[Federal Register: April 18, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 75)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19257-19291]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18ap03-12]
[[Page 19257]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Special Programs Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 107, 171, et al.
Hazardous Materials: Requirements for Cargo Tanks; Final Rule
[[Page 19258]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 107, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, and 180
[Docket No. RSPA-98-3554 (HM-213)]
RIN 2137-AC90
Hazardous Materials: Requirements for Cargo Tanks
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RSPA is adopting a number of revisions to the Hazardous
Materials Regulations to update and clarify the regulations on the
construction and maintenance of cargo tank motor vehicles. This final
rule also addresses three National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendations and several petitions for rulemaking. These revisions
will increase the safety of cargo tanks transporting hazardous
materials, provide greater flexibility in design and construction of
cargo tanks, and reduce operating burdens for owners, operators, and
manufacturers of cargo tank motor vehicles.
DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective October 1, 2003.
Voluntary compliance date: Voluntary compliance is authorized 30
days following publication of this final rule.
Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of
publications listed in this final rule has been approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of October 1, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Johnsen, Hazardous
Materials Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), telephone (202) 366-6121; Mr. Philip Olson, Office of
Hazardous Materials Technology, RSPA, telephone (202) 366-4504; Ms.
Susan Gorsky, Hazardous Materials Standards, RSPA, telephone (202) 366-
8553; or Mr. Danny Shelton, Office of Enforcement and Program Delivery,
Hazardous Materials Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), telephone (202) 366-6121.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Revisions Applicable to All Cargo Tanks
A. Definitions
B. Marking of Emergency Shutoff Devices
C. Recertification to Original Specification
D. Cargo Tank Qualification and Maintenance
III. Revisions Applicable to DOT 400-Series Cargo Tanks
A. Structural Integrity Requirements
B. Manhole Marking
C. Road Clearance
D. MAWP Specification Plate Marking
E. Leak Testing Using EPA Method 27
F. Weld Joints on DOT 407 Cargo Tanks
IV. Revisions Applicable to MC 331 and MC 338 Cargo Tanks
A. Consistency with DOT 400-series Specification
B. Remote Shutoffs
C. Inlet and Outlet Fittings on MC 331 Cargo Tanks
D. Internal Visual Inspections of Insulated Tanks
E. Leakage Tests for Cargo Tanks in Anhydrous Ammonia Service
V. Section-by-Section Review
VI. Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
B. Executive Order 13132
C. Executive Order 13175
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
H. Environmental Assessment
I. Background
On June 12, 1989, the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA; we) published a final rule in the Federal Register (Docket HM-
183, 183A; 54 FR 24982) that revised the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171 through 180) pertaining to cargo
tank motor vehicles. We further revised the regulations each year from
1990 through 1995 under dockets HM-183, HM-183A, and HM-183C. Several
of these dockets made significant changes to the cargo tank regulations
to improve safety; other revisions corrected mistakes and made minor
changes. Dockets HM-183 and 183A established the DOT 400 series cargo
tank specifications, as well as certification requirements for cargo
tank manufacturers. Docket HM-183C contained a number of miscellaneous
items that clarified and relaxed certain requirements for the
manufacture, qualification, and maintenance of cargo tank motor
vehicles.
Under 49 CFR 1.73(d), the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) is delegated authority to enforce the Hazardous
Materials Requirements (HMR), with particular emphasis on highway
transportation, including regulations for construction and maintenance
of cargo tank motor vehicles (CTMVs). FMCSA and RSPA work closely with
the regulated industry through educational assistance activities and
FMCSA's compliance and enforcement program. As a result of these
activities, we identified several areas in the current regulations that
need updating or clarification. The Cargo Tank Technical Assistant
Group, comprised of state enforcement officials along with members of
FMCSA and RSPA, also identified areas where cargo tank regulations
could be improved for safety or clarified to facilitate compliance. In
addition, we received requests for clarification of the regulations and
petitions for rulemaking. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) has also made several safety recommendations concerning cargo
tanks.
On December 4, 2001, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM; 66 FR 63096), proposing revisions that would apply to all cargo
tanks and revisions that would apply to certain specification cargo
tanks or cargo tanks used to transport certain ladings. This final rule
adopts changes proposed in the NPRM as explained in detail below.
II. Revisions Applicable to All Cargo Tanks
Under Docket HM-183, we adopted a number of definitions for DOT
400-series specification CTMVs. The definitions apply to all
specification CTMVs used to transport hazardous materials. In the NPRM
we proposed to combine the definitions currently in Sec. 178.345-1(c)
with the definitions in Sec. 173.320 (a) and make them applicable to
all specification CTMVs. We received comments on the following issues:
A. Definitions
Cargo Tank. In the NPRM, we proposed in Sec. 171.8 to add
Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs) to the list of specifications that
are not considered cargo tanks. The North American Transportation
Consultants, Inc. (NATC) submitted comments expressing concern that the
proposed definition would encourage the use of IBCs as vehicle delivery
systems for bulk shipments. NATC asserts that the proposed revisions
would permit IBCs to be loaded and unloaded without first being removed
from the transport vehicle. NATC asks us to delay adding IBCs to the
list of specifications that are not considered cargo tanks until after
a safety review of IBC unloading operations permitted under exemption.
NATC is not correct. Section 177.834(h) prohibits discharge of any
contents of any container, other than a cargo tank or IM portable tank,
prior to the removal from the motor vehicle. The proposed definition
does not change this prohibition. Thus, unless authorized under
exemption, IBCs may not be loaded or unloaded without first being
removed from the transport vehicle. In this final rule, we are
[[Page 19259]]
adopting the revised definition, as proposed.
Design Certifying Engineer and Registered Inspector. We proposed to
change the requirements for Design Certifying Engineers (DCEs) or
Registered Inspectors (RIs) to allow experienced persons to act as DCEs
or RIs even if they had not registered by the grandfather clause date
of December 31, 1995. DCEs and RIs must still meet the registration
requirements in Subpart F of Part 107, which include familiarity with
all current regulatory requirements and certification. In addition, the
proposed definitions for both a DCE and an RI specify that a DCE and RI
must have the knowledge and ability to determine whether a cargo tank
design and construction meets the applicable specification.
The National Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC) proposed relaxing the RI
requirements even further and eliminating the three-year requirement.
We disagree. The functions performed by an RI are sufficiently complex
that three years' work experience is necessary to assure that an RI has
acquired essential knowledge and experience. In this final rule, we are
adopting the definitions as proposed, with the addition of language to
specify that the work experience requirements refer to cargo tank
testing and inspection.
Corroded/abraded. Commenters generally support our proposal in the
NPRM to clarify the term ``corroded or abraded.'' However, several
commenters suggest that this definition does not provide sufficient
clarification and could lead to enforcement problems. Baltimore Cargo
Tank comments that enforcement personnel ``* * *will be compelled to
deem any kind of surface mark on the cargo tank wall* * *'' as meeting
the definition as proposed. The American Trucking Associations suggests
citations may be issued as a result of paint scratches and other
cosmetic blemishes.
The use of the term ``corroded or abraded'' relates primarily to a
requirement to perform an inspection or test, such as those
requirements in Sec. 180.407(e) that require that, if a corroded or
abraded area is observed by a visual inspection, it must be thickness
tested. In this final rule, we are adopting a definition for ``corroded
or abraded,'' to address commenters' concerns. Thus, in this final
rule, ``corroded or abraded'' is defined to mean any visible reduction
in the material thickness of the cargo tank wall or valve due to
pitting, flaking, gouging, or chemical reaction to the material surface
that affects the safety or serviceability of the cargo tank. The term
does not include cosmetic or minor surface degradation that does not
affect the safety or serviceability of the cargo tank.
Corrosive to the tank/valve. We proposed to revise the definition
of ``corrosive to the tank/valve'' because of the many requests for
clarification that we have received. The regulations require additional
and more frequent inspections (internal inspection, thickness testing,
upper coupler removal and inspection) for CTMVs transporting a lading
that may adversely affect tanks or valves, causing leaks and other
safety hazards. The reference to Sec. 173.136 (definition of a Class 8
material) in the current definition has caused confusion. We did not
intend that lading designated as ``corrosive to the tank/valve'' would
be limited to Class 8 materials or to materials that cause corrosion at
a rate of 6.25 mm or more per year. Our intent was to include any
lading, not just Class 8 materials, that corrodes a tank or valve.
Only two commenters addressed this proposal, and both supported the
change. Thus, RSPA will adopt the proposed change to the definition of
``corrosive to the tank/valve'' to specify that test data and
experience must be used to determine if a specific lading is corrosive
to the cargo tank wall or valve. The removal of the reference to Sec.
173.136 is intended to clarify that ``corrosive to the tank/valve'' is
not limited to materials with a corrosion rate of 6.25 mm or more per
year. Any test data or experience that indicates any amount of
corrosion is sufficient to meet the definition.
Maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP). The Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association (TTMA) submitted a petition for rulemaking
(P-1272) suggesting that a cargo tank's MAWP should be dependent on the
physical characteristics of the cargo tank rather than the lading
carried in the cargo tank or the method of loading or unloading the
cargo tank. In its petition, TTMA notes that a cargo tank manufacturer
will not always know the characteristics of the lading that will be
transported in the cargo tank and that a manufacturer will not always
know the pressure at which the tank will be loaded or unloaded.
In its petition, TTMA also asserts that the current regulations
have resulted in confusion in the regulated industry as to whether the
static head of lading should be included in the MAWP. TTMA notes that
Sec. 178.345-1(k) defines MAWP as the largest of: (1) The pressure
prescribed for the lading in part 173; (2) the vapor pressure of the
most volatile lading at 115[deg] F plus the maximum static pressure
exerted by the lading at the maximum lading density plus any pressure
exerted by a gas padding; or (3) the maximum pressure in the cargo tank
during loading or unloading. TTMA states that it is not clear if the
static head is included in the lading pressure prescribed in Part 173
or the loading/unloading pressure.
We agree with TTMA that there should be no ambiguity in the HMR as
to the meaning of MAWP. We agree that the MAWP should be based on a
cargo tank's physical characteristics, but we believe MAWP should also
be linked to the requirements of Sec. 173.33 for use by shippers and
carriers. The proper matching of the maximum lading pressure conditions
defined in Sec. 173.33(c) with the MAWP of a cargo tank by shippers
and carriers is critical to providing safety in cargo tank operations.
The maximum lading pressure addresses many factors critical to matching
a lading to a cargo tank MAWP, including the static head (pressure)
generated by a specific lading or the maximum pressure in a tank during
loading or unloading.
For example, Sec. 173.33(c)(iv) requires the sum of the vapor
pressure of the lading at 115[deg] F, plus the tank static head exerted
by the lading, plus any pressure exerted by a gas padding, including
air, in the tank to be less than or equal to the MAWP of the cargo
tank. The pressure defined by this summation is the pressure exerted at
the bottom of the tank. When a cargo tank is inverted in a rollover,
this pressure is applied to the pressure relief devices installed on
the top of the cargo tank. Particularly for large diameter tanks and
high-density ladings, this resultant pressure could be sufficient to
open the cargo tank's pressure relief devices and release the contents
of the tank, even if the tank were undamaged.
