[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45912-45920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23010]


      

[[Page 45911]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 91, et al.



Prohibition on the Transportation of Devices Designed as Chemical 
Oxygen Generators as Cargo in Aircraft; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 45912]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 119, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No. 29318; Notice No. 98-12]
RIN 2120-AG35


Prohibition on the Transportation of Devices Designed as Chemical 
Oxygen Generators as Cargo in Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to ban, in certain domestic operations, 
the transportation of devices designed to chemically generate oxygen, 
including devices that have been discharged and newly manufactured 
devices that have not yet been charged for the generation of oxygen, 
with limited exceptions. These devices could, if inadvertently 
transported when charged, initiate or provide a secondary source of 
oxygen to fuel a fire. This proposed ban is intended to enhance 
aviation safety by reducing the risk of human error in recognizing 
whether such a device is charged or has been discharged.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be delivered or mailed, in 
duplicate, to: U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, Docket No. 
FAA-98-29318; 400 Seventh St., SW., Rm. Plaza 401, Washington, DC 
20590. Comments may also be sent electronically to the following 
internet address: [email protected]. Comments may be filed and/or 
examined in Room Plaza 401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, except 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Catey, Flight Standards 
Service, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: 
(202) 267-8166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as 
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, 
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the 
proposals in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should 
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the regulatory 
docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the Rules 
Docket address specified above.
    All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will 
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection 
before and after the comment closing date.
    All comments received on or before the closing date will be 
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed 
rulemaking. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent 
practicable. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in 
light of the comments received.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed, 
stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement 
is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 29318.'' The postcard will be date 
stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Government Printing Office's electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 1-800-FAA-ARAC).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's webpage at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's webpage at 
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published 
rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 
267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or docket 
number of this NPRM.
    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular 
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, that 
describes the application procedure.

I. Background

A. Accident Involving Chemical Oxygen Generators

    On May 11, 1996, ValuJet flight 592 crashed into an Everglades 
swamp shortly after takeoff from Miami International Airport, Florida. 
Both pilots, the three flight attendants, and all 105 passengers were 
killed. Before the accident, the flight crew reported to air traffic 
control that it was experiencing smoke in the cabin and cockpit. The 
evidence indicates that five fiberboard boxes containing as many as 144 
chemical oxygen generators, most with unexpended oxidizer cores, and 
three aircraft wheel/tire assemblies had been loaded in the forward 
cargo compartment shortly before departure. These items were being 
shipped as company material. Additionally, some passenger baggage and 
U.S. mail were loaded into the forward cargo compartment, which had no 
fire/smoke detection system to alert the cockpit crew of a fire within 
the compartment. On August 19, 1997, the NTSB issued its aircraft 
accident report entitled ``In-Flight Fire and Impact With Terrain; 
ValuJet Airlines Flight 592.'' In that report, the NTSB determined that 
one of the probable causes of the accident resulted from a fire in the 
airplane's Class D cargo compartment that was initiated by the 
actuation of one or more of the chemical oxygen generators being 
improperly carried as cargo.

B. Incidents Involving Chemical Oxygen Generators

    In addition to the ValuJet accident discussed above, the FAA and 
the NTSB have investigated as many as 20 other incidents involving 
chemical oxygen generators, all caused by either undeclared, improperly 
packaged, or mishandled units. Fortunately, none of these incidents 
resulted in loss of life; however, they show the various ways in which 
chemical oxygen generators can pose dangers. The NTSB's August 19, 
1997, accident report on the crash of ValuJet flight 592 also cited the 
following incidents:
    (1) On August 10, 1986, an American Trans Air McDonnell Douglas DC-
10-40 arrived without incident at Chicago's O'Hare International 
Airport; however, after the passengers and crew had deplaned, a fire 
spread rapidly throughout the entire cabin and destroyed the airplane. 
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded that the fire 
started as a result of a mechanic's improper handling of a chemical 
oxygen generator inside a seatback that was being shipped as company 
material. (The NTSB

[[Page 45913]]

learned as a consequence of this incident that some air carriers were 
not taking the required precautions when shipping chemical oxygen 
generators and were not aware that solid-state passenger supplemental 
chemical oxygen generators were capable of generating high temperatures 
and were classified as hazardous materials when carried as company 
material in cargo compartments.)
    (2) On February 19, 1988, Eastern Airlines flight 215 carrying 131 
passengers and 6 crewmembers experienced an in-flight fire but reached 
its destination safely. A chemical oxygen generator, taken out by a 
flight attendant while assisting a passenger who was complaining of 
shortness of breath, malfunctioned and was laid aside on the shelf of a 
beverage cart; it was then covered with a damp linen napkin for 
cooling. The cart, with the hot oxygen generator, was later put into 
the forward galley and several minutes later the linen napkin and other 
material in the galley caught fire. Flight attendants extinguished the 
fire with halon fire extinguishers.
    (3) On November 7, 1992, an air cargo package fire broke out at a 
Wilson UTC, Inc., freight-forwarder facility in North Hollywood, CA, 
where cargo was being loaded into a container that was to have been 
subsequently loaded onto a Qantas Airways flight. The container was 
moved to a concrete area where the fire was extinguished. The fire was 
caused by a chemical oxygen generator being shipped without proper 
papers, not marked or labeled in accordance with hazardous materials 
regulations, and not properly assembled.
    (4) On September 24, 1993, a burning cargo container was unloaded 
from an aircraft at a Federal Express facility in Oakland, CA. As with 
the Wilson UTC incident described above, a chemical oxygen generator 
had been shipped without proper papers, not marked and labeled in 
accordance with hazardous materials regulations, and not properly 
assembled.
    (5) On October 21, 1994, a box containing 37 chemical oxygen 
generators caught fire at an Emery Worldwide building in Los Angeles, 
CA. Once again, the box of chemical oxygen generators was found to have 
been shipped without proper papers, not properly marked and labeled, 
and not properly assembled and packaged.
    (6) On January 26, 1996, an undeclared shipment of 11 chemical 
oxygen generators was discovered during the loading of an America West 
aircraft in Las Vegas, NV. A maintenance technician noticed partially 
obscured hazardous materials labels and opened the package to discover 
the chemical oxygen generators, packed at random, most with their 
actuating devices in the firing position, one with no retaining pin 
inserted.
    (7) On April 12, 1997, one of Continental Airlines' contract 
maintenance companies shipped seven chemical oxygen generators on 
Continental flight 190. The chemical oxygen generators were loosely 
packed in a box containing a life vest and their percussion firing 
mechanisms were in the ``disarmed'' position. The shipping papers 
listed the contents of the box simply as ``aircraft parts.''

C. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendation

    On May 31, 1996, the NTSB issued Recommendation A-96-29, which 
stated that the Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) 
should, ``in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration, 
permanently prohibit the transportation of chemical oxygen generators 
as cargo on board any passenger or cargo aircraft when the generators 
have passed their expiration dates, and the chemical core has not been 
depleted.'' (Class I, Urgent Action)

D. Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) Actions

    On May 24, 1996, RSPA published an interim final rule in the 
Federal Register (61 FR 26418), which temporarily prohibited the 
offering for transportation and the transportation of chemical oxygen 
generators as cargo in passenger-carrying operations. The RSPA interim 
final rule was adopted as a final rule on December 30, 1996 (61 FR 
68952), resulting in the permanent ban on carrying chemical oxygen 
generators as cargo on all passenger-carrying operations. On the same 
date, RSPA proposed to limit the carriage of oxidizers, including 
compressed oxygen, to accessible locations on all-cargo operations, and 
prohibit such oxidizers from being transported in all passenger-
carrying aircraft (61 FR 68955, Dec. 30, 1996).
    On June 5, 1997, RSPA adopted a more specific shipping description 
for chemical oxygen generators to make it easier for carriers to 
identify these devices, and also specified additional packaging 
requirements (see 49 CFR 171.101 (62 FR 30770-30771, June 5, 1997)). If 
a chemical oxygen generator is shipped with its means of initiation 
attached, the generator must incorporate at least two positive means of 
preventing unintentional initiation, and be classed and approved by 
RSPA. A person who offers a chemical oxygen generator must: (1) Ensure 
that the generator is offered in conformance with the conditions of the 
approval; (2) maintain a copy of the approval at each facility where 
the chemical oxygen generator is packaged; and (3) mark the approval 
number on the outside of the package (see 49 CFR 171.102, special 
provision 60 (62 FR 30772, June 5, 1997, and 62 FR 34669, June 27, 
1997)). When transported by air (on all-cargo aircraft), a chemical 
oxygen generator must conform to the provisions of the approval issued 
by RSPA and be contained in a packaging prepared and originally offered 
for transportation by the approval holder (see 49 CFR 171.102, special 
provision A51 (62 FR 30772, June 5, 1997)).
    On August 20, 1997, RSPA published a Supplemental Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) (62 FR 44374) to determine whether the 
proposed oxidizer prohibition should extend to Classes B and C 
compartments on passenger-carrying aircraft. RSPA also proposed in the 
SNPRM to completely prohibit the carriage of chemical oxygen generators 
that have been discharged (``spent'') and to prohibit the carriage of 
personal-use chemical oxygen generators on passenger-carrying aircraft 
(see also 61 FR 68955, Dec. 30, 1996).

E. Design of Cargo Compartments Aboard Aircraft

    Various features incorporated into the designs of cargo 
compartments are intended to control or extinguish fires that might 
occur. Under the Federal Aviation Regulations, cargo compartments in 
transport category aircraft are classified into five categories, 
Classes A, B, C, D, and E (14 CFR 25.857). Although the FAA has not 
classified cargo compartments in non-transport category aircraft, the 
FAA believes that the same risks also apply to compartments in non-
transport category aircraft that share similar design features. It 
should be noted that none of the compartments are designed to control 
fires fueled by chemical oxygen generators. In brief, the five classes 
of compartments are as follows:
Class A Compartments
    A Class A compartment is one which is easily accessible in flight 
and in which the presence of a fire would be easily discovered by a 
crewmember.
Class B Compartments
    A Class B compartment is one which is completely accessible in 
flight to a crewmember with a hand held fire extinguisher; from which 
no hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, or extinguishing agent will 
enter any

