[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54849-54861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21621]
[[Page 54849]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 173, 174, 178, 179, and 180
[Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 (HM-251)]
RIN 2137-AE91
Hazardous Materials: Rail Petitions and Recommendations To
Improve the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation (RRR)
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is considering revisions to the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR) to improve the regulations applicable to the
transportation of hazardous materials by rail. The revisions are based
on eight petitions received from the regulated community and four
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations which are
referenced by a petition. In this ANPRM, we outline the petitions and
NTSB recommendations, identify a preliminary estimate of costs and
benefits from the petitions, pose several questions, and solicit
comments and data from the public. Under Executive Order 13563, Federal
agencies were asked to periodically review existing regulations. The
questions posed in this ANPRM and responses by commenters will be used
in conjunction with a retrospective review of existing requirements
aimed to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal existing rules that are
outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
DATES: Comments must be received by November 5, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2012-0082 (HM-251) and the relevant petition number by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov
and will include any personal information you provide. All comments
received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS), including any personal information.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office located at U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) which may be
viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/pdf/00-8505.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Alexy, (202) 493-6245, Office of
Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration or Ben
Supko, (202) 366-8553, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Review of Amendments Considered
A. Petition P-1507
B. Petition P-1519
C. Petition P-1547
D. Petition P-1548
E. Petition P-1577
F. Petition P-1587
G. Petition P-1595
H. Petition P-1612
IV. Regulatory Review and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order
13610, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Executive Order 13132
C. Executive Order 13175
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Policies and Procedures
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Environmental Assessment
G. Privacy Act
H. International Trade Analysis
I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
I. Executive Summary
PHMSA has received eight petitions for rulemaking and four NTSB
recommendations proposing amendments to the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) applicable to the
transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by rail. PHMSA is
seeking public comments on whether the proposed amendments would
enhance safety, revise, and clarify the HMR with regard to rail
transport. Specifically, these amendments propose to: (1) Relax
regulatory requirements to afford the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) greater discretion to authorize the movement of non-conforming
tank cars; (2) impose additional requirements that would correct an
unsafe condition associated with pressure relief valves (PRV) on rail
cars transporting carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid; (3) relax
regulatory requirements applicable to the repair and maintenance of DOT
Specification 110, DOT Specification 106, and ICC 27 tank car tanks
(ton tanks); (4) relax regulatory requirement for the removal of
rupture discs for inspection if the removal process would damage,
change, or alter the intended operation of the device; and (5) impose
additional requirements that would enhance the standards for DOT
Specification 111 tank cars used to transport Packing Group (PG) I and
II hazardous materials. The NTSB recommendations directly relate to the
enhancement of DOT Specification 111 tank cars. PHMSA looks forward to
reviewing the public's comments pertaining to the potential economic,
[[Page 54850]]
environmental, and safety implications of the petitions discussed in
this ANPRM. Comments received will be used in our evaluation and
development of possible future regulatory actions on issues relating to
the transportation of hazardous materials by rail.
Access to the petitions, NTSB Recommendations, and background
documents referenced in this ANPRM can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 or at DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES). PHMSA requests that commenters note
the applicable petition number when submitting comments.
II. Background
Federal hazmat law authorizes the Secretary of DOT (Secretary) to
``prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including
security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign
commerce.'' The Secretary has delegated this authority to PHMSA. 49 CFR
Sec. 1.97(b). The HMR, promulgated by PHMSA under the authority
provided in Federal hazmat law, are designed to achieve three goals:
(1) To ensure that hazardous materials are packaged and handled safely
and securely during transportation; (2) to provide effective
communication to transportation workers and emergency responders of the
hazards of the materials being transported; and (3) to minimize the
consequences of an incident should one occur. The hazardous material
regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention-
oriented and focused on identifying a safety or security hazard and
reducing the probability and quantity of a hazardous material release.
Under the HMR, hazardous materials are categorized by analysis and
experience into hazard classes and packing groups based upon the risks
that they present during transportation. The HMR specify appropriate
packaging and handling requirements for hazardous materials based on
this classification, and require a shipper to communicate the
material's hazards through the use of shipping papers, package marking
and labeling, and vehicle placarding. The HMR also require shippers to
provide emergency response information applicable to the specific
hazard or hazards of the material being transported. Finally, the HMR
mandate training requirements for persons who prepare hazardous
materials for shipment or who transport hazardous materials in
commerce.
The HMR also include operational requirements applicable to each
mode of transportation. The Secretary has authority over all areas of
railroad transportation safety (Federal railroad safety laws, 49 U.S.C.
20101 et seq.), and has delegated this authority to FRA. 49 CFR 1.89.
Pursuant to its statutory authority, FRA promulgates and enforces a
comprehensive regulatory program (49 CFR parts 200-244) to address
railroad track; signal systems; railroad communications; rolling stock;
rear-end marking devices; safety glazing; railroad accident/incident
reporting; locational requirements for the dispatch of U.S. rail
operations; safety integration plans governing railroad consolidations;
merger and acquisitions of control; operating practices; passenger
train emergency preparedness; alcohol and drug testing; locomotive
engineer certification; and workplace safety. FRA inspects railroads
and shippers for compliance with both FRA and PHMSA regulations. FRA
also conducts research and development to enhance railroad safety.
As a result of the shared role in the safe and secure
transportation of hazardous materials by rail, PHMSA and FRA work very
closely when considering regulatory changes. The issues being
considered under this ANPRM are derived from petitions submitted to
PHMSA by its stakeholders. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
requires Federal agencies to give interested persons the right to
petition an agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. (5 U.S.C.
553(e)). In accordance with PHMSA's rulemaking procedure regulations,
interested persons may ask PHMSA to add, amend, or repeal a regulation
by filing a petition for rulemaking along with information and
arguments that support the requested action. (49 CFR Part 106). On
average, thirty petitions for rulemaking are submitted to PHMSA
annually by the regulated community, in accordance with Sec. 106.95.
The eight petitions included in this ANPRM are applicable to the
transportation of hazardous materials by rail and have been reviewed by
PHMSA and FRA representatives.
In this ANPRM, PHMSA is seeking public comment to obtain the views
of those who are likely to be impacted in any way by the changes
proposed in the petitions, including those who are likely to benefit
from, be adversely affected by, or potentially be subject to additional
regulation. Additionally, we seek comments on the four NTSB
recommendations that are specifically referenced by Petition P-1587.
This ANPRM will provide an opportunity for public participation in the
development of regulatory amendments, and promote greater exchange of
information and perspectives among the various stakeholders. This
additional step is intended to lead to more focused and well-developed
proposals that reflect the views of all relevant parties.
In addition to this ANPRM, FRA published a notice on July 18, 2013
(78 FR 42998) announcing a PHMSA and FRA public meeting scheduled for
August 27-28, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., in the DOT
Conference Center, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The meeting was focused on operational factors that affect the safe
transportation of hazardous materials by rail. During the meeting, we
asked for input from stakeholders and interested parties. The meeting
agenda was included in the public docket for this rulemaking. PHMSA
requested comments on the relationship between the items identified in
the agenda and the petitions, recommendations, and standards addressed
in this rulemaking.
III. Review of Amendments Considered
This ANPRM is based on Petitions P-1507, P-1519, P-1547, P-1548, P-
1577, P-1587, P-1595, and P-1612 and NTSB Recommendations R-12-5, R-12-
6, R-12-7, and R-07-4. Petition P-1587 directly references NTSB
Recommendations R-12-5, R-12-6, R-12-7, and R-07-4. Additionally, NTSB
Recommendations R-12-5 and R-12-6 directly relate to and reference
petition P-1577. The following table provides a brief summary of the
petitions and NTSB Recommendations addressed in this ANPRM:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Party submitting
Petition/ recommendation petition Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-1507................... Eastman Chemical Revise the wording of
Co.. Sec. 174.50 to afford
FRA greater discretion
in authorizing car
movement.