Thus, it is critical for shippers and carriers to determine that
the MAWP of a cargo tank is greater than or equal to maximum lading
pressure derived from the conditions specified in Sec. 173.33.
Similarly, cargo tank manufacturers should be familiar with the
requirements of Sec. 173.33 in order to provide a cargo tank with an
MAWP sufficient to meet the needs of shippers and carriers. To
strengthen the linkage between Sec. 173.33 and cargo tank MAWP, the
NPRM proposed to revise the definition for MAWP to require the MAWP to
be greater than or equal to the maximum lading pressure condition
prescribed in Sec. 173.33 for each material. The proposal is adopted
without change in this final rule.
Minimum thickness. We proposed to add in Sec. 178.320 a definition
for
[[Page 19260]]
``minimum thickness'' to clarify how the minimum head and shell
thickness for specification cargo tanks must be determined. The
proposal defined ``minimum thickness'' to mean the least of: (1) The
thickness required by the original specification; (2) the thickness
required to satisfy the structural integrity and accident damage
requirements; or (3) the thickness required to satisfy the requirements
of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code, if
applicable. This proposal was intended to eliminate confusion as to
whether the minimum thickness tables in Sec. 180.407(i) are the
governing factor in determining minimum thickness.
In consultation with members of the Cargo Tank Technical Assistance
Group, coordinated through FMCSA, we determined that the proposed
definition did not clearly correlate the minimum thickness of the tank
with the tank specification requirements. Therefore, in this final
rule, we further clarified the definition to read as follows:
Minimum thickness means the minimum required shell and head (and
baffle and bulkhead when used as tank reinforcement) thickness
needed to meet the specification. The minimum thickness is the
greatest of the following values:
(1)(i) For MC 330, MC 331, and MC 338 cargo tanks, the specified
minimum thickness found in the applicable specification(s) for
construction; or
(ii) For DOT 406, DOT 407 and DOT 412 cargo tanks, the specified
minimum thickness found in Tables I and II of the applicable
specification(s); or
(iii) For MC 300, MC 301, MC 302, MC 303, MC 304, MC 305, MC
306, MC 307, MC 310, MC 311, and MC 312 cargo tanks, the in-service
minimum thickness prescribed in Tables I and II of Sec.
180.407(i)(5), of this subchapter, for the minimum thickness
specified by Tables I and II of the applicable specification(s);
(2) The thickness necessary to meet with the structural
integrity and accident damage requirements of the applicable
specification(s); or
(3) The thickness as computed per the ASME Code requirements (if
applicable).
In addition, adding minimum thickness determination criteria for
MC 331 and 400 series cargo tanks to Sec. 180.407(i) will increase
understanding of the requirements by placing all information
concerning the thickness of any cargo tank in one section. Thus, new
paragraphs (i)(9) and (i)(10) will be added as follows:
(i)(9) For MC 331 cargo tanks constructed before the date of
this final rule, minimum thickness shall be determined by the
thickness indicated on the ASME form U1A minus any corrosion
allowance. For tanks constructed after the date of this final rule,
the minimum thickness will be that which is indicated on the
specification plate. If no corrosion allowance is indicated on the
ASME form U1A, then the thickness of the cargo tank shall be the
thickness of the material of construction indicated on the form,
with no corrosion allowance.
(i)(10) For 400-series cargo tanks, minimum thickness is
calculated according to tables in each applicable section for that
specification: Sec. 178.346-2 for DOT 406 cargo tanks, Sec.
178.347-2 for DOT 407 cargo tanks, and Sec. 178.348-2 for DOT 412
cargo tanks.
Cargo tank design includes calculations using the thickness of the
tank shell and heads to determine if the tank would meet the minimum
structural design requirements less any corrosion allowance. These
calculations include a safety factor of 4 that must be maintained
throughout the life of the tank. If corrosion is discovered on the tank
and the ASME form U1A of the ASME code indicates the shell is .225
inches thick with no corrosion allowance indicated on the ASME form
U1A, then any areas on the tank below that thickness must be repaired
prior to placing the tank back in service. Clarifying this will provide
test and inspection facilities a specific number to determine the
thickness of the tank and should simplify calculating corrosion
allowances (if any allowance is indicated).
We had also proposed to make a separate paragraph (d) for the
definition of ``minimum thickness.'' We determined that this is not
necessary; in this final rule, the definition appears after the term as
it is listed in the section. In addition, the wording in Sec. 178.337-
3(e) should note that the minimum metal thickness of 0.187 inches for
steel and 0.270 inches for aluminum is for tanks with a design pressure
of 100 psig. This section outlines regulations for minimum thickness on
MC 331 cargo tanks, which are primarily used for the transportation of
compressed gasses. Further, we are clarifying that the minimum
thickness of the tank shell and heads must be determined using
structural design requirements in Section VIII of the ASME Code, or 25%
of the tensile strength of the material.
B. Marking of Emergency Shutoff Devices
In response to NTSB recommendation H-93-34, we proposed to amend
the HMR in Sec. 172.328 to require all manually activated on-truck
remote shutoff devices for closure of the internal valve to be marked
``Emergency Shutoff.'' The requirement would be effective two years
after the publication date of a final rule.
Several commenters suggest that we reconsider the size requirement
for the marking. TTMA and NTTC recommended that the minimum lettering
size should be 0.75'' instead of the proposed 1.5'' height due to the
size the overall marking would assume if each letter were 1.5'' high.
We agree that the 0.75'' minimum letter height is adequate to
communicate the presence of the emergency shutoff. Therefore, this
final rule requires the emergency shutoff device marking to be a
minimum 0.75'' height.
C. Recertification to Original Specification
There appears to be confusion in the regulated industry as to
whether cargo tanks that have been modified for specialized or non-
hazardous materials service may be re-certified for hazardous materials
service. In the NPRM, we proposed to allow for the re-certification of
a cargo tank to its original specification, provided specific
requirements are met. These requirements include documentation to
verify that the cargo tank was originally manufactured to a DOT
specification, verification by a Registered Inspector that the cargo
tank is in compliance with the requirements of the specification, and
certification that the cargo tank successfully passed all required
tests and inspections. In addition, any repairs performed on MC 306, MC
307, or MC 312 cargo tanks after June 30, 1992, must have been
performed in accordance with requirements in Sec. 180.413.
An example is an MC 306 cargo tank that has had its internal self-
closing stop valve removed so that the cargo tank can be used to
transport asphalt. As proposed in the NPRM, Sec. 180.405(b), the cargo
tank may be re-certified to its original specification provided an
internal shutoff valve is reinstalled, the CTMV meets all other
requirements of the specification, and the cargo tank motor vehicle has
successfully passed the inspections and tests required in Sec.
180.407(c).
NATC, whose comments are supported by several other commenters,
opposes allowing the recertification of cargo tanks. NATC suggests that
the proposed change could result in an increase in unsafe cargo tanks
and confusion on the part of enforcement personnel who would be unable
to verify the cargo tank certifications. In addition, NATC expressed
concern that the proposal is unfair to companies that requalified cargo
tanks prior to August 31, 1995.
We do not agree that permitting cargo tanks to be re-certified to
their original specifications would lead to an increase in unsafe cargo
tanks. However, in this final rule we are adding additional language to
clarify and ensure a DCE or
[[Page 19261]]
RI verifies that the cargo tank conforms to all applicable requirements
of the specification in effect at the time the tank was originally
constructed and the additional requirements proposed in Sec.
180.405(b)(2).
Neither do we agree that enforcement personnel will be unable to
verify the cargo tank certification. A cargo tank that is re-certified
to the original specification will have records of the work performed
on the tank, certifications from appropriate inspectors, and
specification plates on the cargo tank that would reflect the same
testing and certification data that a newly constructed cargo tank
would have.
The August 31, 1995 date was placed in the regulations in Sec.
180.405 during the rulemaking process under docket HM-183. This was the
cut-off date for the manufacture of MC 307, MC 312, MC 331, and MC 338
specification cargo tanks. This date had been extended several times in
the rulemaking process in response to petitions and requests by a
number of cargo tank industry representatives who stated that the extra
years were needed to complete the transition from the older MC
specification cargo tanks to the 400 series specifications HM-183
required. None of the companies that commented on the HM-183 time line
suggested that removing this date requirement presented an unfair
situation. These companies were in the process of manufacturing new
cargo tank motor vehicles, and through the HM-183 rulemaking process,
we addressed their concerns by extending the compliance date. Removing
this date extension in this rule addresses a different concern and does
not create an unfair situation.
NATC recommends that RSPA include a provision in Sec. 180.405 to
allow a cargo tank to be removed from hazmat service without requiring
the de-certification of the cargo tank. A specification cargo tank may
be used for non-specification service and remain a specification cargo
tank. The plate must be covered or removed only if tests or inspections
expire. We do not see a need to further clarify the use of
specification cargo tanks outside hazardous materials service.
D. Cargo Tank Qualification and Maintenance
To reduce confusion in the regulated industry, we proposed a number
of clarifications to the requirements in Part 180 for cargo tank
qualification and maintenance. We have reviewed the comments that we
received concerning the variety of proposals under this topic below.
Test and inspection criteria. We proposed to clarify in Sec.
180.407(b) the tests and inspections that must be performed when a
cargo tank shows evidence of dents, corroded or abraded areas, or
leakage; has sustained damage to an extent that may adversely affect
its lading retention capability; or has any other condition that could
render it unsafe for the transportation of hazardous materials. Several
commenters suggested that this language was too ambiguous and could
lead to excessive or unnecessary enforcement. In this final rule, we
addressed many of these concerns by further modifying the definition of
``corroded or abraded'' (see discussion under ``Definitions'' above).
The proposed language in Sec. 180.407, in conjunction with our revised
definition of ``corroded or abraded,'' adds more clarity than the
previous language in these sections. This final rule adopts the
proposed language for test and inspection criteria.
Thickness testing of ring stiffeners and appurtenances. Consistent
with an NTSB recommendation (H-95-14), we proposed to revise Sec.
180.407(d)(1) to require thickness testing of ring stiffeners and
appurtenances on cargo tanks that are constructed of mild steel, high-
strength, low-alloy steel, or aluminum, when the ring stiffeners and
appurtenances are installed in a manner that precludes an external
visual inspection. NTSB investigated two catastrophic cargo tank
failures where thickness testing of the cargo tanks' ring stiffeners
might have detected the corrosion that caused the failures. In this
final rule, we are adopting this proposal without modification. NATC
and the commenters that supported NATC's comments, asked us to clarify
how an RI should determine minimum thickness of the ring stiffener
since there is no ready reference. The regulatory text describes this
procedure.
Testing normal vents. We proposed changes to the testing of
pressure relief devices in Sec. 180.407(g)(1)(ii) to require self-
closing pressure relief valves first to open at the required set
pressure and, second, to close and seat to a leak-tight condition when
the pressure has dropped to 90 percent of the set-to-discharge pressure
or the pressure prescribed for the applicable cargo tank specification.
Several comments asked us to better define the test requirements for a
normal vent that is a self-closing pressure relief device, but is not
an emergency relief device that would be tested at the above criteria.
