[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56288-56305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21964]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 56288]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0554; Notice No. 14-08]
RIN 2120-AK32


Acceptance Criteria for Portable Oxygen Concentrators Used On 
Board Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rulemaking would replace Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation No. 106 with acceptance criteria for portable oxygen 
concentrators to be used by passengers in air carrier operations, 
commercial operations and certain other operations using large 
aircraft. Currently, the agency assesses each portable oxygen 
concentrator on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is safe 
for use on board aircraft. If the agency determines that a portable 
oxygen concentrator is safe for use on board aircraft, the specific 
model is identified in regulations. This rulemaking would replace the 
burdensome approval process with acceptance criteria and a requirement 
for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance by affixing a label on the 
exterior of the portable oxygen concentrator applied in a manner that 
ensures it will remain affixed for the life of the device. The proposed 
acceptance criteria and labeling requirement would only affect portable 
oxygen concentrators intended for use on board aircraft. Portable 
oxygen concentrators currently approved for use on board aircraft would 
not be affected by this proposal and will be listed in this rule as 
approved. This rulemaking would also eliminate redundant requirements 
and paperwork requirements that are not necessary for aviation safety 
thereby reducing burdens for portable oxygen concentrator 
manufacturers, passengers who use portable oxygen concentrators while 
traveling, and aircraft operators conducting air carrier operations, 
commercial operations or certain operations using large aircraft.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0554 
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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts 
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the 
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    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 action, contact DK Deaderick, 121 Air Carrier Operations Branch, 
Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, AFS-220, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-7480; email [email protected].
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Sara L. 
Mikolop, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-220, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-3073; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority for this Rulemaking
II. Overview of the Proposed Rule
III. Summary of Cost Savings
IV. Background
V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
    A. Definition of Portable Oxygen Concentrator
    B. Applicability and Effective Date
    C. Portable Oxygen Concentrator Acceptance Criteria
    1. Food and Drug Administration Premarket Determination
    2. Electromagnetic Interference Emissions Threshold (RTCA DO-
160G, Section 21, Category M)
    3. Hazardous Materials
    4. Maximum Oxygen Pressure
    D. Manufacturer Certification and Labeling
    E. Prohibition on Smoking or Open Flame
    F. Discussion of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 
Requirements Excluded From Proposal
    1. Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 Requirements 
Addressed in Existing Regulations
    a. Stowage of Portable Oxygen Concentrators on Board Aircraft
    b. Passenger Movement About the Cabin While Using a Portable 
Oxygen Concentrator
    c. Exit Row Seating
    d. Protection of Batteries From Short Circuit
    2. Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 Requirements 
Excluded in Their Entirety
    a. Physician Statement and Pilot in Command and Aircraft 
Operator Notification Requirements
    b. Portable Oxygen Concentrator Alarms
    c. Ensuring the Portable Oxygen Concentrator is Free of 
Petroleum Products
    d. Use of Salves and Lotions
    e. Carriage of a Sufficient Number of Batteries
    G. Miscellaneous
VI. Advisory Circulars
VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    C. International Trade Impact Assessment
    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
    G. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

[[Page 56289]]

    H. Environmental Analysis
VIII. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
IX. Additional Information
    A. Comments Invited
    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

I. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated 
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which vests final 
authority in the Administrator for carrying out all functions, powers, 
and duties of the administration relating to the promulgation of 
regulations and rules, and section 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.

II. Overview of the Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would affect the use of portable oxygen 
concentrators (POC) on board aircraft in operations conducted under 14 
CFR parts 121, 125, and 135, by replacing the existing FAA case-by-case 
POC approval process in Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 
106, with FAA acceptance criteria. With this NPRM, the agency proposes 
to modify the process by which a POC may be deemed acceptable for use 
on board aircraft. Rather than amend existing SFAR No. 106 each time 
the FAA accepts a specific model of POC for use on board aircraft, this 
proposal identifies acceptance criteria for POCs. With the 
establishment of acceptance criteria for POCs the FAA would discontinue 
use of SFAR No. 106 and remove it from parts 121, 125, and 135 of title 
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
    POCs operate by separating oxygen from nitrogen and other gases 
comprising ambient air and then dispensing the oxygen in concentrated 
form to the user. POCs are the only oxygen dispensing devices that a 
passenger requiring oxygen therapy may carry for their personal use 
during flight. Although aircraft operators are not required to provide 
medical oxygen, the only other options for passengers requiring oxygen 
therapy during flight is to procure medical oxygen directly from the 
aircraft operator. Operators typically charge for this oxygen service 
and it can be difficult for passengers to coordinate service between 
the carrier and supplier of oxygen at the terminal, leaving gaps in 
oxygen service during travel.
    The FAA established standards for the use of POCs on board aircraft 
through SFAR No. 106--Rules for use of portable oxygen concentrator 
systems on board aircraft. See 70 FR 40156 (July 12, 2005). Without 
SFAR No. 106 an exemption from the regulations applicable to devices 
that dispense medical oxygen (Sec.  121.574, Sec.  125.219, or Sec.  
135.91) would be necessary for passengers to carry on and operate their 
own (not furnished by the aircraft operator) POC. See 69 FR 42324, 
42325 (July 14, 2004). The agency intended SFAR No. 106 to serve as a 
special, temporary regulation until POC performance standards 
(acceptance criteria) could be developed. See 70 FR at 40158-40159.
    In 2005, SFAR No. 106 identified the first specific POC models 
approved for use on board aircraft. The FAA has continued to allow the 
carriage and use of specific POC models only after each individual POC 
manufacturer has demonstrated to the FAA that its model should be 
approved for use. Each time a new POC is approved by the FAA for use on 
board aircraft, the FAA amends SFAR No. 106 by adding the name of the 
POC to the regulation. The FAA has amended SFAR No. 106 seven times 
since 2005 to add the names of additional POC models as they are 
approved for use in part 121, 125, and 135 operations--a process as 
long as up to two years.\1\ The agency proposes to replace this 
cumbersome POC approval process with POC acceptance criteria and 
specific labeling requirements to identify POCs as satisfying the 
proposed acceptance criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Currently, 24 POC models have been approved by the FAA and 
identified in SFAR No. 106 for use on board aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with existing requirements applicable to POC approval for use on 
aircraft, compliance with the proposed acceptance criteria and labeling 
requirement is only necessary for POCs used on aircraft. A comparison 
of the proposed acceptance criteria and labeling requirement with 
related SFAR No. 106 provisions is provided in Table 1.

    Table 1--Comparison of Proposed Acceptance Criteria and Labeling
           Requirement With Related SFAR No. 106 Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Proposed acceptance
                              Related SFAR No. 106      criteria and
                                  requirements      labeling requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food and Drug Administration  The POC must be       The POC manufacturer
 (FDA) clearance to market     regulated by the      has received FDA
 the device.                   FDA (Sec.   2(2)).    clearance to
                              Note: To satisfy       legally market the
                               this requirement,     device in the
                               manufacturers         United States.
                               currently provide
                               the FAA with the
                               FDA letter granting
                               approval to market
                               the device (the FDA
                               response to a
                               manufacturer's
                               510(k) submission)..
Hazardous materials.........  The POC may not       The POC may not
                               contain hazardous     contain any
                               materials as          hazardous materials
                               determined by the     subject to the
                               Pipeline and          Hazardous Materials
                               Hazardous Materials   Regulations (49 CFR
                               Safety                parts 171-180),
                               Administration        except as provided
                               (Sec.   2(1)).        for in the
                              Note: To satisfy       exceptions for
                               this requirement,     crewmembers and
                               manufacturers         passengers (49 CFR
                               currently provide     175.10).
                               the FAA with a       The maximum oxygen
                               Pipeline and          pressure generated
                               Hazardous Materials   by the POC must
                               Safety                fall below the
                               Administration        threshold for the
                               (PHMSA)               definition of a
                               determination         compressed gas as
                               letter stating that   per the Hazardous
                               the POC does not      Materials
                               contain hazardous     Regulations.
                               materials..

[[Page 56290]]

 
Electromagnetic emissions...  Operator must         Manufacturer must
                               determine that POC    complete testing in
                               does not cause        accordance with
                               interference with     RTCA standard 160G,
                               the electrical,       Section 21,
                               navigation or         Category M. The POC
                               communication         electromagnetic
                               equipment on the      emissions must fall
                               aircraft on which     below the threshold
                               the device is to be   permitted in RTCA
                               used (Sec.            standard 160G,
                               3(a)(1)).             Section 21,
                              Note: To satisfy       Category M.
                               this requirement,
                               it is the current
                               practice of
                               operators to use
                               testing data
                               provided by POC
                               manufacturers
                               regarding the
                               electromagnetic
                               emissions of a
                               specific POC model.
                               Manufacturers
                               currently complete
                               testing in
                               accordance with
                               RTCA standard 160G,
                               Section 21,
                               Category M..
Identification of POCs safe   POC model must be     POC manufacturers
 for use on board aircraft.    identified in SFAR    must affix a label
                               No. 106 as approved   for the life of the
                               for use on board      device that
                               aircraft prior to     certifies
                               use on board          compliance with
                               aircraft in part      acceptance criteria
                               121, 125, and 135     pertaining to FDA
                               operations (Sec.      clearance to market
                               2, Sec.   3(a)).      the device,
                              Note: Specific POCs    hazardous
                               approved for use on   materials, and
                               board aircraft are    testing for
                               identified in SFAR    electromagnetic
                               No. 106 by            emissions.
                               manufacturer, make,  POC models
                               and model. Although   identified in
                               some POC              existing SFAR No.
                               manufacturers affix   106 satisfy the
                               a label indicating    acceptance criteria
                               FAA approval for      and will be exempt
                               use on board          from the labeling
                               aircraft, there is    requirement. These
                               no current FAA        POC models will
                               requirement for a     continue to be
                               label indicating      identified in the
                               this approval..       regulatory text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with this proposal, manufacturers of POC models not 
identified in SFAR No. 106 would have to ensure the POC satisfies the 
acceptance criteria before it may be used on board an aircraft. If a 
manufacturer determines that a new POC model meets these criteria, the 
manufacturer would not need to seek approval from the FAA prior to 
indicating that a POC is safe for air travel. Instead, the manufacturer 
would affix a label to the POC, as specified in the proposal, 
indicating the POC meets FAA acceptance criteria. The FAA believes this 
proposed label would facilitate passenger and crew recognition by 
identifying the POC as safe for use in the cabin during all phases of 
flight.
    The FAA proposes that the requirement for labeling apply only to 
POCs not currently listed as approved in SFAR No. 106. POC models 
previously listed as approved for use on board aircraft in SFAR No. 106 
received approval because they satisfied the criteria set forth in SFAR 
No. 106. Any device that previously demonstrated compliance with SFAR 
No. 106 criteria would satisfy the proposed acceptance criteria.
    The FAA believes it is not necessary or practical to require POC 
manufacturers to retrofit previously approved POCs with a label. The 
FAA expects POCs listed in SFAR No. 106 will decrease over time as they 
age and are replaced with newer models. Therefore, the FAA proposes to 
maintain in the proposed regulatory text, a list of POCs approved in 
accordance with SFAR No. 106 and proposes excepting them from the 
proposed labeling requirement so that passengers and crewmembers can 
continue to identify these POCs as approved for use on board aircraft.
    In addition, the agency proposes to eliminate SFAR No. 106 
requirements related to POC use on aircraft that are addressed 
elsewhere in title 14 or title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 
For example, existing regulations outside of SFAR No. 106 address 
stowage of carry-on items (Sec. Sec.  121.285, 121.589, 125.183, and 
135.87) and exit row seating (Sec. Sec.  121.585 and 135.129). This 
proposal would also eliminate specific SFAR No. 106 requirements 
applicable to passengers that are not necessary for safe POC use on 
board aircraft, and impose an unnecessary and unreasonable paperwork 
burden on affected passengers and their physicians as well as 
crewmembers and aircraft operators. Table 2 summarizes the proposed 
disposition of all SFAR No. 106 provisions.

