{"operation":"document","citation":"79 FR 45016","title":"Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"proposed","official":true,"published_on":"2014-08-01","effective_on":null,"summary":"The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or we), in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is proposing: new operational requirements for certain trains transporting a large volume of Class 3 flammable liquids; improvements in tank car standards; and revision of the general requirements for offerors to ensure proper classification and characterization of mined gases and liquids. These proposed requirements are designed to lessen the frequency and consequences of train accidents/incidents (train accidents) involving certain trains transporting a large volume of flammable liquids. The growing reliance on trains to transport large volumes of flammable liquids poses a significant risk to life, property, and the environment. These significant risks have been highlighted by the recent instances of trains carrying crude oil that derailed in Casselton, North Dakota; Aliceville, Alabama; and Lac- M[eacute]gantic, Quebec, Canada. The proposed changes also address National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendations on the accurate classification and characterization of such commodities, enhanced tank car construction, and rail routing.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2014-17764.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2014-17764.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2014-17764","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/08/01/2014-17764/hazardous-materials-enhanced-tank-car-standards-and-operational-controls-for-high-hazard-flammable","body":"Federal Register, Volume 79 Issue 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014) [Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 45016-45079] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2014-17764] [[Page 45015]] Vol. 79 Friday, No. 148 August 1, 2014 Part III Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, et al. Hazardous Materials: Proposed Rules Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules [[Page 45016]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, and 179 [Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 (HM-251)] RIN 2137-AE91 Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA or we), in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is proposing: new operational requirements for certain trains transporting a large volume of Class 3 flammable liquids; improvements in tank car standards; and revision of the general requirements for offerors to ensure proper classification and characterization of mined gases and liquids. These proposed requirements are designed to lessen the frequency and consequences of train accidents/incidents (train accidents) involving certain trains transporting a large volume of flammable liquids. The growing reliance on trains to transport large volumes of flammable liquids poses a significant risk to life, property, and the environment. These significant risks have been highlighted by the recent instances of trains carrying crude oil that derailed in Casselton, North Dakota; Aliceville, Alabama; and Lac- M[eacute]gantic, Quebec, Canada. The proposed changes also address National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendations on the accurate classification and characterization of such commodities, enhanced tank car construction, and rail routing. DATES: Comments must be received by September 30, 2014. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number (Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 (HM-251)) and any 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 document 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 at: http://www.dot.gov/privacy . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Supko or Michael Stevens, (202) 366-8553, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or Karl Alexy, (202) 493-6245, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Frequently Used Abbreviations and Shortened Terms AAR Association of American Railroads ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking or PHMSA's ANPRM published September 6, 2013 in this rulemaking, depending on context App. Appendix CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPC Casualty Prevention Circular Crude oil Petroleum crude oil DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DP Distributed power, an alternative brake signal propagation system ECP brakes Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, an alternative brake signal propagation system EO 28 FRA Emergency Order No. 28 (78 FR 54849; August 7, 2013) EOT device Two Way End-of-train device FR Federal Register FRA Federal Railroad Administration GRL Gross Rail Load HHFT High-Hazard Flammable Train HMT Hazardous Materials Table at 49 CFR 172.101 HMR Hazardous Materials Regulations at 49 CFR Parts 171-180 LPG Liquefied petroleum gas NAR Non-accident release, the unintentional release of a hazardous material while in transportation, including loading and unloading while in railroad possession, that is not caused by a derailment, collision, or other rail-related accident NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking NTSB National Transportation Safety Board OTMA One-time movement approval PG Packing Group (see 49 CFR 171.8) PIH Poison Inhalation