U.S. Department of Transportation

FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION

FINAL REGULATORY EVALUATION

Acceptance Criteria for Portable Oxygen Concentrators Used On Board Aircraft

[14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 121, 125, and 135]

Carole Gaelick

OFFICE OF AVIATION POLICY AND PLANS

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION
1

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations and Definitions..............................................................................................2

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................3

I. Introduction.......................................................................................................................4

II. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule ........................................................5

III. Discussion of the Final Rule ......................................................................................................6

IV. Benefits...................................................................................................................................8

Quantified Benefits................................................................................................................. 8

Non-Quantified Benefits....................................................................................................... 17

V. Costs................................................................................................................................18

V. Net Benefits ....................................................................................................................18
2

List of Abbreviations and Definitions

FAA – Federal Aviation Administration

FDA – Food and Drug Administration

PHMSA – Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PIC – Pilot in Command

POC - Portable Oxygen Concentrator

RF – Radio Frequency

SFAR – Special Federal Aviation Regulation
3

Executive Summary

This final rule replaces the portable oxygen concentrator (POC) approval process in Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 106 with a process by which manufacturers identify 

those devices that satisfy FAA acceptance criteria for POCs intended for use on aircraft. Under 

the final rule, a manufacturer may affix a label indicating the device conforms to FAA 

requirements for POCs used on board aircraft. By far the largest savings will accrue to the 

aircraft operators as the pilot-in-command will no longer have to be apprised when a passenger 

brings a POC onboard the aircraft or be informed about the contents of a POC user’s physician’s 

statement. Further, the user will no longer be required to allow the crew to review the 

physician’s statement. The removal of these SFAR No. 106 requirements is expected to result in 

cost savings to the airlines of close to $39 million over 10 years. Total cost savings are presented 

in the table below.

Total Cost Savings from Final Rule

Cost Savings

7% present value 

savings

3% present value 

savings

FAA Savings - No SFAR $91,644 $68,871 $80,519

Manufacturer Savings - No 

Petition $108,000 $75,853 $92,126

Removal of requirement 

for user to obtain a 

physician's statement for 

POC use on aircraft $569,961 $401,645 $486,914

Crew review of physician's 

statement and PIC 

notification $38,726,085 $27,083,677 $32,972,652

Total Cost Savings $39,495,690 $27,630,045 $33,632,212
4

I. Introduction

This final rule replaces Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 106 that prescribes the 

existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for aircraft passenger use of 

portable oxygen concentrators (POC) during a flight in part 121, 125 and 135 operations. Under 

SFAR No. 106, the FAA assesses each POC on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is 

safe for use on board aircraft. In conducting the assessment, the FAA reviews a PHMSA letter 

indicating that the POC does not contain hazardous materials, a Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) letter indicating that the POC may be marketed in the U.S. and POC manufacturer 

supplied RF interference data. If the FAA determines that a POC is safe for use on board aircraft, 

the specific POC model is added to SFAR No. 106 through rulemaking and may be used on 

board aircraft. The rulemaking process introduces delays for manufacturers who may have to 

wait for FAA approval sometimes as long as up to two years, before the device can be marketed

as safe for use on aircraft. Furthermore, manufacturers incur administrative costs in complying 

with the SFAR while interacting with the FAA during this approval process. 

This rule eliminates SFAR No. 106 and requires POCs intended for use on board aircraft to 

satisfy FAA acceptance criteria. The manufacturer will no longer have to interact with the FAA 

in order for the POC to be allowed for use on aircraft, but will in essence self-certify

conformance to the acceptance criteria. This rule will require POC manufacturers to affix a label 

to the POC to identify those POCs that conform to the FAA acceptance criteria and to indicate 

that the device is acceptable for use on board aircraft. The label will provide a recognizable 

means for crewmembers and passengers to identify POCs that satisfy the acceptance criteria. 

The final rule requires a label to be permanently affixed to all POCs that the manufacturer 

determines meets the acceptance criteria that were not previously identified in the Special 
5

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR). Only POCs identified in SFAR No. 106 as approved for 

use on board aircraft will not require a label. 

In addition, this rule will eliminate requirements in SFAR No. 106 that are currently addressed 

elsewhere in the Code of Federal Regulations and remove requirements that are not necessary for 

aviation safety. 