  Table 2--Summary of SFAR No. 106 Provisions and Proposed Disposition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Description of proposed
   Summary of SFAR No. 106 provision           disposition in NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Requirement that the POC is     SFAR No. 106 Provisions
 legally marketed in the United States    Reflected in Proposed
 in accordance with FDA requirements      Acceptance Criteria and
 (Sec.   2(2)).                           Labeling Requirement.
 Requirement for operator to
 determine that POC does not cause
 interference with the electrical,
 navigation or communication equipment
 on the aircraft on which the device is
 to be used (Sec.   3(a)(1))..
 Prohibition on POCs containing
 hazardous materials as determined by
 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
 Safety Administration (Sec.   2(1)).
 POC model must be identified
 in SFAR No. 106 prior to use in part
 121, 125, and 135 operations (Sec.
 2, Sec.   3(a))*.
 Prohibition on smoking or open  SFAR No. 106 Provisions
 flame near POC (Sec.   3.(a)(2)).        Retained.
 POC model must be identified
 in SFAR No. 106 prior to use in part
 121, 125, and 135 operations (Sec.
 2, Sec.   3(a))*..

[[Page 56291]]

 
 Requirements for POC user to    SFAR No. 106 Provisions
 obtain a physician's statement and       Eliminated in Their Entirety.
 provide notice to pilot and aircraft
 operator regarding POC use and
 contents of physician statement (Sec.
 Sec.   3.(a)(5) and 3.(b)(3)).
 Requirement for POC user to be
 capable of responding to alarms or to
 travel with a person who can perform
 these functions (Sec.   3.(b)(1))..
 Requirement for POC user to
 ensure that the POC is free of
 petroleum products or signs of
 excessive wear or abuse (Sec.
 3.(b)(2)).
 Prohibition on use of salves
 and lotions unless ``oxygen approved''
 (Sec.   3.(b)(4)).
 Requirement for passenger to
 carry a sufficient number of batteries
 for duration of flight (Sec.
 3.(b)(5)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The list of POCs currently identified in SFAR No. 106 would be
  maintained in parts 121, 125 and 135. All other POCs would need to
  satisfy the proposed acceptance criteria and bear a label for the life
  of the device indicating compliance with the acceptance criteria. A
  detailed discussion regarding the identification of POCs that satisfy
  the acceptance criteria is provided in the preamble.

    This proposed rule would relieve regulatory burdens for POC 
manufacturers as they would no longer be required to submit a petition 
for rulemaking to amend SFAR No. 106 for each new POC introduced into 
the marketplace and intended for use on board aircraft. Similarly, this 
proposed rule would relieve passengers of the current paperwork burden 
of obtaining a physician's statement and notifying both the pilot in 
command and the aircraft operator concerning their POC usage while on 
board aircraft.

III. Summary of Cost Savings

    The FAA estimates that manufacturers would save $108,000 over ten 
years because they would no longer have to petition the FAA for 
rulemaking with each new device they want to add to the list of POCs 
approved for use during flight on board aircraft. These cost savings 
would be reduced slightly because manufacturers would incur an 
estimated total one-time cost of $22,000 to comply with the proposed 
labeling requirement. The FAA estimated additional cost savings because 
of the discontinuation of certain requirements from SFAR No. 106. Total 
estimated cost savings are presented in the table below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE14.000

IV. Background

    On July 12, 2005 (70 FR 40156), the FAA published a final rule 
adding SFAR No. 106. This final rule permitted the use of POCs on board 
aircraft to address the needs of passengers requiring oxygen therapy 
while traveling.
    Prior to SFAR No. 106, passengers could carry and operate equipment 
generating, storing or dispensing medical oxygen on board an aircraft 
only if the equipment was furnished by the certificate holder and 
certain other conditions prescribed in 14 CFR 121.547, 125.219 and 
135.91 were satisfied. At the time the agency published SFAR No. 106, 
the FAA did not require aircraft operators to provide medical oxygen 
and many regional air carriers and some larger air carriers did not 
provide this service. Those carriers that did allow passengers to use 
the medical oxygen provided the compressed oxygen themselves and 
typically charged a fee for this service. (The agency notes that today, 
virtually no certificate holders conducting part 121 operations provide 
in-flight supplemental oxygen for passengers.)
    Further, passengers requiring oxygen therapy during travel faced 
difficulty coordinating service between the carrier and the supplier of 
medical oxygen to ensure coverage at the terminal, gate to gate, and on 
board the aircraft. Sometimes, passengers would spend at least part of 
the time travelling without medical oxygen due to service problems with 
the oxygen provider. See 70 FR 40156, 40156 (July 12, 2005).
    In 2002, POCs were brought to the attention of the FAA as a new 
portable technology for dispensing medical oxygen for purposes of 
oxygen therapy. POCs work by filtering nitrogen from the air and 
providing the POC user with oxygen at a concentration of approximately 
90%. Thus, POCs do not require the same level of special handling as 
compressed oxygen. However, due to existing FAA regulations applicable 
to the use of devices that dispense oxygen (Sec. Sec.  121.574, 
125.219, and 135.91), including POCs, the FAA informed the POC 
community that an exemption would be required for a passenger to carry 
on and operate a POC that the passenger supplied for his or her own use 
(not furnished by the aircraft operator).
    In 2004, rather than wait for petitions for exemption from the 
existing regulations, the FAA published an NPRM proposing SFAR No. 106. 
See 69 FR 42324 (July 14, 2004). In the NPRM,

[[Page 56292]]

the agency proposed to permit passengers to carry on and operate their 
own POC on board an aircraft as long as certain conditions were met.
    The SFAR No. 106 final rule, published July 12, 2005, established 
criteria for FAA approval of POCs for use on board aircraft. This final 
rule prohibited passengers from using POCs on board aircraft under part 
121, 125, and 135 operations, unless those POCs satisfied the approval 
criteria and were identified by manufacturer and model name in SFAR No. 
106. This final rule also established POC operating rules for aircraft 
operators, crewmembers and passengers.
    Initially, SFAR No. 106 applied to part 119 certificate holders 
conducting operations under part 121. In a technical amendment 
published January 12, 2007 (72 FR 1442), the FAA made conforming 
amendments to 14 CFR parts 125 and 135 to apply the requirements of 
SFAR No. 106 to part 119 certificate holders conducting operations 
under parts 125 and 135.
    Since the FAA originally published SFAR No. 106, it has been 
amended seven times to list additional POCs and currently identifies 24 
POCs that may be used on board aircraft.\2\ This process is time-
consuming for POC manufacturers and the FAA. POC manufacturers who want 
the FAA to approve a POC for use in part 121, 125, and 135 operations 
must petition the FAA for rulemaking to amend SFAR No. 106, by adding 
their POC model to the list and provide the FAA with Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration (PHMSA) documentation required for the FAA to make a 
determination whether the POC may be safely used on board aircraft. 
This process is also time-consuming for the FAA because rulemaking must 
be accomplished each time a new POC model is added to SFAR No. 106. As 
a result of the rulemaking required to add a POC model to the list of 
POCs in SFAR No. 106, passengers may not use a POC on board an aircraft 
in part 121, 125, or 135 operations until the FAA identifies the device 
they wish to use in SFAR No. 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 71 FR 53956 (Sept. 12, 2006); 74 FR 2354 (Jan. 15, 2009); 75 
FR 742 (Jan. 6, 2010); 75 FR 39632 (July 12, 2010); 77 FR 4220 (Jan. 
27, 2012); 77 FR 63221 (Oct. 16, 2012); and 79 FR 6018 (Feb. 3, 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    When SFAR No. 106 was originally published, the FAA committed to 
establishing a single standard for all POC devices. Whenever possible, 
the FAA tries to regulate by creating performance-based standards 
rather than approving specific devices on a case-by-case basis. 
However, the FAA determined that the quickest way to serve both the 
passenger and the aircraft operator and to avoid creating circumstances 
that would stifle new technology, was to allow the use of specific POCs 
approved by the FAA for use on aircraft and identified in SFAR No. 106, 
a special, temporary regulation. See 70 FR at 40157-40159.
    After evaluating the provisions contained in SFAR No. 106, the 
relevant provisions of existing Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) 
(49 CFR parts 171-180), and a decade of accumulated knowledge and 
experience the FAA has gained with POCs, the FAA proposes to replace 
the POC case-by-case approval process with performance-based standards 
(acceptance criteria) as envisioned by the FAA at the time SFAR No. 106 
was developed. The proposed rule would specify POC acceptance criteria 
for POC use in part 121, 125, and 135 operations. A manufacturer would 
then certify the device meets the FAA acceptance criteria by affixing a 
label for the life of the device that certifies the POC conforms to FAA 
acceptance criteria. Additionally, this proposed rule would prescribe 
limited operational requirements governing the use of POCs on board 
aircraft. The proposed requirements are discussed below.

A. Definition of Portable Oxygen Concentrator

    Currently, SFAR No. 106 explains POCs perform by separating oxygen 
from nitrogen, and other gasses contained in ambient air, and 
dispensing the oxygen in a concentrated form to the user.
    The FAA proposes to define a POC in 14 CFR 1.1 as ``a medical 
device that separates oxygen from other gasses in ambient air and 
dispenses this concentrated oxygen to the user.'' This definition is 
consistent with the explanation used in existing SFAR No. 106 and 
Advisory Circular 120-95, Portable Oxygen Concentrators \3\ as well as 
the device description used by POC manufacturers and the FDA,\4\ the 
federal agency with primary regulatory authority over POCs for medical 
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ AC 120-95 defines POCs as ``small, portable devices that 
work by separating oxygen from nitrogen and other gasses in the air 
and providing the user with oxygen at a concentration of more than 
90 percent . . .''
    \4\ Portable oxygen concentrators are a subset of portable 
oxygen generators defined by the FDA in 21 CFR 868.5440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By including this definition in 14 CFR 1.1, the FAA intends to 
distinguish POCs from portable oxygen generators and other medical 
devices that use compressed or liquid oxygen for medical oxygen 
therapy, because devices that use compressed or liquid oxygen must 
satisfy separate and more rigorous requirements to mitigate the risks 
they present.

