{"operation":"document","citation":"60 FR 65492","title":"Transportation of Hazardous Materials By Rail; Miscellaneous Amendments","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Research and Special Programs Administration","status":"proposed","official":true,"published_on":"1995-12-19","effective_on":null,"summary":"RSPA is proposing to incorporate into the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) a number of changes to rail requirements based on rulemaking petitions from industry and RSPA initiatives. This action is necessary to update the regulations and to respond to petitions for rulemaking. The intended effect of these regulatory changes is to improve safety and reduce costs to offerors and transporters of hazardous materials.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-95-30408.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-95-30408.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-95-30408","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1995/12/19/95-30408/transportation-of-hazardous-materials-by-rail-miscellaneous-amendments","body":"Federal Register, Volume 60 Issue 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995) [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 65492-65504] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 95-30408] [[Page 65491]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part VI Department of Transportation _______________________________________________________________________ Research and Special Programs Administration _______________________________________________________________________ 49 CFR Part 171, et al. Transportation of Hazardous Materials By Rail; Miscellaneous Amendments; Proposed Rule Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules [[Page 65492]] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 179 [Docket No. HM-216; Notice No. 95-16] RIN 2137-AC66 Transportation of Hazardous Materials By Rail; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: RSPA is proposing to incorporate into the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) a number of changes to rail requirements based on rulemaking petitions from industry and RSPA initiatives. This action is necessary to update the regulations and to respond to petitions for rulemaking. The intended effect of these regulatory changes is to improve safety and reduce costs to offerors and transporters of hazardous materials. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 22, 1996. ADDRESSES: Address comments to Dockets Unit (DHM-30), Hazardous Materials Safety, RSPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments should identify the docket and notice number and be submitted, when possible, in five copies. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments should include a self-addressed, stamped postcard. The Dockets Unit is located in Room 8421 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, except on public holidays when the office is closed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Romo, telephone (202) 366-4488, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, Washington DC, 20590-0001, or James H. Rader, telephone (202) 366-0510, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington DC, 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes miscellaneous changes to rail requirements contained in the HMR. These proposed changes are based either on petitions for rulemaking submitted in accordance with 49 CFR 106.31 or agency initiative and are intended to reduce regulatory burdens by simplifying or updating existing regulations. This rule, as proposed, is consistent with the goals of President Clinton's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The President directed Federal agencies to review all agency regulations and eliminate or revise those that are outdated or in need of reform. A notice issued April 4, 1995 by RSPA requested comments on regulatory reform (Docket HM-222; 60 FR 17049) and announced a comprehensive review of the HMR to identify provisions that are candidates for elimination, revision, clarification, or relaxation. Certain proposed changes in this document reflect the results of this review. I. Summary of Proposed Regulatory Changes by Section Listed below is a section-by-section summary of the proposed changes and, where applicable, the assigned petition number. Part 171 Section 171.7. Various American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards would be updated to reflect the most current version. Other ASTM standards that no longer would be referenced in the proposed revision of Sec. 179.12 would be removed. Part 172 Section 172.101: The Hazardous Materials Table. In the Hazardous Materials Table, several entries would be revised based on petitions for rulemaking and agency initiative. Proposed revisions include: --Twenty-nine entries would be revised by removing Special Provision B12 assigned to those entries in Column (7). This special provision requires the marking of tank cars with the proper shipping name or common name of the material. RSPA is proposing to limit the applicability of this marking requirement to certain materials that pose a higher risk in transportation. --For the entry ``Dimethylhydrazine, unsymmetrical'', in Column (7) Special Provision B79 would be removed. ``Dimethylhydrazine, unsymmetrical'' currently is assigned Special Provisions B74 and B79. Special Provision B74 requires the use of a tank car conforming to a Class 105S, 106, 110, 112J, or 114J. Special Provision B79 requires each tank car to have a tank head puncture system if the tank was constructed prior to April 1, 1989. Because Special Provision B74 requires all tank cars to meet the requirements of B79, referencing Special Provision B79 is unnecessary. --For the entry for Calcium carbide, Special Provision B59 would be added for both Packing Group I and II entries. This special provision will authorize the continued use of Class AAR 207 tank cars for the transportation of calcium carbide after October 1, 1996. Section 172.102. Special Provisions B4 and B10 would be revised to remove a prohibition on the use of Association of American Railroads (AAR) 206 tank cars. In the Sec. 172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT), each commodity assigned this special provision must be in a packaging authorized in Sec. 173.243, which does not allow an AAR 206 tank car. Special Provision B5 would be revised to authorize use of tank cars, constructed from other than aluminum plate, for ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Consistent with proposed changes to tank car marking requirements discussed previously in conjunction with proposed changes to the Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provision B12 would be removed. The requirement to mark the proper shipping name or common name of a material on a tank car would be limited to certain materials that present a higher risk in transportation, as proposed in Sec. 172.330. Special Provisions B42, B65, B71, B72, B74, and B76 would be revised for clarity. RSPA and FRA have received numerous inquiries concerning the use of tank cars having higher test pressures than those authorized under these special provisions. RSPA is proposing to revise these provisions to clarify that any class tank car with a higher test pressure than authorized also may be used. Special Provisions B42, B65, and B76 also would be revised to authorize the optional marking of the tank to a lower pressure specification. The current regulations require the lower pressure specification marking for certain commodities. RSPA and FRA believe that tank cars qualified to meet a specific specification should be marked to indicate that specification. RSPA is proposing the optional marking requirement to authorize the remarking of qualified tank cars to the higher pressure specification. For example, currently tank cars transporting acetone cyanohydrin are required to conform to a DOT 105S, 112J, or 114J specification provided the tank test pressure is 300 psig or greater. In addition, the tank car specification must be remarked to indicate a tank test pressure of 200 psig, and each tank car must be equipped with a safety relief device having a start- [[Page 65493]] to-discharge pressure setting of 150 psig. RSPA is proposing that these tank cars remain marked at the higher pressure specification while maintaining the currently applied safety relief device (e.g., DOT 105S300W, Safety Valve 150 LB). RSPA is proposing to remove a requirement in Special Provision B57 that the shipping name CHLOROPRENE must be marked on a tank car. This marking requirement is included in the proposed revision of Sec. 172.330(a)(1). RSPA also is revising the first sentence of Special Provision B78 to specify test pressure and clarify which rail cars are authorized. Section 172.203. Currently, rail carrier shipping paper requirements are contained in both Parts 172 and 174. In this notice, RSPA proposes to move the shipping paper requirements in Part 174 to Part 172. RSPA and FRA believe that by consolidating the shipping paper requirements, including additional shipping paper entries for tank cars containing the residue of a hazardous material, compliance will be improved. Paragraph (e)(2) currently references paragraph (e)(3) and Sec. 174.25 for shipping paper description requirements for residues of hazardous materials in tank cars. These references would be replaced with a specific requirement to precede the basic shipping description with the wording ``RESIDUE, LAST CONTAINED.'' Paragraph (g)(1) also would be revised to reflect the incorporation of shipping paper requirements currently contained in Part 174 by a requirement to identify a rail car, freight container, transport vehicle, or portable tank that contains a hazardous material by ``reporting mark and number.'' Section 172.205. Based on a petition [P-1053] from AAR, RSPA would revise paragraph (f) for consistency with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous waste manifest requirements for