Railroad Safety Enforcement Procedures; Enforcement, Appeal and Hearing Procedures for Rail Routing Decisions, 20774-20778 [E8-8187]
Download as PDF
20774
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 209
[FRA–2007–28573]
RIN 2130–AB87
Railroad Safety Enforcement
Procedures; Enforcement, Appeal and
Hearing Procedures for Rail Routing
Decisions
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In a separate document
published today, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration is requiring railroad
carriers to compile annual data on
specified shipments of hazardous
materials (security-sensitive materials),
use the data to analyze safety and
security risks along rail transportation
routes where those materials are
transported, assess alternative routing
options, and make routing decisions
based on those assessments. This
document proposes procedures to
enable railroad carriers to challenge rail
routing decisions made by the FRA
Associate Administrator for Safety in
accordance with PHMSA’s
requirements.
Submit comments by June 16,
2008. To the extent possible, we will
consider late-filed comments as we
develop a final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number FRA
2007–28573 by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number FRA–
2007–28573 for this notice at the
beginning of your comment. Internet
users may access comments received by
DOT at https://www.regulations.gov.
Note that comments received may be
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act section of this
document.
Comments or those portions of
comments FRA determines to include
trade secrets, confidential commercial
information, or sensitive security
information (SSI) will not be placed in
the public docket and will be handled
separately. If you believe your
comments contain trade secrets,
confidential commercial information, or
SSI, those comments or the relevant
portions of those comments should be
appropriately marked so that DOT may
make a determination. FRA procedures
in 49 CFR 209.11 establish a mechanism
by which commenters may request
confidentiality.
In accordance with 49 CFR 209.11,
you may ask FRA to keep information
confidential using the following
procedures: (1) Mark the document or
portions of the document
‘‘CONFIDENTIAL’’ or ‘‘CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION’’; (2)
send DMS both the original document
and a second copy of the original
document with the confidential
information deleted; and (3) include a
separate, detailed statement justifying
nondisclosure, explaining why the
information is confidential (such as a
trade secret, confidential commercial
information, or SSI), and referring to the
specific legal authority claimed. In your
explanation, you should provide enough
information to enable FRA to determine
whether the information provided is
protected by law and must be handled
separately.
In addition, for comments or portions
of comments that you believe contain
SSI as defined in 49 CFR 15.7, you
should comply with Federal regulations
governing restrictions on the disclosure
of SSI. See 49 CFR 1520.9 and 49 CFR
15.9. For example, these sections restrict
the sharing of SSI to those with a need
to know, set out the requirement to
mark the information as SSI, and
address how the information should be
disposed. Note also when mailing in or
using a special delivery service to send
comments containing SSI, comments
should be wrapped in a manner to
prevent the information from being
read. FRA and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) may
perform concurrent reviews on requests
for designations as SSI.
After reviewing your request for
confidentiality and the information
provided, FRA will analyze applicable
laws and regulations to decide whether
to treat the information as confidential.
FRA will notify you of the decision to
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
grant or deny confidentiality. If FRA
denies confidentiality, you will be
provided an opportunity to respond to
the denial before the information is
publicly disclosed. FRA will reconsider
its decision to deny confidentiality
based on your response.
Regarding comments not marked as
confidential, prior to posting comments
received in response to this notice in the
public docket, FRA will review all
comments, whether or not they are
identified as confidential, to determine
if the submission or portions of the
submission contain information that
should not be made available to the
general public. FRA will notify you if
the agencies make such a determination
relative to your comment. If, prior to
submitting your comment, you have any
questions concerning the procedures for
determining confidentiality or security
sensitivity, you may call the individual
listed below under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT for more
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roberta Stewart, Trial Attorney, Office
of Chief Counsel, RCC–12, Mail Stop 10,
FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–
493–6027).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 21, 2006, the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking
(PHMSA’s NPRM), 71 FR 76834,
proposing revisions to the requirements
in the hazardous materials regulations
(HMR) applicable to the safe and secure
transportation of hazardous materials
transported in commerce by rail. In
today’s edition of the Federal Register,
PHMSA issued an interim final rule
(IFR) on this subject. Specifically,
PHMSA is requiring railroad carriers to
compile annual data on specified
shipments of hazardous materials
(security-sensitive materials), use the
data to analyze safety and security risks
along rail transportation routes where
those materials are transported, assess
alternative routing options, and make
routing decisions based on those
assessments. In that IFR, PHMSA also
issued clarifications of the current
security plan requirements to address en
route storage, delays in transit, delivery
notification, and additional security
inspection requirements for hazardous
materials shipments.
The Federal hazardous materials
transportation law (Federal hazmat law),
49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., authorizes the
Secretary of the Department of
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Transportation (Secretary) to ‘‘prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation,
including security, of hazardous
material in intrastate, interstate, and
foreign commerce.’’ The Secretary has
delegated this authority to PHMSA
(formerly the Research and Special
Programs Administration).
The HMR (49 CFR parts 171–180),
promulgated by PHMSA under the
mandate in 49 U.S.C. 5103(b) govern
safety aspects, including security, of the
transportation of hazardous material the
Secretary considers appropriate.
Consistent with this security authority,
in March 2003, PHMSA adopted new
transportation security requirements for
offerors and transporters of certain
classes and quantities of hazardous
materials and new security training
requirements for hazardous materials
employees. The security regulations,
which are explained in more detail
below, require offerors and carriers to
develop and implement security plans
and to train their employees to
recognize and respond to possible
security threats.
When PHMSA adopted its security
regulations, shippers and railroad
carriers were informed these regulations
were ‘‘the first step in what may be a
series of rulemakings to address the
security of hazardous materials
shipments.’’ 68 FR 14509, 14511 (March
25, 2003). PHMSA also noted that ‘‘TSA
is developing regulations that are likely
to impose additional requirements
beyond those established in this final
rule,’’ and stated it would ‘‘consult and
coordinate with TSA concerning
security-related hazardous materials
transportation regulations * * *’’ 68 FR
14511.