B. Applicability and Effective Date

    SFAR No. 106 applies only to those POC models intended for use on 
board aircraft in operations conducted under parts 121, 125, and 135 of 
title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Further, SFAR No. 106 does 
not require aircraft operators to allow passengers to operate POCs on 
board aircraft. Rather, it authorizes the use of specific POCs on board 
aircraft in operations conducted under parts 121, 125, or 135 if the 
conditions in SFAR No. 106 are satisfied.
    With this NPRM, the agency proposes to modify the process by which 
a POC may be deemed acceptable for use on board aircraft. Rather than 
amend existing SFAR No. 106 each time the FAA accepts a specific model 
of POC for use on board aircraft, this proposal identifies acceptance 
criteria for POCs. With the establishment of acceptance criteria for 
POCs the FAA would discontinue use of SFAR No. 106 and remove it from 
parts 121, 125, and 135 of title 14 of the CFR.
    Consistent with SFAR No. 106, this proposal applies only to those 
POC models intended for use on board aircraft in part 121, 125, and 135 
operations and does not create a requirement for operators to allow POC 
use. Requirements for air carriers to allow the use of a POC on an 
aircraft continue to be found in 14 CFR part 382, Nondiscrimination on 
the Basis of Disability in Air Travel.
    The agency seeks to make this proposal effective as soon as 
practicable. The agency recognizes, however, that part 119 certificate 
holders may need to revise operating manuals and training programs. The 
agency expects these revisions to occur within the normal course of 
business and is therefore considering an effective date of 90 days 
after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

C. Portable Oxygen Concentrator Acceptance Criteria

    The agency proposes to require POCs used on board aircraft to 
satisfy specific acceptance criteria. The acceptance criteria are 
discussed in more detail in this section of the preamble and are 
summarized as follows:

[[Page 56293]]

     The POC manufacturer complies with all FDA requirements to 
legally market the device in the United States.
     The POC may not contain any hazardous materials subject to 
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180) 
except as provided for in the exceptions for crewmembers and passengers 
(49 CFR 175.10).
     The maximum oxygen pressure generated by the POC must fall 
below the threshold for the definition of a compressed gas per the HMR.
     The POC electromagnetic emissions must fall below the 
threshold permitted in RTCA standard 160G, Section 21, Category M.
    The agency further proposes that any POC (except those previously 
approved for use on aircraft under SFAR No. 106) carried or used by a 
passenger on an aircraft in part 121, 125, or 135 operations must bear 
a manufacturer's label using a means to ensure it will remain affixed 
for the life of the device indicating compliance with these FAA 
acceptance criteria.
1. Food and Drug Administration Premarket Determination
    POCs are medical devices regulated by the FDA in accordance with 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and 
title 21 of the CFR. Accordingly, manufacturers must obtain FDA 
clearance or approval prior to marketing a POC within the United States 
and comply with certain provisions in title 21 of the CFR, including 
but not limited to device registration and listing (21 CFR part 807), 
labeling (21 CFR part 801), adverse event reporting (21 CFR part 803), 
and good manufacturing practice requirements (21 CFR part 820).
    Currently, SFAR No. 106 requires all POCs used on board aircraft in 
operations conducted under 14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135 must be 
legally marketed in compliance with FDA regulations. The purpose of 
this requirement is to ensure the device is actually what the 
manufacturer holds it out to be--a portable oxygen concentrator (POC). 
To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, POC manufacturers must 
submit evidence the device has been cleared or approved by the FDA for 
marketing in the United States. The FAA accepts FDA premarket clearance 
in response to a 510(k) submission as evidence the device may be 
marketed in the United States.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A 510(k) submission is a premarket submission made to FDA to 
demonstrate that the device to be marketed is at least as safe and 
effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed 
device (21 CFR 807.92(a)(3)) that is not subject to premarket 
approval. Submitters must compare their device to one or more 
similar legally marketed devices and make and support their 
substantial equivalency claims. If FDA makes a finding of 
substantial equivalence, the device is considered ``cleared.'' 
Additional information regarding the 510(k) process is available at 
www.fda.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA proposes to maintain the requirement that any POC used on 
board an aircraft must be cleared or approved by the FDA for marketing 
in the United States. However, manufacturers would no longer submit 
evidence of this clearance or approval to the FAA. Rather, POC 
manufacturers would certify that the FDA has approved the device for 
marketing in the United States by affixing a label to the POC, in which 
the manufacturer confirms compliance with all FAA requirements for the 
use of the POC on board aircraft. The proposed labeling requirement is 
discussed in more detail later in this preamble.
    As an alternative to identifying the requirement for FDA approval 
to legally market the device as one of the POC acceptance criteria, the 
agency is considering incorporating this one acceptance criterion into 
the POC definition because this criterion already applies to all POCs 
marketed in the United States per FDA requirements and not just those 
POCs intended for use on aircraft. The agency seeks comment on this 
alternative.
2. Electromagnetic Interference Emissions Threshold (RTCA DO-160G, 
Section 21, Category M)
    The agency recognizes POCs as a type of portable electronic device 
(PED) and permits the use of PEDs during flight, only if the aircraft 
operator has determined the device does not cause interference with the 
navigation or communication system of the aircraft in which the device 
will be used. Further, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  121.306, 125.204, 
and 135.144, the aircraft operator is responsible for determining which 
PEDs may be safely used on its aircraft.
    Each operator may establish a method to make a determination 
regarding the effects of PEDs on its aircraft's avionics. Historically, 
a common method for making this determination has been to complete 
evaluations of electromagnetic interference (EMI) on a device-by-device 
basis which involves comparing the device's emissions against the 
current RTCA DO-160 standards for airborne equipment.
    On October 31, 2013, the agency announced a new means of compliance 
with Sec. Sec.  121.306, 125.204, and 135.144, allowing operators to 
expand the use of passenger supplied and operated PEDs throughout all 
phases of flight, based on a determination by the operator that the 
aircraft systems themselves are PED tolerant (i.e., meet the 
requirements of RTCA DO-307 or another PED tolerance demonstration). 
See InFO 13010 and InFO 13010SUP.\6\ The agency does not, however, 
require aircraft assessment of PED tolerance in accordance with InFO 
13010 and InFO 13010SUP. These PED assessment methods provide one means 
for airplane operators to demonstrate compliance with Sec. Sec.  
121.306, 125.204, and 135.144 and allow PEDs to be used on board 
aircraft. It is up to each aircraft operator to determine if it wants 
to expand the use of passenger supplied and operated PEDs via a 
determination of PED tolerance for certain aircraft types. Some 
aircraft operators may choose to continue to rely on the individual PED 
evaluations that occur today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ All InFOs can be found at http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SFAR No. 106, section 3(a)(1) contains a requirement pertaining to 
POC interference with aircraft equipment that has the same effect as 
the requirements in Sec. Sec.  121.306, 125.204, and 135.144 pertaining 
to all PEDs. SFAR No. 106 permits operators engaged in part 121, 125, 
and 135 operations to allow passengers the use of specific POC models 
that have been tested to ensure that they will not interfere with the 
aircraft electrical, navigation or communication equipment.
    For POC EMI evaluation, the FAA currently accepts as proof of non-
interference, emissions test results provided by manufacturers showing 
a specific POC does not exceed certain maximum emissions thresholds 
established by RTCA in DO-160, Environmental Conditions and Test 
Procedures for Airborne Equipment.\7\ The agency has determined that 
Section 21 Category M of RTCA DO-160 establishes safe and conservative

[[Page 56294]]