transportation by rail contained in 40 CFR 263.20(f). Section 172.330. Paragraph (a)(1) would be revised to clarify marking requirements for tank cars. Marking requirements currently contained in Sec. 172.102 special provisions and in Parts 173 and 179 would be incorporated into Sec. 172.330 or removed as part of this revision. The requirement to mark the proper shipping name or common name of a hazardous material on a tank car would be limited to Division 2.1 and 2.3 materials, Division 2.2 materials in a Class DOT 107 tank car, anhydrous ammonia, ammonia solutions with more than 50% ammonia, bromine and bromine solutions, hydrogen cyanide, chloroprene, and refrigerant or dispersant gases, as defined in Sec. 173.115. Section 172.510. Paragraph (a) would be revised to require the placement of each placard on a white square background for each class DOT 113 tank car used to transport a Division 2.1 (flammable gas) material. The white square background notifies railroad switching crews that the car may not be cut off while in motion. The current regulations only require rail cars containing Divisions 1.1 and 1.2 explosives, Division 2.3 Hazard Zone A materials and Division 6.1 PG I Hazard Zone A materials to have the white square background, but not the class DOT 113 tank car. This change will simplify the switching requirements for rail cars by communicating, through a white square background, that a class DOT 113 tank car transporting a Division 2.1 material may not be cut off while in motion. RSPA and FRA believe that this requirement will make it easier to train yard switching employees and reduce the potential for overspeed impacts. The inner support system for class 113 tank cars is designed to withstand loads producing accelerations of 7``g'' longitudinal, 3``g'' transverse, and 3``g'' vertical. Consequently, it is imperative that railroads shove this class of car to rest to prevent yielding of the support system. Sections 172.510 and 172.526. Provisions applying to the specifications and use of RESIDUE placards would be removed in these sections. The RESIDUE placard is not required by any other mode and, because the information provided through a RESIDUE placard can be adequately conveyed through primary and subsidiary placards and shipping paper information, RSPA and FRA believe that this placard is unnecessary. Further, FRA reports that during the last six years its inspectors cited missing, faded, or incorrect placards on nearly 22,000 occasions. By removing the RESIDUE placard requirement, RSPA and FRA believe that offerors will use permanent adhesive placards, such as those used on highway vehicles, thereby increasing compliance with HMR placarding requirements. Also, RSPA and FRA understand that Transport Canada is considering removing the RESIDUE placard from its Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations to the extent that, in December 1993, it issued a newsletter asking for public comment. Such an action by Transport Canada would have a direct effect on transborder shipments; consequently, RSPA and FRA believe a proposal to remove this requirement from the HMR is appropriate. Part 173 Section 173.24b. RSPA is proposing to amend paragraph (a) to recognize the insulation properties of thermal protection applied to tank cars. The proposed rule would allow for a ``mid-range'' temperature for the calculation of outage and filling limits, provided the insulation qualities provide an overall thermal conductance at 15.5 deg.C (60 deg.F) of no more than 10.22 kilojoules per hour per square meter per degrees Celsius (0.5 Btu per hour per square foot per degree F) temperature differential. This proposal is based on a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Propane Gas Association of Canada [P-1251], developed in cooperation with Transport Canada. Section 173.29. Paragraph (f) would be removed, consistent with the proposed removal of Sec. 172.510(c). Section 173.314. Paragraph (b)(5), which contains provisions for marking the proper shipping name of certain Class 2 materials on tank cars, would be removed because these provisions also appear in Sec. 172.330. Paragraph (b)(6) would be redesignated (b)(5) and amended to revise requirements for heat-resistant gaskets. In 1988, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that FRA: (1) establish performance standards for determining the acceptability of heat-resistant gaskets on tank cars; and (2) evaluate the effect on gasket compatibility and heat-resistant performance of sealants used for installing gaskets on tank cars. NTSB recommended that FRA establish performance criteria to decide what sealant is acceptable and conditions for its use. (Butadiene Release and Fire from GATX 55996 at the CSX Terminal Junction Interchange, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 8, 1987 (NTSB/HZM-88/01)). As a result of the NTSB recommendation, RSPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 18, 1990, under Docket HM-175A [Notice 90-8; 55 FR 20242] requesting comments on gasket specifications and the use of sealant materials. Commenters to the ANPRM expressed concerns regarding the technical complications for defining gasket specifications in the regulations, since there are many variables in torquing values for the fitting closure/gasket combination and the chemical compatibility of the gasket material. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published October 8, 1993 [58 FR 52574] under Docket HM-175A, RSPA and FRA announced that several [[Page 65494]] topics, including gasket specifications, raised in earlier notices either were too technically complex or insufficiently developed to address in that NPRM and would be handled in a separate rulemaking action. Although the commenters to the ANPRM pointed out many technical complications associated with defining gasket specifications for all products authorized in tank cars, RSPA and FRA believe that a performance standard for heat-resistant gaskets is necessary for Division 2.1 materials and anhydrous ammonia to ensure that installed gaskets will not degrade at elevated temperatures (see Sec. 173.314(b)(6) for current requirements). In this NPRM, RSPA is proposing a performance standard for heat-resistant gaskets based on information obtained from the Fluid Sealing Association's Non Metallic Gasket Handbook. The handbook shows that asbestos, a common heat- resistant gasket material, has a maximum temperature range of 230- 340 deg.C (450-650 deg.F). Consequently, RSPA is proposing to specify that a heat-resistant gasket can survive temperatures at or above 230 deg.C. This is comparable to the temperature indicated in the Fluid Sealing Association's handbook. This proposal also would expand the use of heat-resistant gaskets to all Division 2.3 materials. Commenters stated that to seal a joint, the installed gasket is compressed (by applying a bolt load to the flange body surfaces) into the imperfection of the joint and a tight, leakproof barrier occurs. The use of sealants for installing gaskets is therefore unnecessary and may lead to gasket displacement. Based on these comments, RSPA is proposing to prohibit the use of sealants for installing gaskets on tank cars used to transport Division 2.1 and 2.3 materials and anhydrous ammonia. RSPA also is proposing to authorize Class DOT 112J and 112T specification tank cars for the transportation of dimethyl ether. Currently, RSPA only authorizes the use of a DOT 105A300W tank car. This proposal is based on an exemption issued to Aeropres Corporation (DOT-E 11000) and a petition for rulemaking [P-1253]. RSPA also is proposing to remove Note 2 in paragraph (c) of the table. For the entry ``Ammonia, anhydrous or ammonia solutions >50 percent ammonia'' in the second column ``Note 2'' would be revised to read ``Note 3''. This would allow shippers to calculate the outage and filling limits for tank cars based on changes proposed in Sec. 173.24b. In addition, paragraph (i), which provides alternate settings for safety relief valves on tank car tanks used for certain commodities, would be removed. Removal of this paragraph is consistent with the proposed consolidation of pressure relief device requirements in Sec. 179.15. Part 174 In 1985, AAR petitioned RSPA (P-983) to rewrite Part 174, stating that the regulations in this part are ``awkwardly arranged, often redundant, and in many places obsolete.'' AAR supplied a complete rewrite of Part 174 as part of its petition. Subsequently, various rulemaking actions such as HM-175A (final rule adopted improved crashworthiness for tank cars), HM-201 (final rule adopted new methods of tank car testing), HM-181 (mandated performance packaging standards), HM-166 (implemented many detailed changes to the HMR), HM- 197 (adopted new requirements for TOFC/COFC shipments), and HM-212 (considering new standards for tank car unloading and attendance) have addressed numerous suggestions contained in petition P-983. This notice proposes additional changes based on P-983, including simplification of standards for inspection of tank cars by railroads and revisions in documentation requirements of Part 174. Section 174.3. This section prohibits a shipment of a hazardous material not prepared in accordance with Parts 171, 172, and 173 from being offered for transportation or transported by rail. The section would be revised to reflect language contained in Parts 175 and 177 for unacceptable hazardous materials shipments. Section 174.8 through 174.10. Inspection requirements currently contained in Secs. 174.8, 174.9 and 174.10 would be consolidated into Sec. 174.9 to clarify a railroad's inspection duties at points of origination, interchange points and other locations where rail cars must be inspected. Sections 174.8 and 174.10 would be removed. Section 174.9 would require a railroad to inspect each rail car for compliance with the HMR and other conditions that may make the car unsafe for transportation. Under FRA's Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards (FCSS [49 CFR Part 215]), each railroad must inspect a