P-1519................... The Compressed Gas Revise Sec. 173.314
Association (CGA). Note 5 to clearly
indicate that the
liquid portion of the
gas must not completely
fill the tank prior to
reaching the pressure
setting of the
regulating valves or
the safety relief
valve, whichever is
lower.
[[Page 54851]]
P-1547................... Carroll Welding Revise the ton tank
Supply. repair, maintenance,
and marking regulations
for consistency with
existing regulations
for DOT 3-series
cylinders since ton
tanks share more in
common with these
cylinders than tank
cars.
P-1548................... American Chemistry Proposes a change to the
Council (ACC). wording in Sec.
173.31(d)(1)(vi)
intended to prevent
damage or loss of
effectiveness of
rupture discs removed
from their initial
placement in the relief
device by adding
language that would
except them from
removal if the
inspection itself would
damage, change, or
alter the intended
operation of the
device.
P-1577................... Association of Proposes a new standard
American Railroads for newly-constructed
(AAR). DOT Specification 111
tank cars used to
transport PG I and II
materials.
P-1587................... Village of Stresses the importance
Barrington, of adopting P-1577 for
Illinois and The newly-constructed and
Regional Answer to existing DOT
Canadian Nation. Specification 111 tank
cars in accordance with
NTSB Recommendations R-
12-5 and R-12-6. In
addition, the petition
urges PHMSA to adopt
NTSB Recommendation R-
07-4.
P-1595................... ACC, American Proposes that PHMSA
Petroleum apply requirements
Institute (API) related to top fittings
and The Chlorine protection, reclosing
Institute, Inc. pressure relief
(CI). devices, and head and
shell thickness
requirements as
suggested in P-1577 and
P-1587 for DOT
Specification 111 tank
cars used to transport
ethanol and crude oil
in PG I and II.
P-1612................... API, ACC, CI, and The Petitioners request
The Renewable that PHMSA separate new
Fuels Association tank car regulatory
(RFA). requirements from any
potential retrofits for
the timely adoption of
revised regulatory
requirements for the
construction of new DOT
Specification 111 tank
cars used for the
transportation of
ethanol and crude oil.
R-07-4................... NTSB............... With the assistance of
the FRA, require that
railroads immediately
provide to emergency
responders accurate,
real-time information
regarding the identity
and location of all
hazardous materials on
a train.
R-12-5................... NTSB............... Require that all newly-
manufactured and
existing general
service tank cars
authorized for
transportation of
denatured fuel ethanol
and crude oil in PGs I
and II have enhanced
tank head and shell
puncture resistance
systems and top
fittings protection
that exceed existing
design requirements for
DOT Specification 111
tank cars.
R-12-6................... NTSB............... Require that all bottom
outlet valves used on
newly-manufactured and
existing non-pressure
tank cars are designed
to remain closed during
accidents in which the
valve and operating
handle are subjected to
impact forces.
R-12-7................... NTSB............... Require that all newly-
manufactured and
existing tank cars
authorized for
transportation of
hazardous materials
have center sill or
draft sill attachment
designs that conform to
the revised Association
of American Railroads'
design requirements
adopted as a result of
Safety Recommendation R-
12-9.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each petition is discussed in detail below. Each description
includes a summary of the petition, including the regulatory solution
proposed by the petition; based on the petition, costs and benefits
associated with the granting the action requested by the petitioner;
and a request for comments including specific questions regarding each
petition. Additionally, the discussion of P-1587 includes a brief
summary of the NTSB accident report which resulted in the issuance of
Recommendations R-12-5 through R-12-8 to PHMSA and reiterates the
reasons for the issuance of Recommendation R-07-4. The petitions and
NTSB accident report are included in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
A. Petition P-1507
Summary
In Petition P-1507, the Law Offices of McCarthy, Sweeney &
Harkaway, P.C., on behalf of Eastman Chemical Co., propose that the
wording of Sec. 174.50 be changed to afford FRA greater discretion in
authorizing car movement. Eastman Chemical Co. asserts that adherence
to the regulation impedes the flow of commerce because all non-
conforming bulk packagings, regardless of the safety risk, require a
movement approval. Non-conforming conditions that are a relatively
minor risk require the same approval application and evaluation process
as a non-conforming condition that poses a clear and significant risk.
For example, many low risk movement approvals are provided for tank
cars that have a defective bottom outlet valve, but have been cleaned
and purged to remove any potential hazard in transportation. Other
common low-risk examples are jacketed tank cars with damage solely to
the jacket causing a violation of the requirement for the jacket to be
weather tight. An example of a high-risk approval is one that is issued
for a hole or crack in the tank car shell or head.
The petitioner suggests revising Sec. 174.50 to provide FRA
greater discretion in authorizing car movement.
Currently, Sec. 174.50 provides that:
A leaking non-bulk package may not be forwarded until repaired,
reconditioned, or overpacked in accordance with Sec. 173.3 of this
subchapter. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a bulk
packaging that no longer conforms to [the HMR] may not be forwarded
by rail unless repaired or approved for movement by the Associate
Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration.
Eastman Chemical Co. petitions PHMSA to add language that enables FRA
to publish guidance on specific elements of non-conformity that would
not require a movement approval by the Associate Administrator for
Railroad Safety.
Costs and Benefits
PHMSA considers the action requested by this petition to be
deregulatory in nature. The petition did not identify specific costs
and benefits. However, FRA has recently modified its movement approval
process to minimize burdens without decreasing safety. On February 22,
2011, FRA hosted a public meeting and solicited comments on the one-
time movement approval (OTMA \1\) process to address the increasing
number of requests for OTMAs, which slowed processing
[[Page 54852]]
time.\2\ The basis for the meeting was the increasing volume of
approvals issued annually. FRA issued 380 movement approvals in
calendar year (CY) 2007, 444 in CY 2008, 645 in CY 2009, and 906 in CY
2010. These approvals covered a broad range of non-conformity, such as
service equipment, tank shell, or lining failures; overloaded
packagings; jacket, tank car shell, or head damage; stub sill weld
cracks; failures of heater coils or thermal protection systems; tank
cars overdue for required tests; etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Detailed information regarding FRA's OTMA program is
available at the following URL: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04692.
\2\ To view the meeting notice and transcript go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for ``FRA-2011-0004.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following FRA's public meeting, PHMSA and FRA conducted a peer
review panel, which audited FRA's OTMA program. The audit highlighted
the range and frequencies of various defective conditions and
identified those defects that pose a lesser safety risk. The panel and
comments received during the public meeting recommended that FRA focus
its resources on serious safety concerns while allowing for more
efficient handling of OTMAs.
FRA subsequently revised its OTMA program with the goal of making
the system more efficient and allowing better monitoring of non-
conformance. Specifically, on January 31, 2012, FRA published Hazardous
Materials Guidance (HMG)--127 (77 FR 10799), which provides a
standardized procedure developed by FRA to make the OTMA process more
consistent and efficient. While an applicant isn't ``required'' to
follow the procedure and provide the needed information to perform a
proper safety analysis, failure to do so could cause significant delays
in processing time, or may result in a denial of the application.
Applicants are highly encouraged to use the procedure to expedite the
FRA review and approval process.
Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on P-1507. Please provide comments and data
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner.
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
In what ways has the January 31, 2012, publication of HMG-
127 by FRA satisfactorily addressed the petitioner's proposed
revisions; and, in what ways is the issuance of HMG-127 inconsistent
with regard to the petitioner's proposed revision?