Overall, the final rule is expected to relieve regulatory burdens primarily for aircraft operators

and affected passengers. The time needed for a POC user’s physician to complete a statement 

and the time needed for the flight crew to review the contents of the physician’s statement and 

the pilot in command (PIC) to be notified that the passenger intends to use the POC onboard and 

about the contents of the physician’s statement are not time intensive. However, these actions 

result in substantial time costs because of their frequency of occurrence. These cost savings are 

discussed in detail below.

II. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

There is one key difference between the NPRM and the final rule. 

This key difference involves POC radio frequency (RF) emissions. The NPRM proposed that 

POCs meet the standards of RTCA DO-160, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for 

Airborne Equipment, Section 21, Category M. After further review of the proposal, the FAA has 

determined that the requirement for POCs to be tested in accordance with RTCA DO-160 is 

overly prescriptive. Accordingly, the final rule includes a performance-based RF emissions 

acceptance criterion that allows POC manufacturers to determine how to assess whether their 
6

POC meets the radiated RF emissions limits for equipment on aircraft, to allow the manufacturer 

more flexibility than was proposed in the NPRM.

In addition, other differences between the NPRM and the final rule include:

 Retain SFAR No. 106 prohibition on exit row seating for passengers using a POC.

 Retain SFAR No. 106 requirements pertaining to stowage of POC.

 Modify required label text so that it uses the POC acronym in place of the full name of 

the device.

III. Discussion of the Final Rule

The final rule allows a passenger to carry and operate a POC for personal use, and an aircraft 

operator to allow a passenger to carry and operate a POC on board an aircraft operated under 

parts 121, 125 and 135 during all phases of flight if the POC 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;

(2) Does not radiate radio frequency emissions that interfere with aircraft systems;

(3) Generates a maximum oxygen pressure of less than 200 kPa gauge (29.0 psig/43.8 

psia) at 20°C (68°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 for 

batteries used to power PEDs when aircraft operator approval is not required; 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
7

statement in red lettering: “The manufacturer of this POC has determined this device 

conforms to all applicable FAA acceptance criteria for POC carriage and use on 

board aircraft.” The label requirements in this paragraph do not apply to the portable 

oxygen concentrators approved by the FAA for use under SFAR No. 106.

In accordance with this rule, a manufacturer will no longer have to seek approval from the FAA 

for its device to be allowed for use on aircraft. Instead, if a manufacturer determines that a new 

POC model conforms to the FAA acceptance criteria the manufacturer can affix the required 

label to the device. The label will indicate that the POC meets FAA requirements for use on 

board aircraft, as prescribed in this final rule. The FAA believes the label will facilitate 

passenger and crew recognition that the POC is safe for use in the cabin during all phases of 

flight. 

As discussed below, the requirement for a label will result in low to minimal costs. The removal 

of the SFAR No. 106 requirements for FAA approval of each POC model and the subsequent 

addition of the POC model to SFAR No. 106 will reduce the delay in bringing the device to 

market as well as the administrative costs associated with demonstrating to the FAA that the 

device meets the criteria specified in SFAR No. 106. Manufacturers currently bear these cost and 

delay burdens.

The FAA acceptance criteria are similar to the approval requirements found in SFAR No. 106 

with some exceptions. One exception is the new label requirement.

1

 Based on information 

provided by POC manufacturers, the FAA expects these costs to be small as manufacturers 

already affix a label that can be modified. The second exception is the final rule requirement for

 

1

 Under the current regulatory regime, those devices that have been approved for use on aircraft by the FAA are 

listed in the SFAR, and airlines check the list before allowing the device on board the aircraft.
8

the POC manufacturer to determine that the POC does not radiate radio frequency emissions that 

interfere with aircraft systems. Manufacturers must determine conformance to this acceptance 

criterion before affixing a label indicating that the device may be used on aircraft. This is a 

change from the SFAR No. 106 general requirement for operators to ensure that the device does 

not cause interference with aircraft equipment. Although the SFAR places this burden on the 

operator, all POC manufacturers completed testing in accordance with RTCA DO 160, Section 

21, Category M, a standard identified for POCs in AC 120-95 paragraph 15.a.to support aircraft 

operators.

2

 Operators have been able to use the DO-160 test data in support of the noninterference determination required by SFAR No. 106 section 3, paragraph (a)(1), although this 

is only one way of demonstrating compliance with the SFAR requirement for non-interference. 