Hazard RIA Regulatory impact analysis RSAC Railroad Safety Advisory Committee RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration, the predecessor of PHMSA SERCs State Emergency Response Commissions T87.6 Task Force A task force of the AAR Tank Car Committee TIH Toxic inhalation hazard or Toxic-by-Inhalation TTC Tank Car Committee TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.C. United States Code Table of Contents of Supplementary Information I. Executive Summary II. Overview of Current Regulations Relevant to This Proposal A. Classification and Characterization of Mined Liquids and Gases B. Packaging C. Track Integrity and The Safety of Freight Railroad Operations D. Oil Spill Response Plans E. Rail Routing III. Background A. Regulatory Actions B. Emergency Orders and Non-Regulatory Actions C. NTSB Safety Recommendations IV. Comments on the ANPRM A. Commenter Key B. Summary of Comments Relevant to the Proposed Amendments in This NPRM C. Summary of Comments on Possible Amendments Not in This NPRM V. Discussion of Comments and Section-by-Section Review A. High-Hazard Flammable Train B. Notification to SERCs of Petroleum Crude Oil Train Transportation C. Rail Routing D. Classification and Characterization of Crude Oil of Mined Liquids and Gases [[Page 45017]] E. Additional Requirements for High-Hazard Flammable Trains a. Speed Restriction b. Alternative Brake Signal Propagation Systems F. New Tank Cars for High-Hazard Flammable Trains a. DOT Specification 117--Prescribed Car b. DOT Specification 117--Performance Standard G. Existing Tank Cars for High-Hazard Flammable Trains H. Forthcoming FRA NPRM on Securement and Attendance VI. Regulatory Review and Notices A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13610, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act C. Executive Order 13132 D. Executive Order 13175 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Policies and Procedures F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. Environmental Assessment H. Privacy Act I. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis J. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) I. Executive Summary Expansion in United States (U.S.) energy production has led to significant challenges in the transportation system. Expansion in oil production has led to increasing volumes of product transported to refineries. Traditionally, pipelines and oceangoing tankers have delivered the vast majority of crude oil to U.S. refineries, accounting for approximately 93 percent of total receipts (in barrels) in 2012. Although other modes of transportation--rail, barge, and truck--have accounted for a relatively minor portion of crude oil shipments, volumes have been rising very rapidly. With a growing domestic supply, rail transportation, in particular, has emerged as a flexible alternative to transportation by pipeline or vessel. The volume of crude oil carried by rail increased 423 percent between 2011 and 2012. 1 2 Volumes continued to increase in 2013, as the number of rail carloads of crude oil surpassed 400,000.\\3\\ U.S. ethanol production has also increased considerably during the last 10 years and has generated similar growth in the transportation of ethanol by rail.\\4\\ The increase in shipments of large quantities of flammable liquids by rail has led to an increase in the number of train accidents, posing a significant safety and environmental concern. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ See U.S. Rail Transportation of Crude Oil: Background and Issues for Congress; http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43390.pdf . \\2\\ See also ``Refinery receipts of crude oil by rail, truck, and barge continue to increase'' http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12131 . \\3\\ http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/econ_waybill.html . \\4\\ Association of American Railroads. 2013. Railroads and Ethanol. Available online at https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents/Background-Papers/Railroads%20and%20Ethanol.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this NPRM, PHMSA is proposing revisions to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) that establish requirements for ``high-hazard flammable train'' (HHFT). This proposed rule defines a HHFT as a train comprised of 20 or more carloads of a Class 3 flammable liquid and ensures that the rail requirements are more closely aligned with the risks posed by the operation of these trains. As discussed further in this preamble and in our analysis, this rule primarily impacts unit train shipments of ethanol and crude oil; because ethanol and crude oil are most frequently transported in high volume shipments, typically in trains with 20 or more cars of those commodities. Currently, as shipped, crude oil and ethanol are typically classified as Class 3 flammable liquids. The primary intent of this rulemaking is to propose revisions to the HMR that update and clarify the regulations to prevent and mitigate the consequences of a train accident involving flammable liquids, should one occur. Table 1 identifies those affected by this NPRM and describes the regulatory changes. Table 1--Affected Entities and Requirements ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposed requirement Affected entity ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Better classification and characterization Offerors/Shippers of all of