Source: http://travelsdocbox.com/Air_Travel/73383480-Docket-no-faa-amdt-nos-1-69-11-59-and.html
Timestamp: 2018-10-24 02:24:13
Document Index: 210657023

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 1', 'art 382', 'art 382', 'art 382', 'arts 121', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'arts 121', 'art 382', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 119', 'art 121', 'art 119', 'arts 125', 'arts 121', 'art 382', 'arts 121', 'arts 121', 'art 121', 'art 807', 'art 801', 'art 803', 'art 820', 'arts 121', 'art 121', 'art 121', 'art 135', 'art 121', 'art 135', 'art 173']

[Docket No.: FAA ; Amdt. Nos. 1-69, 11-59, , , and ] - PDF
Download "[Docket No.: FAA ; Amdt. Nos. 1-69, 11-59, , , and ]"
Delphia Merry Ward
1 This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 05/24/2016 and available online at and on FDsys.gov BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 1, 11, 121, 125, and 135 Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 382 [Docket No.: FAA ; Amdt. Nos. 1-69, 11-59, , , and ] RIN 2120 AK32 Acceptance Criteria for Portable Oxygen Concentrators Used On Board Aircraft AGENCIES: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule replaces the existing process by which the Federal Aviation Administration (Agency or FAA) approves portable oxygen concentrators (POC) for use on board aircraft in air carrier operations, commercial operations, and certain other operations using large aircraft. The FAA currently assesses each POC make and model on a case-by-case basis and if the FAA determines that a particular POC is safe for use on board an aircraft, the FAA conducts rulemaking to identify the specific POC model in an FAA regulation. This final rule replaces the current process and allows passengers to use a POC on board an aircraft if the POC satisfies certain acceptance criteria and bears a label indicating conformance with the acceptance criteria. The labeling requirement only affects POCs intended for use on board aircraft that were not previously approved for use on aircraft by the FAA. Additionally, this rulemaking will eliminate redundant
2 operational requirements and paperwork requirements related to the physician s statement. As a result, this rulemaking will reduce burdens for POC manufacturers, passengers who use POCs while traveling, and affected aircraft operators. This final rule also makes conforming amendments to the Department of Transportation s (Department or DOT) rule implementing the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) to require carriers to accept all POC models that meet FAA acceptance criteria as detailed in this rule. DATES: The amendments to 14 CFR 1.1, 1.2, , , and are effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The amendments to 14 CFR , , , , 382,27, and , and the removal of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 are effective [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see How to Obtain Additional Information in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. 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) ; For questions regarding the Department s disability regulation (14 CFR part 382), contact Clereece Kroha, Senior Attorney, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 2
3 Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) ; SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary A. Overview of Final Rule B. Summary of Cost Savings II. Authority for this Rulemaking III. Background A. Statement of the Problem B. Summary of the NPRM C. Differences Between Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule D. General Overview of Comments IV. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule A. Applicability, Effective Dates and Compliance B. Definition of Portable Oxygen Concentrator C. Portable Oxygen Concentrator Acceptance Criteria 1. Food and Drug Administration Clearance or Approval 2. Radio Frequency Emissions 3. Hazardous Materials 4. Maximum Oxygen Pressure D. Manufacturer Label E. Manufacturer Determination of Conformance to Acceptance Criteria F. Prohibition on Smoking or Open Flame G. Operational Requirements 1. Exit Seats 2. Stowage of Portable Oxygen Concentrators H. Discussion of Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 Requirements Excluded From Final Rule 1. Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 Requirements Addressed in Existing Regulations 2. Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 106 Requirements Excluded in Their Entirety I. Miscellaneous J. Technical Amendments K. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel 1. Mandatory Acceptance of POCs That Meet FAA Acceptance Criteria 2. Other Amendments to 14 CFR Part 382. V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination C. International Trade Impact Assessment 3
4 D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment E. Paperwork Reduction Act F. International Compatibility and Cooperation G. Environmental Analysis VI. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use VII. How to Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents B. Comments Submitted to the Docket C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act I. Executive Summary A. Overview of Final Rule This final rule affects the use of POCs on board aircraft in operations conducted under title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 121, 125, and 135, by replacing the existing FAA case-by-case approval process for each make and model of POC in Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 106, with FAA acceptance criteria. Under SFAR No. 106, each time the FAA approves a specific model of POC for use on board aircraft, the agency updates the list of approved POCs in the SFAR. 1 This final rule removes SFAR No. 106 and replaces it with POC acceptance criteria and specific labeling requirements to identify POCs that conform to the 1 POCs identified in the SFAR are referred to in this preamble as SFAR-approved POCs or SFARapproved devices. 4
