Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44059

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Parts 173, 177, 178, 180

[Docket No. RSPA–97–2718 (HM–225A)]

RIN 2137–AD07

Hazardous Materials: Safety Standards

for Unloading Cargo Tank Motor

Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas

Service; Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking and notice of public

meeting.

SUMMARY: In this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking, RSPA requests

comments concerning the need, if any,

for amending the Hazardous Materials

Regulations with regard to emergency

discharge control features required on

cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied

compressed gas service; the ability of

industry to meet a possible 1-, 2- or 3-

year retrofit schedule; standards for the

qualification, testing and use of hoses

used in unloading; safety procedures for

persons performing unloading

operations; and, whether the Federal

government should continue to regulate

in this area. This advance notice of

proposed rulemaking addresses

specification MC 330, MC 331, and

certain non-specification cargo tank

motor vehicles which are used to

deliver propane, anhydrous ammonia,

and other liquefied compressed gases. It

responds to recently discovered

deficiencies which affect the safety of

unloading liquefied compressed gases

from many of these cargo tank motor

vehicles. The intended effect of this

action is to obtain information

concerning the need for regulatory

changes to ensure an acceptable level of

safety for delivery of liquefied

compressed gases, the costs and benefits

associated with such changes, and ways

to minimize impacts on small entities

affected by them.

RSPA also is announcing a public

meeting to solicit comments on issues

identified in this docket.

DATES: Written comments. Comments

must be received by October 17, 1997.

Public meeting. A public meeting will

be held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on

Tuesday, September 30, 1997, in

Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Address

comments to the Dockets Management

System, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20590–0001.

Comments should identify the docket

number and be submitted in two copies.

Persons wishing to receive confirmation

of receipt of their written comments

should include a self-addressed,

stamped postcard. Comments may also

be submitted by e-mail to the following

address: ‘‘rules@rspa.dot.gov’’. The

Dockets Management System is located

on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building

at the Department of Transportation at

the above address. Public dockets may

be reviewed there between the hours of

10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Public meeting. The public meeting

will be held at room 2230 of the

Department of Transportation

Headquarters building, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC. Any

person wishing to attend and/or

participate at the public meeting should

notify Jennifer Karim, by telephone or in

writing at the phone number and

address shown below, by September 26,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Karim, Office of Hazardous

Materials Standards, Research and

Special Programs Administration,

telephone (202) 366–8553, or Nancy

Machado, Office of the Chief Counsel,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, telephone (202) 366–

4400, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,

RSPA published a final rule which

revises and extends requirements

published in an interim final rule (IFR)

on February 19, 1997, in docket RSPA–

97–2133. The rule adopts temporary

requirements for cargo tank motor

vehicles in certain liquefied compressed

gas service. It requires a specific

marking on affected cargo tank motor

vehicles and requires motor carriers to

comply with additional operational

controls intended to compensate for the

inability of passive emergency discharge

control systems to function as required

by the Hazardous Materials Regulations

(HMR; 49 CFR parts 171–180). The

interim operational controls specified in

that rule are intended to ensure an

acceptable level of safety while the

industry and government continue to

work to develop a system that

effectively stops the discharge of

hazardous materials from a cargo tank if

there is a failure of piping or a transfer

hose. Interested persons should read the

preamble to the final rule in RSPA–97–

2133 for background information on the

problems RSPA is addressing in this

rulemaking.

II. Request for Comments

RSPA intends to publish a notice of

proposed rulemaking addressing the

need, if any, for changes to the HMR

which go beyond the scope of today’s

final rule under docket RSPA–97–2133,

including new or revised provisions for

operator attendance, hose management,

and emergency discharge controls.

RSPA requests comments responding to

the questions listed below to facilitate

decisions on the potential need for

additional changes to the HMR with

regard to emergency discharge control

features required on cargo tank motor

vehicles in liquefied compressed gas

service; standards for the manufacture,

testing and continuing qualification of

hoses used in unloading; safety

procedures for persons performing

unloading operations; and the need for

continued Federal regulation in this

area. Note that some of these questions

were asked in the February 19, 1997 IFR

in docket RSPA–97–2133 (62 FR 7638).

RSPA also invites comments on any

aspect of this rulemaking action not

specifically addressed by the questions.

A. Jurisdiction

OSHA has worker health and safety

standards, e.g., Storage and Handling of

Liquefied Petroleum Gases at 29 CFR

1910.110; Process Safety Management of

Highly Hazardous Chemicals, at 29 CFR

1910.119, and EPA has environmental

protection standards, e.g., EPA’s Risk

Management Program, at 40 CFR part

68, which, respectively, provide more

protection for worker health and safety,

and the environment, than RSPA’s

limited cargo tank motor vehicle

unloading requirements.

