[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 160 (Thursday, August 19, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45388-45398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21187]
[[Page 45387]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Research and Special Programs Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 171, 172 and 175
Hazardous Materials: Chemical Oxidizers and Compressed Oxygen Aboard
Aircraft; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 160 / Thursday, August 19, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 45388]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, and 175
[Docket No. HM-224A]
RIN 2137-AC92
Hazardous Materials: Chemical Oxidizers and Compressed Oxygen
Aboard Aircraft
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RSPA is amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations to:
Prohibit the carriage of chemical oxidizers in inaccessible aircraft
cargo compartments that do not have a fire or smoke detection and fire
suppression system; require oxygen cylinders to be placed in an outer
packaging when transported aboard aircraft; limit the number of oxygen
cylinders that may be stowed on an aircraft in inaccessible cargo
compartments that do not have a fire or smoke detection system and a
fire suppression system (e.g., a Class D cargo compartment); limit the
number of oxygen cylinders that may be stowed in a Class B cargo
compartment or its equivalent (i.e., an accessible cargo compartment
equipped with a fire or smoke detection system but not a fire
suppression system); authorize transportation of a limited number of
oxygen cylinders in the passenger cabin of passenger-carrying aircraft;
and prohibit the carriage of personal-use chemical oxygen generators on
passenger-carrying aircraft and the carriage of spent chemical oxygen
generators on both passenger-carrying and cargo aircraft.
This final rule is being issued in consultation with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to enhance air transportation safety.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of these amendments is March
1, 2000.
Permissive Compliance Date: Compliance with the requirements
adopted herein is authorized as of October 22, 1999.
Incorporation by Reference Date: The incorporation by reference of
a publication listed in this final rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of March 1, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane LaValle or John Gale, Office of
Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, Research and Special
Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street S.W., Washington DC 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 11, 1996, ValuJet Airlines flight No. 596 crashed in the
Florida Everglades resulting in 110 fatalities. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that chemical oxygen
generators initiated and then intensified a fire in a Class D cargo
compartment, which caused the crash. Shortly after the crash, NTSB
recommended that RSPA, together with FAA, ``prohibit the transportation
of oxidizers and oxidizing materials (e.g., nitric acid) in cargo
compartments that do not have fire or smoke detection systems.''
In subsequent rulemaking actions, RSPA has prohibited the
transportation of chemical oxygen generators as cargo on board
passenger-carrying airlines, and issued standards governing the
transportation of chemical oxygen generators on cargo-only aircraft. 61
FR 26418 (May 24, 1996); 61 FR 68952 (Dec. 30, 1996); 62 FR 30767 (June
5, 1997); 62 FR 34667 (June 27, 1997). On February 17, 1998, FAA
published a final rule that upgraded the fire safety standards for
Class D compartments for certain transport-category airplanes. 63 FR
8033. FAA's rulemaking has a compliance date of March 19, 2001.
On December 30, 1996, RSPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (61 FR 68955) proposing to
amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180)
to prohibit the carriage of oxidizers, including compressed oxygen, in
passenger-carrying aircraft. That proposal also would have had the
effect of limiting packages of oxidizers that are allowed on cargo
aircraft to locations accessible to crew members (see 49 CFR
175.85(b)). In the December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA analyzed the possible
prohibition of oxidizers in Class D cargo compartments only, and
proposed a new Sec. 175.85(d) to prohibit loading or transporting in a
Class D compartment any package containing a hazardous material for
which an OXIDIZER or OXYGEN label is required. On August 20, 1997, RSPA
published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (62 FR
44374) further analyzing the possible prohibition of oxidizers aboard
passenger-carrying aircraft in Class B and C cargo compartments.
The classification of cargo compartments aboard transport-category
aircraft is specified in 14 CFR 25.857 and discussed in RSPA's NPRM and
SNPRM. In general, a Class B compartment is one which is accessible to
a crew member with a hand-held fire extinguisher and has an approved
smoke or fire detection system. Class C and D compartments are not
accessible during flight and have means to control ventilation and
exclude hazardous quantities of smoke or flames from the passenger
compartment and cockpit. A Class C compartment also has an approved
smoke or fire detection system and a built-in fire suppression system.
In this final rule, when reference is made to Class B, Class C or Class
D aircraft cargo compartments, we are also including cargo compartments
on non-transport category airplanes that have similar characteristics.
The limitations and prohibitions for Class D compartments also apply to
non-transport category airplanes that do not have detection and
suppression equipment, similar to Class D compartments in transport-
category airplanes.
In the NPRM and SNPRM, RSPA also proposed to completely prohibit
the transportation of chemical oxygen generators that have been
discharged (``spent'') and to prohibit the transportation of personal-
use chemical oxygen generators on passenger-carrying aircraft. On
August 27, 1998, FAA published an NPRM proposing to ban, in certain
domestic operations, the transportation of devices designed to
chemically generate oxygen, including devices that have not yet been
charged for the generation of oxygen. 63 FR 45913. In response to a
request from nine industry associations, on January 14, 1998, RSPA and
FAA held a public meeting to more fully explore all the issues relating
to the proposals in the NPRM and SNPRM.
The amendments adopted in this final rule respond to the NTSB
recommendation and are based on the merits of comments and the
assessment of RSPA and the FAA of the hazards posed by oxidizers. In
its recommendation, NTSB cited three previous incidents in which
oxidizers caused fires aboard aircraft. In each of these incidents,
there were apparent or known serious violations of the HMR. RSPA and
FAA are not aware of any fire aboard an aircraft having been caused
directly by transport of oxidizers in conformance with the HMR.
However, RSPA and FAA agree with the NTSB that, in certain
circumstances, oxidizers can contribute to the severity of a fire and
pose an unreasonable risk when transported in an inaccessible cargo
compartment which does not have a fire or smoke detection system and a
fire suppression system.
[[Page 45389]]
II. Comments and Regulatory Changes
A. General
RSPA received more than 55 written comments, and 14 persons made
oral presentations at the public meeting, in response to the NPRM and
SNPRM. The commenters included shippers and carriers of oxidizers by
air, related trade associations, the NTSB, and persons who need
supplemental oxygen during flight for medical reasons. In general, the
persons that submitted comments:
(1) Supported the prohibition of oxidizers, other than oxygen, in
those cargo compartments that do not have fire or smoke detection and
fire suppression systems;
(2) Disagreed with the proposed total prohibition of oxidizers
carried in cargo compartments aboard passenger-carrying aircraft and in
inaccessible cargo compartments aboard cargo aircraft, including those
compartments with detection and suppression systems;
(3) Disagreed with the proposed prohibition of the carriage of
compressed oxygen in cargo compartments aboard passenger-carrying
aircraft; and
(4) Supported the proposals to prohibit the transportation of spent
oxygen generators aboard aircraft and to eliminate the exception
provided in 49 CFR 175.10(a)(24) for personal oxygen generators.
