[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30572-30576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14879]
[[Page 30571]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Research and Special Programs Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Parts 171, 177, 178, and 180
Hazardous Materials: Safety Standards for Preventing and Mitigating
Unintentional Releases During the Unloading of Cargo Tank Motor
Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 / Thursday, June 4, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 30572]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 177, 178, and 180
[Docket No. RSPA-97-2718 (HM-225A)]
RIN 2137-AD07
Hazardous Materials: Safety Standards for Preventing and
Mitigating Unintentional Releases During the Unloading of Cargo Tank
Motor Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
and announcement of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RSPA proposes to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
to develop recommendations for alternative safety standards for
preventing and mitigating unintentional releases of hazardous materials
during the unloading of cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied
compressed gas service. The Committee will develop and adopt its
recommendations through a process of negotiation. The Committee will
consist of persons who represent the interests affected by the proposed
rule, such as businesses that transport and deliver propane, anhydrous
ammonia, and other liquefied compressed gases; manufacturers of DOT
specification MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles used to
transport liquefied compressed gases; federal safety regulatory
agencies; and state and local public safety and emergency response
agencies. The purpose of this Notice is to invite interested parties to
submit comments on the issues to be discussed and the interests and
organizations to be considered for representation on the Committee.
Also, RSPA is announcing an organizational meeting to be held in
Washington, DC on June 23-24, 1998, to discuss Committee membership,
ground rules, and procedural matters.
DATES: RSPA must receive written comments and requests for
representation or membership on the Committee by July 6, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Address comments to the Dockets Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C.
20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket number and be submitted
in two copies. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of
their written comments should include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to the following
address: 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
[[Page 30573]]
government continue to work to develop an EDCS that effectively stops
the discharge of hazardous materials from a cargo tank if any attached
hose or piping is separated. The rule is temporary; its provisions will
expire July 1, 1999.
Attendance During Unloading
During the rulemaking that resulted in issuance of the December 10
final rule described above, RSPA discovered that many operators of
CTMVs transporting propane are not complying with provisions of the HMR
that require that a qualified person ``attend'' the unloading of
hazardous materials (49 CFR part 177.834(i)). The cargo tank unloading
attendance requirements specify that a person attending the unloading
operation must be awake, have an unobstructed view of the cargo tank,
and be within 25 feet of the cargo tank. This provision of the HMR is
intended to complement the EDCS requirements in that it is meant to
assure that the person unloading the cargo tank can manually stop the
flow of hazardous material by closing the internal stop valve if there
is a leak in the delivery system. Because many CTMV operators are not
complying with the attendance requirements of the HMR, they are having
difficulty complying with the alternative measures permitted by the
emergency interim final rule.
Challenge to the Alternative Regulatory Requirements
The emergency final rule is currently the subject of ongoing
litigation arising out of two court challenges. The National Propane
Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Company, and Huffhunes Gas,
Incorporated, have brought an action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas to seek preliminary injunctive
and permanent declaratory relief from the December 10 final rule.
Similarly, Ferrellgas, LP; Suburban Propane, LP; Agway Petroleum
Corporation; Cornerstone Propane Partners, LP; and National Propane,
LP, have brought an action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
from the August 18 final rule. On February 13, 1998, the Missouri court
preliminarily enjoined DOT enforcement of certain provisions of the
alternative requirements, and enforcement of unloading attendance
requirements applicable to small cargo tank motor vehicles
(``bobtails'').
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
To address the need for a long-term resolution of safety and non-
compliance issues, RSPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) under Docket No. RSPA-97-2718 (HM-225A) [62 FR 44059] on August
18, 1997, requesting comments concerning changes to the HMR that go
beyond the scope of the emergency final rule, including new or revised
provisions for operator attendance, hose management, and emergency
discharge controls. Specifically, the ANPRM requested comments on: (1)
whether RSPA should continue to regulate unloading operations of
liquefied compressed gases in CTMVs or relinquish regulatory control in
this area to other federal, state, local and tribal authorities; (2)
the feasibility of developing emergency discharge control systems that
would function in the event of full or partial separations or failures
of pipes and hoses; (3) the ability of the industry to meet a possible
1-, 2-, or 3-year retrofit schedule; (4) standards for the
qualification, testing, and use of hoses used in unloading; and (5)
safety procedures for persons performing unloading operations. To date,
RSPA has received over 150 comments to the ANPRM. The comment period
closed October 17, 1997.
