, that would reduce 

the risk of interference to aircraft 

systems by defining maximum 

emissions in designated bands? 

(5) Passenger perspectives on use of 

PEDs. Increased access and usage of 

PEDs may distract passengers during 

crewmember safety briefings and 

instructions. In addition, PED usage 

may have an adverse impact on flight 

and cabin crew responsibilities and 

duties. In 2005, the FCC8 solicited 

comments on the potential to expand 

the use of cellular phones in flight and 

received responses from passengers 

concerned about the use of cell phones 

by other passengers. One of the main 

concerns expressed by the public 

comment was the fear of passenger 

disruptions caused by cell phone use in 

a crowded public conveyance. 

• 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 be limited or restricted? 

• Should aircraft operators be 

required to publish their PED policies? 

(6) PED article retention risk 

considerations. Personal belongings 

must be stowed for take-off, approach 

and landing, to reduce the risk of injury 

from projectiles and to ensure rapid 

egress in the event of an emergency. 

Some PEDs are large enough to be of 

concern for egress, while smaller 

handheld devices may have risks 

comparable to a small book. 

• If some PEDs are found to be 

compatible with aircraft systems, should 

requirements to stow PEDs for takeoff, 

approach, landing and abnormal 

conditions exist nonetheless to prevent 

personal injury? 

(7) Active monitoring for harmful 

interference. A handheld device or 

installed system could be used by the 

crewmembers to detect harmful 

interference from PEDs. This could 

allow the crewmembers to identify 

problems and instruct passengers to 

disable devices when they generate 

harmful signals. 

• Should the FAA consider working 

with industry to develop standards for 

an active PED monitoring system? 

(8) Technical Challenges. 

• What are the technical, operation, 

and regulatory challenges commercial 

aircraft operators face in expanding 

their PED usage policy? 

• What are the technical challenges 

the aircraft manufacturers, modifiers, 

and avionics equipment manufacturers 

see with further PED usage allowance? 

• What data and support can they 

provide to commercial aircraft operators 

to address these technical challenges? 

(9) Operational Challenges. 

• What are the operational, safety and 

security challenges and concerns 

associated with expanding PED usage 

policy? 

• What is needed to alleviate those 

concerns? 

Again, this information must be 

submitted by October 30, 2012. 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

submit written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from changes 

in our current policy. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific area of 

concern, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket a 

summary of all comments it receives. 

The FAA will consider all comments it 

receives on or before the closing date for 

comments. The FAA will consider 

comments filed after the comment 

period has closed if it is possible to do 

so without incurring expense or delay. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 53163 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 

proprietary or confidential, and identify 

electronically within the disk or CD 

ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the Agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 28, 

2012. 

Susan J.M. Cabler, 

Asst. Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21577 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

36 CFR Part 1195 

[Docket No. ATBCB–2012–0003] 

RIN 3014–AA40 

Medical Diagnostic Equipment 

Accessibility Standards Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board. 

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Medical Diagnostic 

Equipment Accessibility Standards 

Advisory Committee (Committee) will 

hold its first meeting on September 27 

and 28, 2012. 

DATES: The Committee will meet on 

September 27, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 5 

p.m. and on September 28, 2012, from 

9 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Access Board’s Conference Room, 

1331 F Street NW., suite 800, 

Washington, DC 20004–1111. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rex 

Pace, Office of Technical and 

Information Services, Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20004–1111. 

Telephone number (202) 272–0023 

(Voice); (202) 272–0052 (TTY). 

Electronic mail address: pace@accessboard.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 5, 

2012, the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) established an 

advisory committee to make 

recommendations to the Board on 

matters associated with comments 

received and responses to questions 

included in a previously published 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

on Medical Diagnostic Equipment 

Accessibility Standards. See 77 FR 6916 

(February 9, 2012). The NPRM and 

information related to the proposed 

standards are available on the Access 

Board’s Web site at: http://www.accessboard.gov/medical-equipment.htm. 

The advisory committee will hold its 

first meeting on September 27 and 28, 

2012. The agenda for the meeting 

includes initial remarks, introduction of 

committee members, consideration of 

the committee’s charter and operating 

procedures, discussion of administrative 

issues, and discussion of issues for 

potential consideration by the 

committee. The preliminary meeting 

agenda, along with information about 

the committee, is available at the Access 

Board’s Web site (http://www.accessboard.gov/medical-equipment.htm). 

Committee meetings are open to the 

public and interested persons can attend 

the meetings and communicate their 

views. Members of the public will have 

opportunities to address the committee 

on issues of interest to them during 

public comment periods scheduled on 

each day of the meeting. 

The meetings will be accessible to 

persons with disabilities. An assistive 

listening system, computer assisted realtime transcription (CART), and sign 

language interpreters will be provided. 

Persons attending the meetings are 

requested to refrain from using perfume, 

cologne, and other fragrances for the 

comfort of other participants (see 

www.access-board.gov/about/policies/ 

fragrance.htm for more information). 

Also, persons wishing to provide 

handouts or other written information to 

the committee are requested to provide 

electronic formats to Rex Pace via email 

prior to the meetings so that alternate 

formats can be distributed to committee 

members. 

David M. Capozzi, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 2012–21530 Filed 8–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 90 

[WT Docket Nos. 12–64 and 11–110; Report 

No. 2959] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Petition 

for Reconsideration (Petition) has been 

filed in the Commission’s Rulemaking 

proceeding by Ryan M.F. Baron on 

behalf of the Orange County, California 

Sheriff’s Department. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before September 17, 

2012. Replies to an opposition must be 

filed on or before September 25, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Regan, Mobility Division, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

brian.regan@fcc.gov 

<mailto:brian.regan@fcc.gov>, (202) 

418–2849. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 2959, released August 16, 

2012. The full text of this document is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC or may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1– 

800–378–3160). The Commission will 

not send a copy of this Notice pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice 

does not have an impact on any rules of 

particular applicability. 

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration 

of Improving Spectrum Efficiency 

Through Flexible Channel Spacing and 

Bandwidth Utilization for Economic 

Area-based 800 MHz Specialized Mobile 

Radio Licensees, Request for Declaratory 

Ruling that the Commission’s Rules 

Authorize Greater than 25 kHz 

Bandwidth Operations in the 817–824/ 

862–869 MHz Band, Report and Order, 

FCC 12–55, published at 77 FR 33972, 

June 8, 2012 in WT Docket Nos. 11–110 

and 12–64, and published pursuant to 

47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 

1.4(b)(1). 

Number of Petitions Filed: 1. 


EMCDONALD on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS