Prohibition of Oxidizers Aboard Aircraft

SUMMARY: On December 30, 1996, RSPA proposed to amend the Hazardous

Material Regulations to prohibit the carriage of oxidizers, including

compressed oxygen, aboard all passenger-carrying aircraft. The effect

of this prohibition would be to limit oxidizers to accessible locations

on cargo aircraft. The December 30, 1996 notice of proposed rulemaking

analyzed Class D cargo compartments and indicated that a supplemental

notice would be published to analyze Class B and C compartments. This

supplemental notice specifically analyzes the prohibition of oxidizers

in other than Class D cargo compartments. The proposed requirements

would apply to foreign and domestic aircraft entering, leaving, or

operating within the United States. The purpose of these proposals is

to enhance air transportation safety.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to the Dockets Unit, Research and Special

Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, room 8421,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should

identify the docket number and be submitted in five copies. Persons

wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should

include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. The Dockets Unit is located

in the Department of Transportation headquarters building (Nassif

Building) at the above address on the eighth floor. Public dockets may

be reviewed there between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane LaValle, Office of Hazardous

Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, Research and Special Programs

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street

SW., Washington DC 20590-0001; or Gary Davis, Office of Flight

Standards, (202) 267-8166, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington

DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 30, 1996, RSPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (61 FR 68955) proposing to

amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180)

to prohibit the carriage of oxidizers, including compressed oxygen, in

passenger-carrying aircraft. This proposal also would have the effect

of limiting packages of oxidizers that are allowed on cargo aircraft to

locations accessible to crew members (see Sec. 175.85(b)). In the

December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA analyzed the prohibition of oxidizers in

Class D cargo compartments only, and it proposed a new Sec. 175.85(d)

to prohibit loading or transporting in a Class D compartment any

package containing a hazardous material for which an Oxidizer or Oxygen

label is required. RSPA also stated that it planned to issue a

supplemental NPRM further analyzing the prohibition of oxidizers aboard

passenger-carrying aircraft in Class B and C cargo compartments. This

is the supplemental NPRM to which RSPA referred. If the proposal to

completely prohibit the transportation of oxidizers on passenger-

carrying aircraft and limit their transportation on cargo aircraft to

accessible locations is adopted, by adding the word ``Forbidden'' in

Column 9A of the Hazardous Materials Table in Sec. 172.101 for those

materials for which an Oxidizer or Oxygen label is required, RSPA would

not adopt the proposed Sec. 175.85(d), which would prohibit the

carriage of these materials in Class D compartments only.

The December 30, 1996 NPRM also proposed several amendments to

provisions in the HMR concerning chemical oxygen generators. These

proposed amendments were discussed in Part VII of the preamble to the

December 30, 1996 NPRM and, in summary, would: (1) Add a shipping

description for ``Oxygen generator, chemical,'' consistent with the

recent adoption of this shipping description by the International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO); (2) indicate in Secs. 172.101 (the

Hazardous Materials Table) and 171.11 that chemical oxygen generators

may not be transported aboard passenger-carrying aircraft or in

inaccessible cargo compartments in cargo aircraft; (3) indicate in

Secs. 171.11, 171.12, and 171.12a that there are no exceptions from HMR

requirements for classification, approval and description of oxygen

generators when shipping to, from or within the U.S. under the

provisions of international or Canadian regulations; (4) specify

packaging requirements for shipment of chemical oxygen generators; and,

(5) eliminate an exception in Sec. 175.10(a)(24) pertaining to personal

chemical oxygen generators carried by passengers in checked baggage.

RSPA received requests from two airline industry associations to

withdraw the proposed rule and not issue the supplemental NPRM. These

requests are denied. RSPA also received several requests to extend the

comment period on the December 30, 1996 NPRM for either 60 or 90 days.

These requests were not granted. However, RSPA has accepted all late-

filed comments to the NPRM and, by issuing this supplemental NPRM, RSPA

is effectively extending until October 20, 1997 the period for comments

on the proposal in the December 30, 1996 NPRM to prohibit the

transportation of oxidizers, including compressed oxygen, on board

passenger-carrying aircraft. RSPA is denying the requests for an

extension of time to comment on the proposals in the December 30, 1996

NPRM pertaining to chemical oxygen generators, other than for the

proposed removal of Sec. 175.10(a)(24). Sufficient time has been

provided to comment on the generator-related proposals, and RSPA issued

a final rule on these proposals which was published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 30767) on June 5, 1997. Also, RSPA issued an extension

of effective date and corrections to the June 5, 1997 final rule on

June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34667).

On May 31, 1996, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

issued two recommendations to RSPA, the following of which is pertinent

to this discussion:

In cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration,

prohibit the transportation of oxidizers and oxidizing materials

(e.g., nitric acid) in cargo compartments that do not have fire or

smoke detection systems. (Class I, Urgent Action) (A-96-30)

This NPRM was developed by RSPA in cooperation with the FAA. The

actions proposed herein go beyond the NTSB recommendation and are based

on a preliminary assessment by RSPA and the FAA of the hazards posed by

oxidizers aboard aircraft. In its recommendation, NTSB cited three

previous incidents in which oxidizers caused fires aboard aircraft. In

each of these incidents, there were apparent or known serious

violations of the HMR.

[[Page 44375]]

Although RSPA and FAA are not aware of any fire aboard an aircraft

having been caused directly by transport of oxidizers in conformance

with the HMR, RSPA and FAA agree that oxidizers may pose an

unacceptable risk when transported aboard passenger-carrying aircraft

and when transported aboard cargo aircraft in locations inaccessible to

crew members.

Both the NTSB's recommendation and this proposed rule address risks

that do not depend on or involve any violation of requirements

currently in the HMR regarding the transportation of oxidizers. For

that reason, RSPA and FAA disagree with opinions that better

enforcement of the HMR would be sufficient to eliminate the risks

present in transporting oxidizers on board passenger-carrying aircraft.

II. Oxidizers Under the HMR

Under the HMR, an oxidizer (Division 5.1) is a material that may,

generally by yielding oxygen, cause or enhance the combustion of other

materials (see 49 CFR 173.127). Hydrogen peroxide, swimming pool

chlorine, bleach and oxygen are examples of commonly used oxidizers.

Liquid and solid materials in Division 5.1 are subdivided into Packing

Groups I, II, or III, a relative ranking corresponding to high,

moderate or low risks posed by the material. Packing groups are

assigned to specifically named materials in the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous

Materials Table (Table). For generic entries, such as ``Oxidizing

solid, n.o.s.'' (``n.o.s.'' means ``not otherwise specified''), packing

groups are assigned on the basis of test results. Certain gases (Class

2), most notably oxygen, are also oxidizers under the HMR and, even

though they are not classed as such, they are required to be identified

with the OXIDIZER or OXYGEN label.

