**800 Independence A**  **ve., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591** 
July 21, 2015 Dr. Brent Blue Ox ygen to Go P . O . Box 8880 Jackson, WY 83002 Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Acceptance Criteria for Portable Ox ygen Concentrators Used On Board Aircraft, Docket No. FAA - 2014 - 0554 : Request to Reopen Comment P erio d 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 Ox ygen 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 F ed. R eg. 56288 (Sept. 19, 2014). Currently , under Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 106, passeng ers 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 b y 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 pa ssenger accessibility to POCs by replac ing 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 reduc e 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, “pass enger use of ” because the NPRM affects requirements applicable to passengers intending to use a POC2

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 no tice. 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 in formation: (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 . § 55 3 (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 alo ne 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 n otice requirements o f the APA. Based on this review, the FAA determined that the NPRM satisfie d 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 significantl y delay

the rulemaking process. Sincerel y, /s/ Lirio Liu Director , Office of Rulemaking