In response, we have clarified that normal vents must be tested
accordance with the testing criteria established by the valve
manufacturer. This assures testing accuracy because the valves will be
tested to the specification to which they were built.
Repair, modification, stretching, and rebarrelling. The NPRM
proposed to clarify Sec. 180.413 requirements for repair,
modification, stretching, or rebarrelling of cargo tanks. We proposed
to require facilities to perform repairs, modifications, stretching, or
rebarrelling of cargo tanks in conformance with the National Board
Inspection Code (NBIC). The NBIC establishes procedures for repairing
or modifying pressure vessels. Prior to 1995, the NBIC applied only to
tanks with a maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of 15 psi or
greater. However, in 1995 the applicability of the NBIC was extended to
all pressure vessels. In this final rule, we are adopting the
clarifications as proposed. Adopting the NBIC requirements for all
cargo tank repairs, modifications, stretching, and rebarrelling will
provide clarity, consistency, and a greater level of safety. Note,
however, that we did not propose and are not adopting requirements for
certification by an NBIC Authorized Inspector, completion of the R-1
form, and stamping tanks with the ``R'' stamp for non-ASME cargo tanks.
In the NPRM, we proposed to clarify that modification, stretching,
or rebarrelling must be inspected and certified by a DCE. We proposed
to change the requirements in Sec. 180.413(d)(1) to require the design
of the modified, stretched, or rebarrelled cargo tank motor vehicle be
certified in writing by a DCE as meeting the structural integrity and
accident damage protection requirements of the applicable
specification. Baltimore Cargo Tank comments that the proposal may be
too restrictive because it appears that a DCE would be required to sign
off on small changes. However, the definition of ``modification''
includes only those changes that affect a cargo tank or cargo tank
motor vehicle's structural integrity or lading retention capability.
Such modifications should be approved by a DCE.
Supplemental specification plate. We proposed to revise
specification plate requirements to reflect the modification,
stretching, or rebarrelling of a cargo tank. We proposed to require a
supplemental specification plate to be installed adjacent to the
original specification plate. Changes to the original specification
plate would not be allowed. The information on the original
specification plate should be permanent and not altered, even if
modifications are performed by the
[[Page 19262]]
original manufacturer. This final rule adopts the revisions as
proposed.
Hose testing. We proposed, in Sec. 180.413(c)(1), to require leak
testing when any pipe, valve, hose, or fitting on a cargo tank is
repaired or replaced in a process that does not involve welding. We
proposed that the test must be done in accordance with Sec.
180.407(g)(1). As noted by the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA),
the proposal did not take into account existing exceptions from hose
maintenance requirements for cargo tanks in dedicated compressed gas
(except for carbon dioxide) service. In this final rule, we revised the
proposal to include exceptions for cargo tanks in dedicated compressed
gas (except for carbon dioxide) service, requiring them to be tested in
accordance with the new or repaired delivery hose assemblies
requirements in Sec. 180.416(f), since any repair or replacement
falling under Sec. 180.413(c)(1) would also fall under this section.
Cleaning and purging before repairs. Because persons have suffered
severe injuries or death while performing repairs to cargo tanks that
were not properly cleaned and purged, we also proposed in Sec.
180.413(a)(2) to clarify and emphasize that the entire CTMV, including
void spaces, piping, and vapor recovery systems, must be cleaned and
purged before doing repairs, modifications, stretchings, rebarrellings,
or mountings on cargo tanks that transport toxic or flammable lading.
NPGA suggests that we specify such cleaning and purging would apply
only for welded repairs, not for repairs such as replacement of a valve
or fitting located downstream of the primary valves or fittings.
Replacing a fitting that does not require welding is not a repair as
defined in Sec. 180.403 and therefore would not, under this section,
require cleaning and purging of the cargo tank. We are adopting our
proposal without changes.
NTTC asks us to clarify the terms ``cleaned'' and Apurged.'' This
terminology is taken from Sec. 173.29(b)(2)(ii) which discusses
conditions that may make a packaging ``empty.'' In this final rule, we
added the wording from this paragraph to Sec. 180.413(a)(2) to clarify
that all hazardous material must be removed from the cargo tank before
repairs are performed.
III. Revisions Applicable to DOT 400-Series Cargo Tanks
In the NPRM, we proposed several revisions to the specifications
applicable to the DOT 400-series cargo tanks. These proposals included
revisions to: (1) Structural integrity requirements; (2) manhole
marking requirements; (3) road clearance allowances; (4) bottom
accident protection; (5) specification plate marking; (6) leak testing
alternatives; and (7) weld joints. In addition to these changes, which
are described below, we also proposed revisions to the DOT 400-series
specifications to make the requirements easier to understand and
follow.
A. Structural Integrity Requirements
In the NPRM, we proposed to add structural support members to the
list of attachments to which the structural integrity requirements
apply for new construction of DOT-400-series CTMVs in Sec. 178.345-
3(f). In addition, the proposal included requiring mounting pads for
the installation of structural members, attachments and appurtenances.
We received a number of comments on this proposal, with most
commenters suggesting that the proposal would impose significant costs
on the industry without significantly enhancing safety. Additionally,
several commenters note that excessive welding could damage the tank
wall, and that there is no indication that lightweight appurtenances
account for accident situations that breach the cargo tank wall.
TTMA states that there is no data showing lightweight attachments
to be a concern for shell damage, and that ``* * * a typical aluminum
DOT 406 cargo tank trailer would require over 5,000 inches of
additional welding * * *'' and would increase vehicle weight ``* * * by
approximately 350 lbs.'' In addition, TTMA cites several safety issues
that could result from excessive welding, including creating cavities
that could trap hazardous ladings, creating more heat-affected zones,
and possible distortion of the cargo tank wall.
We have considered the commenters concerns and are not adding
structural support members to the list of attachments to which the
structural integrity requirements apply. However, this final rule does
include minor editorial clarifications that otherwise do not change the
requirements in this section.
B. Manhole Marking
Under Sec. 178.345-5, the HMR currently require manhole covers to
be permanently marked with the manufacturer's name, the test pressure,
and a certification that the manhole cover meets HMR requirements. This
marking enables cargo tank owners, RIs, and enforcement personnel to
verify that the manhole conforms to applicable regulatory requirements.
In the NPRM, we proposed to require manhole assemblies to be marked on
the outside, where the marking can be seen without opening the manhole
cover or fill opening and exposing persons to hazardous materials
inside the cargo tank.
Two commenters addressed the topic, the Fertilizer Institute and
Farmland Industries, Inc. Both supported the proposal. This final rule
adopts the proposal as presented in the NPRM. This requirement will
become effective one year after the effective date of this final rule.
The revised marking requirements apply to newly manufactured cargo
tanks and to replacement manhole assemblies on existing cargo tanks.
C. Road Clearance
In a petition for rulemaking (P-1325), TTMA requested that we lower
the minimum road clearance requirements in Sec. 178.345-8 to permit
greater flexibility in the design of landing gear, tire carriers,
cabinets, and other components near axles. TTMA suggested that such a
revision would permit lowering the center of gravity for some CTMVs,
which would improve dynamic stability. TTMA stated that it is aware of
no situations in which a landing gear failure has punctured a cargo
tank.
We agreed with TTMA that reducing the center of gravity for CTMVs
would be beneficial. Thus, in the NPRM, we proposed to revise the
requirements for minimum road clearance for landing gear within 10 feet
of an axle to be no less than 10 inches. We proposed to maintain the
current clearance requirements for the middle area between axles. The
proposed revision would allow landing gear to be lowered by two inches,
but would not compromise clearances in the area of a CTMV most
vulnerable to contact with the ground--that is, the area midway between
a tractor's rear axle and the CTMV rear suspension.
In its comments on this issue, TTMA suggests that the ten-inch
clearance should be measured when there is no lading in the cargo tank.
We disagree, because we are identifying the minimum road clearance.
This final rule adopts a ten-inch road clearance, and requires it to be
calculated when the tank is fully loaded with its maximum lading.
D. MAWP Specification Plate Marking
In a petition for rulemaking (P-1212), TTMA asked us to eliminate
the
[[Page 19263]]
maximum loading and unloading pressure marking on the specification
plate. We included the proposal in the NPRM. TTMA noted that the volume
change of liquids transported in DOT 406, DOT 407, and DOT 412 cargo
tanks is small and that the maximum loading and unloading rate is
calculated in the design of the cargo tank and identified on the
specification plate. We agree that the maximum loading and unloading
pressure marking is unnecessary because the maximum loading/unloading
pressure is reflected in the MAWP. However, in no situation can the
actual pressure in the tank exceed the MAWP. This final rule adopts the
provision as proposed.
In addition, in Sec. 180.405(k), we proposed to require owners of
MC 300, MC 301, MC 302, MC 303, MC 305, MC 306 and MC 312 cargo tanks
that have a pressure relief system set at 3 psig to mark or remark the
cargo tank with an MAWP or design pressure of not less than 3 psig.
NATC says that its field staff found approximately 11% of the MC 306
cargo tanks inspected at one location had no design pressure marked on
the specification plates. This revision to the marking requirements
will help reduce the number of cargo tanks without a marked design
pressure.
E. Leak Testing Using EPA Method 27
In the NPRM, we proposed to clarify the parameters in Sec. Sec.
178.346-5, 180.407(h)(2), and 180.415(b)(3) for testing and marking
cargo tanks used to transport petroleum distillate fuels and equipped
with vapor recovery equipment. Such cargo tanks may be tested in
accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ``Method 27--
Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using
Pressure-Vacuum Test'' as set forth in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
This annual certification test includes both the Method 27 test for
vapor tightness of a cargo tank and a pressure test of the tank's
internal vapor valve. The revision proposed in the NPRM specified that
cargo tanks equipped with vapor collection equipment that are used to
transport petroleum distillate fuels may be tested in accordance with
40 CFR 63.425(e) instead of the annual leakage test required under
Sec. 180.407 of the HMR. In addition, we proposed that, if the EPA
annual certification test in 40 CFR 63.425(e) is used to satisfy the
annual leak test requirement, the Method 27 test must be conducted
using air. Performing the test using liquid, an alternative allowed by
EPA, may mask leakage below the liquid level at the pressure level
specified for the test. The EPA Method 27 air test will more accurately
detect small leaks in a cargo tank. Therefore, we proposed to prohibit
use of alternative procedures in section 6 of Method 27 that allow the
use of water.
We proposed a special marking to designate cargo tanks that have
been tested in conformance with EPA's annual certification test for
cargo tanks equipped with vapor recovery equipment and used to
transport petroleum distillate fuels. The proposed marking is ``K-
EPA27.'' The marking would replace the ``K'' marking on a cargo tank if
the EPA vapor tightness test methods and procedures as set forth in 40
CFR 63.425(e) are used in place of the leak test. If a cargo tank is
tested using both the leak test specified in the HMR and the vapor
tightness tests specified in the EPA regulations, it would be marked
with both ``K'' and ``K-EPA27.'' This proposal would establish a
national, uniform marking requirement for cargo tanks tested for vapor
tightness in accordance with EPA regulations instead of, or in addition
to, the leak test procedures specified in the HMR. This marking would
be applied to cargo tanks that are tested for vapor tightness under EPA
procedures beginning one year after the effective date of the final
rule.