emissions limits for electronic devices on board aircraft.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ RTCA and components of RTCA function as advisory committees 
in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA), as amended, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. RTCA 
membership is drawn from across the aviation industry. RTCA employs 
the expertise of the aviation community to generate recommendations 
in response to requests from the FAA to address a wide range of 
technical aviation issues or questions. RTCA generally provides 
recommendations (1) broad-gauged policy and investment priority 
recommendations used by FAA when considering policy and program 
decisions; and (2) minimum performance standards, reports, and 
guidance documents used by FAA in regulatory decisions and 
rulemaking. See FAA Order 1110.77U, Charter for RTCA, Inc., April 1, 
2013. http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/1110.77u.pdf.
    \8\ The FAA notes that while RTCA made significant changes to 
DO-160 since edition E was issued (December 9, 2004) and cited in 
agency guidance, Section 21, Category M (applicable to POCs) was not 
revised in either DO-160F or DO-160G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency allows aircraft operators to use emissions test results 
provided by POC manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with section 
3(a)(1) of SFAR No. 106.\9\ It is current practice for manufacturers to 
provide the RTCA test compliance statements to the FAA; the FAA then 
makes the RTCA test compliance statements available on its Web site for 
aircraft operator reference. The RTCA compliance statements may be 
viewed at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/cabin_safety/portable_oxygen/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Advisory Circular 120-95, Portable Oxygen Concentrators, 
Advisory Circular 91-21.B, Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard 
Aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency recognizes the current SFAR No. 106 requirement for an 
operator to evaluate POC interference with aircraft equipment is 
redundant with the requirements in Sec. Sec.  121.306, 125.204, and 
135.144. Further, many part 121 operators have already conducted 
aircraft assessment of PED tolerance in accordance with InFO 13010 and 
InFO 13010SUP, which would make an independent assessment of POC 
electromagnetic emissions unnecessary.
    Nevertheless, because of the need to ensure service for passengers 
who require oxygen during air travel, the FAA believes it is necessary 
to create a regulatory structure to ensure that passengers may continue 
to use POCs on board aircraft even when an operator does not choose to 
assess a POCs electromagnetic emissions, or assess the aircraft they 
operate for PED tolerance. Although aircraft operators conducting part 
121, 125, and 135 operations are the only entities authorized to 
provide medical oxygen for use on their aircraft during these 
operations, they are not required to do so. Those carriers that do 
provide medical oxygen typically charge for the service although many 
carriers simply do not offer medical oxygen at all; and, it can be 
difficult for the passenger to coordinate oxygen service between the 
carrier and a supplier of medical oxygen at the terminal, leaving gaps 
in oxygen service during travel. POCs, however, provide an effective 
alternative for passengers requiring uninterrupted oxygen therapy 
during travel. The current practice used by POC manufacturers to 
demonstrate that POC electromagnetic emissions do not cause 
interference with aircraft equipment is an effective way to ensure that 
POCs will be available for continuous use for the duration of a 
passenger's travel, including all phases of flight and movement on the 
surface.
    Thus, consistent with the current practice, the agency proposes to 
require POC manufacturers to conduct a POC EMI assessment in accordance 
with RTCA DO-160G, Section 21, Category M \10\ for each POC the 
manufacturer intends to market for use on aircraft and label as 
compliant with FAA POC acceptance criteria. As currently permitted, a 
POC that tests below the maximum emission threshold contained in RTCA 
DO-160G, Section 21, Category M, in all modes of operation, may be used 
on board the aircraft during all phases of flight without any 
additional testing by the aircraft operator. In addition, POCs 
currently approved by the FAA that have demonstrated emissions below 
the maximum emissions threshold in DO-160G, Section 21, Category M will 
not need to be retested prior to use on board aircraft. The agency also 
proposes to add POCs to the list of devices excepted from the general 
PED testing requirements in Sec. Sec.  121.306, 125.204, and 135.144 
because the testing requirements in Sec. Sec.  121.306, 125.204, and 
135.144 are redundant and unnecessary for POCs that have completed POC 
EMI assessments in accordance with RTCA DO-160, Section 21, Category M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The FAA intends to incorporate RTCA DO-160G, Section 21, 
Category M by reference in Sec. Sec.  121.574, 125.219 and 135.91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency seeks comment on an alternate approach to the acceptance 
criterion pertaining to POC-specific EMI assessments that would 
eliminate redundancy in those instances when operators test aircraft 
for PED tolerance without affecting the opportunity for POC use on 
aircraft. Specifically, the agency seeks comment on an alternative to 
the proposed acceptance criterion pertaining to POC-specific EMI 
assessments that would allow POC electromagnetic emissions to be 
assessed under the general PED regulatory structure in existing 
Sec. Sec.  121.306, 125.204, and 135.144. Under this alternate 
approach, the agency assumes that manufacturers would continue to 
voluntarily complete the RTCA testing they complete today if they want 
a POC to be available for use on aircraft because not all operators 
have conducted aircraft assessments of PED tolerance. The agency seeks 
comment on how this alternative approach to POC EMI assessments would 
affect passenger use of POCs on aircraft and whether this alternative 
would result in possible burdens on passengers and aircraft operators.
    Further, the agency recognizes that other Federal agencies may 
require electromagnetic compatibility assessments that may test to 
standards that could be used to demonstrate compliance with the 
generally applicable PED requirements. Accordingly, the agency seeks 
comment on (1) whether there are other electromagnetic compatibility 
assessments that POC manufacturers complete, that test to a standard 
that is technically equivalent to the standard in RTCA DO-160G, Section 
21, Category M, and (2) whether there are any differences in the 
standards of any alternate emissions assessments.
3. Hazardous Materials
    PHMSA is responsible for regulating and ensuring the safe and 
secure movement of hazardous materials by all modes of transportation, 
including aviation. To minimize threats to life, property or the 
environment due to hazardous materials related incidents, PHMSA's 
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety develops regulations (the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) (49 CFR parts 171 through 180)) 
and standards for classifying, handling and packaging shipments of 
hazardous materials within the United States.
    POCs typically operate using either rechargeable batteries (usually 
lithium ion) or AC/DC electrical power via an external power cord. 
Although the POC units themselves are not considered hazardous 
materials, the lithium or lithium ion batteries often used to power 
these units are hazardous materials subject to PHMSA regulations for 
the transportation of batteries and the carriage of batteries by 
aircraft passengers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ On July 29, 2014, PHMSA issued a final rule, ``Hazardous 
Materials: Transportation of Lithium Batteries'' (RIN 2137-AE44). 
See 79 FR 46012 (August 6, 2014). Compliance with this final rule is 
required six months after the date of publication in the Federal 
Register, February 6, 2015. For purposes of this NPRM, the relevant 
changes that will be put in place by the PHMSA final rule are those 
that (1) remove Special Provision 188 and relocate it, in part, to a 
revised 49 CFR 173.185; (2) replace equivalent lithium content with 
Watt-hours for lithium ion cells and batteries; and (3) revise the 
HMR exceptions for hazardous materials carried by aircraft 
passengers and crewmembers. The revisions to the HMR exceptions for 
hazardous materials carried by aircraft passengers and crewmembers 
will take a more conservative approach than existing regulations 
(i.e., requiring approval by the air operator for the carriage of 
spare lithium ion batteries larger than 8 grams (approximately 100 
Wh) and reducing the maximum Watt-hours for spare lithium ion 
batteries from 300 Wh to 160 Wh)). However, given that compliance 
with the PHMSA final rule will not be required until after the close 
of the comment period for this NPRM, for purposes of the passenger 
and crewmember exceptions, the FAA continues to refer to the lithium 
ion battery requirements that will remain in effect until compliance 
with the new regulations pertaining to these exceptions is required. 
In light of this circumstance, the FAA requests that any comments 
pertaining to lithium ion batteries used in POCs or carried as 
spares for POCs, consider the impact of the PHMSA final rule.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 56295]]

    In general, a lithium ion battery that is more than 8 grams 
aggregate lithium content (approximately 100 Wh) must satisfy the 
shipping and packaging requirements of the HMR. See 49 CFR 173.185. 
Lithium ion batteries of 8 grams or less aggregate lithium content 
(approximately 100 Wh) are exempt from most requirements of the HMR. 
See 49 CFR 173.185.
    The agency notes however, that PHMSA allows exceptions for the 
carriage of specified hazardous materials on board aircraft when 
carried by aircraft passengers or crewmembers, provided certain 
requirements are met. For example, aircraft passengers may carry an 
unlimited number of lithium ion batteries of 8 grams (100 Wh) or less 
and up to two lithium ion batteries of 8 grams up to 25 grams (100-300 
Wh) if each spare battery is protected to prevent short circuits. 
Beginning on February 6, 2015, compliance with a more conservative 
upper limit of 160 Wh will be required. See 79 FR 46012 (August 6, 
2014); 49 CFR 175.10(a)(18).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The lithium ion battery exception was drafted to be 
consistent with the International Civil Aviation Organization 
Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by 
Air (ICAO Technical Instructions) at the time of the rulemaking. See 
72 FR 44930, 44937 (August 9, 2007). The ICAO Technical Instructions 
have since been updated. PHMSA evaluated the updated ICAO Technical 
Instructions in a separate rulemaking initiative that has recently 
resulted in a final rule amending the lithium ion battery exception. 
See 79 FR 46012 (August 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SFAR No. 106 allows passengers to use one of the specific POCs 
identified in the SFAR only if the POC does not contain hazardous 
materials as determined by the PHMSA Administrator. See SFAR No. 106, 
section 2(1). Under the authority of SFAR No. 106, the agency requires 
POC manufacturers to obtain a determination letter from PHMSA stating 
the POC does not contain hazardous materials as one of the 
prerequisites for the FAA to identify the POC in the SFAR. (PHMSA 
reviews information provided by the POC manufacturer for each POC model 
as the basis for this determination letter.) Although the agency 
proposes to maintain the broad prohibition on hazardous materials in 
POCs used by passengers on board aircraft, the agency proposes to 
remove the current requirement for a PHMSA determination letter 
confirming the POC does not contain hazardous materials. The PHMSA 
determination letter is unnecessary given the prohibition on hazardous 
materials in POCs.
    Further, this proposal provides direct references to PHMSA 
regulations (the HMR) including the exceptions for passengers 
identified in 49 CFR 175.10. As a result, up to two batteries larger 
than those currently permitted by SFAR No. 106 may be carried to power 
POCs that are used on board aircraft. SFAR No. 106 does not contain any 
specific language regarding the aggregate lithium content of any 
battery used to power a POC (installed or spare). However, given the 
SFAR No. 106 prohibition of hazardous materials in a POC, SFAR No. 106 
does effectively limit lithium ion batteries to 8 grams or less 
aggregate lithium content. A lithium ion battery with more than 8 grams 
aggregate lithium content is subject to the requirements of the HMR. 
See 49 CFR 173.185. Consequently, in accordance with the limits of SFAR 
No. 106, aircraft passengers are not permitted to use or carry a POC 
with a lithium battery or a spare lithium battery that is larger than 8 
grams. However, the FAA notes this battery limitation does not apply to 
other portable electronic devices powered by lithium ion batteries 
being used or carried in accordance with aircraft passenger and crew 
exceptions in 49 CFR 175.10(a)(18).
    Currently, neither the HMR nor SFAR No. 106 limits the number of 
lithium ion batteries that passengers may carry. Passengers using or 
carrying POCs on board aircraft may carry as many lithium ion batteries 
as they wish as long as each battery has an aggregate lithium content 
of 8 grams or less and the batteries are carried in carry-on baggage 
only. By allowing the exceptions in 49 CFR 175.10 to apply to POCs, 
passengers would also be able to carry and use up to two batteries 
larger than 8 grams, but not more than 25 grams aggregate lithium 
content (approximately 300 Wh) to power their POCs subject to the 
limitations of 49 CFR 175.10(a)(18).\13\ See 79 FR 46012 (August 6, 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As previously noted, beginning on February 6, 2015, the 
upper limit for the maximum Watt-hours will be reduced from 300 Wh 
to 160 Wh and approval of the air operator will be required to carry 
these larger batteries. See 79 FR 46012 (August 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this proposed rule would expand battery options for 
passengers who use POCs, it would remain consistent with the level of 
lithium ion battery safety established by PHMSA. In 2007, after an 
evaluation of the transportation mode, battery size, quantity of 
batteries, product design, and emergency response, PHMSA (in 
consultation with the FAA), issued a final rule on the transportation 
of lithium batteries. In this 2007 final rule, PHMSA imposed stricter 
and more effective safeguards for the transportation of certain types 
and sizes of lithium batteries in certain transportation contexts, 
while at the same time providing an exception from these requirements 
for the carriage of lithium ion batteries by passengers in passenger 
carrying aircraft operations. While PHMSA acknowledged that lithium 
batteries are considered a hazardous material for purposes of 
transportation regulation because they can overheat and ignite in 
certain conditions, like certain other products that contain hazardous 
materials PHMSA determined that lithium batteries can be safely 
transported provided appropriate precautions are taken in design, 
packaging, handling, and emergency response as prescribed by the HMR. 
See 72 FR 44930, 44930 (August 9, 2007).
    After consideration of the current PHMSA requirements applicable to 
lithium batteries carried in accordance with Sec.  175.10(a)(18) and 
the pending PHMSA amendments pertaining to the carriage of lithium ion 
batteries on aircraft, the FAA has determined that SFAR No. 106 is 
unnecessarily restrictive with regard to battery size. Accordingly, 
this proposal allows batteries of expanded size to be installed in POCs 
or carried as spares to be used with POCs.
4. Maximum Oxygen Pressure
    As previously discussed, the SFAR No. 106 acceptance process 
requires POC manufacturers to obtain a PHMSA determination letter 
stating the POC device does not contain any hazardous materials. As 
part of this determination, PHMSA reviews information provided by the 
POC manufacturer regarding the oxygen pressure generated by a POC. If 
the POC generates oxygen pressure of 200 kPa gauge (29.0 psig/43.8 
psia) or greater at 20 [deg]C (68[emsp14] [deg]F), PHMSA would classify 
the POC as an article containing Hazard Class 2, Division 2.2 (non-
flammable, non-poisonous compressed gas) and the POC would be subject 
to the applicable HMR (49 CFR 173.115). However, a POC does not contain 
a compressed gas subject to the HMR if it generates an oxygen pressure 
below this threshold.
    The FAA believes this operating pressure restriction should 
continue to be applied so as to ensure that POCs used on board aircraft 
will not present the hazards associated with compressed oxygen. 
Accordingly, the agency