III. Oxidizers Aboard Aircraft

Liquid oxidizers in Packing Group I are very reactive and have the

ability to initiate and substantially intensify fires. These materials

currently are forbidden for transportation by passenger-carrying

aircraft. Some are also forbidden for transportation by cargo aircraft,

and others are permitted only in restricted quantities aboard cargo-

only aircraft when loaded in a manner which renders them accessible to

a crew member during flight. Liquid or solid oxidizers that will

initiate a fire are not permitted on passenger-carrying aircraft.

However, gaseous oxygen is permitted on passenger-carrying aircraft;

combustible materials can be readily ignited, by impact, high

temperature, or flame, if exposed to gaseous oxygen.

In the absence of a fire caused by another source, oxidizers

currently authorized for air transportation and offered in conformance

with the HMR present minimal risks to aircraft, crew and passengers.

Most oxidizers will not initiate fires when spilled or released, but

they will intensify fires originating from other sources. The potential

hazard posed by these oxidizers in an aircraft cargo compartment is

that, if a fire were to occur elsewhere in the compartment, the fire

may involve the oxidizer, and most oxidizers would then provide an

oxygen-enriched environment which could intensify the fire and override

the safety features of the compartment.

When transported by aircraft, an oxidizer is subject to per package

quantity limits specified in the Hazardous Materials Table, and to

aircraft quantity limits specified in Sec. 175.75. For oxidizers

forbidden aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft but permitted aboard a

cargo aircraft, packages must be labeled (see Sec. 172.101(j)(4)) with

the Cargo Aircraft Only label specified in Sec. 172.448 and, under the

provisions of Sec. 175.85(b), must be loaded in a manner so that they

are accessible to a crew member during flight.

IV. Prohibition of Oxidizers on Passenger-carrying Aircraft and in

Inaccessible Locations on Cargo Aircraft

In the December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA proposed to prohibit the

loading or transportation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft of any

package for which an Oxidizer or Oxygen label (see Secs. 172.405 and

172.426) is required under subpart E of part 172. Consistent with that

proposal, in this supplemental NPRM, RSPA proposes to revise Column 9A

of the Hazardous Materials Table, pertaining to quantity limitations on

passenger aircraft, to read ``Forbidden'' for every shipping

description that requires an Oxidizer or an Oxygen label. For oxidizers

currently authorized for transportation aboard both passenger-carrying

aircraft and cargo aircraft, the effect of this action would be that

packages now would be labeled (see Sec. 172.101(j)(4)) with the Cargo

Aircraft Only label specified in Sec. 172.448 and would be subject to

the provisions of Sec. 175.85(b). Paragraph (b) of Sec. 175.85

restricts hazardous materials that are forbidden aboard passenger-

carrying aircraft, but authorized aboard cargo aircraft, to locations

where ``a crew member or other authorized person can see, handle, and

where size and weight permit, separate such packages from other cargo

during flight.'' This means that oxidizers also will be forbidden to be

transported on a cargo aircraft in an inaccessible cargo compartment

(e.g., a Class C or D cargo compartment) or in an accessible cargo

compartment in a manner which renders the oxidizer inaccessible.

There are certain hazardous materials which may be listed in the

Hazardous Materials Table as ``Forbidden'' on passenger-carrying

aircraft but which may be permitted on passenger-carrying aircraft

under the provisions of exceptions elsewhere in the HMR, such as for

compressed oxygen as proposed in this notice. RSPA is proposing a minor

change to Sec. 175.85(b) to clarify that any package bearing a Cargo

Aircraft Only label must be stowed accessibly on cargo aircraft, even

though there may be specific exceptions elsewhere in the regulations

which allow the material on passenger-carrying aircraft under certain

conditions.

The December 30, 1996 NPRM discussed the classification of cargo

compartments into five categories, Classes A, B, C, D, and E (see 14

CFR 25.857), as defined for transport category aircraft in FAA's

Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Although these categories are also

referenced in the following paragraphs and elsewhere in this preamble,

it should be noted that the proposals in this supplemental NPRM address

all aircraft without regard to whether they are transport category

aircraft or not. Thus, this proposal would prohibit oxidizers in cargo

compartments of all transport category and nontransport category

aircraft used in passenger-carrying service.

Class B Compartments on Passenger-Carrying Aircraft

A Class B compartment is one: (1) To which any part of the

compartment is accessible in flight to a crew member with a hand held

fire extinguisher; (2) from which no hazardous quantities of smoke,

flames, or extinguishing agent will enter any compartment occupied by

the crew or passengers when the compartment is being accessed; and (3)

in which an approved smoke detector or fire detector system is

installed. Under the provisions of 49 CFR 175.85 (a) and (b), hazardous

materials transported in a Class B compartment must be inaccessible to

passengers but accessible to crew members.

In the event of a fire in a Class B cargo compartment, protective

breathing equipment should protect crew members from smoke and fumes.

However, supplemental oxygen breathing systems for passengers are

designed to provide a combination of supplemental oxygen and ambient

cabin

[[Page 44376]]

air for use in emergency decompression situations. These breathing

systems are not designed to protect passengers from smoke and fumes,

and passengers would continue to inhale some amount of ambient air in

the cabin. According to FAA, a fire fed by a secondary source of oxygen

would create additional smoke and fume risks to passengers that would

not otherwise be present in fires that are not fed by a secondary

source of oxygen. Dangerous or even fatal levels of smoke and fumes are

more likely to develop and migrate to the passenger cabin when a fire

is fed by a secondary source of oxygen.

According to the FAA, even if a halon fire-suppressant system is

present, although effective against most fires, it may not be effective

against an oxidizer-fed fire. If a water fire extinguisher is used, it

may not have a sufficient quantity of water to extinguish a fire that

continues to reignite because it is being fed by an oxygen source.

Although all areas of a Class B compartment must be accessible to the

contents of a hand-held fire extinguisher, oxidizers stowed in a

compartment where other materials are burning may be difficult or

impossible to remove or otherwise keep away from the fire.

Class C Compartments

A Class C compartment is not accessible during flight but has: (1)

An approved smoke detector or fire detector system; (2) an approved

built-in fire-extinguishing system; (3) means to control ventilation

and drafts so that the extinguishing agent can control a fire that may

start within the compartment; and (4) means to exclude hazardous

quantities of smoke, flames or extinguishing agent from any compartment

occupied by crew or passengers.

