Hazardous Materials: Chemical Oxidizers and Compressed Oxygen Aboard Aircraft

SUMMARY: RSPA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations to:

Prohibit the carriage of chemical oxidizers in inaccessible aircraft

cargo compartments that do not have a fire or smoke detection and fire

suppression system; require oxygen cylinders to be placed in an outer

packaging when transported aboard aircraft; limit the number of oxygen

cylinders that may be stowed on an aircraft in inaccessible cargo

compartments that do not have a fire or smoke detection system and a

fire suppression system (e.g., a Class D cargo compartment); limit the

number of oxygen cylinders that may be stowed in a Class B cargo

compartment or its equivalent (i.e., an accessible cargo compartment

equipped with a fire or smoke detection system but not a fire

suppression system); authorize transportation of a limited number of

oxygen cylinders in the passenger cabin of passenger-carrying aircraft;

and prohibit the carriage of personal-use chemical oxygen generators on

passenger-carrying aircraft and the carriage of spent chemical oxygen

generators on both passenger-carrying and cargo aircraft.

This final rule is being issued in consultation with the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) to enhance air transportation safety.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of these amendments is March

1, 2000.

Permissive Compliance Date: Compliance with the requirements

adopted herein is authorized as of October 22, 1999.

Incorporation by Reference Date: The incorporation by reference of

a publication listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of

the Federal Register as of March 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane LaValle or John Gale, Office of

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

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

Street S.W., Washington DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On May 11, 1996, ValuJet Airlines flight No. 596 crashed in the

Florida Everglades resulting in 110 fatalities. The National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that chemical oxygen

generators initiated and then intensified a fire in a Class D cargo

compartment, which caused the crash. Shortly after the crash, NTSB

recommended that RSPA, together with FAA, ``prohibit the transportation

of oxidizers and oxidizing materials (e.g., nitric acid) in cargo

compartments that do not have fire or smoke detection systems.''

In subsequent rulemaking actions, RSPA has prohibited the

transportation of chemical oxygen generators as cargo on board

passenger-carrying airlines, and issued standards governing the

transportation of chemical oxygen generators on cargo-only aircraft. 61

FR 26418 (May 24, 1996); 61 FR 68952 (Dec. 30, 1996); 62 FR 30767 (June

5, 1997); 62 FR 34667 (June 27, 1997). On February 17, 1998, FAA

published a final rule that upgraded the fire safety standards for

Class D compartments for certain transport-category airplanes. 63 FR

8033. FAA's rulemaking has a compliance date of March 19, 2001.

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. That proposal also would have had the

effect of limiting packages of oxidizers that are allowed on cargo

aircraft to locations accessible to crew members (see 49 CFR

175.85(b)). In the December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA analyzed the possible

prohibition of oxidizers in Class D cargo compartments only, and

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. On August 20, 1997, RSPA

published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (62 FR

44374) further analyzing the possible prohibition of oxidizers aboard

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

The classification of cargo compartments aboard transport-category

aircraft is specified in 14 CFR 25.857 and discussed in RSPA's NPRM and

SNPRM. In general, a Class B compartment is one which is accessible to

a crew member with a hand-held fire extinguisher and has an approved

smoke or fire detection system. Class C and D compartments are not

accessible during flight and have means to control ventilation and

exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or flames from the passenger

compartment and cockpit. A Class C compartment also has an approved

smoke or fire detection system and a built-in fire suppression system.

In this final rule, when reference is made to Class B, Class C or Class

D aircraft cargo compartments, we are also including cargo compartments

on non-transport category airplanes that have similar characteristics.

The limitations and prohibitions for Class D compartments also apply to

non-transport category airplanes that do not have detection and

suppression equipment, similar to Class D compartments in transport-

category airplanes.

In the NPRM and SNPRM, RSPA also proposed to completely prohibit

the transportation of chemical oxygen generators that have been

discharged (``spent'') and to prohibit the transportation of personal-

use chemical oxygen generators on passenger-carrying aircraft. On

August 27, 1998, FAA published an NPRM proposing to ban, in certain

domestic operations, the transportation of devices designed to

chemically generate oxygen, including devices that have not yet been

charged for the generation of oxygen. 63 FR 45913. In response to a

request from nine industry associations, on January 14, 1998, RSPA and

FAA held a public meeting to more fully explore all the issues relating

to the proposals in the NPRM and SNPRM.

The amendments adopted in this final rule respond to the NTSB

recommendation and are based on the merits of comments and the

assessment of RSPA and the FAA of the hazards posed by oxidizers. 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. 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.

However, RSPA and FAA agree with the NTSB that, in certain

circumstances, oxidizers can contribute to the severity of a fire and

pose an unreasonable risk when transported in an inaccessible cargo

compartment which does not have a fire or smoke detection system and a

fire suppression system.

[[Page 45389]]

II. Comments and Regulatory Changes

A. General

RSPA received more than 55 written comments, and 14 persons made

oral presentations at the public meeting, in response to the NPRM and

SNPRM. The commenters included shippers and carriers of oxidizers by

air, related trade associations, the NTSB, and persons who need

supplemental oxygen during flight for medical reasons. In general, the

persons that submitted comments:

(1) Supported the prohibition of oxidizers, other than oxygen, in

those cargo compartments that do not have fire or smoke detection and

fire suppression systems;

(2) Disagreed with the proposed total prohibition of oxidizers

carried in cargo compartments aboard passenger-carrying aircraft and in

inaccessible cargo compartments aboard cargo aircraft, including those

compartments with detection and suppression systems;

(3) Disagreed with the proposed prohibition of the carriage of

compressed oxygen in cargo compartments aboard passenger-carrying

aircraft; and

(4) Supported the proposals to prohibit the transportation of spent

oxygen generators aboard aircraft and to eliminate the exception

provided in 49 CFR 175.10(a)(24) for personal oxygen generators.

B. Oxidizers

1. Summary of Comments on Chemical Oxidizers

RSPA proposed to prohibit the transportation of chemical oxidizers

aboard passenger-carrying aircraft and in inaccessible cargo

compartments of cargo aircraft. Most of the commenters agreed with the

proposal to prohibit chemical oxidizers in cargo compartments that are

not equipped with fire or smoke detection systems and fire suppression

systems, but disagreed with the proposal to ban oxidizers from cargo

compartments with fire or smoke detection and fire suppression systems.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. supported the rule as proposed. It

stated that ``the prohibition of oxidizers and similar materials aboard

passenger-carrying aircraft is a sensible approach to improving the

safety of passenger flights.'' NTSB stated that it ``supports

prohibiting the carriage of oxidizers, including compressed oxygen, in

Class D compartments because these compartments do not have smoke and

fire detection systems * * *'' In its comments to the SNPRM, NTSB

referred to an earlier recommendation that FAA ``consider the effects

of authorized hazardous materials cargo in fires for all types of cargo

compartments.'' It urged RSPA and FAA to complete a study of the risks

associated with the transportation of hazardous materials on aircraft

and ``to ban any hazardous materials, including oxidizers, that cannot

be safely transported in aircraft cargo compartments.''