[[Page 56296]]

proposes to include a design standard establishing a maximum oxygen 
pressure allowed for POCs intended for use on board aircraft of less 
than 200 kPa gauge (29.0 psig/43.8 psia) at 20 [deg]C (68[emsp14] 
[deg]F). Under the proposed rule, a POC that exceeds this threshold 
could not be labeled as meeting the standards for use on board 
aircraft.
    The agency believes that inclusion of the requirement regarding 
oxygen pressurization does not overlap with 49 CFR 173.115, because it 
applies a design standard regarding the operation of the device. 
Further, it addresses concentrated oxygen that falls below the pressure 
threshold for the definition of compressed gasses subject to 49 CFR 
173.115.

D. Manufacturer Certification and Labeling

    Currently, the agency does not require manufacturers to label a POC 
approved for use in accordance with SFAR No. 106 to certify or indicate 
compliance with the standards in SFAR No. 106. Instead, the agency 
conducts a review of each individual POC when a manufacturer seeks to 
market its POC for use on board aircraft. If the agency determines the 
POC meets the criteria for FAA approval for use on board aircraft, it 
amends SFAR No. 106 to add the specific POC model.
    As previously discussed, the FAA proposes to replace its current 
case-by-case POC approval process with acceptance criteria. To certify 
POC compliance with the acceptance criteria, the FAA proposes to 
require manufacturers to affix a label to the POC certifying it meets 
the FAA acceptance criteria. The FAA's proposed labeling requirement is 
the only element of the proposal that is not based on SFAR No. 106.
    The FAA proposes to require the label to contain the following 
statement: ``The manufacturer of this portable oxygen concentrator has 
determined this device conforms to all applicable FAA requirements for 
portable oxygen concentrator carriage and use on board aircraft.'' The 
agency proposes to require manufacturers to use red lettering for this 
statement to facilitate recognition of the POC by passengers and 
crewmembers. The label would also serve to inform the user that the POC 
is safe for use in the cabin during all phases of flight because one of 
the proposed acceptance criteria is the completion of EMI testing in 
accordance with RTCA DO-160G, Environmental Conditions and Test 
Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, Category M.
    The agency also proposes to require POC manufacturers to use a 
labeling method that would ensure that the label remains affixed for 
the life of the device. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure 
the label cannot be transferred to another type of oxygen dispensing 
device presenting a higher safety risk without corresponding mitigation 
measures (e.g. a device that uses compressed oxygen).
    Further the proposed labeling requirement is consistent with 
recommended labeling practices described in InFO 09006, Department of 
Transportation (DOT) Final Rule, ``Nondiscrimination on the basis of 
Disability in Air Travel'' and the Use of Respiratory Assistive Devices 
on Aircraft, and anticipated in the DOT final rule ``Nondiscrimination 
on the basis of Disability in Air Travel.'' See 73 FR 27614, 27630 (May 
13, 2008). The agency reiterates only those manufacturers intending to 
market their devices for use on board aircraft must comply with the 
acceptance criteria in this proposal. This proposal does not affect 
other Federal agencies' regulatory requirements applicable to POCs. 
Accordingly, POC manufacturers that choose not to comply with the 
acceptance criteria required for POC use on board aircraft would not be 
subject to the FAA's proposed POC labeling requirement, and in that 
case, a passenger would not be permitted to use the non-labeled POC on 
board an aircraft in part 121, 125, or 135 operations.
    The FAA believes POC manufacturers wishing to market their POCs for 
use on board aircraft will be able to readily comply with this proposed 
labeling requirement. As discussed in the Regulatory Notices and 
Analysis section of this preamble, the FAA assumes most POC 
manufacturers currently affix labels to POCs and thus this proposed 
labeling requirement should result in minimal costs.
    This proposed labeling requirement would not apply to POCs 
currently approved under SFAR No. 106, as the FAA believes it is not 
necessary or practical to require POC manufacturers to label POCs 
identified in SFAR No. 106 as approved for use on board aircraft. POC 
models previously listed in SFAR No. 106 as approved for use on board 
aircraft have satisfied SFAR No. 106 criteria and would also satisfy 
the proposed acceptance criteria. In addition, the FAA expects use of 
POCs already listed in SFAR No. 106 will lessen over time as the POCs 
age and their users replace older models with newer ones obviating the 
need to retrofit existing POC models with a label.
    Thus, the FAA proposes including in the regulatory text of 
Sec. Sec.  121.574, 125.219, and 135.91, the list of POC models 
currently identified in SFAR No. 106 to assist with their 
identification by crewmembers. The FAA notes that a POC manufacturer 
could elect to place a label on a POC previously approved under SFAR 
No. 106 indicating the POC complies with the FAA's requirements for 
POCs used on board aircraft. Although, the agency is not proposing to 
require a label for POCs identified in SFAR No. 106, the FAA seeks 
comment on the potential safety benefits and associated burdens of 
extending the proposed labeling requirement to all POC models currently 
identified in SFAR No. 106--existing and newly manufactured or just 
newly manufactured.
    Finally, the agency is aware that some manufacturers of POCs 
identified in SFAR No. 106 currently apply a label to those POCs 
indicating FAA approval for use on board aircraft. The agency clarifies 
however, this label does not provide a means by which a certificate 
holder, crewmember or passenger may determine compliance with SFAR No. 
106 or with this proposal. The only label that may be used to determine 
compliance with this proposal and to ascertain whether a POC may be 
used on board an aircraft is a label that exhibits the verbiage and 
color criteria specifically provided in the proposal.
    To mitigate any potential confusion that may arise from a POC label 
indicating FAA approval that pre-dates the labeling proposal in this 
NPRM, certificate holders, crewmembers and passengers must determine 
whether a particular POC may be used on a part 121, 125, or 135 
operation by either (1) identifying the specific POC on the list of POC 
models approved for use on board aircraft under SFAR No. 106 and 
incorporated into the proposed regulatory text; or (2) by reviewing the 
manufacturer's certification statement on the label prescribed by this 
proposal.

E. Prohibition on Smoking or Open Flame

    Consistent with SFAR No. 106, the FAA proposes to retain the 
existing prohibition on smoking or open flame within 10 feet of any 
person using a POC. Although the risk posed by concentrated oxygen is 
minimal when generated at a pressure below that which would trigger the 
application of the HMR, given the unique environment of an aircraft, 
the agency has determined that it is reasonable to provide an 
additional margin of safety by prohibiting smoking or open flame in the 
vicinity of a person using a POC.

[[Page 56297]]

Accordingly, the agency proposes to maintain the existing prohibition 
on smoking or open flame within 10 feet of a person using a POC by 
extending the smoking prohibitions in existing Sec. Sec.  121.574, 
125.219, and 135.91 to POCs and adding language specifically 
prohibiting an open flame.
    The prohibition on smoking in existing Sec. Sec.  121.574, 125.219, 
and 135.91 effectively results in a prohibition on an open flame. 
However, given the risks created by smoking near a person using medical 
oxygen and the storage of such oxygen, the agency proposes to 
explicitly prohibit an open flame in addition to smoking as in SFAR No. 
106. The agency also proposes to amend the regulatory text in Sec.  
125.219(b) to clarify that smoking is not only prohibited within 10 
feet of where medical oxygen is being used but that it is also 
prohibited within 10 feet of where it is stored. This clarification is 
consistent with the preamble for the final rule issuing Sec.  125.219 
as well as the prohibitions on smoking within 10 feet of the location 
of medical oxygen storage or use in Sec. Sec.  121.574 and 135.91. See 
45 FR 67214, 67230 (October 9, 1980).