5 acceptance criteria. POCs that conform to the final rule acceptance criteria will be allowed on board aircraft without additional FAA review and rulemaking. As with existing requirements for FAA approval of POCs that may be used on aircraft, the final rule acceptance criteria and labeling requirement only apply to POCs intended for use on board aircraft. Table 1 provides a comparison of the final rule acceptance criteria and labeling requirement with related SFAR No Table 1. Comparison of Final Rule Acceptance Criteria and Labeling Requirement with Related SFAR No. 106 Requirements Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance to market the device Hazardous materials Radio frequency (RF) emissions Related SFAR No. 106 Requirements The POC must be regulated by the FDA (section 2(2)). Note: To satisfy this requirement, manufacturers provide the FAA with the FDA letter granting approval to market the device (the FDA response to a manufacturer s 510(k) submission). The POC may not contain hazardous materials as determined by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (section 2(1)). Note: To satisfy this requirement, manufacturers currently provide the FAA with a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) determination letter stating that the POC is not subject to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) (49 CFR parts ). Operator must 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 (section 3(a)(1)). Note: To satisfy this requirement, it is Final Rule Acceptance Criteria and Labeling Requirement The POC manufacturer has received FDA clearance to legally market the device in the United States. The POC must not contain any hazardous materials subject to the HMR, except as provided for batteries in the exceptions for crewmembers and passengers (49 CFR ). The maximum oxygen pressure generated by the POC must fall below the threshold for the definition of a compressed gas as per the HMR. The POC s RF emissions do not interfere with aircraft systems. 5
6 Identification of POCs safe for use on board aircraft current practice for operators to use testing data provided by POC manufacturers regarding the RF emissions of a specific POC model. Manufacturers currently complete testing in accordance with RTCA standard 160G, Section 21, Category M. POC model must be identified in SFAR No. 106 as approved for use on board aircraft prior to use on board aircraft in part 121, 125, and 135 operations (sections 2, 3(a)). Note: Specific POCs approved for use on board aircraft are identified in SFAR No. 106 by manufacturer and model name. Although some POC manufacturers affix a label indicating FAA approval for use on board aircraft, there is no current FAA requirement for a label indicating this approval. In order to be used on aircraft, a label must be affixed to the POC indicating compliance with acceptance criteria pertaining to FDA clearance to market the device, hazardous materials, and RF emission limits. POC models identified in existing SFAR No. 106 satisfy the acceptance criteria and will be exempt from the labeling requirement. These POC models will continue to be identified in the regulatory text. This final rule requires all POC models to conform to the acceptance criteria. 2 Further, any POC model that was not previously identified in SFAR No. 106 as approved for use on aircraft must also bear a label indicating conformance with the acceptance criteria before it may be used on board an aircraft. This label will facilitate passenger and crew recognition of POCs that may be used in the cabin during all phases of flight. SFAR-approved POC models need not bear a label. The final rule regulatory text includes a list of POCs approved in accordance with SFAR No. 106 so that passengers 2 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 The POC acceptance criteria identified in this final rule are based on existing SFAR No. 106 requirements that must be satisfied before the FAA 6
7 and crewmembers can continue to identify these POCs as approved for use on board aircraft. In addition, this final rule eliminates SFAR No. 106 requirements related to POC use on board aircraft that are addressed elsewhere in titles 14 or 49 of the CFR. This final rule also eliminates 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 POC-using passengers and their physicians as well as crewmembers and aircraft operators. This final rule also increases accessibility in air travel for passengers who require oxygen therapy during flight. Table 2 summarizes the final rule disposition of all SFAR No. 106 provisions. Summary of SFAR No. 106 Provision Description of Disposition in Final Rule Requirement that the POC is legally marketed in the United States in accordance with FDA requirements (section 2(2)) 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 (section 3(a)(1)) Prohibition on POCs containing hazardous materials as determined by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (section 2(1)) POC model must be identified in SFAR No. 106 prior to use in part 121, 125, and 135 operations (sections 2, 3(a))* Prohibition on smoking or open flame near POC (section 3(a)(2)) Prohibition on seating a passenger using a POC in an exit seat (section 3(a)(4)) Requirement to stow POC during movement on the SFAR No. 106 Provisions Reflected in Acceptance Criteria and Labeling Requirement SFAR No. 106 Provisions Retained identifies a POC in SFAR No. 106 as approved for use on aircraft. Thus, a POC model identified in SFAR No. 106 satisfies the acceptance criteria. 7