Several commenters specifically stated that they did not support

the ban of an entire division of hazardous materials aboard passenger-

carrying aircraft and that a complete ban of oxidizers would increase

the number of undeclared hazardous materials. The Airline Pilots

Association (ALPA) stated ``prohibiting the carriage of all oxidizers

may introduce additional hazards. This may inadvertently force shippers

into illegally shipping materials as undeclared * * *'' ALPA went on to

say that ``the complete banning of all oxidizers * * * goes beyond the

seemingly obvious safety implication and does not appear to be

reasonable.''

Many other commenters noted that, to date, incidents involving

hazardous materials have been due to lack of compliance with the HMR.

They stated that the better course of action would be to increase

education and enforcement, rather than ban an entire category of

hazardous materials. The Conference on Safe Transportation of Hazardous

Articles stated:

People who ship undeclared hazardous materials do not read the

CFRs. You can give all the instructions you like in the regulations,

and the people who ignored the instructions in the past will ignore

them in the future. Now, in fact, the prohibition will give them

greater incentive to embrace ignorance.

The Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC) stated its belief that:

* * * the rule's provisions will do nothing to address the known

problem of undeclared or misdeclared shipments of hazardous

materials and may be counterproductive by increasing such shipments

by unscrupulous persons. In our opinion this could present a more

dangerous situation to passengers and airline employees than at

present.

Several commenters stated that a ban of certain materials on

aircraft is no guarantee that those who are unaware of the regulations

will not continue to ship undeclared hazardous materials. They

suggested that public education and aggressive enforcement (including

appropriate penalties for violation of the HMR) would better promote

safe transportation. Mallinckrodt, a shipper of oxidizers, stated, ``We

ship oxidizers, paying particular attention to complying with these

methods and have had no incidents of which we are aware. We do not feel

that we should be penalized for incidents as outlined in the Docket,

which were clear violations of the law.''

Hach Company manufactures and distributes several hundred products

that are or contain oxidizing materials, including laboratory

instruments, process analyzers, test kits and analytical reagents some

of which are used to analyze the quality and safety of water. It ships

the majority of its international orders by air, primarily on

passenger-carrying aircraft. Hach stated that it would prefer to ship

by cargo aircraft but that cargo aircraft are not available to a large

percentage of the end-user locations. It also stated that ocean

transportation is not a viable alternative because of location, time

and cost constraints. Hach stated that the proposed rule, if

promulgated could put it at a significant commercial disadvantage with

its foreign competitors. Hach supported a prohibition on transportation

of oxidizers in Class D cargo compartments, but opposed a prohibition

that would apply to other cargo compartments.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) stated that

cargo aircraft are not a substitute for passenger-carrying aircraft

because cargo operations serve only a fraction of airports,

international and domestic, and do not have the frequency of service

required by shippers. IATA stated ``Typically, a dangerous goods

shipment by air is time critical and the facility provided by passenger

aircraft service is essential to shipper's requirements.'' Another

commenter stated that the safety need for the proposed general

prohibition on the transport of all oxidizers aboard passenger-carrying

aircraft has not been technically or rationally proven by FAA and RSPA.

Some commenters expressed concern that RSPA and FAA would ban all

materials within Division 5.1 from passenger-carrying aircraft without

regard to the lesser hazards posed by materials in lower packing

groups, or shipped in limited quantities. ATA stated that the proposed

rules:

* * * offer no analysis or rationale to explain how a properly

packaged, low-oxidizing potential material would pose such risks. In

this regard, the transport, for example, of properly packaged and

identified low-oxidizing potential (i.e., Packing Group III) solid

oxidizers, is not considered to pose a significant risk to safety in

air transport. Such a material would be incapable of spontaneously

initiating a fire (even when in contact with organic material) under

conditions normally incident to transport.

ATA also stated that ``normal'' oxidizers can only reasonably be

[[Page 45390]]

envisioned contributing to a fire originating in adjacent cargo when

the fire has progressed to the extent that a packaging containing

``normal'' oxidizers has been substantially degraded. In such a case,

ATA stated the fire may be uncontrollable in any event or the

contribution to the intensity of the fire of a low-oxidizing potential

solid oxidizer may be insignificant. ALPA suggested that RSPA further

examine those oxidizing substances presently authorized by the HMR to

be carried aboard passenger-carrying aircraft which pose the greatest

potential risk to safety and those oxidizers that have caused problems

when transported by air. ALPA suggested that, following this re-

examination, RSPA should determine whether changes to the current HMR

might be necessary concerning these materials, such as decreasing net

quantity limitations, increasing the packaging requirements, or

prohibiting their carriage by aircraft.

2. Summary of Comments on Compressed Oxygen

RSPA proposed to prohibit the transportation of compressed oxygen

as cargo aboard passenger-carrying aircraft, and in inaccessible

locations aboard cargo aircraft. RSPA also proposed, based on the

provision of an existing exemption, to allow a limited number of

airline-owned and passenger-owned oxygen cylinders to be stowed in the

cabin of a passenger-carrying aircraft when placed in an overpack. RSPA

also proposed to require that the overpack be labeled CARGO AIRCRAFT

ONLY but marked with the statement ``Passenger cabin acceptable per 49

CFR 175.10.''

As already mentioned NTSB supported the proposal to prohibit the

carriage of compressed oxygen in Class D compartments. Air Products and

Chemicals, Inc. also supported the proposal and stated, ``the result of

the proposal should improve overall aircraft safety, but, there should

also be an effort to improve enforcement of all rules pertaining to

hazardous and forbidden materials in airplanes.''

The majority of the commenters opposed the proposal. Most

commenters stated that transporting oxygen cylinders in the cargo hold

does not present a significant risk. For example, the Regional Airline

Association (RAA) stated ``RSPA has failed to show that the

transportation of pressurized oxygen is sufficiently hazardous to deny

shipment within Class C and Class D compartments.'' RAA went on to say

that airlines that operate in remote locations where ground

transportation is not available, such as Alaska, will have to either

withdraw from operations or fly to their destination knowing that their

destination is not equipped to return them to service if they deplete

an oxygen bottle during the flight.

The Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) and Peninsula Airways

also opposed the proposed rule, particularly regarding oxygen, due to

the adverse consequence on transportation in and through Alaska.

Peninsula Airways stated ``implementation of the NPRM's provisions that

affect this issue will make it virtually impossible to legally provide

medical oxygen for passengers/patients in remote areas of Alaska.''

Peninsula Airways and AACA both pointed out that Section 1205 of Public

Law 104-264, Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska, give

FAA the authority to consider Alaska's unique transportation

circumstances when conducting rulemaking. Peninsula Airways stated that

``this is clearly a situation where RSPA must reconsider the NPRM's

impact on Alaska and modify the proposed rule * * * to make it

workable, safe to use and safe to transport medical oxygen cylinders in

Alaska.''

Commenters also contended that prohibiting transportation of

compressed oxygen on board passenger-carrying aircraft would have

significant cost impacts on the airline industry and severely hamper

the ability of disabled persons to travel by the air mode. ATA stated

that a fire capable of generating enough heat to potentially affect an

oxygen cylinder would cause severe structural damage to the aircraft

before the cylinder would ever be dangerously involved.

Caledonia Airways disagreed with the proposed exception for

transporting compressed oxygen in the passenger cabin. It stated that

such transportation is contrary to any training that airline personnel

have received and also conflicts with the International Civil Aviation

Organization's (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe

Transportation of Dangerous Goods. Other commenters noted that adoption

of the proposed ban on compressed oxygen, in conjunction with the

general ban on carriage of dangerous goods in the passenger cabin set

forth in the ICAO Technical Instructions, could effectively prohibit

any transportation of oxygen cylinders as COMAT (airline company

material) on international flights. Commenters also stated that

limiting a carrier to six COMAT cylinders per flight would

unnecessarily restrict its ability to pre-position cylinders and to

transport cylinders to locations where they are needed to replace used

cylinders.

RAA stated that the proposed exception for oxygen cylinders in the

cabin is a suitable alternative for transportation of medical oxygen

cylinders, but it does not address the needs of regional operators to

ship spare oxygen cylinders used in support of aircraft pressurized

oxygen systems. ALPA stated that many airplanes do not have available

storage locations of adequate size and strength to hold oxygen

cylinders contained within their strong outer packagings. ALPA went on

to say that for such aircraft, creation of such areas or compartments

would require significant investment in engineering development and

aircraft retrofitting. Qantas Airlines pointed out that an oxygen

cylinder is often an unwieldy and heavy piece of equipment which

represents a serious hazard to passengers in the cabin not only in

regular handling, but especially during turbulence and other in-flight

emergencies.

ALPA specifically disagreed with the statement in the NPRM that it

would be safer to carry personal medical oxygen cylinders in the

passenger cabin because the crew could quickly remove the cylinders

from any fire area of the cabin. It stated that the aircraft crew

should not be considered a fire suppression resource. In its view, a

member of flight deck crew on a two-person crew would not leave his or

her station and enter a compartment that is on fire to attempt to fight

the fire, nor move a package containing an oxidizer away from the fire.

Many commenters noted that there has not been any incident

involving the transport of compressed oxygen in cylinders designed for

and used aboard aircraft in any compartment, including an inaccessible

cargo compartment. IATA pointed out that there is no record of any

lives having been lost due to properly packaged oxidizers, including

oxygen, in the 76 years of commercial aviation history and, in

particular, since the implementation of the first air-mode Dangerous

Goods Code in 1956. ATA stated that the industry system of COMAT

distribution of oxygen cylinders has been safely in place since

supplemental oxygen was needed on commercial aircraft between 1946-1948

when the Lockheed Constellation, Douglas DC-6 and Convair aircraft

entered service. Air New Zealand, pointing out that there are large

quantities of oxygen stored in cylinders behind the sidewalls of cargo

compartments, stated that the only protection these cylinders have from

a cargo compartment fire is the compartment wall lining which meets the

flame penetration requirements of

[[Page 45391]]

14 CFR 25.855. Air New Zealand went on to say that ``it would be

logical to ship cylinders in the cargo compartment in overpacks meeting

the same flame penetration standards.''

Most of the comments opposing the proposals related to the

transportation of compressed oxygen aboard passenger-carrying aircraft

were from airlines who need to resupply (or deploy) charged oxygen

cylinders for compliance with FAA airworthiness requirements and for

use by passengers who require supplemental oxygen during flight.

Several airlines stated that they store the oxygen cylinders at their

hub facilities where they can safeguard their storage and maintenance

and then deploy them as needed aboard their aircraft to other operating

locations. ALPA pointed out that without the required oxygen for crew

and passengers, an aircraft is not considered airworthy and is not

authorized to be flown. It stated that one way to restore the aircraft

to a flyable status is to remove and replace oxygen cylinders, and the

potential for an aircraft being grounded at a non-maintenance station

is great if these fully charged cylinders may not be moved by an

airline around its system.

Carnival Air Lines stated that it would be forced to rely on other

carriers to resupply its cylinders and position its maintenance and

replacement parts. Carnival also stated that this forced reliance upon

other carriers would inevitably lead to at least occasional

cancellations or lengthy flight delays resulting from an aircraft being

forced out of service awaiting required oxygen. It stated that the

costs associated with these delays would be ``very substantial.''

Several airline commenters stated that if the amendments were

adopted as proposed they will be unable to provide the current level of

service without incurring significant costs. For example, Continental

Airlines stated that it transports approximately 300 oxygen cylinders

per month and if the proposal is adopted it would not be able to

effectively and efficiently distribute medical oxygen to the places

where and when it is needed in order to accommodate passenger needs.

Numerous commenters were concerned about the proposed placement of

the Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) (49 CFR 172.448) label on cylinders of

oxygen that would be transported in the cabin of a passenger-carrying

aircraft. Some stated that adoption of this proposal would cause

unacceptable confusion and would be detrimental to safety. Others

stated that allowing one material labeled CAO to be loaded in a

passenger-carrying aircraft would dilute the meaning of the label and

cause confusion. ALPA stated that placing packages of hazardous

materials that are labeled CAO in passenger-carrying aircraft is

``totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.'' ALPA also stated

that if a label must be used, then development of a separate

``accessible while inflight'' label may be warranted. ATA stated that

``misuse'' of the hazard communication system would cause confusion

about the true meaning of the Cargo Aircraft Only label, which may well

increase the potential for a serious incident involving a passenger-

carrying aircraft.

