41992 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. RSAC–96–1, Notice No. 6 ]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

(‘‘RSAC’’); Working Group Activity

Update

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of Railroad

Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)

Working Group Activities.

SUMMARY: FRA has decided to begin

publishing regular announcements of

RSAC working group activities and

status reports. This announcement

constitutes the first such status report.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vicky McCully, FRA, 400 7th Street,

S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590, (202)

632–3330, Grady Cothen, Deputy

Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards Program Development, FRA,

400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590, (202) 632–3309, or Lisa Levine,

Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 7th

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590,

(202) 632–3189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to

ensure that all concerned persons are

aware of the tasks the RSAC is

addressing, and to enable those persons

who may not be RSAC or working group

members to follow progress on those

tasks, FRA has decided to begin

publishing regular announcements of

RSAC working group activities and

status reports. These reports will be

published following each meeting of the

full RSAC, which currently are occuring

on a quarterly basis. Accordingly, this

first announcement will serve to inform

the public of the status of each of the

working groups created under the RSAC

since its creation in March 1996,

whether or not they are currently

operative. Hereafter, these

announcements will be limited to the

communication of current working

group activities only.

The Federal Railroad Administration

(‘‘FRA’’) has presented ten (10) tasks to

the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

(‘‘RSAC’’) since its creation. Working

groups have been established to execute

all ten (10) of these tasks. A few of the

tasks have been completed, and

recommendations presented to the

agency. Only one task has had to be

withdrawn from the RSAC due to the

failure of the parties to reach consensus

on any recommendations to the

Administrator.

Since its first meeting in April of

1996, the RSAC has been presented

with, and accepted, the following tasks

(detailed status and contact information

is provided for each) :

• (1) Reviewing and recommending

revisions to the regulations governing

Power Brake Systems for Freight

Equipment (49 CFR Part 232) (Task

accepted April 2, 1996. Working

Group established. Ten (10) working

group meetings held. Eight to ten (8–

10) separate task force meetings held.

Task withdrawn June 24, 1997 due to

the working group members’ inability

to reach consensus);

• (2) Reviewing and recommending

revisions to the Track Safety

Standards (49 CFR Part 213) (Task

accepted April 2, 1996. Working

Group established. Six meetings held.

Consensus reached on recommended

revisions. NPRM incorporating these

recommendations published in

Federal Register on 7/3/97. ‘‘Track

Safety Standards;Miscellaneous

Revisions,’’ 62 FR 36138);

• (3) Reviewing and recommending

revisions to the Radio Standards and

Procedures (49 CFR Part 220) (Task

accepted April 2, 1996. Working

Group established. Ten (10) meetings

held. Consensus reached on

recommended revisions. NPRM

incorporating these recommendations

published in the Federal Register on

6/26/97. ‘‘Railroad Communications;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,’’ 62

FR 34544);

• (4) Reviewing the appropriateness of

the agency’s current policy regarding

the applicability of existing and

proposed regulations to tourist,

excursion, scenic, and historic

railroads (Task accepted April 2,

1996. Working Group established.

One (1) meeting held.);

• (5) Reviewing and recommending

revisions to Steam Locomotive

Inspection standards (49 CFR Part

230) (Tasked to existing Tourist and

Historic Working Group (THWG) on

July 24, 1996. Six (6) Task Force

meetings held.);

• (6) Reviewing and recommending

revisions to miscellaneous aspects of

the regulations addressing Locomotive

Engineer Certification (49 CFR Part

240) (Task accepted October 31, 1996.

Working Group established. The

working group has met 6 times since

this task was assigned, and plans to

next meet the week of October 6,

1997.);

• (7) Developing On-Track Equipment

Safety Standards (new regulation)

(This was tasked to the existing Track

Standards Working Group on October

31, 1996. The Task Force has met 2

times since this task was assigned);

• (8) Developing Crashworthiness

Specifications to promote the integrity

of the locomotive cab in accidents

resulting from collisions. (New

regulation) (Task accepted June 24,

1997. A working group is being

established to begin the work required

to execute this task);

• (9) Evaluating the extent to which

environmental, sanitary, and other

working conditions in locomotive cabs

affect the crew’s health and the safe

operation of locomotives, proposing

standards where appropriate. (New

regulation) (Task accepted June 24,

1997. A working group is being

established to begin the work required

to execute this task).