B. Oxidizers
1. Summary of Comments on Chemical Oxidizers
RSPA proposed to prohibit the transportation of chemical oxidizers
aboard passenger-carrying aircraft and in inaccessible cargo
compartments of cargo aircraft. Most of the commenters agreed with the
proposal to prohibit chemical oxidizers in cargo compartments that are
not equipped with fire or smoke detection systems and fire suppression
systems, but disagreed with the proposal to ban oxidizers from cargo
compartments with fire or smoke detection and fire suppression systems.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. supported the rule as proposed. It
stated that ``the prohibition of oxidizers and similar materials aboard
passenger-carrying aircraft is a sensible approach to improving the
safety of passenger flights.'' NTSB stated that it ``supports
prohibiting the carriage of oxidizers, including compressed oxygen, in
Class D compartments because these compartments do not have smoke and
fire detection systems * * *'' In its comments to the SNPRM, NTSB
referred to an earlier recommendation that FAA ``consider the effects
of authorized hazardous materials cargo in fires for all types of cargo
compartments.'' It urged RSPA and FAA to complete a study of the risks
associated with the transportation of hazardous materials on aircraft
and ``to ban any hazardous materials, including oxidizers, that cannot
be safely transported in aircraft cargo compartments.''
Several commenters specifically stated that they did not support
the ban of an entire division of hazardous materials aboard passenger-
carrying aircraft and that a complete ban of oxidizers would increase
the number of undeclared hazardous materials. The Airline Pilots
Association (ALPA) stated ``prohibiting the carriage of all oxidizers
may introduce additional hazards. This may inadvertently force shippers
into illegally shipping materials as undeclared * * *'' ALPA went on to
say that ``the complete banning of all oxidizers * * * goes beyond the
seemingly obvious safety implication and does not appear to be
reasonable.''
Many other commenters noted that, to date, incidents involving
hazardous materials have been due to lack of compliance with the HMR.
They stated that the better course of action would be to increase
education and enforcement, rather than ban an entire category of
hazardous materials. The Conference on Safe Transportation of Hazardous
Articles stated:
People who ship undeclared hazardous materials do not read the
CFRs. You can give all the instructions you like in the regulations,
and the people who ignored the instructions in the past will ignore
them in the future. Now, in fact, the prohibition will give them
greater incentive to embrace ignorance.
The Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC) stated its belief that:
* * * the rule's provisions will do nothing to address the known
problem of undeclared or misdeclared shipments of hazardous
materials and may be counterproductive by increasing such shipments
by unscrupulous persons. In our opinion this could present a more
dangerous situation to passengers and airline employees than at
present.
Several commenters stated that a ban of certain materials on
aircraft is no guarantee that those who are unaware of the regulations
will not continue to ship undeclared hazardous materials. They
suggested that public education and aggressive enforcement (including
appropriate penalties for violation of the HMR) would better promote
safe transportation. Mallinckrodt, a shipper of oxidizers, stated, ``We
ship oxidizers, paying particular attention to complying with these
methods and have had no incidents of which we are aware. We do not feel
that we should be penalized for incidents as outlined in the Docket,
which were clear violations of the law.''
Hach Company manufactures and distributes several hundred products
that are or contain oxidizing materials, including laboratory
instruments, process analyzers, test kits and analytical reagents some
of which are used to analyze the quality and safety of water. It ships
the majority of its international orders by air, primarily on
passenger-carrying aircraft. Hach stated that it would prefer to ship
by cargo aircraft but that cargo aircraft are not available to a large
percentage of the end-user locations. It also stated that ocean
transportation is not a viable alternative because of location, time
and cost constraints. Hach stated that the proposed rule, if
promulgated could put it at a significant commercial disadvantage with
its foreign competitors. Hach supported a prohibition on transportation
of oxidizers in Class D cargo compartments, but opposed a prohibition
that would apply to other cargo compartments.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) stated that
cargo aircraft are not a substitute for passenger-carrying aircraft
because cargo operations serve only a fraction of airports,
international and domestic, and do not have the frequency of service
required by shippers. IATA stated ``Typically, a dangerous goods
shipment by air is time critical and the facility provided by passenger
aircraft service is essential to shipper's requirements.'' Another
commenter stated that the safety need for the proposed general
prohibition on the transport of all oxidizers aboard passenger-carrying
aircraft has not been technically or rationally proven by FAA and RSPA.
Some commenters expressed concern that RSPA and FAA would ban all
materials within Division 5.1 from passenger-carrying aircraft without
regard to the lesser hazards posed by materials in lower packing
groups, or shipped in limited quantities. ATA stated that the proposed
rules:
* * * offer no analysis or rationale to explain how a properly
packaged, low-oxidizing potential material would pose such risks. In
this regard, the transport, for example, of properly packaged and
identified low-oxidizing potential (i.e., Packing Group III) solid
oxidizers, is not considered to pose a significant risk to safety in
air transport. Such a material would be incapable of spontaneously
initiating a fire (even when in contact with organic material) under
conditions normally incident to transport.
ATA also stated that ``normal'' oxidizers can only reasonably be
[[Page 45390]]
envisioned contributing to a fire originating in adjacent cargo when
the fire has progressed to the extent that a packaging containing
``normal'' oxidizers has been substantially degraded. In such a case,
ATA stated the fire may be uncontrollable in any event or the
contribution to the intensity of the fire of a low-oxidizing potential
solid oxidizer may be insignificant. ALPA suggested that RSPA further
examine those oxidizing substances presently authorized by the HMR to
be carried aboard passenger-carrying aircraft which pose the greatest
potential risk to safety and those oxidizers that have caused problems
when transported by air. ALPA suggested that, following this re-
examination, RSPA should determine whether changes to the current HMR
might be necessary concerning these materials, such as decreasing net
quantity limitations, increasing the packaging requirements, or
prohibiting their carriage by aircraft.
2. Summary of Comments on Compressed Oxygen
RSPA proposed to prohibit the transportation of compressed oxygen
as cargo aboard passenger-carrying aircraft, and in inaccessible
locations aboard cargo aircraft. RSPA also proposed, based on the
provision of an existing exemption, to allow a limited number of
airline-owned and passenger-owned oxygen cylinders to be stowed in the
cabin of a passenger-carrying aircraft when placed in an overpack. RSPA
also proposed to require that the overpack be labeled CARGO AIRCRAFT
ONLY but marked with the statement ``Passenger cabin acceptable per 49
CFR 175.10.''
As already mentioned NTSB supported the proposal to prohibit the
carriage of compressed oxygen in Class D compartments. Air Products and
Chemicals, Inc. also supported the proposal and stated, ``the result of
the proposal should improve overall aircraft safety, but, there should
also be an effort to improve enforcement of all rules pertaining to
hazardous and forbidden materials in airplanes.''