Several commenters addressed this proposal. Baltimore Cargo Tank
asks why the test would only be permitted for petroleum products. The
Method 27 test is performed at 0.6 psig for gasoline cargo tanks. The
test pressure is not sufficient to detect leaks on a cargo tank used to
transport other types of hazardous materials. We will consider allowing
the EPA Method 27 test for other cargo tank ladings that are subject to
EPA vapor recovery system requirements in a future rulemaking.
In addition, several commenters question the need for a special
marking. The marking requirement will allow an inspector to know the
tank was tested using the EPA Method 27 test and also standardize the
marking for tanks undergoing this test throughout the United States.
RSPA's marking requirement will preempt state marking requirements for
cargo tanks tested with the EPA Method 27 test, eliminating possible
confusion by enforcement personnel attempting to verify that a cargo
tank has met the HMR leak test requirements.
A representative of Tank Truck Service suggests we omit the
provision since the EPA requirements are less stringent than the DOT
leakage test. The HMR already permit the test. This final rule
clarifies that the test may be used only for petroleum fuel service.
Further, this final rule specifies that the test may not be performed
using liquid, but must be performed with air. This provision
strengthens the EPA Method 27 test as an alternative to the leakage
test. This final rule adopts the EPA Method 27 test provisions as
proposed in the NPRM.
F. Weld Joints on DOT 407 Cargo Tanks
In a petition (P-1333), TTMA requested that we adopt a weld joint
efficiency of 0.85 for head seams in bulkheads on DOT 407 cargo tanks.
Based on a review of the TTMA petition and additional information, we
proposed that the strength of a weld seam in a bulkhead without
radiographic examination of the weld must be 0.85 of the strength of
the bulkhead. The welded seam must be a full penetration butt weld, no
more than one seam may be used per bulkhead, and the welded seam must
be completed before forming the dish radius and knuckle radius.
In its petition, TTMA also requested that we permit spot
radiographic examination of weld joints every six months as an
alternative to the periodic test. We do not agree with TTMA on this
issue. Instead, we proposed that two test specimens of the same
material and thickness and joined by the same welding procedures as
those to be used in manufacturing the bulkhead must be tested to
failure in tension. The ratio of the actual tensile stress of the weld
joint to the actual tensile strength of the adjacent material of both
samples must be greater than 0.85. Under the proposal, the test
specimens may represent all the tanks that are manufactured in the same
facility within six months after the tests are completed.
In its comments to the NPRM, TTMA agrees with the provisional 85%
weld joint efficiency for DOT 407 heads with butt-welded seams.
However, TTMA suggests that we include the requirements of Part UW-12
of the ASME Code to the list of excepted requirements in Sec. 178.347-
1(d)(8). We agree. In this final rule, we are adding Part UW-12 of the
ASME Code to the list of excepted requirements.
IV. Revisions Applicable to MC 331 and MC 338 Cargo Tanks
The NPRM proposed several revisions to the HMR specifications
applicable to MC 331 and MC 338 cargo tanks. The proposals include: (1)
Revisions to make the specifications consistent with the DOT 400-series
cargo tank specification requirements; (2) retrofit requirements for
cargo tanks not currently equipped with remote shutoff devices; (3) a
new requirement for thermal activation devices on MC 338 CTMVs; (4)
revisions
[[Page 19264]]
to the internal inspection requirements; and (5) revisions to leakage
test requirements for cargo tanks in anhydrous ammonia service. In
addition to these changes, which are discussed below, we are also
adopting revisions to the MC 331 and MC 338 specifications to make the
requirements easier to understand and follow.
A. Consistency With DOT 400-Series Specification
We proposed a number of changes to the MC 331 and MC 338
specifications to make them consistent with specifications applicable
to DOT 400-series CTMVs. The DOT 400-series cargo tank specifications
are more contemporary regulations that reflect current industry
practices. In addition, the DOT 400-series specifications are
performance standards, and, thus, provide greater flexibility to cargo
tank designers and manufacturers to meet the DOT requirements. As
proposed in the NPRM, we are not imposing additional requirements for
MC 331 and MC 338 CTMVs; rather we are increasing flexibility in
meeting the requirements by proposing performance standards and
additional alternatives.
General design, construction and installation requirements. Under
Docket HM-183C (60 FR 17398), we modified the structural integrity
requirements for MC 331 and MC 338 CTMVs to conform with the DOT 400-
series specification requirements. At that time, however, the related
requirements for attachments were not changed. Thus, in the NPRM we
proposed to make requirements for the design, construction, and
installation of attachments, appurtenances, structural support members,
or accident protection devices on MC 331 and MC 338 CTMVs consistent
with the requirements for DOT 400-series CTMVs.
In Section IIA of this preamble, we discuss the proposal in the
NPRM that required mounting pads for structural support members. A
number of commenters opposed this addition in the structural integrity
requirements for the DOT 400-series cargo tank requirements. In light
of the comments received, we reconsidered this proposal and are not
adopting requirements for mounting pads for structural supports.
Similarly, the requirements adopted in this final rule for the MC 331
and MC 338 CTMVs will not include requirements for mounting pads for
structural supports. This final rule does include minor editorial
clarifications that otherwise do not change the requirements in this
section.
Rear-end tank protection. The NPRM proposed to revise long-standing
requirements for rear-end tank protection devices on MC 331 and MC 338
CTMVs (in Sec. Sec. 178.337-10 and 178.338-10, respectively) to
authorize the DOT 400-series rear-end tank protection provisions as an
alternative to the current requirements for both MC 331 and MC 338
CTMVs. As several commenters note, the NPRM included regulatory
language that differed from the original MC 331 and MC 338 rear-end
tank protection requirements. Apart from the reorganization and
editorial clarifications, the original MC 331 and MC 338 rear-end tank
protection requirements have been preserved in this final rule, and we
are adding a provision to allow rear-end tank protection devices to
conform with Sec. 178.345-8(d) if desired.
Support and anchoring. We also proposed changes to the MC 331 and
MC 338 specifications for cargo tank support and anchoring for
consistency with the DOT 400-series requirements. When the structural
integrity requirements for the MC 331 and MC 338 CTMVs were modified
under HM-183, the closely related requirements for support and
anchoring were not changed. This was an inadvertent error that we
proposed to correct. This would apply to newly constructed MC 331 and
MC 338 CTMVs. We did not receive any comments on this proposal; they
are adopted in this final rule as they appear in the NPRM.
Name and specification plate markings. In the NPRM, we proposed to
require essential information (required in Sec. 178.337-17 and Sec.
178.338-18) to be marked on metal specification and name plates on MC
331 and MC 338 CTMVs, respectively, to be consistent with requirements
for DOT 400-series CTMVs found in section Sec. 178.345-14. We proposed
to require that all of the information be marked on a single plate. In
an effort to be more flexible and to prevent the replacement of
existing name and specification plates, in this final rule we are
clarifying that the marking requirements for name plates and
specification plates may be on either two separate plates or on a
single plate. Thus, the name and specification plate can be one single
plate. We will also allow the specification plate to be attached to the
cargo tank motor vehicle chassis, with additional marking requirements,
to allow the specification plate to be attached without welding
directly to the cargo tank wall.
In addition, based on comments submitted by the National Propane
Gas Association, we are clarifying that any information marked on a
plate required by the ASME code that is also required on either the
name or specification plate need not be marked twice on the tank.
Further, this final rule clarifies that the cargo tank motor
vehicle certification date (CTMV cert. date) is the date used to
determine subsequent maintenance testing time periods. There has been
confusion as to whether testing requirements start from the original
test date (Orig. Test Date), the cargo tank certification date (CT
cert. date) or the cargo tank motor vehicle certification date (CTMV
cert. date).
For MC 331 and MC 338 cargo tanks, the name plate must display the
following information:
(1) DOT-specification number MC 331 or MC 338 (DOT MC 331 or DOT MC
338).
(2) Original test date (Orig, Test Date).
(3) MAWP in psig.
(4) Cargo tank test pressure (Test P), in psig.
(5) Cargo tank design temperature (Design Temp. Range) ----%F to --
--%F.
(6) Nominal capacity (Water Cap.), in pounds.
(7) Maximum design density of lading (Max. Lading density), in
pounds per gallon.
(8) Material specification number--shell (Shell matl, yyy* * *),
where ``yyy'' is replaced by the alloy designation and ``* * *'' is
replaced by the alloy type.
(9) Material specification number--heads (Head matl. Yyy* * *),
where ``;yyy'' is replaced by the alloy designation and ``* * *'' by
the alloy type. NOTE: When the shell and heads materials are the same
thickness, they may be combined, (Shell&head matl, yyy* * *).
(10) Weld material (Weld matl.).
(11) Minimum Thickness--shell (Min. Shell-thick), in inches. When
minimum shell thicknesses are not the same for different areas, show
(top ----, side ----, bottom ----, in inches).
(12) Minimum thickness--heads (Min heads thick.), in inches.
(13) Manufactured thickness--shell (Mfd. Shell thick.), top ----,
side ----, bottom ----, in inches. (Required when additional thickness
is provided for corrosion allowance.)
(14) Manufactured thickness--heads (Mfd. Heads thick.), in inches.
(Required when additional thickness is provided for corrosion
allowance.)
(15) Exposed surface area, in square feet.
The specification plate on MC 331 cargo tanks must contain the
following information:
(1) Cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer (CTMV mfr.).
(2) Cargo tank motor vehicle certification date (CTMV cert. date).
[[Page 19265]]
(3) Cargo tank manufacturer (CT mfr.).
(4) Cargo tank date of manufacture (CT date of mfr.), month and
year.
(5) Maximum weight of lading (Max. Payload), in pounds
(6) Maximum loading rate in gallons per minute (Max. Load rate,
GPM), at maximum unloading pressure ---- psig.
(7) Maximum unloading rate in gallons per minute (Max. Unload rate,
GPM), at maximum unloading pressure ---- psig.
(8) Lining materials (Lining), if applicable.
(9) Heating system design pressure (Heating sys, press.), in psig,
if applicable.
(10) Heating system design temperature (Heating sys, temp.), in
[deg]F, if applicable.
(11) Cargo tank serial number, assigned by cargo tank manufacturer
(CT serial), if applicable.
The specification plate on MC 338 cargo tanks would contain the
following information:
(1) Cargo tank motor vehicle manufacturer (CTMV mfr.).
(2) Cargo tank motor vehicle certification date (CTMV cert. date).
(3) Cargo tank manufacturer (CT mfr.).
(4) Cargo tank date of manufacture (CT date of mfr.), month and
year.
(5) Maximum weight of lading (Max. Payload), in pounds
(6) Maximum loading rate in gallons per minute (Max. Load rate,
GPM), at maximum unloading pressure ---- psig.
(7) Maximum unloading rate in gallons per minute (Max. Unload rate,
GPM), at maximum unloading pressure ---- psig.
(8) Lining materials (Lining), if applicable.
(9) ``Insulated for Oxygen Service'' or ``Not Authorized for Oxygen
Service,'' as appropriate.
