# Hazardous Materials: Rail Petitions and Recommendations To Improve the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation (RRR)

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 78 FR 54849
- **title:** Hazardous Materials: Rail Petitions and Recommendations To Improve the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation (RRR)
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** proposed
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2013-09-06
- **effective on:** Not available
- **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.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2013-21621.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2013-21621.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2013-21621
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/09/06/2013-21621/hazardous-materials-rail-petitions-and-recommendations-to-improve-the-safety-of-railroad-tank-car
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 78 Issue 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013) [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 thic
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 86162