mined gases and liquids. mined gases and liquids. Written sampling and testing program for all mined gases and liquids, such as crude oil, to address: (1) frequency of sampling and testing; (2) sampling at various points along the supply chain; (3) sampling methods that ensure a representative sample of the entire mixture; (4) testing methods to enable complete analysis, classification, and characterization of material; (5) statistical justification for sample frequencies; and, (6) duplicate samples for quality assurance. Require offerer to certify that program is in place, document the testing and sampling program, and make program information available to DOT personnel, upon request. Rail routing risk assessment.............. Rail Carriers, Emergency Responders. Requires carriers to perform a routing analysis that considers 27 safety and security factors. The carrier must select a route based on findings of the route analysis. These planning requirements are prescribed in Sec. 172.820 and would be expanded to apply to HHFTs. Notification to SERCs. Require trains containing one million gallons of Bakken crude oil to notify State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs) or other appropriate state delegated entity about the operation of these trains through their States. Reduced operating speeds. Restrict all HHFTs to 50-mph in all areas. PHMSA is requesting comment on three speed restriction options for HHFTs that contain any tank cars not meeting the enhanced tank car standards proposed by this rule: [[Page 45018]] (1) a 40-mph maximum speed restriction in all areas (2) a 40-mph speed restriction in high threat urban areas\\5\\; and, (3) a 40-mph speed restriction in areas with a 100K+ population. PHMSA is also requesting comment on a 30-mph speed restriction for HHFTs that do not comply with enhanced braking requirements. Enhanced braking. Require all HHFTs be equipped with alternative brake signal propagation systems. Depending on the outcome of the tank car standard proposal and implementation timing, all HHFTs would be operated with either electronic controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP), a two-way end of train device (EOT), or distributed power (DP). Enhanced standards for both new and Tank Car Manufacturers, Tank existing tank cars. Car owners, Shippers and Rail Carriers. Require new tank cars constructed after October 1, 2015 (that are used to transport flammable liquids as part of a HHFT) to meet criteria for a selected option, including specific design requirements or performance criteria (e.g., thermal, top fittings, and bottom outlet protection; tank head and shell puncture resistance). PHMSA is requesting comment on the following three options for the DOT Specification 117: 1. FRA and PHMSA Designed Car, or equivalent 2. AAR 2014 Tank Car,\\6\\ or equivalent 3. Jacketed CPC-1232,\\7\\ or equivalent Require existing tank cars that are used to transport flammable liquids as part of a HHFT, to be retrofitted to meet the selected option for performance requirements, except for top fittings protection. Those not retrofitted would be retired, repurposed, or operated under speed restrictions for up to five years, based on packing group assignment of the lading. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 2 further summarizes the three options for the DOT Specification 117. As noted in Table 1, PHMSA proposes to require one of these options for new tank cars constructed after October 1, 2015, if those tank cars are used as part of HHFT. In addition, for all three Options, PHMSA proposes the following timelines for tank cars used as part of HHFT: (1) For Packing Group I, DOT Specification 111 tank cars are not authorized after October 1, 2017; (2) for Packing Group II, DOT Specification 111 tank cars are not authorized after October 1, 2018; and (3) for Packing Group III, DOT Specification 111 tank cars are not authorized after October 1, 2020. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\5\\ As defined in 49 CFR 1580.3--High Threat Urban Area (HTUA) means an area comprising one or more cities and surrounding areas including a 10-mile buffer zone, as listed in appendix A to Part 1580 of the 49 CFR. \\6\\ On March 9, 2011 AAR submitted petition for rulemaking P- 1577, which was discussed in the ANPRM. In response to the ANPRM, on November 15, 2013, AAR and ASLRAA submitted as a comment recommendations for tank car standards that are enhanced beyond the design in P-1577. For the purposes of this rulemaking this tank car will be referred to as the ``AAR 2014 tank car.'' See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail ;D=PHMSA-2012-0082-0090. \\7\\ In 2011, the AAR issued Casualty Prevention Circular (CPC) 1232, which outlines industry requirements for additional safety equipment on certain DOT Specification 111 tanks ordered after October 1, 2011, and intended for use in ethanol and crude oil service. Table 2--Safety Features by Tank Car Option ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thermal Tank car Bottom outlet GRL Head shield Pressure relief Shell thickness Jacket Tank material * Top fittings protection Braking handle (lbs) type valve protection ** system ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Option 1: PHMSA and FRA Bottom outlet 286k Full-height, \\1/ Reclosing \\9/16\\ inch Minimum 11- TC-128 Grade B, TIH Top Thermal ECP brakes. Designed Tank Car. handle removed 2\\ inch thick pressure