A1. Are there any Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap or conflict with the

HMR requirements?

A2. Should RSPA continue to regulate

highway carrier unloading of liquefied

compressed gases in cargo tank motor

vehicles or should RSPA relinquish

regulatory control of this area to other

Federal, state, local and Indian tribe

authorities?

A3. Do fire service personnel and

other emergency responders agree with

comments from representatives of the

propane and anhydrous ammonia

transportation sector that suggest

emergency discharge control features

are overrated and, therefore, should be

eliminated from the HMR? What data, if

any, are there to support or rebut those

claims made by some members of the

affected industries (e.g., information
44060 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

regarding interstate and intrastate

incidents where emergency control

systems on cargo tanks authorized to

transport liquefied compressed gases

functioned or failed to function as

required)?

B. Emergency Discharge Controls

The seriousness of the problem with

emergency discharge controls currently

installed on most specification MC–330

and MC–331 cargo tank motor vehicles

has been well recognized since the

Sanford, NC, incident of nearly one year

ago. Since then, the industry has

studied the problem and developed new

systems that may conform to the

performance standards specified in

§ 178.337–11. Given the progress made

thus far, RSPA believes it is not

unreasonable to expect the industry to

install new, or re-engineered, passive

emergency discharge controls on the

affected cargo tank motor vehicles by

September 1, 2000, at the latest.

B1. Is it feasible to remove pumps and

compensate for decreased discharge

flow by either enlarging piping, fittings

and hose downstream of existing

internal valves, retaining their excess

flow features, or by increasing pressure

in the vapor space of the cargo tank, e.g.,

with a nitrogen pad?

B2. Historically, excess flow valves

have been used to meet the emergency

discharge system requirements in

§ 178.337–11(a)(1)(i). What other types

of devices can provide the passive

automatic shutdown function required

by that section of the HMR?

B3. Can a passive emergency

discharge control system be developed

to function in the event of only partial

failure of piping and hoses? What

criteria should be used to establish a

minimum amount of leakage for

detection and control of lower level

leaks?

B4. Automobiles are commonly

equipped with remote transmitter

devices that fit on key rings to unlock

doors or open trunk lids from 50 feet

away. What role can these devices play

in the safe unloading of cargo tanks?

Should this type of device be required

in addition to passive system

requirements? Describe the most

promising of features of such a system

(e.g., a deadman feature) and the

advantages and disadvantages of each

feature.

B5. Do system designers, parts

manufacturers, cargo tank

manufacturers and assemblers have the

capacity to develop, produce, and

install improved emergency discharge

control equipment necessary to bring

the nationwide fleet of 25,000 cargo

tank motor vehicles into compliance

with this critical safety regulation over

a 12-, 24- or 36-month period? Should

retrofit priorities be based on the type of

vehicle, i.e., highway transport vs.

bobtail cargo tank motor vehicles used

in local delivery operations, or on the

basis of the material normally

transported?

B6. What is an acceptable level of

system reliability? Has a statistical

design been established for determining

reliability?

B7. What in-service field tests are

needed to validate the serviceability of

new passive emergency discharge

control systems? How much time is

necessary to conduct those tests?

B8. At what rate would effective

passive discharge control systems likely

be made available by particular

developers (e.g., numbers of

installations per month, starting date)

under the hypothetical circumstance

that for a fixed introductory period all

devices produced could be sold? If the

developer is a cargo tank operator in

this industry, distinguish between the

availability of equipment for the

operator’s own vehicles versus

availability to other affected operators.

Also, of interest is the size of the

operator’s fleet and how long it would

take to acquire enough new devices to

equip this fleet in its entirety.

B9. Preliminary assessments of the

cost to install improved emergency

discharge controls are nominally

estimated at $2,500 per cargo tank motor

vehicle. This relatively low cost tends to

support RSPA’s belief that a retrofit of

affected cargo tank motor vehicles may

be economically feasible in as little as

12 to 36 months. Are there other cost

factors that RSPA should consider

before requiring carriers to quickly

achieve an acceptable level of safety in

emergency discharge controls?