F. Discussion of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 
Requirements Excluded From Proposal

    As previously noted, this rule proposes that several requirements 
currently contained in SFAR No. 106 be included in the new regulations 
establishing acceptance criteria for POCs. The FAA has determined, 
however, that many of the requirements currently included in SFAR No. 
106 are overly prescriptive or redundant with existing rules and are 
therefore not necessary. Accordingly, the FAA is not proposing to 
include them in this rule. A discussion of the SFAR No. 106 
requirements excluded from this proposal and the rationale therefore 
follows.
1. Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 Requirements Addressed 
in Existing Regulations
a. Stowage of Portable Oxygen Concentrators on Board Aircraft
    SFAR No. 106, section 3(a)(3) states that during movement on the 
surface, takeoff, and landing, the POC must (1) either be stowed under 
the seat in front of the user, or in another approved stowage location, 
so as not to block the aisle way or entryway into a row; or (2) if it 
is to be operated by the user, be used only at a seat location that 
does not restrict any passenger's access to, or use of, any required 
emergency or regular exit, or the aisle(s) in the passenger 
compartment.
    Existing FAA regulations in parts 121, 125, and 135, address the 
stowage of carry-on items and carriage of cargo in the passenger cabin 
to ensure an appropriate stowage location and emergency exit row access 
is not hindered by carry-on items or cargo. See Sec. Sec.  121.285, 
121.589, 125.183, and 135.87. Thus, the stowage requirement in SFAR No. 
106 is unnecessary and the FAA is proposing to eliminate it.
    Notably, the user manuals for 18 of the POC models currently 
approved under SFAR No. 106 specify oxygen tube length. Every manual 
specifying oxygen tube length indicates the associated POC has at least 
7 feet of tubing, which is long enough to allow a passenger to continue 
to use the unit while stowed under a seat.
b. Passenger Movement About the Cabin While Using a Portable Oxygen 
Concentrator
    SFAR No. 106, section 3(a)(6) states, ``Whenever the pilot in 
command turns off the `Fasten Seat Belt' sign, or otherwise signifies 
that permission is granted to move about the passenger cabin, 
passengers operating their portable oxygen concentrator may continue to 
operate it while moving about the cabin.''
    The agency included this provision in SFAR No. 106 in response to 
commenters' concerns that limitations on the ability of medical oxygen 
users to move around the cabin during flight, would apply to POC users. 
In the final rule implementing SFAR No. 106, the agency specifically 
stated that passengers are allowed to use a POC for the duration of the 
flight, including during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. 
The agency also stated that once passengers were allowed to move about 
the cabin of the aircraft, they would be allowed to bring the POC with 
them. See 70 FR at 40159.
    The proposed revisions to Sec. Sec.  121.574, 125.219, and 135.9, 
distinguish requirements applicable to passengers carrying and using 
POCs from requirements applicable to passenger use of other equipment 
for the storage, generation or dispensing of oxygen. Therefore, if this 
proposed rule is finalized, a provision similar to section 3(a)(6) of 
the SFAR would be unnecessary.
c. Exit Row Seating
    SFAR No. 106, section 3(a)(4) states that no person using a POC is 
permitted to sit in an exit row. The FAA believes this requirement is 
unnecessary because current regulations in parts 121 and 135 require 
the certificate holder to determine the suitability of passengers it 
permits to occupy exit row seats. See 14 CFR 121.585 and 135.129. For 
example, a person using a POC may not be qualified to sit in an exit 
row if the POC would inhibit the passenger's ability to handle the 
emergency exit and assist other passengers exiting the aircraft. 
Therefore, the FAA proposes to eliminate this SFAR No. 106 requirement.
    The FAA notes that part 125 does not specifically address the 
suitability of passengers for exit row seating. However, this proposed 
rule does not affect the ability of part 125 operators to apply their 
current seating policies.
d. Protection of Batteries From Short Circuit
    SFAR No. 106, section 3(b)(6) requires passengers to ensure all POC 
batteries carried on board the aircraft in carry-on baggage are 
protected from short circuit and are packaged in a manner that protects 
them from physical damage. Batteries protected from short circuit 
include: (1) Those designed with recessed battery terminals; or (2) 
those packaged so that the battery terminals do not contact metal 
objects (including the battery terminals of other batteries). When a 
battery-powered POC is carried on board aircraft as carry-on baggage, 
and is not intended to be used during the flight, the battery must be 
removed and packaged separately unless the POC contains at least two 
effective protective features to prevent accidental operation and 
potential overheating of the battery within the POC during transport.
    The portion of SFAR No. 106, section 3(b)(6) addressing spare 
batteries is redundant with PHMSA regulations applicable to spare 
batteries carried by passengers on board aircraft. PHMSA regulations 
require spare batteries carried on board aircraft to be individually 
protected from short circuit to mitigate the risk of a fire during 
flight. See 49 CFR 175.10(a)(18). Thus, SFAR No. 106 provisions 
applicable to spare batteries carried by passengers on board aircraft 
for use in POCs are unnecessary and excluded from this proposal.
    However, the SFAR diverges from PHMSA requirements pertaining to 
installed batteries. See 49 CFR 175.10(a)(18). The SFAR requires a 
passenger to remove a POC battery if the device does not have at least 
two features that prevent accidental operation. Existing PHMSA 
regulations do not require an installed battery to be removed from any 
PED, which would include a POC that is not in use. See 49 CFR 
175.10(a)(18).

[[Page 56298]]

    Based on the agency's review of the 24 POC models currently 
accepted for use on board aircraft, the FAA has determined those POCs 
all have at least two design features preventing inadvertent or 
accidental operation. Thus, for those POCs that are currently accepted 
for use on board aircraft, batteries may remain in the devices while 
not in use.
    In addition, current PHMSA regulations address the safe 
transportation of lithium ion batteries as well as passenger carriage 
of lithium ion batteries. Specifically, PHMSA requires all lithium ion 
batteries to include overcharge protection and testing that prevents a 
battery from overheating and preventing a fire. Lithium batteries must 
be of a type proven to meet the requirements of each test, including 
Test T.7 (Overcharge), in Section 38.3 of the UN Manual of Tests and 
Criteria. See 49 CFR 173.185.
    Based on the analysis of current approved POCs and applicable HMR, 
an independent FAA requirement for two protective features as a 
prerequisite to leaving an installed battery in a POC is unnecessary. 
All POCs currently used on board aircraft are equipped with two 
protective features and all batteries available for new devices must be 
equipped with overcharge protection, therefore, the risk of a fire 
originating from the battery is minimal. Accordingly, the FAA did not 
propose to retain this provision in the NPRM.
2. Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 Requirements Excluded in 
Their Entirety
a. Physician Statement and Pilot in Command and Aircraft Operator 
Notification Requirements
    SFAR No. 106, section 3(b)(3) requires passengers intending to use 
a POC to have a written statement, to be kept in that person's 
possession, signed by a licensed physician that: States whether the 
user of the device has the physical and cognitive ability to see, hear, 
and understand the device's aural and visual cautions and warnings and 
is able, without assistance, to take the appropriate action in response 
to those cautions and warnings; states whether or not oxygen use is 
medically necessary for all or a portion of the duration of the trip; 
and specifies the maximum oxygen flow rate corresponding to the 
pressure in the cabin of the aircraft under normal operating 
conditions.
    Section 3(b)(3) of SFAR No. 106 further requires a passenger to 
inform the aircraft operator that he or she intends to use a POC on 
board the aircraft and must allow the crew of the aircraft to review 
the contents of the physician's statement. Similarly, SFAR No. 106, 
section 3(a)(5) requires pilot in command notification whenever a 
passenger brings and intends to use a POC on board the aircraft. The 
pilot in command must also be informed about the contents of the 
physician's written statement including the nature of the passenger's 
oxygen needs and the passenger's ability to understand operational and 
warning information presented by the POC.
    The FAA has reconsidered the requirements for a physician's 
statement, as well as pilot notification of the contents of the 
physician's statement, and operator notification of intended POC use, 
and believes that these requirements are not necessary to maintain the 
safety of a passenger using a POC or the safe operation of the 
aircraft. The requirements for a physician's statement and pilot in 
command and operator notification impose a significant paperwork burden 
on affected passengers and their physicians as well as crewmembers and 
aircraft operators that are both unnecessary and unreasonable. 
Accordingly, the agency proposes to remove these requirements.
    Physician statement: When the agency issued the final rule on SFAR 
No. 106, the agency anticipated the passenger's physician would help 
the passenger determine their need to use the POC during flight (e.g., 
during the whole flight, during portions of the flight, or as needed). 
At the time of the SFAR No. 106 final rule, the agency also expected a 
passenger's physician to verify, in a written statement, the 
passenger's ability to operate the device and respond to any alarms. 
After reviewing this requirement the agency determined, since a 
passenger may only obtain a POC by medical prescription, a secondary 
statement regarding the need and the passenger's ability to use the 
device, results in an unnecessary burden.
    Additionally, POC usage is the same on board the aircraft as any 
other location. The pressure in the aircraft cabin allows a POC to be 
used without changes in settings or liter flow, or other adjustments. 
Requiring passengers to obtain a physician's statement specifying 
oxygen flow rate unnecessarily duplicates information provided to the 
passenger by the prescribing physician. Therefore, this proposal would 
eliminate the current FAA requirement for passengers to obtain a 
physician's statement prior to using a POC on board an aircraft in part 
121, 125, and 135 operations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pursuant to Department of Transportation regulations, U.S. 
and foreign air carriers may require passengers who expect to use a 
POC during flight to obtain a physician's statement (i.e., medical 
certificate) as a condition of transportation. See 14 CFR 
382.23(b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pilot and aircraft operator notification: In the SFAR No. 106 final 
rule preamble, the FAA reasoned that the pilot in command should be 
aware of POC use on a flight because POC failure could possibly create 
a medical event requiring emergency action. Additionally, because some 
POCs may use electrical outlets in the cabin, the FAA wanted the pilot 
in command to be aware that a power restriction could affect POC use so 
that the pilot could make an appropriate announcement if the use of 
that power needed to be restricted. The SFAR No. 106 preamble was 
unclear regarding reasons for operator notification of intended POC 
use.
    The agency has reevaluated the requirement for the pilot in command 
to be informed about the contents of the physician's written statement 
and determined that a requirement for any crewmember to review an 
affected passenger's medical information has no nexus to the safety of 
aircraft operations. Further, unlike other medical oxygen devices for 
passenger use that must be maintained and supplied by aircraft 
operators, neither an aircraft operator nor its crew has any 
responsibility for the operation of the POC or the concentration of 
oxygen dispensed. The responsibility for the use of a passenger's POC 
rests with the passenger.
    Finally, based on a review of air carrier safety data \15\ since 
publication of SFAR No. 106, the agency has not identified any 
instances of POC malfunction during flight. Nevertheless, the agency 
notes that while advanced notice that a passenger may need assistance 
in the event of POC failure could be helpful to crewmembers, 
crewmembers currently receive training on how to respond to 
unanticipated events that may arise on board an aircraft, including 
medical events. Based on the foregoing discussion, the agency's 
proposal would eliminate the requirement for passengers to notify the 
pilot in command of intended POC use

[[Page 56299]]

