[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44059-44062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21866]



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

[[Page 44059]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 173, 177, 178, 180

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


Hazardous Materials: Safety Standards for Unloading Cargo Tank 
Motor Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service; Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public 
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, RSPA requests 
comments concerning the need, if any, for amending the Hazardous 
Materials Regulations with regard to emergency discharge control 
features required on cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied compressed 
gas service; the ability of industry to meet a possible 1-, 2- or 3-
year retrofit schedule; standards for the qualification, testing and 
use of hoses used in unloading; safety procedures for persons 
performing unloading operations; and, whether the Federal government 
should continue to regulate in this area. This advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking addresses specification MC 330, MC 331, and certain 
non-specification cargo tank motor vehicles which are used to deliver 
propane, anhydrous ammonia, and other liquefied compressed gases. It 
responds to recently discovered deficiencies which affect the safety of 
unloading liquefied compressed gases from many of these cargo tank 
motor vehicles. The intended effect of this action is to obtain 
information concerning the need for regulatory changes to ensure an 
acceptable level of safety for delivery of liquefied compressed gases, 
the costs and benefits associated with such changes, and ways to 
minimize impacts on small entities affected by them.
    RSPA also is announcing a public meeting to solicit comments on 
issues identified in this docket.

DATES: Written comments. Comments must be received by October 17, 1997.
    Public meeting. A public meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 
4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30, 1997, in Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Address comments to the Dockets Management System, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket number and be 
submitted in two copies. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of 
receipt of their written comments should include a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to the 
following address: ``[email protected]''. The Dockets Management 
System is located on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building at the 
Department of Transportation at the above address. Public dockets may 
be reviewed there between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Public meeting. The public meeting will be held at room 2230 of the 
Department of Transportation Headquarters building, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW, Washington, DC. Any person wishing to attend and/or participate at 
the public meeting should notify Jennifer Karim, by telephone or in 
writing at the phone number and address shown below, by September 26, 
1997.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, RSPA published a final rule 
which revises and extends requirements published in an interim final 
rule (IFR) on February 19, 1997, in docket RSPA-97-2133. The rule 
adopts temporary requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles in certain 
liquefied compressed gas service. It requires a specific marking on 
affected cargo tank motor vehicles and requires motor carriers to 
comply with additional operational controls intended to compensate for 
the inability of passive emergency discharge control systems to 
function as required by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 
CFR parts 171-180). The interim operational controls specified in that 
rule are intended to ensure an acceptable level of safety while the 
industry and government continue to work to develop a system that 
effectively stops the discharge of hazardous materials from a cargo 
tank if there is a failure of piping or a transfer hose. Interested 
persons should read the preamble to the final rule in RSPA-97-2133 for 
background information on the problems RSPA is addressing in this 
rulemaking.

II. Request for Comments

    RSPA intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing 
the need, if any, for changes to the HMR which go beyond the scope of 
today's final rule under docket RSPA-97-2133, including new or revised 
provisions for operator attendance, hose management, and emergency 
discharge controls. RSPA requests comments responding to the questions 
listed below to facilitate decisions on the potential need for 
additional changes to the HMR with regard to emergency discharge 
control features required on cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied 
compressed gas service; standards for the manufacture, testing and 
continuing qualification of hoses used in unloading; safety procedures 
for persons performing unloading operations; and the need for continued 
Federal regulation in this area. Note that some of these questions were 
asked in the February 19, 1997 IFR in docket RSPA-97-2133 (62 FR 7638). 
RSPA also invites comments on any aspect of this rulemaking action not 
specifically addressed by the questions.

A. Jurisdiction

    OSHA has worker health and safety standards, e.g., Storage and 
Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases at 29 CFR 1910.110; Process 
Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, at 29 CFR 1910.119, 
and EPA has environmental protection standards, e.g., EPA's Risk 
Management Program, at 40 CFR part 68, which, respectively, provide 
more protection for worker health and safety, and the environment, than 
RSPA's limited cargo tank motor vehicle unloading requirements.
    A1. Are there any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict 
with the HMR requirements?
    A2. Should RSPA continue to regulate highway carrier unloading of 
liquefied compressed gases in cargo tank motor vehicles or should RSPA 
relinquish regulatory control of this area to other Federal, state, 
local and Indian tribe authorities?
    A3. Do fire service personnel and other emergency responders agree 
with comments from representatives of the propane and anhydrous ammonia 
transportation sector that suggest emergency discharge control features 
are overrated and, therefore, should be eliminated from the HMR? What 
data, if any, are there to support or rebut those claims made by some 
members of the affected industries (e.g., information

[[Page 44060]]

regarding interstate and intrastate incidents where emergency control 
systems on cargo tanks authorized to transport liquefied compressed 
gases functioned or failed to function as required)?