II. Negotiated Rulemaking
RSPA has analyzed the comments received for the December 10 final
rule and the ANPRM and believes that this proposed rulemaking is a good
candidate for negotiated rulemaking. The safety issues are fairly well-
defined, as are the interests that would be affected by a proposed
rule. Moreover, RSPA believes that the face-to-face discussion and open
exchange of ideas that occur during a negotiated rulemaking may promote
more effective communication and development of creative solutions.
Particularly in light of the ongoing litigation, the traditional notice
and comment process for regulations development may not result in a
solution acceptable to all affected interests.
In a negotiated rulemaking, representatives of interests that will
be affected by a regulation meet to discuss the safety problem and
related issues and identify potential solutions. The group attempts to
reach consensus on a proposed solution and prepares a recommendation
for a proposed rule for consideration by the agency. This inclusive
process is intended to make the rule acceptable to all affected
interests and to preclude filing of petitions for reconsideration or
legal challenges that can follow promulgation of a final rule.
The Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 561 et seq.,
establishes a framework for conducting negotiated rulemakings. In
September 1993, the National Performance Review issued a recommendation
encouraging consensus-based rulemaking (REG 03). President Clinton
issued Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), which
states the need to reform the current regulatory process into one that
is effective, consistent, and understandable. Section 6(a) of the EO
charges government agencies with providing the public meaningful
participation in the regulatory process. On May 1, 1998, President
Clinton issued a memorandum to heads of executive departments and
agencies encouraging greater use of negotiated rulemaking.
Negotiated rulemakings have been used successfully by the
Department of Transportation, including the Federal Aviation
Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
RSPA will soon publish an NPRM addressing the qualification of pipeline
personnel that was developed through negotiated rulemaking. The
Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration have also successfully used the process.
The Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 563(a), recommends
that an agency considering the feasibility of regulatory negotiations
to resolve a specific issue should consider whether:
(1) There is a need for the rule.
(2) There are a limited number of identifiable interests.
(3) These interests can be adequately represented by persons
willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus.
(4) There is a reasonable likelihood that the committee will reach
consensus within a fixed period of time.
(5) The negotiated rulemaking procedure will not unreasonably delay
the notice of proposed rulemaking.
(6) The agency has adequate resources and is willing to commit such
resources to the process.
(7) The agency is committed to use the result of the negotiation in
formulating a proposed rule if at all possible.
The Act authorizes an agency to use the services of a convener to
assist it to determine the feasibility of regulatory negotiation in
specific instances (5 U.S.C. Sec. 563(b)). RSPA contracted with
[[Page 30574]]
a convener to make this determination for a rulemaking that would
resolve the safety issues that were the subject of the August 18, 1997,
ANPRM. With RSPA input, the convener identified interests that will be
significantly affected by a proposed rule and conducted discussions
with persons representing these interests to identify issues of
concern. Based on these discussions, the convener concluded that a
negotiated rulemaking is feasible and appropriate and has a reasonable
likelihood of success. A copy of the convener's final report has been
placed in Docket No. RSPA-97-2718 (HM-225A).
Based on the recommendation of the convener, RSPA has decided to
charter a negotiated rulemaking committee (Committee) under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 1) to develop a
proposed rule for preventing and mitigating unintentional releases
during the unloading of DOT specification MC 330 and MC 331 CTMVs that
transport and deliver liquefied compressed gases.
III. Procedures and Guidelines
The following proposed procedures and guidelines will apply to this
process, subject to appropriate changes made as a result of comments on
this Notice or as determined to be necessary during the negotiating
process.