Enforcement of the HMR has been
delegated by the Secretary to modal
administrations within DOT.
Specifically, FRA is authorized to ‘‘carry
out the functions vested in the Secretary
by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b), (c) and (d),
5122, 5123, and 5124, with particular
emphasis on the transportation or
shipment of hazardous materials by
railroad.’’ 49 CFR 1.49(s).
FRA is the agency within DOT
responsible for railroad safety, and is
the primary enforcer of safety and
security requirements in the HMR
pertaining to rail shippers and carriers.
FRA inspectors routinely review
hazardous materials security plans
required by the HMR during site visits
to railroad carrier and shipper facilities
and may offer suggestions for improving
the security plans, as appropriate. If an
inspector’s recommendations are not
implemented, FRA may compel a rail
shipper or carrier to make changes to its
security plan through its normal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
enforcement process. FRA consults with
TSA concerning railroad security issues
in accordance with the FRA–TSA annex
to the DOT-Department of Homeland
Security Memorandum of
Understanding (DOT–DHS MOU) on
transportation security.
PHMSA’s NPRM and IFR provide that
a railroad carrier may be required to
revise its analysis or make changes to a
route selected by the carrier to move
covered hazardous materials if the route
selection documentation or underlying
analysis is found to be deficient. In
addition, both PHMSA’s NPRM and IFR
provide that if the carrier’s chosen route
is found not to be the safest and most
secure commercially practicable route
available, the FRA Associate
Administrator for Safety (Associate
Administrator), in consultation with
TSA, may require the use of an
alternative route until such time as
identified deficiencies are satisfactorily
addressed. PHMSA’s NPRM stated that
FRA would establish procedures for
railroad carriers to appeal a decision by
the Associate Administrator to require
the use of an alternative route.
Several comments were submitted
regarding the PHMSA NPRM and the
possibility that the FRA Associate
Administrator could require rerouting.
The Association of American Railroads
(AAR) questioned whether FRA
properly had the authority to require
rerouting. The Dow Chemical Company
and the Institute of Makers of
Explosives suggested that, consistent
with fundamental concepts of due
process, PHMSA should provide an
immediate procedure to appeal an FRA
determination to require the use of an
alternative route. The Surface
Transportation Board (STB) suggested
that prior to making a determination
requiring the use of an alternative route,
FRA and TSA obtain the comments of
the STB as to whether the contemplated
alternative route(s) would be
commercially practicable.
FRA’s authority to require the use of
an alternative route derives from
§ 5121(a) of the Federal hazmat law. The
Secretary is authorized to issue an
order, after notice and an opportunity
for a hearing, requiring compliance with
the Federal hazmat law or a regulation,
order, special permit, or approval issued
under Federal hazmat law. The
authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 5121(a)
has been delegated to FRA ‘‘with
particular emphasis on the
transportation or shipment of hazardous
materials by railroad’’ (49 CFR 1.49(s)),
as well as to PHMSA, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration and
the United States Coast Guard (with
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20775
‘‘particular emphasis’’ on the respective
authority of these agencies).
II. Proposals in This NPRM
As previously noted, in its rail
security NPRM, PHMSA stated that FRA
would provide a procedure for
administrative due process so that a
railroad carrier may seek redress of
decision by the Associate Administrator
that the carrier’s routing analysis is
deficient and directing a carrier to use
a route while the deficiencies are
corrected. 71 FR at 76844. This NPRM
proposes procedures governing the
review of rail routing decisions,
including appeal, and these procedures
are summarized below. FRA notes in
this regard that the procedures are
carefully designed so that a carrier is
fully informed of deficiencies found by
FRA in a carrier’s safety and security
routing analysis, and that the carrier is
permitted to work with FRA to correct
those deficiencies. FRA will only
require the use of an alternate route if
it concludes the carrier’s analysis did
not satisfy the minimum criteria for
performing a safety and security risk
analysis, as established by § 172.820 and
appendix D to part 172, and that an
alternative route poses the least safety
and security risks based on the
information available to the agency.
Moreover, FRA expects to mandate
temporary route changes only for the
most exigent circumstances.
Section 209.501 provides that if the
Associate Administrator determines that
a carrier’s route selection
documentation and underlying analysis
are deficient and fail to establish that
the route chosen by the carrier is the
safest and most secure route, the
Associate Administrator will issue a
written notice of review (‘‘Notice’’) to
the railroad carrier. The Notice will
specifically address each deficiency
found in the railroad carrier’s route
analysis, and may also include
suggested mitigation measures that may
be taken to remedy the deficiencies,
including selection and use of an
alternative commercially practicable
route. After issuing the Notice, the
Associate Administrator will conference
with the railroad carrier for a 30-day
period (or longer, if necessary, as
determined by the Associate
Administrator) to resolve the
deficiencies. The Associate
Administrator will keep a record of all
written correspondence with the
railroad carrier, as well as written
summaries of each meeting and
telephone conversation with the carrier
pertaining to the Notice.
If, after the close of the 30-day period,
the Associate Administrator concludes
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
20776
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
that the identified deficiencies have not
been satisfactorily resolved, the
Associate Administrator will:
(1) Consult with TSA and PHMSA
regarding the safety and security of the
route proposed by the railroad carrier
and any alternative route(s) over which
the carrier is authorized to operate that
are being considered by the Associate
Administrator. A written summary of
the recommendations from TSA and
PHMSA will be prepared;
(2) Obtain the comments of the STB
regarding whether the alternative
route(s) under consideration by the
Associate Administrator would be
commercially practicable; and
(3) After fully considering the input of
TSA, PHMSA and STB, render a
decision.