• (10) Developing Event Recorder Data

Survivability standards (New

regulation) (Task accepted June 24,

1997. A working group is being

established to begin the work required

to execute this task).

If you have any questions about any

of these working groups please refer to

the following list of FRA contacts who

can assist you with questions regarding

any of the above-listed tasks:

(1) Power Brake Working Group—

Michael Huntley (202) 632–3366 or

Thomas Herrmann (202) 632–3178;

(2) Track Safety Standards Working

Group—Al McDowell (202) 632–3344

or Nancy Lewis (202) 632–3174;

(3) Radio Communications Working

Group—Gene Cox (202) 632-3504 or

Patti Sun (202) 632–3183;

(4) Tourist and Historic Working

Group—Grady Cothen (202) 632-3306

or Lisa Levine (202) 632–3189;

(5) Steam Inspection Standards Task

Force—George Scerbo (202) 632–3363

or Lisa Levine (202) 632–3189;

(6) Locomotive Engineer Certification

Working Group—John Conklin (202)

632–3372 or Alan Nagler (202) 632–

3187;

(7) On-Track Equipment Safety

Standards Task Force—Al McDowell

(202) 632–3344 or Nancy Lewis (202)

632–3174;

(8) Locomotive Crashworthiness

Working Group—Michael Huntley

(202) 632–3366 or Lisa Levine (202)

632–3189;

(9) Locomotive Crew Working

Conditions Working Group—Michael

Huntley (202) 632–3366 or Christine

Beyer (202) 632–3177; and

(10) Event Recorder Data Survivability

Working Group—Ron Newman (202)

632–3365 or Tom Phemister (202)

632–3181.

Please refer to the notice published in

the Federal Register on March 11, 1996
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices 41993

(61 F.R. 9740) for more information

about the RSAC.

Donald M. Itzkoff,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20487 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–97–2707; Notice 1]

Pipeline Safety: Liquefied Natural Gas

Facilities Petition for Waiver; Applied

LNG Technologies

Applied LNG Technologies (ALT) has

petitioned the Research and Special

Programs Administration (RSPA) for a

waiver from compliance with certain

provisions of 49 CFR part 193 for its

Needle Mountain Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG) storage and truck loading facility

at Topock, Arizona. This facility

consists of two 50,000 gallon LNG

storage tanks and a truck transfer

system. It is piped to a liquefaction

facility owned and operated by a

subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas. A

transmission pipeline, owned by El Paso

Natural Gas Company supplies Part 192

regulated gas to the El Paso liquefaction

facility. ALT alleges that an extension of

Part 193 jurisdiction to the Needle

Mountain LNG storage and truck

loading facility would be inconsistent

with the language of Section

193.2001(a). Section 193.2001(a) states

‘‘This part prescribes safety standards

for LNG facilities used in the

transportation of gas by pipeline that is

subject to the Natural Gas Pipeline

Safety Act of 1968 and Part 192 of this

chapter’’. ALT states that the Needle

Mountain LNG storage and truck

loading facility would not be

transporting natural gas by pipeline.

ALT further points out that Section

193.2001(b)(1) states ‘‘This part does not

apply to LNG facilities used by the

ultimate consumer of LNG or natural

gas’’. ALT states that this facility would

be loading LNG into tank trucks for

delivery to commercial and industrial

customers, thus, it is the ultimate

consumer of LNG. Therefore, ALT

alleges that the Needle Mountain LNG

storage and loading facility is nonjurisdictional.

On May 16, 1997, the RSPA issued an

Interpretation of Part 193 as it applies to

the Needle Mountain LNG Storage and

truck loading facility. LNG storage and

truck loading facility is owned and

operated by Applied LNG Technology,

Inc. The liquefaction facility and piping

is owned and operated by a subsidiary

of El Paso natural gas. However, the

land on which the storage facility sits is

owned by El Paso Natural Gas. In that

interpretation, RSPA stated that

regardless of who owns or operates

different sections of an LNG facility, it

is subject to Part 193 in its entirety. Part

193 encompasses all parts of an LNG

facility from the point at which it

receives gas from a Part 192 regulated

gas transmission pipeline through the

liquefaction process, storage, and

transfer into a motor carrier vehicle.