Consistent with current practice, the final rule places the requirement on the manufacturer (not 

the operator as the SFAR does) to ensure the device falls within the radio frequency limits for 

equipment intended for use onboard aircraft. 

IV. Benefits

The rule will result in relief to manufacturers, POC using passengers, aircraft operators and the 

FAA. It will provide relief to manufacturers and the FAA by eliminating the approval process 

under SFAR No. 106, to POC using passengers, by eliminating the requirement to obtain a 

physician’s statement, and to aircraft operators by eliminating crew review of the physician’s 

statement and PIC notification. The quantification of benefits follows the same methodology as 

in the proposed rule as we received no negative comments on this methodology.

Quantified Benefits

 

2

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/cabin_safety/portable_oxygen/
9

In the tables that follow, year 0 represents 2016, the year the FAA is issuing this final rule. 

There may be slight discrepancies due to rounding errors in some tables.

Under this final rule, manufacturers should be able to more quickly market for use on board 

aircraft, a new POC model that meets FAA requirements for passenger use on board aircraft. 

The manufacturer will no longer have to submit documents to the FAA verifying the device 

meets SFAR No.106 requirements and will no longer have to wait for the FAA, to verify that the 

POC meets the requirements and to amend SFAR No.106, a rulemaking process that might take 

up to two years. One manufacturer estimates cost savings of $4,500 3from each petition for 

rulemaking they will no longer have to submit. 

When the FAA added SFAR No. 106 to title 14 of the CFR in 2005, it included two approved 

POC models.

4 There have been seven amendments to SFAR No. 106 in ten years. The current 

SFAR No. 106 lists 24 separate POC models that are approved for use onboard aircraft. 

Assuming 24 new POCs are introduced over the next ten years, the rule could save the POC 

manufacturing industry $108,000.5

Although this final rule affects only those POCs that will be used on aircraft, the FAA received 

feedback from a manufacturer that lost revenue can be in the millions of dollars depending on the 

length of the delayed product launch. Therefore, another benefit of this rule will be to eliminate 

these delays and enable manufacturers to bring their devices to the passenger air travel market 

sooner.

 

3 Not including the cost of the FDA approval or clearance to legally market the device, RTCA testing, and PHMSA 

determination letter. This estimate comes from one of the manufacturers. Others referred to reduced delays in 

introducing product to market and lost revenues.

4 70 FR 40156, July 12, 2005.

5 $4,500 x 24 = $108,000
10

Similarly, the FAA will no longer expend resources reviewing packages from manufacturers and 

to update SFAR No. 106. The FAA estimates that it incurs costs of $3,819 per POC model 

review and approval and SFAR update process. Assuming 24 new POCs will be introduced over 

the next ten years, the final rule could save the FAA $91,644. 

The final rule will result in additional cost savings because affected passengers will 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. 

Most of the cost-savings associated with the final rule will result because the PIC will 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. 

To estimate the burden relief, the FAA first explains how we derived the number of passengers 

with POCs. Then we provide the burdened wage rates for the affected professionals. With that 

basis, the estimated cost savings is discussed first due to the elimination of the physician’s 

statement and then due to elimination of requirement for the crew to review the statement and to 

notify the PIC that a passenger intents to use the device and on the contents of the physician’s

statement.

At the time of the NPRM, the National Home Oxygen Patients Association indicated on its 

website more than one million supplementary oxygen users in the United States and the 

University of California San Francisco Medical Center estimated 1.5 million supplemental 

oxygen users in the U.S.6 To be conservative we assume that there are one million 

supplementary oxygen users in the U.S, of which some subset will fly with a POC. The Freedom 

 

6 www.ucsfhealth.org/education/supplemental_oxygen/more_resources/
11

to Travel study 7released by the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicated that people with 

disabilities represented over 53 million people in the U.S. This is about 18% of the U.S. 

population the year the study was released.8 Assuming the percent of the U.S. population that is 

disabled remains constant, we estimate approximately 57 million disabled people in the U.S. in 

2014.

9

 According to the Annual Report for 2014 on Disability Related Air Travel Complaints 

there were approximately 21 million people with disabilities who travelled by air in 2014.

