Hazardous Materials: Improving the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials, 20006-20008 [E8-7829]
Download as PDF
20006
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 72 / Monday, April 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174 and 179
[Docket No. FRA–2006–25169]
RIN 2130–AB69
Hazardous Materials: Improving the
Safety of Railroad Tank Car
Transportation of Hazardous Materials
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On April 1, 2008, PHMSA, in
consultation with the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
proposing revisions to the Federal
Hazardous Materials Regulations to
improve the crashworthiness of railroad
tank cars designed to transport poison
inhalation hazard (PIH) materials.
Specifically, the NPRM proposes
enhanced tank car performance
standards for head and shell impacts;
operational restrictions for trains
hauling tank cars containing PIH
materials; interim operational
restrictions for trains hauling tank cars
containing PIH materials, but not
meeting the enhanced performance
standards; and an allowance to increase
the gross weight of tank cars that meet
the enhanced tank-head and shell
puncture-resistance requirements. This
notice announces that PHMSA and FRA
will hold a series of public meetings
(May 14, 15, 28, and 29, 2008 in
Washington, DC) related to the NPRM.
Information on the scope, topics, dates,
and locations of these public meetings
is provided in this notice.
DATES: Public meetings: May 14, 15, 28,
and 29, 2008, starting at 9 a.m., in
Washington, DC. Further information on
the agenda and topics to be discussed at
each meeting is provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
Written Comments: In accordance
with the timeframe established by the
NPRM, comments to this docket must be
received no later than May 29, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Public meetings: The
meetings will be held at the Washington
Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005.
Oral Presentations: Any person
wishing to present an oral statement at
any of the public meetings should notify
Lucinda Henriksen, by e-mail or
telephone, at least four business days
before the date of the public meeting at
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Apr 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
which the person wishes to speak. For
information on facilities or services for
persons with disabilities or to request
special assistance at the meetings,
contact Ms. Henriksen as soon as
possible.
Written Comments: We invite
interested parties who are unable to
attend the meetings, or who otherwise
desire to submit written comments or
data to submit any relevant information,
data, or comments to the docket of this
proceeding (FRA–2006–25169) by any
of the following methods:
• Web site: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lucinda Henriksen, Office of Chief
Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration
(Lucinda.Henriksen@dot.gov or (202)
493–1345), or Bill Schoonover, Office of
Safety Assurance and Compliance,
Federal Railroad Administration
(William.Schoonover@dot.gov or (202)
493–6229).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
1, 2008, PHMSA, in consultation with
FRA, published an NPRM proposing
revisions to the Federal Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR
Parts 171–180) to improve the
crashworthiness of railroad tank cars
designed to transport PIH materials. As
explained in more detail in the NPRM,
DOT’s tank car research has shown that
the rupture of tank cars and loss of
lading are principally associated with
the car-to-car impacts that occur as a
result of derailments and train-to-train
collisions. Conditions during an
accident can be of such force that a
coupler of one car impacts the head or
the shell of a tank car. With sufficient
speed, such impacts can lead to rupture
and loss of lading. When a tank car is
transporting PIH materials, the
consequences of that loss of lading can
be catastrophic. Based on the
information currently available, DOT
believes that a significant opportunity
exists to enhance the safety of
hazardous materials transportation, and
in direct response to the Congressional
directive of 49 U.S.C. 20155, in the
NPRM we propose revisions to the HMR
that would improve the accident
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
survivability of railroad tank cars used
to transport PIH materials. Specifically,
in the NPRM we propose to require:
• A maximum speed limit of 50 mph
for all railroad tank cars used to
transport PIH materials;
• A maximum speed limit of 30 mph
in non-signaled (i.e., dark) territory for
all railroad tank cars transporting PIH
materials, unless the material is
transported in a tank car meeting the
enhanced tank-head and shell punctureresistance systems performance
standards proposed;
• As an alternative to the maximum
speed limit of 30 mph in dark territory,
submission for FRA approval of a
complete risk assessment and risk
mitigation strategy establishing that
operating conditions over the subject
track provide at least an equivalent level
of safety as that provided by signaled
track;
• Railroad tank cars used to transport
PIH materials have a shell punctureresistance system capable of
withstanding impact at 25 mph and a
tank-head puncture-resistance system
capable of withstanding impact at 30
mph;
• The expedited replacement of tank
cars used for the transportation of PIH
materials manufactured before 1989
with non-normalized steel head or shell
construction; and
• An allowance to increase the gross
weight on rail for tank cars designed to
meet the proposed enhanced tank-head
and shell puncture-resistance systems
performance standards.
