[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30572-30576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14879]



[[Page 30571]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Research and Special Programs Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



49 CFR Parts 171, 177, 178, and 180



Hazardous Materials: Safety Standards for Preventing and Mitigating 
Unintentional Releases During the Unloading of Cargo Tank Motor 
Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 / Thursday, June 4, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 30572]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 177, 178, and 180

[Docket No. RSPA-97-2718 (HM-225A)]
RIN 2137-AD07


Hazardous Materials: Safety Standards for Preventing and 
Mitigating Unintentional Releases During the Unloading of Cargo Tank 
Motor Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 
and announcement of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: RSPA proposes to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee 
to develop recommendations for alternative safety standards for 
preventing and mitigating unintentional releases of hazardous materials 
during the unloading of cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied 
compressed gas service. The Committee will develop and adopt its 
recommendations through a process of negotiation. The Committee will 
consist of persons who represent the interests affected by the proposed 
rule, such as businesses that transport and deliver propane, anhydrous 
ammonia, and other liquefied compressed gases; manufacturers of DOT 
specification MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles used to 
transport liquefied compressed gases; federal safety regulatory 
agencies; and state and local public safety and emergency response 
agencies. The purpose of this Notice is to invite interested parties to 
submit comments on the issues to be discussed and the interests and 
organizations to be considered for representation on the Committee. 
Also, RSPA is announcing an organizational meeting to be held in 
Washington, DC on June 23-24, 1998, to discuss Committee membership, 
ground rules, and procedural matters.

DATES: RSPA must receive written comments and requests for 
representation or membership on the Committee by July 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#72121200071e170132000102135c161d065c151d04">``<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0c2c5dcd5c3f0c2c3c0d19ed4dfc49ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>''. 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. Comments also may be reviewed on-line 
at the DOT Dockets Management System web site at ``<a href="http://
dms.dot.gov/">http://
dms.dot.gov/</a>.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Karim, 202-366-8553, Office 
of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs 
Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001; or Nancy Machado, 202-366-4400, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 
20590-001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Issues

    The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) 
include provisions designed to promote safe unloading of DOT 
specification MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs). 
Among these provisions are requirements for emergency discharge control 
systems that will automatically shut down unloading in the event of a 
complete hose or pipe separation and for a qualified person to attend 
the unloading operation by remaining within sight of the cargo tank and 
close enough to manually shut down the unloading operation in the event 
of an emergency. However, as a result of a serious unloading accident 
in 1996, RSPA has learned that the emergency discharge control systems 
currently installed on MC 330 and MC 331 CTMVs do not always function 
as designed. Further, RSPA has discovered that many operators of CTMVs 
do not comply with the regulatory requirements for attending the 
unloading operation. Based on comments received for the HM-225 
rulemaking, RSPA intends to reevaluate the current regulatory 
requirements. RSPA has issued a temporary regulation designed to permit 
cargo tank motor vehicles with non-complying emergency discharge 
control systems to continue to operate, and is currently considering 
regulatory alternatives to assure the safety of cargo tank unloading 
operations.