While Class C cargo compartments have safety features that can

control most types of fires, RSPA and FAA believe that an oxygen-fed

fire can overcome these safety features and pose an unacceptable risk

in the aviation environment. Moreover, an oxygen-fed fire in a Class C

compartment may present a greater risk than a fire in a Class B

compartment. Unlike a Class B compartment that a crew member can

physically enter, a Class C compartment is not physically accessible to

crew members. Thus, for a Class C compartment, there is no possibility

for a crew member to remove an oxidizer from the area of the fire or to

attack the fire with a hand-held extinguisher.

A fire that is fed by a secondary source of oxygen increases the

risk that flames, toxic smoke or fumes may cause injury or death. It

also increases the risk that control of the aircraft will be lost. This

may be caused by damage to the aircraft's flight control cables,

hydraulic systems, electrical systems or structure, or entry of fire

and smoke into the aircraft's cabin. For the reasons set forth above,

RSPA is proposing to prohibit the transportation of oxidizers aboard

passenger-carrying aircraft and in inaccessible locations aboard cargo

aircraft.

V. Exceptions for Carriage of Oxygen on Passenger-carrying Aircraft

RSPA is proposing to add a special provision in Sec. 172.102 and to

the Hazardous Materials Table entry for ``Oxygen, compressed,'' to

clarify that certain exceptions are provided in Sec. 175.10 for

carriage of oxygen on passenger-carrying aircraft. These exceptions,

some of which are in the HMR at present and some of which are proposed

in this notice, are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Oxygen for Use of Passengers During Flight

The proposed prohibition against transportation of oxidizers as

cargo would not affect the existing exception in 49 CFR 175.10(a)(7)

for operator-supplied oxygen for a passenger's use during flight or the

exception in 49 CFR 175.10(a)(14) for a transport incubator unit

necessary to protect life, or an organ preservation unit necessary to

protect human organs.

As proposed in the December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA is proposing an

editorial change to Sec. 175.10(a)(7) to clarify that this exception

applies only to oxygen furnished by an aircraft operator for medical

use of an onboard passenger and does not allow the aircraft operator to

transport medical oxygen cylinders as cargo in order to move them to

the locations where they will be needed, at a later time, for use by

passengers. This proposal is included in the regulatory text of this

supplemental NPRM for convenience of the reader.

Personal Use Chemical Oxygen Generators in Checked Baggage

As proposed in the December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA is proposing in

this supplemental NPRM to remove the exception provided in

Sec. 175.10(a)(24) for small personal chemical oxygen generators in

checked baggage. See the December 30, 1996 NPRM for additional

discussion of this proposal.

Aircraft Operators' and Passengers' Own Oxygen Cylinders

In this supplemental NPRM, RSPA is proposing provisions by which an

aircraft operator may transport limited numbers of the operator's own

cylinders (e.g., replacements for cylinders required aboard an aircraft

or cylinders being returned for maintenance) containing compressed

oxygen aboard passenger-carrying aircraft and by which an air carrier

may transport a cylinder belonging to a passenger needing oxygen at

destination for personal medical use.

As indicated in the December 30, 1996 NPRM, FAA supports a complete

removal of oxidizers from passenger-carrying aircraft but also believes

that, if it is necessary to allow a passenger to transport his or her

own oxygen cylinder for use at destination, it is far safer to stow the

cylinder in the passenger cabin, under the control of and accessible to

the airline crew, than in an inaccessible cargo compartment. FAA does

not believe that oxygen should be carried in inaccessible cargo

compartments. FAA believes that, if an oxygen cylinder is involved in a

fire, the release of oxygen will intensify the fire and a fire that

might otherwise be survivable has an increased risk of becoming fatal.

Thus, FAA believes that it would be safer to carry personal medical

oxygen cylinders in the cabin because the crew could quickly remove the

cylinders from any fire area in the cabin. This is in contrast to the

complete inability of the crew to remove compressed oxygen from an

inaccessible cargo compartment.

RSPA believes that oxygen can be safely transported aboard

passenger-carrying aircraft and that there is a continuing need, for

reasons of safety, service to passengers and potential cost impacts of

a total prohibition, to permit an airline to transport its own oxygen

cylinders and to transport a cylinder belonging to a passenger needing

oxygen at destination for personal medical use. RSPA's proposal

provides airlines a means of using their own passenger-carrying

aircraft to position oxygen cylinders needed by passengers on

subsequent flights or to place oxygen cylinders used on aircraft, such

as those used for the flight crew's personal breathing equipment or

emergency-use medical oxygen. Although oxygen cylinders required on

aircraft by FAA regulations are not subject to the HMR, replacements

carried aboard aircraft are. This proposed exception will provide an

alternative to cargo aircraft or surface transportation for

prepositioning essential supplies of oxygen.

[[Page 44377]]

At present, a passenger who needs supplemental oxygen may ship it

in conformance with the HMR when it is offered and accepted as air

cargo by an airline that is capable and willing to transport hazardous

materials and has procedures for handling hazardous materials which

have been approved by the FAA under existing rules (e.g., 14 CFR

121.25, 121.135, 135.21, and 135.23). It may be carried as cargo (i.e.,

as freight rather than as checked baggage) on the same aircraft

carrying the passenger. The advantage is that the passenger would have

that oxygen available for use at destination without having to arrange

with an oxygen supplier, if one services the destination airport, to

charge the passenger's cylinder or provide a supplier-owned charged

cylinder upon arrival.

Under this proposed rule, carriage of oxygen in cargo compartments

on passenger-carrying aircraft would no longer be permitted. However,

the exception proposed in Sec. 175.10(b) would permit an airline to

carry a passenger's oxygen cylinder on the same aircraft as the

passenger in the same manner as the airline carries its own cylinders.

The oxygen cylinder would not be available to the passenger during

flight; only oxygen furnished by the aircraft operator under the

provisions of 49 CFR 175.10(a)(7) would be available for use during

flight.

Based on FAA's assessment of the potential hazards of compressed

oxygen in a cargo compartment, RSPA is proposing much more restrictive

provisions for its carriage on passenger-carrying aircraft than

currently apply, particularly that the oxygen be carried only in the

cabin of the aircraft. The aircraft operator would be limited to no

more than six of its own cylinders and no more than one cylinder

belonging to each passenger needing the oxygen at destination, and

would have to overpack each cylinder in a fire-resistant metal or

plastic case. A passenger's cylinder would be limited in rated capacity

to 850 liters (30 cubic feet) or less of oxygen.

In addition to being labeled for the oxygen hazard (i.e., with

either Oxygen or Non-Flammable Gas and Oxidizer labels, as specified in

subpart D of Part 172), each cylinder and overpack would be required to

be labeled with a Cargo Aircraft Only label to ensure that the overpack

does not get placed in any cargo compartment on a passenger-carrying

aircraft or in an inaccessible compartment or location when transported

on cargo aircraft. The overpack would be marked with the proper

shipping name and identification number (i.e., Oxygen, Compressed,

UN1072), and with the statement ``Passenger cabin acceptable per 49 CFR

175.10'' to explain the apparent discrepancy concerning appearance of a

Cargo Aircraft Only label on an overpack in the cabin of a passenger-

carrying aircraft.

Prior to placing a cylinder in an overpack, the aircraft operator

would be required to check that the cylinder's valves are closed and

the cylinder is free of flammable contaminants. The aircraft operator

would then stow the overpack in the passenger cabin in accordance with

procedures approved by the FAA and notify the pilot-in-command as to

the presence and location of the cylinder. Air carriers currently are

required to have FAA-approved procedures in operations manuals, plans

or specifications if they carry hazardous materials.

RSPA currently permits the carriage of oxygen cylinders in

passenger compartments by several aircraft operators under the

provisions of an exemption, DOT-E 10114. The purpose of the exemption

is to facilitate the predeployment, and return for maintenance, of

cylinders owned and maintained by an aircraft operator for use by

passengers needing oxygen during flight. The provisions of the

exemption serve as a basis for this rulemaking proposal and, although

not authorized under the exemption, have been expanded to cover

carriage by an aircraft operator of a passenger's own cylinder. RSPA

anticipates that the exemption would no longer be necessary if this

proposal becomes a final rule.

VI. Effects on Individuals With Disabilities

RSPA and FAA believe that exceptions for shipment and use of oxygen

proposed in 49 CFR 175.10(b) eliminate any negative effects this

rulemaking may have on passengers who need supplemental breathing

oxygen when they disembark from aircraft at their destination and on

the ability of airlines to preposition or stage oxygen at various

locations for use by passengers. RSPA is interested in receiving

comments from oxygen users, air carriers, and suppliers of oxygen about

these effects and whether the proposed provisions for carriage of

oxygen in passenger cabins are a safe and feasible alternative to a

total prohibition.

Under separate RSPA and FAA rules (49 CFR 175.10(a)(7), and 14 CFR

121.574 and 135.91, respectively), which this proposal would not amend,

passengers may not carry their own oxygen aboard aircraft for use

during flight. Air carriers are permitted to provide oxygen for

passenger use in accordance with specified requirements in the

aforementioned rules, although some air carriers may not provide this

service for their passengers. RSPA seeks comment on whether the new

proposed provisions placed on carriage of air carriers' own oxygen

cylinders will significantly interfere with carriers' ability to

provide this service to passengers. Also, compressed oxygen, while

regulated as a hazardous material, is different in form from other

oxidizers which are usually liquids and solids. RSPA requests comments

as to whether there is any evidence (e.g., accident or incident

information, studies, etc.) to suggest that gaseous oxygen in

cylinders, as distinct from chemical oxidizers, poses or has created

significant safety problems while being transported in cargo

compartments.

FAA, RSPA, and the Office of the Secretary are initiating a project

separate from this rulemaking action to explore whether safe

alternatives exist for accommodating passenger needs in regard to use

of oxygen. This project could result in proposals to amend the relevant

portions of the HMR and FAA regulations as well as those of the Office

of the Secretary implementing the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (49

U.S.C. 41705), which prohibits discrimination in regard to air traveler

access on the basis of disability.

VII. Spent Oxygen Generators

RSPA is proposing to prohibit the transportation by aircraft of

spent chemical oxygen generators (i.e., generators in which the means

of initiation and the chemical core have been expended) and to regulate

them as Class 9 materials when transported by other than aircraft. This

proposal was not in the December 30, 1996 NPRM.

Spent chemical oxygen generators currently may be regulated as

hazardous wastes because of the residual materials contained therein.

They may also pose a hazard in transportation by containing unburned

oxidizing materials.

Regardless of the degree of hazard posed by the chemical contents,

it can be difficult to confirm that a generator truly is spent. Human

error in assessing whether such devices are, in fact, empty can result

in a catastrophe. RSPA and FAA believe that lessening the possibility

that this type of human error may occur outweighs any interest or need

for transporting spent chemical oxygen generators by aircraft.

Based on the foregoing, RSPA is proposing to add to the Hazardous

Materials Table (HMT) an entry for spent chemical oxygen generators. A

[[Page 44378]]

new shipping description, ``Oxygen generator, chemical, spent, 9,

NA3356, III'' would be added. The entry would be preceded by a plus

(``+'') in Column 1 to fix the proper shipping name, hazard class and

packing group for the entry without regard to whether the material

meets the definition of Class 9 or Packing Group III. Special provision

61 would be added in Column 7 to specify the conditions under which an

oxygen generator is considered ``spent.'' For transportation aboard

passenger-carrying and cargo aircraft, Columns 9a and 9b would read

``Forbidden.'' RSPA also proposes to amend Secs. 171.11, 171.12 and

171.12a, consistent with its proposal in the December 30, 1996 NPRM, to

indicate that there are no exceptions from HMR requirements for

classification, description, and packaging of spent chemical oxygen

generators when shipping to, from or within the U.S. under the

provisions of international or Canadian regulations.

VIII. Cost/Benefit Analysis

Analysis of Costs

The preliminary regulatory evaluation ``Prohibition of Oxidizers

and Oxidizing Materials as Cargo in Aircraft'' (June 1997) developed in

support of this supplemental NPRM revises the earlier estimate of 10-

year costs associated with the December 30, 1996 proposal to prohibit

oxidizers in Class D cargo compartments from $25 million ($17 million,

discounted) to $18 million ($12 million, discounted). This supplemental

NPRM would impose additional costs on air carriers by prohibiting

oxidizers in Class B and C cargo compartments on passenger aircraft and

all inaccessible compartments in cargo-only aircraft. The additional

cost of compliance (in the form of lost revenue) to air carriers

imposed by this proposal is estimated to be $17 million ($12 million,

discounted), in 1996 dollars, over the next 10 years.