(A) Notice of Intent to Establish Advisory Committee and Request for
Comment
In accordance with the requirements of FACA, an agency of the
federal government cannot establish or utilize a group of people in the
interest of obtaining consensus advice or recommendations unless that
group is chartered as a federal advisory committee. It is the purpose
of this Notice to indicate RSPA's intent to create a federal advisory
committee, to identify the issues involved in the rulemaking, to
identify the interests affected by the rulemaking, to identify
potential participants who will adequately represent those interests,
and to ask for comment on the use of regulatory negotiation and on the
identification of the issues, interests, procedures, and participants.
(B) Facilitator
Pursuant to Sec. 566 of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, a
facilitator will be selected to serve as an impartial chair of the
meetings; assist committee members to conduct discussions and
negotiations; and manage the keeping of minutes and records as required
by FACA. RSPA is currently considering persons to serve as facilitator
for the negotiating group. This individual will chair the negotiations,
may offer alternative suggestions toward the desired consensus, will
help participants define and reach consensus, and will determine the
feasibility of negotiating particular issues.
(C) Representation
The Committee will include representatives from DOT and from the
organizations and interests listed below. Each representative may also
name an alternate, who will be encouraged to attend all Committee
meetings and will serve in place of the representative if necessary.
The DOT representative is the Designated Federal Official (DFO) as
required by FACA (5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10) and will participate in the
deliberations and activities of the Committee with the same rights and
responsibilities as other Committee members. The DFO will be authorized
to fully represent the agency in the discussions and negotiations of
the Committee.
RSPA intends to invite the following organizations and interests to
participate in the negotiated rulemaking by identifying an individual
to serve as a member of the Committee. The organizations listed have
been contacted by the convener and have indicated a willingness to
serve on the Committee. RSPA believes that, in addition to the
organizations listed, there are additional interests that should be
included on the Committee. RSPA recognizes that it may be difficult for
the interests not directly associated with a trade association or
organization to identify an appropriate individual to represent them
and invites comments on how best to assure that they are adequately
represented on the Committee. RSPA will host a meeting in June 1998
(see below) at which those with a common interest in the proposed rule
will be encouraged to meet and agree on a representative to the
Committee.
The organizations and interests that should participate in the
negotiated rulemaking are:
1. National Propane Gas Association.
2. The Fertilizer Institute.
3. National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
4. National Fire Protection Association.
5. Small businesses that transport and deliver propane, anhydrous
ammonia, and other liquefied compressed gases.
6. Large businesses that transport and deliver propane, anhydrous
ammonia, and other liquefied compressed gases.
7. Manufacturers of DOT MC 330 and MC 331 specification CTMVs used
to transport liquefied compressed gases.
8. State safety regulatory agencies.
9. State safety enforcement agencies.
10. State/local emergency response and fire services agencies.
RSPA will consider applications for representation from
organizations or interests not appropriately represented by those
listed above. Please identify such interests and organizations if they
exist and explain why such organizations and interests should have
separate representation on the Committee.
RSPA is also considering how best to include manufacturers of cargo
tank components, such as internal self-closing stop valves, emergency
discharge control systems, and remote shut-off systems, in the
negotiated rulemaking process. RSPA believes that component
manufacturers have technical expertise that would be extremely valuable
to the Committee's deliberations. The convener's report examined
several options for integrating component manufacturers into the
negotiated rulemaking process. The convener recommended that they
participate as members of work groups that the Committee may establish
to gather information and develop proposals for specific issues related
to the rulemaking, but not as members of the Committee itself. RSPA has
tentatively decided to accept this recommendation because it would
allow all interested parties to have a significant role in discussions
leading to improved understanding of technical issues and
possibilities, while leaving ultimate decisions to be made by the
agency and those directly responsible for compliance with applicable
regulations. However, RSPA recognizes that other approaches could
accomplish the same end and requests comments on the most appropriate
role for component manufacturers on the Committee.