The majority of the commenters opposed the proposal. Most
commenters stated that transporting oxygen cylinders in the cargo hold
does not present a significant risk. For example, the Regional Airline
Association (RAA) stated ``RSPA has failed to show that the
transportation of pressurized oxygen is sufficiently hazardous to deny
shipment within Class C and Class D compartments.'' RAA went on to say
that airlines that operate in remote locations where ground
transportation is not available, such as Alaska, will have to either
withdraw from operations or fly to their destination knowing that their
destination is not equipped to return them to service if they deplete
an oxygen bottle during the flight.
The Alaska Air Carriers Association (AACA) and Peninsula Airways
also opposed the proposed rule, particularly regarding oxygen, due to
the adverse consequence on transportation in and through Alaska.
Peninsula Airways stated ``implementation of the NPRM's provisions that
affect this issue will make it virtually impossible to legally provide
medical oxygen for passengers/patients in remote areas of Alaska.''
Peninsula Airways and AACA both pointed out that Section 1205 of Public
Law 104-264, Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska, give
FAA the authority to consider Alaska's unique transportation
circumstances when conducting rulemaking. Peninsula Airways stated that
``this is clearly a situation where RSPA must reconsider the NPRM's
impact on Alaska and modify the proposed rule * * * to make it
workable, safe to use and safe to transport medical oxygen cylinders in
Alaska.''
Commenters also contended that prohibiting transportation of
compressed oxygen on board passenger-carrying aircraft would have
significant cost impacts on the airline industry and severely hamper
the ability of disabled persons to travel by the air mode. ATA stated
that a fire capable of generating enough heat to potentially affect an
oxygen cylinder would cause severe structural damage to the aircraft
before the cylinder would ever be dangerously involved.
Caledonia Airways disagreed with the proposed exception for
transporting compressed oxygen in the passenger cabin. It stated that
such transportation is contrary to any training that airline personnel
have received and also conflicts with the International Civil Aviation
Organization's (ICAO) Technical Instructions for the Safe
Transportation of Dangerous Goods. Other commenters noted that adoption
of the proposed ban on compressed oxygen, in conjunction with the
general ban on carriage of dangerous goods in the passenger cabin set
forth in the ICAO Technical Instructions, could effectively prohibit
any transportation of oxygen cylinders as COMAT (airline company
material) on international flights. Commenters also stated that
limiting a carrier to six COMAT cylinders per flight would
unnecessarily restrict its ability to pre-position cylinders and to
transport cylinders to locations where they are needed to replace used
cylinders.
RAA stated that the proposed exception for oxygen cylinders in the
cabin is a suitable alternative for transportation of medical oxygen
cylinders, but it does not address the needs of regional operators to
ship spare oxygen cylinders used in support of aircraft pressurized
oxygen systems. ALPA stated that many airplanes do not have available
storage locations of adequate size and strength to hold oxygen
cylinders contained within their strong outer packagings. ALPA went on
to say that for such aircraft, creation of such areas or compartments
would require significant investment in engineering development and
aircraft retrofitting. Qantas Airlines pointed out that an oxygen
cylinder is often an unwieldy and heavy piece of equipment which
represents a serious hazard to passengers in the cabin not only in
regular handling, but especially during turbulence and other in-flight
emergencies.
ALPA specifically disagreed with the statement in the NPRM that it
would be safer to carry personal medical oxygen cylinders in the
passenger cabin because the crew could quickly remove the cylinders
from any fire area of the cabin. It stated that the aircraft crew
should not be considered a fire suppression resource. In its view, a
member of flight deck crew on a two-person crew would not leave his or
her station and enter a compartment that is on fire to attempt to fight
the fire, nor move a package containing an oxidizer away from the fire.
Many commenters noted that there has not been any incident
involving the transport of compressed oxygen in cylinders designed for
and used aboard aircraft in any compartment, including an inaccessible
cargo compartment. IATA pointed out that there is no record of any
lives having been lost due to properly packaged oxidizers, including
oxygen, in the 76 years of commercial aviation history and, in
particular, since the implementation of the first air-mode Dangerous
Goods Code in 1956. ATA stated that the industry system of COMAT
distribution of oxygen cylinders has been safely in place since
supplemental oxygen was needed on commercial aircraft between 1946-1948
when the Lockheed Constellation, Douglas DC-6 and Convair aircraft
entered service. Air New Zealand, pointing out that there are large
quantities of oxygen stored in cylinders behind the sidewalls of cargo
compartments, stated that the only protection these cylinders have from
a cargo compartment fire is the compartment wall lining which meets the
flame penetration requirements of
[[Page 45391]]
14 CFR 25.855. Air New Zealand went on to say that ``it would be
logical to ship cylinders in the cargo compartment in overpacks meeting
the same flame penetration standards.''
Most of the comments opposing the proposals related to the
transportation of compressed oxygen aboard passenger-carrying aircraft
were from airlines who need to resupply (or deploy) charged oxygen
cylinders for compliance with FAA airworthiness requirements and for
use by passengers who require supplemental oxygen during flight.
Several airlines stated that they store the oxygen cylinders at their
hub facilities where they can safeguard their storage and maintenance
and then deploy them as needed aboard their aircraft to other operating
locations. ALPA pointed out that without the required oxygen for crew
and passengers, an aircraft is not considered airworthy and is not
authorized to be flown. It stated that one way to restore the aircraft
to a flyable status is to remove and replace oxygen cylinders, and the
potential for an aircraft being grounded at a non-maintenance station
is great if these fully charged cylinders may not be moved by an
airline around its system.
Carnival Air Lines stated that it would be forced to rely on other
carriers to resupply its cylinders and position its maintenance and
replacement parts. Carnival also stated that this forced reliance upon
other carriers would inevitably lead to at least occasional
cancellations or lengthy flight delays resulting from an aircraft being
forced out of service awaiting required oxygen. It stated that the
costs associated with these delays would be ``very substantial.''
Several airline commenters stated that if the amendments were
adopted as proposed they will be unable to provide the current level of
service without incurring significant costs. For example, Continental
Airlines stated that it transports approximately 300 oxygen cylinders
per month and if the proposal is adopted it would not be able to
effectively and efficiently distribute medical oxygen to the places
where and when it is needed in order to accommodate passenger needs.
Numerous commenters were concerned about the proposed placement of
the Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) (49 CFR 172.448) label on cylinders of
oxygen that would be transported in the cabin of a passenger-carrying
aircraft. Some stated that adoption of this proposal would cause
unacceptable confusion and would be detrimental to safety. Others
stated that allowing one material labeled CAO to be loaded in a
passenger-carrying aircraft would dilute the meaning of the label and
cause confusion. ALPA stated that placing packages of hazardous
materials that are labeled CAO in passenger-carrying aircraft is
``totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated.'' ALPA also stated
that if a label must be used, then development of a separate
``accessible while inflight'' label may be warranted. ATA stated that
``misuse'' of the hazard communication system would cause confusion
about the true meaning of the Cargo Aircraft Only label, which may well
increase the potential for a serious incident involving a passenger-
carrying aircraft.