What evidence would help FRA quantify the benefits and
costs of the current approval process? For example, what is the average
time an applicant typically waits to obtain a final determination from
FRA on a request for approval? What are the economic effects of this
waiting period?
How could FRA increase the benefits of HMG-127 and of the
OTMA program in general?
Has the petitioner's proposed revision been studied to
determine reasonably foreseeable environmental and human health
effects?
Are there economic benefits or costs of including certain
commonly issued Approvals into the regulations? If so, is there
evidence to help FRA quantify those benefits and costs?
What are some potential alternatives to the current
approval process and HMG-127 that could further maximize benefits and
minimize costs? What data is available to help quantify the benefits
and costs of these alternatives?
Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM,
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
B. Petition P-1519
Summary
In Petition P-1519, the CGA asserts the current wording of Sec.
173.314 Note 5 permits the operation of tank cars designed and
constructed for the transportation of carbon dioxide, refrigerated
liquid, in an unsafe condition. This is the second petition submitted
by the CGA on this topic. PHMSA rejected the previous petition because
of a lack of information supporting the assertion. The focus of the
petition is that, if loaded in accordance with Sec. 173.314 Note 5, a
tank car transporting carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid, could become
shell full prior to the internal pressure exceeding the actuation
pressure of the PRV and/or the regulating valves. This condition may
result in clogging of the PRV, leading to lowering of the flow capacity
of the valve and possibly extreme hydraulic pressure. CGA petitions
PHMSA to revise Sec. 173.314 Note 5 to clearly indicate that the
liquid portion of the gas must not completely fill the tank prior to
reaching the pressure setting of the regulating valves or the safety
relief valve, whichever is lower.
Costs and Benefits
PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition might
have safety benefits, but add additional regulatory burden. However,
PHMSA has not conducted an analysis of the possible actions that could
result from this petition. The intent of this ANPRM is to gather
relevant safety and economic data from the public regarding changes
proposed in the petition. PHMSA notes that the petition did not provide
data demonstrating manifestation of this potential problem. However, in
analyzing the petition from a technical perspective, PHMSA and FRA
engineers agree, theoretically, CGA's assertion that a shell full
condition may result in clogging of the PRV, leading to lowering of the
flow capacity of the valve and possibly extreme hydraulic pressure, is
correct. The valve capacity remains the same. However, the capacity is
based on the flow of vapor. In the case of carbon dioxide, refrigerated
liquid, three phase flow is possible and the valve does not have the
capacity to vent vapor, liquid, and solid. This is a result of
adiabatic flash evaporation or auto-refrigeration. Assume a compressed
gas that is under pressure and at a temperature above its boiling
point. When the pressure is released (returning to atmospheric
pressure), the temperature of the compressed gas will drop to its
boiling point, in the case of carbon dioxide this is -109 [deg]F
(sublimation point), which is below the freezing point of water. The
water in the atmosphere freezes and clogs the valve. There is also a
phase change in which the vapor changes to solid or liquid (depending
on the pressure along the flow path). This is a fairly common concern
during the unloading process for carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid.
The cost of incorporating the proposed change will be a slightly
lower payload to the affected entities, which include shippers of
carbon dioxide. Initial FRA calculations suggest a 1-2 percent decrease
in payload, which in turn will require 1-2 additional trips per 100
shipments.\3\ The anticipated benefit may be additional safety in the
transportation of carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Assume 20,000 gallon payload. Decrease payload by 2% =
19,600 gallons. Loss of 400 gallons per trip. After 50 trips the
total loss in payload is 20,000 (an extra trip will be needed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on P-1519. Please provide comments and data
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small
businesses
[[Page 54853]]
impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner. PHMSA
specifically requests comments on the following questions:
Can you provide data on incidents that were a direct
result of a clogged PRV that resulted in a lower flow of the PRV and
extreme hydraulic pressure involving the transportation of carbon
dioxide, refrigerated liquid, or any other refrigerated liquid?
Is this problem unique to the transportation of carbon
dioxide, refrigerated liquid? If not, what are the additional safety
benefits of expanding the scope of the petitioner's recommended
revision to transportation of other refrigerated liquids?
Please comment on the accuracy of the initial calculations
listed above, and provide any other potential costs and benefits of the
proposed change.
Is there an estimate of the number of shipments (trips) of
carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid, in rail tank cars, and the number
of vehicle-miles and ton-miles transported annually? If so, what is the
basis for this estimate? Is there an estimate of the cost per rail car
per vehicle mile, per ton-mile for carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid,
via rail annually?
How many of the rail tank cars identified above are shell
full prior to the internal pressure exceeding the actuation pressure of
the PRV and/or the regulating valves? What would the annual decrease in
payload be if we adopt the petition? How many more trips would be
required annually? What is the overall impact?
Are there existing consensus standards or operating
practices that adequately address this potential safety issue? If so,
what are they?
Are any other options available that could provide a
similar safety benefit? If so, what are they?
Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM,
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
C. Petition P-1547
Summary
In petition P-1547, Carroll Welding Supply identifies an area of
confusion regarding the current requirements for the repair and
maintenance of ton tanks. Carroll Welding Supply asserts that these
tanks are exclusively transported by highway, yet the regulations
require them to be repaired and marked in accordance with AAR standards
for tank cars. More specifically, Carroll Welding Supply asserts that
the regulations in Sec. 180.212 applicable to re-threading damaged
tapped holes with oversized threads are different for DOT 3-series
cylinders than for ton tanks. The petition indicates that ton tanks are
increasingly being requalified and repaired by cylinder requalifiers,
and not by railroad tank car repair facilities. Often the cylinder
requalifiers are not aware of Sec. 180.513 and Appendix R of the AAR
Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Section C-Part III,
Specifications for Tank Cars, Specification M-1002.\4\ A common
practice in the chlorine industry is the use of oversize valves in
tapped holes of DOT 3-series cylinders and oversized valves or fusible
plugs in ton tanks. Currently, the regulations clearly do not allow any
oversized holes in ton tanks. Carroll Welding Supply recommends
amending the regulations by revising ton tank repair, maintenance, and
marking regulations for consistency with existing regulations for DOT
3-series cylinders since ton tanks share more in common with these
cylinders than tank cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ AAR's Specifications for Tank Cars, Specification M-1002 is
incorporated by reference in Sec. 171.1 of the HMR. Appendix R
paragraph 24.1 allows damaged tapped holes to be repaired with
thread inserts, and paragraph 24.1.4 specifies that the nominal
thread size of the insert is to match the existing tapped hole.
Further 24.1.4 does not permit oversize holes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs and Benefits
PHMSA considers the action requested by this petition to be
deregulatory in nature. The petition did not identify specific costs
and benefits. Affected entities include persons who manufacture,
repair, and/or maintain ton tanks. As stated in the petition, these
tanks share more in common with DOT 3-series cylinders than tank cars.
Therefore, allowing these tanks to be repaired in accordance with the
requirements for DOT 3-series cylinders would simplify the regulations.
The intent of this petition is to consolidate, clarify, and update
existing regulations to promote the consistent application of long-
standing ton tank regulations and guidance while eliminating
unnecessary, outdated, or ambiguous regulatory language or references.
Affected entities and the general public may see incremental safety
benefits through improved regulatory awareness, understanding, and
compliance.
Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on P-1547. Please provide comments and data
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner.
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
Would the relocation of the requirements for ton tanks
from Part 179 to Part 178 and aligning the requirements accordingly
address the concern of the petition?
Will it be more or less costly to mark and repair ton
tanks in accordance with existing regulations for DOT 3-series
cylinders as compared to the current requirements?