(D) Applications for Membership
Each application for membership or nomination to the Committee
should include: (i) The name of the applicant or nominee and the
interest(s) such person would represent; (ii) evidence that the
applicant or nominee is authorized to represent parties related to the
interest(s) the person proposes to represent; and (iii) a written
commitment that the applicant or nominee would participate in good
faith. Please be aware that each individual or organization affected by
a final rule need not have its own representative on the Committee.
Rather, each interest must be adequately represented, and the Committee
should be fairly balanced.
[[Page 30575]]
(E) Good Faith
Participants must be committed to negotiate in good faith.
Therefore, it is important that senior individuals within each interest
group be designated to represent that interest. No individual will be
required to ``bind'' the interests he or she represents, but the
individual should be able to represent the interest with confidence.
For this process to be successful, the interests represented should be
willing to accept the final Committee product.
(F) Notice of Establishment
After evaluating comments received as a result of this notice, RSPA
will issue a notice announcing the establishment and composition of the
Committee, unless it determines that such action is inappropriate in
light of comments received. After the Committee is chartered, the
negotiations will begin.
(G) Administrative Support and Meetings
Staff support will be provided by RSPA, and meetings will take
place in Washington, DC, unless agreed otherwise by the Committee.
(H) Consensus
The purpose of the Committee is to develop consensus on an outline
for a proposed rule. ``Consensus'' means the unanimous concurrence
among the interests represented on the Committee, unless the Committee
explicitly adopts a different definition.
(I) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Committee's objective is to prepare a report containing an
outline of its recommendations for a notice of proposed rulemaking.
This report may also include suggestions for specific preamble and
regulatory language based on the Committee's recommendations, as well
as information relevant to a regulatory evaluation and an evaluation of
the impacts of the proposal on small businesses. To this end, RSPA
expects the Committee to address cost/benefit, paperwork reduction, and
regulatory flexibility requirements. If consensus cannot be achieved
for some issues, the report will identify the areas of agreement and
disagreement, and explanations for any disagreement. RSPA will use the
Committee report to draft a notice of proposed rulemaking, regulatory
evaluation, and other analyses, as appropriate.
RSPA will accept the Committee proposal unless it is inconsistent
with the statutory authority of the agency or other legal requirements
or does not adequately address public safety. In that event, the
preamble to an NPRM addressing the issues that were the subject of the
negotiations will explain the reasons for the agency decision to reject
the Committee recommendations.
(J) Final Rule
RSPA may elect to ask the Committee to assist in the evaluation of
comments received to the NPRM, depending on the nature of the comments
received.
(K) Tentative Schedule
RSPA plans to host an organizational meeting to discuss Committee
membership, procedural matters, and ground rules in advance of the
first meeting of the Committee. Once the Committee is established and
selected, RSPA will publish a notice announcing the first two meetings
of the Committee in the Federal Register. Notice of subsequent meetings
will also be published in the Federal Register.
RSPA anticipates that the Committee will meet for up to five two-
day sessions beginning in July 1998. If the Committee establishes
working groups to support its work, additional meetings for the working
groups may be necessary. RSPA expects the Committee to reach consensus
and prepare a report recommending a proposed rule within six months of
the first meeting. The timeframe for the Committee to complete its work
is short because the emergency interim final rule expires July 1, 1999.
RSPA expects to publish an NPRM based on the Committee's
recommendations by February 15, 1999, and a final rule by May 1, 1999.
If unforeseen delays in the anticipated schedule occur, the Research
and Special Programs Administrator may agree to an extension of time if
the consensus of the Committee is that additional time will result in
agreement. The process may end earlier if the facilitator or DFO so
recommends.
(L) Committee Procedures
Under the general guidance of the facilitator, and subject to legal
requirements, the Committee will establish detailed procedures for the
meetings. Meetings of the Committee will be open to the public. Any
person attending the Committee meetings may address the Committee if
time permits or file statements with the Committee.
