2912 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Replacement at any time of an elevator 

trim tab arm with an airworthy part that has 

a P/N other than P/N 115E–3758, will 

terminate the repetitive requirement in 

paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. 

(g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

This AD provides credit for the actions 

required in this AD if already done before the 

effective date of this AD following Grob 

Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–186/ 

2, dated March 28, 2012; Grob Aircraft 

Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–186/1, dated 

March 8, 2012; or Grob Aircraft Service 

Bulletin No. MSB1078–186, dated February 

15, 2012. 

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4138; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; email: taylor.martin@faa.gov. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

(i) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2012–0155, dated 

August 20, 2012; and Grob Aircraft Service 

Bulletin No. MSB1078–186/3, dated August 

3, 2012, for related information. For service 

information related to this AD, contact Grob 

Aircraft AG, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D–86874 

Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany; phone: 

+49 (0) 8268 998 139; fax: +49 (0) 8268 998 

200; email: productsupport@grob-aircraft.de; 

Internet: www.grob-aircraft.com/index.php/g115e.html. You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 

8, 2013. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00667 Filed 1–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0929; Notice No. 13– 

02] 

RIN 2120–AJ17 

Prohibition on Personal Use of 

Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would 

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 recent legislation, 

is intended to ensure that certain nonessential activities do not contribute to 

the challenge of task management on the 

flight deck or a loss of situational 

awareness due to attention to nonessential tasks. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2012–0929 

using any of the following methods: 

• 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 

docket, 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 go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule, contact 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: See the 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section for 

information on how to comment on this 

proposal and how the FAA will handle 

comments received. The ‘‘Additional 

Information’’ section also contains 

related information about the docket, 

privacy, the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. In 

addition, there is information on 

obtaining copies of related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2913 

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

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(d), which requires the 

Administrator to issue a final rule to 

carry out the prohibition of personal use 

of electronic devices on the flight deck 

by flightcrew members. 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

II. Background 

A. Related Rule 

B. Statement of the Problem 

C. National Transportation Safety Board 

Recommendation 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Requirements 

B. Current Air Carrier Programs 

C. Operational Timeframes for Prohibition 

D. Personal Wireless Communications 

Device 

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 

G. Environmental Analysis 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

VII. The Proposed Amendment 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

The FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012 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 proposing to 

amend part 121 to conform to this 

legislation. The FAA proposes 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 

amended regulatory language will 

clarify 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. 

II. Background 

A. Related Rule 

In 1981, the FAA published the 

Elimination of Duties and Activities of 

Flightcrew Members 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 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. In addition, the rule further states 

that the pilot-in-command shall not 

permit any activity during a critical 

phase of flight which would distract 

flightcrew members from the 

performance of their duties which, in 

effect, extends the sterile cockpit 

provisions to other crewmembers, such 

as flight attendants. 

The 1981 rule 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 current ‘‘Sterile 

Cockpit’’ rule during ground operations 

involving taxi, take-off and landing, and 

all other flight operations conducted 

below 10,000 feet. The proposed 

requirements in this NPRM would 

extend the prohibition on personal use 

of personal wireless communications 

devices and laptop computers to all 

phases of flight. 

B. Statement of the Problem 

Several recent incidents involving a 

breakdown of sterile cockpit discipline 

have prompted Congress to address this 

issue in the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012. 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 is intended to 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 nonessential activities, as the previously 

discussed incidents highlight. 

Situational awareness is an attention 

based phenomenon that reflects the 

flightcrew’s knowledge of where the 

aircraft is in regard to location, air traffic 

control, weather, regulations, aircraft 

status, and other factors. A lack of 

situational awareness can affect a pilot’s 

ability to perform effectively regarding 

aircraft handling, aircraft systems, 

aircraft mode awareness, environmental 

hazards, standard operating procedures, 

and attention to required tasks. When 

loss of situational awareness occurs, 

there can be critical consequences, such 

as missing information from one source 

when concentrating on another source, 

altitude or course deviations, 

dominance of visual cues to the extent 

that pilots may not hear certain aural 

warnings, misinterpreting ATC 

instructions, or experiencing task 

overload. 

An individual can lose situational 

awareness due to attentional tunneling 

and attention to non-essential activities. 

Attentional tunneling is becoming 

absorbed in a task to the exclusion of 

other visual and aural inputs, and is 

also a factor in the breakdown of task 

management. This is operationally 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
2914 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2Wickens, 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). 

3Cherry, E.C., On human communication: A 

review, a survey, and a criticism. Cambridge: 

Technology Press, MIT; New York: John Wiley 

(1957). 

4See 76 FR 6088 (Feb. 3, 2011). 

