Hazardous Materials: Volatility of Unrefined Petroleum Products and Class 3 Materials, 5499-5508 [2017-00913]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
environmental performance criteria
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies consistent with
section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104–113) and Office of Management and
Budget Circular A–119.
(b) Unless approved in writing by the
Contracting Officer, in the performance of
this contract, the Contractor shall—
(1) Deliver, furnish for Government use;
(2) Incorporate into the construction of a
public building or public work; or
(3) Furnish for Contractor use at a
Federally-controlled facility sustainable
products and services as specified in the
contract.
(c) Sustainable products and services must
meet the applicable standard, specifications,
or other program requirements at the time of
submission of an offer or a quote.
(d) Visit the Green Procurement
Compilation at https://www.sftool.gov/
greenprocurement for a comprehensive list of
Federal Governmentwide sustainable product
and service requirements.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2017–00480 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 177,
178, 179, and 180
[Docket No. PHMSA–2016–0077 (HM–251D)]
RIN 2137–AF24
Hazardous Materials: Volatility of
Unrefined Petroleum Products and
Class 3 Materials
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Department of Transportation
(DOT or Department).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
AGENCY:
PHMSA is considering
revising the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR) to establish vapor
pressure limits for unrefined petroleumbased products and potentially all Class
3 flammable liquid hazardous materials
that would apply during the
transportation of the products or
materials by any mode. PHMSA is
currently assessing the merits of a
petition for rulemaking submitted by the
Attorney General of the State of New
York regarding vapor pressure standards
for the transportation of crude oil. The
petition requests that PHMSA
implement a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
limit less than 9.0 pounds per square
inch (psi) for crude oil transported by
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
rail. PHMSA will use the comments in
response to this ANPRM to help assess
and respond to the petition and to
evaluate any other potential regulatory
actions related to sampling and testing
of crude oil and other Class 3 hazardous
materials. PHMSA will also evaluate the
potential safety benefits and costs of
utilizing vapor pressure thresholds
within the hazardous materials
classification process for unrefined
petroleum-based products and Class 3
hazardous materials.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 20, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–2016–0077 (HM–251D) and the
relevant petition number 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: Docket Management System;
U.S. Department of Transportation,
West Building, Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: To the Docket
Management System; Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number for this ANPRM at the
beginning of the comment. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of
these four methods. All comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you
provide. All comments received will be
posted without change to the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS),
including any personal information.
Docket: For access to the dockets to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or DOT’s Docket
Operations Office located at U.S.
Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–
140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comments (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5499
any personal information the
commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lad
Falat, Director, Engineering and
Research, (202) 366–4545, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., Suite E21–314, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Objective of This ANPRM
III. Petition P–1669 & Other Efforts To Set a
Vapor Pressure Standard for Crude Oil
A. Summary & Supporting Data for Petition
P–1669
B. North Dakota Industrial Commission
(NDIC) Oil Conditioning Order No.
25417
IV. Background Information
A. Current HMR Requirements for the
Classification of Unrefined PetroleumBased Products
B. High-Hazard Flammable Train (HHFT)
Rulemaking
C. Sandia Study
D. PHMSA Actions
E. Pipeline Operators
F. Accident History and Vapor Pressure
Levels
V. Comments and Questions
A. General Questions
B. Safety Questions
C. Vapor Pressure Questions
D. Packaging Questions
VI. Regulatory Review and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order
13563, Executive Order 13610, and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Executive Order 13132
C. Executive Order 13175
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive
Order 13272, and DOT Policies and
Procedures
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Environmental Assessment
G. Privacy Act
H. Executive Order 13609 and
International Trade Analysis
I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This
Rulemaking
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
K. Executive Order 13211
I. Executive Summary
On December 1, 2015, PHMSA
received a petition for rulemaking from
the New York State Office of the
Attorney General (New York AG)
proposing amendments to the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;
49 CFR parts 171–180) applicable to the
transportation of crude oil by rail.