The National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care

(NAMDRC) and the American Lung Association (ALA) supported the proposal

to allow the carriage of passenger-owned cylinders of compressed oxygen

in the cabin of the aircraft. NAMDRC and ALA also stated that this

exception would provide patients timely access to their personal oxygen

containers upon landing at a layover site or at their final

destination. These commenters, however, were under the mistaken

impression that this exception would allow passengers to transport

their cylinders in the aircraft by relinquishing the cylinders to the

flight crew. These commenters also asked: (1) Will the airlines have an

option or will they be required to transport the oxygen cylinders? (2)

Will the airlines be able to charge for the service? (3) What

documentation or security measures will be required for transport of

the oxygen cylinders? and (4) What types of oxygen cylinders will be

allowed to be stowed in the cabin and what type of testing will be

required before a cylinder is allowed on the aircraft?

3. RSPA Response to Comments

i. Chemical Oxidizers. Oxidizers currently authorized for carriage

aboard passenger aircraft in inaccessible cargo compartments will not

spontaneously initiate a fire. The potential hazard posed by these

oxidizers is that, if a fire were to occur elsewhere in the

compartment, such as in luggage or other cargo, and if there were no

means to suppress or extinguish the fire, the fire might burn long

enough to involve the oxidizer. The oxidizer, even in Packing Group

III, could potentially provide an oxygen source which could intensify

the fire to an extent that the limited safety features of the

compartment would be ineffective. For these reasons, and based on its

review of comments received to the NPRM, SNPRM and at the public

hearing, RSPA believes that there is a need to prohibit the

transportation of chemical oxidizers (i.e., oxidizers other than

compressed oxygen) in inaccessible cargo compartments that do not have

fire or smoke detection and fire suppression systems. Therefore,

consistent with the NTSB recommendation, RSPA is prohibiting the

transportation of chemical oxidizers in inaccessible cargo compartments

that do not have fire or smoke detection and fire suppression systems.

Based on evaluation of comments and the hazards posed by chemical

oxidizers, RSPA does not believe that chemical oxidizers should be

completely forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft. RSPA is

confident that chemical oxidizers can be safely transported in Class B,

and Class C compartments when transported in accordance with the HMR.

RSPA is also confident that the safety features of a Class B

compartment (i.e., an accessible compartment with fire or smoke

detection equipment) and those of a Class C compartment (i.e., an

inaccessible cargo compartment that has both a fire or smoke detection

system and a fire suppression system) counter the risk posed to an

aircraft from the carriage of chemical oxidizers that are transported

in accordance with the HMR. Therefore, RSPA is not adopting the

proposal to prohibit the carriage of chemical oxidizers aboard

passenger-carrying aircraft in Class B or Class C aircraft cargo

compartments.

ii. Compressed Oxygen. The potential hazard posed by compressed

oxygen is that it will intensify a fire. Thus, if a fire, from any

source, were to occur in an aircraft cargo compartment containing an

oxygen cylinder, the fire might burn long enough to heat the cylinder

sufficiently to cause the pressure relief mechanism on the cylinder to

open. The released oxygen could then intensify the fire to an extent

that the safety features of the compartment would be ineffective,

potentially resulting in the loss of the aircraft.

Under the HMR, compressed oxygen must be packaged in a DOT

specification cylinder, constructed of steel or aluminum. The cylinder

is required to incorporate a pressure relief device that will release

its contents if the internal pressure in the cylinder approaches the

test pressure of the cylinder. If the cylinder incorporates a valve,

sufficient protection must be provided to prevent operation of, and

damage to the valve during transportation, such as by boxing or crating

the cylinder or by equipping it with protective caps or head rings (see

49 CFR 173.27(g)). Some types of

[[Page 45392]]

cylinders may only be shipped in strong outside packagings, regardless

of whether or not the cylinder incorporates a valve (see 49 CFR

173.301(k)). An overpack or outer packaging commonly used by the

airlines to transport their oxygen cylinders is the ATA Specification

No. 300, Packaging of Airline Supplies, Category I. An ATA

Specification No. 300 Category I (ATA 300) overpack or outer packaging

is a resilient, durable overpack intended to be reused for a minimum of

100 round trips which meets specified performance standards, as

demonstrated by design tests (e.g., drop test and puncture resistance).

The overpack or outer packaging must also provide protection from shock

and vibration.

Numerous commenters pointed out the long safety record that oxygen

cylinders have had in commercial aviation and expressed the view that

RSPA and FAA had no basis for proposing to prohibit the transportation

of oxygen cylinders aboard passenger-carrying aircraft. Commenters

requested that RSPA and FAA reevaluate the proposal regarding oxygen

cylinders. After the ValuJet accident, RSPA and FAA began evaluating

the risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials by

aircraft. This rule reflects the agency's decisions regarding oxidizers

and compressed oxygen cylinders and is based on written comments,

information from the public hearing and FAA testing.

At the public hearing, the FAA asked whether any of the attendees

were aware of any testing results that would support assertions by some

commenters that a fire capable of generating enough heat to potentially

affect an oxygen cylinder would cause severe structural damage to the

aircraft before the cylinder would ever be dangerously involved. No one

cited any tests. In an effort to establish whether these assertions

were valid, the FAA conducted oven, fire, and overpack tests on

compressed oxygen cylinders. These tests were conducted at the FAA

Technical Center. A copy of the test report is available for review in

the public docket. As discussed below, the FAA found that oxygen

cylinders release their contents at temperatures well-below those that

would be needed to damage aircraft cargo compartment liners and

structures. However, an outer packaging or overpack will lengthen the

time for a cylinder to release its contents at these temperatures.

Oven Test

The purpose of the first test series was to determine the

approximate time and rate of release when an unprotected cylinder is

exposed to high temperatures, as might be experienced in a cargo

compartment fire. For this test, cylinders normally used for compressed

oxygen were filled with nitrogen to 1,800 p.s.i. This test was

performed on three cylinders of different capacity (i.e., 11, 76.5 and

115 cubic foot capacity). Each cylinder was placed in an industrial-

type electric conduction oven and the temperature of the oven was

increased to 400 deg.F. On average, the cylinders released their

contents within 14 minutes, when the temperature inside the oven was

approximately 370 deg.F. The average external temperature of the

cylinder at the time of release was 300 deg.F.