The public meetings will be held on
the dates specified in the DATES section
of this document and at the location
specified in the ADDRESSES section.
Although all interested parties are
invited to participate in any of the
public meetings, to ensure adequate
time is allotted to the diverse issues
involved in the proposal, DOT plans to
limit the scope of each proceeding as
outlined below.
May 14 and 15, 2008 Public Meetings:
The May 14 and 15, 2008 meetings will
focus on the NPRM as it relates to the
transportation by rail tank car of
chlorine and anhydrous ammonia, the
two PIH materials that constitute almost
80% of the total rail tank car PIH
shipments each year. Specifically, we
will focus on issues related to the
transportation of chlorine on May 14th
and issues related to the transportation
of anhydrous ammonia on May 15th.
May 28, 2008 Public Meeting: The
May 28, 2008 meeting will include two
distinct segments. The morning session
will focus on the NPRM as it relates to
the transportation by railroad tank car of
PIH materials other than chlorine and
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 72 / Monday, April 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
anhydrous ammonia (e.g., ethylene
oxide, anhydrous hydrogen fluoride,
sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, etc.).
The afternoon session of the May 28th
meeting will address railroad-specific
issues related to the NPRM (e.g., the
operational restrictions proposed, role
of the Tank Car Committee, impact of
heavier tank cars on railroad
infrastructure, etc.). Accordingly,
anyone wishing to comment on the
proposed rule as it relates to railroad
operations, infrastructure, and any other
railroad-specific issues, should attend
the afternoon session on May 28, 2008.
May 29, 2008 Public Meeting: The
May 29, 2008 meeting is intended to
provide an opportunity for all interested
parties to present general comments
related to the NPRM and/or any relevant
concluding remarks.
Although we welcome any comments,
information or data relevant to the
NPRM as it relates to the transportation
of PIH materials by railroad tank car, as
noted in the NPRM and accompanying
documents, we specifically request
comment on the following issues and
questions:
• Regarding the proposed
performance standards for enhanced
tank-head and shell protection, are there
alternative strategies for enhancing the
accident survivability of tank cars that
may be as effective as, or more effective
than, the proposed standards? Please
include appropriate data and
information demonstrating the
effectiveness of such alternatives.
• Regarding the proposed eight-year
implementation period for tank cars to
be brought into compliance with the
enhanced performance standards
proposed, we request comment as to the
feasibility and costs of this
implementation schedule, as well as
suggestions for any alternatives. We are
particularly interested in data and
information concerning current tank car
manufacturing capacity and whether
capacity limitations will affect the
proposed implementation period.
• If the proposed rule is adopted, will
it be necessary to maintain the
requirement of 49 CFR 173.31(e)(2) that
tank cars used to transport PIH materials
be equipped with metal jackets?
• Regarding the proposed speed
restriction of 50 mph for all tank cars
transporting PIH materials:
› To what extent are tank cars
containing PIH materials currently
transported in accordance with the
speed restrictions in AAR’s Circular
OT–55–I for ‘‘key trains’’?
› To the extent that tank cars
containing PIH materials are not
currently transported in ‘‘key trains,’’
but would be as a result of the proposed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:12 Apr 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
speed restriction (assuming carriers
would marshal PIH cars into key trains
to avoid the speed restriction on other
trains), to what extent, if any, would
this ‘‘marshalling’’ cause a delay in the
delivery of PIH materials (or other
hazardous or non-hazardous materials)
in the train? What would be the cost of
the delay?
› Are there alternative approaches to
the speed restrictions proposed that
would reduce the consequences of a
train derailment or accident involving
PIH materials? If so, please provide
supporting data demonstrating the
effectiveness of the alternative
approaches.
• Regarding the proposed speed
restriction of 30 mph for tank cars not
meeting the enhanced performance
standards, but used to transport PIH
materials through unsignaled territory,
are there additional approaches to limit
any burdens associated with this speed
limitation (e.g., should exceptions be
made to the speed restriction based on
population densities and/or land use
patterns of the area abutting the track)?
• Regarding the proposal to allow an
increase to 286,000 pounds in the gross
weight of tank cars:
› To what extent has track
infrastructure already been modified to
accommodate these heavier cars and
what was the cost associated with such
upgrades?
› What additional infrastructure
modifications would be required to
accommodate the heavier cars?
› Would the number of PIH
shipments along certain rail lines be
expected to increase because existing
infrastructure could not accommodate
heavier cars?