(10) Marked rated holding time for at least one cryogenic liquid,
in hours, and the name of that cryogenic liquid (MRHT ---- hrs, name of
cryogenic liquid). MRHT marking for additional cryogenic liquids may be
displayed on or adjacent to the specification plate.
(11) Cargo tank serial number, assigned by the cargo tank
manufacturer (CT serial), if applicable.
This requirement would apply to new construction and changes on
these CTMVs.
Shortages. For MC 331 CTMVs, we proposed to require certificates
for a CTMV that is manufactured in two or more stages. We proposed that
each manufacturer who performs a manufacturing function on the
incomplete CTMV must provide the succeeding manufacturer with a
certificate that states the function that was performed and must also
provide certificates received from previous manufacturers, Registered
Inspectors, and Design Certifying Engineers. Further, we proposed to
clarify the roles of the original manufacturer of a cargo tank and the
assembler of a CTMV in documenting on the certificate those areas of
the specification that are not met or specification shortages,
including valves, piping, and fittings. The person who installs the
components that bring the CTMV into full compliance with the
specification would be required to stamp the certification date on the
specification plate and issue a Certificate of Compliance. We are
adopting the proposals without change in this final rule.
B. Remote Shutoffs
On December 28, 1988, in Ashland, Virginia, a pipe fitting on an MC
331 cargo tank transporting sulfur dioxide failed during a delivery
operation. The driver of the CTMV suffered a fatal injury while
attempting to close the cargo tank's internal valve. The CTMV was not
equipped with a remote mechanical means to close the internal valve. As
a result of its investigation, NTSB recommended that RSPA require MC
330, MC 331, and MC 338 CTMVs to be equipped with on-truck remote
mechanical means to close the internal valve (NTSB H-90-91).
In a final rule published November 3, 1994 (HM-183C; 50 FR 55162),
we adopted a requirement for MC 331 and MC 338 CTMVs constructed after
January 1, 1995, to be equipped with on-truck remote shutoff devices.
For CTMVs constructed prior to January 1, 1995, we required each MC 330
and MC 331 CTMV used to transport flammable gas; flammable liquid;
hydrogen chloride, refrigerated liquid; or anhydrous ammonia, and each
MC 338 CTMV used to transport flammable ladings to be retrofitted with
an on-truck remote shutoff device. These requirements are found in
Sec. 178.338-11. The NPRM proposed two revisions to these
requirements, as discussed below.
On-truck remote mechanical shut-off. In the NPRM, we proposed to
require all MC 330, MC 331, and MC 338 CTMVs to be retrofitted with an
on-truck remote mechanical shutoff device that meets the requirements
for the applicable specification. Under the proposal, the retrofit
would be accomplished within three years from the effective date of a
final rule. Under this proposal, CTMVs used to transport only argon,
carbon dioxide, helium, krypton, neon, nitrogen, or xenon or mixtures
thereof are excepted from the requirement for on-truck remote shutoff.
The Compressed Gas Association (CGA) requested that we maintain the
original grandfather clause excepting cargo tank motor vehicles
certified before January 1, 1995, unless intended for use to transport
flammable ladings. We agree with the NTSB recommendation setting out
the safety concerns for the proposed retrofit, and therefore, adopt the
proposal in this final rule.
Thermal activation self-closing stop valve. The NPRM proposed to
require MC 338 CTMVs to be equipped with a means of thermal activation
for closing the internal self-closing stop valve. On June 4, 1998 (63
FR 30572), RSPA established a negotiated rulemaking committee under
Docket RSPA-97-2718 (HM 225A). During the negotiated rulemaking
process, the committee discussed the safety benefits of fusible
elements, which provide a heat-activated means for closing a valve.
Fusible elements melt when subjected to sufficiently high temperatures,
thereby closing the valve to which they are affixed. The HMR currently
require installation of on-truck remote closures with a means of
thermal activation on MC 331 cargo tanks. Consistent with the
committee's recommendation, we proposed that internal self-closing stop
valves be equipped with a means of thermal activation on all MC 338
cargo tanks. This requirement would not apply to tanks transporting
only argon, carbon dioxide, helium, krypton, neon, nitrogen, or xenon.
Commenters did not address this proposal. It is adopted without change
in this final rule.
C. Inlet and Outlet Fittings on MC 331 Cargo Tanks
Currently, Sec. 178.337-9 of the HMR requires the use of malleable
metals for the construction of valves and fittings on MC 331 cargo
tanks. NPGA petitioned for a change to Sec. 178.337-9 to require
liquid filling and vapor equalization fittings on MC 331 cargo tanks to
be constructed of malleable steel or ductile iron only (P-0935). In its
petition, NPGA stated that this change would help to prevent the
occurrence of piping failures when fittings made of soft metals, such
as brass or copper, are struck by an outside force. We agreed, and
proposed to require new or replacement primary valves and fittings used
in liquid filling or vapor equalization on MC 331 cargo tanks to be
constructed of malleable steel or ductile iron. This proposal is
consistent with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Standard 58 and is currently the standard industry practice.
We received two comments on this proposal from NPGA. NPGA asked for
an exception from this requirement for
[[Page 19266]]
sacrificial devices to be consistent with existing regulations
applicable to sacrificial devices. We agree and made that change in
this final rule.
NPGA also suggested that we add stainless steel to the materials
that are authorized for new or replacement primary valves or fittings.
In addition, NPGA asks that we clarify that these metals are to
comprise the body of the valve and not internal components such as
shutoff disks, springs, etc. We agree that stainless steel should be
added and will clarify that the requirement is for the body of the
valve and does not apply to internal components.
D. Internal Visual Inspections of Insulated Tanks
The HMR provide an exception for insulated MC 330 and MC 331 cargo
tanks from the requirement to undergo an internal visual inspection in
conjunction with the annual external visual inspection. The exception
was included in the HMR to facilitate inspection of insulated MC 330
and MC 331 cargo tanks that did not have manholes or inspection
openings, making it impossible to enter the cargo tank to perform an
internal visual inspection. Because insulation precludes a visual
inspection of the exterior of the cargo tank, and there is no means to
inspect the interior of the tank we determined that the only way to
verify the structural integrity of the cargo tank was to subject it to
a hydrostatic or pneumatic pressure test at one-year intervals.
The exception applies to insulated MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks,
irrespective of whether the cargo tank is equipped with a manhole or
inspection opening. However, many of these cargo tanks are, in fact,
equipped with manholes or inspection openings. We believe that
operators should be permitted the option of verifying the structural
integrity of these cargo tanks with an internal visual inspection
rather than a more costly pressure test. Therefore, we proposed to
permit the owner of an insulated cargo tank that is equipped with
manholes or inspection openings to perform either an internal visual
inspection in conjunction with the external visual inspection or a
hydrostatic or pneumatic pressure-test of the cargo tank. As
appropriate, these tanks would continue to be required to undergo a
complete internal visual inspection and pressure test at the intervals
specified in Sec. 180.407(c).
In its comments, CGA requests that we permit MC 330 and MC 331
cargo tanks in carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide service and all MC 338
cargo tanks to be hydrostatically or pneumatically tested in place of
an internal visual inspection, even if there is access to the inside of
the tank. We disagree with this suggestion because an internal visual
inspection provides a higher level of safety. However, we agree with
CGA that in Sec. 180.407(d)(2)(i), language should be added to clarify
how the exception from an external inspection requirement should be
applied. In this final rule, we are adding language to clarify that
those items on the cargo tank that can be externally inspected must be
inspected and noted in a written report.
E. Leakage Tests for Cargo Tanks in Anhydrous Ammonia Service
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) filed a petition (P-1255) requesting
that we allow anhydrous ammonia cargo tanks to be included in the
exception for MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks in liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) service that permits them to be leakage tested at not less than
414 kPa (60 psig) in Sec. 180.407(h). TFI stated that, because changes
in ambient temperatures result in substantial changes in the normal
operating pressure for cargo tanks in anhydrous ammonia service, a
cargo tank in anhydrous ammonia service would need to be leakage tested
on the hottest day of each year to ensure that it is not operated at
pressures exceeding the leakage test pressure. TFI stated that this
causes ``extreme hardship'' for companies transporting anhydrous
ammonia in cargo tanks. TFI further stated that anhydrous ammonia is a
compressed gas with properties that are similar to those of LPG.
RSPA recognized the difficulty described by TFI and, on August 23,
1996, granted an exemption, DOT E-11551, to allow cargo tanks in
anhydrous ammonia service to be leakage tested at a lower pressure.
However, due to differences in the vapor pressures of LPG and anhydrous
ammonia, the exemption permits leakage testing of cargo tanks in
dedicated anhydrous ammonia service at not less than 483 kPa (70 psig),
rather than 414 kPa (60 psig) as is currently permitted for LPG.
In the NPRM we proposed to incorporate the provisions of DOT E-
11551 into the HMR. Farmland Industries, Inc. and TFI, the only
commenters addressing this issue, both support this proposal. It is
adopted without change in this final rule.
V. Section-by-Section Review
Part 107
In this final rule, we are revising the title of Subpart F to
clarify that the registration requirements apply to cargo tank
facilities that test, inspect, and repair cargo tanks, and to
manufacturers, assemblers, and Design Certifying Engineers.
Section 107.502
This final rule revises the definition of ``assembly'' to include
the installation of linings or coatings to the inside wall of a cargo
tank wall and the installation of equipment or components during the
manufacturing process that are necessary to conform to the
specification requirements. This definition clarifies that the term
``assembler'' is not limited to a person who mounts cargo tanks on
motor vehicle suspension parts, but also includes a person who installs
equipment or components during the manufacturing process.
In addition, RSPA is changing the address to which persons submit
cargo tank registration statements in accordance with 49 CFR Part 107,
subpart F. Persons subject to the cargo tank registration requirements
in this part will now submit these statements to the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's Hazardous Material Division.
Section 107.503
In this final rule, we are adopting a requirement for information
on the registration statement for cargo tank manufacturing, assembling,
and repair facilities to indicate whether a facility is conducting
tests and inspections at a location other than the address listed in
the registration form. The purpose of this provision is to identify
registered facilities that are using mobile inspection/testing
equipment.
Part 171
Section 171.7
This final rule incorporates by reference the June 1, 1998 edition
of Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) RP No. 61-98
``Performance of Manhole and/or Fill Opening Assemblies on MC 306, DOT
406, Non-ASME MC 312 and Non-ASME DOT 412 Cargo Tanks;'' the July 1,
1997 edition of TTMA RP No. 81-97 ``Performance of Spring Loaded
Pressure Relief Valves on MC 306, MC 307, MC 312, DOT 406, DOT 407, and
DOT 412 Tanks;'' and the June 1, 1998 edition of TTMA TB No. 107,
``Procedure for Testing In-Service Unmarked, and/or Uncertified MC 306
and Non-ASME MC 312 Type Cargo Tank Manhole Covers.'' In addition, this
final rule incorporates by reference the American Petroleum Institute
Recommended Practice 1604 ``Closure of Underground Petroleum
[[Page 19267]]
Storage Tanks,'' Third Edition, dated March 1996.
Section 171.8
This final rule revises the definition of ``Cargo tank'' to include
intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) in the list of specifications that
are not considered cargo tanks. In addition, we are revising the
definition of ``Maximum Allowable Working Pressure'' to include a new
section reference.