[[Page 45914]]

compartment occupied by the crew or passengers when the compartment is 
being accessed; and in which an approved smoke detector or fire 
detector system is installed.
Class C Compartments
    A Class C compartment is not accessible but has an approved smoke 
detector or fire detector system, an approved built-in fire-
extinguishing system, a means to control ventilation and drafts so that 
the extinguishing agent can control a fire that starts within the 
compartment, and a means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, 
flames or extinguishing agent from any compartment occupied by crew or 
passengers.
Class D Compartments
    A Class D compartment is designed to control ventilation and 
drafts. The compartment volume does not exceed 1,000 cubic feet, and 
there are means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, flames or 
noxious gases from any compartment occupied by crew or passengers. Its 
design is intended to confine and control the severity of a fire by 
limiting air flow. For a compartment of 500 cubic feet (cu. ft.) or 
less, an air flow of 1500 cu. ft. per hour (three air exchanges per 
hour) is acceptable. On February 17, 1998, the FAA issued a final rule 
(63 FR 8032) that requires that compartments designated as Class D on 
passenger-carrying aircraft used in part 121 operations meet fire 
detection and suppression standards for Class C compartments, as 
applicable, by the year 2000. In addition, the final rule requires 
that, for all-cargo part 121 operations, Class D compartments meet at 
least the detection standards of Class E compartments.
Class E Compartments
    A Class E compartment is found on all-cargo aircraft, has an 
approved smoke or fire detector system, a means to shut off the 
ventilating airflow, a means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, 
flames or noxious gases from the flight crew compartment, and required 
crew emergency exits are accessible under any cargo loading condition.

II. Today's Proposed Action

    The actions proposed in this notice, in conjunction with RSPA's 
actions regarding chemical oxygen generators, are responsive to the 
NTSB's recommendations and are based on FAA's assessment of possible 
human errors in identifying a device designed as a chemical oxygen 
generator that is charged versus one that has never been charged or has 
been previously discharged. The FAA proposes to define a ``device 
designed as a chemical oxygen generator'' as a device that: (1) Is 
charged with or contains a chemical or chemicals that produce oxygen by 
chemical reaction, regardless of whether the expiration date for the 
device has passed; (2) has been discharged, and thus has already 
produced oxygen by chemical reaction, regardless of whether there is 
residue remaining in the device; and (3) is newly manufactured but not 
charged with chemicals for the generation of oxygen. The FAA also 
proposes to include, in 14 CFR 119.3, the same definition of chemical 
oxygen generator that is currently found in 14 CFR 25.1450, i.e., ``a 
device which produces oxygen by chemical reaction.'' The FAA's 
definition differs slightly from RSPA's, as finalized in its May 24, 
1996 interim final rule (61 FR 26418), which defines an oxygen 
generator (chemical) as `` a device containing chemicals that upon 
activation release oxygen as a product of chemical reaction.'' Although 
worded slightly differently, the FAA does not view these definitions as 
being in direct conflict. Nevertheless, the FAA requests comments as to 
whether the inclusion of the part 25 definition of chemical oxygen 
generator in Sec. 119.3 causes confusion for air carriers and hazardous 
materials shippers/offerors.
    The FAA is very concerned about the possibility of the packaging of 
a device designed as a chemical oxygen generator being mismarked 
because of the hazards posed by such devices. In certain circumstances, 
devices designed as chemical oxygen generators can initiate fires on 
aircraft. Even in cases where they are shipped in accordance with the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR's) (49 CFR parts 171-180) and do 
not actually start a fire, their presence may contribute to the 
severity of a fire by providing a secondary source of oxygen not 
otherwise present. Therefore, the FAA believes that the transportation 
of these items poses an unacceptable risk in both domestic (1) 
passenger-carrying operations conducted under 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 
125, and 135, and (2) all-cargo operations conducted under 14 CFR parts 
91, 121, 125, and 135 when those items are transported in cargo 
compartments that are not equipped with fire/smoke detection systems. 
The prohibition would not, however, extend to those devices designed as 
chemical oxygen generators that are installed in an aircraft to conform 
with aircraft type-certification requirements or are present to conform 
with, or permitted to be carried under, FAA operating rules for a 
particular flight.
    The FAA notes that the proposed prohibition on the carriage of 
devices designed as chemical oxygen generators would overlap, in some 
instances, with RSPA's final and proposed hazardous materials 
regulations. The FAA would not charge a person with the same violation 
of both FAA's and RSPA's rules to enhance the sanction sought. 
Accordingly, the FAA would not seek more than a single civil penalty 
for any one violation; however, there are situations in which two 
sanctions for a violation might be appropriate. For example, a 
violation might warrant remedial certificate suspension or revocation 
because a certificate holder's qualifications to hold a certificate 
might be at issue. At the same time, a civil penalty for that violation 
might also be warranted.

A. Passenger-Carrying Operations

    The FAA proposes to ban the transportation of any device designed 
as a chemical oxygen generator aboard domestic passenger-carrying 
aircraft conducting operations under parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations. The ban would also apply to any person 
who carries or acts in any manner that could result in the carriage 
(shipment) of devices that are the subject of the proposed ban; 
therefore, any person who attempts to offer such devices for carriage 
on board a domestic aircraft, even if not successful, would be in 
violation of the prohibition.
    Devices designed as chemical oxygen generators can produce a 
secondary source of oxygen not otherwise present aboard an aircraft. A 
fire in an oxygen-enriched environment 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, or electrical 
systems. In addition, compared to a fire that is not in an oxygen-
enriched environment, a fire that is fed by a secondary source of 
oxygen increases the risk that the flames and resultant toxic fumes and 
smoke will cause injuries or death. The heat generated from charged and 
activated chemical oxygen generators, including what is sometimes 
referred to as ``hotel oxygen'' or ``executive emergency oxygen kits,'' 
could cause a fire to start in clothing, paper, and other items that 
might be carried near these devices. Even if these devices do not 
initiate a fire, they could become involved in a fire started elsewhere 
and feed the fire with oxygen.
    The FAA believes that for passenger-carrying operations, the most 
prudent

