[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44374-44384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21739]
[[Page 44373]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Research and Special Programs Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, and 175
Prohibition of Oxidizers Aboard Aircraft; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 44374]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, and 175
[Docket No. HM-224A; Notice No. 97-8]
RIN 2137-AC92
Prohibition of Oxidizers Aboard Aircraft
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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