In section 209.501(d), there are two
possible outcomes of a decision by the
Associate Administrator. First, the
Associate Administrator may find that
the route analysis and documentation
provided by the railroad carrier are
sufficient to support the route selected
by the carrier or that commercial
practicability issues preclude the use of
an alternative route. In either of those
circumstances, the Associate
Administrator would conclude the route
review without further action, and
notify the railroad carrier of the decision
in writing.
Alternately, the Associate
Administrator may conclude that the
railroad carrier’s route analysis does not
support the railroad carrier’s original
selected route, that safety and security
considerations establish a significant
preference for an alternative route, and
that the alternative route is
commercially practicable. The Associate
Administrator would then issue a
second written notice (2nd Notice) to
the railroad carrier that specifically
identifies deficiencies in the route
analysis, including a clear description of
the risks that have not been
satisfactorily mitigated; explains why
the available data and reasonable
inferences support an alternative route;
and directs the railroad carrier to
temporarily use the alternative route
determined by the Associate
Administrator to be the safest and most
secure route. The railroad carrier would
be required to start using the alternative
route selected by the Associate
Administrator within 20 days after the
issuance date of the 2nd Notice. The
railroad carrier shall use the alternative
route until such time as the carrier has
adequately mitigated the risks identified
by the Associate Administrator on the
original route selected by the carrier.
When the Associate Administrator
issues a 2nd Notice directing the use of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
an alternative route pursuant to section
209.501(d)(2), the Associate
Administrator shall make available to
the railroad carrier the administrative
record relied upon in issuing the 2nd
Notice, including the recommendations
of TSA, PHMSA and the STB to FRA.
Within 20 days after the issuance date
of the 2nd Notice, the railroad carrier
may: (1) Comply with the Associate
Administrator’s directive to use an
alternative route while addressing
deficiencies in its route analysis
identified by the Associate
Administrator; or (2) file a petition for
judicial review of the Associate
Administrator’s 2nd Notice. Judicial
review would be available in an
appropriate United States court of
appeals as provided in 49 U.S.C. 5127.
The filing of a petition for judicial
review will not stay or modify the force
and effect of final agency action unless
otherwise ordered by the Associate
Administrator or the court of appeals.
With respect to enforcement of the
new rail security requirements
established in PHMSA’s IFR, FRA plans
to work closely with TSA to develop a
coordinated enforcement strategy to
include both FRA and TSA inspection
personnel. We note in this regard that
TSA does not have the authority to
enforce safety or security requirements
established in the HMR. If in the course
of an inspection of a railroad carrier,
TSA identifies evidence of noncompliance with a DOT security
regulation, TSA will provide the
information to FRA and PHMSA for
appropriate action. TSA will not
directly enforce DOT security rules, and
will not initiate safety inspections.
Consistent with the PHMSA–TSA and
FRA–TSA annexes to the DOT–DHS
MOU, all the involved agencies will
cooperate to ensure coordinated,
consistent, and effective activities
related to rail security issues.
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This
Rulemaking
This NPRM is published under
authority of the Federal hazmat law (49
U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) Section 5103(b) of
Federal hazmat law authorizes the
Secretary to prescribe regulations for the
safe transportation, including security,
of hazardous materials in intrastate,
interstate, and foreign commerce. The
HMR are issued by PHMSA. 49 CFR
1.53(b). Responsibility for the
enforcement of the hazardous materials
transportation law and regulations
primarily in instances where violations
involve railroads and those entities
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
which ship by rail has been delegated to
FRA. 49 CFR 1.49(s).
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This NPRM 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. This
NPRM is not significant under the
Regulatory Policies and Procedures of
DOT (44 FR 11034). The economic
impact of this proposed rule is minimal
to the extent that preparation of a
regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
C. Executive Order 13132
This NPRM has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This proposed
rule would not have any direct effect on
the States or their political subdivisions;
it would not impose any compliance
costs; and it would not affect the
relationships between the national
government and the States or their
political subdivisions, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 13272
FRA certifies that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule would
apply to carriers of hazardous materials
by rail. Some of these entities are
classified as small entities; however,
there is no economic impact on any
person that complies with Federal
hazardous materials law and the
regulations and orders issued under that
law.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new information
requirements in this proposed rule.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This proposed rule does not impose
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995. It does
not result in annual costs of
$128,100,000 or more, in the aggregate,
to any of the following: State, local, or
Indian tribal governments, or the private
sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative to achieve the objective of
the rule.
G. Environmental Assessment
There are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
this proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
H. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires
Federal agencies to prepare a Statement
of Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001). Under the Executive Order, a
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or
regulation, including notices of inquiry,
advance notices of proposed
rulemaking, and notices of proposed
rulemaking, that: (1)(i) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. We have
evaluated this proposed rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13211,
and we have determined that this NPRM
is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
Consequently, we have determined that
this regulatory action is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ within the
meaning of Executive Order 13211.
I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN)
is assigned to each regulatory action
listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in spring and fall of each year.
The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to crossreference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 209
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Penalties, Railroad
safety, Railroad safety enforcement
procedures, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, in consideration of the
foregoing, chapter II, subtitle B of title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 209—[AMENDED]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
1. The authority citation for part 209
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5123, 5124, 20103,
20107, 20111, 20112, 20114; 28 U.S.C. 2461,
note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
2. Amend § 209.3 by adding the
following new definitions:
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
Associate Administrator means the
Associate Administrator for Safety,
Federal Railroad Administration, or that
person’s delegate as designated in
writing.
*
*
*
*
*
Railroad carrier means a person
providing railroad transportation.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Add new Subpart F to read as
follows:
Subpart F—Enforcement, Appeal and
Hearing Procedures for Rail Routing
Decisions Pursuant to 49 CFR 172.820
§ 209.501 Review of rail transportation
safety and security route analysis.