[[Page 45915]]

thing to do is to ban, in the cabin and in all cargo compartments, the 
carriage of devices designed as chemical oxygen generators. These 
devices would be banned in both the cargo areas and cabins of 
passenger-carrying aircraft operated under parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 
of the Federal Aviation Regulations, unless those devices were 
installed in that aircraft for the aircraft to be in conformity with 
aircraft type-certification or are otherwise permitted to be carried 
under FAA operating rules for that particular flight.
    This proposed rule supplements RSPA's December 30, 1997 final rule 
(61 FR 68952) prohibiting chemical oxygen generators from being shipped 
as cargo aboard aircraft engaged in passenger operations. Specifically, 
the proposed rule applies to devices designed as chemical oxygen 
generators; therefore, this proposed ban applies to devices that are 
newly manufactured but are not charged with chemicals for the 
generation of oxygen. The FAA believes that these devices might be 
manufactured in one location and transported to another location to be 
charged. This could lead to human errors in determining whether the 
device designed as a chemical oxygen generator has been charged. The 
FAA specifically requests comments on whether these devices are 
manufactured in one location, but charged in another location.
    The proposed ban would also apply to fully charged devices that 
contain a chemical or chemicals that produce oxygen by chemical 
reaction. Although the prohibition of fully charged devices is similar 
to RSPA's final prohibition (61 FR 68952), the FAA believes that it is 
necessary to include it in this rulemaking so as to avoid the confusion 
of an operator having to consult two different sets of regulations to 
determine whether fully charged chemical oxygen generators are banned 
from passenger-carrying operations.
    The FAA's proposed ban also would apply to devices designed as 
chemical oxygen generators that have been discharged and have only some 
residue remaining or have had all of the chemicals consumed in the 
generation of oxygen (spent chemical oxygen generators) in both 
passenger-carrying and all-cargo operations under parts 91, 121, 125, 
and 135. The FAA believes that there would be an increase in safety by 
banning all chemical oxygen generators in passenger-carrying 
operations, even if those devices are believed to have been previously 
discharged. From reports about the ValuJet accident, it appears that 
some people might have believed that the chemical oxygen generators had 
been previously discharged, when in fact they had not. While it may be 
true that a chemical oxygen generator that has been discharged does not 
present an actual fire or smoke threat to aviation, human errors in 
assessing whether such devices have been discharged can result in 
catastrophes. The FAA believes that the public interest in reducing the 
possibility of this type of human error, which could result in loss of 
life and property, outweighs any public or private interest in the 
transportation of devices designed as chemical oxygen generators on 
passenger-carrying operations conducted by air carriers and other 
commercial operators.
    In addition to the general rationale provided above to support the 
proposed ban on the transportation of devices designed as chemical 
oxygen generators, the FAA believes that there is additional rationale 
to support the ban in specific classes of cargo compartments in 
transport-category aircraft. Although the FAA has not classified the 
cargo compartments in non-transport category aircraft, the following 
discussion and analysis of risks in Classes B, C, and D cargo 
compartments also applies to cargo compartments in non-transport 
category aircraft that share similar design features.
Concerns Regarding Class B Compartments
    One major concern regarding fires in Class B compartments is that 
the supplemental oxygen breathing system for passengers is not designed 
to be a system that would protect them from smoke and fumes. Instead, 
the supplemental oxygen system for passengers was designed to provide a 
combination of supplemental oxygen and ambient cabin air for use in 
emergency depressurization situations. When passengers use the 
supplemental oxygen system, they continue to inhale some amount of 
ambient air in the cabin. Dangerous or even fatal levels of smoke and 
fumes are more likely to develop when a fire is fed by a secondary 
source of oxygen, and would be inhaled by passengers in such a 
situation. Thus, a fire fed by a secondary source of oxygen creates 
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.
    Another problem is that, although all areas of the Class B 
compartment must be accessible to the contents of a hand-held fire 
extinguisher, devices designed as chemical oxygen generators in such 
compartments may not be readily accessible and easily removed from the 
location of the fire. In other words, in a Class B compartment the 
crewmember might not be able to quickly remove a device designed as a 
chemical oxygen generator from the fire area because of its size, 
weight, or location. Even if a halon or water fire extinguisher is 
present, it may not have a sufficient quantity of halon or water to 
extinguish a fire that continues to re-ignite because it is being fed 
by a secondary source of oxygen.
Concerns Regarding Class C Compartments
    Like Class B compartments, Class C compartments may not adequately 
protect passengers if an oxygen-fed fire exists. The current means of 
suppression in Class C compartments is halon. Halon, however, will not 
always suppress an oxygen-fed fire, and thus the FAA believes it would 
be in the public interest to ban devices designed as chemical oxygen 
generators from Class C compartments. Additionally, unlike a Class B 
compartment that a crewmember can enter, a Class C compartment is not 
accessible to crewmembers. While the design of a Class C cargo 
compartment can be very effective in fighting most types of fires, the 
FAA believes that oxygen-fed fires present an unacceptable risk in this 
environment since a crewmember cannot remove a device designed as a 
chemical oxygen generator from the area of the fire.
Concerns Regarding Class D Compartments
    Class D cargo compartments have the same problems as Class B and 
Class C compartments. In addition, smoke and fire detection devices are 
not required in Class D compartments. The first indication of a fire is 
generally in the form of smoke or fumes entering the cabin or the 
flight deck. Another initial indication might be that the passengers or 
crew realize that the passenger compartment floor has become hot. By 
the time the flight crew realizes that there might be a fire in the 
Class D compartment, it may be too late to save the aircraft by making 
an emergency landing. Also, the crew cannot take direct firefighting 
measures against a fire in a Class D compartment. Even indirect 
firefighting measures, such as attempting to starve the fire of oxygen 
by depressurizing the aircraft, will not be effective if a fully 
charged device designed as a chemical oxygen generator is involved in 
the fire. Ultimately the safety of the flight depends on the actions of 
the crew, and time is of the essence. Since entry into a Class D 
compartment is not possible, and