PHMSA designated the petition as
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
5500
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Petition P–1669 1 (P–1669 or the
petition). In P–1669, the New York AG
asks PHMSA to add a new paragraph
(a)(6) to existing § 174.310 requiring all
crude oil transported by rail to have a
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of less than
9.0 pounds per square inch (psi).2 The
petition is based on the premise that
limiting the product’s vapor pressure
will reduce the risk of death or damage
from fire or explosion in the event of an
accident. Separately, the North Dakota
Industrial Commission (NDIC)
implemented a maximum vapor
pressure threshold of 13.7 psi, VPCRx,
Reid equivalent.3 Therefore, in this
ANPRM, PHMSA is asking a series of
questions seeking input as to whether
there should be national vapor pressure
thresholds for petroleum products and/
or other Class 3 hazardous materials
and, if so, what that thresholds should
be.
PHMSA has long stressed that it is the
offeror’s responsibility under § 173.22 of
the HMR to ensure that hazardous
materials are properly classified. To
reinforce this requirement, the HMR
also require offerors of unrefined
petroleum-based products, including
crude oil, to institute a sampling and
testing program in accordance with
§ 173.41.4 There are numerous industry
standards for sampling and determining
vapor pressure of crude oil and other
Class 3 hazardous materials.
When taking additional steps to better
understand hazardous materials and the
risks those materials may pose in
transportation, DOT always strives to
rely on the best available science and
information to inform its decision
making. Section 7309 of the ‘‘Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation Act of
2015,’’ or the ‘‘FAST Act,’’ directs the
Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with
the Secretary of Transportation
(Secretary), to submit a report to
Congress that contains results of the
Crude Oil Characteristics Research
Sampling, Analysis and Experiment
1 PHMSA placed a copy of the petition in docket
number PHMSA-2015-0253, which is accessible at
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA2015-0253.
2 RVP was a common measurement of the vapor
pressure of flammable liquids such as gasoline and
crude oil.
3 RVP uses different equipment and procedures
than Reid equivalent. For example, Reid equivalent
is done using closed conditions to preserve the
lighter ends, while RVP is conducted in an open
test chamber.
4 ‘‘Unrefined petroleum-based products’’ refers to
hazardous hydrocarbons that are extracted from the
earth and have not yet been refined. In the highhazard flammable trains (HHFT) final rule, PHMSA
replaced ‘‘mined liquids and gases’’ with
‘‘unrefined petroleum-based products’’ based on
comments received in response to the HHFT NPRM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
(SAE) Plan 5 (the Sandia Study
discussed in Section IV.C of this
ANPRM will implement the SAE Plan),
as well as recommendations for
regulations and legislation based on the
findings to improve the safe transport of
crude oil. The findings of the Sandia
Study will help inform the Department
as it moves forward.
II. Objective of This ANPRM
Federal hazardous materials law
authorizes the Secretary to ‘‘prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation,
including security, of hazardous
materials in intrastate, interstate, and
foreign commerce.’’ 49 U.S.C.
5103(b)(1). The Secretary has delegated
this authority to PHMSA, 49 CFR
1.97(b). The HMR are designed to
achieve three primary goals: (1) Help
ensure that hazardous materials are
packaged and handled safely and
securely during transportation; (2)
provide effective communication to
transportation workers and emergency
responders of the hazards of the
materials being transported; and (3)
minimize the consequences of an
accident or incident should one occur.
The hazardous material regulatory
system is a risk management system that
is prevention-oriented and focused on
identifying safety or security hazards
and reducing the probability and
consequences of a hazardous material
release.
Under the HMR, hazardous materials
are categorized into hazard classes and
packing groups based on analysis of and
experience with the risks they present
during transportation. The HMR: (1)
Specify appropriate packaging and
handling requirements for hazardous
materials based on this classification
and require a shipper to communicate
the material’s hazards through the use of
shipping papers, package marking and
labeling, and vehicle placarding; (2)
require shippers to provide emergency
response information applicable to the
specific hazard or hazards of the
material being transported; and (3)
mandate training requirements for
persons who prepare hazardous
materials for shipment or transport
hazardous materials in commerce. The
HMR also include operational
requirements applicable to each mode of
transportation.