8 surface, takeoff, and landing (section 3(a)(3)) POC model must be identified in SFAR No. 106 prior to use in part 121, 125, and 135 operations (sections 2, 3( a))* 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. (section 3(a)(6)) Requirement for POC user to ensure that POC batteries in carry-on baggage are protected from short circuit and are packaged in a manner that protects them from physical damage (section 3(b)(6)) 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. (section 3(a)(6)) Requirement for POC user to ensure that POC batteries in carry-on baggage are protected from short circuit and are packaged in a manner that protects them from physical damage (section 3(b)(6)) SFAR No. 106 Provisions Eliminated Because Addressed in Other Existing Regulations SFAR No. 106 Provisions Eliminated Because Addressed in Other Existing Regulations Requirements for POC user to obtain a physician s statement and provide notice to pilot and aircraft operator regarding POC use and contents of physician statement (sections 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 (section 3(b)(1)) Requirement for POC user to ensure that the POC is free of petroleum products or signs of excessive wear or abuse (section 3(b)(2)) Prohibition on use of salves and lotions unless oxygen approved (section 3(b)(4)) Requirement for passenger to carry a sufficient number of batteries for duration of flight (section 3(b)(5))** SFAR No. 106 Provisions Eliminated in Their Entirety Table 2. Summary of SFAR No. 106 Provisions and Disposition in Final Rule * The list of POCs currently identified in SFAR No. 106 will be maintained in parts 121, 125 and 135. A detailed discussion regarding the identification of POCs that conform to the acceptance criteria is provided in the preamble discussion, Manufacturer Label. **Air carriers may require passengers using a POC to bring an adequate number of batteries to power a POC. See 14 CFR
9 This final rule also includes several conforming changes to 14 CFR part 382 to ensure that the Department s rule requiring carriers to accommodate passengers with disabilities who are traveling with POCs is consistent with the FAA changes to POC carriage and use on aircraft. Finally, the amendments provided in this final rule are consistent with the retrospective regulatory review requirements of Executive Order On January 18, 2011, the President signed Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Among other things, Section 6 of that Executive Order directs agencies to conduct a retrospective analysis of existing rules. Specifically, Executive Order provides that [t]o facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Consistent with Executive Order 13563, the FAA routinely evaluates existing regulations and other requirements. The FAA works to identify unnecessary, duplicative, or ineffective regulations and to mitigate the impacts of those regulations, where possible, without compromising safety. As part of the FAA s continuing obligation to review its regulations, the agency conducted an analysis of SFAR No. 106 and determined that it involves several unnecessary burdens. As a result of this determination and the resulting final rule amendments, the final rule will provide relief to POC manufacturers, passengers who use a POC, aircraft operators and the FAA. The final rule will provide relief to POC 9
10 manufacturers and the FAA by eliminating the SFAR No. 106 POC approval process, to passengers who use a POC by eliminating the FAA requirement to obtain a physician s statement, and to aircraft operators by eliminating the requirements for crewmember review of the physician s statement and pilot in command (PIC) notification. The quantification of benefits follows the same methodology as the proposed rule as the agency did not receive negative comments on this methodology. The agency presents cost savings in Table 3 below. The total cost savings from this final rule is $39.5 million ($27.6 million at 7% present value and $33.6 million at 3% present value). The largest cost savings of $39 million occurs from the reduction of crew time to review the physician s statement. These are the same estimated benefits and costs as presented for the proposed rule and since the FAA received no comments regarding these estimates, there are no changes to this final rule. B. Summary of Cost Savings The FAA estimates that manufacturers will save $108,000 over ten years because they will 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 will be reduced slightly because manufacturers will incur an estimated total one-time cost of $22,000 to comply with the labeling requirement. The FAA estimated additional cost savings because of the discontinuation of certain requirements from SFAR No Table 3 presents total estimated cost savings. 10
11 Table 3. Total Estimated Cost Savings Cost Savings 7% present value savings 3% present value savings FAA Savings - No SFAR $91,644 $68,871 $80,519 Manufacturer Savings - No petition for rulemaking $108,000 $75,853 $92,126 Removal of FAA requirement for user to obtain a physician's statement for POC use on aircraft Removal of FAA requirement for crew review of physician's statement and PIC notification $569,961 $401,645 $486,914 $38,726,085 $27,083,677 $32,972,652 Total Cost Savings $39,495,690 $27,630,045 $33,632,212 II. Authority for this Rulemaking The FAA s authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency s authority. 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. Further, 49 U.S.C provides the Secretary of Transportation the authority to prohibit discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability in air travel. 11