10

 

Dividing 21 million by 57 million the FAA estimates that about 37% of persons with disabilities

travel by air. If we assume that those supplemental oxygen users travel on commercial airlines at 

the same rate as all persons with disabilities, we estimate that 370,000 people needing

therapeutic supplemental oxygen travelled by air in 2014. Assuming that the population of 

people who fly with POCs increases at the rate of the U.S. population,11 the FAA estimated the 

population of passengers traveling with POCs will be 376,093 in 2016. Table 3 projects the 

number of passengers traveling with POCs if that population increases at the same rate as the 

U.S. population growth rate.12

The burdened wage rates in 2012 dollars for the affected professionals are presented in Table 1 

below. 

 

7 Freedom to Travel, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. DOT, 2003

8 The U.S. population was just over 290 million in July 2003, 

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/national/nat2010.html

9 The U.S. population was almost 319 million in July 2014

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF

10 Annual Report for 2014 on Disability-Related Air Travel Complaints, which refers to estimates of number of 

disabled who travelled by air in 2001/2002 from data obtained from the National Household Travel Survey and 

using enplanements in the intervening years to project that one can assume that over 21 million persons with 

disabilities travelled by air in 2014.

11 According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. population increased at the rate of .82% in the years 2015 and 2016.

12 The Census Bureau estimated annual growth rates ranging from .72% to .81% over the time period covered. 
12

Table 1 Wage Rates Used in the Analysis

Job Category Hourly wage (8) Overhead Total

Flight Attendant (1)(2) $24.83 $4.22 $29.05 

Pilot in Command (3)(4) $126.89 $21.57 $148.46 

Physician (5) $90.00 $15.30 $105.30 

Wage 

Multiplier

Wage Multiplier (6)(7) 1.17

(1) http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/flight-attendants.htm#tab-1

(2) Estimate flight attendants work 1500 hours per year, based on attendants typically flying 75 

hours a month and spending 50 hours a month on the ground, Source: 

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/flight-attendants.htm#tab-3

(3) http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/airline-and-commercialpilots.htm

(4) Based on pilot flying an average 900 hours per year, Source: 

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/airline-and-commercialpilots.htm#tab-3

(5) http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/physicians-and-surgeons.htm

(6) Memorandum on Estimating Total Costs of compensation Based on Wage Rates or Salaries, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, January 30, 2014.

(7) Wage multiplier for salaried employees.

(8) Wage Rates are in 2012 dollars.
13

Table 2 presents the assumptions 13 and estimates used in the subsequent analysis.

Table 2 Assumptions and Estimates Used in the Analysis

Number of supplemental oxygen users (1) 1,000,000

Number of people with disabilities in U.S. in 2003 [2] 53,000,000

U.S. population July 1, 2003 [3] 290,107,933

Disabled as Percent of U.S. Population in 2003 (rounded to nearest %) 18%

U.S. population July 1, 2014 [4] 318,857,056

Number of people with disabilities who travelled by air in 2014 [5] 21,000,000

Estimated Number of people with disabilities in the U.S. in 2014 [6] 57,394,270

Estimated % of disabled who travel by air in 2014 (rounded to nearest %) 37%

Estimated passengers with POCs in 2014 [7][8] 370,000

Population growth rate in U.S. [9] 0.82%

Estimated number of passengers with POCs in 2016 376,093

Number of enplanements per passenger per year [10] 2

(1) National Home Oxygen Patients Association

[2] "Freedom to Travel, pg. 2, U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, 2003.

[3] http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/national/nat2010.html

[4]http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2014/index.html

[5] Source Annual Report for 2014 on Disability-Related Air Travel Complaints, pg. 

4, Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the U.S. Congress, February 2014

[6] Assumes people with disabilities is the same percent of U.S. Population in 2012 as in 2003

[7] Assumes users of supplemental oxygen fly at the same rate as the disabled 

population.

[8] The FAA assumes that all supplemental oxygen users who fly will carry a POC. 

This may overestimate the # of passengers with POC because some may rent 

oxygen from the carrier.

[9] http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2014/summarytables.html, 

2015 and 2016.

[10] To be conservative, the FAA assumes each POC passenger flies one non-stop round trip per 

year.