As noted in the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Assessment (IRFA) published
in the NPRM (73 FR 17818, 17852 (Apr.
1, 2008)) we recognize that the
proposals in the NPRM may impact
certain small entities. However, at this
time, we do not have enough
information to determine whether the
proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly,
we encourage small entities potentially
impacted by this proposal, particularly
small agricultural operations which
utilize anhydrous ammonia, to review
the NPRM and accompanying
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and
provide any relevant comments, data, or
information related to the potential
economic impact to small entities that
would result from adoption of the
proposals in the NPRM. As noted in the
IRFA, we specifically request comment
on the following issues and questions:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20007
• How many small shippers would be
impacted by implementation of the
proposed rule and what is the extent of
such impact?
• How many governmental
jurisdictions that meet the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
definition of small entity own water
treatment systems that utilize chlorine
in their processing? What would be the
expected impact of this proposed rule
on such entities? Of small government
jurisdictions currently utilizing chlorine
in their water treatment systems, how
many entities could feasibly substitute a
non-dangerous or less lethal material
(e.g., bleach) for chlorine?
• How many agricultural operations
that meet the SBA definition of small
entity utilize anhydrous ammonia in
their operations? What would be the
expected impact of this proposed rule
on such entities? Of small agricultural
operations currently utilizing anhydrous
ammonia in their operations, how many
entities could feasibly substitute less
dangerous materials (e.g., urea, urea
ammonium nitrate, or ammonium
nitrate) for anhydrous ammonia?
• How many entities meeting the SBA
definition of small entity own tank cars
that would be subject to this rule? What
would be the expected impact of this
proposed rule on such entities?
We also specifically request comment
on the estimates of costs and benefits of
implementing the proposed rule as
detailed in the RIA, as well as the
underlying assumptions noted in the
RIA.
PHMSA and FRA encourage all
interested persons to participate in these
proceedings. We encourage participants
wishing to make oral statements to plan
on attending the entire meeting for
which they are scheduled, since DOT
may not be able to accommodate
competing demands to appear at
specific times. We also encourage
participants to focus their testimony at
each meeting on the particular topics for
that proceeding as outlined above.
Documents
A copy of the April 1, 2008 NPRM,
the Regulatory Impact Analysis
prepared in support of the NPRM, and
any comments addressed to this docket
are available through the DOT’s docket
system Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov and/or Room
W12–140 on the Plaza Level of the U.S.
Department of Transportation
Headquarters Building, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., Washington, DC between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
20008
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 72 / Monday, April 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8,
2008, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 106.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. E8–7829 Filed 4–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 080310411–7566–01]
RIN 0648–AU14
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Subsistence
Fishing
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to
amend the subsistence fishery rules for
Pacific halibut in waters in and off
Alaska. These regulations are necessary
to address subsistence halibut
management concerns in densely
populated areas. This action is intended
to support the conservation and
management provisions of the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act of 1982.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than May 14, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. You may submit
comments, identified by ‘‘RIN 0648–
AU14’’ by any one of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
https://www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802.
• Fax: (907) 586–7557.
• Hand delivery to the Federal
Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, Alaska.
All comments received are a part of
the public record and will be posted to
https://www.regulations.gov without
change. All Personal Identifying
Information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Apr 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments must be in Microsoft Word,
Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable
document file (pdf) formats to be
accepted.
Copies of the Categorical Exclusion
(CE), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR),
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) prepared for this action,
as well as the environmental assessment
(EA) prepared for the original
subsistence halibut action (68 FR 18145;
April 15, 2003) may be obtained from
the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) at 605 West 4th, Suite
306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501–2252,
907–271–2809; by mail from NMFS,
Alaska Region, P. O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99802–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian,
Records Officer; in person at NMFS,
Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street,
Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska; or via the
Internet at the NMFS Alaska Region
website at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to NMFS at the
above address and by e-mail to
DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to
202–395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Becky Carls, 907–586–7228 or
becky.carls@noaa.gov, or Peggy
Murphy, 907–586–7228 or
peggy.murphy@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Need for Action
Management of the Pacific halibut
(hereafter halibut) fishery in and off
Alaska is based on an international
agreement between Canada and the
United States. This agreement, entitled
the ‘‘Convention between the United
States of America and Canada for the
Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of
the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering
Sea’’ (Convention), was signed at
Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and
amended by the ‘‘Protocol Amending
the Convention,’’ signed at Washington,
D.C., March 29, 1979. The Convention,
administered by the International
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), is
given effect in the United States by the
Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982
(Halibut Act).
