44374 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

§ 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 § 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 § 172.101 for those materials

for which an Oxidizer or Oxygen label

is required, RSPA would not adopt the

proposed § 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

§§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 passengercarrying 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 § 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

§ 175.75. For oxidizers forbidden aboard

a passenger-carrying aircraft but

permitted aboard a cargo aircraft,

packages must be labeled (see

§ 172.101(j)(4)) with the Cargo Aircraft

Only label specified in § 172.448 and,

under the provisions of § 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 passengercarrying aircraft of any package for

which an Oxidizer or Oxygen label (see

§§ 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 § 172.101(j)(4)) with the

Cargo Aircraft Only label specified in

§ 172.448 and would be subject to the

provisions of § 175.85(b). Paragraph (b)

of § 175.85 restricts hazardous materials

that are forbidden aboard passengercarrying 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 § 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 PassengerCarrying 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
44376 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 oxidizerfed 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 fireextinguishing 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 § 172.102 and to the

Hazardous Materials Table entry for

‘‘Oxygen, compressed,’’ to clarify that

certain exceptions are provided in

§ 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 operatorsupplied 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 § 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 § 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 passengercarrying 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 passengercarrying 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 passengercarrying 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 fireresistant 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 passengercarrying 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 passengercarrying 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
44378 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 passengercarrying and cargo aircraft, Columns 9a

and 9b would read ‘‘Forbidden.’’ RSPA

also proposes to amend §§ 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 passengercarrying 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 passengercarrying 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 § 173.152, or as

consumer commodities, Class 9, as

permitted under § 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.
44380 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 § 171.11, paragraph (d)(15) is

revised and paragraph (d)(16) is added

to read as follows:

§ 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 § 171.12, paragraph (b)(18) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 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 § 171.12a, paragraph (b)(17) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 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 § 172.101 Hazardous

Materials Table, the following entry is

added in appropriate alphabetical order:

§ 172.101 Purpose and use of hazardous

materials table.

* * * * *
44382 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

SECTION 172.101.—HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

TABLE

Symbols Hazardous materials descriptions and proper shipping names

Hazard

class

or division

Identification

numbers PG Label codes Special provi- sions

(8)

Packaging authorizations

(§ 173.***)

(9)

Quantity limitations

(10)

Vessel stowage

requirements

Exceptions Non- bulk Bulk Passenger aircraft/rail Cargo air- craft only Loca- tion Other

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

* * * * * * *

+ Oxygen generator, chemical, spent 9 NA3356 III 9 61 None 213 None Forbidden Forbidden

A

* * * * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44383

§ 172.101 [Amended]

7. In addition, in the § 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 nonsegregating 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

§ 172.101 [Amended]

8. In addition, in the § 172.101

Hazardous Materials Table, for the entry

‘‘Oxygen, compressed’’, in Column (7),

special provision ‘‘A52’’ is added.

9. In § 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:

§ 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 § 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 § 175.10, paragraph (b) is added

to read as follows:
44384 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

§ 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 § 175.33; and

(6) Shipments under this paragraph

(b) are not subject to—

(i) The prohibition in § 172.101 of this

subchapter against carriage of

compressed oxygen on passengercarrying 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.

§ 175.10 [Amended]

11. In addition in § 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 § 175.85, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 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