[[Page 45916]]

depressurization of the cabin with passengers is impractical, the only 
way the crew could save the aircraft would be to land it as soon as 
possible, and their ability to do so would depend on the availability 
of a suitable landing site.

B. All-Cargo Operations

    The FAA is also proposing to ban the transportation of any device 
designed as a chemical oxygen generator in domestic, ``all-cargo 
operations'' (as defined in 14 CFR 119.3) conducted under parts 91, 
121, 125, and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, with limited 
exceptions. The ban would apply to any person who carries or acts in 
any manner that would result in the carriage (shipment) of devices that 
are the subject of the proposed ban. Much of the analysis of the 
potential dangers of shipping devices designed as chemical oxygen 
generators and the possibility of human error in passenger-carrying 
operations also apply to all-cargo operations. Transport-category 
aircraft used in all-cargo operations often have Class E compartments 
that are not found in passenger-carrying, transport-category aircraft.
Exception To Allow for the Transportation of Chemical Oxygen Generators 
in All-Cargo Operations
    The FAA is proposing to allow all-cargo operators under 14 CFR 
parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 to carry unexpired chemical oxygen 
generators under certain circumstances in both transport and non-
transport category aircraft. This exception to the general prohibition 
would not, however, permit the carriage of those devices designed as 
chemical oxygen generators that have previously been discharged or 
those that are newly manufactured but are not charged for the 
generation of oxygen. Further, a chemical oxygen generator that has 
passed its expiration (i.e., time-in-service) date is not eligible for 
the exception, and thus cannot be carried as cargo in an all-cargo 
operation. Neither the FAA nor RSPA specify the expiration date for 
such chemical oxygen generators in their regulations. Rather, the 
expiration date is established through the aircraft certification 
process and then incorporated into an operator's aircraft inspection 
program or, in the case of an air carrier with a continuous 
airworthiness maintenance program, incorporated into its maintenance 
time limitations.
    This proposed exception differs from RSPA's December 30, 1996 final 
rule, which would allow the carriage of chemical oxygen generators 
aboard aircraft used in all-cargo operations, regardless of the 
expiration date on the generators. This is because RSPA views any 
chemical oxygen generators, whether expired or unexpired, as having the 
same inherent risk. The FAA believes, however, that a human performance 
problem exists that makes the distinction between expired and unexpired 
generators important. The FAA is concerned that an individual may 
mistakenly believe that an ``expired'' chemical oxygen generator is, in 
effect, no longer a hazard, and thus can be shipped without any of the 
safeguards imposed by the HMR's. Therefore, to avoid such a mistake, 
the FAA proposes to ban the shipment of ``expired'' chemical oxygen 
generators aboard both passenger and all-cargo operations. Accordingly, 
if finalized, a person would be in violation of FAA's prohibition if he 
or she offered ``expired'' chemical oxygen generators for carriage 
aboard a domestic all-cargo aircraft, notwithstanding the fact that 
RSPA's rules permit such carriage. The FAA specifically requests 
comment on whether the proposed ban on air shipment of ``expired'' 
chemical oxygen generators would negatively impact all-cargo 
operations.
    The proposed exception for domestic all-cargo operations is 
therefore limited to the carriage of unexpired chemical oxygen 
generators (i.e., those that are charged but whose expiration dates 
have not yet passed), provided that the generators are: (1) Originally 
prepared and offered for transportation by a RSPA Special Provision 60 
approval holder (49 CFR 172.102(c)); (2) labeled and loaded in 
accordance with the HMRs (49 CFR parts 171-180); (3) separated from 
other cargo before flight; and (4) restricted to the quantity limits 
specified in the HMR's.
    The FAA believes that the proposed exception to the ban in all-
cargo operations strikes the appropriate safety balance for the 
following reasons: (1) requiring packaging by a RSPA Special Provision 
60 approval holder, as well as compliance with the HMR labeling and 
loading requirements for chemical oxygen generators would reduce the 
likelihood that accidental activation would occur; (2) the separation 
requirement, which is broader in scope than RSPA's separation 
requirement, would reduce the likelihood that such generators are 
placed beside incompatible hazardous materials, as well as other cargo; 
and (3) the quantity limitation would ensure that excess carriage of 
these devices on any one flight does not occur. RSPA's regulations 
provide physical and performance standards for segregating certain 
incompatible materials, including oxidizing substances, from other 
hazardous materials on aircraft (49 CFR 175.78). FAA's proposal is 
broader in scope, however, in that devices designed as chemical oxygen 
generators would have to be separated from all other cargo before 
flight, not just other incompatible hazardous materials. The FAA 
specifically requests comments on this approach.
    The FAA recognizes that the crew in an all-cargo part 121 operation 
would have access to protective breathing equipment (PBE) (both smoke 
and fume and firefighting), which would enable them to function and 
survive in a fire, smoke and toxic fume environment for a longer period 
than the crew in a part 135 operation. This is because part 135 
operators are not required to have PBE aboard an aircraft. Therefore, 
the FAA may consider, for a future rulemaking, the extent to which PBE, 
such as smoke and fume PBE, should be required for part 135 operators 
transporting certain hazardous cargo.
    The FAA requests comment on whether it would be helpful if both 
RSPA and FAA were to provide cross-references to each other's 
respective regulations as they pertain to devices designed as chemical 
oxygen generators. Such cross-referencing would serve to notify all 
hazardous materials shippers/offerors as well as aircraft operators 
that they must comply with both FAA and RSPA regulations when shipping 
devices designed as chemical oxygen generators. The FAA also requests 
comment on how best to inform foreign shippers of the FAA restrictions 
on the carriage of devices designed as chemical oxygen generators on 
aircraft operated under parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations.