Fire Tests

During the second test series, FAA attempted to determine the

effect of releasing oxygen during a fire. For this test, an empty

cylinder was placed in a steel frame receptacle constructed in the

shape of a LD-3 container which is typically used in the lower deck of

a wide-body aircraft. Cardboard boxes filled with shredded paper were

loaded into the LD-3 container and a small fire initiated. When the

temperature of the cylinder reached the temperature obtained during the

first (oven) test, the oxygen was vented into the container through

piping. This test was performed three times using the contents of an 11

cubic foot cylinder and once using about 22 cubic feet of oxygen. The

first time a slight increase in temperature in the LD-3 container was

observed, but the oxygen release had little overall impact on the fire.

The second time the smoldering fire erupted violently with visible

flames appearing at one edge of the container. Although violent, the

eruption was short in duration and the fire was contained. The third

time the release of oxygen again caused a violent reaction inside the

container, which produced enough pressure to force open taped seams on

the container. However, it was again very short in duration much like

the previous test. The fourth time, the temperature in the LD-3

container increased dramatically immediately following the oxygen

release and the fire completely burned through the ceiling and part of

the front side of the container, totally destroying it.

Overpack Tests

During the third test series the level of thermal protection

provided by a variety of overpack or outer packagings was examined.

First, currently available overpack or outer packagings meeting ATA

300, Category I and containing a 76.5 cubic foot cylinder filled with

nitrogen were placed in an oven and the temperature was increased to

400 deg.F. This test was repeated numerous times. The first time,

after sixty minutes, the cylinder's surface temperature ranged from 230

deg.F to 280 deg.F, below the temperature at which the pressure

relief mechanism usually actuates to relieve the pressure within the

cylinder. The test was terminated after 69 minutes with the maximum

surface temperature of the cylinder reaching 300 deg.F. The second

time, after 60 minutes the surface temperature of the cylinder reached

300 deg.F (the temperature at which the pressure relief mechanism

usually actuates). The third time the surface temperature of the

cylinder reached 300 deg.F after 90 minutes, at which time the test

was terminated.

Then, in an effort to evaluate the increase in thermal protection

offered by a modified overpack case, additional tests were performed on

overpacks specifically designed for this purpose and having an exterior

made of a flame retardant thermoplastic known as Kydex. In addition, a

one inch thick fiberglass insulation was sandwiched between the

exterior layer of Kydex and an inner layer of foamed plastic. The test

was allowed to progress for approximately 60 minutes without the

cylinder surface temperature exceeding 100 deg.F.

As demonstrated by these tests, when the surface temperature of a

cylinder of compressed oxygen reaches approximately 300 deg.F, the

increase in pressure causes the cylinder's pressure relief mechanism to

open and release oxygen. If oxygen vents directly into the fire it

could cause a potentially catastrophic event. However, these tests also

show that an outer packaging that provides greater flame penetration

resistance and thermal protection can increase the level of safety in

the transportation of compressed oxygen aboard aircraft. Some thermal

protection, up to 60 minutes or more, is provided by overpacks or outer

packagings meeting the ATA 300 specification. Even more protection

would be provided by an improved overpack that provides thermal

protection and satisfies flame protection criteria.

The tests performed by FAA demonstrate that there is an increased

risk posed by the presence of compressed oxygen in the event of a fire

in a cargo compartment. This risk is due to the fact that, if the

temperature of an oxygen cylinder reaches approximately 300 deg.F, the

cylinder will vent oxygen into the cargo compartment and intensify the

fire. Consequently, action can and should be taken to reduce or

eliminate this risk. At this time, RSPA

[[Page 45393]]

does not believe that a complete prohibition on the transportation of

oxygen cylinders aboard passenger-carrying aircraft will be necessary.

Thus, RSPA is permitting oxygen cylinders to be loaded into and

transported on passenger-carrying aircraft and in inaccessible

locations on cargo-only aircraft subject to restrictions. Furthermore,

RSPA and FAA are developing additional standards for protection of

oxygen cylinders to be proposed in a separate future rulemaking. RSPA

is not adopting the proposal to require the ``Cargo Aircraft Only''

label on cylinders of compressed oxygen because it is continuing to

allow compressed oxygen to be carried in cargo compartments of

passenger aircraft.

Based on the merits of comments, past shipping experience, FAA

testing and its own evaluation, in this final rule, RSPA is amending

requirements for the packaging, stowage and transport of oxygen

cylinders on aircraft, summarized as follows:

For transportation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft or

in an inaccessible cargo location on a cargo-only aircraft, each

cylinder must be placed in an overpack or an outer packaging that

satisfies the performance criteria in ATA Specification 300.

Each cylinder must be stowed horizontally on or as close

as practicable to the floor of the cargo compartment or unit load

device.

No more than a total of six cylinders may be stowed on an

aircraft in inaccessible cargo compartments that do not have a fire or

smoke detection system and a fire suppression system (e.g., a Class D

cargo compartment).

No more than six cylinders may be stowed in a Class B

cargo compartment or its equivalent (i.e., an accessible cargo

compartment equipped with a fire or smoke detection system but not a

fire suppression system), except that one additional cylinder

containing medical-use oxygen may be carried per passenger needing the

oxygen at destination.

A limited number of oxygen cylinders, each with a capacity

no greater than 850 liters (30 cubic feet), may be carried in the

passenger cabin of a passenger-carrying aircraft. This authorization is

limited to no more than six airline-owned cylinders and one additional

cylinder containing medical-use oxygen per passenger needing the oxygen

at destination.

For transportation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft or in an

inaccessible cargo location on a cargo-only aircraft, RSPA is requiring

that each cylinder of compressed oxygen be placed in an overpack or

outer packaging meeting the performance criteria in ATA Specification

300. (See Special Provision A52 in the amendment to Section 172.102 of

this final rule.) RSPA believes requiring cylinders of compressed

oxygen to be placed in these overpacks or outer packagings provides an

incremental level of safety in the interim until new overpack standards

are developed and are in production.