B10. A 12-month period for motor

carriers to bring all cargo tank motor

vehicles into compliance with the rule

pertaining to emergency discharge

controls allows for the retrofit or

installation of new equipment on

approximately 20% of the fleet to take

place during their scheduled pressure

retest once each five years—a 24-month

period allows for approximately 40%

and a 36-month period allows for

approximately 60%. Is RSPA correct to

assume that the cost to retrofit these

cargo tank motor vehicles may be

substantially less than that for the rest

of the fleet, since these tanks are already

required to undergo heavy testing and

repairs at a maintenance facility that

should also be qualified to perform the

required retrofit? What is the difference

in cost if cargo tanks are taken out of

service for retrofit outside of the fiveyear retest cycle versus being taken out

of service as scheduled within the fiveyear cycle?

B11. How would these costs differ

between bobtails and transporters,

between installation on new tanks and

retrofits?

B12. What is the maximum rate of

retrofit that could be effected without a

substantial reduction in the capacity of

the overall fleet to deliver the expected

volumes of propane and anhydrous

ammonia in the near future?

B13. What test procedures are

appropriate at the time of manufacture

or assembly and at the time of

requalification to ensure that the

product discharge system will close as

required by § 178.337–11(a)(1)(i)?

B14. RSPA is concerned that the

problem with cargo tank emergency

discharge control systems may highlight

a deficiency in the training programs for

Design Certifying Engineers and those

persons certifying cargo tanks as

meeting the requirements of the HMR.

In addition, carrier function-specific

training programs also may not be

providing sufficient training in the

specification requirements for these

cargo tanks. Should RSPA adopt

additional training requirements in

these areas?

C. Qualification and Use of Delivery

Hoses

Some commenters to docket RSPA–

97–2133 believe that a hose

management program, along with other

procedures, is sufficient to provide an

equivalent level of safety to a fully

passive emergency discharge control

system. They propose a hose

management program that assures that

delivery lines and hoses meet high

standards for quality, strength, and

durability, and that requires periodic

examination and testing to ensure

continued suitability for use in the

transfer of high risk hazardous

materials. The HMR do not currently

contain hose management requirements.

C1. RSPA is aware that some facilities

require cargo tank motor vehicle

operators to use facility hose during

loading and unloading operations rather

than the hose carried onboard the cargo

tank motor vehicle. What hose

management standard do these facilities

apply to their hoses and should those

standards be incorporated into the

HMR?

C2. In the final rule published today

in docket RSPA–97–2133, RSPA makes

reference to the ‘‘Manual for

Maintenance, Testing and Inspection of

Hose’’ published by the Rubber

Manufacturers Association. However,

that standard is written specifically to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44061

address hoses used for the transfer of

anhydrous ammonia. Are there other

standards published by industry,

government, or independent safety

organizations that RSPA may find

acceptable for other liquefied

compressed gases?

C3. If there are no other written

standards, should RSPA develop

specific hose qualification, testing and

use requirements for adoption in the

HMR? If not, should industry and RSPA

work together to develop a standard

through one of the existing consensus

standards setting organizations, e.g.,

American Society for Testing and

Materials?

C4. Considering that the development

of Federal regulations or a consensus

standard may take a long period, should

RSPA adopt an interim measure that

prohibits use of a transfer hose that has

been in service for more than one or two

years?

C5. In hose assembly testing, should

the procedure include a ‘‘pull’’ test?

Describe the procedure and the formula

for determining the amount of ‘‘pull’’?

C6. What are the advantages and

disadvantages of using stainless steel

reinforced hose for product delivery?

What would be the cost? Do the

advantages—or disadvantages—

outweigh the cost?

D. Attendance Requirements

Section 177.834(i)(2)of the HMR states

that ‘‘a motor carrier who transports

hazardous materials by cargo tank must

ensure that the cargo tank is attended by

a qualified person at all times during

unloading.’’ Section 177.834(i)(3) states

that ‘‘a person ‘attends’ the loading or

unloading of a cargo tank if, throughout

the process, he is awake, has an

unobstructed view of the cargo tank,

and is within 7.62 meters (25 feet) of the

cargo tank.’’ In the final rule in docket

RSPA–97–2133, RSPA rejected an

industry interpretation of this longstanding operator attendance

requirement—specifically, that a single

operator satisfies requirements for an

unobstructed view of the cargo tank,

and is within 25 feet of the cargo tank,

merely by being in proximity to, and

having an unobstructed view of, any

part of the delivery hose, which may be

100 feet or more away from the cargo

tank motor vehicle, during the

unloading (transfer) operation.