and the contents of the physician's statement. The same rationale 
applies to the agency's proposal to eliminate the requirement for 
passengers to notify the aircraft operator of intended POC use during a 
flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The agency reviewed data from the following accident, 
incident and voluntary reporting databases: Voluntary Disclosure 
Reporting Program (VDRP), Service Difficulty Reporting System 
(SDRS), National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident and 
Incident Data Systems (NTSB), National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and FAA 
Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Portable Oxygen Concentrator Alarms
    SFAR No. 106, section 3.(b)(1) requires a passenger using a POC on 
an aircraft to be capable of hearing the unit's alarms and seeing alarm 
light indicators. SFAR No. 106 also requires passengers using a POC to 
have the cognitive ability to take appropriate action in response to 
the various POC caution alarms, warning alarms and alarm light 
indicators, or travel with someone capable of performing those 
functions. These requirements are based on information in the user 
manual of the first POC approved by the FAA. See 69 FR at 42325. Based 
on a review of 20 user manuals for POCs identified in SFAR No. 106, the 
agency has determined POC alarms may provide information regarding the 
general operation of the POC, as well as information regarding the 
power source and detection of the POC user's breath.
    The FAA believes it is the responsibility of the passenger or the 
passenger's caregiver to ensure the POC is operating properly and to 
know how to respond when it is not operating properly. The agency 
further believes removing this requirement will not affect aviation 
safety because these alarms are primarily intended to ensure the device 
continues to function as intended. The FAA also emphasizes that it has 
not identified any incidents regarding POC malfunctions on board 
aircraft.\16\ Therefore, the FAA is proposing to eliminate this SFAR 
No. 106 requirement (section 3(b)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The agency reviewed data from the following accident, 
incident and voluntary reporting databases: VDRP, SDRS, NTSB, ASRS 
and AIDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Ensuring the Portable Oxygen Concentrator is Free of Petroleum 
Products
    SFAR No. 106, section 3(b)(2) requires the user to ensure the POC 
is free of oil, grease, or other petroleum products and is in good 
condition free from damage or other signs of excessive wear or abuse. 
The NPRM proposing SFAR No. 106 stated this provision is similar to a 
warning statement found in the user manual of the first POC approved by 
the FAA and to a provision in the medical oxygen rules (Sec. Sec.  
121.574, 125.219, and 135.91).
    The FAA does not believe this requirement is necessary to ensure 
safe POC use in the aircraft environment. While the agency acknowledges 
petroleum products may accelerate an existing fire, neither a POC nor 
concentrated oxygen produced by the POC would increase this risk. 
Further, the volume of petroleum products necessary to accelerate a 
fire is unlikely to be found on the exterior of a POC, and this concern 
is not addressed as a specific requirement for other PEDs carried on 
board aircraft. The agency notes it is the passenger's responsibility 
to maintain their POC in good condition so that it may function 
properly. Therefore, the agency proposes eliminating the SFAR No. 106 
requirement for a passenger to ensure their POC is in good condition 
(free of damage, excessive wear, abuse, etc.) and free of oil, grease, 
or other petroleum products.
d. Use of Salves and Lotions
    SFAR No. 106, section 3(b)(4) states only oxygen approved lotions 
or salves may be used by persons using a POC on an airplane. This 
requirement came from the user manual of the first POC approved by the 
FAA. The FAA believes it is the passenger's responsibility to ensure 
they are using products meeting the manufacturer's requirements for 
salve and lotion usage with a POC. To the extent SFAR No. 106 
contemplated a petroleum-based lotion or a salve, the risk and 
responsibilities are addressed in the discussion pertaining to the 
elimination of the requirement for the user to ensure that the POC is 
free from petroleum products and associated risks. Therefore, the FAA 
is proposing to eliminate section 3(b)(4) of SFAR No. 106.
e. Carriage of a Sufficient Number of Batteries
    SFAR No. 106, section 3(b)(5) requires passengers intending to use 
a POC during a flight to obtain from the aircraft operator, or by other 
means, the duration of the planned flight. The passenger must carry on 
the flight a sufficient number of batteries to power the device for the 
duration of the oxygen use specified in the passenger's physician 
statement, including a conservative estimate of any unanticipated 
delays.
    The FAA believes it is the passenger's responsibility to understand 
the performance of their POC and their POCs battery life under varying 
conditions, and further to ensure their POC will enable them to adhere 
to their physician's instructions. Passengers who use a POC during air 
travel should carefully read the owner's manual to ensure the selected 
model meets their needs. All POC user manuals have liter flow and 
battery duration charts to help users make informed decisions regarding 
the number of spare batteries to bring. Therefore, the FAA proposes to 
eliminate this SFAR No. 106 requirement.
    The FAA notes, however, that in accordance with DOT regulations 
regarding assistive devices, U.S. and foreign carriers may still 
require passengers to carry an adequate number of batteries required to 
power the POC for not less than 150% of the expected maximum flight 
duration. See 14 CFR 382.133(f)(2).

G. Miscellaneous

    The agency proposes to update a cross reference to the HMR that 
appears in Sec. Sec.  121.574(a)(3), 125.219(a)(3), and 135.91(a)(3) 
and pertains to the definition of a compressed gas.

VI. Advisory Circulars

    The FAA expects to revise the existing Advisory Circular pertaining 
to POC use on aircraft in part 121, 125 and 135 operations. A draft 
revised Advisory Circular will be provided in the docket of this 
rulemaking for comment.

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(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, this 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.

[[Page 56300]]

The agency suggests readers seeking greater detail read the full 
regulatory evaluation, a copy of which has been placed in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized 
below.
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
    The FAA estimates that the cost of the proposed rule would be a 
one-time cost of $22,000 incurred by manufacturers to modify a label 
and would be associated with costs that manufacturers would incur to 
change their current labeling process to affix a label with the 
proposed language on the devices. The FAA also estimated that 
manufacturers would save $108,000 over ten years by no longer having to 
petition the FAA for rulemaking to include a new Portable Oxygen 
Concentrator (POC) in the SFAR No. 106. The total cost savings from the 
proposed rule is $37.4 million ($26.1 million at 7% present value and 
$31.8 million at 3% present value).
    Who is potentially affected by this rule?

 POC manufacturers
 Passengers carrying POCs on board aircraft
 Physicians providing written statements to POC users
 Aircraft operators and crews

    Assumptions:

 Present Value Discount rates--7% and 3%
 Period of Analysis--ten years
 24 new POCs over ten years
Benefits of This Rule
    With the elimination of the SFAR and the replacement with a process 
where the manufacturers self-certify based on meeting the acceptance 
criteria described in the rule and label the devices, manufacturers 
would be able to introduce new POCs sooner to the market. Therefore, 
one benefit of this rule would be to eliminate delays and enable 
manufacturers to bring their devices to market sooner.
    Furthermore, the proposed rule would result in cost savings because 
the pilot in command would no longer have to be notified when an 
affected passenger intends to use a POC on the aircraft and be informed 
about the contents of the physician's written statement. The proposed 
rule would also result in additional cost savings because affected 
passengers would no longer have to obtain a physician's written 
statement, as a prerequisite to bringing POCs on board aircraft in part 
121, 125, and 135 operations.
    The cost savings of this proposal are summarized in the table 
below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE14.001

Costs of This Rule
    The industry would incur costs of $22,000 to modify labels that 
they already affix to the POC, to contain the language proposed by this 
rule. The industry cost savings of $108,000 by no longer having to 
petition the FAA for each new device easily exceed the labeling costs.

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-for-profit 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 identified nine companies that produce portable oxygen 
concentrators for use on aircraft. The FAA determined that the 
appropriate North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 
of these manufacturers are 339112 and 339113 and the threshold for 
determining whether a company is a small business is 500 employees for 
those industries. Through on-line research, the FAA found data \17\ 
indicating that six of the nine manufacturers are small entities and 
concludes that a substantial number of manufacturers are small 
entities. However, the FAA does not expect the rule to impose a 
significant economic impact on any of these small entities because they 
will be able to market new portable oxygen concentrators sooner.

[[Page 56301]]

Although a substantial number of operators conducting part 121, 125 and 
135 operations are small entities, all part 121, 125 and 135 operators 
are expected to experience cost savings because the proposal would no 
longer require the pilot in command to be apprised when a passenger 
brings and intends to use a POC on board the aircraft and be informed 
on the contents of the physician's statement as does SFAR No. 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ http://www.manta.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule is expected to reduce burdens that SFAR No. 106 
currently imposes on the Portable Oxygen Concentrator (POC) 
manufacturers. This NPRM would impose small costs on manufacturers by 
requiring a label indicating the device meets FAA requirements for use 
on board aircraft. The FAA learned from five of the small manufacturers 
that they might incur a one-time cost ranging from $200 to $1,500 or 
$0.20 to $1 per label.\18\ These costs would be offset by cost savings 
from the elimination of having to petition for rulemaking and await a 
final regulatory action. One manufacturer stated these cost savings are 
worth $4,500 for each petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ A sixth manufacturer that was contacted estimated costs of 
$10,200, but this manufacturer is not a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA 
certifies that this rulemaking will not result in 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), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. 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 determined that 
it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect 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 
(in 1995 dollars) 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 $151.0 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

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 requirements for information collection 
associated with this proposed rule.
    This rule proposes to discontinue the requirements quantified in 
FAA information collection 2120-0702, Use of Certain Personal Oxygen 
Concentrator (POC) Devices on Board Aircraft. The agency addressed the 
reasons for the discontinuance of this collection in the preamble 
discussion regarding the substantive provisions of the proposal.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. Annex 18 to 
the Convention on International Civil Aviation requires that dangerous 
goods are carried in accordance with the ICAO Technical Instructions on 
the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI). ICAO TI does not 
contain specific provisions for POCs but Part 8 (passenger and crew 
exceptions) allows for their carriage on board aircraft as portable 
medical electronic devices subject to certain conditions. The 
conditions in Part 8 pertaining to batteries used to power POCs are 
similar to the allowances given in 49 CFR 175.10(a)(18).

G. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) promotes international 
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, 
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and 
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined 
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory 
cooperation.

H. 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.

VIII. Executive Order Determinations

A. 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.

B. 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.

IX. 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

[[Page 56302]]

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, 
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 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.
    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, 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.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the 
Internet by--
     Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov;
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at 
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
     Accessing the Government Printing Office's Federal Digital 
System 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. 
Commenters 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 above.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, 
Incorporation by reference, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference.

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 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701.
0
2. Amend Sec.  1.1 by adding a definition for ``portable oxygen 
concentrator'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  1.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Portable oxygen concentrator means a medical device that separates 
oxygen from other gasses in ambient air and dispenses this concentrated 
oxygen to the user.
* * * * *

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 
44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44732, 
46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. 
L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 [Removed]

0
4. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106.
0
5. Amend Sec.  121.306 as follows:
0
A. In paragraph (b)(4), remove ``or'' following the semi-colon;
0
B. Redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (b)(6);
0
C. Add new paragraph (b)(5); and
0
D. In paragraph (c) remove the reference ``(b)(5)'' and add in its 
place ``(b)(6)''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  121.306  Portable electronic devices.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Portable oxygen concentrators that comply with the requirements 
in Sec.  121.574 of this part; or
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  121.574 as follows:
0
A. Revise section heading;
0
B. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
C. In paragraph (a)(3) remove the reference ``49 CFR 173.300(a)'' and 
add in its place ``49 CFR 173.115(b)'';
0
D. Revise paragraph (b); and
0
E. Add paragraphs (e) and (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  121.574  Oxygen and portable oxygen concentrators for medical use 
by passengers.

