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

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