freight car at each location where it is placed in a train. The inspection must be made by: (1) a ``designated inspector'' under Sec. 215.11; or (2) a train crew member where a designated employee is not on duty (see Appendix D to Part 215). As a rule, train crew members inspect for ``imminent hazardous conditions'' that are likely to cause an accident or casualty before the train arrives at its destination. Examples provided in Appendix D include: car body leaning or listing to one side, objects dragging below, broken or missing safety appliance, lading leaking from a placarded hazardous materials car, and broken or extensively cracked wheel. In addition to the requirements above, the HMR require an inspection of each placarded railcar when received in ``interchange.'' This notice proposes to remove the requirement to inspect placarded railcars at interchange, simply because railroad operations now permit the interchange of railroad equipment in outlying locations, usually on mainline track, that may not be acceptable for the performance of a proper inspection. For example, in ``run-through'' train operations, the train crew of the receiving railroad simply assumes responsibility of the train from the delivering train crew. No locomotives or railcars are added or removed. Since the train may exceed one mile in length, portions of the train, including portions that may have a placarded railcar containing a hazardous material, may not be accessible to the receiving train crew because of bridges, tunnels, or terrain. As proposed, RSPA would make the locations of inspection consistent with those in the FCSS, issued by the FRA. RSPA does not intend to change the railroad's current inspection practices nor require the railroad to inspect railcars containing a hazardous material on a more frequent basis than the required presently in the HMR and FCSS. The proposed rule simply makes clear that a railroad must inspect a hazardous material laden car at locations that now require an inspection under the FCSS (by the train crew or a designated employee, where such employees are on duty). The proposed rule further clarifies that a railroad employee need not climb each railcar to determine if, in fact, the railcar conforms to the HMR. These inspections may be performed at ``ground level.'' Where the rule proposes to require a ground level inspection for ``securement of closures,'' RSPA and FRA believe railroad employees can determine, from the ground, whether or not protective housings are open, whether or not manway openings (on non- or low-pressure tank cars) are in the ``up'' position, and whether or not the manway bonnet cover (on pressure tank cars) is open. At the bottom of the car, FRA and RSPA believe that railroad employees can determine whether or not the bottom outlet cap is in the proper, applied position. Section 174.11. Section 174.11 would be removed because it merely references [[Page 65495]] Sec. 171.12a for transportation of Canadian shipments or packagings by rail car within the U.S. Section 174.18. Section 174.18 concerning the handling of astray packages of hazardous materials is obsolete; therefore this section would be removed. Section 174.24. Shipping paper requirements for rail carriers in Part 174 would be moved to Part 172. Revised Sec. 174.24 would cross- reference shipping paper requirements in Part 172. Section 174.25. When an accident occurs on the railroad, it is customary to identify the transport vehicle or freight container involved by the use of reporting marks. These marks are used for routing, cost accounting, and for tracing (or locating) individual shipments in the transportation system. If an emergency responder were to ask about the contents of an individual shipment by reporting mark, a rail carrier could provide immediate emergency response information, a copy of the shipping paper, routing information, and the name, telephone number, and location of the shipper. This information is much more detailed than simply conveying to the emergency responder the type of placard applied to the packaging. Consequently, RSPA proposes to remove the ``placard notation'' requirement since it is outdated for emergency response communication. Removing the placard notation requirement would not, however, prohibit individual rail carriers from adopting comparable requirements, if they so choose. RSPA also is proposing to remove the requirement for a ``placard endorsement'' placed on a waybill near the reporting mark of each rail car, freight container, transport vehicle, or portable tank that contains a hazardous material when transported by rail. The current rule requires a unique endorsement based on the hazard class of the material shipped. Exceptions to the placard endorsement are provided for materials that do not require placarding (e.g., less than 1,001 pounds of a material listed in Sec. 172.504 Table 2, in most types of transport vehicles or freight containers), Class 9 materials, and combustible liquids). RSPA is proposing to remove this requirement because