Is the use of oversized valves or fusible plugs in ton
tanks common practice within the industry?
How many ton tanks will be impacted by this change?
Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM,
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
D. Petition P-1548
Summary
In Petition P-1548, ACC asserts that repeated removal of the
rupture disc from the housing for inspection, as required by Sec.
173.31(d)(1)(vi), can result in damage and a reduction in the
effectiveness of the rupture disc. ACC contends that PHMSA has
acknowledged this concern by issuing Special Permit DOT SP-13219, which
allows for the shipment of certain peroxides in tank cars that have
been inspected under a modified inspection program prior to
transportation. The modified inspection program does not require the
shipper to remove the rupture disc for inspection and requires the
shipper to subject the tank to a pressure test at 10 psig for 10
minutes to verify the rupture disc shows no sign of leakage. Currently,
two companies are parties to this special permit.
The ACC is proposing that PHMSA incorporate Special Permit DOT SP-
13219 into the HMR by adding language to Sec. 173.31(d)(1)(vi) that
would except rupture discs from removal if the inspection itself would
damage, change, or alter the intended operation of the device. While
the special permit requires an alternative inspection program and is
limited to shipments of only certain peroxides, the ACC petition would
broaden the scope of the special permit to include additional
materials. The ACC petition does not address the operational controls
of the special permit; specifically the requirement for the tank car to
be subjected to a pressure test of 10 psi for a minimum of 10
[[Page 54854]]
minutes to verify that the rupture disc shows no sign of leakage. PHMSA
does not currently mandate a service interval at which rupture discs
are required to be changed, but expects that inspections or testing
that identifies wear or leaks will lead to rupture disc replacement.
PHMSA has already partially modified the rupture disc inspection
requirements in Sec. 173.31(d)(1)(vi), since this petition was filed.
That modification addressed related safety implications of not removing
rupture discs prior to visual inspections and created a more limited
exception than P-1548 requests. PHMSA adopted the provision as proposed
in a May 14, 2010 final rule issued under Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0289
(HM-233A; 75 FR 27205). Access to the HM-233A rulemaking documents and
comments can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
PHMSA-2009-0289 or at DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Costs and Benefits
PHMSA considers the action requested by this petition to be
deregulatory in nature. The petition did not identify specific costs,
but did indicate that the proposed change would reduce the need for
periodic renewal of the special permit and expand its use to others,
which decreases time and expense for tank car owners, shippers, and
PHMSA. Another potential benefit of the proposal is that it would
eliminate the requirement to remove a rupture disc from the safety vent
for inspection prior to transportation, thereby saving the time the
loading rack operator needed to disassemble the device as well as the
cost of new discs.
Based on the petition, inspection of the rupture disc as specified
in Sec. 173.31(d)(1)(vi) may cause or contribute to the rupture disc
failing. For that reason, incorporating into the HMR an alternate
method of inspecting the rupture disc that mirrors the requirements in
Special Permit DOT SP-13219 may reduce releases and provide a safety
benefit. A preliminary review of hazardous materials incident reports
involving all pressure-related releases for the five-year period from
January 2007 to January 2011 found that 40 of the 85 recorded incidents
related to pressure relief devices involved a failed rupture disc. In
addition, available data does not provide a credible estimate of how
many incidents were prevented because of the inspections. However, the
incident report forms do provide the approximate cost associated with
these the incidents, mainly attributable to clean-up, response, and
damages. For the 40 incidents identified above, the reported cost is
$300,000.
Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on P-1548. Please provide comments and data
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner.
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
Can commenters provide data indicating the percentage of
rupture discs that were found to be defective during the currently
required inspection?
What percentage of the 40 recorded incidents that involved
a failed rupture disc would have been prevented had the rupture disc
not been removed and inspected in accordance with Sec.
173.31(d)(1)(vi)? What is the basis for this conclusion if the
commenter believes any would have been prevented?
Is there an inspection program with an established history
of safety that could be followed in lieu of removal and visual
examination of the underside of the rupture disc, such as the
procedures in Special Permit DOT SP-13219? If so, what?
Can commenters provide an explanation of how the rupture
disc is damaged or its effectiveness is lost as a result of the
required inspection?
How much time is required to inspect rupture discs in
accordance with the existing regulation?
What are the comparative costs and benefits of Special
Permit DOT SP-13219 and ACC's proposal, which expands Special Permit
DOT SP-13219 beyond limited shipments of certain peroxides and without
the alternative inspection program?
Under the action requested by the petitioner, what
criteria should shippers use to determine if an inspection would
damage, change, or alter the operation of the device?
Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM,
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
E. Petition P-1577
Summary
In petition P-1577, AAR provides new standards for DOT
Specification 111 tank cars based on findings and recommendations
created by AAR's Tank Car Committee. The committee reviewed tank car
performance under the current standards and investigated the benefits
of potential improvements. The new standards AAR proposes are intended
to enhance the safety of the existing specification. According to AAR,
these new tank car standards would improve the ability of tank cars to
survive an accident without the release of hazardous materials. AAR
requests that the new standards only be required for newly constructed
DOT Specification 111 tank cars that transport PG I and II hazardous
materials. Key tank car requirements in the AAR petition include:
PG I and II material tank cars to be constructed to
286,000 lb. Gross Rail Load (GRL) standards;
Head and shell thickness must be \1/2\ inch for TC-128B
non jacketed cars and \7/16\ inch for jacketed cars;
Shells of non-jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70
must be \9/16\ inch thick;
Shells of jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70 must
be \1/2\ inch thick;
New cars must be equipped with at least a \1/2\ inch half-
head shields;
Heads and the shells must be constructed of normalized
steel;
Top fittings must be protected by a protective structure
as tall as the tallest fitting; and
A reclosing pressure relief valve must be installed.
PHMSA notes that in addition to the tank car requirements outlined
above, AAR created the T87.6 Task Force to consider several other
enhancements to tank car design and rail carrier operations that would
further enhance rail transportation safety. On July 20, 2011, at the
summer AAR Tank Car Committee meeting, docket T87.6 was created with a
dual charge to develop an industry standard for tank cars used to
transport crude oil, denatured alcohol and ethanol/gasoline mixtures as
well as consider operating requirements to reduce the risk of
derailment of tank cars carrying crude oil classified as PG I and II,
and ethanol. The task force recommendations were finalized on March 1,
2012. PHMSA and FRA believe it is important to identify the additional
safety enhancements, which may include both rail car design and rail
carrier operational changes that were considered by the task force and
provide the public an opportunity to comment. Below, we highlight the
key considerations of the task force from both a tank car design and
operations standpoint.
Tank car design:
[[Page 54855]]
Thermal protection to address breaches attributable to
exposure to fire conditions;
Roll-over protection to prevent damage to top and bottom
fittings and limit stresses transferred from the protection device to
the tank shell;
Hinged and bolted manways to address a common cause of
leakage during accidents and Non-Accident Releases (NARS);
Bottom outlet valve elimination; and
Increasing outage from 1% to 2% to improve puncture
resistance.
Rail Carrier Operations:
Rail integrity (e.g., broken rails or welds, misaligned
track, obstructions, track geometry, etc.) to reduce the number and
severity of derailments;
Alternative brake signal propagation systems (electronic
controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP), distributed power (DP), two-way end
of train device (EOT) to reduce the number of cars and energy
associated with derailments;
Speed restrictions for key trains containing 20 or more
loaded tank cars (On August 5, 2013, AAR issued Circular No. OT-55-N
addressing this issue); \5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ On August 5, 2013, AAR published Circular No. OT-55-N. This
document supersedes OT-55-M, issued October 1, 2012. The definition
of a ``key train'' was revised to include ``20 car loads or portable
tank loads of any combination of hazardous material.'' Therefore,
the maximum speed of these trains is limited to 50 MPH. The document
is available in the public docket for this proceeding and at the
following URL: http://www.aar.com/CPC-1258%20OT-55-N%208-5-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency response to mitigate the risks faced by response
and salvage personnel, the impact on the environment, and delays to
traffic on the line.