(a) Review of route analysis. If the
Associate Administrator for Safety
determines that a railroad carrier’s route
selection, analysis and documentation
pursuant to § 172.820 of chapter I of this
title is deficient and fails to establish
that the route chosen by the carrier is
the safest and most secure route, the
Associate Administrator shall issue a
written notice of review (‘‘Notice’’) to
the railroad carrier. The Notice shall
specifically address each deficiency
found in the railroad carrier’s route
analysis. The Notice may also include
suggested mitigation measures that the
railroad carrier may take to remedy the
deficiencies found, including selection
of an alternative commercially feasible
routing.
(b) Conference to resolve deficiencies.
After issuing the Notice, the Associate
Administrator conferences with the
railroad carrier for a thirty (30)-day
period, or such longer period as
provided by the Associate
Administrator, to resolve the
deficiencies as identified in the Notice.
The Associate Administrator keeps a
record of all written correspondence
with the railroad carrier and a summary
of each meeting and telephone
conversation with the railroad carrier
that pertains to the Notice.
(c) Consultation with and comment
from other agencies. If, after the close of
the conference period, the Associate
Administrator concludes that the issues
identified have not been satisfactorily
resolved, the Associate Administrator:
(1) Consults with the Transportation
Security Administration (‘‘TSA’’) and
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA)
regarding the safety and security of the
route proposed by the railroad carrier
and any alternative route(s) over which
the carrier is authorized to operate that
are being considered by the Associate
Administrator and prepares a written
summary of the recommendations from
TSA and PHMSA;
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20777
(2) Obtains the comments of the
Surface Transportation Board (‘‘STB’’)
regarding whether the alternative
route(s) being considered by the
Associate Administrator would be
commercially practicable; and
(3) Fully considers the input of TSA,
PHMSA and the STB and renders a
decision pursuant to paragraph (d) of
this section which shall be
administratively final.
(d) Decision. (1) If the Associate
Administrator finds that the route
analysis and documentation provided
by the railroad carrier are sufficient to
support the route selected by the carrier
or that valid issues of commercial
practicability preclude an alternative
route, the Associate Administrator
concludes the review without further
action and so notifies the railroad
carrier in writing.
(2) If the Associate Administrator
concludes that the railroad carrier’s
route analysis does not support the
railroad carrier’s original selected route,
that safety and security considerations
establish a significant preference for an
alternative route, and that the
alternative route is commercially
practicable, the Associate Administrator
issues a second written notice (2nd
Notice) to the railroad carrier that:
(i) Specifically identifies deficiencies
found in the railroad carrier’s route
analysis, including a clear description of
the risks on the selected route that have
not been satisfactorily mitigated;
(ii) Explains why the available data
and reasonable inferences indicate that
a commercially practicable alternative
route poses less safety and security risks
than the route selected by the railroad
carrier; and
(iii) Directs the railroad carrier,
beginning within twenty (20) days of the
issuance date of the 2nd Notice on the
railroad carrier, to temporarily use the
alternative route that the Associate
Administrator determines is the safest
and most secure route until such time
as the railroad carrier has adequately
mitigated the risks identified by the
Associate Administrator on the original
route selected by the carrier.
(e) Actions following 2nd Notice and
re-routing directive. When issuing a 2nd
Notice that directs the use of an
alternative route, the Associate
Administrator shall make available to
the railroad carrier the administrative
record relied upon by the Associate
Administrator in issuing the 2nd Notice,
including the recommendations of TSA,
PHMSA and STB to FRA made pursuant
to paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this
section. Within twenty (20) days of the
issuance date of the Associate
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20778
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Administrator’s 2nd Notice, the railroad
carrier may:
(1) Comply with the Associate
Administrator’s directive to use an
alternative route while the carrier works
to address the deficiencies in its route
analysis identified by the Associate
Administrator; or
(2) File a petition for judicial review
of the Associate Administrator’s 2nd
Notice, pursuant to paragraph (f) of this
section.
(f) Review and decision by Associate
Administrator on revised route analysis
submitted in response to 2nd Notice.
Upon submission of a revised route
analysis containing an adequate
showing by the railroad carrier that its
172.820(a)–(e) .........
172.820(a)–(e) .........
172.820(f) ................
172.820(g) ...............
172.820(h) ...............
172.820(i) ................
*
*
*
*
original selected route is the safest and
most secure route, the Associate
Administrator notifies the carrier in
writing that the carrier may use its
original selected route.
(g) Appellate review. If a railroad
carrier is aggrieved by final agency
action, it may petition for review of the
final decision in the appropriate United
States court of appeals as provided in 49
U.S.C. 5127. The filing of the petition
for review does not stay or modify the
force and effect of the final agency
action unless the Associate
Administrator or the Court orders
otherwise.
(h) Time. In computing any period of
time prescribed by this part, the day of
any act, event, or default from which the
designated period of time begins to run
shall not be included. The last day of
the period so computed shall be
included, unless it is a Saturday,
Sunday, or Federal holiday, in which
event the period runs until the end of
the next day which is not one of the
aforementioned days.
4. In appendix B to part 209, amend
the civil penalty guideline table by
adding the following entries:
Appendix B to Part 209—Federal
Railroad Administration Guidelines for
Initial Hazardous Material Assessments
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10,
2008.
S. Mark Lindsey,
Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad
Administration.
*
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS2
*
General failure to perform safety and security route analysis. Factors to consider are the size of the railroad carrier, and the quantities of hazmat transported.
Partial failure to complete route analysis; failure to complete a component of the route analysis .............
—Compilation of security-sensitive commodity data.
—Identification of practicable alternative routes.
—Consultation with State, local, and tribal officials, as appropriate regarding security risks to highconsequence targets along or in proximity to a route used by the carrier to transport securitysensitive materials.