This final rule also revises the definitions of ``Design Certifying
Engineer (DCE)'' and ``Registered Inspector (RI)'' to permit an
individual who does not meet the educational requirements in the
definitions to be recognized as a DCE or RI if the person was
performing those functions for three years prior to September 1, 1991,
and meets all other qualifications. In addition, this final rule
eliminates a requirement for an individual to have registered with the
DOT before December 31, 1995.
Part 172
Section 172.101
This final rule modifies the Hazardous Materials Table by adding a
new Special Provision 144 in Column (7) for the following proper
shipping names: Diesel fuel; Fuel, aviation, turbine engine; Fuel oil
(no. 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6); Gas oil; Gasohol gasoline mixed with ethyl
alcohol, with not more than 20 percent alcohol; Gasoline; Hydrocarbons,
liquid, n.o.s.; Kerosene; Petroleum crude oil; Petroleum distillates,
n.o.s. or Petroleum products, n.o.s; and Petroleum oil. Special
Provision 144 clarifies that underground storage tanks (USTs) may be
shipped as unregulated materials if they meet the definition of
``empty'' in Sec. 173.29 or if they are cleaned, purged, or made inert
in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute Standard 1604 for
USTs.
Section 172.102
We are revising paragraph (c)(1) to add Special Provision 144
concerning the transportation of empty USTs, as detailed above.
Section 172.328
In this final rule, we are adding new paragraph (d) to require all
manually activated, on-vehicle remote shutoff devices for closure of a
cargo tank's internal shutoff valve to be marked ``Emergency Shutoff.''
This requirement is effective two years after the effective date of
this final rule. The marking must be at least 0.75'' high.
Part 173
Section 173.33
The minimum design requirements for cargo tanks used to transport
Packing Group I and II liquid ladings in current paragraph (g) are re-
designated as new paragraph (c)(6) and paragraph (h) is re-designated
as paragraph (g). Paragraph headings are added for new paragraphs
(c)(6) and new paragraph (g).
Section 173.150
We are removing the references to Sec. Sec. 173.21, 173.24,
173.24a, and Sec. Sec. 173.24b in paragraph (f)(3)(viii). Current
paragraph (f)(3)(vii) requires compliance with Subpart B of part 173,
so these references are redundant.
We are also revising paragraph (f)(3) by adding a new paragraph
(ix) to clarify that hazardous materials (HM) training requirements
apply to persons involved with the transportation of a combustible
liquid that is either in a bulk package or is also a hazardous
substance, a hazardous waste, or a marine pollutant in any packaging.
In 1992, RSPA reviewed the costs and safety benefits of the training
requirement (Docket HM-126F; 57 FR 20952) and found HM training to be
justified. However, the training requirement was inadvertently omitted
from this section.
Part 177
Section 177.817
A final rule under Docket HM-207B (67 FR 46123; 07/12/2002) revised
Sec. 177.817(a). In that final rule, we changed Sec. 177.817(a) to
read; ``A carrier may not transport a hazardous material unless it is
accompanied by a shipping paper prepared in accordance with part 172 of
this subchapter.'' This revision inadvertently eliminated the shipper's
certification exception for carriers consolidating multiple shipments
of hazardous materials. In this final rule, we are revising paragraph
(a) to clarify that only the initial carrier of a hazardous materials
shipment is required to have a shipping paper that includes the shipper
certification.
Section 177.834
This final rule revises paragraph (j) of this section that
specifies that all manhole closures must be closed and secured on cargo
tanks containing hazardous materials or residues of hazardous materials
to add a reference that cargo tanks that have been cleaned and purged
may be transported with open manhole closures.
Part 178
Section 178.320
We are revising paragraph (a) to add definitions applicable to
cargo tanks that are currently in Sec. 178.345-1(c). In addition, we
are revising and moving the definition of ``maximum allowable working
pressure (MAWP)'' from Sec. 178.345-1(k) to paragraph (a). Finally, we
are replacing the term ``stop-valve'' with ``stop valve'' in paragraph
(a) each place it appears.
In addition, we are revising paragraph (b) to state specifically
that accident damage protection devices must be certified by a DCE.
FMCSA has found that there is a misunderstanding among assemblers
installing cargo tanks onto a motor vehicle chassis as to whether the
rear-end tank protection devices must be certified by a DCE. Because
rear-end tank protection devices are required by the specification to
meet specific structural integrity requirements, the design of these
devices must be certified by a DCE.
We had proposed to create a new paragraph (d) for the definition of
``minimum thickness.'' Instead of creating a separate paragraph for
this term, we are including this definition in the listing of other
definitions in this section.
Section 178.337-3
We are making an editorial change in paragraph (b) by breaking this
paragraph into two paragraphs. In order to further clarify the minimum
thickness definition and requirements, in this final rule we are
altering the wording in paragraph (e) to indicate that the minimum
metal thickness of 0.187 inches for steel and 0.270 inches for aluminum
is for tanks with a design pressure of at least 100 psig. In addition,
this final rule clarifies that, in all cases, the minimum thickness of
the tank shell and head shall be determined using structural design
requirements in Section VIII of the ASME Code or 25% of the tensile
strength of the material used.
This final rule revises paragraph (g) as follows: (1) Groups all
requirements for mounting pads in Sec. 178.337-3(g)(2); (2) deletes an
unnecessary requirement that mounting pads be the same material as the
cargo tank and, instead, allows the pad material to be selected by the
DCE; (3) achieves conformity with relevant requirements for DOT 400-
series cargo tanks in Sec. 178.345-3; and (4) eliminates the exception
for a small gap in the continuous weld around mounting pads while
permitting continued use of weep holes or telltale holes as currently
allowed.
[[Page 19268]]
Section 178.337-8
We are revising paragraph (a)(5)(iii) to remove an expired
compliance date.
Section 178.337-9
In paragraph (b)(2), we proposed a revision to require the use of
malleable steel or ductile iron in the construction of inlet and outlet
fittings on MC 331 cargo tanks. The proposal is adopted in this final
rule and we have added stainless steel. Sacrificial devices are
excepted from this requirement.
For clarity, we are moving paragraph (b)(5), which addresses
requirements for grouping piping and fittings, to Sec. 178.337-10 as
new paragraph (e). This change consolidates all of the requirements for
accident damage protection into one section.
Section 178.337-10
This final rule revises the section heading from ``Protection of
fittings'' to ``Accident damage protection.'' In addition, we are re-
designating chlorine tank requirements in current paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d) and re-designating the rear-end tank protection
requirements in current paragraph (d) as paragraph (c). Redesignated
paragraph (c) has been revised to incorporate the requirements for MC
338 cargo tanks and authorize the DOT 400 series rear-end tank
protection provisions as an alternative to existing requirements for MC
331 cargo tank motor vehicles.
In addition, this final rule re-designates Sec. 178.337-9(b)(5) as
new Sec. 178.337-10(e) and moves requirements concerning shear
sections in current `` 178.337-12 to new Sec. 178.337-10(f).
Section 178.337-12
This section is removed and reserved. The current requirements are
designated as new paragraph (f) in Sec. 178.337-10, thereby
consolidating all accident damage protection requirements in one
section.
Section 178.337-13
In this final rule, we are revising this section to be more
consistent with the DOT 400-series requirements for cargo tank support
and anchoring. In addition, we are modifying the requirement for
mounting pads to be the same material as the cargo tank material of
construction by allowing the pad material to be selected by the DCE.
This is achieved by referencing requirements in Sec. 178.337-3.
Section 178.337-17
This final rule revises paragraph (a) to require essential
information marked on MC 331 CTMV metal identification plates to be
consistent with the requirements for DOT 400-series CTMVs. The
information may be displayed on either a separate name and
specification plate, or on a single plate that would serve as both the
name and specification plate to allow for maximum flexibility. In
addition, the specification plate may be attached to the chassis rail
so that cargo tank motor vehicles assembled without welding will not
require welding the specification plate onto the cargo tank. If this
option is chosen, however, the cargo tank serial number, assigned by
the cargo tank manufacturer, must appear on the specification plate.
The same information that is required on 400 series tanks, in the same
order, is required on MC 331 cargo tanks, in addition to information
specific to MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles. This requirement becomes
effective one year from the date of publication of this final rule and
is applicable to new construction only.
Section 178.337-18
We are re-designating paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) as (a)(5) and
(a)(6), respectively. We are adding new paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4)
detailing requirements for certifying cargo tanks manufactured in
stages by two or more manufacturers.
Section 178.338-2
We are revising paragraph (c) to except certain steel alloys from
impact test requirements for consistency with exceptions allowed in the
ASME Code. Section 178.338-1(c) states that each tank must be designed
and constructed to the ASME Code. Therefore, because the HMR specify
that these tanks should be constructed of materials authorized by the
ASME Code, exceptions in the ASME Code from impact testing for certain
steel alloys should also be recognized in the HMR.
Section 178.338-3
We are revising this section to incorporate more flexible,
performance language consistent with structural integrity requirements
permitted for DOT 400-series CTMVs. In addition, we are making an
editorial change to paragraph (b) by breaking this paragraph into two
paragraphs for clarity.
Section 178.338-10
This final rule revises the section heading to read ``Accident
damage protection'' instead of ``Collision damage protection.'' In
addition, we are revising paragraph (c) to authorize the DOT 400-series
cargo tank rear-end protection provisions as an alternative to existing
requirements for MC 338 cargo tank motor vehicles.
Section 178.338-11
In this final rule, we are revising paragraph (c) to require
internal self-closing stop valves to be equipped with a means of
thermal activation or other remote closure method. Additional editorial
revisions are made for clarity.
Section 178.338-13
This section incorporates requirements for supports and anchoring
that are consistent with requirements of the DOT 400-series cargo
tanks. In addition, we are revising this section to permit material
used for mounting pads to be selected by the Design Certifying
Engineer. This is achieved by referencing requirements in Sec.
178.337-3.
We are deleting current paragraph (a) and re-designating current
paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively.
References to ``Appendix G'' in each of these paragraphs are revised to
read: ``(* * * Appendix G of Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME
Code).''
Section 178.338-18
Paragraph (a) is revised to require essential information marked on
MC 338 CTMV metal identification plates to be consistent with the
requirements for DOT 400-series CTMVs so that this essential
information is readily available to operators and enforcement
officials. The information may be displayed on either a separate name
and specification plate, or on a single plate that would serve as both
the name and specification plates. In addition, the specification plate
may be attached to the chassis rail so that cargo tank motor vehicles
assembled without welding will not require welding the specification
plate onto the cargo tank. If this option is chosen, however, the cargo
tank serial number, assigned by the cargo tank manufacturer, must
appear on the specification plate. The same information that is
required on 400 series tanks, in the same order, will be required on MC
338 cargo tanks, plus information specific to MC 338 tanks. This
requirement becomes effective one year from the date of publication of
final rule and is applicable to new construction only.
Section 178.345-1
For consistency, we are revising paragraph (c) by removing the
definitions and placing them in alphabetical order in Sec. 178.320(a).
