38456 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 177, 178, 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 establishment of

advisory committee for negotiated

rulemaking and notice of first meeting.

SUMMARY: RSPA announces the

establishment of an advisory 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

negotiation. The Committee is

composed 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; state and local public

safety and emergency response agencies;

and the federal Department of

Transportation. This notice also

announces the time and place of the

first advisory committee meeting. The

public is invited to attend; an

opportunity for members of the public

to make oral presentations will be

provided if time permits.

DATES: The first meeting of the advisory

committee will be from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00

p.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 1998 and will

continue from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on

Wednesday, July 29, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The first meeting of the

advisory committee will take place at

the Department of Transportation, Room

2230, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Karim, 202–366–8553, Office of

Hazardous Materials Standards,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, Department of

Transportation; or Nancy Machado,

202–366–4400, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Research and Special Programs

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation. Facilitator: Philip J.

Harter, The Mediation Consortium, 202–

887–1033.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 4, 1998, RSPA published a

notice of intent to establish an advisory

committee (Committee) for a negotiated

rulemaking to develop

recommendations for alternative safety

standards for preventing and mitigating

unintentional releases of hazardous

materials during the unloading of cargo

tank motor vehicles (CTMVs) in

liquefied compressed gas service. The

notice requested comment on

membership, the interests affected by

the rulemaking, the issues the

Committee should address, and the

procedures it should follow. The reader

is referred to the June 4 notice (63 FR

30572) for further information on these

issues.

RSPA received 19 written comments

on the notice of intent. In addition, 43

people participated in a public meeting

in Washington, D.C., on June 23–24,

1998. All endorsed the negotiated

rulemaking process. Based on this

response, and for the reasons stated in

the notice of intent, RSPA has

determined that establishing an

advisory committee on this subject is

appropriate and in the public interest.

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5

U.S.C. App. I sec. 9(c)), RSPA prepared

a Charter for the Establishment of a

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory

Committee. RSPA intends to file the

charter within fifteen (15) days from the

date of this publication.

II. Membership

A total of 29 individuals were

nominated or applied for membership to

the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

either through written comments or at

the June 23–24 public meeting.

In considering requests for

representation on the Committee, the

task before RSPA was to decide whether

the requesters represent interests

significantly affected by the proposed

rulemaking. As identified in the notice

of intent, in addition to the Department

of Transportation (DOT), these interests

are: the National Propane Gas

Association (NPGA); The Fertilizer

Institute (TFI); National Tank Truck

Carriers, Inc. (NTTC); the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA); small

businesses that transport and deliver

propane, anhydrous ammonia, and

other liquefied compressed gases; large

businesses that transport and deliver

propane, anhydrous ammonia, and

other liquefied compressed gases;

manufacturers of DOT MC 330 and MC

331 specification CTMVs used to

transport liquefied compressed gases;

state safety regulatory agencies; state

safety enforcement agencies; and state/

local emergency response and fire

services agencies.

In response to comments, RSPA has

modified the list of interests to add the

Compressed Gas Association to

represent the interest of companies that

produce and use liquefied compressed

gases other than propane and anhydrous

ammonia, such as oxygen and nitrogen.

In addition, to accommodate the

separate interests of large and small

companies that may be affected by the

rulemaking and the separate interests of

companies that transport propane

versus anhydrous ammonia, RSPA has

identified as distinct interests small

propane distribution companies, large

propane distribution companies, small

anhydrous ammonia distribution

companies, and large anhydrous

ammonia distribution companies.

Finally, RSPA believes that the interests

of companies that manufacture so-called

‘‘bobtail’’ CTMVs (most commonly

defined as truck-mounted tanks having

a capacity under 3,500 gallons) differ

sufficiently from the interests of

companies that manufacture ‘‘transport’’

CTMVs (most commonly defined as

semi-trailers or full trailers having a

capacity greater than 3,500 gallons) as to

justify separate representation on the

Committee.