Minimum. gauge jacket normalized fittings protection or designed to head shield. relief device. constructed steel. protection system in prevent from A1011 system and accordance unintended steel or nozzle capable with Sec. actuation equivalent. of sustaining, 179.18. during a train The jacket without accident. must be failure, a weather-tight. rollover accident at a speed of 9 mph. [[Page 45019]] Option 2: AAR 2014 Tank Car.. Bottom outlet 286k Full-height, \\1/ Reclosing \\9/16\\ inch Minimum 11- TC-128 Grade B, Equipped per Thermal In trains with handle removed 2\\ inch thick pressure Minimum. gauge jacket normalized AAR protection DP or EOT or designed to head shield. relief device. constructed steel. Specifications system in devices. prevent from A1011 Tank Cars, accordance unintended steel or appendix E with Sec. actuation equivalent. paragraph 179.18. during a train The jacket 10.2.1. accident. must be weather-tight. Option 3: Enhanced CPC 1232 Bottom outlet 286k Full Height \\1/ Reclosing \\7/16\\ inch Minimum 11- TC-128 Grade B, Equipped per Thermal In trains with Tank Car. handle removed 2\\ inch thick pressure Minimum. gauge jacket normalized AAR protection DP or EOT or designed to head shield. relief device. constructed steel. Specifications system in devices. prevent from A1011 Tank Cars, accordance unintended steel or appendix E with Sec. actuation equivalent. paragraph 179.18. during a train The jacket 10.2.1. accident. must be weather-tight. DOT 111A100W1................ Bottom Outlets 263K Optional; Bare Reclosing \\7/16\\ inch Jackets are TC-128 Grade B, Not required, Optional....... Not required. Specification (Currently are Optional. Tanks half pressure Minimum. optional. normalized but when Authorized). height; Jacket relief valve. steel.* Equipped per Tanks full AAR height. Specifications Tank Cars, appendix E paragraph 10.2.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * For the purposes of this figure, TC-128 Grade B normalized steel is used to provide a consistent comparison to the proposed options. Section 179.200-7 provides alternative materials which are authorized for the DOT Specification 111. ** Please note that the PHMSA does not propose to require additional top fittings protection for retrofits, because the costs are not supported by corresponding benefits. Newly constructed cars, however, are required to have additional top fittings protection. Except for additional top fittings protection, the requirements for newly constructed tank cars and retrofits are the same. The transportation of large volumes of flammable liquids poses a risk to life, property, and the environment. The volume of flammable liquids shipped by rail and in HHFTs has been increasing rapidly since 2006, representing a growing risk. Therefore, we are reevaluating the structure of the HMR as they pertain to rail transportation. Approximately 68 percent of the flammable liquids transported by rail are comprised of crude oil or ethanol. The U.S. is now the global leader in crude oil production growth. According to the rail industry, in 2009, there were 10,800 carloads of crude oil originations transported by Class I railroads, and in 2013, there were over 400,000 carloads of crude oil originations by Class I railroads, or 37 times as many in the U.S. \\8\\ Crude oil production from the Bakken region of the Williston Basin is now over one million barrels per day.\\9\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\8\\ Association of American Railroads. 2013. Moving Crude by Rail. December. Available online at: http://dot111.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Crude-oil-by-rail.pdf . \\9\\ Information regarding oil and gas production is available at the following URL: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/#tabs-summary-2 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. ethanol production has increased considerably during the last 10 years and has generated similar growth in the transportation of ethanol by rail, according to a recent white paper by the Association of American Railroads (AAR).\\10\\ In 2008 there were around 292,000 rail carloads of ethanol. In 2011, that number increased over 40 percent, to 409,000.\\11\\ Not surprisingly, this growth in rail traffic has been accompanied by an increase in the number of rail derailments and accidents involving ethanol. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\10\\ Association of American Railroads. 2013. Railroads and Ethanol. Available online at https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents/Background-Papers/Railroads%20and%20Ethanol.pdf . \\11\\ http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/econ_waybill.html . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the number of shipments of crude oil in HHFTs has increased, the number of mainline train accidents involving crude oil has increased from zero in 2010 to five in 2013 and thus far five in 2014.\\12\\ This increase comes at a time when, across the entire rail network, the number of train accidents and hazardous materials releases are decreasing; while total shipment volume has increased, the total number of train accidents has declined by 43 percent since 2003, and accidents involving a hazardous materials release has declined by 16 percent since 2003.