Emergency Discharge Control Systems

    On September 8, 1996, more than 35,000 gallons of propane were 
released during delivery at a bulk storage facility in Sanford, North 
Carolina. In that incident, the driver became aware of the system 
failure when the hose began to oscillate violently while releasing 
liquid propane. He immediately shut down the engine, stopping the 
discharge pump, but he could not access the remote closure control to 
close the internal stop valve. The excess flow feature of the emergency 
discharge control system (EDCS) did not function, and propane continued 
to be released from the vehicle. Adding to the problem, the back flow 
check valve on the storage tank system did not function, resulting in 
release of propane from the storage tanks.
    Based on preliminary information from the Sanford incident, RSPA 
published an advisory notice in the Federal Register on December 13, 
1996 [61 FR 65480], to alert persons who design, manufacture, assemble, 
maintain, or transport hazardous materials in MC 330 and MC 331 cargo 
tank motor vehicles of this problem with the excess flow feature of the 
EDCS. Subsequent to publication of the advisory notice, RSPA received 
information from the industry indicating that there is widespread 
noncompliance with the EDCS requirements of the HMR (49 CFR part 
178.337-11(a)) and, further, that equipment that meets the performance 
standard for EDCS equipment may not be currently available.
    RSPA issued an emergency interim final rule on February 19, 1997, 
under Docket No. RSPA-97-2133 (HM-225) [62 FR 7638]. This rule 
specified the conditions under which MC 330 and MC 331 CTMVs may 
continue to be operated while an EDCS that meets the requirements of 
the regulations is developed and implemented. A final rule extending 
and revising the provisions of the emergency interim final rule was 
issued on August 18, 1997 [62 FR 44038]; a final rule responding to 
petitions for reconsideration and clarifying certain provisions was 
issued on December 10, 1997 [62 FR 65187]. The December 10 final rule 
requires specific marking on affected CTMVs and requires motor carriers 
to comply with additional operational controls intended to compensate 
for the failure of the EDCS to function as required by the HMR. The 
operational controls specified in the December 10 final rule provide an 
alternative to compliance with the HMR and are intended to assure an 
acceptable level of safety while the industry and

[[Page 30573]]

government continue to work to develop an EDCS that effectively stops 
the discharge of hazardous materials from a cargo tank if any attached 
hose or piping is separated. The rule is temporary; its provisions will 
expire July 1, 1999.

Attendance During Unloading

    During the rulemaking that resulted in issuance of the December 10 
final rule described above, RSPA discovered that many operators of 
CTMVs transporting propane are not complying with provisions of the HMR 
that require that a qualified person ``attend'' the unloading of 
hazardous materials (49 CFR part 177.834(i)). The cargo tank unloading 
attendance requirements specify that a person attending the unloading 
operation must be awake, have an unobstructed view of the cargo tank, 
and be within 25 feet of the cargo tank. This provision of the HMR is 
intended to complement the EDCS requirements in that it is meant to 
assure that the person unloading the cargo tank can manually stop the 
flow of hazardous material by closing the internal stop valve if there 
is a leak in the delivery system. Because many CTMV operators are not 
complying with the attendance requirements of the HMR, they are having 
difficulty complying with the alternative measures permitted by the 
emergency interim final rule.

Challenge to the Alternative Regulatory Requirements

    The emergency final rule is currently the subject of ongoing 
litigation arising out of two court challenges. The National Propane 
Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Company, and Huffhunes Gas, 
Incorporated, have brought an action in the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of Texas to seek preliminary injunctive 
and permanent declaratory relief from the December 10 final rule. 
Similarly, Ferrellgas, LP; Suburban Propane, LP; Agway Petroleum 
Corporation; Cornerstone Propane Partners, LP; and National Propane, 
LP, have brought an action in the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Missouri seeking declaratory and injunctive relief 
from the August 18 final rule. On February 13, 1998, the Missouri court 
preliminarily enjoined DOT enforcement of certain provisions of the 
alternative requirements, and enforcement of unloading attendance 
requirements applicable to small cargo tank motor vehicles 
(``bobtails'').

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    To address the need for a long-term resolution of safety and non-
compliance issues, RSPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) under Docket No. RSPA-97-2718 (HM-225A) [62 FR 44059] on August 
18, 1997, requesting comments concerning changes to the HMR that go 
beyond the scope of the emergency final rule, including new or revised 
provisions for operator attendance, hose management, and emergency 
discharge controls. Specifically, the ANPRM requested comments on: (1) 
whether RSPA should continue to regulate unloading operations of 
liquefied compressed gases in CTMVs or relinquish regulatory control in 
this area to other federal, state, local and tribal authorities; (2) 
the feasibility of developing emergency discharge control systems that 
would function in the event of full or partial separations or failures 
of pipes and hoses; (3) the ability of the industry to meet a possible 
1-, 2-, or 3-year retrofit schedule; (4) standards for the 
qualification, testing, and use of hoses used in unloading; and (5) 
safety procedures for persons performing unloading operations. To date, 
RSPA has received over 150 comments to the ANPRM. The comment period 
closed October 17, 1997.