 

13 In this analysis the FAA assumes two enplanements per passenger per year to be conservative and not 

overestimate cost savings. In the analysis done for the SFAR the FAA assumed four enplanements per passenger 

per year to be conservative and not underestimate costs. Although there are other differences in the data (for 

instance wage rates have been updated), this accounts for the primary difference between SFAR costs and cost 

savings in this analysis.
14

Table 3 Estimated Number of 

Passengers

Who Fly Annually with POCs

Year

Population 

Growth Rate

Passengers with 

POCs

0 376,093

1 0.81% 379,139

2 0.81% 382,210

3 0.80% 385,268

4 0.79% 388,312

5 0.78% 391,340

6 0.77% 394,354

7 0.76% 397,351

8 0.74% 400,291

9 0.73% 403,213

10 0.72% 406,116

The FAA estimates that it takes a physician 5 minutes to fill out a statement (that the POC user is 

required to obtain in order to use the POC on the airplane). While we use the estimate of

1,000,000 users of supplemental oxygen, some are homebound and therefore do not expect to 

fly. We assume that 20% of these supplemental oxygen users are homebound, leaving 800,000 

who may use a POC on board an aircraft.

14 For purposes of this analysis the FAA assumes that 

when a patient who is not homebound is prescribed a POC, they ask the physician to provide the 

physician statement required by the SFAR so they have the option of flying with the POC. We 

assume that each POC patient obtains only one physician’s statement. The FAA assumes no loss 

of POC user time in receiving the physician’s statement. The burdened hourly rate for the 

physician is $105.30 and the cost for 5 minutes of the physician’s time is $8.78. We assume that 

 

14 National Home Oxygen Patients Association.
15

the population of POC users grows by the same rate as the U.S. population15 each year. Without 

this rule we estimate the physicians’ costs to issue a statement for new POC users equals the cost 

of a physician’s statement multiplied by new POC users who are not homebound. The results are 

presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Cost Savings of No Longer Requiring a Physician's Statement

Year

Population 

Growth 

Rate

People with 

POCs [1]

New 

Physician's 

Statements 

[2]

Cost 

savings

7% present 

value 

savings

3% 

present 

value 

savings

0 813,174

1 0.81% 819,760 6,587 $57,831 $54,049 $56,148

2 0.81% 826,401 6,640 $58,300 $50,919 $54,953

3 0.80% 833,012 6,611 $58,046 $47,383 $53,118

4 0.79% 839,593 6,581 $57,779 $44,080 $51,337

5 0.78% 846,141 6,549 $57,499 $40,997 $49,598

6 0.77% 852,657 6,515 $57,204 $38,115 $47,909

7 0.76% 859,137 6,480 $56,896 $35,429 $46,262

8 0.74% 865,494 6,358 $55,820 $32,487 $44,064

9 0.73% 871,813 6,318 $55,473 $30,172 $42,515

10 0.72% 878,090 6,277 $55,113 $28,014 $41,009

Total $569,961 $401,645 $486,914

[1]People who are POC users when the rule comes into effect will already have a physician's statement. 

The cost savings will result from new POC users who would not have to get a statement.

[2] Estimated new users who would have to obtain physician's statements without the rule.

The FAA estimates that when a passenger begins to board with a POC, it takes a flight attendant

about four minutes to review the contents of the physician’s statement. The flight attendant then 

notifies the pilot of passenger intent to use the POC onboard and of the contents of the 

physician’s statement. The FAA estimates this takes one minute each of pilot time and flight 

attendant time. The total estimated cost of the review and the PIC notification per enplanement is 

 

15 http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/2014/summarytables.html
16

approximately $4.90. The cost per enplanement is then multiplied by the estimated 

enplanements to derive estimates of cost savings due to no longer requiring, the pilot notification 

that is currently required by SFAR No. 106. These estimates are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Crew Review of Physician's Statement and PIC Notification

Year

Passengers 

with POCs 

Estimated # of 

Enplanements 

per year [1] Cost savings 

7% present 

value 

savings

3% present 

value 

savings

0 376,093 752,186

1 379,139 758,278 $3,738,313 $3,493,827 $3,629,528

2 382,210 764,421 $3,768,593 $3,291,489 $3,552,276

3 385,268 770,536 $3,798,742 $3,100,913 $3,476,229

4 388,312 776,623 $3,828,752 $2,920,955 $3,401,846

5 391,340 782,681 $3,858,616 $2,751,193 $3,328,442

6 394,354 788,707 $3,888,328 $2,590,793 $3,256,474

7 397,351 794,702 $3,917,879 $2,439,663 $3,185,627

8 400,291 800,582 $3,946,871 $2,297,079 $3,115,660

9 403,213 806,427 $3,975,683 $2,162,374 $3,046,964

10 406,116 812,233 $4,004,308 $2,035,390 $2,979,606

Total $38,726,085 $27,083,677 $32,972,652

(1) Assume each POC passenger makes 1 non-stop round trip flight per year.