5http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/ 

aar1001.pdf. 

6The 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. 7See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(C)(i). 

described as ‘‘the allocation of attention 

to a particular channel of information, 

diagnostic hypothesis, or task goal, for 

a duration that is longer than optimal, 

given the expected cost of neglecting 

events on other channels, failing to 

consider other hypotheses, or failing to 

perform other tasks.’’ 2

The ‘‘party’’ situation, when a person 

at a loud crowded party usually listens 

to one conversation and can easily 

ignore all others, is a commonplace 

example of attentional tunneling.3 In 

some ways, attentional tunneling helps 

people handle a situation with a high 

number of visual and aural inputs. 

However, it can also block important 

visual and aural information. Because 

flightcrew members must attend to 

many safety-related tasks during aircraft 

operations and must manage those tasks 

effectively, attentional tunneling can 

introduce risks into the system. 

Additionally, flightcrew members 

could lose situational awareness when a 

personal electronic device used on the 

flight deck is inconsistent with the type 

certified flight deck design philosophy. 

The inconsistency could provide 

distraction, confusion, and ultimately 

contribute to a loss of situational 

awareness.4

C. National Transportation Safety Board 

Recommendation 

In its recommendations to the FAA 

regarding the Colgan accident in 2009, 

the 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 

promptly address this issue was 

warranted. 

Therefore, the NTSB recommended 

(A–10–30) that the FAA require all part 

121, 135, and 91K operators to 

incorporate explicit guidance to pilots, 

including checklist reminders as 

appropriate, prohibiting the use of 

personal portable electronic devices on 

the flight deck.5

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.6

With this proposed rulemaking, the 

FAA will amend current regulations to 

prohibit the use of personal wireless 

communications devices and laptop 

computers by flightcrew members 

during all aircraft operations to address 

this type of distraction on the flight 

deck. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Requirements 

The proposed requirements would 

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 proposed 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 pilots 

who became distracted when using a 

personal laptop while discussing the air 

carrier’s flight scheduling software, the 

flight schedules may have been 

‘‘employment-related,’’ but the personal 

use of laptop computers during the 

discussion was not part of FAA 

approved operational procedures and 

would be prohibited by the proposed 

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 

computer and/or personal wireless 

communications devices. 

The FAA clarifies that the provisions 

of the proposed 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 proposed 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. 

C. Operational Timeframes for 

Prohibition 

Section 307 of the Act states that it is 

unlawful to use a device for personal 

use ‘‘while the 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 

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. 

D. Personal Wireless Communications 

Device 

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.7 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 

proposed rule, the FAA retains the same 

broad category because a list of specific 

devices would ignore the reality of 

evolving technology. This broad 

category of devices includes, but is not 

limited to, devices such as cell phones, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 2915 

smartphones, personal digital assistants, 

tablets, e-readers, gaming systems, 

netbook computers, and notebook 

computers. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 

proposing to amend part 121 to conform 

to this legislation. The proposed rule 

would prohibit flightcrew members in 

operations under part 121 from using a 

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 

proposed rule is intended to 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 nonessential activities. The FAA expects 

that this proposed 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 proposed 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 was enacted on February 14, 

2012. Section 307 of the Act, 

Prohibition on Personal Use of 

Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck, 

the FAA is proposing to amend part 121 

to conform to this legislation. The 

proposed rule would prohibit flightcrew 

members in operations under part 121 

from using a 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 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 nonessential activities. While this proposed 

rule affects small entities, it merely 

revises existing FAA rules and does not 

impose any cost on any regulated entity. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA solicits comments regarding 

this determination. 

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 proposed rule 

and has determined that it would have 

only a domestic impact and therefore no 

affect on international trade. 

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 proposed 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 would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
2916 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

F. International Compatibility 

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 proposed 

regulations. 

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 proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed 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 would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenter’s 

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 all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, 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. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenter’s 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Aviation safety, Safety, Transportation. 

VII. The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– 

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44732, 

46105. 

■ 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 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 in Washington, DC, on January 9, 

2013. 

John M. Allen, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00608 Filed 1–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2012–0552] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation; West Palm 

Beach Triathlon Championship, 

Intracoastal Waterway, West Palm 

Beach, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

issue a special local regulation on the 

waters of the Intracoastal Waterway, in 

West Palm Beach, Florida, during the 

West Palm Beach Triathlon 

Championship, on Saturday, June 1, 

2013. Approximately 1,500 participants 

are anticipated to participate in the 

triathlon. The special local regulation is 

necessary to ensure the safety of the 

triathlon participants, participant 

vessels, and the general public during 

the swim portion of the event. Persons 

and vessels, except those participating 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with