III. Exceptions for Materials and Devices That Are Required Parts 
of the Aircraft or That Are Otherwise Required or Permitted To Be 
Carried Under FAA Operating Rules

    The FAA believes that oxygen devices required to be in aircraft as 
specified in the FAA's certification and operating rules are safe, as 
they are maintained in accordance with approved maintenance and 
airworthiness programs, and are essential for the safety of the crew 
and passengers. Therefore, devices designed as chemical oxygen 
generators that are installed in aircraft to conform with aircraft 
type-certification requirements, or are present to conform with, or 
permitted to be carried under, FAA operating rules for that particular 
flight are exempt from the proposed ban. This exception for the 
carriage of devices designed as chemical oxygen generators under the 
FAA operating rules is

[[Page 45917]]

limited to those items that are required for the particular operation 
flown, so as to preclude operators from pre-positioning such devices in 
circumvention of the prohibition.

IV. Economic Summary

    Proposed and final rule changes to Federal regulations must undergo 
several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 
each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 
requires agencies to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes 
on small entities. Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs 
agencies to assess the effect of regulatory changes on international 
trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that the 
proposed rule would generate benefits that justify its costs and is not 
an economically significant regulatory action as defined in Executive 
Order 12866; however, it is considered significant under the Executive 
Order and DOT Order 2100.5, Policies and Procedures for Simplification, 
Analysis, and Review of Regulations, because of the public interest 
involved. The FAA certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because almost no 
newly manufactured devices designed as chemical oxygen generators are 
expected to be transported by air. The FAA also certifies that this 
proposed rule, if adopted, will not constitute a barrier to 
international trade and does not contain any Federal intergovernmental 
or private sector mandates; therefore, the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this rule under Executive 
Order 12866.

Overview

    This proposed rule would ban, in certain aircraft, the 
transportation of devices designed to chemically generate oxygen, 
including devices that have been discharged and newly manufactured 
devices that have not yet been charged for the generation of oxygen.
    For the following reasons, a shortened regulatory evaluation will 
be prepared for this proposed rule, which will serve as both the 
summary and full regulatory evaluation. All but one of the requirements 
of this proposed rule have been covered and analyzed by the regulatory 
evaluation prepared for RSPA's supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking (SNPRM) (62 FR 44374, Aug. 20, 1997). A copy of the full 
regulatory evaluation for that SNPRM is included in the docket for this 
proposed rule. The one requirement not covered by RSPA's SNPRM 
represents the proposed ban for newly manufactured devices that have 
not yet been charged for the generation of oxygen. That is, this 
proposed rule includes the ban for newly manufactured devices. Since 
these newly manufactured devices have little or no economic value and 
are not considered to be time-critical, they are not expected to be 
shipped by air. Thus, little or no costs (quantitative or qualitative) 
are expected to be imposed on the U.S. aviation community. These newly 
manufactured devices are expected to generate only qualitative safety 
benefits (such benefits will be discussed in more detail below in the 
benefits section). Therefore, it is for this reason that the evaluation 
for this proposed rule will only focus on the potential costs and 
benefits associated with banning the newly manufactured devices on 
aircraft operators conducting their operations under parts 91, 121, 
125, and 135.

Costs

    The FAA has determined that this proposed rule would not impose any 
additional costs on the U.S. aviation community. Based on conversations 
with industry and FAA technical personnel, it is unlikely that the 
newly manufactured devices would be shipped by air because they have 
little or no economic value. Oxygen generators go through several 
stages of processing before becoming a fully functional and valued 
commodity. Because they are shipped in large quantities and not 
considered to be time-critical, newly manufactured devices are likely 
to be shipped by rail and truck to the final processing plant(s) for 
future use as oxygen generators. While the FAA believes this cost 
assessment to be reasonably accurate, there is still a small element of 
uncertainty about coverage of all of the potential costs associated 
with newly manufactured devices. As the result of this uncertainty, the 
FAA solicits comments from the aviation community as to accuracy of 
this assessment. The FAA requests that comments be as detailed as 
possible and cite or include supporting documentation.