B. Emergency Discharge Controls

    The seriousness of the problem with emergency discharge controls 
currently installed on most specification MC-330 and MC-331 cargo tank 
motor vehicles has been well recognized since the Sanford, NC, incident 
of nearly one year ago. Since then, the industry has studied the 
problem and developed new systems that may conform to the performance 
standards specified in Sec. 178.337-11. Given the progress made thus 
far, RSPA believes it is not unreasonable to expect the industry to 
install new, or re-engineered, passive emergency discharge controls on 
the affected cargo tank motor vehicles by September 1, 2000, at the 
latest.
    B1. Is it feasible to remove pumps and compensate for decreased 
discharge flow by either enlarging piping, fittings and hose downstream 
of existing internal valves, retaining their excess flow features, or 
by increasing pressure in the vapor space of the cargo tank, e.g., with 
a nitrogen pad?
    B2. Historically, excess flow valves have been used to meet the 
emergency discharge system requirements in Sec. 178.337-11(a)(1)(i). 
What other types of devices can provide the passive automatic shutdown 
function required by that section of the HMR?
    B3. Can a passive emergency discharge control system be developed 
to function in the event of only partial failure of piping and hoses? 
What criteria should be used to establish a minimum amount of leakage 
for detection and control of lower level leaks?
    B4. Automobiles are commonly equipped with remote transmitter 
devices that fit on key rings to unlock doors or open trunk lids from 
50 feet away. What role can these devices play in the safe unloading of 
cargo tanks? Should this type of device be required in addition to 
passive system requirements? Describe the most promising of features of 
such a system (e.g., a deadman feature) and the advantages and 
disadvantages of each feature.
    B5. Do system designers, parts manufacturers, cargo tank 
manufacturers and assemblers have the capacity to develop, produce, and 
install improved emergency discharge control equipment necessary to 
bring the nationwide fleet of 25,000 cargo tank motor vehicles into 
compliance with this critical safety regulation over a 12-, 24- or 36-
month period? Should retrofit priorities be based on the type of 
vehicle, i.e., highway transport vs. bobtail cargo tank motor vehicles 
used in local delivery operations, or on the basis of the material 
normally transported?
    B6. What is an acceptable level of system reliability? Has a 
statistical design been established for determining reliability?
    B7. What in-service field tests are needed to validate the 
serviceability of new passive emergency discharge control systems? How 
much time is necessary to conduct those tests?
    B8. At what rate would effective passive discharge control systems 
likely be made available by particular developers (e.g., numbers of 
installations per month, starting date) under the hypothetical 
circumstance that for a fixed introductory period all devices produced 
could be sold? If the developer is a cargo tank operator in this 
industry, distinguish between the availability of equipment for the 
operator's own vehicles versus availability to other affected 
operators. Also, of interest is the size of the operator's fleet and 
how long it would take to acquire enough new devices to equip this 
fleet in its entirety.
    B9. Preliminary assessments of the cost to install improved 
emergency discharge controls are nominally estimated at $2,500 per 
cargo tank motor vehicle. This relatively low cost tends to support 
RSPA's belief that a retrofit of affected cargo tank motor vehicles may 
be economically feasible in as little as 12 to 36 months. Are there 
other cost factors that RSPA should consider before requiring carriers 
to quickly achieve an acceptable level of safety in emergency discharge 
controls?
    B10. A 12-month period for motor carriers to bring all cargo tank 
motor vehicles into compliance with the rule pertaining to emergency 
discharge controls allows for the retrofit or installation of new 
equipment on approximately 20% of the fleet to take place during their 
scheduled pressure retest once each five years--a 24-month period 
allows for approximately 40% and a 36-month period allows for 
approximately 60%. Is RSPA correct to assume that the cost to retrofit 
these cargo tank motor vehicles may be substantially less than that for 
the rest of the fleet, since these tanks are already required to 
undergo heavy testing and repairs at a maintenance facility that should 
also be qualified to perform the required retrofit? What is the 
difference in cost if cargo tanks are taken out of service for retrofit 
outside of the five-year retest cycle versus being taken out of service 
as scheduled within the five-year cycle?
    B11. How would these costs differ between bobtails and 
transporters, between installation on new tanks and retrofits?
    B12. What is the maximum rate of retrofit that could be effected 
without a substantial reduction in the capacity of the overall fleet to 
deliver the expected volumes of propane and anhydrous ammonia in the 
near future?
    B13. What test procedures are appropriate at the time of 
manufacture or assembly and at the time of requalification to ensure 
that the product discharge system will close as required by 
Sec. 178.337-11(a)(1)(i)?
    B14. RSPA is concerned that the problem with cargo tank emergency 
discharge control systems may highlight a deficiency in the training 
programs for Design Certifying Engineers and those persons certifying 
cargo tanks as meeting the requirements of the HMR. In addition, 
carrier function-specific training programs also may not be providing 
sufficient training in the specification requirements for these cargo 
tanks. Should RSPA adopt additional training requirements in these 
areas?