RSPA and FAA are aware that the estimated cost associated with the

proposed prohibition on oxidizers does not include any reduction in

variable operating costs, such as fuel savings, that may result due to

less weight being carried aboard the aircraft. In addition, this cost

estimate may not represent a net loss to the aviation industry, as RSPA

and FAA expect much of the affected traffic would shift to cargo-only

operators. Overall cost to the aviation industry may, therefore, be

less than the 10-year costs estimated for this proposed rule.

RSPA and FAA have not identified any cost impacts to cargo aircraft

carriers, but recognize there could, nonetheless, be potential

logistical impacts. Occasionally, hazardous materials are tendered for

shipment that are not compatible and must be separated during

transport. Currently, these materials may be transported in separate

compartments. Therefore, the proposed rule may have an impact upon

cargo airlines because of the airline's inability to transport

incompatible hazardous materials on the same flight. As a result, one

of the hazardous materials tendered to the airline for transport may

experience a delay. RSPA solicits information from cargo-only aircraft

operators that may incur this, or other, costs due to implementation of

the proposed rule.

RSPA and FAA expect that the total compliance cost to the aviation

industry attributed to this proposed rule would be borne by operators

of passenger-carrying aircraft.

This supplemental NPRM expands, also, the prohibition of carriage

of chemical oxygen generators aboard passenger-carrying aircraft by

proposing to prohibit the shipment of spent chemical oxygen generators

on aircraft. Because a spent chemical oxygen generator has no residual

or economic value, and there is no urgent need to ship it by aircraft,

RSPA and FAA determined there is essentially no adverse cost impact

associated with the proposed prohibition.

RSPA has received comments on the potential costs of the NPRM.

These comments and cost-related comments to this supplemental NPRM will

be taken into account in developing a final regulatory evaluation prior

to issuance of a final rule.

Analysis of Benefits

Notwithstanding current regulatory restrictions, hazardous

materials, including oxidizers, are occasionally improperly carried in

airplane cargo compartments through inadvertent or deliberate package

mislabeling. Over the past 10 years, there are only two documented

incidents where oxidizers (of types other than chemical oxygen

generators) were known to be present in the cargo compartment of a U.S.

air carrier when a fire occurred. Those incidents resulted only in

minor injuries and damage, though damage from one of the fires extended

outside the cargo compartment. RSPA and FAA believe, however, that the

risk of fire as evidenced by the number of actual fires that have

occurred justifies this proposed prohibition on the carriage of

oxidizers in inaccessible cargo compartments.

One analytical tool commonly used in the statistical analysis of

rare events is the Poisson probability distribution. This tool provides

a means to statistically estimate the probability of the occurrence of

rare and random events based on an observed rate of occurrence. In the

case of cargo compartment fires in the presence of oxidizers, the

observed mean is two over 10 years. The Poisson probability

distribution with a mean of two suggests there is a small chance (14

percent) that there would be no oxidizer fires in the next decade based

on the past accident history. However, there is an 86 percent

probability of one or more such fires. In addition, there is a 14

percent probability that there would be four or more fires with

oxidizers present.

Any one of these probable events could be more serious than the two

reported incidents. According to the FAA, fire aboard an aircraft is

one of the greatest threats to safety that can happen in air

transportation. For example, an Air Canada flight from Dallas in 1983

made an emergency landing at the Greater Cincinnati International

Airport because of a fire of undetermined origin. As soon as the

airplane stopped, it was evacuated. However, 23 passengers were unable

to exit the aircraft before the interior was engulfed in a flash fire.

In 1983 a British Airtours flight was aborted during takeoff and 55 of

the 137 persons onboard were unable to evacuate before a fire engulfed

and destroyed the aircraft.

With respect to spent chemical oxygen generators, the Poisson

probability distribution with a mean of four suggests, in the absence

of any regulatory action, that there is only a 2 percent probability of

no chemical oxygen generator fire in the next decade, based on actual

incident and accident history. But, there is a 98 percent probability

there will be one or more such fires in the same time period. In the

absence of a regulatory prohibition on their carriage, there is a 57

percent probability of four or more incidents and accidents in the next

10 years, as there were in the last 10 years, involving chemical oxygen

generators.

To determine the potential benefits that would result from this

proposed rule, RSPA and FAA estimated the average costs associated with

potential future fire accidents involving ``spent'' chemical oxygen

generators. In the May 11, 1996 incident, there were 110 casualties and

a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32 was destroyed. The monetary value of this

loss was ascertained in several steps. First, a critical economic value

of $2.7 million was applied to each human casualty. This computation

resulted in an estimate of $297 million ($2.7 million x 110). Next the

value of

[[Page 44379]]

the destroyed aircraft was estimated to be $6 million. If this

rulemaking prevents one such catastrophic incident over the next 10

years, the expected value of potential safety benefits would be $303

million ($213 million, discounted).

This supplemental NPRM reduces the chance that a cargo compartment

fire will be enhanced by an oxidizer, thereby increasing the likelihood

that a cargo compartment fire would be successfully contained or

extinguished. One measure of calculating whether the proposed

prohibition on oxidizers is cost-beneficial is to determine if it would

prevent incidents that otherwise would claim at least thirteen lives

over the next 10 years. RSPA and FAA are confident this proposed

prohibition has the potential to achieve that level of benefits.

Relation to FAA Rulemaking on Cargo Compartments

The FAA has proposed to upgrade fire safety standard for cargo or

baggage compartments by eliminating Class D compartments and requiring

their conversion to the equivalent of Class C or Class E compartments.

The NPRM is entitled ``Revised Standards for Cargo or Baggage

Compartments in Transport Category Airplanes,'' 62 FR 32412 (June 13,

1997). While the benefits of these two proposed rules would overlap

somewhat, each of them will also provide benefits that the other would

not. The FAA's proposed rule addresses the risks of any fire in an

inaccessible cargo compartment that lacks fire or smoke detection and

suppression (including a situation when no oxidizer is present). This

proposed rule addresses the risks of transporting an oxidizer on board

a passenger-carrying aircraft (even when carried in a compartment with

fire or smoke detection and suppression equipment). FAA has determined

that both initiatives would yield benefits that justify their costs, 62

FR 32420, but interested parties are invited to submit comments on the

potential for overlap in the benefits of these two proposed rules.

Comparison of Costs and Benefits

The proposed restrictions contained in the NPRM and this

supplemental NPRM would impose an estimated 10-year cost of $35 million

($24 million, discounted) by prohibiting the shipment of oxidizers on

passenger-carrying aircraft, and no identified costs by prohibiting the

shipment of spent oxygen generators on passenger-carrying aircraft.

