[4910-13]

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) 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
2

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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-0752 using any of the 

following methods:

x Email: Submit your comments via email to PEDcomment@faa.gov.

x Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online 

instructions for sending your comments electronically.

x 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.

x 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.

x 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 
3

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; e-mail 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. 
4

The FAA’s first published rulemaking1 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-by-wire 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 

1 14 CFR 91.19, Docket No. 7247; Amdt 91-35 (later superseded by §§ 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144).
5

spurious emissions2 of PEDs and intentional transmissions3 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.

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 e-readers, 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 

2 A 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.

4 Wi-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. 5 Bluetooth 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.
6

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) documents6 were written 

6 RTCA 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. 
7

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 nontransmitting 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

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.
8

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 dayto-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 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;

7 This 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.
9

• 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.

x What processes and methods are aircraft operators currently using to evaluate 

PED technology interference?

x How can those procedures and methods be improved? 

x 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. 

x 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
10

use, the FAA has issued AC 20-164 describing criteria for aircraft manufacturers and 

modifiers to establish PED-tolerance for new and existing aircraft. 

x 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. 

x 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. 

x 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? 

x 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. 

x Could the consumer electronics industry develop standards for aircraft-friendly 

PEDs, or aircraft-compatible modes of operation, that would reduce the risk of 
11

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.

x If some PEDs are found to be compatible with aircraft systems, should there be 

restrictions on the use of PEDs for other reasons? 

x Should voice communications using other technologies such as voice over IP be 

limited or restricted?

x Should aircraft operators be required to publish their PED policies?

6) PED article retention risk considerations. Personal belongings must be stowed for takeoff, 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. 

x 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?

8 Federal 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.
12

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.

x Should the FAA consider working with industry to develop standards for an 

active PED monitoring system? 

8) Technical Challenges.

x What are the technical, operation, and regulatory challenges commercial aircraft 

operators face in expanding their PED usage policy?

x What are the technical challenges the aircraft manufacturers, modifiers, and 

avionics equipment manufacturers see with further PED usage allowance? 

x What data and support can they provide to commercial aircraft operators to 

address these technical challenges?

9) Operational Challenges.

x What are the operational, safety and security challenges and concerns associated 

with expanding PED usage policy? 

x What is needed to alleviate those concerns?

Again, this information must be submitted by [insert date 60 days from publication in the 

Federal Register].

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 
13

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 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.
14

Susan Cabler,

Aircraft Engineering Division