In the notice of intent, RSPA

requested comments on how best to

include manufacturers of cargo tank

components, such as internal selfclosing stop valves, pumps, meters, and

other components of emergency

discharge control systems and remote

shut-off systems. RSPA believes that

component manufacturers have

technical expertise that would be

valuable to the Committee’s

deliberations. As noted in the notice of

intent, 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.

Many commenters support the

recommendation of the convener’s

report and oppose inclusion of

component manufacturers on the

Committee because these manufacturers

may have a vested interest in
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38457

developing a solution that includes their

equipment. However, other commenters

believe that component manufacturers

should be members of the Committee

because they will be significantly

affected by any rulemaking that results

from the Committee’s deliberations.

RSPA agrees with these commenters

and believes that technology interests,

such as manufacturers of internal selfclosing stop valves, hoses, remote shutoff systems, and leak detection sensors

and monitors, should be included on

the Committee. Thus, RSPA has

modified the list of interests that will be

represented to include a technology

interest.

Following is the list of Committee

members, identified by interest.

Members are encouraged to designate

alternates who can serve in place of the

member if necessary. As noted in the

notice of intent, the Committee will

make its decisions through a process of

negotiation leading to consensus.

‘‘Consensus’’ means the unanimous

concurrence among the interests

represented on the Committee, unless

the Committee explicitly adopts a

different definition. Where two

representatives are identified, RSPA

expects that they will act together to

represent the interest’s views and

perspectives in the negotiations.

For the interest identified as ‘‘Cargo

Tank Manufacturers—Bobtail,’’ RSPA

has requested that the three individuals

identified below consult with each other

to determine how their interest will be

represented on the Committee.

Similarly, for the interest identified as

‘‘Technology,’’ RSPA has asked the

three identified individuals to consult

with each other to determine how the

technology interest will be represented

on the Committee.

1. Department of Transportation

Edward Mazzullo, Research and

Special Programs Administration

2. National Propane Gas Association

Charles Revere, Revere Gas and

Appliance

3. The Fertilizer Institute

Charles Rosas, Farmland Industries

4. National Tank Truck Carriers

Clifford Harvison

5. Compressed Gas Association

Ronald McGrath

6. National Fire Protection Association

Theodore Lemhoff

7. Propane Distribution—Small

Mike Gorham, Northwest Gas, and Lin

Johnson, Lin’s Propane

8. Propane Distribution—Large

Russell Rupp, Suburban Propane, and

Ken Faulhaber, Ferrellgas

9. Anhydrous Ammonia/Dual Use

Anhydrous Ammonia-Propane—

Small

Charles Whittington, Grammer

Industries

10. Anhydrous Ammonia/Dual Use

Anhydrous Ammonia-Propane—

Large

Jean Trobec, Growmark, and Jim York,

National Private Truck Council

11. State Safety Enforcement Agencies

Steve Herman, Cooperative Hazardous

Materials Enforcement

Development (COHMED), and Eric

Adair, Commercial Vehicle Safety

Alliance (CVSA)

12. State Safety Regulatory Agencies

Vicki O’Neill, Bureau of Liquefied

Petroleum Gas Inspections/Florida

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, and Ronald

Coleman, California State Fire

Marshal

13. State/Local Emergency Response

Agencies and Fire Services

Ronald Dykes, International

Association of Fire Chiefs

14. Cargo Tank Manufacturers—

Transports

Mike Pitts, Mississippi Tank

15. Cargo Tank Manufacturers—

Bobtails (one of the following)

David Auxier, Bulk Tank and

Transport, or Jerry Kowalski, Arrow

Tank and Engineering, or David

Fulbright, White River Distributors

16. Technology (one of the following)

Jim Griffin, Fisher Controls, or David

Stainbrook, REGO Valve, or Bob

Lyons, Thermolite, or Todd Coady,

Rocket Supply

In addition to those listed above, the

following people asked to be members

or were nominated for membership on

the Committee: Gary Nelson, Nevada

Propane Board (Nelson); Douglas

Buchan (Buchan); Paul Horgan,

California Highway Patrol (Horgan); and

Terry Pollard, Nebraska Highway Patrol

(Pollard).