The IPHC promulgates regulations
pursuant to the Convention. The IPHC’s
regulations are subject to approval by
the Secretary of State with concurrence
from the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary). After approval by the
Secretary of State and the Secretary, the
IPHC regulations are published in the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal Register as annual management
measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.
NMFS published the IPHC’s current
annual management measures on March
7, 2008 (73 FR 12280).
The Halibut Act also authorizes the
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) to develop halibut
fishery regulations, including limited
access regulations, in its geographic area
of concern that would apply to nationals
or vessels of the United States (Halibut
Act, section 773(c)). Such an action by
the Council is limited to only those
regulations that are in addition to, and
not in conflict with, IPHC regulations.
Council-developed regulations must be
approved and implemented by the
Secretary. Any allocation of halibut
fishing privileges must be fair and
equitable and consistent with other
applicable Federal law. The Council
used its authority under the Halibut Act
to recommend a subsistence halibut
program in October 2000 to recognize
and manage the subsistence fishery for
halibut.
The Secretary approved the Council’s
recommended subsistence halibut
program and published implementing
regulations on April 15, 2003 (68 FR
18145), and codified the program in 50
CFR part 300–subpart E, authorizing a
subsistence fishery for halibut in
Convention waters off Alaska. In April
2002, the Council proposed a suite of
amendments to its original subsistence
halibut program while postponing
several proposed amendments to be
included in a separate action.
Regulations implementing the initial
suite of amendments to the original
subsistence halibut program were
published on April 1, 2005 (70 FR
16742). These regulations (1) changed
the boundaries of the Anchorage/Matsu/
Kenai non-subsistence area; (2)
eliminated gear restrictions in Areas 4C,
4D, and 4E; (3) increased gear and
harvest restrictions in Area 2C; (4)
allowed retention of legal-sized
subsistence halibut with Community
Development Quota halibut in Areas 4C,
4D, and 4E; (5) created a Community
Harvest Permit (CHP) system to mitigate
increased gear and harvest restrictions
in affected areas; (6) created a
Ceremonial and Educational Permit
system to recognize customary and
traditional tribal practices; and (7)
included the subsistence halibut
program in the federal appeals process
at 50 CFR 679.43.
The Council revisited the postponed
amendments in October 2004, and took
final action on them in December 2004.
This action proposes implementing
regulations for the postponed
amendments. Specifically, this action
E:\FR\FM\14APP1.SGM
14APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 72 (Monday, April 14, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20006-20008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7829]
[[Page 20006]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174 and 179
[Docket No. FRA-2006-25169]
RIN 2130-AB69
Hazardous Materials: Improving the Safety of Railroad Tank Car
Transportation of Hazardous Materials
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 1, 2008, PHMSA, in consultation with the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing revisions to the Federal Hazardous
Materials Regulations to improve the crashworthiness of railroad tank
cars designed to transport poison inhalation hazard (PIH) materials.
Specifically, the NPRM proposes enhanced tank car performance standards
for head and shell impacts; operational restrictions for trains hauling
tank cars containing PIH materials; interim operational restrictions
for trains hauling tank cars containing PIH materials, but not meeting
the enhanced performance standards; and an allowance to increase the
gross weight of tank cars that meet the enhanced tank-head and shell
puncture-resistance requirements. This notice announces that PHMSA and
FRA will hold a series of public meetings (May 14, 15, 28, and 29, 2008
in Washington, DC) related to the NPRM. Information on the scope,
topics, dates, and locations of these public meetings is provided in
this notice.
DATES: Public meetings: May 14, 15, 28, and 29, 2008, starting at 9
a.m., in Washington, DC. Further information on the agenda and topics
to be discussed at each meeting is provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below.
Written Comments: In accordance with the timeframe established by
the NPRM, comments to this docket must be received no later than May
29, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Public meetings: The meetings will be held at the Washington
Plaza Hotel, 10 Thomas Circle, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Oral Presentations: Any person wishing to present an oral statement
at any of the public meetings should notify Lucinda Henriksen, by e-
mail or telephone, at least four business days before the date of the
public meeting at which the person wishes to speak. For information on
facilities or services for persons with disabilities or to request
special assistance at the meetings, contact Ms. Henriksen as soon as
possible.