—Safety and security route analysis of route used.
—Safety and security altenative route analysis.
Failure to complete route analyses within the prescribed time frame .........................................................
Failure to include one of the following components in safety and security plan .........................................
—Procedure for consultation with offerors and consignees to minimize storage of security-sensitive
materials incidental to movement.
—Measures to limit unauthorized access to the materials during storage or delays in transit.
—Measures to mitigate risk to population centers associated with in-transit storage of the materials.
—Measures to be taken in the event of escalating threat levels for the materials stored in transit
(Unit of violation is the component. For a total failure to have a security plan, cite § 172.800 and
use the penalties provided for that section.).
Failure to maintain records and make available to DOT and DHS authorized officials ..............................
Failure to use route designated by FRA Associate Administrator for Safety ..............................................
[FR Doc. E8–8187 Filed 4–15–08; 8:45 am]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
18:23 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
5,000–10,000
5,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
10,000
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 16, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20774-20778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8187]
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 20774]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 209
[FRA-2007-28573]
RIN 2130-AB87
Railroad Safety Enforcement Procedures; Enforcement, Appeal and
Hearing Procedures for Rail Routing Decisions
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In a separate document published today, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is requiring railroad
carriers to compile annual data on specified shipments of hazardous
materials (security-sensitive materials), use the data to analyze
safety and security risks along rail transportation routes where those
materials are transported, assess alternative routing options, and make
routing decisions based on those assessments. This document proposes
procedures to enable railroad carriers to challenge rail routing
decisions made by the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety in
accordance with PHMSA's requirements.
DATES: Submit comments by June 16, 2008. To the extent possible, we
will consider late-filed comments as we develop a final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number FRA
2007-28573 by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number
FRA-2007-28573 for this notice at the beginning of your comment.
Internet users may access comments received by DOT at https://
www.regulations.gov. Note that comments received may be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act section of this document.
Comments or those portions of comments FRA determines to include
trade secrets, confidential commercial information, or sensitive
security information (SSI) will not be placed in the public docket and
will be handled separately. If you believe your comments contain trade
secrets, confidential commercial information, or SSI, those comments or
the relevant portions of those comments should be appropriately marked
so that DOT may make a determination. FRA procedures in 49 CFR 209.11
establish a mechanism by which commenters may request confidentiality.
In accordance with 49 CFR 209.11, you may ask FRA to keep
information confidential using the following procedures: (1) Mark the
document or portions of the document ``CONFIDENTIAL'' or ``CONTAINS
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''; (2) send DMS both the original document and
a second copy of the original document with the confidential
information deleted; and (3) include a separate, detailed statement
justifying nondisclosure, explaining why the information is
confidential (such as a trade secret, confidential commercial
information, or SSI), and referring to the specific legal authority
claimed. In your explanation, you should provide enough information to
enable FRA to determine whether the information provided is protected
by law and must be handled separately.
In addition, for comments or portions of comments that you believe
contain SSI as defined in 49 CFR 15.7, you should comply with Federal
regulations governing restrictions on the disclosure of SSI. See 49 CFR
1520.9 and 49 CFR 15.9. For example, these sections restrict the
sharing of SSI to those with a need to know, set out the requirement to
mark the information as SSI, and address how the information should be
disposed. Note also when mailing in or using a special delivery service
to send comments containing SSI, comments should be wrapped in a manner
to prevent the information from being read. FRA and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) may perform concurrent reviews on
requests for designations as SSI.
After reviewing your request for confidentiality and the
information provided, FRA will analyze applicable laws and regulations
to decide whether to treat the information as confidential. FRA will
notify you of the decision to grant or deny confidentiality. If FRA
denies confidentiality, you will be provided an opportunity to respond
to the denial before the information is publicly disclosed. FRA will
reconsider its decision to deny confidentiality based on your response.
Regarding comments not marked as confidential, prior to posting
comments received in response to this notice in the public docket, FRA
will review all comments, whether or not they are identified as
confidential, to determine if the submission or portions of the
submission contain information that should not be made available to the
general public. FRA will notify you if the agencies make such a
determination relative to your comment. If, prior to submitting your
comment, you have any questions concerning the procedures for
determining confidentiality or security sensitivity, you may call the
individual listed below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for more
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberta Stewart, Trial Attorney,
Office of Chief Counsel, RCC-12, Mail Stop 10, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6027).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 21, 2006, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (PHMSA's
NPRM), 71 FR 76834, proposing revisions to the requirements in the
hazardous materials regulations (HMR) applicable to the safe and secure
transportation of hazardous materials transported in commerce by rail.
In today's edition of the Federal Register, PHMSA issued an interim
final rule (IFR) on this subject. Specifically, PHMSA is requiring
railroad carriers to compile annual data on specified shipments of
hazardous materials (security-sensitive materials), use the data to
analyze safety and security risks along rail transportation routes
where those materials are transported, assess alternative routing
options, and make routing decisions based on those assessments. In that
IFR, PHMSA also issued clarifications of the current security plan
requirements to address en route storage, delays in transit, delivery
notification, and additional security inspection requirements for
hazardous materials shipments.
The Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat
law), 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of the
Department of
[[Page 20775]]
Transportation (Secretary) to ``prescribe regulations for the safe
transportation, including security, of hazardous material in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.'' The Secretary has
delegated this authority to PHMSA (formerly the Research and Special
Programs Administration).
The HMR (49 CFR parts 171-180), promulgated by PHMSA under the
mandate in 49 U.S.C. 5103(b) govern safety aspects, including security,
of the transportation of hazardous material the Secretary considers
appropriate. Consistent with this security authority, in March 2003,
PHMSA adopted new transportation security requirements for offerors and
transporters of certain classes and quantities of hazardous materials
and new security training requirements for hazardous materials
employees. The security regulations, which are explained in more detail
below, require offerors and carriers to develop and implement security
plans and to train their employees to recognize and respond to possible
security threats.