12 III. Background A. Statement of the Problem On July 12, 2005, the FAA published a final rule adding SFAR No. 106 to part 121 of title 14 (70 FR 40156). The final rule adding SFAR No. 106 permitted the use of POCs identified in the SFAR to address the needs of passengers requiring oxygen therapy while traveling on board aircraft. 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 , and were satisfied. In 2005, only a limited number of air carriers provided compressed medical oxygen, for a fee, to passengers who required medical oxygen therapy during flight. Because compressed oxygen is considered a hazardous material, it was an expensive and logistically challenging exercise for air carriers to provide medical oxygen. Today, virtually no certificate holders conducting part 121 operations provide in-flight medical oxygen for a fee to passengers. Further, passengers requiring oxygen therapy during travel also faced difficulty coordinating service between the carrier and the medical oxygen supplier to ensure coverage at the terminal, on board the aircraft, and gate-to-gate. Sometimes, passengers would spend at least part of the time travelling without medical oxygen due to service problems with the oxygen supplier. 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 12
13 by filtering nitrogen from the air and providing the POC user with oxygen at a concentration of approximately 90 percent. 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 ( , , and ), 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 (i.e., not furnished by the aircraft operator). Rather than wait for petitions for exemption from the existing regulations ( , , and ), the FAA completed rulemaking to address the issue of passenger-supplied POCs by adding SFAR No. 106 to title 14. See 69 FR (July 14, 2004) and 70 FR (July 12, 2005). SFAR No. 106 allows passengers to carry and operate their own POC on board an aircraft if the FAA has approved the specific POC model for use on board aircraft and identified the POC model in the SFAR. 3 As a result of SFAR No. 106, the FAA has mitigated the challenges faced by passengers requiring oxygen therapy during travel and has increased the accessibility to air travel for many passengers requiring oxygen therapy by allowing passengers to supply their own POCs for use during air travel. Passengers may not use a POC on board an aircraft in part 121, 125, or 135 operations unless the FAA has identified the device they wish to use in SFAR No. 106 as 3 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 extended the requirements of SFAR No. 106 to part 119 certificate holders conducting operations under parts 125 and
14 approved for use in such operations. In 2005, SFAR No. 106 identified the first specific POC models approved for use on board aircraft. Although the agency intended SFAR No. 106 to serve as a special, temporary regulation, until POC performance standards (acceptance criteria) could be developed, it has remained in place for the last decade. See 70 FR at During this time, the FAA has amended SFAR No. 106 seven times to identify additional POC models that may be used on board aircraft. 4 This process is time-consuming for POC manufacturers because they must petition the FAA for rulemaking to add their POC model to the SFAR list if they want their POC to be approved for use on board aircraft. Together with a petition for rulemaking, manufacturers provide the FAA with documentation required for the FAA to make a determination whether the POC satisfies the requirements of the SFAR. This process is also time-consuming for the FAA because each time the FAA approves a new POC for use on board aircraft, the FAA must complete rulemaking to add the newly approved POC model to SFAR No Over the last ten years, FAA regulations and guidance regarding the use of POCs on aircraft, POC technology itself, and air carrier programs concerning the use of POCs on board their aircraft have rapidly evolved. The combined result of these initiatives is an increase in accessibility to air travel for many passengers who require oxygen therapy during flight. In keeping with the Department s ongoing commitment to increase accessibility to air travel, this final rule removes certain burdensome and time-consuming 4 71 FR (Sept. 12, 2006); 74 FR 2354 (Jan. 15, 2009); 75 FR 742 (Jan. 6, 2010); 75 FR (July 12, 2010); 77 FR 4220 (Jan. 27, 2012); 77 FR (Oct. 16, 2012); and 79 FR 6018 (Feb. 3, 2014). 14
15 requirements that were put in place to ensure safety when POC technology was first introduced for use on board aircraft but are no longer necessary. B. Summary of the NPRM On September 19, 2014, the FAA published an NPRM entitled Acceptance Criteria for Portable Oxygen Concentrators Used On Board Aircraft in which the FAA proposed to replace SFAR No. 106 with acceptance criteria for POCs to be used by passengers on board aircraft in operations conducted under parts 121, 125 and 135. See 79 FR In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to replace the burdensome SFAR No. 106 POC approval process with acceptance criteria based on SFAR No. 106 requirements, and an additional requirement for POCs (carried and used on board aircraft) to bear a label indicating compliance with these acceptance criteria. The FAA proposed, however, that all SFAR-approved POCs would be excluded from the labeling requirement. Further, the proposed acceptance criteria and labeling requirements would only affect POCs intended for use on board aircraft. The FAA also proposed to eliminate several redundant operational requirements as well as paperwork requirements related to the physician s statement, which are not necessary for aviation safety. The comment period for this NPRM closed November 18, C. Differences Between Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rule The final rule differs from the NPRM as follows: Replaces the proposed prescriptive requirement for radio frequency (RF) emissions evaluation with a performance-based standard that allows POC 15