technological advances in the railroad industry have made the use of the placard endorsement no longer necessary to communicate the presence of hazardous materials to railroad workers. As a general rule, railroads now use electronic data interchange and computer generated train consists (or manifests) to communicate the presence of these materials. Responders and railroad workers rely on the hazardous materials description and emergency response information on train consists and printed waybills rather than the placard endorsement. As stated earlier, removing the endorsement would not prohibit individual rail carriers from adopting comparable requirements at their discretion. Other shipping paper requirements in this section, including those for tank cars containing the residue of a hazardous material, would either be removed or moved to Part 172. Section 174.26. Paragraph (a) would be removed because if a carrier complies with paragraph (b), the carrier also is complying with paragraph (a), except for the ``consecutively numbered notice.'' Based on current railroad technology and computer-based information systems, this notice is obsolete. Paragraphs (b) and (c) would be renumbered paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively. Newly designated paragraph (b) would be revised to reference shipping paper requirements of Part 172 and specify use of other forms of car movement documents. Section 174.45. This section would be removed because it merely references Secs. 171.15 and 171.16 and is redundant. Sections 174.47 and 174.48. These sections contain requirements for forwarding shipments in violation of the HMR and damaged or leaking packages. The provisions in these sections would be consolidated into revised Sec. 174.50. Section 174.49. This section concerns the use of open-flame lanterns for the inspection of transport vehicles known to contain flammable liquids and gases. The use of open-flame lanterns is obsolete; therefore, this section would be removed. Section 174.50. This section would be revised by consolidating requirements of Secs. 174.47, 174.48, and 174.50 and by removing all obsolete provisions. These sections stipulate that railroads may not forward damaged packages, leaking tank cars (except for necessary short moves), or any tank car found in non-compliance with the HMR, except under the terms of a DOT exemption. RSPA is proposing to simplify the overall principle in these sections by prohibiting the movement of packages that do not conform to the HMR. Packages other than tank cars would have to be repaired, reconditioned, or overpacked prior to subsequent movement. Tank cars would have to be repaired or be moved under conditions approved by FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety. This proposed regulation would allow, for example, the movement of a tank car with an emergency valve repair or capping kit under approved conditions. Section 174.55. This section would be revised for clarity. Based on a petition [P-1042] submitted by AAR, suggesting that certain provisions of the existing section are meaningless or confusing, RSPA is proposing to streamline this section. Section 174.67. The first sentence in paragraph (k) would be revised to remove the requirement for heater coil inlet and outlet pipes to be left open. This proposed revision is based on a petition [P-942] indicating that these pipes need to be left open only 5% of the time, when steam is applied. Section 174.69. This section would be removed, based on a petition from AAR [P-1139], because it conflicts with applicable requirements in Sec. 172.514. Section 174.85. Based on corresponding changes in Secs. 172.510 and 172.526 to remove provisions for a RESIDUE placard, paragraph (c) would be revised to reference a rail car containing a residue of a hazardous material rather than a rail car placarded ``RESIDUE''. Part 179 The following sections would be revised by updating certain ASTM specifications and deleting others that are no longer used, based on a petition [P-1023] from AAR: Secs. 179.100-7, 179.100-10, 179.100-20, 179.102-1, 179.102-2, 179.200-7, 179.200-24, 179.201-5, and 179.300-7. Sections 179.12 through 179.12-7. Sections 179.12-1 through 179.12- 7 would be removed and Sec. 179.12 would be revised by incorporating provisions from Secs. 179.12-1 and 179.12-5. The design and materials of construction for interior heater coils require AAR approval. This NPRM proposes to remove the DOT specification requirements and allow AAR greater flexibility in approving heater system designs. Section 179.15. This section would be added to consolidate pressure relief device requirements and adopt provisions to: (1) increase the start-to-discharge pressure of safety relief devices for tanks that have a burst pressure of 240 psig, while allowing the continued use of existing cars; (2) allow for a reduced orifice in the upstream nozzle of a pressure relief device to accommodate pressure surges; (3) increase the rupture disc burst pressure for cars so equipped; (4) standardize