[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: 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.
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