The National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care
(NAMDRC) and the American Lung Association (ALA) supported the proposal
to allow the carriage of passenger-owned cylinders of compressed oxygen
in the cabin of the aircraft. NAMDRC and ALA also stated that this
exception would provide patients timely access to their personal oxygen
containers upon landing at a layover site or at their final
destination. These commenters, however, were under the mistaken
impression that this exception would allow passengers to transport
their cylinders in the aircraft by relinquishing the cylinders to the
flight crew. These commenters also asked: (1) Will the airlines have an
option or will they be required to transport the oxygen cylinders? (2)
Will the airlines be able to charge for the service? (3) What
documentation or security measures will be required for transport of
the oxygen cylinders? and (4) What types of oxygen cylinders will be
allowed to be stowed in the cabin and what type of testing will be
required before a cylinder is allowed on the aircraft?
3. RSPA Response to Comments
i. Chemical Oxidizers. Oxidizers currently authorized for carriage
aboard passenger aircraft in inaccessible cargo compartments will not
spontaneously initiate a fire. The potential hazard posed by these
oxidizers is that, if a fire were to occur elsewhere in the
compartment, such as in luggage or other cargo, and if there were no
means to suppress or extinguish the fire, the fire might burn long
enough to involve the oxidizer. The oxidizer, even in Packing Group
III, could potentially provide an oxygen source which could intensify
the fire to an extent that the limited safety features of the
compartment would be ineffective. For these reasons, and based on its
review of comments received to the NPRM, SNPRM and at the public
hearing, RSPA believes that there is a need to prohibit the
transportation of chemical oxidizers (i.e., oxidizers other than
compressed oxygen) in inaccessible cargo compartments that do not have
fire or smoke detection and fire suppression systems. Therefore,
consistent with the NTSB recommendation, RSPA is prohibiting the
transportation of chemical oxidizers in inaccessible cargo compartments
that do not have fire or smoke detection and fire suppression systems.
Based on evaluation of comments and the hazards posed by chemical
oxidizers, RSPA does not believe that chemical oxidizers should be
completely forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft. RSPA is
confident that chemical oxidizers can be safely transported in Class B,
and Class C compartments when transported in accordance with the HMR.
RSPA is also confident that the safety features of a Class B
compartment (i.e., an accessible compartment with fire or smoke
detection equipment) and those of a Class C compartment (i.e., an
inaccessible cargo compartment that has both a fire or smoke detection
system and a fire suppression system) counter the risk posed to an
aircraft from the carriage of chemical oxidizers that are transported
in accordance with the HMR. Therefore, RSPA is not adopting the
proposal to prohibit the carriage of chemical oxidizers aboard
passenger-carrying aircraft in Class B or Class C aircraft cargo
compartments.
ii. Compressed Oxygen. The potential hazard posed by compressed
oxygen is that it will intensify a fire. Thus, if a fire, from any
source, were to occur in an aircraft cargo compartment containing an
oxygen cylinder, the fire might burn long enough to heat the cylinder
sufficiently to cause the pressure relief mechanism on the cylinder to
open. The released oxygen could then intensify the fire to an extent
that the safety features of the compartment would be ineffective,
potentially resulting in the loss of the aircraft.
Under the HMR, compressed oxygen must be packaged in a DOT
specification cylinder, constructed of steel or aluminum. The cylinder
is required to incorporate a pressure relief device that will release
its contents if the internal pressure in the cylinder approaches the
test pressure of the cylinder. If the cylinder incorporates a valve,
sufficient protection must be provided to prevent operation of, and
damage to the valve during transportation, such as by boxing or crating
the cylinder or by equipping it with protective caps or head rings (see
49 CFR 173.27(g)). Some types of
[[Page 45392]]
cylinders may only be shipped in strong outside packagings, regardless
of whether or not the cylinder incorporates a valve (see 49 CFR
173.301(k)). An overpack or outer packaging commonly used by the
airlines to transport their oxygen cylinders is the ATA Specification
No. 300, Packaging of Airline Supplies, Category I. An ATA
Specification No. 300 Category I (ATA 300) overpack or outer packaging
is a resilient, durable overpack intended to be reused for a minimum of
100 round trips which meets specified performance standards, as
demonstrated by design tests (e.g., drop test and puncture resistance).
The overpack or outer packaging must also provide protection from shock
and vibration.
Numerous commenters pointed out the long safety record that oxygen
cylinders have had in commercial aviation and expressed the view that
RSPA and FAA had no basis for proposing to prohibit the transportation
of oxygen cylinders aboard passenger-carrying aircraft. Commenters
requested that RSPA and FAA reevaluate the proposal regarding oxygen
cylinders. After the ValuJet accident, RSPA and FAA began evaluating
the risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials by
aircraft. This rule reflects the agency's decisions regarding oxidizers
and compressed oxygen cylinders and is based on written comments,
information from the public hearing and FAA testing.
At the public hearing, the FAA asked whether any of the attendees
were aware of any testing results that would support assertions by some
commenters that a fire capable of generating enough heat to potentially
affect an oxygen cylinder would cause severe structural damage to the
aircraft before the cylinder would ever be dangerously involved. No one
cited any tests. In an effort to establish whether these assertions
were valid, the FAA conducted oven, fire, and overpack tests on
compressed oxygen cylinders. These tests were conducted at the FAA
Technical Center. A copy of the test report is available for review in
the public docket. As discussed below, the FAA found that oxygen
cylinders release their contents at temperatures well-below those that
would be needed to damage aircraft cargo compartment liners and
structures. However, an outer packaging or overpack will lengthen the
time for a cylinder to release its contents at these temperatures.
Oven Test
The purpose of the first test series was to determine the
approximate time and rate of release when an unprotected cylinder is
exposed to high temperatures, as might be experienced in a cargo
compartment fire. For this test, cylinders normally used for compressed
oxygen were filled with nitrogen to 1,800 p.s.i. This test was
performed on three cylinders of different capacity (i.e., 11, 76.5 and
115 cubic foot capacity). Each cylinder was placed in an industrial-
type electric conduction oven and the temperature of the oven was
increased to 400 deg.F. On average, the cylinders released their
contents within 14 minutes, when the temperature inside the oven was
approximately 370 deg.F. The average external temperature of the
cylinder at the time of release was 300 deg.F.
Fire Tests
During the second test series, FAA attempted to determine the
effect of releasing oxygen during a fire. For this test, an empty
cylinder was placed in a steel frame receptacle constructed in the
shape of a LD-3 container which is typically used in the lower deck of
a wide-body aircraft. Cardboard boxes filled with shredded paper were
loaded into the LD-3 container and a small fire initiated. When the
temperature of the cylinder reached the temperature obtained during the
first (oven) test, the oxygen was vented into the container through
piping. This test was performed three times using the contents of an 11
cubic foot cylinder and once using about 22 cubic feet of oxygen. The
first time a slight increase in temperature in the LD-3 container was
observed, but the oxygen release had little overall impact on the fire.