16 manufacturers to determine the means by which to assess whether its POC will radiate RF emissions that interfere with aircraft systems. Modifies verbiage for required label text. Retains the SFAR No. 106 prohibition on exit row seating for passengers using a POC and the SFAR No. 106 requirements pertaining to POC stowage. Amends 14 CFR part 382 to ensure that it is consistent with the FAA changes to POC carriage and use on aircraft. D. General Overview of Comments The FAA received 33 comments on the NPRM. Commenters included 21 individuals or anonymous commenters, the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), Airlines for America (A4A), the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Main Clinic Supply, Phillips Respironics, BPR Medical Limited, Oxygen to Go (OTG), the Mayo Clinic, and one commenter identified as the past president of the Airlines Medical Directors Association (AMDA). Although the FAA received general support for the NPRM from many commenters, some commenters recommended modifications to the proposed acceptance criteria, POC labeling requirements, and issues related to the identification of POCs that may be used on board aircraft. Other commenters did not support the elimination of certain SFAR No. 106 provisions, including those pertaining to exit row seating for passengers using a POC, POC stowage, the physician s statement and passenger notification of intended POC use to the PIC and aircraft operator. Comments are addressed in the preamble discussion entitled, Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule. 16
17 The agency also received a request from OTG to reopen the comment period. The agency denied this request, because the agency satisfied the requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act to publish a general notice of a proposed rule in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C Both the request to reopen the comment period and the agency s response to this request can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. IV. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule A. Applicability, Effective Dates and Compliance Currently, 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. SFAR No. 106 authorizes the use of specific POCs on board aircraft in operations conducted under parts 121, 125, or 135, if the conditions in the SFAR are satisfied. Consistent with SFAR No. 106 and the NPRM, this final rule applies only to those POC models intended for use on board aircraft in part 121, 125, and 135 operations, and like SFAR No. 106 it does not create a requirement for operators to allow POC use. The Department s requirements for air carriers to allow the use of a POC on board an aircraft (designed to have a maximum capacity of more than 19 passenger seats) continue to be found in 14 CFR In the NPRM, the agency proposed an effective date of 90 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Because the agency did not propose a separate 17
18 compliance date, compliance would also be required 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. The agency seeks to allow compliance with this final rule as soon as possible. The agency recognizes, however, that affected aircraft operators may need to revise operating manuals and training programs, and expects these revisions to occur within the normal course of business. Accordingly, the SFAR will remain in place until [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and compliance with the new rule will be permitted beginning on [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] to allow a sufficient amount of time for operating manuals and training programs to be amended in the normal course of business. B. Definition of Portable Oxygen Concentrator As proposed, this final rule defines portable oxygen concentrator 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 description of POCs in existing SFAR No The 1.1 definition of a POC added by this final rule is also consistent with Advisory Circular (AC) , Portable Oxygen Concentrators, 5 as well as the device description used by POC manufacturers and the Food and Drug 5 AC B 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 18
19 Administration (FDA) (the federal agency with primary regulatory authority over POCs for medical use). 6 By including this definition in 1.1, the FAA distinguishes POCs from portable oxygen generators and other medical devices that use compressed or liquid oxygen for medical oxygen therapy. Devices that use compressed or liquid oxygen must satisfy separate and more rigorous requirements to mitigate the risks they present. C. Portable Oxygen Concentrator Acceptance Criteria Under SFAR No. 106, the FAA allows the carriage and use of specific POC models only if they are identified in the SFAR as approved for use on board aircraft. A POC may be identified in the SFAR only after the POC manufacturer has petitioned the FAA for rulemaking (to add the POC to the SFAR) and has demonstrated to the FAA that the specific POC model satisfies the requirements of the SFAR (i.e., the POC must be regulated by the FDA and the POC may not contain hazardous materials as determined by PHMSA). Each time the FAA approves a specific model of POC for use on board an aircraft, the agency must update the list of POCs in the SFAR through rulemaking. Additionally, the aircraft operator is responsible for determining that the POC does not cause interference with aircraft equipment. The FAA notes that in practice, aircraft 6 Portable oxygen concentrators are a subset of portable oxygen generators defined by the FDA in 21 CFR