\\13\\ The projected continued growth of domestic crude oil production, and the growing number of train accidents involving crude oil, PHMSA concludes that the potential for future severe train accidents involving crude oil in HHFTs has increased substantially. Such an increase raises the likelihood of higher-consequence train accidents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\12\\ Source: PHMSA Hazmat Inelegance Portal (HIP), February 2014. \\13\\ Data from compiled by FRA's Office of Safety Analysis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recent accidents highlight the potentially severe consequences of accidents involving HHFTs carrying crude oil. On December 30, 2013, a train transporting grain derailed onto another track into the path of a train transporting crude oil, which had too little time to stop before it collided with the grain train, and then itself derailed and unintentionally released product, which ignited near Casselton, North [[Page 45020]] Dakota, prompting authorities to issue a voluntary evacuation of the city and surrounding area. On November 8, 2013, a train transporting crude oil to the Gulf Coast from North Dakota derailed in Aliceville, Alabama, spilling crude oil in nearby wetlands ignited. On July 6, 2013, a catastrophic railroad accident occurred in Lac-M[eacute]gantic, Quebec, Canada, when an unsecured and unattended freight train transporting crude oil rolled down a descending grade and subsequently derailed, resulting in the unintentional release of lading from multiple tank cars. The subsequent fires and explosions, along with other effects of the accident, resulted in the deaths of 47 individuals. In addition, the derailment caused extensive damage to the town center, a release of hazardous materials resulting in a massive environmental impact that will require substantial clean-up costs, and the evacuation of approximately 2,000 people from the surrounding area. Accidents involving HHFTs transporting ethanol can also cause severe damage. On August 5, 2012, a train derailed 18 of 106 cars, 17 of which were carrying ethanol, near Plevna, MT. Twelve of the 17 cars released lading and began to burn, causing two grass fires, a highway near the site to be closed, and over $1 million in damages. On October 7, 2011, a train derailed 26 loaded freight cars (including 10 loaded with ethanol) approximately one-half mile east of Tiskilwa, IL. The release of ethanol and resulting fire initiated an evacuation of about 500 residents within a \\1/2\\-mile radius of the accident scene, and resulted in damages over $1.8 million. On June 19, 2009, near Rockford, IL, a train derailed 19 cars, all of which contained ethanol, and 13 of the derailed cars caught fire. The derailment destroyed a section of single main track and an entire highway-rail grade crossing. As a result of the fire that erupted after the derailment, 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 responding firefighters also sustained minor injuries. The release of ethanol and resulting fire initiated a mandatory evacuation of about 2,000 residents within a \\1/2\\-mile radius of the accident scene and damages of approximately $1.7 million. The EPA estimated that 60,000 gallons of ethanol spilled into an unnamed stream, which flowed near the Rock and Kishwaukee Rivers. The following table highlights the risk of HHFTs by summarizing the impacts of selected major train accidents involving trains of Class 3 flammable liquid. Table 3--Major Crude Oil/Ethanol Train Accidents in the U.S. [2006-2014] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product Number of Speed at loss Date (MM/ Number of crude oil/ derailment Material and type (gallons Type of train Location YY) tank cars ethanol in miles of train of crude Fire accident or cause derailed cars per hour or of train accident penetrated (mph) ethanol) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LaSalle, CO..................... 05/14 5 1 9 Crude Oil.......... 5,000 No............. To Be Determined (unit)............. (TBD). Lynchburg, VA................... 04/14 17 2 23 Crude Oil.......... 30,000 Yes............ TBD. (unit)............. Vandergrift, PA................. 02/14 21 4 31 Crude Oil.......... 10,000 No............. TBD. New Augusta, MS................. 01/14 26 25 45 Crude Oil.......... 90,000 No............. TBD. Casselton, ND................... 12/13 20 18 42 Crude Oil.......... 476,436 Yes............ Collision. (unit)............. Aliceville, AL.................. 11/13 26 25 39 Crude Oil.......... 630,000 Yes............ TBD. (unit)............. Plevna, MT...................... 08/12 17 12 25 Ethanol............ 245,336 Yes............ TBD. Columbus, OH.................... 07/12 3 3 23 Ethanol............ 53,347 Yes............ TBD--NTSB Investigation. Tiskilwa, IL.................... 10/11 10 10 34 Ethanol............ 143,534 Yes............ TBD--NTSB Investigation. Arcadia, OH..................... 02/11 31 31 46 Ethanol............ 834,840 Yes............ Rail Defect. (unit)............. Rockford/Cherry Valley, IL...... 06/09 19 13 19 Ethanol............ 232,963 Yes............ Washout. (unit)............. Painesville, OH................. 10/07 7 5 48 Ethanol............ 76,153 Yes............ Rail Defect. New Brighton, PA................ 10/06 23 20 37 Ethanol............ 485,278 Yes............ Rail Defect. (unit)............. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note 1. The term ``unit'' as used in this chart means that the train was made up only of cars carrying that single commodity, as well as any required non-hazardous buffer cars and the locomotives. Note 2. All accidents listed in the table involved HHFTs. Note 3. All crude oil or crude oil/LPG accidents involved a train transporting over 1 million gallons of oil. While not all accidents involving crude oil and ethanol release as much product or have as significant consequences as those shown in this table, these accidents indicate the potential harm from future releases. Table 4 provides a brief summary of the justifications for each provision in this NPRM, and how each provision will address the safety risks described previously. [[Page 45021]] Table 4--Rulemaking Provisions and Safety Justifications ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Provision Justification ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rail Routing......................... PHMSA is proposing routing requirements to reduce the risk of a train accident. This proposal requires railroads to balance the risk factors to identify the route that poses the lower risk. As such, they may, in certain cases, choose a route that eliminates exposure in areas with high population densities but poses a risk for more frequent events in areas with very low densities. In other cases the risk of derailment may be so low along a section of track that, even though it runs through a densely populated area, it poses the lowest total risk when severity and likelihood are considered. Classification of Mined Gas and PHMSA is proposing to require a Liquid. sampling and testing program for mined gas and liquid, such as crude oil. PHMSA expects the proposed requirements would reduce the expected non- catastrophic damages and ensure that materials are properly classified in accordance with the HMR. Notification to SERCs................ PHMSA is proposing to codify the May 7, 2014, DOT issued an Emergency Restriction/ Prohibition Order in Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0067 (EO or Order). Recent accidents have demonstrated the need for action in the form of additional communication between railroads and emergency responders to ensure that the emergency responders are aware of train movements carrying large quantities of crude oil through their communities. Speed Restrictions................... PHMSA is proposing to restrict the speed of HHFTs. Speed is a factor that may contribute to derailments. Speed can influence the probability of an accident, as lower speeds may allow for a brake application to stop the train before a collision. Speed also increases the kinetic energy of a train, resulting in a greater possibility of the tank cars being punctured in the event of a derailment. The proposed restrictions will reduce the frequency and severity of train accidents. Braking.............................. To reduce the number of cars and energy associated with train accidents, PHMSA is proposing to require alternative brake signal propagation systems: Distributed power (DP), or two-way end of train devices (EOT); for tank car Option 1, electronic controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP) Tank Car Specifications.............. PHMSA is proposing a new DOT Specification 117 tank car to address the risks associated with the rail transportation of ethanol and crude oil and the risks posed by HHFTs. All tank car Options for the DOT Specification 117 incorporate several enhancements to increase puncture resistance; provide thermal protection to survive a 100-minute pool fire; and protect top fitting (new construction only) and bottom outlets during a derailment. Under all Options, the proposed system of design enhancements would reduce the consequences of a derailment of tank cars carrying crude oil or ethanol. There would be fewer car punctures, fewer releases from the service equipment (top and bottom fittings), and delayed release of flammable liquid from the tank cars through the pressure relief devices. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The consequences of train accidents and increase in the rail transportation of flammable liquids highlight the need to review existing regulations and industry practices related to such transportation. PHMSA and FRA are focused on reducing the risks posed by HHFTs and are taking action to prevent accidents from occurring and to mitigate the consequences when accidents do occur. PHMSA and FRA's actions to date demonstrate their focus on reducing risk associated with the rail transportation of large quantities of flammable liquids. PHMSA and FRA actions include: (1) Issuing FRA's Emergency Order No. 28 (EO 28) (78 FR 48218) published on August 7, 2013 stressing train securement; (2) issuing two Joint Safety Advisories published on August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48224) and November 20, 2013 (78 FR 69745) stressing the importance of security planning and proper characterization and classification of crude oil; (3) initiating a comprehensive review of operational factors that impact the transportation of hazardous materials by rail in a public meeting held on August 27-28, 2013 (78 FR 42998); (4) referring safety issues related to EO 28 and the August 7, 2013 Joint Safety Advisory to FRA's Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC); (5) issuing an emergency order on February 25, 2014, which was revised and amended on March 6, 2014 requiring that all rail shipments of crude oil that is properly classed as a flammable liquid in Packing Group (PG) III material be treated as a PG I or II material; \\14\\ (6) issuing an emergency order on May 7, 2014, requiring all railroads that operate trains containing one million gallons of Bakken crude oil to notify SERCs about the operation of these trains through their States; \\15\\ (7) issuing a Safety Advisory on May 7, 2014, urging carriers transporting Bakken crude oil by rail to select and use tank cars of the highest integrity to transport the material; \\16\\ and (8) publishing the September 6, 2013, advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) responding to eight petitions for rulemaking and four NTSB Safety Recommendations related to the transportation of hazardous materials by rail (78 FR 54849). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\14\\ See Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0025. See also http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Amended_Emergency_Order_030614.pdf . \\15\\ http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_D9E224C13963CAF0AE4F15A8B3C4465BAEAF0100/filename/Final_EO_on_Transport_of_Bakken_Crude_Oi_05_07_2014.pdf . \\16\\ http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_9084EF057B3D4E74A2DEB5CC86006951BE1D0200/filename/Final_FRA_PHMSA_Safety_Advisory_tank_cars_May_2014.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to these eight actions, PHMSA issued a Safety Alert on January 2, 2014, warning of potential crude oil variability and emphasizing the proper and sufficient testing to ensure accurate characterization and classification. The Safety Alert expressed PHMSA's concern that unprocessed crude oil may affect the integrity of packaging or present additional hazards related to corrosivity, sulfur content, and dissolved gas content.\\17\\ To address these risks, this NPRM is proposing additional requirements for a sampling plan that would include proper characterization, classification, and selection of a hazardous material's Packing Group. Further, the NPRM is proposing to expand the routing requirements under subpart I of part 172 of the HMR to include HHFTs. Through its speed, tank car, braking, and notification requirements, this NPRM is intended to take a comprehensive approach to the risks of HHFTs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\17\\ See http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_111F295A99DD05D9B698AE8968F7C1742DC70000/filename/1_2_14%20Rail_Safety_Alert.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHMSA has prepared and placed in the docket a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) addressing the economic impact of this proposed rule. Table 5 shows the costs and benefits by affected section and rule provision over a 20 year period, discounted at a 7% rate. Please note that because there is overlap in the risk reduction achieved between some of the proposed requirements listed in [[Page 45022]] Table 5, the total benefits and costs of the provisions cannot be accurately calculated by summing the benefits and costs of each proposed provision. For example, the benefits for tank car Option 1, the PHMSA and FRA Designed Car, include benefits that are also presented as part of the benefits for the proposed ``Braking'' requirements at 49 CFR 174.130. Table 6 shows an explanation of the comprehensive benefits and costs (i.e., the combined effects of individual provisions), and the estimated benefits, costs, and net benefits of each proposed scenario. Please also note that, given the uncertainty associated with the risks of crude oil and ethanol shipments, Table 5 contains a range of benefits estimates. The low end of the range of estimated benefits estimates risk from 2015 to 2034 based on the U.S. safety record for crude oil and ethanol from 2006 to 2013, adjusting for the projected increase in shipment volume over the next 20 years. Absent this proposed rule, we predict about 15 mainline derailments for 2015, falling to a prediction of about 5 mainline derailments annually by 2034. The high end of the range of estimated benefits includes the same estimate of 5 to 15 annual mainline derailments predicted, based on the U.S. safety record, plus an estimate that the U.S. would experience an additional 10 safety events of higher consequence--nine of which would have environmental damages and monetized injury and fatality costs exceeding $1.15 billion per event and one of which would have environmental damages and monetized injury and fatality costs exceeding $5.75 billion--over the next 20 years. Table 5--20 Year Costs and Benefits by Stand-Alone Proposed Regulatory Amendments 2015-2034 \\18\\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costs (7%) Affected section \\19\\ Provision Benefits (7%) (millions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR 172.820.............................. Rail Routing+............ Cost effective if routing $4.5 were to reduce risk of an incident by 0.17%. 49 CFR 173.41............................... Classification of Mined Cost effective if this 16.2 Gas and Liquid. requirement reduces risk by 0.61%. 49 CFR 174.310.............................. Notification to SERCs.... Qualitative.............. 0 Speed Restriction: Option $199 million-$636 million 2,680 1: 40 mph speed limit all areas*. Speed Restriction: Option $33.6 million-$108 240 2: 40 mph 100k people*. million. Speed Restriction: Option $6.8 million-$21.8 22.9 3: 40 mph in HTUAs*. million. Braking: Elect","truncated":true,"body_characters":407944}