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq. requires
Federal agencies to give interested
persons the right to petition an agency
to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. 5
5 https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f32/
Crude%20Oil%20Characteristics%20Research%20
SAE%20Plan.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
U.S.C. 553(e). In accordance with
PHMSA’s rulemaking procedure
regulations in 49 CFR part 106,
interested persons may ask PHMSA to
add, amend, or repeal a regulation by
filing a petition for rulemaking along
with information and arguments
supporting the requested action
(§ 106.95).
The petition is based on the premise
that limiting the vapor pressure, as
measured by RVP, of crude oil in rail
transport below 9.0 psi will reduce the
risk of death or damage from fire or
explosion in the event of an accident.
However, in order to grant the petition,
PHMSA would have to:
• Determine the best metric or
combination of metrics (vapor pressure
or other metric) for measuring and
controlling fire and explosion risk in
crude oil transport;
• Quantify the improvement in safety,
if any, due to risk reduction from
implementation of vapor pressure
thresholds at varying levels;
• Identify the measurement
techniques necessary to establish
compliance;
• Identify offerors’ compliance
strategies and market impacts with RVP
standards at varying levels of
stringency, and estimate their economic
costs and environmental impacts;
• Identify other regulations and
industry practices, such as volatile
organic compound emissions standards
imposed through the Clean Air Act, or
State regulations, or pipeline operator
RVP standards, potentially affecting
compliance strategies and costs, and
safety benefits;
• Evaluate the extent to which use of
DOT Specification 117 tank cars
mitigates the risk of transporting crude
oil;
• Compare compliance costs of
mitigation strategies with risk reduction
from adoption of the petition; and
• Balance the benefits and costs in
setting the level of the chosen metric. If
RVP is the best metric, PHMSA would
have to determine that a particular RVP
limit is preferable to any other limit. For
example, if 9.0 psi is chosen, PHMSA
would need to show that 9.0 psi is
preferable to some other potential
limits, such as 8.0 or 11.0. This would
include considering whether there is a
‘‘safe’’ level of RVP below which risks
are minimal (which would lead to little
safety benefit from reducing RVP
further), or some level of RVP where
risks do not further increase.
In this ANPRM, PHMSA is seeking
public comment to obtain the views of
those who are affected by the NDIC
Order, as well as those who are likely
to be impacted by the changes proposed
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
in the petition, including those who are
likely to benefit from, be adversely
affected by, or potentially be subject to
additional regulation. Additionally,
PHMSA seeks comment from
stakeholders regarding the many factors
PHMSA must consider when evaluating
the need for and impacts of regulatory
changes. In general, PHMSA requests
comments on:
• Safety benefits of any proposed
regulatory change, including the
relevant scientific or other empirical
support;
• Economic impacts, including data,
on the costs and benefits; and
• Ease of compliance with the
regulatory changes that Petition P–1669
requests.
This ANPRM will provide an
opportunity for public participation in
the development of regulatory
amendments and promote greater
exchange of information and
perspectives among the various
stakeholders. PHMSA issued this notice
to help respond to Petition P–1669 and,
more broadly, to consider a focused and
well-developed regulatory path forward
that reflects the views of all relevant
parties.
III. Petition P–1669 & Other Efforts To
Set a Vapor Pressure Standard for
Crude Oil
A. Summary & Supporting Data for P–
1669
In Petition P–1669,6 the New York
State Office of the Attorney General
petitioned PHMSA to revise § 174.310 to
establish a nationwide vapor pressure
standard for crude oil shipped by rail
throughout the United States. The
petition states, ‘‘At present, no federal
regulation exists to limit the volatility of
crude oil shipped in railroad tank cars.
This petition for rulemaking seeks to
close that loophole and reduce the risk
of harm to American communities.’’ The
petition further requests PHMSA to
‘‘assert its rulemaking authority, as
delegated by the Secretary of
Transportation, and establish a federal
RVP limit for crude oil transported by
Source
B. North Dakota Industrial Commission
Oil Conditioning Order No. 25417
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
In December 2014, NDIC issued Oil
Conditioning Order No. 25417 (Order),
which requires operators of Bakken
crude oil produced in the state of North
Dakota to separate the gaseous and light
hydrocarbons from all Bakken crude
oil.12 The Order requires the use of a
6 https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA2015-0253.