Written Comments: We invite interested parties who are unable to
attend the meetings, or who otherwise desire to submit written comments
or data to submit any relevant information, data, or comments to the
docket of this proceeding (FRA-2006-25169) by any of the following
methods:
Web site: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucinda Henriksen, Office of Chief
Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration (Lucinda.Henriksen@dot.gov or
(202) 493-1345), or Bill Schoonover, Office of Safety Assurance and
Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration (William.Schoonover@dot.gov
or (202) 493-6229).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 1, 2008, PHMSA, in consultation
with FRA, published an NPRM proposing revisions to the Federal
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) to improve
the crashworthiness of railroad tank cars designed to transport PIH
materials. As explained in more detail in the NPRM, DOT's tank car
research has shown that the rupture of tank cars and loss of lading are
principally associated with the car-to-car impacts that occur as a
result of derailments and train-to-train collisions. Conditions during
an accident can be of such force that a coupler of one car impacts the
head or the shell of a tank car. With sufficient speed, such impacts
can lead to rupture and loss of lading. When a tank car is transporting
PIH materials, the consequences of that loss of lading can be
catastrophic. Based on the information currently available, DOT
believes that a significant opportunity exists to enhance the safety of
hazardous materials transportation, and in direct response to the
Congressional directive of 49 U.S.C. 20155, in the NPRM we propose
revisions to the HMR that would improve the accident survivability of
railroad tank cars used to transport PIH materials. Specifically, in
the NPRM we propose to require:
A maximum speed limit of 50 mph for all railroad tank cars
used to transport PIH materials;
A maximum speed limit of 30 mph in non-signaled (i.e.,
dark) territory for all railroad tank cars transporting PIH materials,
unless the material is transported in a tank car meeting the enhanced
tank-head and shell puncture-resistance systems performance standards
proposed;
As an alternative to the maximum speed limit of 30 mph in
dark territory, submission for FRA approval of a complete risk
assessment and risk mitigation strategy establishing that operating
conditions over the subject track provide at least an equivalent level
of safety as that provided by signaled track;
Railroad tank cars used to transport PIH materials have a
shell puncture-resistance system capable of withstanding impact at 25
mph and a tank-head puncture-resistance system capable of withstanding
impact at 30 mph;
The expedited replacement of tank cars used for the
transportation of PIH materials manufactured before 1989 with non-
normalized steel head or shell construction; and
An allowance to increase the gross weight on rail for tank
cars designed to meet the proposed enhanced tank-head and shell
puncture-resistance systems performance standards.
The public meetings will be held on the dates specified in the
DATES section of this document and at the location specified in the
ADDRESSES section. Although all interested parties are invited to
participate in any of the public meetings, to ensure adequate time is
allotted to the diverse issues involved in the proposal, DOT plans to
limit the scope of each proceeding as outlined below.
May 14 and 15, 2008 Public Meetings: The May 14 and 15, 2008
meetings will focus on the NPRM as it relates to the transportation by
rail tank car of chlorine and anhydrous ammonia, the two PIH materials
that constitute almost 80% of the total rail tank car PIH shipments
each year. Specifically, we will focus on issues related to the
transportation of chlorine on May 14th and issues related to the
transportation of anhydrous ammonia on May 15th.
May 28, 2008 Public Meeting: The May 28, 2008 meeting will include
two distinct segments. The morning session will focus on the NPRM as it
relates to the transportation by railroad tank car of PIH materials
other than chlorine and
[[Page 20007]]
anhydrous ammonia (e.g., ethylene oxide, anhydrous hydrogen fluoride,
sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, etc.). The afternoon session of the
May 28th meeting will address railroad-specific issues related to the
NPRM (e.g., the operational restrictions proposed, role of the Tank Car
Committee, impact of heavier tank cars on railroad infrastructure,
etc.). Accordingly, anyone wishing to comment on the proposed rule as
it relates to railroad operations, infrastructure, and any other
railroad-specific issues, should attend the afternoon session on May
28, 2008.
May 29, 2008 Public Meeting: The May 29, 2008 meeting is intended
to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to present general
comments related to the NPRM and/or any relevant concluding remarks.
Although we welcome any comments, information or data relevant to
the NPRM as it relates to the transportation of PIH materials by
railroad tank car, as noted in the NPRM and accompanying documents, we
specifically request comment on the following issues and questions:
Regarding the proposed performance standards for enhanced
tank-head and shell protection, are there alternative strategies for
enhancing the accident survivability of tank cars that may be as
effective as, or more effective than, the proposed standards? Please
include appropriate data and information demonstrating the
effectiveness of such alternatives.