C. Qualification and Use of Delivery Hoses

    Some commenters to docket RSPA-97-2133 believe that a hose 
management program, along with other procedures, is sufficient to 
provide an equivalent level of safety to a fully passive emergency 
discharge control system. They propose a hose management program that 
assures that delivery lines and hoses meet high standards for quality, 
strength, and durability, and that requires periodic examination and 
testing to ensure continued suitability for use in the transfer of high 
risk hazardous materials. The HMR do not currently contain hose 
management requirements.
    C1. RSPA is aware that some facilities require cargo tank motor 
vehicle operators to use facility hose during loading and unloading 
operations rather than the hose carried onboard the cargo tank motor 
vehicle. What hose management standard do these facilities apply to 
their hoses and should those standards be incorporated into the HMR?
    C2. In the final rule published today in docket RSPA-97-2133, RSPA 
makes reference to the ``Manual for Maintenance, Testing and Inspection 
of Hose'' published by the Rubber Manufacturers Association. However, 
that standard is written specifically to

[[Page 44061]]

address hoses used for the transfer of anhydrous ammonia. Are there 
other standards published by industry, government, or independent 
safety organizations that RSPA may find acceptable for other liquefied 
compressed gases?
    C3. If there are no other written standards, should RSPA develop 
specific hose qualification, testing and use requirements for adoption 
in the HMR? If not, should industry and RSPA work together to develop a 
standard through one of the existing consensus standards setting 
organizations, e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials?
    C4. Considering that the development of Federal regulations or a 
consensus standard may take a long period, should RSPA adopt an interim 
measure that prohibits use of a transfer hose that has been in service 
for more than one or two years?
    C5. In hose assembly testing, should the procedure include a 
``pull'' test? Describe the procedure and the formula for determining 
the amount of ``pull''?
    C6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using stainless 
steel reinforced hose for product delivery? What would be the cost? Do 
the advantages--or disadvantages--outweigh the cost?

D. Attendance Requirements

    Section 177.834(i)(2)of the HMR states that ``a motor carrier who 
transports hazardous materials by cargo tank must ensure that the cargo 
tank is attended by a qualified person at all times during unloading.'' 
Section 177.834(i)(3) states that ``a person `attends' the loading or 
unloading of a cargo tank if, throughout the process, he is awake, has 
an unobstructed view of the cargo tank, and is within 7.62 meters (25 
feet) of the cargo tank.'' In the final rule in docket RSPA-97-2133, 
RSPA rejected an industry interpretation of this long-standing operator 
attendance requirement--specifically, that a single operator satisfies 
requirements for an unobstructed view of the cargo tank, and is within 
25 feet of the cargo tank, merely by being in proximity to, and having 
an unobstructed view of, any part of the delivery hose, which may be 
100 feet or more away from the cargo tank motor vehicle, during the 
unloading (transfer) operation.
    The rule clearly requires an operator be in a position from which 
the earliest signs of problems that may occur during the unloading 
operation are readily detectable, thereby permitting an operator to 
promptly take corrective measures, including actuating the remote means 
of automatic closure of the internal self-closing stop valve, shutting 
down the motor vehicle engine and other sources of ignition, or other 
action, as appropriate. The rule requires that an operator always be 
within 25 feet of the cargo tank. Simply being within 25 feet of any 
one of the cargo tank motor vehicle's appurtenances or auxiliary 
equipment does not constitute compliance.
    D1. What percentage of bobtail deliveries occur in locations where 
a single attendant cannot maintain an unobstructed view of the cargo 
tank motor vehicle during unloading?
    D2. In the docket RSPA-97-2133 final rule, RSPA states that where a 
remote control system is used as a means to stop the transfer of 
lading, the 25-foot requirement in Sec. 177.834(i)(3) is satisfied when 
a qualified person is carrying a radio transmitter that can activate 
the closure of the internal self-closing stop valve, remains within the 
operating range of the transmitter, and has an unobstructed view of the 
cargo tank motor vehicle at anytime its internal stop-valve is open. 
Should RSPA extend this provision beyond the 18-month life of the 
docket RSPA-97-2133 final rule? Should the provision be amended in any 
way?
    D3. Is it feasible for bobtail operators to organize delivery 
routes based on whether they can maintain an unobstructed view of the 
cargo tank motor vehicle at each unloading location during the 
unloading process?

E. Impacts on Small Businesses

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Act), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 
directs agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on 
small business and other small entities. A small entity includes a 
small business, small organization or small governmental jurisdiction. 
For purposes of this discussion, a small business is deemed to be one 
which is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in 
its field of operation. RSPA believes that the impacts of any further 
rule change would be primarily addressed to businesses involving the 
distribution of liquefied petroleum gas and anhydrous ammonia, and to 
manufacturers and assemblers of cargo tanks used for the distribution 
of these products. Under the Small Business Administration's size 
standard definitions (13 CFR Part 121), liquefied petroleum gas 
distributors with $5 million or less in annual receipts, and 
manufacturers of truck or bus bodies or truck trailers that employ 500 
or less individuals are small businesses. Based on available 
information, RSPA estimates that at least 90% of the businesses 
impacted by today's final rule in docket RSPA-97-2133 are small 
businesses. RSPA further estimates there are at least 6,800 businesses 
affected by this rule.
    In order for RSPA to determine the potential impacts on small 
entities of any additional changes to the HMR, commenters are requested 
to submit comments addressed to the following questions. In considering 
potential economic impacts of any changes in the regulations under 
study here, RSPA is using a rough estimate of some 25,000 existing 
cargo-tank vehicles in the U.S. as a whole being subject to these 
regulations, 18,000 of which being bobtails in retail propane delivery 
service (except for fewer than 50 used to deliver anhydrous ammonia at 
restricted customer locations), an additional 6,000 transports 
principally in propane service and the final 1,000 transports operated 
by for-hire carriers. It is understood that the same transports are 
often used for both propane and anhydrous ammonia during the 
complementary delivery seasons for those commodities.
    E1. How many new cargo tanks are being produced or reassembled 
annually?
    E2. Is it reasonable to assume that the originally-installed excess 
flow valve on a cargo tank would not normally be replaced during the 
tank's lifetime?
    E3. Are RSPA's estimates as to number of businesses affected by its 
rules for unloading liquefied compressed gases from cargo tank motor 
vehicles, and the percentage of these which are small businesses, 
consistent with industry estimates?
    E4. In what manner could differing compliance or reporting 
requirements be implemented for small businesses to take into account 
the resources available to small businesses?
    E5. In what manner could compliance or reporting requirements be 
clarified, consolidated or simplified for such small businesses?
    E6. What is the effect of the final rule in docket RSPA-97-2133, if 
any, on the competitive position of small entities in relation to 
larger entities?
    E7. What is the availability and cost to the small entity for 
professional assistance to meet regulatory requirements?

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This advance notice of proposed rulemaking is considered a 
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 and was

[[Page 44062]]

reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is considered 
significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the 
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Act), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 
directs agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on 
small business and other small entities. RSPA will evaluate any 
proposed rule to determine whether it would have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 12612

    RSPA will evaluate any proposed rule in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 
(``Federalism'').

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no information collection requirements in this advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking.

E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory 
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The 
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in 
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading 
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the 
Unified Agenda.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 1997, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Alan I. Roberts,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 97-21866 Filed 8-14-97; 11:58 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P