20 operators use data supplied by POC manufacturers to the FAA to determine compliance with the requirement to ensure that a POC will not interfere with aircraft equipment. In the NPRM, the agency proposed to replace the SFAR No. 106 case-by-case POC approval and rulemaking with requirements for POCs used on board aircraft to conform to specified acceptance criteria and to bear a label indicating that the device conforms to these criteria. The proposal further stated that POCs conforming to the acceptance criteria and bearing the appropriate label would be allowed on board aircraft without further rulemaking. The proposed acceptance criteria are summarized as follows: The POC manufacturer complies with all FDA requirements to legally market the device in the United States. The POC does not contain any hazardous materials subject to the HMR except as provided for in the exceptions for crewmembers and passengers in 49 CFR for batteries used to power electronic devices when operator approval is not required. 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 radio frequency (RF) emissions must fall below the threshold permitted in RTCA standard 160G, Section 21, Category M. As addressed in more detail in this section of the preamble discussion, this final rule adopts the proposal with modifications to the RF emissions acceptance criterion and labeling requirement. 20
21 1. Food and Drug Administration Clearance or Approval 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 must 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). SFAR No. 106 requires all POCs used on board aircraft in operations conducted under 14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135 to be legally marketed as a POC, 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 POC. To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, POC manufacturers submit evidence that 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. 7 In the NPRM, the agency proposed to continue to require any POC used on board an aircraft to be cleared or approved by the FDA for marketing in the United States prior 7 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 (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 21
22 to such use. However, given that FDA requirements for legal marketing of a POC in the United States already apply to POCs, independent of the SFAR, manufacturers would no longer need to submit evidence of this clearance or approval to the FAA to demonstrate compliance because it would be unnecessarily burdensome. Rather, the FAA proposed that POCs conforming to the proposed acceptance criteria, including the manufacturer s authority to legally market the device as a POC, would be identified by a label affixed to the device. This final rule adopts this proposed acceptance criterion without change. 2. Radio Frequency Emissions Sections , , and place responsibility on the aircraft operator for determining which portable electronic devices (PED) may be safely used on its aircraft. Although the agency recognizes POCs as a type of PED, SFAR No. 106, includes a requirement for an aircraft operator to make a determination that the device does not cause interference with the electrical, navigation, or communication system of the aircraft in which the device will be used. The SFAR No. 106, section 3(a)(1) requirement pertaining to POC interference with aircraft equipment has the same effect as the requirements in , , and pertaining to all PEDs. Each operator may establish a method to make a determination regarding the effects of PEDs on its aircraft s avionics systems. Historically, FAA guidance material (i.e., AC and AC ) identified one method of compliance with the SFAR and , , and by recommending the operator complete device- FDA makes a finding of substantial equivalence, the device is considered cleared. Additional information 22
23 by-device evaluations of RF emissions. 8 These evaluations involve comparing the device s RF emissions against the current RTCA DO-160 standards for installed airborne equipment. The FAA identified RTCA DO-160, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, Category M in guidance material for medical PEDs (including POCs intended for use on aircraft) because it established safe and conservative RF emissions limits for installed aircraft systems. Consistent with the historical device-by-device approach to RF emissions evaluation and agency guidance, it is current practice for POC manufacturers to provide the RTCA test compliance statements to the FAA. 9 Although section 3(a)(1) of SFAR No. 106 places the burden upon the aircraft operator to assess the impact of a POC on the aircraft, the FAA has accepted as proof of non-interference, RF emissions test qualification statements (provided by POC manufacturers) that show a specific POC does not exceed certain maximum RF emissions thresholds established by RTCA in DO-160, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment. 10 On October 31, 2013, the agency announced a new means of compliance with , , and , allowing operators to expand the use of passenger regarding the 510(k) process is available at 8 The term EMC was used throughout the NPRM however, EMC is a broad term used for installed aircraft electrical systems. Where appropriate, the FAA has replaced the term EMC with RF emissions in this final rule preamble because when a device-by-device examination of a PED is conducted, the operator would consider the RF emissions of that device. 9 Currently, POC manufacturers provide the RTCA DO-160 Section 21 test qualification statements to the FAA; the FAA then makes the RTCA test qualification statements available on its website for aircraft operators to use to demonstrate compliance with section 3(a)(1) of the SFAR. The RTCA compliance statements may be viewed at 23
