800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

July 21, 2015

Dr. Brent Blue

Oxygen to Go

P.O. Box 8880

Jackson, WY 83002

Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Acceptance Criteria for Portable Oxygen 

Concentrators Used On Board Aircraft, Docket No. FAA-2014-0554:

Request to Reopen Comment Period 

Dear Dr. Blue:

This letter is provided in response to your request to reopen the comment period for a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Acceptance Criteria for Portable Oxygen Concentrators 

Used On Board Aircraft, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

September 9, 2014. This comment period for this NPRM opened on September 19, 2014, 

and closed on November 18, 2014. See 79 Fed. Reg. 56288 (Sept.19, 2014).

Currently, under Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 106, passengers may

carry and use POCs on board aircraft. However, before a passenger may use a particular 

POC model on board an aircraft, the FAA must first approve the portable oxygen 

concentrator (POC) model for use on aircraft and identify the name of the POC in the SFAR. 

The SFAR No. 106 approval process takes place on a case by case basis. Additionally, 

SFAR No. 106 includes several requirements pertaining to the POC operation and notice of 

POC use. 

The NPRM published on September 19, 2014, would increase passenger accessibility to 

POCs by replacing the case by case POC approval process under SFAR No. 106 with 

standard acceptance criteria applicable to POCs intended for use by passengers in part 121, 

part 125 and part 135 operations. The FAA also proposed to eliminate redundant operational 

and notice requirements in SFAR No. 106 that are not necessary for aviation safety. As a 

result, the NPRM would reduce burdens for POC manufacturers, passengers who use POCs

while traveling, and aircraft operators.

Your request to reopen the comment period suggests that the FAA did not provide sufficient 

notice of the NPRM. In support of your request to reopen the comment period, you state that 

the NPRM was “mistitled” and that the title should have included the words, “passenger use 

of” because the NPRM affects requirements applicable to passengers intending to use a POC 
2

on board an aircraft. You also state that the number of commenters (i.e.,15) should have 

alerted the agency to the fact that it had provided insufficient notice.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires general notice of the proposed rule to be 

published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). In addition, the APA requires the 

notice of a proposed rulemaking to include all of the following information: 

(1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rulemaking proceedings;

(2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and

(3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects 

and issues involved.

See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(1)-(3). Further, although 1 C.F.R. § 21.16 requires each proposed rule 

to contain a subject heading (i.e., a title), the APA does not require notice requirements to be 

satisfied within the subject heading of the NPRM alone and does not require a certain 

number of comments as a benchmark for the agency to use in determining that sufficient 

notice has been provided. 

The agency reviewed the NPRM in light of the comments contained in your letter and the 

notice requirements of the APA. Based on this review, the FAA determined that the NPRM 

satisfied the notice requirements of the APA and thus the FAA is not reopening the NPRM

comment period at this time. 

Regarding the late comment you filed on May 4, 2015, in accordance with 

14 C.F.R. § 11.45, the agency is considering this comment in as much as it does not 

significantly delay the rulemaking process.

Sincerely,

/s/

Lirio Liu

Director, Office of Rulemaking