(M) Record of Meetings
In accordance with FACA requirements, the facilitator will prepare
minutes of all Committee meetings. These minutes will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
IV. Key Issues for Negotiation
RSPA has reviewed written comments, petitions, incident reports,
and industry operating practices, and has engaged in extensive dialogue
on the issues related to the safe unloading of liquefied compressed
gases from CTMVs. Based on this information, RSPA has tentatively
identified major issues that should be considered in this negotiated
rulemaking. Issues related to transportation and delivery of liquefied
compressed gases in CTMVs not specifically listed in this Notice may be
addressed as they arise in the course of the negotiation. RSPA
understands that these issues are interrelated and is open to a systems
safety approach for managing risk associated with unloading liquefied
compressed gases. RSPA invites comments concerning the appropriateness
of these issues for consideration and whether other issues should be
added. Note that some of these issues were raised in the February 19,
1997, emergency interim final rule and the August 18, 1997, ANPRM.
A. Prevention of Unintentional Releases
The Committee should examine possible preventive measures to reduce
or eliminate the incidence of unintentional releases during unloading.
For example, some commenters to the ANPRM have suggested that RSPA
adopt a rigorous hose management system that assures that delivery
hoses and lines meet high standards for quality, strength, and
durability, and that requires periodic examination and testing to
assure continued suitability for use in the transfer of high risk
hazardous materials. Advocates of such a system say that it could
significantly reduce the number of unloading incidents related to
failures in hoses or hose assemblies. Similarly, the Committee should
consider whether there are preventive measures, such as daily
inspections or periodic testing, that should be implemented for other
parts of the cargo tank delivery system, including pumps, valves, and
piping.
B. Detection of Unintentional Releases
Preventive measures alone cannot assure the safety of cargo tank
unloading operations. Despite the best efforts of the industry and the
government, accidents will happen, and unintentional releases of high
risk hazardous materials such as propane or anhydrous ammonia will
occur. The Committee thus should consider methods to assure that
unintentional releases can be detected and controlled. One such
detection method is provided
[[Page 30576]]
by the current regulatory requirement for continual visual observation
of the cargo tank throughout the unloading process. Alternatives
include remote monitoring and signaling systems, such as sensors,
alarms, and electronic surveillance equipment, or ``patrolling''
whereby the person attending the unloading operation moves between the
storage tank and the cargo tank to assure that each is monitored
throughout the unloading process.
C. Mitigation of Unintentional Releases
Once a leak has been detected, methods to prevent catastrophic
consequences are critical. A passive system for shutting down unloading
when a leak has been detected operates automatically, that is, without
human intervention. Examples include excess flow valves, which are
intended to close the internal self-closing stop valve if the flow rate
exceeds a threshold level, and thermal links, which are intended to
close the internal self-closing stop valve if the temperature reaches a
threshold level. A remote system provides a means to shut down cargo
tank unloading operations using a device that is located on the CTMV
but away from the valve(s) that it operates. Many CTMVs have remote
shut-offs located near the vehicle cab. The remote shut-off may be
manually activated. An off-truck remote system includes a portable
device that can shut down cargo tank unloading operations away from the
CTMV. An off-truck remote is manually activated. The Committee should
evaluate alternatives with a view towards determining which methods or
combination of methods provide the most cost-effective means for
controlling unintentional releases during cargo tank unloading
operations.
IV. Organizational Meeting
RSPA will host a meeting to discuss issues related to establishment
of a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Safety Standards for
Preventing and Mitigating Unintentional Releases During the Unloading
of Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service. The
meeting is scheduled for June 23-24, 1998, in Room 2230 of the U.S.
Department of Transportation Headquarters Building, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, DC 20590. On June 23, the meeting will begin at 9:30
a.m. and will adjourn at 4:00 p.m.; on June 24, the meeting will begin
at 9:30 a.m. and will adjourn at 12:30 p.m. RSPA invites all interested
persons to attend. The meeting agenda will include discussion of the
negotiated rulemaking process, designation of members to represent
identified interests, ground rules for Committee deliberations, and
procedural matters. Those who plan to attend this meeting should notify
Jennifer Karim or Susan Gorsky, 202-366-8553, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration,
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20590-0001 by June 19, 1998.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 1, 1998, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.
Alan I. Roberts,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Research and
Special Programs Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-14879 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