7 See Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of
Canada Laboratory Report LP148/2013, Aug. 19,
2014. The TSB Report notes that the vapor pressure
measurements of these samples may be lower than
the vapor pressure of the Bakken crude oil in the
´
Lac-Megantic accident: ‘‘The occurrence crude oil
samples were taken at atmospheric pressure. This
could lead to an underestimation of the crude oil[’]s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
rail in the United States at an
appropriate level that is less than 9.0
psi.’’
A copy of the petition is available in
the public docket for this ANPRM, and
can be viewed at either https://
www.regulations.gov or DOT’s Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES
section above).
Petition P–1669 makes the following
claims to support the establishment of a
vapor pressure threshold for crude oil.
Specifically, the petition asserts:
1. Shipments of Bakken crude oil by
rail are vastly expanding;
2. A disturbing trend of train
explosions [exists] involving shipments
of Bakken crude oil;
3. Bakken crude oil is highly volatile
and extremely flammable; and
4. The volatility of crude oil can be
effectively reduced with existing
technology.
The petition also provides the
following table to highlight the vapor
pressures of the crude oil involved in
several high-profile train accidents:
Reid Vapor pressure of Bakken crude oil
´
Lac-Megantic, Quebec (July 6, 2013) .......................................................................
Heimdal, North Dakota (May 6, 2015) ......................................................................
PHMSA Operation Safe Delivery ..............................................................................
Mt. Carbon, West Virginia (February 16, 2015) .......................................................
Lynchburg, Virginia (April 2015) ...............................................................................
In addition, Petition P–1669
summarizes the NDIC Standards
(discussed in Section IV.E of this
ANPRM) and the HHFT final rule
(discussed in Section IV.B of this
ANPRM) arguing in support of a new
RVP limit of less than 9.0 psi for the safe
transportation of crude oil by rail.
However, the petition did not identify
specific costs and benefits, or robust
empirical information, to support the
proposed limit.
5501
Average between 9.0 to 9.5 psi.7
10.8 psi.8
Average of 12.3 psi.9
13.9 psi.10
Average of 14.3 psi.11
gas-liquid separator and/or an emulsion
heater-treater capable of separating the
gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons,
prohibits blending of Bakken crude oil
with specific materials, and requires
crude oil produced to have a Vapor
Pressure (using ASTM D6377) not
greater than 13.7 psi or 1 psi less than
the vapor pressure of stabilized crude
oil.
According to NDIC, the measurements
taken under the Order use the ASTM
D6377 with a vapor to liquid (V/L) ratio
of 4 and a temperature of 100 °F (37.8
°C), which is equivalent to a Reid Vapor
Pressure measurement. The Order
requires the 13.7 psi limit to be
measured as pounds per square inch
absolute (psia) and not pounds per
square inch gauge (psig). According to
NDIC, psia is used to make clear that the
pressure is relative to a vacuum rather
than the ambient atmospheric pressure.
volatility due to evaporation loss of very light
constituents.’’
8 See Stern, M., ‘‘How to Prevent an Oil Train
Disaster,’’ N.Y. Times, May 19, 2015.
9 ‘‘Operation Safe Delivery Update,’’ Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, at 16,
available at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_
obj_cache/pv_obj_id_8A422ABDC16B72E5F166
FE34048CCCBFED3B0500/filename/07_
23_14_Operation_Safe_Delivery_Report_
final_clean.pdf.
10 See Gold, R., ‘‘Crude on Derailed Train
Contained High Level of Gas,’’ Wall Street Journal,
March 2, 2015.
11 See Sobczak, B., ‘‘Crude in Va. oil-train
derailment was highly volatile—safety data,’’
EnergyWire, E&E Publishing, LLC, Aug. 25, 2015.