24 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., aircraft systems safety risk assessment showing the systems meet the requirements of RTCA DO-307 or another PED tolerance assessment). See Information for Operators (InFO) and InFO 13010SUP. 11 The agency does not, however, require aircraft systems safety risk assessment of PED tolerance in accordance with InFO13010 and InFO 13010SUP. These assessment methods provide one means for airplane operators to demonstrate compliance with , , and and allow PEDs to be used on board aircraft. It is up to each aircraft operator to determine whether to expand the use of passenger supplied and operated PEDs via a determination of PED tolerance for certain aircraft types. The FAA estimates that eighty percent of part 121 air carriers (which comprise an estimated 98% of total part 121 passenger enplanements in 2013) and several of the largest part 135 air carriers have expanded PED use according to InFO and InFO 13010SUP. The remaining operators continue to rely on individual PED evaluations. In the NPRM, the agency proposed to require the RF emissions for each POC intended for use on board aircraft to be tested in accordance with RTCA DO-160G, Section 21, Category M. The agency also proposed to add POCs to the list of devices excepted from the general PED non-interference requirements in , , 10 See AC , Portable Oxygen Concentrators. 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. 11 All InFOs can be found at safety/info/all_infos/ 24
25 and to eliminate redundancy with the POC-specific non-interference requirements. This final rule retains a POC-specific non-interference requirement, modified to reflect a performance-based standard. The Agency recognizes that the majority of operators conducting part 121 operations and several of the larger operators conducting part 135 operations have already conducted aircraft systems safety risk assessments for PED tolerance in accordance with InFO and InFO 13010SUP with results allowing for continuous use of PEDs from gate to gate. A determination that an aircraft is PED tolerant would make an independent assessment of RF emissions for any PED used on that aircraft unnecessary. Nevertheless, because of the need to ensure service for passengers who require oxygen therapy during air travel, the FAA believes it is necessary to maintain a regulatory structure to ensure that passengers may continue to use POCs on board aircraft even if the aircraft operator has not determined that the aircraft is PED tolerant. Therefore, consistent with the SFAR and the NPRM, this final rule retains a requirement to assess POC RF emissions as one of the POC acceptance criteria. (The agency notes that POCs previously approved by the FAA for use on aircraft in accordance with SFAR No. 106 that demonstrated RF emissions below the maximum emissions threshold in DO-160G, Section 21, Category M would not need to be retested or reassessed by the operators prior to use on board aircraft because those prior assessments remain valid.) Delta Air Lines generally supported inclusion of RTCA DO-160, Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, Section 21, Category M, in the proposed acceptance criteria. Recognizing, however, that FDA may require RF emissions 25
26 assessments that may test to standards that could be used to demonstrate compliance with the FAA prohibition on PEDs interference with aircraft systems, the agency sought comment on whether POC manufacturers complete RF emissions assessments in accordance with requirements by other federal agencies that could also be used to demonstrate compliance with the generally applicable PED requirements. The agency did not receive any comments related to this specific issue except as provided by Delta. After further review of the proposal and other RF emissions assessments that POC manufacturers may conduct (e.g., International Standards Organization (ISO) 7137 and the FDA recognized EMC standards for Class II medical devices in IEC edition 4.0), the agency has determined that the proposed requirement to use RTCA DO- 160 as the only means by which to evaluate POC RF emissions was overly prescriptive. Historically, the FAA identified RTCA DO-160 Section 21, Category M in guidance material for medical portable electronic devices intended for use on board aircraft. Although POCs are not installed aircraft systems, the agency identified RTCA DO-160 as one method to demonstrate compliance with the PED non-interference requirement because RTCA DO-160 establishes safe and conservative RF emissions limits for installed aircraft systems. The agency recognizes, however, that there are other methods to assess POC RF emissions and ensure that POC use will not cause interference with aircraft systems. Thus, this final rule includes a performance-based RF emissions acceptance criterion that allows POC manufacturers to determine how to assess whether their POC meets the aircraft system non-interference requirement before they affix a label to the device confirming that this criterion has been satisfied. 26