ALT now requests a waiver from

compliance with certain sections of Part

193 and proposes to ensure equivalent

safety through compliance with the

National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) standard 59A. The specific

sections of Part 193 for which ALT

seeks a waiver are:

(1) Section 193.2173—Water Removal:

§ 193.2173(a) requires that except for

Class 1 systems, impounding systems

must have sump pumps and piping over

the dike to remove water collecting in

the sump basin.

NFPA 59A section 2–2.2.7 requires

either sump pumps or gravity drainage

for water removal, provided there is

means to prevent the escape of LNG by

way of the drainage system.

ALT’s rationale for noncompliance:

The impoundment area in this facility

drains to a sump basin. A sump pump

is not provided due to the arid location.

In the rare event of rain in Topock, AZ,

ALT does not expect to have standing

water for any length of time.

RSPA would agree with ALT that a

sump pump and piping are not

necessary at this LNG facility due to the

arid location only if ALT can

demonstrate that there would be no

standing water (i.e., proving ground is

permeable) in the sump for any

significant period. RSPA proposes to

grant the waiver from § 193.2173 subject

to the above condition.

(2) Section 193.2209(b)(2)—

Instrumentation for LNG storage tanks:

For LNG tanks with capacity of 70,000

gallons or less, § 193.2209(b)(2) requires

pressure gages and recorders with high

pressure alarm.

NFPA 59A 7–2.1 requires only a

pressure gage.

ALT does not believe that safety has

been compromised by requiring only a

pressure gage, because any high

pressure in the storage tank is controlled

by a recompressor system within the

‘‘facility’’ that maintains the storage

pressure at 20 psig. Any failure of this

system places the entire storage facility

in a ‘‘fail safe’’ (shut down) mode.

RSPA believes that recorders (at the

storage tank site and possibly at the

control center) and a high pressure

alarm (at the control center) are

essential in the event of the failure of

the recompressor system. Although the

entire storage facility will be placed in

a shut down mode, there appears to be

no way to prevent pressure from

increasing in the LNG storage tank. This

is especially important because this

LNG storage facility will be an

unattended operation. Therefore, RSPA

is proposing not to grant a waiver from

§ 193.2209(b)(2).

(3) Section 193.2321(a)—

Nondestructive tests, Circumferential

butt welds: § 193.2321(a) requires that

100 percent of circumferential butt

welded pipe joints in the cryogenic

piping and 30 percent of circumferential

butt welded pipe joints in the noncryogenic piping be nondestructively

tested.

NFPA 59A 6–6.3.2 requires all

circumferential butt welds to be

nondestructively tested, except that

liquid drain and vapor vent piping with

an operating pressure that produces a

hoop stress of less than 20 percent of

specified minimum yield stress (SMYS)

need not be nondestructively tested,

provided it has been inspected visually

in accordance with the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)standard B31.3, Chemical Plant

and Petroleum Refinery Piping, 344.2.

RSPA believes that safety is not

compromised and is considering

granting a waiver from § 193.2321(a) for

the liquid drain and vapor vent piping

with operating pressures that produce

hoop stresses of less than 20 percent

SMYS, if that piping complies with the

NFPA 59A 6–6.3.2.

(4) 193.2321(e)—Nondestructive tests,

Circumferential and longitudinal welds

in metal shells of storage tanks:

§ 193.2321(e) requires 100 percent of

both longitudinal and circumferential

butt welds in metal shells of storage

tanks that are subject to cryogenic

temperatures, and are under pressure, to

be radiographically tested.

NFPA 59A 4–2.2.2 requires welded

construction for shell in accordance

with the ASME Code section VIII, and

shall be ASME-stamped and registered

with the National Board of Boiler and

Pressure Vessels(NBBI)

ALT’s rationale for requesting a

waiver is that safety in this case is not

compromised as ALT storage tanks are

small, shop fabricated, and built to

ASME Code. ASME Section VIII is an

accepted standard to which cryogenic

pressure vessels are built all over the

world.

RSPA agrees that safety is not

compromised by waiving the

requirements of § 193.2321(e) for

smaller pressure vessels (less than