12 See https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/Approvedor25417.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IV. Background Information
In 1990, the Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA), the
predecessor agency to PHMSA,
published a final rule under Docket
HM–181 which adopted a new
classification system for gases, which
assigned new divisions for flammable
gas (2.1), non-flammable, non-toxic
compressed gas (2.2), and toxic/
poisonous gases (2.3). The new system
defined flammable gases according to
their (1) state as a gas at ambient
conditions (i.e., 14.7 psia (101.4 kPa)
and 68 °F (20 °C)) and (2) flammability,
as determined by existing flammability
limits. There were no vapor pressure
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
5502
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
RSPA adopted the definition of a
‘‘gas’’ from the United Nations (UN)
Transport of Dangerous Goods Model
Regulation in an effort to harmonize its
regulations with international standards
in 1994. The HM–181 final rule did not
address a particular method of testing
vapor pressure, or otherwise address
how the new definition would impact
the existing definition of flammable gas
in 49 CFR 173.115. However, as late as
1990, RSPA’s definitions of gases were
limited to gases under pressure, e.g.,
compressed gases, cryogenic liquids,
and refrigerant or dispersant gases. Both
the definition of compressed gas, and
the related definition of flammable
compressed gas, contemplated using the
RVP testing method described in ASTM
D 323.
A. Current HMR Requirements for the
Classification of Unrefined PetroleumBased Products
Unrefined petroleum-based products,
including crude oil, have variable
chemical compositions. Differences in
the chemical makeup of the raw
material can vary across different times
and wellheads. Typically, organic
materials from oil and gas production at
a wellhead are passed through a
‘‘separator’’ to separate the gas, oil, and
water from the crude oil produced. As
such, there are multiple hazardous
liquids that are commonly shipped from
the well-site, including crude oil,
condensate, and natural gas liquids.13 A
limited separation process, which is
insufficient to remove the lightest
components, could increase the
volatility of the crude oil. In accordance
with § 173.22 of the HMR, the offeror
must consider all hazards when
classifying a hazardous material. The
table below identifies key classification
considerations for unrefined petroleumbased products: 14
CURRENT CLASSIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR UNREFINED PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCTS 15
Division
Name
Definition
2 ...................
2.1 ...............
Flammable Gas ................................
2.2 ...............
Non-flammable,
compressed gas.
2.3 ...............
Gas Poisonous by Inhalation ...........
3 ...................
.....................
Flammable and Combustible Liquids
6 ...................
6.1 ...............
Poisonous material ...........................
8 ...................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Class
.....................
Corrosive material ............................
Any material which is a gas at 68 °F or less and 14.7 psia of pressure (a
material which has a boiling point of 68 °F or less at 14.7 psia)
which—
(1) Is ignitable at 14.7 psia when in a mixture of 13 percent or less by
volume with air; or
(2) Has a flammable range at 14.7 psia with air of at least 12 percent regardless of the lower limit.
Any material (or mixture) which—(1) Exerts in the packaging a gauge
pressure of 200 kPa (29.0 psig/43.8 psia) or greater at 68 °F, is a liquefied gas or is a cryogenic liquid, and (2) Does not meet the definition
of Division 2.1 or 2.3.
A material which is a gas at 68 °F or less and a pressure of 14.7 psia (a
material which has a boiling point of 68 °F or less at 14.7 psia) and
which—(1) Is known to be so toxic to humans as to pose a hazard to
health during transportation, or (2) In the absence of adequate data on
human toxicity, is presumed to be toxic to humans because when tested on laboratory animals it has an LC50 value of not more than 5000
mL/m3 (see § 173.116(a) for assignment of Hazard Zones A, B, C or
D). LC50 values for mixtures may be determined using the formula in
§ 173.133(b)(1)(i) or CGA P–20 (IBR, see § 171.7).
Flammable liquids—liquid with a flash point of 140 °F or less.
Combustible liquids—liquid with a flash point above 140 °F and below
200 °F that does not meet any other hazard class definition.