The second time the smoldering fire erupted violently with visible
flames appearing at one edge of the container. Although violent, the
eruption was short in duration and the fire was contained. The third
time the release of oxygen again caused a violent reaction inside the
container, which produced enough pressure to force open taped seams on
the container. However, it was again very short in duration much like
the previous test. The fourth time, the temperature in the LD-3
container increased dramatically immediately following the oxygen
release and the fire completely burned through the ceiling and part of
the front side of the container, totally destroying it.
Overpack Tests
During the third test series the level of thermal protection
provided by a variety of overpack or outer packagings was examined.
First, currently available overpack or outer packagings meeting ATA
300, Category I and containing a 76.5 cubic foot cylinder filled with
nitrogen were placed in an oven and the temperature was increased to
400 deg.F. This test was repeated numerous times. The first time,
after sixty minutes, the cylinder's surface temperature ranged from 230
deg.F to 280 deg.F, below the temperature at which the pressure
relief mechanism usually actuates to relieve the pressure within the
cylinder. The test was terminated after 69 minutes with the maximum
surface temperature of the cylinder reaching 300 deg.F. The second
time, after 60 minutes the surface temperature of the cylinder reached
300 deg.F (the temperature at which the pressure relief mechanism
usually actuates). The third time the surface temperature of the
cylinder reached 300 deg.F after 90 minutes, at which time the test
was terminated.
Then, in an effort to evaluate the increase in thermal protection
offered by a modified overpack case, additional tests were performed on
overpacks specifically designed for this purpose and having an exterior
made of a flame retardant thermoplastic known as Kydex. In addition, a
one inch thick fiberglass insulation was sandwiched between the
exterior layer of Kydex and an inner layer of foamed plastic. The test
was allowed to progress for approximately 60 minutes without the
cylinder surface temperature exceeding 100 deg.F.
As demonstrated by these tests, when the surface temperature of a
cylinder of compressed oxygen reaches approximately 300 deg.F, the
increase in pressure causes the cylinder's pressure relief mechanism to
open and release oxygen. If oxygen vents directly into the fire it
could cause a potentially catastrophic event. However, these tests also
show that an outer packaging that provides greater flame penetration
resistance and thermal protection can increase the level of safety in
the transportation of compressed oxygen aboard aircraft. Some thermal
protection, up to 60 minutes or more, is provided by overpacks or outer
packagings meeting the ATA 300 specification. Even more protection
would be provided by an improved overpack that provides thermal
protection and satisfies flame protection criteria.
The tests performed by FAA demonstrate that there is an increased
risk posed by the presence of compressed oxygen in the event of a fire
in a cargo compartment. This risk is due to the fact that, if the
temperature of an oxygen cylinder reaches approximately 300 deg.F, the
cylinder will vent oxygen into the cargo compartment and intensify the
fire. Consequently, action can and should be taken to reduce or
eliminate this risk. At this time, RSPA
[[Page 45393]]
does not believe that a complete prohibition on the transportation of
oxygen cylinders aboard passenger-carrying aircraft will be necessary.
Thus, RSPA is permitting oxygen cylinders to be loaded into and
transported on passenger-carrying aircraft and in inaccessible
locations on cargo-only aircraft subject to restrictions. Furthermore,
RSPA and FAA are developing additional standards for protection of
oxygen cylinders to be proposed in a separate future rulemaking. RSPA
is not adopting the proposal to require the ``Cargo Aircraft Only''
label on cylinders of compressed oxygen because it is continuing to
allow compressed oxygen to be carried in cargo compartments of
passenger aircraft.
Based on the merits of comments, past shipping experience, FAA
testing and its own evaluation, in this final rule, RSPA is amending
requirements for the packaging, stowage and transport of oxygen
cylinders on aircraft, summarized as follows:
For transportation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft or
in an inaccessible cargo location on a cargo-only aircraft, each
cylinder must be placed in an overpack or an outer packaging that
satisfies the performance criteria in ATA Specification 300.
Each cylinder must be stowed horizontally on or as close
as practicable to the floor of the cargo compartment or unit load
device.
No more than a total of six cylinders may be stowed on an
aircraft in inaccessible cargo compartments that do not have a fire or
smoke detection system and a fire suppression system (e.g., a Class D
cargo compartment).
No more than six cylinders may be stowed in a Class B
cargo compartment or its equivalent (i.e., an accessible cargo
compartment equipped with a fire or smoke detection system but not a
fire suppression system), except that one additional cylinder
containing medical-use oxygen may be carried per passenger needing the
oxygen at destination.
A limited number of oxygen cylinders, each with a capacity
no greater than 850 liters (30 cubic feet), may be carried in the
passenger cabin of a passenger-carrying aircraft. This authorization is
limited to no more than six airline-owned cylinders and one additional
cylinder containing medical-use oxygen per passenger needing the oxygen
at destination.
For transportation aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft or in an
inaccessible cargo location on a cargo-only aircraft, RSPA is requiring
that each cylinder of compressed oxygen be placed in an overpack or
outer packaging meeting the performance criteria in ATA Specification
300. (See Special Provision A52 in the amendment to Section 172.102 of
this final rule.) RSPA believes requiring cylinders of compressed
oxygen to be placed in these overpacks or outer packagings provides an
incremental level of safety in the interim until new overpack standards
are developed and are in production.
Based on the FAA testing, RSPA believes that any increase in risk
posed by the presence of a compressed oxygen cylinder in a cargo
compartment can be significantly reduced, or even eliminated, if the
oxygen cylinder is placed in an outer packaging or overpack that
provides more thermal protection and flame resistence than the ATA 300
overpacks currently in use. To this end, RSPA is developing proposed
enhanced standards for outer packagings or overpacks to further protect
cylinders from heat and fire. RSPA anticipates publishing an NPRM later
this year to invite comments on enhanced standards for these outer
packagings or overpacks, including a proposed date for their
implementation. At present, RSPA is considering a requirement that an
oxygen cylinder may be carried in an inaccessible cargo compartment on
an aircraft only when the cylinder is placed in an outer packaging or
overpack meeting certain flame penetration resistance, thermal
protection, and integrity standards. The flame penetration standards
would likely be similar to those specified for Class C cargo
compartment liners in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part III.
If RSPA adopts enhanced standards for outer packagings or
overpacks, we would require use of an enhanced outer packaging or
overpack as soon as practicable. On the other hand, if RSPA ultimately
concludes that enhanced standards will not provide significantly more
thermal protection and heat penetration resistence than the ATA 300
overpacks currently in use, RSPA may prohibit the carriage of oxygen
cylinders in inaccessible cargo compartments that do not have
appropriate fire or smoke detection systems and fire suppression
systems.