Based on the FAA testing, RSPA believes that any increase in risk

posed by the presence of a compressed oxygen cylinder in a cargo

compartment can be significantly reduced, or even eliminated, if the

oxygen cylinder is placed in an outer packaging or overpack that

provides more thermal protection and flame resistence than the ATA 300

overpacks currently in use. To this end, RSPA is developing proposed

enhanced standards for outer packagings or overpacks to further protect

cylinders from heat and fire. RSPA anticipates publishing an NPRM later

this year to invite comments on enhanced standards for these outer

packagings or overpacks, including a proposed date for their

implementation. At present, RSPA is considering a requirement that an

oxygen cylinder may be carried in an inaccessible cargo compartment on

an aircraft only when the cylinder is placed in an outer packaging or

overpack meeting certain flame penetration resistance, thermal

protection, and integrity standards. The flame penetration standards

would likely be similar to those specified for Class C cargo

compartment liners in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part III.

If RSPA adopts enhanced standards for outer packagings or

overpacks, we would require use of an enhanced outer packaging or

overpack as soon as practicable. On the other hand, if RSPA ultimately

concludes that enhanced standards will not provide significantly more

thermal protection and heat penetration resistence than the ATA 300

overpacks currently in use, RSPA may prohibit the carriage of oxygen

cylinders in inaccessible cargo compartments that do not have

appropriate fire or smoke detection systems and fire suppression

systems.

RSPA is also adopting stowage requirements and numerical

limitations with regard to oxygen cylinders in aircraft cargo

compartments--rather than completely prohibiting the transportation of

oxygen cylinders in cargo compartments of passenger aircraft and in

inaccessible cargo compartments on all-cargo aircraft. The temperatures

of a fire in a cargo compartment are, for the most part, much higher at

the top of the compartment than at the bottom. RSPA believes that

stowing the cylinders horizontally on the floor of the compartment may

decrease the likelihood that a cylinder exposed to a cargo compartment

fire will vent. Therefore, RSPA is requiring that cylinders of

compressed oxygen be placed horizontally on or as close as practicable

to the floor of the cargo compartment or unit load device. RSPA also

believes that only a limited number of cylinders should be transported

in Class B and D cargo compartments in order to decrease the aggregate

risk to the aircraft. Therefore, RSPA is limiting to six the number of

cylinders that can be stowed in an aircraft in Class B compartments

(accessible, no fire suppression systems) and Class D compartments (no

fire or smoke detection or fire suppression systems). RSPA believes

that the concerns expressed by foreign aircraft operators and aircraft

operators in remote locations (e.g., Alaska) are addressed by

continuing to allow oxygen cylinders to be transported aboard

passenger-carrying aircraft.

As proposed in the SNPRM, this final rule will allow for the

carriage of a limited number of oxygen cylinders, as cargo, in the

passenger cabin of an aircraft, under certain conditions. This

authorization is limited to no more than six airline-owned cylinders

and one additional cylinder containing medical-use oxygen per passenger

needing the oxygen at destination. However, consistent with the

exemption on which the proposal was based (see SNPRM; 62 FR 44377),

RSPA is limiting this allowance to small ``medical-use'' oxygen

cylinders with capacities no greater than 850 liters (30 cubic feet).

Consistent with the outer packaging requirements for other cargo

compartments, RSPA is requiring that these cylinders be placed in an

overpack or outer packaging that meets the requirements of ATA 300.

This exception is provided to ensure that cylinders of medical oxygen

owned by an airline or a passenger--requiring oxygen at destination--

can continue to be transported aboard passenger-carrying aircraft.

The exception does not eliminate or waive any of the current

packaging, maintenance, or use requirements of the HMR related to

cylinders of compressed oxygen, or any of the FAA or airline security

requirements. If an airline elects to accept for transportation

passenger-owned oxygen cylinders in accordance with 175.10(b), the

passenger will have to offer the cylinder to the airline in accordance

with the

[[Page 45394]]

established procedures of the airline. These procedures may require

passengers to tender their cylinders at airline cargo facilities or at

passenger check-in counters. In addition, the passengers will not have

access to their cylinders until they are returned to them by the

airlines. Again, these procedures will be established by the airlines.

RSPA notes that none of DOT's requirements require airlines to accept

passengers' cylinders of compressed oxygen, nor do they require or

preclude airlines from charging fees for this service. In addition,

RSPA also notes that nothing in this rulemaking mandates that an

airline supply the ATA 300 overpack. If an airline elects not to supply

the ATA 300 overpack or outer packaging, its passengers will be

responsible for obtaining the overpack or outer packaging.

New paragraph Sec. 175.10(b) allows six oxygen cylinders owned or

leased by the aircraft operator or a passenger to be transported as

cargo in the cabin of the aircraft. These oxygen cylinders are

hazardous materials, subject to all applicable HMR requirements. See

the RSPA's ``Advisory Notice: Transportation of Air Carrier Company

Materials (COMAT) by Aircraft,'' 61 FR 65479 (December 13, 1996). Air

carriers who do not elect to accept or transport hazardous materials

(and have not developed the manuals and trained their employees as

required by 14 CFR) must offer their company-owned oxygen cylinders to

a carrier of another mode (e.g., highway) or to another air carrier

that has an established program for transportation of hazardous

materials.

C. Spent Chemical Oxygen Generators

In the SNPRM, RSPA proposed to prohibit the transportation 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 means of

transportation. All commenters supported this proposal. The NTSB stated

that ``it is difficult to determine whether all of the oxidizing

material in a spent generator has been depleted, since a generator is a

closed container, and both the oxidizer within the generator before the

reaction and the materials remaining in the generator after the

reaction are solids with similar weights.''

RSPA believes that lessening the possibility that this type of

human error may occur outweighs any interest in, or need for,

transporting spent chemical oxygen generators by aircraft. Accordingly,

RSPA is prohibiting the transportation by aircraft of spent chemical

oxygen generators and to regulate them as Class 9 materials when

transported by other than aircraft.

Based on the foregoing, RSPA is adding to the Hazardous Materials

Table (HMT) the new shipping description, ``Oxygen generator, chemical,

spent, 9, NA3356, III.'' The entry is preceded by a plus sign (``+'')

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 a Class 9 hazardous material. Special provision 61 is

added in Column 7 to specify the conditions under which an oxygen

generator is considered ``spent.'' In addition, ``None'' is added to

Column 8A of the HMT because RSPA believes that spent oxygen generators

should not be eligible for limited quantity exceptions or to be

reclassified as a consumer commodity. RSPA is also amending

Secs. 171.11, 171.12 and 171.12a, consistent with the proposals, 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.

D. Personal Oxygen Generators

RSPA proposed to eliminate the exception in 49 CFR 175.10(a)(24)

that allows the transportation of small personal oxygen generators in

checked baggage. There was no opposition and a number of commenters,

including the NTSB, expressed support for this proposal. The NTSB

stated that this exception currently permits the placement of oxidizers

in cargo compartments that do not have fire or smoke detection systems

and that are designed to suppress a fire by limiting the oxygen

available to support combustion and, therefore, it supports the

proposal.