For more detailed information, the T87.6 Task Force Summary Report
has been provided in its entirety in the public docket for this ANPRM
which is accessible at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
PHMSA-2012-0082 or at DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Costs and Benefits
PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition might
have safety benefits, but add additional regulatory burden. However,
PHMSA has not conducted an analysis of the possible actions that could
result from this petition. The intent of this ANPRM is to gather
relevant safety and economic data from the public regarding changes
proposed in the petition. The petition does provide some associated
costs and benefits. In the petition, AAR cites a member survey as the
source for information on the consequences of derailments involving PG
I and II hazardous materials from 2004 to 2008. The petition indicates
that the derailment incidents resulted in 1 fatality, 11 injuries, and
the release of approximately 925,000 gallons of materials with
associated cleanup costs of approximately $64 million.
The AAR petition does not provide a retrofit solution for the
existing fleet of about 77,000 DOT Specification 111 tank cars used to
transport PG I or II hazardous materials because of technical
difficulties and comparative costs. In the petition, AAR notes that the
Railway Supply Institute (RSI) ``conservatively estimates the cost of
retrofitting existing cars with head shield and jackets [to be more
than] $1 billion over the life of a retrofit program, not including
cleaning and out-of-service costs.'' By comparison, AAR states that the
cost of derailments over the past 5 years was approximately $64
million.
Additionally, PHMSA has received an estimate of the increased costs
associated with the proposed revisions. In 2011, the AAR issued
Casualty Prevention Circular (CPC) 1232, which outlines the new
requirements for tanks constructed after October 1, 2011, for use in
ethanol and crude oil service. The requirements of CPC 1232 are the
same as those in this petition. RSI estimates that a new DOT
Specification 111 tank car built to CPC 1232 will cost approximately
$18,000 more than a car built to the standard currently required by the
HMR. Only 7,000 to 10,000 pounds of the 23,000 pound increase in weight
(263,000 pound car to a 286,000 pound car) results from the head shield
and added thickness to the head and shell. Therefore, for $18,000
initial cost, a shipper will be able to transport an additional 13,000
to 16,000 pounds of product. The added weight of the car would also
likely result in additional fees established by the rail carrier. We
request comments on these costs, and benefits, as well as any fees
associated with the action proposed in the petition. PHMSA recognizes
that the petition may not have accounted for all economic impacts
associated with revising the DOT Specification 111 tank car.
Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on P-1577 and the remaining rail safety
enhancements that were considered by the task force for both tank car
design and rail carrier. Please provide comments and data on the costs
and benefits, as well as environmental and small businesses impacts, of
granting the action requested by the petitioner. PHMSA specifically
requests comments on the following questions:
Would the proposed revisions under P-1577 decrease the
release of hazardous materials during derailment? If so, what is the
basis for this conclusion?
Should PHMSA segment the petition and first address
requirements for tank cars carrying Class 3 materials (because there is
an abundance of work to inform the rulemaking), then the remaining
hazard classes within PGs I and II? If so, why?
The proposed tank car requirements do not include thermal
protection and therefore do not address thermal damage specifically.
Given that ethanol and crude oil are often shipped in unit trains or
large blocks within a train and a pool fire is likely in the event of
certain large incidents, should thermal protection requirements, such
as those considered by the T87.6 Task Force,\6\ be a consideration? If
so, why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A copy of the report is available in the public docket for
this ANPRM. To view, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Docket HM-233A, PHMSA modified Sec. 179.13 to
permit the operation of tank cars at a GRL of 286,000 pounds if the
tank car owners obtain approval from the FRA. On January 25, 2011, FRA
published a notice outlining the specification requirements for tank
cars operating at 286,000 pounds GRL (76 FR 4250). As established by
the January 25, 2011 notice, the approval requirements for minimum
thickness and materials of construction for newly-constructed tank cars
must be based on an analysis that considers puncture velocity. Under an
ongoing research project conducted in conjunction with both the T87.6
Task Force and the Advance Tank Car Collaborative Research Project,
data suggest that the puncture protection benefits of a \1/16\ increase
in shell thickness, as proposed in P-1577, are marginal. Further, the
enhancements proposed by P-1577 may not be of value when considered
relative to the risk associated with the increased weight of the tank
cars. Will the changes proposed in the petition adequately improve the
safety (puncture resistance) of tank cars? What is the overall impact
on rail transportation safety and risk associated with the enhancements
proposed for DOT Specification 111 tank cars under P-1577?
The petition addresses some of the tank car design issues
raised by T87.6 Task Force. In the P-1577 summary provided above, PHMSA
highlights the
[[Page 54856]]
remaining rail safety enhancements that were considered by the task
force for both tank car design and rail carrier. What, if any, design
and operations enhancements should PHMSA and FRA consider beyond those
identified in P-1577 to improve the safe transportation of PG I and II
materials?
Does AAR Circular No. OT-55-N adequately address speed
restrictions for key trains? Should PHMSA incorporate the language
contained in AAR Circular No. OT-55-N into the HMR to account for the
train speed considerations of the task force? Should PHMSA expand upon
AAR Circular No. OT-55-N to include requirements for fewer than 20
cars?
Are shippers ordering CPC 1232-compliant tank cars
voluntarily to address safety concerns and the immediate need for new
cars or because compliance with CPC 1232 is required? If so, please
provide any relevant data about this.
How many CPC 1232-compliant tank cars are currently in
service?
PHMSA and FRA estimate that for an $18,000 initial cost, a
shipper will be able to transport an additional 13,000 to 16,000 pounds
of product. This would result in fewer cars required to transport the
same amount of product. What are the safety and economic benefits of
increasing the product capacity of the tank car?
Positive train control (PTC) is a system of functional
requirements for monitoring and controlling train movements to provide
increased safety. PTC is designed to automatically stop or slow to
prevent accidents. Specifically, PTC is designed to prevent train-to-
train collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed, unauthorized
incursions by trains onto sections of track where repairs are being
made and movement of a train through a track switch left in the wrong
position. Are technologies available, such as PTC, that would prevent
derailments? If so, please provide any relevant data--including any
projected improvements in safety performance that would reduce current
rail transportation risks.
What, if any, are the additional implementation and
operating costs associated with CPC 1232 compliant tank cars (e.g.,
higher fees charged by rail carriers)? Are there any additional
benefits, if so, what are they?
Would the increased cost of CPC 1232-compliant cars slow
the replacement of older cars? How does this impact the current backlog
of cars?
What are the costs associated with re-tooling tank car
construction facilities to manufacture CPC 1231-compliant tank cars?
How would the costs impact small businesses that build these cars?
Please comment on the accuracy of the estimated costs
indicated by AAR and RSI, and include any additional anticipated costs
of complying with the proposed revisions. Are there any additional
anticipated benefits if the proposed revisions are adopted?
If the PHMSA were to adopt the action requested by the
petitioner, what is the appropriate timeframe for complying with the
new requirements?
Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM,
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
F. Petition P-1587
Summary
In petition P-1587, the Village of Barrington, Illinois and The
Regional Answer to Canadian National request modifications to the HMR.