When PHMSA adopted its security regulations, shippers and railroad
carriers were informed these regulations were ``the first step in what
may be a series of rulemakings to address the security of hazardous
materials shipments.'' 68 FR 14509, 14511 (March 25, 2003). PHMSA also
noted that ``TSA is developing regulations that are likely to impose
additional requirements beyond those established in this final rule,''
and stated it would ``consult and coordinate with TSA concerning
security-related hazardous materials transportation regulations * * *''
68 FR 14511.
Enforcement of the HMR has been delegated by the Secretary to modal
administrations within DOT. Specifically, FRA is authorized to ``carry
out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. 5121(a), (b),
(c) and (d), 5122, 5123, and 5124, with particular emphasis on the
transportation or shipment of hazardous materials by railroad.'' 49 CFR
1.49(s).
FRA is the agency within DOT responsible for railroad safety, and
is the primary enforcer of safety and security requirements in the HMR
pertaining to rail shippers and carriers. FRA inspectors routinely
review hazardous materials security plans required by the HMR during
site visits to railroad carrier and shipper facilities and may offer
suggestions for improving the security plans, as appropriate. If an
inspector's recommendations are not implemented, FRA may compel a rail
shipper or carrier to make changes to its security plan through its
normal enforcement process. FRA consults with TSA concerning railroad
security issues in accordance with the FRA-TSA annex to the DOT-
Department of Homeland Security Memorandum of Understanding (DOT-DHS
MOU) on transportation security.
PHMSA's NPRM and IFR provide that a railroad carrier may be
required to revise its analysis or make changes to a route selected by
the carrier to move covered hazardous materials if the route selection
documentation or underlying analysis is found to be deficient. In
addition, both PHMSA's NPRM and IFR provide that if the carrier's
chosen route is found not to be the safest and most secure commercially
practicable route available, the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety
(Associate Administrator), in consultation with TSA, may require the
use of an alternative route until such time as identified deficiencies
are satisfactorily addressed. PHMSA's NPRM stated that FRA would
establish procedures for railroad carriers to appeal a decision by the
Associate Administrator to require the use of an alternative route.
Several comments were submitted regarding the PHMSA NPRM and the
possibility that the FRA Associate Administrator could require
rerouting. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) questioned
whether FRA properly had the authority to require rerouting. The Dow
Chemical Company and the Institute of Makers of Explosives suggested
that, consistent with fundamental concepts of due process, PHMSA should
provide an immediate procedure to appeal an FRA determination to
require the use of an alternative route. The Surface Transportation
Board (STB) suggested that prior to making a determination requiring
the use of an alternative route, FRA and TSA obtain the comments of the
STB as to whether the contemplated alternative route(s) would be
commercially practicable.
FRA's authority to require the use of an alternative route derives
from Sec. 5121(a) of the Federal hazmat law. The Secretary is
authorized to issue an order, after notice and an opportunity for a
hearing, requiring compliance with the Federal hazmat law or a
regulation, order, special permit, or approval issued under Federal
hazmat law. The authority provided in 49 U.S.C. 5121(a) has been
delegated to FRA ``with particular emphasis on the transportation or
shipment of hazardous materials by railroad'' (49 CFR 1.49(s)), as well
as to PHMSA, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration and the United States Coast Guard (with
``particular emphasis'' on the respective authority of these agencies).
II. Proposals in This NPRM
As previously noted, in its rail security NPRM, PHMSA stated that
FRA would provide a procedure for administrative due process so that a
railroad carrier may seek redress of decision by the Associate
Administrator that the carrier's routing analysis is deficient and
directing a carrier to use a route while the deficiencies are
corrected. 71 FR at 76844. This NPRM proposes procedures governing the
review of rail routing decisions, including appeal, and these
procedures are summarized below. FRA notes in this regard that the
procedures are carefully designed so that a carrier is fully informed
of deficiencies found by FRA in a carrier's safety and security routing
analysis, and that the carrier is permitted to work with FRA to correct
those deficiencies. FRA will only require the use of an alternate route
if it concludes the carrier's analysis did not satisfy the minimum
criteria for performing a safety and security risk analysis, as
established by Sec. 172.820 and appendix D to part 172, and that an
alternative route poses the least safety and security risks based on
the information available to the agency. Moreover, FRA expects to
mandate temporary route changes only for the most exigent
circumstances.
Section 209.501 provides that if the Associate Administrator
determines that a carrier's route selection documentation and
underlying analysis are deficient and fail to establish that the route
chosen by the carrier is the safest and most secure route, the
Associate Administrator will issue a written notice of review
(``Notice'') to the railroad carrier. The Notice will specifically
address each deficiency found in the railroad carrier's route analysis,
and may also include suggested mitigation measures that may be taken to
remedy the deficiencies, including selection and use of an alternative
commercially practicable route. After issuing the Notice, the Associate
Administrator will conference with the railroad carrier for a 30-day
period (or longer, if necessary, as determined by the Associate
Administrator) to resolve the deficiencies. The Associate Administrator
will keep a record of all written correspondence with the railroad
carrier, as well as written summaries of each meeting and telephone
conversation with the carrier pertaining to the Notice.
If, after the close of the 30-day period, the Associate
Administrator concludes
[[Page 20776]]
that the identified deficiencies have not been satisfactorily resolved,
the Associate Administrator will:
(1) Consult with TSA and PHMSA regarding the safety and security of
the route proposed by the railroad carrier and any alternative route(s)
over which the carrier is authorized to operate that are being
considered by the Associate Administrator. A written summary of the
recommendations from TSA and PHMSA will be prepared;
(2) Obtain the comments of the STB regarding whether the
alternative route(s) under consideration by the Associate Administrator
would be commercially practicable; and
(3) After fully considering the input of TSA, PHMSA and STB, render
a decision.