The rule clearly requires an operator

be in a position from which the earliest

signs of problems that may occur during

the unloading operation are readily

detectable, thereby permitting an

operator to promptly take corrective

measures, including actuating the

remote means of automatic closure of

the internal self-closing stop valve,

shutting down the motor vehicle engine

and other sources of ignition, or other

action, as appropriate. The rule requires

that an operator always be within 25

feet of the cargo tank. Simply being

within 25 feet of any one of the cargo

tank motor vehicle’s appurtenances or

auxiliary equipment does not constitute

compliance.

D1. What percentage of bobtail

deliveries occur in locations where a

single attendant cannot maintain an

unobstructed view of the cargo tank

motor vehicle during unloading?

D2. In the docket RSPA–97–2133 final

rule, RSPA states that where a remote

control system is used as a means to

stop the transfer of lading, the 25-foot

requirement in § 177.834(i)(3) is

satisfied when a qualified person is

carrying a radio transmitter that can

activate the closure of the internal selfclosing stop valve, remains within the

operating range of the transmitter, and

has an unobstructed view of the cargo

tank motor vehicle at anytime its

internal stop-valve is open. Should

RSPA extend this provision beyond the

18-month life of the docket RSPA–97–

2133 final rule? Should the provision be

amended in any way?

D3. Is it feasible for bobtail operators

to organize delivery routes based on

whether they can maintain an

unobstructed view of the cargo tank

motor vehicle at each unloading

location during the unloading process?

E. Impacts on Small Businesses

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Act),

as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, directs

agencies to consider the potential

impact of regulations on small business

and other small entities. A small entity

includes a small business, small

organization or small governmental

jurisdiction. For purposes of this

discussion, a small business is deemed

to be one which is independently

owned and operated and which is not

dominant in its field of operation. RSPA

believes that the impacts of any further

rule change would be primarily

addressed to businesses involving the

distribution of liquefied petroleum gas

and anhydrous ammonia, and to

manufacturers and assemblers of cargo

tanks used for the distribution of these

products. Under the Small Business

Administration’s size standard

definitions (13 CFR Part 121), liquefied

petroleum gas distributors with $5

million or less in annual receipts, and

manufacturers of truck or bus bodies or

truck trailers that employ 500 or less

individuals are small businesses. Based

on available information, RSPA

estimates that at least 90% of the

businesses impacted by today’s final

rule in docket RSPA–97–2133 are small

businesses. RSPA further estimates

there are at least 6,800 businesses

affected by this rule.

In order for RSPA to determine the

potential impacts on small entities of

any additional changes to the HMR,

commenters are requested to submit

comments addressed to the following

questions. In considering potential

economic impacts of any changes in the

regulations under study here, RSPA is

using a rough estimate of some 25,000

existing cargo-tank vehicles in the U.S.

as a whole being subject to these

regulations, 18,000 of which being

bobtails in retail propane delivery

service (except for fewer than 50 used

to deliver anhydrous ammonia at

restricted customer locations), an

additional 6,000 transports principally

in propane service and the final 1,000

transports operated by for-hire carriers.

It is understood that the same transports

are often used for both propane and

anhydrous ammonia during the

complementary delivery seasons for

those commodities.

E1. How many new cargo tanks are

being produced or reassembled

annually?

E2. Is it reasonable to assume that the

originally-installed excess flow valve on

a cargo tank would not normally be

replaced during the tank’s lifetime?

E3. Are RSPA’s estimates as to

number of businesses affected by its

rules for unloading liquefied

compressed gases from cargo tank motor

vehicles, and the percentage of these

which are small businesses, consistent

with industry estimates?

E4. In what manner could differing

compliance or reporting requirements

be implemented for small businesses to

take into account the resources available

to small businesses?

E5. In what manner could compliance

or reporting requirements be clarified,

consolidated or simplified for such

small businesses?

E6. What is the effect of the final rule

in docket RSPA–97–2133, if any, on the

competitive position of small entities in

relation to larger entities?

E7. What is the availability and cost

to the small entity for professional

assistance to meet regulatory

requirements?

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This advance notice of proposed

rulemaking is considered a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and was
44062 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Act),

as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, directs

agencies to consider the potential

impact of regulations on small business

and other small entities. RSPA will

evaluate any proposed rule to determine

whether it would have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 12612

RSPA will evaluate any proposed rule

in accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 (‘‘Federalism’’).

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no information collection

requirements in this advance notice of

proposed rulemaking.

E. 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.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13,

1997, under authority delegated in 49 CFR

part 1.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–21866 Filed 8–14–97; 11:58 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P