[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38456-38459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19108]



[[Page 38455]]

_______________________________________________________________________

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. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 38456]]


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

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 self-
closing 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

[[Page 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 self-closing stop valves, hoses, remote shut-
off 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.

[[Page 38458]]

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 electro-mechanical 
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

[[Page 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