II. Negotiated Rulemaking

    RSPA has analyzed the comments received for the December 10 final 
rule and the ANPRM and believes that this proposed rulemaking is a good 
candidate for negotiated rulemaking. The safety issues are fairly well-
defined, as are the interests that would be affected by a proposed 
rule. Moreover, RSPA believes that the face-to-face discussion and open 
exchange of ideas that occur during a negotiated rulemaking may promote 
more effective communication and development of creative solutions. 
Particularly in light of the ongoing litigation, the traditional notice 
and comment process for regulations development may not result in a 
solution acceptable to all affected interests.
    In a negotiated rulemaking, representatives of interests that will 
be affected by a regulation meet to discuss the safety problem and 
related issues and identify potential solutions. The group attempts to 
reach consensus on a proposed solution and prepares a recommendation 
for a proposed rule for consideration by the agency. This inclusive 
process is intended to make the rule acceptable to all affected 
interests and to preclude filing of petitions for reconsideration or 
legal challenges that can follow promulgation of a final rule.
    The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 561 et seq., 
establishes a framework for conducting negotiated rulemakings. In 
September 1993, the National Performance Review issued a recommendation 
encouraging consensus-based rulemaking (REG 03). President Clinton 
issued Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), which 
states the need to reform the current regulatory process into one that 
is effective, consistent, and understandable. Section 6(a) of the EO 
charges government agencies with providing the public meaningful 
participation in the regulatory process. On May 1, 1998, President 
Clinton issued a memorandum to heads of executive departments and 
agencies encouraging greater use of negotiated rulemaking.
    Negotiated rulemakings have been used successfully by the 
Department of Transportation, including the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the Federal Highway 
Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
RSPA will soon publish an NPRM addressing the qualification of pipeline 
personnel that was developed through negotiated rulemaking. The 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration have also successfully used the process.
    The Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 563(a), recommends 
that an agency considering the feasibility of regulatory negotiations 
to resolve a specific issue should consider whether:
    (1) There is a need for the rule.
    (2) There are a limited number of identifiable interests.
    (3) These interests can be adequately represented by persons 
willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus.
    (4) There is a reasonable likelihood that the committee will reach 
consensus within a fixed period of time.
    (5) The negotiated rulemaking procedure will not unreasonably delay 
the notice of proposed rulemaking.
    (6) The agency has adequate resources and is willing to commit such 
resources to the process.
    (7) The agency is committed to use the result of the negotiation in 
formulating a proposed rule if at all possible.
    The Act authorizes an agency to use the services of a convener to 
assist it to determine the feasibility of regulatory negotiation in 
specific instances (5 U.S.C. Sec. 563(b)). RSPA contracted with

[[Page 30574]]

a convener to make this determination for a rulemaking that would 
resolve the safety issues that were the subject of the August 18, 1997, 
ANPRM. With RSPA input, the convener identified interests that will be 
significantly affected by a proposed rule and conducted discussions 
with persons representing these interests to identify issues of 
concern. Based on these discussions, the convener concluded that a 
negotiated rulemaking is feasible and appropriate and has a reasonable 
likelihood of success. A copy of the convener's final report has been 
placed in Docket No. RSPA-97-2718 (HM-225A).
    Based on the recommendation of the convener, RSPA has decided to 
charter a negotiated rulemaking committee (Committee) under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 1) to develop a 
proposed rule for preventing and mitigating unintentional releases 
during the unloading of DOT specification MC 330 and MC 331 CTMVs that 
transport and deliver liquefied compressed gases.

III. Procedures and Guidelines

    The following proposed procedures and guidelines will apply to this 
process, subject to appropriate changes made as a result of comments on 
this Notice or as determined to be necessary during the negotiating 
process.

(A) Notice of Intent to Establish Advisory Committee and Request for 
Comment

    In accordance with the requirements of FACA, an agency of the 
federal government cannot establish or utilize a group of people in the 
interest of obtaining consensus advice or recommendations unless that 
group is chartered as a federal advisory committee. It is the purpose 
of this Notice to indicate RSPA's intent to create a federal advisory 
committee, to identify the issues involved in the rulemaking, to 
identify the interests affected by the rulemaking, to identify 
potential participants who will adequately represent those interests, 
and to ask for comment on the use of regulatory negotiation and on the 
identification of the issues, interests, procedures, and participants.