While RSPA and FAA have been unable to estimate quantitative potential

safety benefits for prohibiting the shipment of oxidizers, the high

level of risk created by the presence of those hazardous materials

aboard aircraft warrants adoption of the prohibitions. Preventing one

catastrophic incident like the May 11, 1996 ValuJet accident, would

result in calculated safety benefits of $303 million ($213 million,

discounted over ten years).

IX. Request for Additional Comments

RSPA requests that interested parties provide additional

information concerning the costs and benefits of this proposed action.

RSPA also requests information concerning the hazards posed by

oxidizers in aircraft cargo compartments that have fire detection or

suppression systems. RSPA requests that shippers and carriers,

including foreign carriers, provide detailed cost information to RSPA

as to the type and amounts of any costs that may result from the

proposed prohibition of oxidizers on passenger-carrying aircraft.

In evaluating the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, RSPA and

FAA have assumed that cargo aircraft operators would not incur any

costs because of their ability to transport oxidizers in accessible

cargo compartments of an aircraft. In addition, RSPA and FAA have

assumed that there would be little or no impact on shippers of

oxidizers because of the availability of other means of transportation

(e.g., cargo aircraft or highway transportation).

RSPA and FAA have not assessed the costs associated with

prohibiting the shipment of oxygen cylinders on passenger-carrying

aircraft. Although the proposed exceptions in Sec. 175.10(b) serve to

mitigate any adverse impacts, there may be some costs to air carriers

if they routinely use passenger-carrying aircraft to transport, as

cargo, oxygen cylinders which are normally installed or required on

aircraft and must be periodically retested or refilled, or which are

prepositioned for use by passengers on subsequent flights. Therefore,

RSPA requests information concerning the costs and benefits of

prohibiting cylinders containing oxygen, aboard passenger-carrying

aircraft. Please provide detailed information as to the manner by which

costs may be incurred. In particular, RSPA requests information on (1)

the number of cylinders of oxygen which are transported each day on

passenger-carrying aircraft; (2) the typical size of these cylinders;

(3) other means of transportation that are available; and (4) the cost

differences to the airlines for using other means of transportation.

RSPA requests comments concerning any hardships that may be caused

in remote areas, such as Alaska, where frequent cargo-only air service

may not be available, and suggestions for limiting this hardship.

By limiting the prohibition on oxidizers to packages required to be

labeled Oxidizer and Oxygen, the prohibition would not apply to

oxidizers renamed ``consumer commodity'' and reclassed as ORM-D under

the provisions of Sec. 173.152, or as consumer commodities, Class 9, as

permitted under Sec. 171.11. RSPA requests comments regarding whether

it would be appropriate to extend this prohibition to consumer

commodities which are oxidizers or whether more restrictive packaging,

per package quantity limits, or aircraft quantity limits should be

imposed on these materials.

X. Study To Assess the Risks Associated With Transportation of

Hazardous Materials in Aircraft Cargo Compartments

RSPA, in coordination with FAA, has initiated a study to assess the

risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials in

aircraft cargo compartments. As beginning steps, RSPA assembled a panel

of experts and held meetings in Cambridge, Massachusetts on October 22

and 23, 1996, and in Washington, D.C. on June 10 through 12, 1997, for

purposes of identifying accident scenarios, probabilities of

occurrence, and expected consequences. In attendance at the meetings

were representatives from the NTSB, FAA, Air Transport Association of

America, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Air Line Pilots

Association, International Air Line Passenger Association and several

aircraft manufacturers. Based on the outcome of this study, RSPA may

initiate rulemaking to prohibit or further limit the transportation of

other types of hazardous materials on aircraft.

XI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget. The rule is considered significant

under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (44 FR 11034). A preliminary regulatory evaluation is

available for review in the public docket. A summary of the costs and

benefits of this supplemental NPRM is set forth in Section VIII of this

preamble.

[[Page 44380]]

Executive Order 12612

This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612

(``Federalism''). The Federal hazardous materials transportation law

(49 U.S.C. 5101-5127) contains an express preemption provision that

preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered

subjects. Covered subjects are:

(A) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous

material;

(B) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and

placarding of hazardous material;

(C) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents

pertaining to hazardous material and requirements respecting the

number, content, and placement of such documents;

(D) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the

unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or

(E) The design, manufacturing, fabrication, marking, maintenance,

reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a package or container which

is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the

transportation of hazardous material.

Because RSPA lacks discretion in this area, preparation of a federalism

assessment is not warranted.

Title 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2) provides that DOT must determine and

publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal

preemption. That effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day

following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two

years after the date of issuance. This proposed rule would require

oxidizers to be transported in certain types of cargo compartments

aboard aircraft. RSPA solicits comments on whether the proposed rule

would have any effect on State, local or Indian tribe requirements and,

if so, the most appropriate effective date of Federal preemption.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by

Congress to ensure that small entities (small business and small not-

for-profit organizations which are independently owned and operated,

and small government jurisdictions) are not unnecessarily and

disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires

regulatory agencies to review rules which may have ``a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Since this

proposed rule would primarily impact those entities operating under 14

CFR part 121, RSPA and FAA adopted the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Order 2100.14A (Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance) as

the standard by which the potential impact on small entities would be

determined. The potential impact on small entities is the cost (revenue

losses) incurred by carriers that currently transport oxidizers and

spent chemical oxygen generators. There is very little data to

determine the proposed rule's economic impact on entities other than

those operating under 14 CFR part 121 (e.g., part 135 operators).

Therefore, RSPA requests comments on the economic impact, if any, of

this proposed rule on other entities.

According to FAA Order 2100.14A, a substantial number of small

entities is defined as a number which is not less than eleven and which

is more than one-third of the small entities subject to a proposed or

existing rule. A significant economic impact refers to the annualized

threshold assigned to each entity group potentially impacted by

rulemaking actions. For this proposed rule, the small entities are

eight 14 CFR part operators (scheduled and non-scheduled) that carry

hazardous materials. The annualized significant economic impact

threshold for non-scheduled aircraft operators is estimated to be

$4,900. Similarly, the annualized significant economic impact threshold

for scheduled aircraft operators is estimated to be $70,100 (operators

with less than 60 passenger seats) and $125,500 (operators with more

than 60 passenger seats).

A small entity is defined in the FAA Order 2100.14A as an operator

of aircraft for hire with nine or fewer aircraft owned but not

necessarily operated. RSPA and FAA identified a total of eight

operators that meet this definition. Those operators comprise two

groups: (1) Non-scheduled small part 121 operators and (2) scheduled

small part 121 operators.