the start-to-discharge pressure setting for all commodities and tank car specifications; and (5) align the start-to-discharge pressure setting for tank cars with that prescribed by the ASME code. [[Page 65496]] In this notice, a pressure relief valve means a pressure relief device that is designed to open rapidly, or by opening in proportion to the increase in pressure over the opening pressure, and designed to reclose and prevent further flow of vapor after normal conditions have been restored. A nonreclosing pressure relief device is a pressure relief device actuated by inlet static pressure and designed to function by rupturing (bursting) a pressure containing disc (rupture disc) and remains open after operation. Two ANPRMs published under Docket HM-175A (May 15, 1990; 55 FR 20242, and August 29, 1990; 55 FR 35327) solicited comments on potential costs and safety benefits derived from improvements to the crashworthiness of tank cars and restrictions on continued use of tank cars in hazardous materials service that no longer meet current safety requirements. RSPA issued the ANPRM, in part, to address an AAR petition requesting an increase in the start-to-discharge pressure of a nonreclosing pressure relief device and a reduction in the size of the upstream nozzle (P-1083). Commenters responding to the ANPRM suggested that tanks with a 60 psig test pressure and built with 7/16 inch wall thicknesses could be converted to a 100 psig tank test pressure (subject to an inspection and AAR approval), but opposed any conversion of DOT 115A or AAR 206W tank cars because of wall thickness. Most commenters supported increasing the start-to-discharge pressure of a nonreclosing pressure relief device to prevent rupture of the disc from in-transit pressure surges. The Railway Progress Institute (RPI) suggested in its comment that the optimum flow capacity for a pressure relief device is the minimum required to prevent tank car rupture in fire conditions. The RPI and other commenters opposed increasing the flow capacity of certain pressure relief valves and stated that both large and small capacity pressure relief valves discharge the same amount of product. Large capacity pressure relief valves, as opposed to small capacity valves, release large amounts of product for brief durations. A petition for rulemaking submitted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) supported the ANPRM and AAR's petition (P-1270). CMA suggested that reclosing pressure relief valves should have a start-to- discharge pressure setting consistent with several DOT exemptions for nonreclosing pressure relief devices (i.e., 165 percent of the tank test pressure or 33 percent of the tank burst pressure). RSPA published an NPRM under Docket HM-175A on October 8, 1993 (58 FR 52574) but did not propose changes to the HMR concerning pressure relief devices. Based on the merit of comments to Docket HM-175A and a petition for rulemaking [P-1083], RSPA is proposing to consolidate the pressure relief device requirements now contained in Secs. 173.314(i), 179.100-15, 179.200-18, 179.201-7, and 179.220-19 into a new Sec. 179.15. This proposal incorporates a performance-based flow capacity requirement to prevent excess pressure build-up within the tank, under fire conditions for both reclosing and nonreclosing pressure relief devices. Further, RSPA is not proposing an increase in the flow capacity of a pressure relief device (including those devices used on tank cars transporting materials toxic by inhalation), based on comments received to Docket HM-175A. For most tank car specifications, the current start-to-discharge pressure setting for pressure relief devices is 30 percent of the tank burst pressure (33 percent of the tank burst pressure for certain commodities listed in Sec. 173.314(i) and in two DOT exemptions: DOT-E 10288 and DOT-E 10328). Flow capacity of the pressure relief device is set at 33 percent of the tank burst pressure. For nonpressure tank car specifications, however, the start-to-discharge pressure setting of a pressure relief device is about 15 percent of the tank burst pressure. To allow for an equivalent start-to-discharge pressure setting for both pressure and nonpressure tank car specifications, RSPA is proposing a start-to-discharge pressure setting of up to 33 percent of the tank burst pressure for all commodities and specifications. Based on the physical-chemical properties of the material (vapor pressure, static head, and gas padding pressure of the product within the tank), this notice also proposes to authorize a reduction in the start-to-discharge pressure setting. This proposal is consistent with Section VIII, UG- 125, of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Pressure Vessels Code (ASME) and an exemption (DOT-E 11184) that authorizes the transportation of certain flammable liquid products in DOT 105J300W tank cars having a start-to-discharge pressure setting of 75 psig as opposed to 225 psig. Further, because of costs associated with modifying existing tank cars to