In section 209.501(d), there are two possible outcomes of a
decision by the Associate Administrator. First, the Associate
Administrator may find that the route analysis and documentation
provided by the railroad carrier are sufficient to support the route
selected by the carrier or that commercial practicability issues
preclude the use of an alternative route. In either of those
circumstances, the Associate Administrator would conclude the route
review without further action, and notify the railroad carrier of the
decision in writing.
Alternately, the Associate Administrator may conclude that the
railroad carrier's route analysis does not support the railroad
carrier's original selected route, that safety and security
considerations establish a significant preference for an alternative
route, and that the alternative route is commercially practicable. The
Associate Administrator would then issue a second written notice (2nd
Notice) to the railroad carrier that specifically identifies
deficiencies in the route analysis, including a clear description of
the risks that have not been satisfactorily mitigated; explains why the
available data and reasonable inferences support an alternative route;
and directs the railroad carrier to temporarily use the alternative
route determined by the Associate Administrator to be the safest and
most secure route. The railroad carrier would be required to start
using the alternative route selected by the Associate Administrator
within 20 days after the issuance date of the 2nd Notice. The railroad
carrier shall use the alternative route until such time as the carrier
has adequately mitigated the risks identified by the Associate
Administrator on the original route selected by the carrier.
When the Associate Administrator issues a 2nd Notice directing the
use of an alternative route pursuant to section 209.501(d)(2), the
Associate Administrator shall make available to the railroad carrier
the administrative record relied upon in issuing the 2nd Notice,
including the recommendations of TSA, PHMSA and the STB to FRA.
Within 20 days after the issuance date of the 2nd Notice, the
railroad carrier may: (1) Comply with the Associate Administrator's
directive to use an alternative route while addressing deficiencies in
its route analysis identified by the Associate Administrator; or (2)
file a petition for judicial review of the Associate Administrator's
2nd Notice. Judicial review would be available in an appropriate United
States court of appeals as provided in 49 U.S.C. 5127. The filing of a
petition for judicial review will not stay or modify the force and
effect of final agency action unless otherwise ordered by the Associate
Administrator or the court of appeals.
With respect to enforcement of the new rail security requirements
established in PHMSA's IFR, FRA plans to work closely with TSA to
develop a coordinated enforcement strategy to include both FRA and TSA
inspection personnel. We note in this regard that TSA does not have the
authority to enforce safety or security requirements established in the
HMR. If in the course of an inspection of a railroad carrier, TSA
identifies evidence of non-compliance with a DOT security regulation,
TSA will provide the information to FRA and PHMSA for appropriate
action. TSA will not directly enforce DOT security rules, and will not
initiate safety inspections. Consistent with the PHMSA-TSA and FRA-TSA
annexes to the DOT-DHS MOU, all the involved agencies will cooperate to
ensure coordinated, consistent, and effective activities related to
rail security issues.
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This NPRM is published under authority of the Federal hazmat law
(49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) Section 5103(b) of Federal hazmat law
authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the safe
transportation, including security, of hazardous materials in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The HMR are issued by
PHMSA. 49 CFR 1.53(b). Responsibility for the enforcement of the
hazardous materials transportation law and regulations primarily in
instances where violations involve railroads and those entities which
ship by rail has been delegated to FRA. 49 CFR 1.49(s).
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This NPRM 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. This NPRM is not significant
under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of DOT (44 FR 11034). The
economic impact of this proposed rule is minimal to the extent that
preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
C. Executive Order 13132
This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
proposed rule would not have any direct effect on the States or their
political subdivisions; it would not impose any compliance costs; and
it would not affect the relationships between the national government
and the States or their political subdivisions, or the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272
FRA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule would apply to carriers of hazardous materials by rail.
Some of these entities are classified as small entities; however, there
is no economic impact on any person that complies with Federal
hazardous materials law and the regulations and orders issued under
that law.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new information requirements in this proposed rule.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995. It does not result in annual costs of
$128,100,000 or more, in the aggregate, to any of the following: State,
local, or Indian tribal governments, or the private sector, and is the
least burdensome alternative to achieve the objective of the rule.
G. Environmental Assessment
There are no significant environmental impacts associated with this
proposed rule.
[[Page 20777]]
H. Energy Impact
Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a ``significant
energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency (normally
published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to
lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including
notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices
of proposed rulemaking, that: (1)(i) Is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.
We have evaluated this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order
13211, and we have determined that this NPRM is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Consequently, we have determined that this regulatory action is
not a ``significant energy action'' within the meaning of Executive
Order 13211.
I. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this
document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 209
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Penalties, Railroad safety, Railroad safety enforcement
procedures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing, chapter II, subtitle
B of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 209--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 209 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5123, 5124, 20103, 20107, 20111, 20112,
20114; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49 CFR 1.49.
2. Amend Sec. 209.3 by adding the following new definitions:
* * * * *
Associate Administrator means the Associate Administrator for
Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, or that person's delegate as
designated in writing.
* * * * *
Railroad carrier means a person providing railroad transportation.
* * * * *
3. Add new Subpart F to read as follows:
Subpart F--Enforcement, Appeal and Hearing Procedures for Rail
Routing Decisions Pursuant to 49 CFR 172.820
Sec. 209.501 Review of rail transportation safety and security route
analysis.
(a) Review of route analysis. If the Associate Administrator for
Safety determines that a railroad carrier's route selection, analysis
and documentation pursuant to Sec. 172.820 of chapter I of this title
is deficient and fails to establish that the route chosen by the
carrier is the safest and most secure route, the Associate
Administrator shall issue a written notice of review (``Notice'') to
the railroad carrier. The Notice shall specifically address each
deficiency found in the railroad carrier's route analysis. The Notice
may also include suggested mitigation measures that the railroad
carrier may take to remedy the deficiencies found, including selection
of an alternative commercially feasible routing.