In addition, we are removing paragraph (k) and moving the definition of
``maximum
[[Page 19269]]
allowable working pressure'' to Sec. 178.320(a).
Section 178.345-2
We revised paragraph (b) to address the requirements for minimum
thickness as specified in Sec. 178.320(a).
Section 178.345-3
Paragraph (b) is revised by adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to
require that all cargo tank designers and manufacturers must consider
all conditions specified in Sec. 173.33(c) when matching the
performance characteristic of the cargo tank to the characteristics of
the lading being transported.
We are revising paragraph (f) for clarity and consistency. In
addition, in paragraph (f)(3), the references to paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) are corrected to read (f)(1) and (f)(2).
Section 178.345-5
In this final rule, we are revising paragraph (e) to specify that
manhole markings must be placed on the outside of the manhole assembly
where they can be seen without opening the manhole cover or fill
opening.
Section 178.345-8
This final rule revises paragraph (a)(5) to specify minimum road
clearance requirements for landing gear within 10 feet of an axle. In
paragraph (d), we are clarifying that manufacturers must comply with
applicable requirements in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
at 49 CFR 393.86 and with paragraph (b) of this section.
Section 178.345-10
In paragraph (a), we are adding a sentence to clarify that pressure
relief vents are not required to conform to the ASME Code. The
requirement for a cargo tank to be ``constructed in accordance with the
ASME Code'' or ``constructed and certified in conformance with the ASME
Code'' applies to the construction of the cargo tank walls and closure
devices. Certification to the ASME Code may be done without the
installation of pressure relief devices. Sections 178.345-10, 178.346-
3, 178.347-4, and 178.348-4 set forth requirements for pressure relief
systems for DOT 400-series cargo tanks. These requirements are
different from and supersede the ASME Code venting requirements.
Section 178.345-13
In Sec. 178.345-13, we are correcting out-of-date section
references.
Section 178.345-14
This final rule revises paragraph (b)(1) to require that the words
``See variable specification plate'' be added to the name plate on
cargo tanks built to more than one specification. This requirement is
consistent with industry practice.
We are also revising paragraphs (c)(6) and (c)(7) to eliminate the
maximum loading and unloading pressure marking requirement from the
specification plate.
Section 178.346-1
In paragraph (d)(6), the reference ``Sec. 178.345-10'' is
corrected to read ``Sec. 178.346-3''; and in paragraph (d)(7) the
reference ``Sec. 178.345-13 is corrected to read ``Sec. 178.346-5.''
Section 178.346-2
We are revising the text and table titles to be consistent with the
minimum thickness requirements in Sec. 178.320(a).
Section 178.346-5
This final rule revises paragraph (c) to clarify the parameters for
testing cargo tanks that are used to transport petroleum distillate
fuels and are equipped with vapor recovery equipment. These cargo tanks
may be tested in accordance with EPA's annual certification test
requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 63.425(e). To satisfy the leakage
test requirements, however, the Method 27 test must be performed using
air and not liquid.
Section 178.347-1
We are making a minor editorial correction in paragraph (c) to
change the word ``accordance'' to ``conformance.'' We are also adding
paragraph (d)(9) to provide for a weld joint efficiency of 0.85 for
head seams in bulkheads on DOT 407 CTMVs.
In paragraph (d)(5) the reference to ``Sec. Sec. 178.345-5 and
178.347-5,'' is revised to read ``Sec. 178.347-3.'' In addition, in
paragraph (d)(6) the reference to ``Sec. 178.345-10,'' and the
reference in paragraph (d)(7) to ``Sec. 178.345-13,'' are revised to
read ``Sec. 178.347-4'' and ``Sec. 178.347-5,'' respectively.
Section 178.347-2
Paragraph (a) and the table titles are revised for consistency with
the minimum thickness requirements in Sec. 178.320(a).
Section 178.348-1
We are removing the reference to ``Sec. 178.348-5,'' in paragraph
(e)(2)(v). We are also changing the reference to ``Sec. 178.348-10,''
in paragraph (e)(2)(vi), to read ``Sec. 178.348-4.'' In addition, the
second reference to ``Sec. 178.348-13,'' in paragraph (e)(2)(vii), is
revised to read ``Sec. 178.348-5.''
Section 178.348-2
Paragraph (a) and the table titles are revised for consistency with
the minimum thickness requirements in Sec. 178.320(a).
Part 180
Section 180.403
We are revising the term ``corroded or abraded'' to mean any
visible reduction in the material thickness of the cargo tank wall or
valve due to pitting, flaking, gouging, or chemical reaction to the
material surface. In addition, we are modifying the definition of
``corrosive to the tank or valve'' to clarify its meaning that the
lading has been shown through experience or test data to reduce the
thickness of the tank wall or valve.
Section 180.405
We are revising paragraph (b) to allow a cargo tank motor vehicle
that was originally built to a standard authorized by an exemption to
be marked and certified to the applicable MC 306, MC 307, MC 312, MC
331, or MC 338 specification after August 31, 1995. Although the cargo
tanks should have been marked and certified before August 31, 1995, we
believe there may be a number of cargo tanks in operation that have not
been certified to the appropriate specification. The practice of
certifying these cargo tanks to the applicable MC 300-series
specification was previously authorized. Continuing to permit these
tanks to be marked and certified does not decrease the current level of
safety. This change does not authorize these tanks to be used in DOT-
specification service, after the expiration of the exemption under
which they were manufactured, unless the necessary changes have been
made and the tank is certified.
In addition, we are allowing a cargo tank manufactured to the MC
306, MC 307, or MC 312 specification, and that has not been stretched,
rebarrelled, or modified, to be re-certified to its original
specification. A set of criteria must be met to assure that re-
certified cargo tanks conform to all applicable standards and maintain
the same level of safety required of a new or continually maintained
cargo tank.
Paragraph (g)(3) is removed. The period for retrofitting manholes
has expired and the regulation is obsolete.
This final rule revises paragraph (k) to require MC 300-series
cargo tanks that have a pressure relief system set at 3 psig and that
have no MAWP or design pressure marked on the specification plate, or
that have an MAWP or design pressure of less than 3 psig marked on the
specification plate, to be marked or
[[Page 19270]]
re-marked with an MAWP or design pressure of not less than 3 psig. This
provision is currently allowed, but not required.
We are revising paragraph (l)(2)(iii), which prescribes the load
that a rear-end tank protection device or rear bumper is required to
withstand, to be consistent with the requirements for rear-end tank
protection devices in Sec. 178.345-8(d)(3). The change requires the
rear bumper or rear-end tank protection device to withstand the
horizontal load at an angle not exceeding 10 degrees to the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This change aligns the angle of load
application with the rear-end damage protection devices installed on
new DOT 400-series CTMVs, as revised on November 3, 1994 (Docket HM-
183C; 59 FR 55167).
We are adding a new paragraph (o) to require MC 330, MC 331, and MC
338 cargo tanks that are not equipped with on-truck remote shutoff
devices to be retrofitted with on-truck remote shutoff devices that
meet the requirements of the applicable specification. Existing cargo
tanks not equipped with an on-truck remote shutoff feature must be
retrofitted. We are allowing three years for completion of this
retrofit.
Section 180.407
Paragraph (a)(2) is revised to remove the phrase ``or during
loading or unloading'' to limit the maximum pressure in the tank to the
MAWP, except when the tank is undergoing a pressure test only.
We are revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) to clarify the tests
and inspections that must be conducted when a cargo tank shows evidence
of dents, corroded or abraded areas, leakage, has sustained damage to
an extent that may adversely affect its lading retention capabilities,
or any other condition that might render it unsafe for transportation
in hazardous materials service.
In addition, paragraph (b)(4) is removed because the inspection and
testing requirements for cargo tanks that have been modified from their
original design specifications are currently outlined in Sec. 180.413
and are redundant in this section.
We are adding language to paragraph (c) to clarify that the testing
interval starts from the CTMV certification date. In addition, we are
adding Note 4 to the chart to allow insulated cargo tanks with manholes
or inspection openings to perform either a visual internal inspection
in conjunctions with the external visual inspection or a hydrostatic or
pneumatic pressure-test of the cargo tank.
We are revising paragraph (d)(1) to provide the correct references
for hydrostatic and pneumatic testing of cargo tanks where a visual
inspection is precluded because the cargo tank is lined, coated,
insulated or designed so as to prevent access for external inspection.
In response to NTSB recommendation H-95-14, we are revising
paragraph (d)(4) to require thickness testing of ring stiffeners and
appurtenances on cargo tanks constructed of mild steel or high-
strength, low-alloy steel and aluminum that are installed in a manner
that precludes an external visual inspection of the cargo tank.
We are revising paragraph (g) to replace the term ``re-closing
pressure relief valve'' with ``self-closing pressure relief valve.''
This change clarifies that loading and unloading vents that open and
close mechanically during loading and unloading operations are not
subject to the bench testing requirements. The revision specifies that
self-closing pressure relief devices, such as normal vents (1 psig
vents) installed on MC 306 and DOT 406 cargo tanks and emergency relief
vents, must be removed from the cargo tank for inspection and testing
or replaced in conjunction with the pressure test. However, normal
vents are to be tested in according to criteria established by the vent
manufacturer, while we specify in this section the test for emergency
relief vents. As well, we are revising paragraph (g)(1)(iv) to clarify
that, during required pressure tests, a cargo tank may not be subjected
to pressures that exceed those identified in the table in paragraph
(g)(1)(iv). In addition, paragraph (g)(1)(v) is removed because the 5-
year phase in period has expired.
We are revising paragraph (g)(4) as requested in petitions (P-1199)
and (P-1262) from NTTC and TTMA, respectively. NTTC members who own and
operate DOT-specification CTMVs with external heating systems have
found that these systems often cannot withstand 1.5 times the design
pressure as currently specified in paragraph (g)(4). The most
vulnerable parts of the typical external heating system are the
flexible connectors (rubber or elastomeric) that are used to
interconnect heat exchanger panels. Because these heating systems are
covered with insulation, a test failure can cause expensive, time-
consuming repairs. Evidently, before the adoption of Part 180 periodic
testing, system designers made no provision for testing at 1.5 times
operational conditions, a level that is routinely recognized in the
design of conventional piping systems. For these reasons, NTTC and TTMA
asked RSPA to reduce the test pressure to the maximum operating
pressure of each system.
We are revising paragraph (h)(1) to require internal and external
self-closing stop valves to be tested during the leak test, adjacent
tanks in a multi-compartment CTMV to be separately tested, and cargo
tanks in liquefied compressed gas service to be externally inspected
for leaks during leakage tests by a means other than using a pressure
gauge.
This final rule adds paragraph (h)(1)(iv) to require MC 330 or MC
331 cargo tanks in dedicated service for anhydrous ammonia to be
leakage tested at not less than 414 kPa (60 psig). In addition, we are
adding paragraph (h)(1)(v) to require non-specification cargo tanks
subject to testing under Sec. 173.8(d)(6) to be leak tested at a
pressure of 16.5 kPa (2.4 psig). Section 173.8 requires non-
specification cargo tanks authorized by that section to be tested and
inspected in the same manner as required for an MC 306 CTMV. Many non-
specification cargo tanks are not marked with a MAWP or design
pressure. This requirement ensures that these cargo tanks are leakage
tested in the same manner as MC 306 CTMVs.