(B) Facilitator

    Pursuant to Sec. 566 of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, a 
facilitator will be selected to serve as an impartial chair of the 
meetings; assist committee members to conduct discussions and 
negotiations; and manage the keeping of minutes and records as required 
by FACA. RSPA is currently considering persons to serve as facilitator 
for the negotiating group. This individual will chair the negotiations, 
may offer alternative suggestions toward the desired consensus, will 
help participants define and reach consensus, and will determine the 
feasibility of negotiating particular issues.

(C) Representation

    The Committee will include representatives from DOT and from the 
organizations and interests listed below. Each representative may also 
name an alternate, who will be encouraged to attend all Committee 
meetings and will serve in place of the representative if necessary. 
The DOT representative is the Designated Federal Official (DFO) as 
required by FACA (5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10) and will participate in the 
deliberations and activities of the Committee with the same rights and 
responsibilities as other Committee members. The DFO will be authorized 
to fully represent the agency in the discussions and negotiations of 
the Committee.
    RSPA intends to invite the following organizations and interests to 
participate in the negotiated rulemaking by identifying an individual 
to serve as a member of the Committee. The organizations listed have 
been contacted by the convener and have indicated a willingness to 
serve on the Committee. RSPA believes that, in addition to the 
organizations listed, there are additional interests that should be 
included on the Committee. RSPA recognizes that it may be difficult for 
the interests not directly associated with a trade association or 
organization to identify an appropriate individual to represent them 
and invites comments on how best to assure that they are adequately 
represented on the Committee. RSPA will host a meeting in June 1998 
(see below) at which those with a common interest in the proposed rule 
will be encouraged to meet and agree on a representative to the 
Committee.
    The organizations and interests that should participate in the 
negotiated rulemaking are:
    1. National Propane Gas Association.
    2. The Fertilizer Institute.
    3. National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
    4. National Fire Protection Association.
    5. Small businesses that transport and deliver propane, anhydrous 
ammonia, and other liquefied compressed gases.
    6. Large businesses that transport and deliver propane, anhydrous 
ammonia, and other liquefied compressed gases.
    7. Manufacturers of DOT MC 330 and MC 331 specification CTMVs used 
to transport liquefied compressed gases.
    8. State safety regulatory agencies.
    9. State safety enforcement agencies.
    10. State/local emergency response and fire services agencies.
    RSPA will consider applications for representation from 
organizations or interests not appropriately represented by those 
listed above. Please identify such interests and organizations if they 
exist and explain why such organizations and interests should have 
separate representation on the Committee.
    RSPA is also considering how best to include manufacturers of cargo 
tank components, such as internal self-closing stop valves, emergency 
discharge control systems, and remote shut-off systems, in the 
negotiated rulemaking process. RSPA believes that component 
manufacturers have technical expertise that would be extremely valuable 
to the Committee's deliberations. The convener's report examined 
several options for integrating component manufacturers into the 
negotiated rulemaking process. The convener recommended that they 
participate as members of work groups that the Committee may establish 
to gather information and develop proposals for specific issues related 
to the rulemaking, but not as members of the Committee itself. RSPA has 
tentatively decided to accept this recommendation because it would 
allow all interested parties to have a significant role in discussions 
leading to improved understanding of technical issues and 
possibilities, while leaving ultimate decisions to be made by the 
agency and those directly responsible for compliance with applicable 
regulations. However, RSPA recognizes that other approaches could 
accomplish the same end and requests comments on the most appropriate 
role for component manufacturers on the Committee.

(D) Applications for Membership

    Each application for membership or nomination to the Committee 
should include: (i) The name of the applicant or nominee and the 
interest(s) such person would represent; (ii) evidence that the 
applicant or nominee is authorized to represent parties related to the 
interest(s) the person proposes to represent; and (iii) a written 
commitment that the applicant or nominee would participate in good 
faith. Please be aware that each individual or organization affected by 
a final rule need not have its own representative on the Committee. 
Rather, each interest must be adequately represented, and the Committee 
should be fairly balanced.