RSPA is also adopting stowage requirements and numerical
limitations with regard to oxygen cylinders in aircraft cargo
compartments--rather than completely prohibiting the transportation of
oxygen cylinders in cargo compartments of passenger aircraft and in
inaccessible cargo compartments on all-cargo aircraft. The temperatures
of a fire in a cargo compartment are, for the most part, much higher at
the top of the compartment than at the bottom. RSPA believes that
stowing the cylinders horizontally on the floor of the compartment may
decrease the likelihood that a cylinder exposed to a cargo compartment
fire will vent. Therefore, RSPA is requiring that cylinders of
compressed oxygen be placed horizontally on or as close as practicable
to the floor of the cargo compartment or unit load device. RSPA also
believes that only a limited number of cylinders should be transported
in Class B and D cargo compartments in order to decrease the aggregate
risk to the aircraft. Therefore, RSPA is limiting to six the number of
cylinders that can be stowed in an aircraft in Class B compartments
(accessible, no fire suppression systems) and Class D compartments (no
fire or smoke detection or fire suppression systems). RSPA believes
that the concerns expressed by foreign aircraft operators and aircraft
operators in remote locations (e.g., Alaska) are addressed by
continuing to allow oxygen cylinders to be transported aboard
passenger-carrying aircraft.
As proposed in the SNPRM, this final rule will allow for the
carriage of a limited number of oxygen cylinders, as cargo, in the
passenger cabin of an aircraft, under certain conditions. This
authorization is limited to no more than six airline-owned cylinders
and one additional cylinder containing medical-use oxygen per passenger
needing the oxygen at destination. However, consistent with the
exemption on which the proposal was based (see SNPRM; 62 FR 44377),
RSPA is limiting this allowance to small ``medical-use'' oxygen
cylinders with capacities no greater than 850 liters (30 cubic feet).
Consistent with the outer packaging requirements for other cargo
compartments, RSPA is requiring that these cylinders be placed in an
overpack or outer packaging that meets the requirements of ATA 300.
This exception is provided to ensure that cylinders of medical oxygen
owned by an airline or a passenger--requiring oxygen at destination--
can continue to be transported aboard passenger-carrying aircraft.
The exception does not eliminate or waive any of the current
packaging, maintenance, or use requirements of the HMR related to
cylinders of compressed oxygen, or any of the FAA or airline security
requirements. If an airline elects to accept for transportation
passenger-owned oxygen cylinders in accordance with 175.10(b), the
passenger will have to offer the cylinder to the airline in accordance
with the
[[Page 45394]]
established procedures of the airline. These procedures may require
passengers to tender their cylinders at airline cargo facilities or at
passenger check-in counters. In addition, the passengers will not have
access to their cylinders until they are returned to them by the
airlines. Again, these procedures will be established by the airlines.
RSPA notes that none of DOT's requirements require airlines to accept
passengers' cylinders of compressed oxygen, nor do they require or
preclude airlines from charging fees for this service. In addition,
RSPA also notes that nothing in this rulemaking mandates that an
airline supply the ATA 300 overpack. If an airline elects not to supply
the ATA 300 overpack or outer packaging, its passengers will be
responsible for obtaining the overpack or outer packaging.
New paragraph Sec. 175.10(b) allows six oxygen cylinders owned or
leased by the aircraft operator or a passenger to be transported as
cargo in the cabin of the aircraft. These oxygen cylinders are
hazardous materials, subject to all applicable HMR requirements. See
the RSPA's ``Advisory Notice: Transportation of Air Carrier Company
Materials (COMAT) by Aircraft,'' 61 FR 65479 (December 13, 1996). Air
carriers who do not elect to accept or transport hazardous materials
(and have not developed the manuals and trained their employees as
required by 14 CFR) must offer their company-owned oxygen cylinders to
a carrier of another mode (e.g., highway) or to another air carrier
that has an established program for transportation of hazardous
materials.
C. Spent Chemical Oxygen Generators
In the SNPRM, RSPA proposed to prohibit the transportation of spent
chemical oxygen generators (i.e., generators in which the means of
initiation and the chemical core have been expended) and to regulate
them as Class 9 materials when transported by other means of
transportation. All commenters supported this proposal. The NTSB stated
that ``it is difficult to determine whether all of the oxidizing
material in a spent generator has been depleted, since a generator is a
closed container, and both the oxidizer within the generator before the
reaction and the materials remaining in the generator after the
reaction are solids with similar weights.''
RSPA believes that lessening the possibility that this type of
human error may occur outweighs any interest in, or need for,
transporting spent chemical oxygen generators by aircraft. Accordingly,
RSPA is prohibiting the transportation by aircraft of spent chemical
oxygen generators and to regulate them as Class 9 materials when
transported by other than aircraft.
Based on the foregoing, RSPA is adding to the Hazardous Materials
Table (HMT) the new shipping description, ``Oxygen generator, chemical,
spent, 9, NA3356, III.'' The entry is preceded by a plus sign (``+'')
in Column 1 to fix the proper shipping name, hazard class and packing
group for the entry without regard to whether the material meets the
definition of a Class 9 hazardous material. Special provision 61 is
added in Column 7 to specify the conditions under which an oxygen
generator is considered ``spent.'' In addition, ``None'' is added to
Column 8A of the HMT because RSPA believes that spent oxygen generators
should not be eligible for limited quantity exceptions or to be
reclassified as a consumer commodity. RSPA is also amending
Secs. 171.11, 171.12 and 171.12a, consistent with the proposals, to
indicate that there are no exceptions from HMR requirements for
classification, description, and packaging of spent chemical oxygen
generators when shipping to, from or within the U.S. under the
provisions of international or Canadian regulations.
D. Personal Oxygen Generators
RSPA proposed to eliminate the exception in 49 CFR 175.10(a)(24)
that allows the transportation of small personal oxygen generators in
checked baggage. There was no opposition and a number of commenters,
including the NTSB, expressed support for this proposal. The NTSB
stated that this exception currently permits the placement of oxidizers
in cargo compartments that do not have fire or smoke detection systems
and that are designed to suppress a fire by limiting the oxygen
available to support combustion and, therefore, it supports the
proposal.
As proposed in the December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA is removing the
exception provided in Sec. 175.10(a)(24) for small personal chemical
oxygen generators in checked baggage.
E. Other Materials
The NPRM and the SNPRM proposed to prohibit the transportation of
packages required to be labeled OXIDIZER or OXYGEN on passenger
aircraft and in inaccessible cargo compartments aboard cargo aircraft.
Therefore, the proposed prohibition did not apply to an oxidizer
classed as a consumer commodity, ORM-D, under the provisions of 49 CFR
173.152. The ICAO Technical Instructions do not allow Division 5.1
materials (oxidizers) to be reclassified as a consumer commodity. RSPA
specifically requested comments regarding whether it would be
appropriate to extend the prohibition to consumer commodities that are
oxidizers or whether quantity limits should be imposed on these
materials in 49 CFR 175.75.