27 Guidance material in AC C identifies examples of methods appropriate to ensure compliance with this requirement, including RTCA DO-160 and other industry EMC standards identified in the AC. The FAA emphasizes, however, that FDA approval or clearance to market a POC does not necessarily mean that the POC complies with the FAA s aircraft system non-interference requirement. In addition to Delta s comment, an individual commented that the POC manufacturer should include the electromagnetic interference test results on the POC label, eliminating the need for the air carrier to test the device. The agency clarifies that the purpose of the label is to identify those devices that conform to the FAA acceptance criteria. One of those criteria prohibits the POC from radiating radio frequency emissions that interfere with aircraft systems. Therefore, a device that bears the required label must also not radiate RF emissions such that it causes interference with aircraft systems. The POC manufacturer identifies devices that meet this and other criteria by affixing a label. In this way, the label indicates that the device will not radiate RF emissions that cause interference with aircraft systems and does not need to be retested by the aircraft operator. Thus, adding specific test results to the label would be unnecessary. 3. Hazardous Materials 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 PHMSA 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 the 27
28 See SFAR No. 106, section 2(1). The PHMSA determination required by SFAR No. 106 is one of the prerequisites that must be satisfied for the FAA to identify a POC in the SFAR. PHMSA issues this determination via a letter, at the request of the POC manufacturer and after PHMSA reviews manufacturer-supplied information regarding the POC. 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 ion batteries typically used to power POCs are hazardous materials. 13 See 49 CFR , Hazardous Materials Table. However, lithium ion batteries are conditionally excepted from certain requirements of the HMR (e.g. UN specification packaging and labeling) if they meet certain size limitations (100 Wh), package limitations, and comply with package marking and battery testing conditions of the HMR. See 49 CFR (c). These exceptions only apply when the POC units are transported as cargo. 14 HMR and standards for classifying, handling and packaging shipments of hazardous materials within the United States CFR defines a hazardous material as a substance or material that the Secretary of Transportation has determined is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce, and has been designated as hazardous under section 5103 of Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5103). The term includes hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, elevated temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous Materials Table (see 49 CFR ), and materials that meet the defining criteria for hazard classes and divisions in part 173 of subchapter C of this chapter. 14 The PHMSA final rule, Hazardous Materials: Transportation of Lithium Batteries, recently removed 49 CFR (c)(1), Code/Special Provision 188 and relocated it, in part to See (79 FR 46012, (August 6, 2014)). Currently, conditional exceptions for the transportation of small batteries as cargo can be found in 49 CFR
29 Other HMR exceptions are provided in 49 CFR that apply to POC units containing lithium ion batteries and associated spare batteries when carried on board aircraft by passengers and crewmembers. See 49 CFR (a)(18). In accordance with the exceptions in (a)(18), passengers may bring an unlimited number of lithium ion batteries up to 100 Wh per battery to power their POC. Further, as a result of recent amendments, (a)(18) also authorizes the aircraft operator to allow passengers and crewmembers to carry on board as spares up to two batteries that are larger than 100 Wh but do not exceed 160 Wh only if certain criteria are met. 15 The PHMSA determination letters required by the SFAR were limited to a determination regarding the HMR exceptions for a POC unit containing small lithium ion batteries (i.e., 100 Wh or 8g equivalent lithium content or less) for transportation as cargo as these are the exceptions that would apply to a manufacturer for transportation of a POC unit from the point of manufacture to the point of retail sale (although the size limits that distinguish a small lithium ion battery are the same for both the transportation of such batteries as cargo as well as for the passenger and crewmember exceptions). Existing PHMSA determinations for SFAR-approved POCs, however, do not include an assessment of each individual air carrier s policies pertaining to the allowance for larger batteries carried as spares. 15 The revisions to the HMR exceptions for hazardous materials carried by aircraft passengers and crewmembers have resulted in a more conservative approach to the carriage of lithium ion batteries used to power PEDs than the previous requirements under 49 CFR (a)(18)(2014 ed.). The current passenger and crewmember exceptions include a new requirement for approval by the air operator for the carriage of spare lithium ion batteries larger than 100 Wh (approximately 8 grams) and have reduced the maximum Watt-hours for spare lithium ion batteries from 300 Wh (approximately 25 grams) to 160 Wh. 29