[[Page 30575]]

(E) Good Faith

    Participants must be committed to negotiate in good faith. 
Therefore, it is important that senior individuals within each interest 
group be designated to represent that interest. No individual will be 
required to ``bind'' the interests he or she represents, but the 
individual should be able to represent the interest with confidence. 
For this process to be successful, the interests represented should be 
willing to accept the final Committee product.

(F) Notice of Establishment

    After evaluating comments received as a result of this notice, RSPA 
will issue a notice announcing the establishment and composition of the 
Committee, unless it determines that such action is inappropriate in 
light of comments received. After the Committee is chartered, the 
negotiations will begin.

(G) Administrative Support and Meetings

    Staff support will be provided by RSPA, and meetings will take 
place in Washington, DC, unless agreed otherwise by the Committee.

(H) Consensus

    The purpose of the Committee is to develop consensus on an outline 
for a proposed rule. ``Consensus'' means the unanimous concurrence 
among the interests represented on the Committee, unless the Committee 
explicitly adopts a different definition.

(I) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    The Committee's objective is to prepare a report containing an 
outline of its recommendations for a notice of proposed rulemaking. 
This report may also include suggestions for specific preamble and 
regulatory language based on the Committee's recommendations, as well 
as information relevant to a regulatory evaluation and an evaluation of 
the impacts of the proposal on small businesses. To this end, RSPA 
expects the Committee to address cost/benefit, paperwork reduction, and 
regulatory flexibility requirements. If consensus cannot be achieved 
for some issues, the report will identify the areas of agreement and 
disagreement, and explanations for any disagreement. RSPA will use the 
Committee report to draft a notice of proposed rulemaking, regulatory 
evaluation, and other analyses, as appropriate.
    RSPA will accept the Committee proposal unless it is inconsistent 
with the statutory authority of the agency or other legal requirements 
or does not adequately address public safety. In that event, the 
preamble to an NPRM addressing the issues that were the subject of the 
negotiations will explain the reasons for the agency decision to reject 
the Committee recommendations.

(J) Final Rule

    RSPA may elect to ask the Committee to assist in the evaluation of 
comments received to the NPRM, depending on the nature of the comments 
received.

(K) Tentative Schedule

    RSPA plans to host an organizational meeting to discuss Committee 
membership, procedural matters, and ground rules in advance of the 
first meeting of the Committee. Once the Committee is established and 
selected, RSPA will publish a notice announcing the first two meetings 
of the Committee in the Federal Register. Notice of subsequent meetings 
will also be published in the Federal Register.
    RSPA anticipates that the Committee will meet for up to five two-
day sessions beginning in July 1998. If the Committee establishes 
working groups to support its work, additional meetings for the working 
groups may be necessary. RSPA expects the Committee to reach consensus 
and prepare a report recommending a proposed rule within six months of 
the first meeting. The timeframe for the Committee to complete its work 
is short because the emergency interim final rule expires July 1, 1999. 
RSPA expects to publish an NPRM based on the Committee's 
recommendations by February 15, 1999, and a final rule by May 1, 1999. 
If unforeseen delays in the anticipated schedule occur, the Research 
and Special Programs Administrator may agree to an extension of time if 
the consensus of the Committee is that additional time will result in 
agreement. The process may end earlier if the facilitator or DFO so 
recommends.

(L) Committee Procedures

    Under the general guidance of the facilitator, and subject to legal 
requirements, the Committee will establish detailed procedures for the 
meetings. Meetings of the Committee will be open to the public. Any 
person attending the Committee meetings may address the Committee if 
time permits or file statements with the Committee.

(M) Record of Meetings

    In accordance with FACA requirements, the facilitator will prepare 
minutes of all Committee meetings. These minutes will be placed in the 
public docket for this rulemaking.