First, they request that PHMSA correct flaws with the DOT Specification
111 tank car by adopting the AAR standards identified in P-1577 for the
tank cars. However, in addition to applying these standards to newly-
manufactured cars, the petitioners stress the importance of
promulgating enhanced standards for existing tank cars used to
transport PG I and II materials in accordance with the NTSB Railroad
Accident Report--Derailment of CN Freight Train U70691-18 With
Subsequent Hazardous Materials Release and Fire, Cherry Valley,
Illinois, June 19, 2009 (RAR-12-01).
Second, the petitioners request that PHMSA adopt NTSB
Recommendation R-07-04 and ``require that railroads immediately provide
to emergency responders accurate, real-time information regarding the
identity and location of all hazardous materials on a train.'' While
the petitioners recognize that PHMSA has made progress with its
hazardous materials automated cargo communications for efficient and
safe shipments (HM-ACCESS; a study to identify and eliminate barriers
to using electronic hazardous materials (e-HM) shipping documents)
initiative, they request that PHMSA move from the fact-finding phase of
this initiative to the regulatory action phase. The petition asks that
any regulations stemming from the HM-ACCESS initiative be enforceable
with a system of random audits to promote compliance. The petitioner
urges PHMSA to act expeditiously.
FRA and PHMSA continue to make progress toward electronic
communications. FRA and PHMSA have met with AAR and the American Short
Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) to discuss the
available systems and to identify the systemic gaps and measures to
close those gaps. In addition, on June 25, 2012 PHMSA, working closely
with FRA, published a final rule incorporating a several widely used
rail special permits into the HMR (77 FR 37961). In the rule,
requirements for electronic shipping papers, electronic data
interchange (EDI) standards, and electronic certification for hazardous
material rail shipments were codified in the HMR.
NTSB Recommendations Addressed
In published findings from the June 19, 2009, incident in Cherry
Valley, Illinois, NTSB indicated that the DOT Specification 111 tank
car can almost always be expected to breach in the event of a
derailment resulting in car-to-car impacts or pileups (68% failure rate
for the Cherry Valley incident). Furthermore, NTSB's findings show that
whether or not the bottom outlet valves on DOT Specification 111 tank
cars are protected, they are still susceptible to failure. The findings
are described in detail below.
As described in detail in NTSB Railroad Accident Report RAR-12-01,
available for review in the public docket for this rulemaking, NTSB
determined that one of the probable causes of the June 19, 2009
incident in Cherry Valley, Illinois, in which several derailed cars
released hazardous materials, was the washout of the track structure at
the grade crossing and failure to notify the train crew of the known
washout. It also determined that inadequate design features of a DOT
Specification 111 rail tank car made it susceptible to damage and
catastrophic loss of hazardous material during the derailment, and
thus, contributed to the severity of the incident.
The Cherry Valley incident involved the derailment of 19 cars, all
of which were tank cars carrying denatured fuel ethanol, a flammable
liquid. Thirteen of the derailed tank cars were breached or lost
product and caught fire. NTSB's investigation revealed that several
motor vehicles were stopped on either side of the grade crossing
waiting for the train to pass as the derailment occurred. As a result
of the fire that erupted, a passenger in one of the stopped cars was
fatally injured, two passengers in the same car received serious
injuries, and five occupants of other cars waiting at the highway-rail
crossing were injured. Two firefighters also sustained minor
[[Page 54857]]
injuries. The release of ethanol and fire prompted a mandatory
evacuation of about 600 residences within a \1/2\-mile radius of the
accident site. Damages were estimated to total $7.9 million.
On March 2, 2012, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendations R-12-5
thru R-12-8, which recommend that PHMSA:
Require that all newly manufactured and existing general
service tank cars authorized for transportation of denatured fuel
ethanol and crude oil in PGs I and II have enhanced tank head and shell
puncture resistance systems and top fittings protection that exceeds
existing design requirements for DOT Specification 111 tank cars. (R-
12-5)
Require that all bottom outlet valves used on newly
manufactured and existing non-pressure tank cars are designed to remain
closed during accidents in which the valve and operating handle are
subjected to impact forces. (R-12-6).
Require that all newly manufactured and existing tank cars
authorized for transportation of hazardous materials have center sill
or draft sill attachment designs that conform to the revised
Association of American Railroads' design requirements adopted as a
result of Safety Recommendation R-12-9. (R-12-7).
Inform pipeline operators about the circumstances of the
accident and advise them of the need to inspect pipeline facilities
after notification of accidents occurring in railroad rights-of-way.
(R-12-8).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ On July 31, 2012, PHMSA published in the Federal Register
(77 FR 45417) an advisory bulletin to all pipeline operators
alerting them to the circumstances of the Cherry Valley derailment
and reminding them of the importance of assuring that pipeline
facilities have not been damaged either during a railroad accident
or other event occurring in the right-of-way. This recommendation
was Closed by NTSB on September 20, 2012. This action is accessible
at the following URL: http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/ntsb/closed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, based on its findings in this accident investigation,
NTSB reiterated the following previously issued Safety Recommendation
to PHMSA:
With the assistance of the Federal Railroad
Administration, require that railroads immediately provide to emergency
responders accurate, real-time information regarding the identity and
location of all hazardous materials on a train. (R-07-4).
Costs and Benefits
PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition might
have safety benefits, but add additional regulatory burden. However,
PHMSA has not conducted an analysis of the possible actions that could
result from this petition. The intent of this ANPRM is to gather
relevant safety and economic data from the public regarding changes
proposed in the petition. The key difference is between P-1577 and the
combination of P-1587 and the NTSB recommendations R-12-5 and R-12-6 is
that the latter would require retrofitting of existing DOT
Specification 111 tank cars. NTSB Recommendations R-12-7 and R-07-4 are
currently being addressed by separate initiatives that have been
undertaken by PHMSA and FRA. Petition P-1587 references the cost and
benefit information contained in petition P-1577 and the NTSB accident
report and Recommendations outlined above. However, the petition
provides clarifying information regarding the cost of retrofitting
existing tank cars with jackets and head shields. Petition P-1577
states that the cost of retrofitting existing cars (77,000 with a 40
year life cycle) with head shields and jackets alone would be over $1
billion. This petition notes that the AAR's Tank Car Committee T87.5
``estimated that the cost of modifying existing tank cars with jackets
and head shields alone would be at least $15,000 per tank car.'' The
petition further states:
While the AAR claims that the retrofit costs cannot be justified
because the cost of derailments was only $64 million over five
years, Petitioners suggest that AAR's reasoning is grossly
misleading. In order to determine the impact of the cost of
retrofitting the existing fleet, PHMSA should note that the existing
fleet has a future life expectancy of at least 32 years. Even if the
estimated cost of the recommended retrofit is $15,000 per car, when
amortized over thirty-two (32) years, the cost is less than $500 per
year per tank car . . .
In reviewing the derailment cost chart at Attachment B of AAR's
petition, PHMSA should note that there is no apparent accounting for
costs associated with civil litigation in the wake of derailments.
However, in the Cherry Valley/Rockford derailment, [Canadian
National Railway (CN)] paid over $36 million in October of 2011 to
settle a lawsuit brought by the family of only one victim. AAR's
chart, however, reflects costs of only $8 million for that incident.
The petition indicates that based on this information, there is
``no rational reason to not require the retrofitting of the existing
fleet consistent with NTSB's recommendation.''
Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on P-1587. Please provide comments and data
on the costs and benefits, as well as, environmental and small
businesses impacts of granting the action requested by the petitioner.