Benefits

    This proposed rule is considered to be complementary to RSPA's 
SNPRM and would generate potential qualitative benefits by ensuring 
that the enhanced safety benefits of RSPA's SNPRM would be fully 
realized. This task would be accomplished by reducing the risk of human 
error in recognizing whether such a device is charged or has been 
charged, and which could, if inadvertently transported aboard an 
airplane when charged, initiate or provide a secondary source of oxygen 
to fuel a fire. While the chance of newly manufactured devices being 
shipped by air is small, it still could happen in the absence of this 
proposed ban. Regardless of how small the likelihood may be, this 
proposed ban would ensure that newly manufactured devices would not be 
shipped by air; thus, this action would further reduce the chance of 
mislabeling of oxygen generators due to human error.

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily burdened 
by government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules 
that may have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.''
    In terms of regulatory flexibility, the FAA has determined that 
this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As stated previously in the cost 
section of this evaluation, the proposed rule is not expected to impose 
any compliance costs on those aircraft operators operating under parts 
91, 121, 125, and 135.

VI. International Trade Impact Assessment

    In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's memorandum 
dated March 1983, federal agencies engaged in rulemaking activities are 
required to assess the effects of regulatory changes on international 
trade. The FAA finds that the proposed rule would not have a 
detrimental impact on the trade opportunities for either U.S. firms 
conducting business abroad or foreign firms conducting business in the 
United States. This assessment is based on the belief that the proposed 
rule would not impose any costs on potentially impacted aircraft 
operators.

VII. Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each federal 
agency, to the

[[Page 45918]]

extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects 
of any federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 204(a) of 
the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the federal agency to develop an 
effective process to permit timely input by elected officers (or their 
designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a federal 
agency regulation that will impose an enforceable duty upon State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the 
Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that 
before establishing any regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall 
have developed a plan that, among other things, provides for notice to 
potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful 
and timely opportunity to provide input in the development of 
regulatory proposals. This proposed rule does not contain any federal 
intergovernmental mandates. However, it does contain a private sector 
mandate. Since expenditures by the private sector will not exceed $100 
million annually, because little or no costs are imposed by this 
proposed rule, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

VIII. Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed herein will not have substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among various levels of government. Thus, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have federalism implications warranting the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), there are no requirements for information collection 
associated with this proposed rule.

X. International Compatibility

    The FAA has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation 
Organization international rules and Joint Aviation Authorities rules 
and has identified no conflicts between these proposed amendments and 
the foreign requirements and prohibitions. Moreover, these proposed 
rules, if adopted, will not apply to foreign operators. Nonetheless, 
the FAA seeks comment on whether there are any differences between the 
proposed rules and any corresponding ICAO standards.

XI. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 
(110 Stat. 3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying 14 CFR in a 
manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent 
to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than 
aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she 
considers appropriate. Because this proposed rule would apply to the 
operation of both transport and non-transport category airplanes under 
14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 135, it could, if adopted, affect 
intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically requests 
comments on whether there is justification for applying the proposed 
rule differently to intrastate operations in Alaska.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety.

14 CFR Part 119

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft, 
Aviation safety, Charter flights, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR parts 91, 119, 121, 125, and 135) as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

    1. The authority for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 
44111, 44701, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 
46316, 46504, 46506, 46507, 47122, 47508, 47528, 47531, articles 12 
and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (62 stat. 
1180).

    2. Amend Sec. 91.1 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 91.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) Each person who carries, or acts in any manner that would 
result in the carriage of, a device designed as a chemical oxygen 
generator is required to comply with the prohibitions in Sec. 91.20 of 
this part.
    3. Section 91.20 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 91.20  Prohibitions on the carriage of devices designed as 
chemical oxygen generators.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
no person may carry, or act in any manner that could result in the 
carriage of a device designed as a chemical oxygen generator, as 
defined in paragraph (d) of this section. This section is not intended 
to affect a person's obligation to comply with 49 CFR 172.101 and 
173.21.
    (b) For all-cargo operations, an unexpired chemical oxygen 
generator may be transported if it is originally prepared and offered 
for transportation by a RSPA Special Provision 60 approval holder (49 
CFR 172.102(c)), and in accordance with the labeling and loading 
requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 
through 180), provided--
    (1) It is located in a Class B or E cargo compartment, or a 
compartment that is equipped with a fire/smoke detection system;
    (2) It is separated from other cargo before flight; and
    (3) The quantity carried does not exceed the quantity limits 
specified in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 
through 180).
    (c) This section does not apply to chemical oxygen generators that 
are installed to meet aircraft certification requirements or are 
carried to meet other requirements of this part for that particular 
flight.
    (d) For purposes of this section, a ``device designed as a chemical 
oxygen generator'' includes--
    (1) A device that is charged with or contains a chemical or 
chemicals that produce oxygen by chemical reaction, regardless of 
whether the expiration date for the device has passed;
    (2) A device that has been discharged and thus has already produced 
oxygen by chemical reaction, regardless of whether there is residue 
remaining in the device; and

[[Page 45919]]

    (3) A device that is newly manufactured but not charged with 
chemicals for the generation of oxygen..

PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

    1. The authority for part 119 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 
44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 
44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.

    2. Section 119.3 is amended by adding the following definition in 
alphabetical order:


Sec. 119.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Chemical oxygen generator means a device that produces oxygen by 
chemical reaction.
* * * * *

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 
44912, 46105.