IV. Key Issues for Negotiation

    RSPA has reviewed written comments, petitions, incident reports, 
and industry operating practices, and has engaged in extensive dialogue 
on the issues related to the safe unloading of liquefied compressed 
gases from CTMVs. Based on this information, RSPA has tentatively 
identified major issues that should be considered in this negotiated 
rulemaking. Issues related to transportation and delivery of liquefied 
compressed gases in CTMVs not specifically listed in this Notice may be 
addressed as they arise in the course of the negotiation. RSPA 
understands that these issues are interrelated and is open to a systems 
safety approach for managing risk associated with unloading liquefied 
compressed gases. RSPA invites comments concerning the appropriateness 
of these issues for consideration and whether other issues should be 
added. Note that some of these issues were raised in the February 19, 
1997, emergency interim final rule and the August 18, 1997, ANPRM.

A. Prevention of Unintentional Releases

    The Committee should examine possible preventive measures to reduce 
or eliminate the incidence of unintentional releases during unloading. 
For example, some commenters to the ANPRM have suggested that RSPA 
adopt a rigorous hose management system that assures that delivery 
hoses and lines meet high standards for quality, strength, and 
durability, and that requires periodic examination and testing to 
assure continued suitability for use in the transfer of high risk 
hazardous materials. Advocates of such a system say that it could 
significantly reduce the number of unloading incidents related to 
failures in hoses or hose assemblies. Similarly, the Committee should 
consider whether there are preventive measures, such as daily 
inspections or periodic testing, that should be implemented for other 
parts of the cargo tank delivery system, including pumps, valves, and 
piping.

B. Detection of Unintentional Releases

    Preventive measures alone cannot assure the safety of cargo tank 
unloading operations. Despite the best efforts of the industry and the 
government, accidents will happen, and unintentional releases of high 
risk hazardous materials such as propane or anhydrous ammonia will 
occur. The Committee thus should consider methods to assure that 
unintentional releases can be detected and controlled. One such 
detection method is provided

[[Page 30576]]

by the current regulatory requirement for continual visual observation 
of the cargo tank throughout the unloading process. Alternatives 
include remote monitoring and signaling systems, such as sensors, 
alarms, and electronic surveillance equipment, or ``patrolling'' 
whereby the person attending the unloading operation moves between the 
storage tank and the cargo tank to assure that each is monitored 
throughout the unloading process.

C. Mitigation of Unintentional Releases

    Once a leak has been detected, methods to prevent catastrophic 
consequences are critical. A passive system for shutting down unloading 
when a leak has been detected operates automatically, that is, without 
human intervention. Examples include excess flow valves, which are 
intended to close the internal self-closing stop valve if the flow rate 
exceeds a threshold level, and thermal links, which are intended to 
close the internal self-closing stop valve if the temperature reaches a 
threshold level. A remote system provides a means to shut down cargo 
tank unloading operations using a device that is located on the CTMV 
but away from the valve(s) that it operates. Many CTMVs have remote 
shut-offs located near the vehicle cab. The remote shut-off may be 
manually activated. An off-truck remote system includes a portable 
device that can shut down cargo tank unloading operations away from the 
CTMV. An off-truck remote is manually activated. The Committee should 
evaluate alternatives with a view towards determining which methods or 
combination of methods provide the most cost-effective means for 
controlling unintentional releases during cargo tank unloading 
operations.

IV. Organizational Meeting

    RSPA will host a meeting to discuss issues related to establishment 
of a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Safety Standards for 
Preventing and Mitigating Unintentional Releases During the Unloading 
of Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service. The 
meeting is scheduled for June 23-24, 1998, in Room 2230 of the U.S. 
Department of Transportation Headquarters Building, 400 Seventh Street, 
S.W., Washington, DC 20590. On June 23, the meeting will begin at 9:30 
a.m. and will adjourn at 4:00 p.m.; on June 24, the meeting will begin 
at 9:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 12:30 p.m. RSPA invites all interested 
persons to attend. The meeting agenda will include discussion of the 
negotiated rulemaking process, designation of members to represent 
identified interests, ground rules for Committee deliberations, and 
procedural matters. Those who plan to attend this meeting should notify 
Jennifer Karim or Susan Gorsky, 202-366-8553, Office of Hazardous 
Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 
20590-0001 by June 19, 1998.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 1, 1998, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.
Alan I. Roberts,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and 
Special Programs Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-14879 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>