Table 6 shows the total quantified cost savings that could result because the manufacturer will no 

longer have to petition the FAA to update SFAR No. 106, because the rule will no longer require 

passengers to obtain a physician’s statement and because there will no longer have to be crew 

review of the physician’s statement and PIC notification of the POC being onboard and of the 

contents of the physician’s statement.
17

Table 6 Total Cost Savings from Final Rule

Cost Savings

7% present value 

savings

3% present value 

savings

FAA Savings - No SFAR $91,644 $68,871 $80,519

Manufacturer Savings - No 

Petition $108,000 $75,853 $92,126

Removal of requirement 

for user to obtain a 

physician's statement for 

POC use on aircraft $569,961 $401,645 $486,914

Crew review of physician's 

statement and PIC 

notification $38,726,085 $27,083,677 $32,972,652

Total Cost Savings $39,495,690 $27,630,045 $33,632,212

We note that part 121, 125 and 135 operators will update their training manuals to explain new 

procedures for identifying POCs allowed on aircraft (i.e., identification of the POC label). The 

FAA expects this update will occur in the normal cycle of manual revision and therefore will not 

result in additional cost for the operators.

Non-Quantified Benefits

Performance-Based RF Emissions Acceptance Criterion

For POC RF emissions evaluation, the FAA currently accepts as proof of non-interference,

radiated RF emissions tests results showing that the device does not exceed thresholds 

established in Section 21 Category M of RTCA DO-160. Currently the manufacturers provide 

these RTCA test compliance results to the FAA which posts these results on its website for 

aircraft operators to access. This final rule will include performance-based RF emissions

acceptance criterion that allows POC manufacturers to determine how to assess whether their 

POC meets the RF emissions limits for use on aircraft before they affix a label to the device 

confirming that this criterion has been satisfied. This might save manufacturers some cost if they 

can demonstrate in a less expensive way that their device meets the RF emissions criteria and 
18

will not degrade safety as the alternative method is an equivalent level of safety to the RTCA 

standard.

V. Costs

Approval Criteria and Requirement to Affix a Label

The FAA used the same methodology to estimate costs as used in the NPRM, because it received 

no comments on that methodology. To estimate the costs to the manufacturers of affixing a label 

on the device, the FAA contacted manufacturers that manufacture POCs for use on board aircraft 

and received feedback from six manufacturers on labeling costs.

16 Manufacturers confirmed that 

they currently permanently affix17 labels that could be modified with new language at a one-time 

cost ranging from $200 to $10,200. These cost estimates from the manufacturers averaged 

$2,400 18 per 19 manufacturer. 

Based on this feedback received from manufacturers the FAA estimates the labeling cost to 

permanently affix a label to contain the verbiage required by this rule for all nine manufacturers 

is about $22,000. 

V. Net Benefits

The FAA expects positive net benefits to result from this rule. The costs that POC 

manufacturers will save because they will not have to pursue the SFAR No. 106 process

 

16 Based on the manufacturers who have sought FAA approval for their POCs the FAA believes that the universe of 

potentially affected manufacturers is nine.

17 Four of six manufacturers indicated they permanently affix the label, one said it cannot be taken off easily and one 

said it was pad printed to the plastic. 

18 Some manufacturers indicated the cost might be more if they had to scrap existing inventory of labels, but we do

not consider this a cost of the rule because these existing labels are not used to demonstrate compliance with the 

SFAR. Also, with adequate notice that the rule will require a label with specific verbiage manufacturers should be 

able to adjust their label orders accordingly.

19 We assume that manufacturers change the verbiage on one label that they can affix to all new devices and 

therefore these are costs incurred per manufacturer not per device. Manufacturers cited per label costs ranging from 

20 cents to one dollar, when fixed costs were distributed over labels expected to be produced. 
19

($108,000), will exceed the added costs from having to affix a label indicating the device is safe 

for use on aircraft ($22,000). There are total cost savings of $39.5 million ($27.6 million at 7% 

present value and $33.6 million at 3% present value).