To determine the impact of the proposed rule on these small

entities, RSPA and FAA estimated the annualized cost impact on each of

those small entities within the two groups. The annualized cost impact

per small entity is based on the annual number of ton miles for

oxidizer shipments times the respective revenue-per-ton-mile estimate.

Small Entities, Non-scheduled

RSPA and FAA determined there are six non-scheduled part 121

aircraft operators that meet the definition of a small entity. Of the

six small entities within this group, only two would have annualized

costs that exceed the significant economic impact threshold of $4,900.

While one-third of the above aircraft operators would incur significant

economic costs, a substantial number of them would not be impacted

because their number is less than eleven.

Small Entities, Scheduled

RSPA and FAA also determined that there are two part 121 scheduled

aircraft operators that meet the definition of a small entity. The ten-

year estimated cost of compliance for the scheduled entity with less

than 60 passenger seats would be $60,000 ($42,200, discounted).

Similarly, for the entity with more than 60 passenger seats, the ten-

year cost of compliance would be $9,800 ($6,900, discounted). Over a

ten-year period, the annualized potential cost of compliance for the

entity with less than 60 passenger seats and the entity with more than

60 passenger seats would be $6,000 and $1,000, respectively. These

annualized cost of compliance estimates are far less than their

respective significant economic thresholds of $70,100 and $125,500.

Based upon the above, I certify that this proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. While the proposed rule would have a significant economic

impact on two of the eight small entities examined in this analysis, it

would not impact a substantial number of those small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking does not impose any

new information collection requirements.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The

Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in

April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading

of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the

Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 171

Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 172

Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,

Labeling, Marking, Packaging and

[[Page 44381]]

containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 175

Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive

materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR parts 171, 172, and 175

are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.

2. In Sec. 171.11, paragraph (d)(15) is revised and paragraph

(d)(16) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 171.11 Use of ICAO Technical Instructions.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(15) An oxygen generator (chemical) must be classed, approved, and

described in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter and an

oxygen generator, chemical, spent, must be classed, described and

packaged in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.

(16) A package containing a hazardous material for which an

Oxidizer or Oxygen label is required under part 172, subpart E, of this

subchapter, may not be offered for transportation or transported in a

passenger-carrying aircraft except as specified in this subchapter.

3. In Sec. 171.12, paragraph (b)(18) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 171.12 Import and export shipments.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(18) An oxygen generator (chemical) must be classed, approved, and

described in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter and an

oxygen generator, chemical, spent, must be classed, described and

packaged in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.

* * * * *

4. In Sec. 171.12a, paragraph (b)(17) is revised to read as

follows:

Sec. 171.12a Canadian shipments and packagings.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(17) An oxygen generator (chemical) must be classed, approved, and

described in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter and an

oxygen generator, chemical, spent, must be classed, described and

packaged in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.

PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

5. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.

6. In the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table, the following

entry is added in appropriate alphabetical order:

Sec. 172.101 Purpose and use of hazardous materials table.

* * * * *

[[Page 44382]]

Section 172.101.--Hazardous Materials Table

(8) Packaging authorizations (9) Quantity limitations (10) Vessel stowage

Hazardous materials Hazard (Sec. 173.***) ------------------------------------ requirements

Symbols descriptions and class or Identification PG Label Special ------------------------------ -----------------------

proper shipping division numbers codes provisions Non- Passenger Cargo aircraft

names Exceptions bulk Bulk aircraft/rail only Location Other

(1) (2)................ (3) (4)............... (5)........... (6) (7) (8A) (8B) (8C) (9A)............ (9B)............ (10A)........ (10B)

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

* * * * * * *

+ Oxygen generator, 9 NA3356............ III........... 9 61 None 213 None Forbidden....... Forbidden....... A............

chemical, spent.

* * * * * * *

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

[[Page 44383]]

Sec. 172.101 [Amended]

7. In addition, in the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table,

Column (9A) is amended by removing the existing language and adding the

word ``Forbidden'' for the following entries:

Aluminum nitrate

Ammonium dichromate

Ammonium nitrate fertilizers

Ammonium nitrate fertilizers; uniform non-segregating mixtures of

ammonium nitrate with added matter which is inorganic and chemically

inert towards ammonium nitrate, with not less than 90 percent

ammonium nitrate and not more than 0.2 percent combustible material

(including organic material calculated as carbon), or with more than

70 percent but less than 90 percent ammonium nitrate and not more

than 0.4 percent total combustible material

Ammonium nitrate mixed fertilizers

Ammonium nitrate, with not more than 0.2 percent of combustible

substances, including any organic substance calculated as carbon, to

the exclusion of any other added substance

Ammonium perchlorate (PG II)

Ammonium persulfate

Barium bromate

Barium chlorate

Barium hypochlorite with more than 22 percent available chlorine

Barium nitrate

Barium perchlorate

Barium permanganate

Barium peroxide

Beryllium nitrate

Bromate, inorganic, aqueous solution, n.o.s.

Bromate, inorganic, n.o.s.

Calcium chlorate

Calcium chlorate aqueous solution

Calcium chlorite

Calcium hypochlorite, dry or Calcium hypochlorite mixtures dry with

more than 39 percent available chlorine (8.8 percent available

oxygen)

Calcium hypochlorite, hydrated or Calcium hypochlorite, hydrated

mixtures, with not less than 5.5 percent but not more than 10

percent water

Calcium hypochlorite mixtures, dry, with more than 10 percent but

not more than 39 percent available chlorine

Calcium nitrate

Calcium perchlorate

Calcium permanganate

Calcium peroxide

Cesium nitrate or Caesium nitrate

Chlorate and borate mixtures (PG II and III)

Chlorate and magnesium chloride mixtures (PG II and III)

Chlorates, inorganic, aqueous solution, n.o.s.

Chlorates, inorganic, n.o.s.

Chlorites, inorganic, n.o.s.

Chromic acid, solid

Chromium nitrate

Chromium trioxide, anhydrous

Compressed gas, oxidizing, n.o.s.

Copper chlorate

Corrosive liquids, oxidizing, n.o.s. (PG II)

Corrosive solids, oxidizing, n.o.s. (PG I and II)

Dichloroisocyanuric acid, dry or Dichloroisocyanuric acid salts

Didymium nitrate

Ferric nitrate

Guanidine nitrate

Hydrogen peroxide and peroxyacetic acid mixtures, stabilized with

acids, water and not more than 5 percent peroxyacetic acid

Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solutions with not less than 8 percent

but less than 20 percent hydrogen peroxide (stabilized as necessary)

Hydrogen peroxide, aqueous solutions with not less than 20 percent

but not more than 40 percent hydrogen peroxide (stabilized as

necessary)

Hypochlorites, inorganic, n.o.s.

