X hits on this document





3 / 5

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Proposed Rules


developing a solution that includes their equipment. However, other commenters believe that component manufacturers should be members of the Committee because they will be significantly affected by any rulemaking that results from the Committee’s deliberations. RSPA agrees with these commenters and believes that technology interests, such as manufacturers of internal self- closing stop valves, hoses, remote shut- off systems, and leak detection sensors and monitors, should be included on the Committee. Thus, RSPA has modified the list of interests that will be represented to include a technology interest.

Following is the list of Committee members, identified by interest. Members are encouraged to designate alternates who can serve in place of the member if necessary. As noted in the notice of intent, the Committee will make its decisions through a process of negotiation leading to consensus. ‘‘Consensus’’ means the unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on the Committee, unless the Committee explicitly adopts a different definition. Where two representatives are identified, RSPA expects that they will act together to represent the interest’s views and perspectives in the negotiations.

For the interest identified as ‘‘Cargo Tank Manufacturers—Bobtail,’’ RSPA has requested that the three individuals identified below consult with each other to determine how their interest will be represented on the Committee. Similarly, for the interest identified as ‘‘Technology,’’ RSPA has asked the three identified individuals to consult with each other to determine how the technology interest will be represented on the Committee.

  • 1.

    Department of Transportation Edward Mazzullo, Research and Special Programs Administration

  • 2.

    National Propane Gas Association Charles Revere, Revere Gas and Appliance

  • 3.

    The Fertilizer Institute Charles Rosas, Farmland Industries

  • 4.

    National Tank Truck Carriers Clifford Harvison

  • 5.

    Compressed Gas Association Ronald McGrath

  • 6.

    National Fire Protection Association Theodore Lemhoff

  • 7.

    Propane Distribution—Small Mike Gorham, Northwest Gas, and Lin Johnson, Lin’s Propane

  • 8.

    Propane Distribution—Large Russell Rupp, Suburban Propane, and Ken Faulhaber, Ferrellgas

  • 9.

    Anhydrous Ammonia/Dual Use Anhydrous Ammonia-Propane— Small

Charles Whittington, Grammer Industries 10. Anhydrous Ammonia/Dual Use Anhydrous Ammonia-Propane— Large Jean Trobec, Growmark, and Jim York, National Private Truck Council

  • 11.

    State Safety Enforcement Agencies Steve Herman, Cooperative Hazardous Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED), and Eric Adair, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)

  • 12.

    State Safety Regulatory Agencies Vicki O’Neill, Bureau of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Inspections/Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and Ronald Coleman, California State Fire Marshal

  • 13.

    State/Local Emergency Response Agencies and Fire Services Ronald Dykes, International Association of Fire Chiefs

  • 14.

    Cargo Tank Manufacturers— Transports

Mike Pitts, Mississippi Tank

  • 15.

    Cargo Tank Manufacturers— Bobtails (one of the following) David Auxier, Bulk Tank and Transport, or Jerry Kowalski, Arrow Tank and Engineering, or David Fulbright, White River Distributors

  • 16.

    Technology (one of the following) Jim Griffin, Fisher Controls, or David Stainbrook, REGO Valve, or Bob Lyons, Thermolite, or Todd Coady, Rocket Supply In addition to those listed above, the

following people asked to be members or were nominated for membership on the Committee: Gary Nelson, Nevada Propane Board (Nelson); Douglas Buchan (Buchan); Paul Horgan, California Highway Patrol (Horgan); and Terry Pollard, Nebraska Highway Patrol (Pollard).

Buchan asked to participate based on his expertise and experience with the issues that are the subject of the regulatory negotiation; however, because he does not represent an interest that will be affected by the rulemaking, he was not selected. Horgan and Pollard were nominated by a commenter; RSPA agrees that they are well qualified to represent the interests of state safety enforcement agencies on the Committee. However, the number of state representatives on the Committee is necessarily limited. Both Horgan and Pollard have been invited to participate as alternate members and on working groups that the Committee may establish to make recommendations on technical issues. Nelson was nominated by a commenter to represent the interest of state regulatory agencies. RSPA

agrees that state regulatory agencies should be represented on the Committee. However, RSPA believes that the Committee should also reflect geographic diversity. Since many of the members selected are from the western United States, RSPA decided to select a representative of a state regulatory agency—Bureau of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Inspections/Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services— from an eastern state.

Persons not selected as members of the Committee will have ample opportunities to participate in the negotiated rulemaking process. For example, RSPA expects that the Committee will establish one or more technical working groups to offer advice and recommendations on specific issues. Further, there will be opportunities for non-members to speak or provide written comments at meetings of the Committee. RSPA encourages all those who are interested in this rulemaking to take advantage of these opportunities to assure that the Committee considers their views.

One commenter recommended that committee membership be determined on a proportional basis, so that those interests having what they believe to be the most at stake in the rulemaking would be allotted the most representatives on the committee. RSPA does not agree and believes that this comment stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the negotiated rulemaking process. A negotiated rulemaking is intended to be an inclusive process that affords all the interests that will be significantly affected by a rulemaking an opportunity to contribute to development of a consensus regulation. Each member of a negotiated rulemaking committee speaks for the interest he represents and has an equal voice in the process of negotiating towards consensus. The key to success for a negotiated rulemaking is to assure that all the interests that may be affected are represented.

This commenter also suggested that representatives of the propane industry could also adequately represent companies that transport both propane and other liquefied compressed gases. RSPA does not agree. Transportation of anhydrous ammonia in MC 330 and MC 331 CTMVs presents safety and operational issues that differ from those involved with the transportation of propane. For this reason, RSPA believes that companies that transport anhydrous ammonia have an interest in the negotiated rulemaking that is distinct and separate from the interest of propane transporters and should, therefore, have separate representation.

Document info
Document views15
Page views15
Page last viewedMon Oct 24 23:44:30 UTC 2016