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
Petition P-1587 indicates that the new standards should
apply to both new construction and retrofitting the existing fleet. Can
you provide the safety benefits and costs associated with each retrofit
option outlined below:
[cir] Meets NTSB Recommendation R-12-5 (enhanced tank head and
shell puncture resistance and top fitting protection);
[cir] Meets NTSB Recommendation R-12-6 (alternative designs to
ensure the bottom outlet valves on the enhanced DOT Specification 111
tank cars will remain closed during accidents.);
[cir] Provides thermal protection to address breaches attributable
to exposure to fire conditions;
[cir] Provides roll-over protection to prevent damage to top and
bottom fittings and limit stresses transferred from the protection
device to the tank shell;
[cir] Requires hinged and bolted manways to address a common cause
of leakage during accidents and Non-Accident Releases (NARS);
[cir] Requires bottom outlet valve elimination; and
[cir] Increases outage from 1% to 2% to improve puncture
resistance.
RSI estimates the cost of retrofitting existing cars with
head shield and jackets to be more than $1 billion over the life of a
retrofit program, not including cleaning and out-of-service costs.
Would retrofitting with head shields and jackets sufficiently address
the concerns of the petitioner? Please explain.
Are commenters aware of any systems currently in use that
railroads could use to immediately provide emergency responders
accurate, real-time information regarding the identity and location of
all hazardous materials on a train? If so, what does the system cost?
Are there any additional costs associated with the system? If so, what
are they? What are the specific benefits of providing real-time
information regarding the identity and location of all hazardous
materials on a train to emergency responders?
What is the failure rate for DOT Specification 111 tank
cars? Is the 68% failure rate for DOT Specification 111 tank cars that
occurred during the June 19, 2009, incident in Cherry Valley, Illinois
typical? Please provide relevant data regarding the failure rate for
DOT Specification 111 tank cars.
[[Page 54858]]
Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. The
petition and NTSB Recommendations are available in the public docket
for this ANPRM, to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's
Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
G. Petition P-1595
Summary
In petition P-1595, ACC, API, and CI indicate that they are aware
of petitions P-1577 and P-1587. According to the ACC, API, and CI
petition, many PG I and II materials, with very different hazards and
rail transportation risks, have been lumped together in petitions P-
1577 and P-1587. In petition P-1595, ACC, API, and CI request that
PHMSA institute a separate rulemaking to specifically address new tank
car construction standards for ethanol and crude oil in PG I and II.
The petition suggests that PHMSA not include the other PG I and II
materials because further analysis is required that could delay the
rulemaking process. Key tank car requirements identified in the ACC,
API, and CI petition include:
Top fittings must be protected by a protective structure
as tall as the tallest fitting;
A reclosing pressure relief valve must be installed;
Head and shell thickness must be \1/2\ inch for TC-128B
non-jacketed cars and \7/16\ inch for jacketed cars;
Shells of non-jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70
must be \9/16\ inch thick; and
Shells of jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70 must
be \1/2\ inch thick.
Costs and Benefits
PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition would
address a safety concern, but add additional regulatory burden. The
petition did not identify specific costs and benefits. In the petition
ACC, API, and CI indicate that focusing on an expedited rulemaking to
address ethanol and crude oil would better address the risks involved.
Further, ACC, API and CI indicate that separating the ethanol and crude
oil in PG I and II from other PG I and II materials would provide for a
tank car design that is tailored to the requirements of the materials
being transported. The petitioners acknowledge that ``[m]uch more
research and analysis would be necessary to justify any significant
change in the construction standards for tank cars carrying other PG I
and II materials, such as corrosive materials.''
Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on P-1595. Please provide comments and data
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner.
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
Petition P-1595 indicates that new standards should apply
to newly constructed DOT Specification 111 tank cars used for ethanol
and crude oil in PG I and II. Can you provide the safety benefits and
costs associated with each new construction option outlined in the
petition and identified below:
[cir] Requiring top fittings to be protected by a protective
structure as tall as the tallest fitting;
[cir] Requiring that a reclosing pressure relief valve be
installed;
[cir] Requiring head and shell thickness to be \1/2\ inch for TC-
128B non-jacketed cars and \7/16\ inch for jacketed cars;
[cir] Requiring shells of non-jacketed tank cars constructed of
A5l6-70 to be \9/16\ inch thick; and
[cir] Requiring shells of jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70
must be \1/2\ inch thick.
What are the costs and benefits of requiring the use of
CPC 1232-compliant tank cars for the transportation of ethanol and
crude oil in PG I and II? How many cars are currently in this service?
What are the implications on public safety of PHMSA considering
standards for tank cars used to transport ethanol and crude oil in PG I
and II, before considering standards for other PG I and II materials?
What are the specific safety risks/vulnerabilities associated with the
remaining hazard classes within PG I and II? Please explain how those
vulnerabilities are best addressed.
What will be the price difference between the DOT
Specification 111 tank cars for PG I and II ethanol and crude oil vs.
DOT Specification 111 tank cars used for other hazardous materials in
PG I and II? Please explain the differences.
Would the increased cost of PG I and II ethanol and crude
oil cars slow the replacement of older cars? How does this impact the
current backlog of cars?
What are the costs associated with re-tooling tank car
construction facilities to manufacture different DOT Specification 111
tank cars for PG I and II ethanol and crude oil vs. other PG I and II
materials? How would the costs impact small businesses that build these
cars?
Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM,
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
H. Petition P-1612
Summary
In petition P-1612, ACC, API, CI, and RFA indicate they stand ready
and willing to work with PHMSA and other stakeholders to ensure that
the recently increased volumes of crude oil and ethanol that move by
rail are transported safely. The petitioners indicate that they support
the tank car changes proposed in petition P-1577 and the T87.6 Task
Force Summary Report. Further, the petitioners indicate that PHMSA has
the authority and responsibility to institute these new requirements
for these tank cars to ensure certainty for stakeholders. The
petitioners clearly indicate that expediting regulatory requirements
for new tank cars transporting crude oil and ethanol will increase rail
transportation safety, remove economic uncertainty, and eliminate
increasing risks of future economic harm. As such, petition P-1612
requests that PHMSA act expeditiously by issuing a direct final rule to
implement the changes P-1577 and the T87.6 Task Force Summary Report
for ethanol and crude oil.
Costs and Benefits
PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition might
have safety benefits, but add additional regulatory burden. However,
PHMSA has not conducted an analysis of the possible actions that could
result from this petition. The intent of this ANPRM is to gather
relevant safety and economic data from the public regarding changes
proposed in the petition. The petition did not identify specific costs
and benefits. In the petition ACC, API, CI, and RFA indicate that
focusing on an expedited rulemaking to adopt the changes proposed in
petition P-1577 and the T87.6 Task Force Summary Report for new tank
cars transporting crude oil and ethanol is appropriate for a number of
reasons. First, the petitioners indicate that there has been a
significant increase in rail shipment of crude oil, while most other PG
I and II materials shipping patterns have been relatively consistent.
The petitioners indicate that the increase in shipments of both ethanol
and crude oil and abundance of available information provides an
opportunity to significantly increase the safety of these shipments
immediately. The petitioners indicate that delaying further, to allow
more time
[[Page 54859]]
to formulate a rule for unrelated tank car retrofits, would
unnecessarily increase the risk of a release in the unlikely event that
an incident occur.
Second, the petitioners indicate that tank cars for crude oil and
ethanol service are currently being manufactured. The petitioners
indicate that delays in establishing a new construction standard for
these tank cars may result in many tank cars being manufactured that do
not meet future requirements. The petitioners indicate that this is
impractical and would increase compliance costs significantly. The
petitioners indicate that many tank cars may be required to go back to
the shop for retrofits which will increase demand for shop space and
delay tank cars from being placed back into service.