conform to this proposed requirement and because there is no apparent safety reason to require any modification to existing tank cars, this NPRM proposes to allow the continued use of tank cars having a start-to-discharge pressure set at 15 percent of burst. In addition, this notice proposes that a tank car equipped with a nonreclosing pressure relief device must have installed a rupture disc designed to burst at 33 percent of the tank burst pressure within one year after any final rule issued in this docket. For example, a DOT 111A100W2 tank car would have a rupture disc designed to burst at 165 psig within one year after any final rule issued in this docket. This proposal is based on provisions in several exemptions (e.g., DOT-E 10118 and DOT-E 10354), several petitions for rulemaking, and the number of rupture disc failures reported to RSPA's Hazardous Materials Information System. The location for pressure relief devices would be revised in proposed paragraph (g) to allow for the mounting of pressure relief valves on a hinged manway cover plate. The current regulations require mounting a pressure relief valve on the tank dome, manway cover plate, or on a nozzle on top of the tank shell. This notice proposes to require a pressure relief device to communicate with the vapor space above the lading. Sections 179.100-15, 179.200-18, 179.201-7, and 179.220-19. These sections contain provisions for safety relief devices. For consistency with the proposed consolidation of safety relief device provisions in Sec. 179.15, RSPA is proposing to remove these sections from the HMR. Sections 179.101-1 and 179.201-1. RSPA proposes to revise individual specification requirements for pressure tank cars and non- pressure tank cars, respectively. The proposed revisions will correct many typographical errors and remove several special references that are no longer applicable. RSPA also proposes to add a new class ``DOT 120A'' specification tank car and a new ``DOT 111A60W6'' specification tank car in the table based on two petitions for rulemaking [P-1044 and P-1119] from AAR. Furthermore, RSPA proposes to remove certain entries from the table since these provisions are currently found in the text proceeding the table (see for example Secs. 179.200-11, 179.200-14, and 179.200-16). Section 179.102-4. Paragraph (d), which specifies at least one safety relief valve on a tank car tank used to transport vinyl fluoride, inhibited, would be removed, consistent with the proposed consolidation of safety relief device provisions in Sec. 179.15. In [[Page 65497]] addition, paragraphs (b) and (c) would be redesignated paragraphs (a) and (b), paragraphs (e) through (k) would be redesignated paragraphs (c) through (i), and reserved paragraph (l) would be removed. Section 179.103-5. Based on the merits of a petition [P-1048] submitted by AAR, paragraph (b)(2) would be revised to adopt requirements for the attachment of unloading connections for bottom outlets on pressure tank cars. This proposed revision would reflect existing requirements for bottom outlets on non-pressure tank cars. Section 179.200-7. In addition to the proposed revision of the paragraph (b) table discussed previously, certain ASTM specifications would be revised to remove references to outdated publications. The entry for ASTM B 209-70, Alloy 6061 would be removed, as would footnotes 4 and 5 associated with that entry. Footnote 2 following the paragraph (d) table would be revised to reference Practice A of ASTM A 262-85, which is a definitive, rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens free of susceptibility to intergranular attack. This revision is based on a petition [P-1049] from AAR, and also requests referencing this Footnote 2 in Sec. 179.201-4. Section 179.200-14. The first sentence of paragraph (a) and the first sentence of paragraph (b) would be revised to recognize the new outage and filling limits for tank cars adopted in Docket HM-181. Section 179.200-16. RSPA is proposing to revise the first sentence in paragraph (d) to require an outage scale visible through the manway opening when using a gaging device. This revision is based on the proposed changes to Sec. 179.201-1. Section 179.200-24. The reference to ``ASTM A 285C'' would be revised to read ``ASTM A 516''. Section 179.201-4. This section specifies material requirements for fittings, tubes, castings, projections, and closures. Based on a petition [P-1049] submitted by AAR, this section would be revised to refer to Footnote 2 of Sec. 179.200-7(d) rather than the AAR Specifications. Section 179.221-1. RSPA is proposing to revise the class DOT 115A specification table as noted in the discussion of Secs. 179.101-1 and 179.201-1. Sections 179.222, 179.222-1, and 179.500-17. These sections would be removed because identical provisions are contained elsewhere in the HMR. II. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This proposed rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034]. The economic impact o","truncated":true,"body_characters":88889}