In its comments, NTSB stated that it was concerned that the
proposals did not include a prohibition on those oxidizers that are
shipped as consumer commodities. It also stated that the exception in
49 CFR 173.152 allows the placement of oxidizers in cargo compartments
that do not have fire or smoke detection/suppression systems and,
therefore, urged that the consumer commodity exception for oxidizers be
eliminated. NTSB also requested that RSPA include organic peroxides in
its study of the effects of hazardous materials in cargo compartments
fires and to ban them from transportation by air if they cannot be
transported safely.
Other commenters stated that they opposed extending the prohibition
to consumer commodity oxidizers. These commenters stated that these
materials are adequately regulated under ICAO and 49 CFR 173.152. HMAC
stated that penalizing those who comply with the regulations does not
address the issues of untrained and undertrained personnel and
undeclared and misdeclared hazardous materials nor does it improve
safety for the general public. HMAC urged RSPA to focus on aggressively
enforcing current regulations, educating the regulated community, and
taking appropriate penalty actions against those that do not comply.
RSPA believes that those oxidizers authorized to be reclassed as
ORM-D (i.e., consumer commodities) are of a form and quantity that
would not pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of an aircraft, even
in cargo compartments that lack a fire and smoke detection system.
Therefore, RSPA is not prohibiting oxidizers that have been reclassed
as an ORM-D from being transported in Class D cargo compartments. RSPA
also believes that NTSB's request to include organic peroxides in the
prohibition is outside the scope of this rulemaking and, therefore, has
not been adopted. However, as noted in the December 30, 1996 NPRM, RSPA
has initiated a study to assess the risks associated with the
transportation of hazardous materials in aircraft cargo compartments
that may result in RSPA publishing another rulemaking to ban additional
hazardous materials. As part of that study, RSPA is reviewing the
hazards posed by materials similar to oxidizers, such as organic
peroxides.
[[Page 45395]]
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is considered a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. The rule is considered significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(44 FR 11034). A regulatory evaluation is available for review in the
public docket.
Executive Order 12612
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism''). The
Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5127)
contains an express preemption provision that preempts State, local,
and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered
subjects are:
(A) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous
material;
(B) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous material;
(C) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
pertaining to hazardous material and requirements respecting the
number, content, and placement of such documents;
(D) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and
(E) The design, manufacturing, fabrication, marking, maintenance,
reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a package or container which
is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the
transportation of hazardous material.
Because RSPA lacks discretion in this area, preparation of a
federalism assessment is not warranted.
Title 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2) provides that DOT must determine and
publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal
preemption. That effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day
following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two
years after the date of issuance. This rule requires oxidizers to be
transported in certain types of cargo compartments aboard aircraft and
specifies overpacking requirements for cylinder of compressed oxygen.
RSPA determined that the effective date of Federal preemption for the
requirements in this rule concerning covered subjects is March 1, 2000.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (the Act) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statues, to
fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rational for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as
described in the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the Act provides that the
head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This rule will prohibit the carriage of oxidizers onboard aircraft
in inaccessible cargo compartments that do not have a fire or smoke
detection system and a fire suppression system. This rule will affect
persons who ship oxidizers by air and the airline operators that
transport oxidizers as cargo. However, it is assumed that shippers will
not have to pay more to ship oxidizers by alternative means: on all-
cargo aircraft that have accessible cargo compartments or cargo
compartments with a fire or smoke detection system and a fire
suppression system, on passenger-carrying aircraft that have cargo
compartments with a fire or smoke detection system and a fire
suppression system, or by other modes of transportation. It is also
assumed that there will be no loss of revenue for all-cargo operators
because they can transport oxidizers in class E cargo compartments or
(if the aircraft is so equipped) in class C cargo compartments.
Accordingly, this rule will only reduce the freight revenues of an
operator of passenger-carrying aircraft that also carry oxidizers as
cargo in compartments that do not have a fire or smoke detection system
and a fire suppression system. The effect of this rule on an operator
certificated under 14 CFR part 121 will only last until March 19, 2001,
because the class D compartments on their aircraft (i.e., those
compartments without a fire or smoke detection system and a fire
suppression system) must meet the standards for a class C or class E
compartment by that date.
In the SNPRM, RSPA evaluated the effect of its proposed rule on
part 121 operators under FAA Order 2100.A and stated that it lacked
sufficient data to determine the proposed rule's economic impact on
entities other than those operating under 14 CFR part 121 (e.g., part
135 operators). Although RSPA requested comments ``on the economic
impact, if any, of this proposed rule on other entities,'' no comments
were submitted that would assist RSPA's evaluation of the impact of
this rule on small entities.
Because the FAA no longer uses the criteria in its Order 2100.A to
determine who are small entities, RSPA considers that an airline
operator with fewer than 1,500 employees is a small entity, under the
Small Business Administration's criteria in 13 CFR part 121. RSPA
reviewed air carrier traffic and revenue statistics complied by DOT's
Office of Airline Information and information provided by FAA as to the
air carriers approved to transport hazardous materials. These sources
indicate that there is only one part 121 air carrier with fewer than
1,500 employees that carries passengers and accepts oxidizers for
transportation as cargo.
There are many air carriers certificated under 14 CFR part 135 that
are approved by FAA to carry hazardous materials. Many of these
carriers transport only cargo. In general, they provide on-demand,
rather than schedule service, and the inaccessible cargo compartment on
these aircraft are small. (Most of the cargo is carried in the main
compartment when there are no passengers.) RSPA does not have
information on which part 135 carriers carry passengers or, more
importantly, whether any of them carry passengers and hazardous
materials on the same flight. Because of their limited cargo capacity
and lack of schedule service, however, RSPA assumes that the passenger-
carrying aircraft operated by part 135 carriers are not utilized for
the transportation of oxidizers.
Accordingly, RSPA certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 45396]]
Executive Order 13084
RSPA believes that this final rule will have no significant or
unique effect on the communities of Indian tribal governments when
analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order
13084 (``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments''). Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of
this Executive Order do not apply.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of
$100 million or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State,
local, or Native American tribal governments, or the private sector.
This final rule is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective of the rule.
Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems (Year 2000)
Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates may, on
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900.
This Year 2000 problem could cause computers to stop running or to
start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem poses a threat
to the global economy in which Americans live and work. With the help
of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, Federal agencies
are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem and to offer
support. We do not want to impose new requirements that would mandate
business process changes when the resources necessary to implement
those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year 2000 problem.
This final rule does not impose business process changes or require
modification to computer systems. Because the final rule does not
affect organizations' ability to respond to the Year 2000 problem, we
do not intend to delay the effectiveness of the requirements in the
final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not impose any new information collection
requirements.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 171
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 172
Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,
Labeling, Marking, Packaging and containers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 175
Air carriers, Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive
materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, and 175
are amended as follows:
PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
2. In 171.7, in the Table of material incorporated by reference in
paragraph (a)(3), a new entry is added in appropriate alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 171.7 Reference material.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR
Source and name of material reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Transport Association of America, 1301 Pennsylvania ..............