(b) Conference to resolve deficiencies. After issuing the Notice,
the Associate Administrator conferences with the railroad carrier for a
thirty (30)-day period, or such longer period as provided by the
Associate Administrator, to resolve the deficiencies as identified in
the Notice. The Associate Administrator keeps a record of all written
correspondence with the railroad carrier and a summary of each meeting
and telephone conversation with the railroad carrier that pertains to
the Notice.
(c) Consultation with and comment from other agencies. If, after
the close of the conference period, the Associate Administrator
concludes that the issues identified have not been satisfactorily
resolved, the Associate Administrator:
(1) Consults with the Transportation Security Administration
(``TSA'') and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) regarding the safety and security of the route
proposed by the railroad carrier and any alternative route(s) over
which the carrier is authorized to operate that are being considered by
the Associate Administrator and prepares a written summary of the
recommendations from TSA and PHMSA;
(2) Obtains the comments of the Surface Transportation Board
(``STB'') regarding whether the alternative route(s) being considered
by the Associate Administrator would be commercially practicable; and
(3) Fully considers the input of TSA, PHMSA and the STB and renders
a decision pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section which shall be
administratively final.
(d) Decision. (1) If the Associate Administrator finds that the
route analysis and documentation provided by the railroad carrier are
sufficient to support the route selected by the carrier or that valid
issues of commercial practicability preclude an alternative route, the
Associate Administrator concludes the review without further action and
so notifies the railroad carrier in writing.
(2) If the Associate Administrator concludes that the railroad
carrier's route analysis does not support the railroad carrier's
original selected route, that safety and security considerations
establish a significant preference for an alternative route, and that
the alternative route is commercially practicable, the Associate
Administrator issues a second written notice (2nd Notice) to the
railroad carrier that:
(i) Specifically identifies deficiencies found in the railroad
carrier's route analysis, including a clear description of the risks on
the selected route that have not been satisfactorily mitigated;
(ii) Explains why the available data and reasonable inferences
indicate that a commercially practicable alternative route poses less
safety and security risks than the route selected by the railroad
carrier; and
(iii) Directs the railroad carrier, beginning within twenty (20)
days of the issuance date of the 2nd Notice on the railroad carrier, to
temporarily use the alternative route that the Associate Administrator
determines is the safest and most secure route until such time as the
railroad carrier has adequately mitigated the risks identified by the
Associate Administrator on the original route selected by the carrier.
(e) Actions following 2nd Notice and re-routing directive. When
issuing a 2nd Notice that directs the use of an alternative route, the
Associate Administrator shall make available to the railroad carrier
the administrative record relied upon by the Associate Administrator in
issuing the 2nd Notice, including the recommendations of TSA, PHMSA and
STB to FRA made pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
Within twenty (20) days of the issuance date of the Associate
[[Page 20778]]
Administrator's 2nd Notice, the railroad carrier may:
(1) Comply with the Associate Administrator's directive to use an
alternative route while the carrier works to address the deficiencies
in its route analysis identified by the Associate Administrator; or
(2) File a petition for judicial review of the Associate
Administrator's 2nd Notice, pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) Review and decision by Associate Administrator on revised route
analysis submitted in response to 2nd Notice. Upon submission of a
revised route analysis containing an adequate showing by the railroad
carrier that its original selected route is the safest and most secure
route, the Associate Administrator notifies the carrier in writing that
the carrier may use its original selected route.
(g) Appellate review. If a railroad carrier is aggrieved by final
agency action, it may petition for review of the final decision in the
appropriate United States court of appeals as provided in 49 U.S.C.
5127. The filing of the petition for review does not stay or modify the
force and effect of the final agency action unless the Associate
Administrator or the Court orders otherwise.
(h) Time. In computing any period of time prescribed by this part,
the day of any act, event, or default from which the designated period
of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period
so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or
Federal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the
next day which is not one of the aforementioned days.
4. In appendix B to part 209, amend the civil penalty guideline
table by adding the following entries:
Appendix B to Part 209--Federal Railroad Administration Guidelines for
Initial Hazardous Material Assessments
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
172.820(a)-(e)............ General failure to perform 5,000-10,000
safety and security route
analysis. Factors to
consider are the size of
the railroad carrier, and
the quantities of hazmat
transported.
172.820(a)-(e)............ Partial failure to complete 5,000
route analysis; failure to
complete a component of
the route analysis.
--Compilation of
security-sensitive
commodity data.
--Identification of
practicable alternative
routes.
--Consultation with
State, local, and
tribal officials, as
appropriate regarding
security risks to high-
consequence targets
along or in proximity
to a route used by the
carrier to transport
security-sensitive
materials.
--Safety and security
route analysis of route
used.
--Safety and security
altenative route
analysis.
172.820(f)................ Failure to complete route 2,000
analyses within the
prescribed time frame.
172.820(g)................ Failure to include one of 2,000
the following components
in safety and security
plan.
--Procedure for
consultation with
offerors and consignees
to minimize storage of
security-sensitive
materials incidental to
movement.
--Measures to limit
unauthorized access to
the materials during
storage or delays in
transit.
--Measures to mitigate
risk to population
centers associated with
in-transit storage of
the materials.
--Measures to be taken
in the event of
escalating threat
levels for the
materials stored in
transit (Unit of
violation is the
component. For a total
failure to have a
security plan, cite
Sec. 172.800 and use
the penalties provided
for that section.).
172.820(h)................ Failure to maintain records 2,000
and make available to DOT
and DHS authorized
officials.
172.820(i)................ Failure to use route 10,000
designated by FRA
Associate Administrator
for Safety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2008.
S. Mark Lindsey,
Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-8187 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P