Regarding the proposed eight-year implementation period
for tank cars to be brought into compliance with the enhanced
performance standards proposed, we request comment as to the
feasibility and costs of this implementation schedule, as well as
suggestions for any alternatives. We are particularly interested in
data and information concerning current tank car manufacturing capacity
and whether capacity limitations will affect the proposed
implementation period.
If the proposed rule is adopted, will it be necessary to
maintain the requirement of 49 CFR 173.31(e)(2) that tank cars used to
transport PIH materials be equipped with metal jackets?
Regarding the proposed speed restriction of 50 mph for all
tank cars transporting PIH materials:
[dec221] To what extent are tank cars containing PIH materials
currently transported in accordance with the speed restrictions in
AAR's Circular OT-55-I for ``key trains''?
[dec221] To the extent that tank cars containing PIH materials are
not currently transported in ``key trains,'' but would be as a result
of the proposed speed restriction (assuming carriers would marshal PIH
cars into key trains to avoid the speed restriction on other trains),
to what extent, if any, would this ``marshalling'' cause a delay in the
delivery of PIH materials (or other hazardous or non-hazardous
materials) in the train? What would be the cost of the delay?
[dec221] Are there alternative approaches to the speed restrictions
proposed that would reduce the consequences of a train derailment or
accident involving PIH materials? If so, please provide supporting data
demonstrating the effectiveness of the alternative approaches.
Regarding the proposed speed restriction of 30 mph for
tank cars not meeting the enhanced performance standards, but used to
transport PIH materials through unsignaled territory, are there
additional approaches to limit any burdens associated with this speed
limitation (e.g., should exceptions be made to the speed restriction
based on population densities and/or land use patterns of the area
abutting the track)?
Regarding the proposal to allow an increase to 286,000
pounds in the gross weight of tank cars:
[dec221] To what extent has track infrastructure already been
modified to accommodate these heavier cars and what was the cost
associated with such upgrades?
[dec221] What additional infrastructure modifications would be
required to accommodate the heavier cars?
[dec221] Would the number of PIH shipments along certain rail lines
be expected to increase because existing infrastructure could not
accommodate heavier cars?
As noted in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Assessment (IRFA)
published in the NPRM (73 FR 17818, 17852 (Apr. 1, 2008)) we recognize
that the proposals in the NPRM may impact certain small entities.
However, at this time, we do not have enough information to determine
whether the proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, we encourage small
entities potentially impacted by this proposal, particularly small
agricultural operations which utilize anhydrous ammonia, to review the
NPRM and accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and provide any
relevant comments, data, or information related to the potential
economic impact to small entities that would result from adoption of
the proposals in the NPRM. As noted in the IRFA, we specifically
request comment on the following issues and questions:
How many small shippers would be impacted by
implementation of the proposed rule and what is the extent of such
impact?
How many governmental jurisdictions that meet the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) definition of small entity own water
treatment systems that utilize chlorine in their processing? What would
be the expected impact of this proposed rule on such entities? Of small
government jurisdictions currently utilizing chlorine in their water
treatment systems, how many entities could feasibly substitute a non-
dangerous or less lethal material (e.g., bleach) for chlorine?
How many agricultural operations that meet the SBA
definition of small entity utilize anhydrous ammonia in their
operations? What would be the expected impact of this proposed rule on
such entities? Of small agricultural operations currently utilizing
anhydrous ammonia in their operations, how many entities could feasibly
substitute less dangerous materials (e.g., urea, urea ammonium nitrate,
or ammonium nitrate) for anhydrous ammonia?
How many entities meeting the SBA definition of small
entity own tank cars that would be subject to this rule? What would be
the expected impact of this proposed rule on such entities?
We also specifically request comment on the estimates of costs and
benefits of implementing the proposed rule as detailed in the RIA, as
well as the underlying assumptions noted in the RIA.
PHMSA and FRA encourage all interested persons to participate in
these proceedings. We encourage participants wishing to make oral
statements to plan on attending the entire meeting for which they are
scheduled, since DOT may not be able to accommodate competing demands
to appear at specific times. We also encourage participants to focus
their testimony at each meeting on the particular topics for that
proceeding as outlined above.
Documents
A copy of the April 1, 2008 NPRM, the Regulatory Impact Analysis
prepared in support of the NPRM, and any comments addressed to this
docket are available through the DOT's docket system Web site at http:/
/www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the Plaza Level of the U.S.
Department of Transportation Headquarters Building, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
[[Page 20008]]
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 2008, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. E8-7829 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P