Buchan asked to participate based on

his expertise and experience with the

issues that are the subject of the

regulatory negotiation; however,

because he does not represent an

interest that will be affected by the

rulemaking, he was not selected. Horgan

and Pollard were nominated by a

commenter; RSPA agrees that they are

well qualified to represent the interests

of state safety enforcement agencies on

the Committee. However, the number of

state representatives on the Committee

is necessarily limited. Both Horgan and

Pollard have been invited to participate

as alternate members and on working

groups that the Committee may

establish to make recommendations on

technical issues. Nelson was nominated

by a commenter to represent the interest

of state regulatory agencies. RSPA

agrees that state regulatory agencies

should be represented on the

Committee. However, RSPA believes

that the Committee should also reflect

geographic diversity. Since many of the

members selected are from the western

United States, RSPA decided to select a

representative of a state regulatory

agency—Bureau of Liquefied Petroleum

Gas Inspections/Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services—

from an eastern state.

Persons not selected as members of

the Committee will have ample

opportunities to participate in the

negotiated rulemaking process. For

example, RSPA expects that the

Committee will establish one or more

technical working groups to offer advice

and recommendations on specific

issues. Further, there will be

opportunities for non-members to speak

or provide written comments at

meetings of the Committee. RSPA

encourages all those who are interested

in this rulemaking to take advantage of

these opportunities to assure that the

Committee considers their views.

One commenter recommended that

committee membership be determined

on a proportional basis, so that those

interests having what they believe to be

the most at stake in the rulemaking

would be allotted the most

representatives on the committee. RSPA

does not agree and believes that this

comment stems from a fundamental

misunderstanding of the negotiated

rulemaking process. A negotiated

rulemaking is intended to be an

inclusive process that affords all the

interests that will be significantly

affected by a rulemaking an opportunity

to contribute to development of a

consensus regulation. Each member of a

negotiated rulemaking committee

speaks for the interest he represents and

has an equal voice in the process of

negotiating towards consensus. The key

to success for a negotiated rulemaking is

to assure that all the interests that may

be affected are represented.

This commenter also suggested that

representatives of the propane industry

could also adequately represent

companies that transport both propane

and other liquefied compressed gases.

RSPA does not agree. Transportation of

anhydrous ammonia in MC 330 and MC

331 CTMVs presents safety and

operational issues that differ from those

involved with the transportation of

propane. For this reason, RSPA believes

that companies that transport anhydrous

ammonia have an interest in the

negotiated rulemaking that is distinct

and separate from the interest of

propane transporters and should,

therefore, have separate representation.
38458 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Similarly, RSPA believes that

companies that transport liquefied

compressed gases other than propane

and anhydrous ammonia are a distinct

and separate interest and should have

separate representation on the

Committee.

Several commenters recommended

that a university transportation institute

be included as a member of the

Committee and specifically suggested

the Pennsylvania Transportation

Institute (PTI). These commenters

believe that a transportation institute

could be a valuable source of unbiased

technical information and assistance.

RSPA agrees. However, a transportation

institute does not represent an interest

that would be significantly affected by

the rulemaking. It would, therefore, not

be appropriate for a transportation

institute to participate as a member of

the Committee. RSPA expects that the

Committee will gather information from

a variety of sources and will encourage

the Committee to consult with any

organizations that can provide relevant

data and technical information.

III. Participation by Non-Members

Meetings of the advisory committee

will be open to the public so that

individuals who are not part of the

Committee may attend and observe. Any

person attending the Committee

meetings may address the Committee if

time permits or file statements with the

Committee.

IV. Key Issues for Negotiation

In its notice of intent, RSPA

tentatively identified major issues that

should be considered in this negotiated

rulemaking and asked for comment

concerning the appropriateness of these

issues for consideration and whether

other issues should be added. These

issues were:

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 Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) issued

under Docket No. RSPA–97–2718 (HM–

225A) [62 FR 44059] on August 18,

1997, 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,

incidents will occur, 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 by the current

regulatory requirement for continual

visual observation of the cargo tank

throughout the unloading process.