Lead dioxide

Lead nitrate

Lead perchlorate, solid

Lead perchlorate, solution

Liquefied gas, oxidizing, n.o.s.

Lithium hypochlorite, dry or Lithium hypochlorite mixtures, dry

Lithium nitrate

Lithium peroxide

Magnesium bromate

Magnesium chlorate

Magnesium nitrate

Magnesium perchlorate

Magnesium peroxide

Manganese nitrate

Medicines, oxidizing substance, solid n.o.s.

Nickel nitrate

Nickel nitrite

Nitrates, inorganic, aqueous solution, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Nitrates, inorganic, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Nitrites, inorganic, aqueous solution, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Nitrites, inorganic, n.o.s.

Nitrous oxide, compressed

Oxidizing liquid, corrosive, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Oxidizing liquid, n.o.s. (PG I, II and III)

Oxidizing liquid, toxic, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Oxidizing solid, corrosive, n.o.s. (PG I, II and III)

Oxidizing solid, n.o.s. (PG I, II, and III)

Oxidizing solid, toxic, n.o.s. (PG I, II, and III)

Oxygen, compressed

Perchlorates, inorganic, aqueous solution, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Perchlorates, inorganic, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Permanganates, inorganic, aqueous solution, n.o.s.

Permanganates, inorganic, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Peroxides, inorganic, n.o.s. (PG II and III)

Persulfates, inorganic, aqueous solution, n.o.s.

Persulfates, inorganic, n.o.s.

Potassium bromate

Potassium chlorate

Potassium chlorate, aqueous solution (PG II and III)

Potassium nitrate

Potassium nitrate and sodium nitrite mixtures

Potassium nitrite

Potassium perchlorate, solid

Potassium perchlorate, solution

Potassium permanganate

Potassium persulfate

Silver nitrate

Sodium bromate

Sodium chlorate

Sodium chlorate, aqueous solution (PG II and III)

Sodium chlorite

Sodium nitrate

Sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate mixtures

Sodium nitrite

Sodium perchlorate

Sodium permanganate

Sodium peroxoborate, anhydrous

Sodium persulfate

Strontium chlorate

Strontium nitrate

Strontium perchlorate

Strontium peroxide

Thallium chlorate

Thallium nitrate

Toxic liquids, oxidizing, n.o.s. (PG II)

Toxic solids, oxidizing, n.o.s. (PG I and II) mono- (Trichloro)

tetra-(monopotassium dichloro)-penta-s-triazinetrione, dry (with

more than 39 percent available chlorine)

Trichloroisocyanuric acid, dry

Urea hydrogen peroxide

Zinc ammonium nitrite

Zinc bromate

Zinc chlorate

Zinc nitrate

Zinc permanganate

Zinc peroxide

Zirconium nitrate

Sec. 172.101 [Amended]

8. In addition, in the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table, for

the entry ``Oxygen, compressed'', in Column (7), special provision

``A52'' is added.

9. In Sec. 172.102, special provision ``61'' is added in

appropriate numerical sequence to paragraph (c)(1) and special

provision ``A52'' is added in appropriate alphanumerical sequence to

paragraph (c)(2), to read as follows:

Sec. 172.102 Special provisions.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

Code/Special Provisions

* * * * *

61 A chemical oxygen generator is spent if its means of

ignition and its chemical core have been expended.

* * * * *

(2) * * *

Code/Special Provisions

* * * * *

A52 Oxygen, compressed, may be offered for transportation and

transported on a passenger-carrying aircraft in accordance with the

provisions of Sec. 175.10(a)(7), (a)(14), or (b) of this subchapter.

* * * * *

PART 175--CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT

9a. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.

10. In Sec. 175.10, paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:

[[Page 44384]]

Sec. 175.10 Exceptions.

* * * * *

(b) A cylinder containing compressed oxygen, belonging to an

aircraft operator or a passenger needing the oxygen for personal

medical use at destination, may be carried in the cabin of a passenger-

carrying aircraft in accordance with procedures approved by the FAA and

specified in the carrier's operations specifications, manual or plan,

as appropriate, and the following provisions:

(1) No more than six cylinders belonging to the aircraft operator

and, in addition, no more than one cylinder (with a rated oxygen

capacity of 850 liters (30 cubic feet) or less) per passenger needing

the oxygen, may be transported on an aircraft under the provisions of

paragraph (b);

(2) Each cylinder must conform to the provisions of this subchapter

with regard to packaging specifications, fill limits, maintenance

requirements, marking and labeling;

(3) Each cylinder shall be examined by the aircraft operator to

ensure that all valves are closed and the cylinder is free of flammable

contaminants on all exterior surfaces;

(4) Each cylinder shall be placed in a metal or plastic overpack

which--

(i) Is capable of meeting the self extinguishing requirements of 14

CFR 25.853;

(ii) Provides protection to the cylinder and valves;

(iii) Is marked ``Oxygen, Compressed'', ``UN1072'', and ``Passenger

cabin acceptable per 49 CFR 175.10''; and

(iv) Is labeled Cargo Aircraft Only and either Oxygen or Non-

Flammable Gas and Oxidizer, in accordance with subpart D of part 172 of

this subchapter;

(5) The aircraft operator shall securely stow the overpack in the

cabin of the aircraft in accordance with the operator's operations

procedures and shall notify the pilot-in-command as specified in

Sec. 175.33; and

(6) Shipments under this paragraph (b) are not subject to--

(i) The prohibition in Sec. 172.101 of this subchapter against

carriage of compressed oxygen on passenger-carrying aircraft;

(ii) Subpart C and, for passengers only, subpart H of part 172 of

this subchapter;

(iii) Section 173.25 of this subchapter; or

(iv) Section 175.85.

Sec. 175.10 [Amended]

11. In addition in Sec. 175.10, in paragraph (a)(7) the wording ``a

passenger'' in the first sentence is revised to read ``an onboard

passenger'' and paragraph (a)(24) is removed and reserved.

12. In Sec. 175.85, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 175.85 Cargo location.

* * * * *

(b) Each package bearing a Cargo Aircraft Only label or which

otherwise contains a hazardous material acceptable only for cargo

aircraft must be loaded in such a manner that a crew member or other

authorized person can see, handle and when size and weight permit,

separate such packages from other cargo during flight.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC on August 12, 1997, under the authority

delegated in 49 CFR part 106.

A.I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 97-21739 Filed 8-19-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P