We are revising paragraph (h)(2) to clarify the parameters for
testing cargo tanks used to transport petroleum distillate fuels that
are equipped with vapor recovery systems. These cargo tanks may be
tested in accordance with EPA's annual certification test requirements
as set forth in 40 CFR 63.425(e). To satisfy the leakage test
requirements, however, the Method 27 test must be performed using air.
We believe that the pneumatic test is a better test method for
detecting leaks in low pressure tests.
We are revising paragraph (i) and the titles of the tables in Sec.
180.407(i)(5) by adding wording that is consistent with the proposed
minimum thickness requirements in Sec. 178.320(a).
Also, this final rule revises paragraph (i)(6) to change the
wording ``maximum lading density'' to ``maximum weight of lading or
reduced maximum working pressure, or combinations thereof,'' and to
make other relevant editorial revisions. This change is consistent with
cargo tank design practices that evaluate both the weight of lading
carried by the cargo tank and the pressure on the cargo tank wall as
determining factors for minimum in-service thickness.
To clarify the minimum thickness requirements, we are adding
paragraphs (i)(9) and (i)(10). Paragraph (i)(9) specifies the minimum
thickness for MC 331 cargo tanks and paragraph (i)(10)
[[Page 19271]]
references the minimum thickness tables for DOT 400 series CTMVs to
clarify the correct test criteria.
Section 180.409
We are revising paragraph (a) to add a reference to the definition
of ``Registered Inspector'' in Sec. 171.8 to clarify that a person
must meet the minimum qualifications set forth in the definition in
order to be qualified to perform tests and inspections required by
Sec. 180.407(c).
Section 180.413
This final rule revises paragraph (a) requirements for performing
repairs, modifications, stretching, rebarrelling, or remounting a cargo
tank to explicitly state that a facility repairing any specification
cargo tanks must adhere to the quality control procedures (e.g. welder
qualifications and approved welding procedures) in the National Board
Inspection Code (NBIC) except requirements for inspection by an
Authorized Inspector, preparation of an R-1 Form, or stamping of the
``R'' stamp on the cargo tank. This was our intent in 1989 when, under
Docket HM-183, we changed the regulations to require that repair
facilities hold either a valid National Board Certificate of
Authorization for use of the National Board ``R'' stamp or a valid ASME
Certificate of Authorization for use of the ASME ``U'' stamp. FMCSA has
discovered numerous instances where, although a facility holds a valid
``U'' or ``R'' stamp, the quality control procedures used to obtain the
stamp were not utilized during the repair. One example is the use of
``lap patches,'' which are prohibited under the NBIC. This revision
will prohibit this and other un-safe practices being discovered during
repairs of non-ASME stamped cargo tanks.
The cleaning and purging requirements are moved from paragraphs
(b)(4) and (d)(8) to paragraph (a)(2). The cleaning and purging
requirements have been clarified to emphasize the requirements for
cargo tanks to be empty and safely purged before repairs. In addition,
we are revising paragraph (b) for clarity.
In paragraph (c), we require leak testing for non-welded repairs or
the replacement of hoses, pipes, valves, or fittings. In response to
comments from NPGA, we also include provisions for cargo tanks in
liquefied compressed gas service to be tested in accordance with
applicable regulations in Sec. 180.416(f).
In paragraph (d), we are revising the requirements for stretching,
modifying, or rebarrelling a cargo tank to clarify the intent of the
regulation. Specifically, we are eliminating the need for testing in
accordance with Sec. 180.407, which is currently required by Sec.
180.413(d)(4)(iv). Testing the adequacy of a modification, stretching,
or rebarrelling must be accomplished by performing the tests specified
in paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of this section (formerly Sec.
180.413(d)(10)). In paragraph (d), we are clarifying that a
modification, stretching, or rebarrelling must be certified by a DCE.
We are revising paragraph (d)(3)(v), to require a supplemental
specification plate to be installed adjacent to the original
specification plate. This change eliminates the provision that
currently allows changes to the original specification plate. In
addition, paragraph (d)(4), in its entirety, is re-designated as
paragraph (d)(3). The provisions of paragraph (d)(5) are re-worded and
moved to (d)(4).
The provisions contained in paragraphs (d)(6) and (7) to a new
paragraph (e) are moved to eliminate confusion about what is required
when a cargo tank is re-mounted onto a new chassis. New paragraph (e)
is based on a petition (P-1322) from TTMA and clarifies requirements
for certification of mounting by a DCE and supervision of the mounting
by a Registered Inspector. Current paragraph (e) is re-designated as
paragraph (f).
Section 180.415
We are revising paragraph (b)(3)(vi) to require a special marking,
``K-EPA27,'' on cargo tanks that have been tested in accordance with
EPA requirements for testing cargo tank vapor tightness. This change
provides a nationally uniform marking for cargo tanks that pass the
annual certification test in accordance with EPA requirements.
Section 180.417
This final rule requires additional information to be provided on
inspection and test reports to enable owners and operators of cargo
tanks to more effectively review the results of the test or inspection.
The information required by the revised paragraph (b)(1) provides
important data about the cargo tank and its service that may affect the
type and method of test to be performed. The cargo tank owner or
carrier must provide this information to the re-qualification or
maintenance facility. In addition, current paragraph (b)(2) is re-
designated as paragraph (b)(3).
We are revising paragraph (d) to clarify what documents must
accompany the cargo tank when ownership changes. This change would
consolidate these requirements into one section.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. We have prepared a Regulatory
Evaluation assessing potential costs, benefits and savings of the
revisions adopted in the final rule. The Regulatory Evaluation is
available for review in the public docket on the DOT Docket Management
System Web site, http://dms.dot.gov.
In assessing how best to update and clarify the construction and
maintenance requirements for CTMVs, we considered three alternatives:
(1) Taking no regulatory action; (2) clarifying and updating the
regulations, responding to several petitions for rulemaking, and
addressing three NTSB recommendations; and (3) responding to NTSB
recommendations only. We chose Alternative 2 because it increases
safety, reduces compliance costs, and provides greater flexibility in
design and construction of cargo tanks.
We estimate the total annual cost savings to the industry resulting
from implementation of this final rule would be $3,230,400 per year. At
the same time the industry would incur increased costs of compliance
totaling $3,136,770 the first year and $1,449,270 each following year.
The overall net benefits are $93,630 the first year and $2,081,130 each
subsequent year.
Increasing clarity and, therefore, understanding of the
regulations, facilitates compliance, and reduces risks to the public
and environment. While provisions of this final rule result in costs
and safety benefits, others would result in savings while not
sacrificing safety. Overall, the estimated savings that will result
from this final rule are greater than the estimated costs. The
provisions with the highest associated costs are based on safety
concerns and NTSB recommendations, that are based serious accidents.
The provisions in this final rule will reduce risks to people,
property, and the environment.
B. Executive Order 13132
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
final rule preempts state, local, and Indian tribe requirements but
does not propose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on
the states, the relationship between the national government and the
states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various
[[Page 19272]]
levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
The Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-
5127, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)) that
preempts state, local, and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered
subjects. Covered subjects are:
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous
materials;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous materials;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number,
contents, and placement of those documents;
(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
(5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance,
recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container
represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in
transporting hazardous material.
This final rule addresses covered subject item (5) above and
preempts state, local, and Indian tribe requirements not meeting the
``substantively the same'' standard.
Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at Sec.
5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the
covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal
Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date
may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of
the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance.
The effective date of Federal preemption is 90 days from the date of
publication of this final rule.
C. Executive Order 13175
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule
does not have tribal implications, does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and does not preempt
tribal law, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive
Order 13175 do not apply and a tribal summary impact statement is not
required.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires each
agency to analyze proposed regulations and assess their impact on small
businesses and other small entities to determine whether the proposed
rule is expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Based on the assessment in the regulatory
evaluation, and information generally available on the number and size
of potentially affected entities, we find that:
[sbull] All small entities that engage in the manufacture,
operation, testing or inspection of certain DOT specification cargo
tank motor vehicles would be subject to some or all of the provisions
of this final rule;
[sbull] In each instance where regulatory provisions require a new
or increased cost to a regulated party, the cost is a modest $100 or
less per cargo tank; and
[sbull] Small entities will be able to take advantage of the
relaxations in the final rule, resulting in a net reduction of
regulatory costs.
We estimate that most of the approximately 3,700 interstate and
5,500 intrastate motor carriers that would be subject to the
requirements of this rule are small businesses. There are also
approximately 7,000 cargo tank inspection/testing facilities subject to
the requirements that are estimated to be small businesses. We estimate
that operators of existing fleets of cargo tank motor vehicles would
incur costs of approximately $75 per year for each of the approximately
5,000 affected series 307, 312, 407 and 412 cargo tank motor vehicles
in corrosive material service, and $100 every two years for thickness
testing of appurtenances on the estimated 15,000 cargo tanks in that
same series. In neither case is the additional cost likely to have a
significant economic impact on the operator's net income or ability to
remain competitive.
Although there are other provisions in this rule that would present
an added cost to these small businesses, there are also safety benefits
that have the potential to save money and protect the viability of
small businesses by lowering the risk of a catastrophic accident. Most
of the provisions of the rule are directed toward individual cargo
tanks. Since small businesses operate fewer cargo tanks, most of the
cost of this final rule would affect larger businesses.
The final rule includes several provisions that will provide
savings to small businesses by allowing experienced Registered
Inspectors and Design Certifying Engineers to continue to perform
functions for which they were previously qualified, allowing
recertification of certain cargo tanks to their original specification,
and relaxing requirements for leakage testing of cargo tanks in
anhydrous ammonia service that are operated almost exclusively by
entities that are small businesses (including small farms).
In addition, a number of other provisions of this final rule allow
for a potential net reduction in regulatory costs. For example, owners
of cargo tanks may re-certify their cargo tanks to the original
specification. Manufacturers of MC 338 cargo tanks may take advantage
of the relaxation of mounting requirements, which will save engineering
and construction costs. Likewise, the revisions for bottom damage
protection devices create further possible reductions in compliance
costs. These and other relaxations offset the additional requirements,
while maintaining current safety standards.
In consideration of the above, while the final rule applies to a
substantial number of small entities, I certify that the economic
impact on those small entities is not significant.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
RSPA has a current information collection approval under OMB No.
2137-0014, Cargo Tank Specification Requirements, with 102,021 burden
hours and $4,088,350 annual costs, which includes $1,595,000 in one-
time start-up costs. This final rule identifies information collection
that RSPA submitted to OMB for approval based on the requirements in
the proposed rule. OMB approved the information collection on January
10, 2002. The approved information collection and recordkeeping burden
is as follows:
OMB No.: 2137-0014.
Number of Respondents: 41,366.
Total Annual Responses: 132,600.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 102,021.
Total Annual Burden Cost: $4,088,350.
One Time Start Up Cost: $1,595,000.
Requests for a copy of the information collection should be
directed to Deborah Boothe, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards
(DHM-10), Research and Special Programs Administration, Room 8102, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone |