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20004-1707
ATA Specification No. 300 Packaging of Airline 172.102
Supplies, Revision 19, July 31, 1996...............
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 171.11, paragraph (d)(15) is revised and paragraph
(d)(16) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 171.11 Use of ICAO Technical Instructions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(15) A chemical oxygen generator is forbidden for transportation
aboard a passenger-carrying aircraft and must be approved, classed,
described and packaged in accordance with the requirements of this
subchapter for transportation on cargo-only aircraft. A chemical oxygen
generator (spent) is forbidden for transportation on aircraft.
(16) A cylinder containing Oxygen, compressed, may not be
transported on a passenger-carrying aircraft or in an inaccessible
cargo location aboard a cargo-only aircraft unless it is packaged as
required by Part 173 and Part 178 of this subchapter and is placed in
an overpack or outer packaging that satisfies the requirements of
Special Provision A52 in Sec. 172.102.
4. In Sec. 171.12, paragraph (b)(18) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 171.12 Import and export shipments.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(18) A chemical oxygen generator must be approved in accordance
with the requirements of this subchapter. A chemical oxygen generator
and a chemical oxygen generator (spent) must be classed, described and
packaged in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 171.12a, paragraph (b)(17) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 171.12a Canadian shipments and packagings.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(17) A chemical oxygen generator must be approved in accordance
with the requirements of this subchapter. A chemical oxygen generator
and a chemical oxygen generator (spent) must be classed, described and
packaged in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.
PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
6. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
7. In the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table, one entry is
added in appropriate alphabetical order and one entry is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 172.101 Purpose and use of hazardous materials table.
* * * * *
[[Page 45397]]
Sec. 172.101.--Hazardous Materials Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous (8) Packaging authorizations (9) Quantity limitations (10) Vessel stowage
materials Hazard (Sec. 173.***) -------------------------------- requirements
Symbols descriptions and class or Identification PG Label codes Special -------------------------------- ---------------------------
proper shipping division numbers provisions Non- Passenger Cargo aircraft
names Exceptions bulk Bulk aircraft/rail only Location Other
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2).............. (3) (4) (5) (6)......... (7) (8A)........ (8B) (8C).... (9A).......... (9B).......... (10A) (10B)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Revised]
* * * * * * *
Oxygen, 2.2 UN1072 .......... 2.2, 5.1.... A52 306......... 302 314, 315 75 kg......... 150 kg........ A
compressed.
* * * * * * *
[Added]
* * * * * * *
+ Oxygen generator, 9 NA3356 III 9........... 61 None........ 213 None.... Forbidden..... Forbidden..... A
chemical, spent.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In Sec. 172.102, special provision ``61'' is added in
appropriate numerical sequence to paragraph (c)(1) and special
provision ``A52'' is added in alphanumeric sequence to paragraph
(c)(2), to read as follows:
Sec. 172.102 Special provisions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
Code/Special Provisions
* * * * *
61 A chemical oxygen generator is spent if its means of ignition
and all or a part of its chemical contents have been expended.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
Code/Special Provisions
* * * * *
A52 A cylinder containing Oxygen, compressed, may not be loaded
into a passenger-carrying aircraft or in an inaccessible cargo
location on a cargo-only aircraft unless it is placed in an overpack
or outer packaging that conforms to the performance criteria of Air
Transport Association (ATA) Specification 300 for Type I shipping
containers.
* * * * *
PART 175--CARRIAGE BY AIRCRAFT
9. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
10. In Sec. 175.10, paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 175.10 Exceptions.
* * * * *
(b) A cylinder containing medical-use compressed oxygen, owned or
leased by an aircraft operator or offered for transportation by a
passenger needing it for personal medical use at destination, may be
carried in the cabin of a passenger-carrying aircraft in accordance
with the following provisions:
(1) No more than six cylinders belonging to the aircraft operator
and, in addition, no more than one cylinder per passenger needing the
oxygen at destination, may be transported in the cabin of the aircraft
under the provisions of this paragraph (b);
(2) The rated capacity of each cylinder may not exceed 850 liters
(30 cubic feet);
(3) Each cylinder and its overpack or outer packaging (see Special
Provision A52 in Sec. 172.102 of this subchapter) must conform to the
provisions of this subchapter;
(4) The aircraft operator shall securely stow the cylinder in its
overpack or outer packaging in the cabin of the aircraft and shall
notify the pilot-in-command as specified in Sec. 175.33 of this part;
and
(5) Shipments under this paragraph (b) are not subject to--
(i) Subpart C and, for passengers only, subpart H of part 172 of
this subchapter;
(ii) Section 173.25(a)(4) of this subchapter.
(iii) Section 175.85(i).
Sec. 175.10 [Amended]
11. In addition, in Sec. 175.10 paragraph (a)(24) is removed and
reserved.
12. In Sec. 175.85, paragraphs (h) and (i) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 175.85 Cargo location.
* * * * *
(h) Compressed oxygen, when properly labeled Oxidizer or Oxygen,
may be loaded and transported as provided in paragraph (i) of this
section. No person may load or transport any other package containing a
hazardous material for which an OXIDIZER label is required under this
subchapter in an inaccessible cargo compartment that does not have a
fire or smoke detection system and a fire suppression system.
(i) In addition to the quantity limitations prescribed in
Sec. 175.75, cylinders of compressed oxygen must be stowed in
accordance with the following:
(1) No more than a combined total of six cylinders of compressed
oxygen may be stowed on an aircraft in the inaccessible aircraft cargo
compartment(s) that do not have fire or smoke detection systems and
fire suppression systems.
(2) When loaded into a passenger-carrying aircraft or in an
inaccessible cargo location on a cargo-only aircraft, cylinders of
compressed oxygen must be stowed horizontally on the floor or as close
as practicable to the floor of the cargo compartment or unit load
device. This provision does not apply to cylinders stowed in the cabin
of the aircraft in accordance with Sec. 175.10(b).
(3) When transported in a Class B aircraft cargo compartment (see
14 CFR 25.857(b)) or its equivalent (i.e., an accessible cargo
compartment equipped with a fire or smoke detection system but not a
fire suppression system), cylinders of compressed oxygen must be loaded
in a manner that a crew member can see, handle and, when size and
weight permit, separate the cylinders from other cargo during flight.
No more than six cylinders of compressed oxygen
[[Page 45398]]
and, in addition, one cylinder of medical-use compressed oxygen per
passenger needing oxygen at destination--with a rated capacity of 850
liters (30 cubic feet) or less of oxygen--may be carried in a Class B
aircraft cargo compartment or its equivalent.
Issued in Washington, DC on August 11, 1999 under the authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-21187 Filed 8-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P