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

exception provided in Sec. 175.10(a)(24) for small personal chemical

oxygen generators in checked baggage.

E. Other Materials

The NPRM and the SNPRM proposed to prohibit the transportation of

packages required to be labeled OXIDIZER or OXYGEN on passenger

aircraft and in inaccessible cargo compartments aboard cargo aircraft.

Therefore, the proposed prohibition did not apply to an oxidizer

classed as a consumer commodity, ORM-D, under the provisions of 49 CFR

173.152. The ICAO Technical Instructions do not allow Division 5.1

materials (oxidizers) to be reclassified as a consumer commodity. RSPA

specifically requested comments regarding whether it would be

appropriate to extend the prohibition to consumer commodities that are

oxidizers or whether quantity limits should be imposed on these

materials in 49 CFR 175.75.

In its comments, NTSB stated that it was concerned that the

proposals did not include a prohibition on those oxidizers that are

shipped as consumer commodities. It also stated that the exception in

49 CFR 173.152 allows the placement of oxidizers in cargo compartments

that do not have fire or smoke detection/suppression systems and,

therefore, urged that the consumer commodity exception for oxidizers be

eliminated. NTSB also requested that RSPA include organic peroxides in

its study of the effects of hazardous materials in cargo compartments

fires and to ban them from transportation by air if they cannot be

transported safely.

Other commenters stated that they opposed extending the prohibition

to consumer commodity oxidizers. These commenters stated that these

materials are adequately regulated under ICAO and 49 CFR 173.152. HMAC

stated that penalizing those who comply with the regulations does not

address the issues of untrained and undertrained personnel and

undeclared and misdeclared hazardous materials nor does it improve

safety for the general public. HMAC urged RSPA to focus on aggressively

enforcing current regulations, educating the regulated community, and

taking appropriate penalty actions against those that do not comply.

RSPA believes that those oxidizers authorized to be reclassed as

ORM-D (i.e., consumer commodities) are of a form and quantity that

would not pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of an aircraft, even

in cargo compartments that lack a fire and smoke detection system.

Therefore, RSPA is not prohibiting oxidizers that have been reclassed

as an ORM-D from being transported in Class D cargo compartments. RSPA

also believes that NTSB's request to include organic peroxides in the

prohibition is outside the scope of this rulemaking and, therefore, has

not been adopted. However, as noted in the December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA

has initiated a study to assess the risks associated with the

transportation of hazardous materials in aircraft cargo compartments

that may result in RSPA publishing another rulemaking to ban additional

hazardous materials. As part of that study, RSPA is reviewing the

hazards posed by materials similar to oxidizers, such as organic

peroxides.

[[Page 45395]]

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final 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 regulatory evaluation is available for review in the

public docket.

Executive Order 12612

This final 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; and

(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 rule requires oxidizers to be

transported in certain types of cargo compartments aboard aircraft and

specifies overpacking requirements for cylinder of compressed oxygen.

RSPA determined that the effective date of Federal preemption for the

requirements in this rule concerning covered subjects is March 1, 2000.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (the Act) establishes ``as a

principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,

consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statues, to

fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the

business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to

regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to

solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the

rational for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small

entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and

small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or

final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the

agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as

described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is

not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, section 605(b) of the Act provides that the

head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The

certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for

this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

This rule will prohibit the carriage of oxidizers onboard aircraft

in inaccessible cargo compartments that do not have a fire or smoke

detection system and a fire suppression system. This rule will affect

persons who ship oxidizers by air and the airline operators that

transport oxidizers as cargo. However, it is assumed that shippers will

not have to pay more to ship oxidizers by alternative means: on all-

cargo aircraft that have accessible cargo compartments or cargo

compartments with a fire or smoke detection system and a fire

suppression system, on passenger-carrying aircraft that have cargo

compartments with a fire or smoke detection system and a fire

suppression system, or by other modes of transportation. It is also

assumed that there will be no loss of revenue for all-cargo operators

because they can transport oxidizers in class E cargo compartments or

(if the aircraft is so equipped) in class C cargo compartments.

Accordingly, this rule will only reduce the freight revenues of an

operator of passenger-carrying aircraft that also carry oxidizers as

cargo in compartments that do not have a fire or smoke detection system

and a fire suppression system. The effect of this rule on an operator

certificated under 14 CFR part 121 will only last until March 19, 2001,

because the class D compartments on their aircraft (i.e., those

compartments without a fire or smoke detection system and a fire

suppression system) must meet the standards for a class C or class E

compartment by that date.

In the SNPRM, RSPA evaluated the effect of its proposed rule on

part 121 operators under FAA Order 2100.A and stated that it lacked

sufficient 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). Although RSPA requested comments ``on the economic

impact, if any, of this proposed rule on other entities,'' no comments

were submitted that would assist RSPA's evaluation of the impact of

this rule on small entities.

Because the FAA no longer uses the criteria in its Order 2100.A to

determine who are small entities, RSPA considers that an airline

operator with fewer than 1,500 employees is a small entity, under the

Small Business Administration's criteria in 13 CFR part 121. RSPA

reviewed air carrier traffic and revenue statistics complied by DOT's

Office of Airline Information and information provided by FAA as to the

air carriers approved to transport hazardous materials. These sources

indicate that there is only one part 121 air carrier with fewer than

1,500 employees that carries passengers and accepts oxidizers for

transportation as cargo.

There are many air carriers certificated under 14 CFR part 135 that

are approved by FAA to carry hazardous materials. Many of these

carriers transport only cargo. In general, they provide on-demand,

rather than schedule service, and the inaccessible cargo compartment on

these aircraft are small. (Most of the cargo is carried in the main

compartment when there are no passengers.) RSPA does not have

information on which part 135 carriers carry passengers or, more

importantly, whether any of them carry passengers and hazardous

materials on the same flight. Because of their limited cargo capacity

and lack of schedule service, however, RSPA assumes that the passenger-

carrying aircraft operated by part 135 carriers are not utilized for

the transportation of oxidizers.

Accordingly, RSPA certifies that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 45396]]

Executive Order 13084

RSPA believes that this final rule will have no significant or

unique effect on the communities of Indian tribal governments when

analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order

13084 (``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments''). Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of

this Executive Order do not apply.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of

$100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State,

local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector.