     (a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a 
certificate holder may allow a passenger to carry and operate equipment 
for the storage, generation, or dispensing of oxygen when the following 
conditions are met:
* * * * *
    (b) No person may smoke or create an open flame and no certificate 
holder may allow any person to smoke or create an open flame within 10 
feet of oxygen storage and dispensing equipment carried in accordance 
with paragraph (a) of this section or a portable oxygen concentrator 
carried and operated in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) A passenger may carry and operate a portable oxygen 
concentrator for personal use and a certificate holder may allow a 
passenger to carry and operate a portable oxygen concentrator on board 
an aircraft operated under this part during all phases of flight if the 
portable oxygen concentrator satisfies all of the following 
requirements:

[[Page 56303]]

    (1) Is legally marketed in the United States in accordance with 
Food and Drug Administration requirements in title 21 of the CFR;
    (2) Meets the standards of RTCA DO-160G, Environmental Conditions 
and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, Category M 
issued December 8, 2010;
    (3) Generates a maximum oxygen pressure of less than 200 kPa gauge 
(29.0 psig/43.8 psia) at 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F);
    (4) Does not contain any hazardous materials subject to the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180) except as 
provided in 49 CFR 175.10; and
    (5) Bears a label on the exterior of the device applied in a manner 
that ensures the label will remain affixed for the life of the device 
and containing the following certification statement in red lettering: 
``The manufacturer of this portable oxygen concentrator has determined 
this device conforms to all applicable FAA requirements for portable 
oxygen concentrator carriage and use on board aircraft.'' The label 
requirements in this paragraph do not apply to the following portable 
oxygen concentrators approved by the FAA for use on board aircraft 
prior to [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER]:
    (i) AirSep Focus;
    (ii) AirSep FreeStyle;
    (iii) AirSep FreeStyle 5;
    (iv) AirSep LifeStyle;
    (v) Delphi RS-00400;
    (vi) DeVilbiss Healthcare iGo;
    (vii) Inogen One;
    (viii) Inogen One G2;
    (ix) Inogen One G3;
    (x) Inova Labs LifeChoice;
    (xi) Inova Labs LifeChoice Activox;
    (xii) International Biophysics LifeChoice;
    (xiii) Invacare Solo2;
    (xiv) Invacare XPO2;
    (xv) Oxlife Independence Oxygen Concentrator;
    (xvi) Oxus RS-00400;
    (xvii) Precision Medical EasyPulse;
    (xviii) Respironics EverGo;
    (xix) Respironics SimplyGo;
    (xx) SeQual Eclipse;
    (xxi) SeQual eQuinox Oxygen System (model 4000);
    (xxii) SeQual Oxywell Oxygen System (model 4000);
    (xxiii) SeQual SAROS; and
    (xxiv) VBox Trooper Oxygen Concentrator.
    (f) Incorporation by reference. RTCA DO-160G, Environmental 
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, 
Category M issued December 8, 2010 is incorporated by reference into 
this section with the approval of the Director of the Office of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the 
Federal Aviation Administration must publish notice of change in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. 
Copies of this standard may be obtained from RTCA, Inc. 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; 
www.rtca.org/store_list.asp. This standard is available for 
inspection at the Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-9677. It is also available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING 
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH 
AIRCRAFT

0
7. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 
44710-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 [Removed]

0
8. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106.
0
9. Amend Sec.  125.204 as follows:
0
A. In paragraph (b)(4) remove ``or'' following the semi-colon;
0
B. Redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (b)(6);
0
C. Add new paragraph (b)(5); and
0
D. In paragraph (c) remove the reference ``(b)(5)'' and add in its 
place ``(b)(6)''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  125.204  Portable electronic devices.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Portable oxygen concentrators that comply with the requirements 
in Sec.  125.219 of this part; or
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  125.219 as follows:
0
A. Revise section heading;
0
B. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
C. In paragraph (a)(3) remove the reference ``title 49 CFR 173.300(a)'' 
and add in its place ``49 CFR 173.115(b)'';
0
D. Revise paragraph (b); and
0
E. Add paragraphs (f) and (g).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  125.219  Oxygen and portable oxygen concentrators for medical use 
by passengers.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this 
section, no certificate holder may allow the carriage or operation of 
equipment for the storage, generation or dispensing of medical oxygen 
unless the unit to be carried is constructed so that all valves, 
fittings, and gauges are protected from damage during that carriage or 
operation and unless the following conditions are met:
* * * * *
    (b) No person may smoke or crate an open flame and no certificate 
holder may allow any person to smoke or create an open flame within 10 
feet of oxygen storage and dispensing equipment carried under paragraph 
(a) of this section or a portable oxygen concentrator carried and 
operated under paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) A passenger may carry and operate a portable oxygen 
concentrator for personal use and a certificate holder may allow a 
passenger to carry and operate a portable oxygen concentrator on board 
an aircraft operated under this part during all phases of flight if the 
portable oxygen concentrator satisfies all of the following 
requirements:
    (1) Is legally marketed in the United States in accordance with 
Food and Drug Administration requirements in title 21 of the CFR;
    (2) Meets the standards of RTCA DO-160G, Environmental Conditions 
and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, Category M 
issued December 8, 2010;
    (3) Generates a maximum oxygen pressure of less than 200 kPa gauge 
(29.0 psig/43.8 psia) at 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F);
    (4) Does not contain any hazardous materials subject to the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180) except as 
provided in 49 CFR 175.10; and
    (5) Bears a label on the exterior of the device applied in a manner 
that ensures the label will remain affixed for the life of the device 
and containing the following certification statement in red lettering: 
``The manufacturer of this portable oxygen concentrator has determined 
this device conforms to all applicable FAA requirements for portable 
oxygen concentrator carriage

[[Page 56304]]

and use on board aircraft.'' The label requirements in this paragraph 
do not apply to the following portable oxygen concentrators approved by 
the FAA for use on board aircraft prior to [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]:
    (i) AirSep Focus;
    (ii) AirSep FreeStyle;
    (iii) AirSep FreeStyle 5;
    (iv) AirSep LifeStyle;
    (v) Delphi RS-00400;
    (vi) DeVilbiss Healthcare iGo;
    (vii) Inogen One;
    (viii) Inogen One G2;
    (ix) Inogen One G3;
    (x) Inova Labs LifeChoice;
    (xi) Inova Labs LifeChoice Activox;
    (xii) International Biophysics LifeChoice;
    (xiii) Invacare Solo2;
    (xiv) Invacare XPO2;
    (xv) Oxlife Independence Oxygen Concentrator;
    (xvi) Oxus RS-00400;
    (xvii) Precision Medical EasyPulse;
    (xviii) Respironics EverGo;
    (xix) Respironics SimplyGo;
    (xx) SeQual Eclipse;
    (xxi) SeQual eQuinox Oxygen System (model 4000);
    (xxii) SeQual Oxywell Oxygen System (model 4000);
    (xxiii) SeQual SAROS; and
    (xiv) VBox Trooper Oxygen Concentrator.
    (g) Incorporation by reference. RTCA DO-160G, Environmental 
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, 
Category M issued December 8, 2010 is incorporated by reference into 
this section with the approval of the Director of the Office of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the 
Federal Aviation Administration must publish notice of change in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. 
Copies of this standard may be obtained from RTCA, Inc. 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; 
www.rtca.org/store_list.asp. This standard is available for 
inspection at the Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-9677. It is also available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS 
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
11. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 [Removed]

0
12. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106.
0
13. Amend Sec.  135.91 as follows:
0
A. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
B. In paragraph (a)(3) remove the reference ``title 49 CFR 173.300(a)'' 
and add in its place ``49 CFR 173.115(b)'';
0
C. Revise paragraph (b); and
0
D. Add paragraphs (f) and (g).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  135.91  Oxygen and portable oxygen concentrators for medical use 
by passengers.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this 
section, no certificate holder may allow the carriage or operation of 
equipment for the storage, generation or dispensing of medical oxygen 
unless the unit to be carried is constructed so that all valves, 
fittings, and gauges are protected from damage during that carriage or 
operation and unless the following conditions are met--
* * * * *
    (b) No person may smoke or create an open flame and no certificate 
holder may allow any person to smoke or create an open flame within 10 
feet of oxygen storage and dispensing equipment carried under paragraph 
(a) of this section or a portable oxygen concentrator carried and 
operated under paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) A passenger may carry and operate a portable oxygen 
concentrator for personal use and a certificate holder may allow a 
passenger to carry and operate a portable oxygen concentrator on board 
an aircraft operated under this part during all phases of flight if the 
portable oxygen concentrator satisfies all of the following 
requirements:
    (1) Is legally marketed in the United States in accordance with 
Food and Drug Administration requirements in title 21 of the CFR;
    (2) Meets the standards of RTCA DO-160G, Environmental Conditions 
and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, Category M 
issued December 8, 2010;
    (3) Generates a maximum oxygen pressure of less than 200 kPa gauge 
(29.0 psig/43.8 psia) at 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F);
    (4) Does not contain any hazardous materials subject to the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180) except as 
provided in 49 CFR 175.10; and
    (5) Bears a label on the exterior of the device applied in a manner 
that ensures the label will remain affixed for the life of the device 
and containing the following certification statement in red lettering: 
``The manufacturer of this portable oxygen concentrator has determined 
this device conforms to all applicable FAA requirements for portable 
oxygen concentrator carriage and use on board aircraft.'' The label 
requirements in this paragraph do not apply to the following portable 
oxygen concentrators approved by the FAA for use on board aircraft 
prior to [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register]:
    (i) AirSep Focus;
    (ii) AirSep FreeStyle;
    (iii) AirSep FreeStyle 5;
    (iv) AirSep LifeStyle;
    (v) Delphi RS-00400;
    (vi) DeVilbiss Healthcare iGo;
    (vii) Inogen One;
    (viii) Inogen One G2;
    (ix) Inogen One G3;
    (x) Inova Labs LifeChoice;
    (xi) Inova Labs LifeChoice Activox;
    (xii) International Biophysics LifeChoice;
    (xiii) Invacare Solo2;
    (xiv) Invacare XPO2;
    (xv) Oxlife Independence Oxygen Concentrator;
    (xvi) Oxus RS-00400;
    (xvii) Precision Medical EasyPulse;
    (xviii) Respironics EverGo;
    (xix) Respironics SimplyGo;
    (xx) SeQual Eclipse;
    (xxi) SeQual eQuinox Oxygen System (model 4000);
    (xxii) SeQual Oxywell Oxygen System (model 4000);
    (xxiii) SeQual SAROS; and
    (xxiv) VBox Trooper Oxygen Concentrator.
    (g) Incorporation by reference. RTCA DO-160G, Environmental 
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, 
Category M issued December 8, 2010 is incorporated by reference into 
this section with the approval of the Director of the Office of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the 
Federal Aviation Administration must publish notice of change in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the

[[Page 56305]]

public. Copies of this standard may be obtained from RTCA, Inc. 1150 
18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-
9339; www.rtca.org/store_list.asp. This standard is available 
for inspection at the Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-9677. It is also available for inspection at the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on 
the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to 
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
0
14. Amend Sec.  135.144 as follows:
0
A. In paragraph (a) introductory text, remove ``of the following'';
0
B. In paragraph (b)(4) remove ``or'' following the semi-colon;
0
C. Redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (b)(6);
0
D. Add new paragraph (b)(5); and
0
E. In paragraph (c) remove the reference ``(b)(5)'' and add in its 
place ``(b)(6)''.
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  135.144  Portable electronic devices.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Portable oxygen concentrators that comply with the requirements 
in Sec.  135.91 of this part; or
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 
44701(a) in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2014.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-21964 Filed 9-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P