Finally, petition P-1612 states that ``many builders and shippers
have made significant capital investments in tank cars built to P-1577
and T87.6 construction standards in good faith, expecting PHMSA's
approval of that standard.'' The petitioners indicate that the
involvement of the DOT in the T87.6 Task Force and the safety
improvements contained in the T87.6 Task Force Summary Report gave
industry the impression that the changes would be codified. Petition P-
1612 goes on to state, ``As a result, those cars should be considered
in compliance with any regulatory requirements included in the final
rule without being required to undergo retrofits.''
Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on P-1612. Please provide comments
and data on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner.
PHMSA asks commenters to consider the potential economic and safety
implications associated with the petition. In addition, PHMSA
specifically requests comments on the following questions:
What are the implications on public safety of PHMSA
addressing standards for new construction of tank cars used to
transport ethanol and crude oil without also considering enhancements
to the existing fleet?
Petition P-1612 states that PHMSA should, ``initiate an
expedited rulemaking on regulatory requirements for new tank car
construction standards for cars transporting crude oil and ethanol as a
stand-alone rulemaking and address potential retrofits proposals at a
later date in a separate rulemaking.'' Would such a requirement include
ethanol and crude oil in PG I, II, and III?
What are the costs and benefits of requiring ethanol and
crude oil in PG III to be shipped in DOT Specification 111 tank cars
that are CPC 1232-compliant?
Petition P-1612 states that the ``Petitioners continue to
support P-1577 and the T87.6 Task Force recommendations, which
recommend no retrofit requirements for the existing fleet of tank cars
carrying crude oil and ethanol.'' Please provide the safety benefits
and costs associated the following key considerations of P-1577 and the
task force from both a tank car design and operations standpoint:
[cir] Enhancing the tank car by:
[ssquf] Constructing tank cars to 286,000 lb. GRL standards;
[ssquf] Increasing head and shell thickness to \1/2\ inch for TC-
128B non-jacketed cars and \7/16\ inch for jacketed cars;
[ssquf] Requiring shells of non-jacketed tank cars constructed of
A5l6-70 to be \9/16\ inch thick;
[ssquf] Requiring shells of jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-
70 to be \1/2\ inch thick;
[ssquf] Equipping cars with at least a \1/2\ inch half-head
shields;
[ssquf] Requiring heads and the shells to be constructed of
normalized steel;
[ssquf] Requiring top fittings to be protected by a protective
structure as tall as the tallest fitting;
[ssquf] Requiring a reclosing pressure relief valve to be
installed;
[ssquf] Adding thermal protection to address breaches attributable
to exposure to fire conditions;
[ssquf] Adding roll-over protection to prevent damage to top and
bottom fittings and limit stresses transferred from the protection
device to the tank shell;
[ssquf] Adding hinged and bolted manways to address a common cause
of leakage during accidents and NARS;
[ssquf] Eliminating bottom outlet valves; and
[ssquf] Increasing outage from 1% to 2% to improve puncture
resistance.
[cir] Enhancing rail operations in the following areas:
[ssquf] Rail integrity (e.g., broken rails or welds, buckled track,
obstructions, track geometry, etc.) to reduce the number and severity
of derailments;
[ssquf] Alternative brake signal propagation systems ECP, DP, EOT
to reduce the number of cars and energy associated with derailments;
[ssquf] Speed restrictions for key trains; and
[ssquf] Emergency response to mitigate the risks faced by response
and salvage personnel, the impact on the environment, and delays to
traffic on the line.
Petition P-1612 makes the following statement, ``The
increase in shipments of these commodities, which should create a sense
of urgency to ensure they are moved as safely as possible, combined
with PHMSA's understanding of their properties and a wealth of
technical information to draw from, provides an opportunity to
significantly increase the safety of these shipments immediately.''
Please provide any available technical information and justification
that clearly indicates what is meant by the statement ``significantly
increase the safety of these shipments.''
Considering the statement from petition P-1612 and the
request for more technical information and justification in the bullet
above, please provide a quantitative estimate that supports the
issuance of a direct final rule as requested by petition P-1612.
Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM,
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
IV. Regulatory Review and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13610
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This ANPRM is considered a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The ANPRM is considered a significant
regulatory action under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order
issued by the Department of Transportation. 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26,
1979).
Executive Orders 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') require agencies
to regulate in the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs,'' and to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on
society.'' Executive Order 13610, issued May 10, 2012, urges agencies
to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether
they remain justified and whether they should be modified or
streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of
new technologies.
Additionally, Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13610 require
agencies to provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation.
Accordingly, PHMSA invites comments on these considerations, including
any cost or benefit figures or factors, alternative approaches, and
relevant scientific,
[[Page 54860]]
technical and economic data. These comments, along with the noted
petitions and recommendations, will help PHMSA evaluate whether the
proposed rulemakings are needed and appropriate.
B. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input by state and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that may have ``substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' We invite state and local governments
with an interest in this rulemaking to comment on any effect that
revisions to the HMR may cause.
C. Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input from Indian tribal government representatives in the
development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Indian
communities by imposing ``substantial direct compliance costs'' or
``substantial direct effects'' on such communities or the relationship
and distribution of power between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. We invite Indian tribal governments to provide comments on the
costs and effects the petitions and recommendations could have on them,
if adopted.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Policies
and Procedures
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), we must consider whether a rulemaking would have a ``significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' ``Small
entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that
are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000.
It is possible that if PHMSA proposes to adopt the revisions
suggested in the petitions for rulemaking and NTSB Recommendations,
there may be a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' As such, we would like small entities' input on the
issues presented in this ANPRM. If you believe that revisions to the
HMR would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities, please provide information on such impacts.
Any future proposed rule would be developed in accordance with
Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's procedures and policies to promote
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential
impacts on small entities of a regulatory action are properly
considered.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members
of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on
information collection and recordkeeping requests. This ANPRM does not
impose new information collection requirements. Depending on the
results of our request for comments to this ANPRM, a decrease may
result in the annual burden and costs under OMB Control Number 2137-
0559. This reduction would be based on P-1507. Specifically, the burden
associated with submitting an approval application would be reduced if
PHMSA adds language that enables FRA to publish guidance on specific
elements of non-conformity that would no longer be subject to approval
by the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety.
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the information collection
and recordkeeping burdens associated with this ANPRM.
F. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375,
requires that federal agencies analyze proposed actions to determine
whether the action will have a significant impact on the human
environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
require federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering
(1) the need for the proposed action, (2) alternatives to the proposed
action, (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and
alternatives, and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the
consideration process. 40 CFR 1508.9(b). PHMSA welcomes any data or
information related to environmental impacts that may result if the
petitions and recommendations are adopted, as well as possible
alternatives and their environmental impacts.
G. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement,
published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or
you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
H. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
Under Executive Order 13609, agencies must consider whether the
impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the
ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally.
In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, regulatory approaches developed
through international cooperation can provide equivalent protection to
standards developed independently while also minimizing unnecessary
differences.
Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465),
prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging
in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements,
Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international
standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic
objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude
imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards
in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have
assessed the effects of the proposed rule to ensure that it does not
cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Accordingly, this
rulemaking is consistent with E.O. 13609 and PHMSA's obligations under
the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.
PHMSA welcomes any data or information related to international
impacts that may result if the petitions and recommendations are
adopted, as well as possible alternatives and their international
impacts. Please describe the impacts and the basis for the comment.
[[Page 54861]]
I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This ANPRM is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b),
which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of
hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.''
The petitions and recommendations addressed in the ANPRM purport to
address safety issues with the transportation of hazardous materials in
commerce. Our goal in this ANPRM is to gather the necessary information
to determine a course of action in a potential Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM).
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 2013, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97(b).
William Schoonover,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-21621 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P