Alternatives that have been suggested

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 periodically

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

mechanical device that is located on the

CTMV but away from the valve(s) that

it operates. Many CTMVs have remote

mechanical shut-offs located near the

vehicle cab. The remote shut-off may be

manually activated. An off-truck electromechanical remote system includes a

portable device that can shut down

cargo tank unloading operations away

from the CTMV. In many instances, an

off-truck electro-mechanical remote is

manually activated, although some

systems default to the fail-safe mode

under certain circumstances. 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.

V. Comments on Issues List

In response to the notice of intent, one

person submitted comments on the

issues involved in the regulatory

negotiation. The commenter suggested

that, in addition to the issues outlined

in the notice of intent, the Committee

should consider: (1) Defining an

acceptable hose life and specific

inspection pressures for hoses; (2)

alternatives to the current attendance

requirements; (3) specific requirements

for off-truck remote systems; and (4)

limiting the types of fittings and valves

used directly on cargo tank walls to

malleable steel or ductile iron

construction for vessels in propane

service. RSPA agrees that the first three

issues should be considered by the

Committee and notes that hose

management, monitoring of unloading

operations, and off-truck remotes are all

included in the issues list in the notice

of intent. However, RSPA does not agree

that the issue of the material used for

fittings or valves located directly on

cargo tank walls should be included in

the issues that will be considered by the

Committee. This rulemaking is

concerned only with operational issues

related to unloading of MC 330 and MC

331 CTMVs and with the components of

a CTMV’s emergency discharge system.

General issues related to cargo tank

design and construction are more

properly the subject of a separate

rulemaking. This recommendation will

be considered as part of RSPA’s docket

HM–213.

VI. Procedure and Schedule

Staff support for the advisory

committee will be provided by RSPA

and the facilitator, and meetings will

take place in Washington, D.C., unless

agreed otherwise by the Committee.

Consistent with FACA requirements,

the facilitator will prepare summaries of

each Committee meeting. These

summaries and all documents submitted

to the Committee will be placed in the

public docket for this rulemaking.

As stated in the Notice of Intent, the

Committee’s objective is to prepare a

report containing an outline of its

recommendations for a notice of

proposed rulemaking with 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules 38459

businesses. One commenter

recommended that the Committee’s

final product be a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), with the

Committee reaching consensus on the

language of the NPRM and preamble.

RSPA believes that this is a decision

that the Committee should make as it

develops ground rules and timetables

for its deliberations.

The negotiation process will proceed

according to a schedule of specific dates

that the Committee devises at its first

meeting on July 28–29, 1998. RSPA will

publish notices of future meetings 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. 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.

VII. Meeting Agenda

The first meeting of the negotiated

rulemaking committee will begin at 9:30

a.m. on July 28 with consideration of

Committee ground rules, procedures,

and calendar. The Committee will then

address the specific issues that should

be included in the negotiation and how

data to support its deliberations will be

developed. In addition, the Committee

will consider whether to establish

working groups to provide technical

support and recommendations for

specific aspects of the negotiations. The

first meeting will conclude at 4:00 p.m.

on July 29.

Title 41 CFR Sec. 105–54.301 requires

that notices of advisory committee

meetings must be published at least 15

calendar days prior to a meeting.

However, that section also permits less

than 15 days notice of a meeting in

exceptional circumstances provided that

the reasons for doing so are included in

the meeting notice published in the

Federal Register. RSPA determined that

an early date for the first meeting was

necessary because the agency timeframe

for publication of an NPRM is very

short. The temporary regulation that is

an issue in this rulemaking expires on

July 1, 1999. RSPA was unable to

provide 15 days’ notice for the first

meeting because of delays in contacting

potential committee members to

confirm their interest in participating.

However, RSPA indicated in its June 4

notice of intent that the first meeting of

the committee would be scheduled for

July 1998. Additionally, RSPA provided

a tentative meeting schedule that

included the July 28–29 meeting date at

the June 23–24 public meeting. Thus,

representatives of the identified

interests were informed of the meeting

date well in advance of the 15 day

period. RSPA expects that all

Committee members will be present for

this first important meeting.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 14, 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. 98–19108 Filed 7–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P