This final rule is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the

objective of the rule.

Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems (Year 2000)

Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates may, on

January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900.

This Year 2000 problem could cause computers to stop running or to

start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem poses a threat

to the global economy in which Americans live and work. With the help

of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, Federal agencies

are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem and to offer

support. We do not want to impose new requirements that would mandate

business process changes when the resources necessary to implement

those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year 2000 problem.

This final rule does not impose business process changes or require

modification to computer systems. Because the final rule does not

affect organizations' ability to respond to the Year 2000 problem, we

do not intend to delay the effectiveness of the requirements in the

final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule 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, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

49 CFR Part 172

Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,

Labeling, Marking, Packaging and 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 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 171.7, in the Table of material incorporated by reference in

paragraph (a)(3), a new entry is added in appropriate alphabetical

order to read as follows:

Sec. 171.7 Reference material.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

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

49 CFR

Source and name of material reference

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

Air Transport Association of America, 1301 Pennsylvania ..............

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20004-1707

ATA Specification No. 300 Packaging of Airline 172.102

Supplies, Revision 19, July 31, 1996...............

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

3. 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) A chemical oxygen generator is forbidden for transportation

aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft and must be approved, classed,

described and packaged in accordance with the requirements of this

subchapter for transportation on cargo-only aircraft. A chemical oxygen

generator (spent) is forbidden for transportation on aircraft.

(16) A cylinder containing Oxygen, compressed, may not be

transported on a passenger-carrying aircraft or in an inaccessible

cargo location aboard a cargo-only aircraft unless it is packaged as

required by Part 173 and Part 178 of this subchapter and is placed in

an overpack or outer packaging that satisfies the requirements of

Special Provision A52 in Sec. 172.102.

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

Sec. 171.12 Import and export shipments.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(18) A chemical oxygen generator must be approved in accordance

with the requirements of this subchapter. A chemical oxygen generator

and a chemical oxygen generator (spent) must be classed, described and

packaged in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.

* * * * *

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

follows:

Sec. 171.12a Canadian shipments and packagings.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(17) A chemical oxygen generator must be approved in accordance

with the requirements of this subchapter. A chemical oxygen generator

and a chemical oxygen generator (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

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

follows:

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

7. In the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table, one entry is

added in appropriate alphabetical order and one entry is revised to

read as follows:

Sec. 172.101 Purpose and use of hazardous materials table.

* * * * *

[[Page 45397]]

Sec. 172.101.--Hazardous Materials Table

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

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

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

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

proper shipping division numbers 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)

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

[Revised]

* * * * * * *

Oxygen, 2.2 UN1072 .......... 2.2, 5.1.... A52 306......... 302 314, 315 75 kg......... 150 kg........ A

compressed.

* * * * * * *

[Added]

* * * * * * *

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

chemical, spent.

* * * * * * *

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

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

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

provision ``A52'' is added in alphanumeric 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 all or a part of its chemical contents have been expended.

* * * * *

(2) * * *

Code/Special Provisions

* * * * *

A52 A cylinder containing Oxygen, compressed, may not be loaded

into a passenger-carrying aircraft or in an inaccessible cargo

location on a cargo-only aircraft unless it is placed in an overpack

or outer packaging that conforms to the performance criteria of Air

Transport Association (ATA) Specification 300 for Type I shipping

containers.

* * * * *

PART 175--CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT

9. 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:

Sec. 175.10 Exceptions.

* * * * *

(b) A cylinder containing medical-use compressed oxygen, owned or

leased by an aircraft operator or offered for transportation by a

passenger needing it for personal medical use at destination, may be

carried in the cabin of a passenger-carrying aircraft in accordance

with the following provisions:

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

and, in addition, no more than one cylinder per passenger needing the

oxygen at destination, may be transported in the cabin of the aircraft

under the provisions of this paragraph (b);

(2) The rated capacity of each cylinder may not exceed 850 liters

(30 cubic feet);

(3) Each cylinder and its overpack or outer packaging (see Special

Provision A52 in Sec. 172.102 of this subchapter) must conform to the

provisions of this subchapter;

(4) The aircraft operator shall securely stow the cylinder in its

overpack or outer packaging in the cabin of the aircraft and shall

notify the pilot-in-command as specified in Sec. 175.33 of this part;

and

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

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

this subchapter;

(ii) Section 173.25(a)(4) of this subchapter.

(iii) Section 175.85(i).

Sec. 175.10 [Amended]

11. In addition, in Sec. 175.10 paragraph (a)(24) is removed and

reserved.

12. In Sec. 175.85, paragraphs (h) and (i) are added to read as

follows:

Sec. 175.85 Cargo location.

* * * * *

(h) Compressed oxygen, when properly labeled Oxidizer or Oxygen,

may be loaded and transported as provided in paragraph (i) of this

section. No person may load or transport any other package containing a

hazardous material for which an OXIDIZER label is required under this

subchapter in an inaccessible cargo compartment that does not have a

fire or smoke detection system and a fire suppression system.

(i) In addition to the quantity limitations prescribed in

Sec. 175.75, cylinders of compressed oxygen must be stowed in

accordance with the following:

(1) No more than a combined total of six cylinders of compressed

oxygen may be stowed on an aircraft in the inaccessible aircraft cargo

compartment(s) that do not have fire or smoke detection systems and

fire suppression systems.

(2) When loaded into a passenger-carrying aircraft or in an

inaccessible cargo location on a cargo-only aircraft, cylinders of

compressed oxygen must be stowed horizontally on the floor or as close

as practicable to the floor of the cargo compartment or unit load

device. This provision does not apply to cylinders stowed in the cabin

of the aircraft in accordance with Sec. 175.10(b).

(3) When transported in a Class B aircraft cargo compartment (see

14 CFR 25.857(b)) or its equivalent (i.e., an accessible cargo

compartment equipped with a fire or smoke detection system but not a

fire suppression system), cylinders of compressed oxygen must be loaded

in a manner that a crew member can see, handle and, when size and

weight permit, separate the cylinders from other cargo during flight.

No more than six cylinders of compressed oxygen

[[Page 45398]]

and, in addition, one cylinder of medical-use compressed oxygen per

passenger needing oxygen at destination--with a rated capacity of 850

liters (30 cubic feet) or less of oxygen--may be carried in a Class B

aircraft cargo compartment or its equivalent.

Issued in Washington, DC on August 11, 1999 under the authority

delegated in 49 CFR part 1.

Kelley S. Coyner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 99-21187 Filed 8-18-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P