30572 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 selfaddressed, stamped postcard.

Comments may also be submitted by email 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.

Comments also may be reviewed on-line

at the DOT Dockets Management System

web site at ‘‘http://dms.dot.gov/.’’

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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. § 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. § 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. § 563(b)). RSPA contracted with
30574 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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.

§ 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 § 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. § 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 selfclosing 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 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
30576 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

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 shutoff may be manually activated. An offtruck 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