    2. Amend Sec. 121.1 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec. 121.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (g) Each person who carries, or acts in any manner that would 
result in the carriage of, a device designed as a chemical oxygen 
generator is required to comply with the prohibitions in Sec. 121.540.
    3. Section 121.540 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 121.540  Prohibitions on the carriage of devices designed as 
chemical oxygen generators.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
no person may carry, or act in any manner that could result in the 
carriage of, a device designed as a chemical oxygen generator, as 
defined in paragraph (d) of this section. This section is not intended 
to affect a person's obligation to comply with 49 CFR 172.101 and 
173.21.
    (b) For all-cargo operations, an unexpired chemical oxygen 
generator may be transported if it is originally prepared and offered 
for transportation by a RSPA Special Provision 60 approval holder (49 
CFR 172.102(c)) , and in accordance with the labeling and loading 
requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 
through 180), provided--
    (1) It is located in a Class B or E cargo compartment, or a 
compartment that is equipped with a fire/smoke detection system;
    (2) It is separated from other cargo before flight; and
    (3) The quantity carried does not exceed the quantity limits 
specified in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 
through 180).
    (c) This section does not apply to chemical oxygen generators that 
are installed to meet aircraft certification requirements or are 
carried to meet other requirements of this part for that particular 
flight.
    (d) For purposes of this section, a ``device designed as a chemical 
oxygen generator'' includes--
    (1) A device that is charged with or contains a chemical or 
chemicals that produce oxygen by chemical reaction, regardless of 
whether the expiration date for the device has passed;
    (2) A device that has been discharged and thus has already produced 
oxygen by chemical reaction, regardless of whether there is residue 
remaining in the device; and
    (3) A device that is newly manufactured but not charged with 
chemicals for the generation of oxygen.

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING 
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE

    1. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

    2. Amend Sec. 125.1 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 125.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) Each person who carries, or acts in any manner that would 
result in the carriage of, a device designed as a chemical oxygen 
generator is required to comply with the prohibitions in Sec. 125.335.
    3. Section 125.335 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 125.335  Prohibitions on the carriage of oxidizers and devices 
designed as or used for the generation of oxygen.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
no person may carry, or act in any manner that could result in the 
carriage of, a device designed as a chemical oxygen generator as 
defined in paragraph (d) of this section. This section is not intended 
to affect a person's obligation to comply with 49 CFR 172.101 and 
173.21.
    (b) For all-cargo operations, an unexpired chemical oxygen 
generator may be transported if it is originally prepared and offered 
for transportation by a RSPA Special Provision 60 approval holder (49 
CFR 172.102(c)) , and in accordance with the labeling and loading 
requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 
through 180), provided--
    (1) It is located in a Class B or E cargo compartment, or a 
compartment that is equipped with a fire/smoke detection system,
    (2) It is separated from other cargo before flight; and
    (3) The quantity does not exceed the quantity limits specified in 
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180).
    (c) This section does not apply to chemical oxygen generators that 
are installed to meet aircraft certification requirements or are 
carried to meet other requirements of this part for that particular 
flight.
    (d) For purposes of this section, a ``device designed as a chemical 
oxygen generator'' includes--
    (1) A device that is charged with or contains a chemical or 
chemicals that produce oxygen by chemical reaction, regardless of 
whether the expiration date for the device has passed;
    (2) A device that has been discharged and thus has already produced 
oxygen by chemical reaction regardless of whether there is residue 
remaining in the device; and
    (3) A device that is newly manufactured but not charged with 
chemicals for the generation of oxygen.

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

    2. Amend Sec. 135.1 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 135.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) Each person who carries, or acts in any manner that would 
result in the carriage of, a device designed as a chemical oxygen 
generator is required to comply with the prohibitions in Sec. 135.88.
    3. Section 135.88 is added to read as follows:

[[Page 45920]]

Sec. 135.88  Prohibitions on the carriage of devices designed as 
chemical oxygen generators.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, 
no person may carry, or act in any manner that would result in the 
carriage of, a device designed as a chemical oxygen generator as 
defined in paragraph (d) of this section. This section is not intended 
to affect a person's obligation to comply with 49 CFR 172.101 and 
173.21.
    (b) For all-cargo operations, an unexpired chemical oxygen 
generator may be transported if it is originally prepared and offered 
for transportation by a RSPA Special Provision 60 approval holder (49 
CFR 172.102(c)) , and in accordance with the labeling and loading 
requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 
through 180), provided--
    (1) It is located in a Class B or E cargo compartment or a 
compartment that is equipped with a fire/smoke detection system;
    (2) It is separated from other cargo before flight; and
    (3) The quantity carried does not exceed the quantity limits 
specified in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171 
through 180).
    (c) This section does not apply to chemical oxygen generators that 
are installed to meet aircraft certification requirements or are 
carried to meet other requirements of this part for that particular 
flight.
    (d) For purposes of this section, a ``device designed as a chemical 
oxygen generator'' includes--
    (1) A device that is charged with or contains a chemical or 
chemicals that produce oxygen by chemical reaction, regardless of 
whether the expiration date for the device has passed;
    (2) A device that has been discharged and thus has already produced 
oxygen by chemical reaction, regardless of whether there is residue 
remaining in the device; and
    (3) A device that is newly manufactured but not charged with 
chemicals for the generation of oxygen.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 21, 1998.
Richard O. Gordon,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 98-23010 Filed 8-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P