A material, other than a gas, which is known to be so toxic to humans as
to afford a hazard to health during transportation, or which, in the absence of adequate data on human toxicity:
(1) Is presumed to be toxic to humans because it falls within any one of
the categories specified in § 173.132(a)(1) (Oral Toxicity, Dermal Toxicity, or Inhalation Toxicity) when tested on laboratory animals (whenever possible, animal test data that has been reported in the chemical
literature should be used); or
(2) Is an irritating material, with properties similar to tear gas, which
causes extreme irritation, especially in confined spaces.
A liquid or solid that causes full thickness destruction of human skin at
the site of contact within a specified period of time. A liquid, or a solid
which may become liquid during transportation, that has a severe corrosion rate on steel or aluminum based on the criteria in
§ 173.137(c)(2) is also a corrosive material. Whenever practical, in vitro
test methods authorized in § 173.137 or historical data authorized in
§ 173.136(c) should be used to determine whether a material is corrosive.
13 Condensate refers to C –C , natural gas liquids
5
8
(NGLs) refers to C2–C8, both separated from the
crude oil during initial processing.
14 The HMR define three states of matter in 49
CFR 171.8: Solid, liquid, or gas. A liquid is a
material, other than an elevated temperature
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
Non-poisonous
material, with a melting point or initial melting
point of 20 °C (68 °F) or lower at a standard
pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 psia). In other words,
it is a liquid in its normal state at ambient
temperature and standard pressure. A gas is a
material which has a vapor pressure greater than
300 kPa (43.5 psia) at 50 °C (122 °F) or is
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
completely gaseous at 20 °C (68 °F) at a standard
pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 psia). A solid is a
material which is not a gas or a liquid.
15 kPa: kiloPascals; psia: pounds per square inch
absolute; psig: pounds per square inch gauge; LC50:
Lethal Concentration measure.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
As illustrated in the above table, an
offeror must account for whether their
crude oil exhibits hazards beyond that
of a Class 3 hazardous material. Below
are some examples of the impacts of
potential hazards and the risks posed if
those properties are not identified and
considered:
• Dissolved gases—may result in
pressure build-up inside the tank car,
increasing the volatility of the material
and requiring a more robust packaging.
• Corrosivity—may corrode the tank
car and its components, requiring an
inner lining.
• Toxicity—may pose an inhalation
hazard to human life upon release from
the tank car without ignition.
Part 173 of the HMR contains testing
methods for the various hazard classes
and respective criteria for packing
groups. In the event an offeror
determines a hazardous material meets
more than one hazard class, the offeror
must determine the primary hazard. The
HMR (at § 173.2a) require a hazardous
material to be classed according to the
highest applicable hazard class. The
following list illustrates the precedence
of the hazard classes that are most
frequently associated with unrefined
petroleum-based products:
(1) Division 2.3 (poisonous gases);
(2) Division 2.1 (flammable gases);
(3) Division 2.2 (non-flammable
gases);
(4) Division 6.1 (poisonous liquids),
Packing Group I, poisonous-byinhalation only;
(5) Class 3 (flammable and
combustible liquids);
(6) Class 8 (corrosive materials) or
Division 6.1 (poisonous liquids or solids
other than Packing Group I, poisonousby-inhalation); and
(7) Combustible liquids.
When making classification
determinations, the offeror of the
hazardous material must also consider
the packing groups associated with each
hazard class. Packing group indicates a
grouping according to the severity of the
hazard presented by hazardous
materials. The packing group must be
determined by applying the following
criteria:
1. Class 2 Packing Group Assignment
Materials meeting the definition of
Division 2.1 or 2.2 are not assigned
packing groups. Division 2.3 materials
are assigned hazard zones related to the
toxicity of the material. See § 173.116.
2. Class 3 Packing Group Assignment
Packing group
Flash point
(closed-cup)
I .......................
II ......................
III .....................
..........................
<73 °F ..............
≥73 °F, ≤140 °F
Initial
boiling
point
(°F)
≤95
>95
>95
3. Class 6—Division 6.1 Packing Group
Assignment
Packing group
Oral toxicity LD50
(mg/kg)
Dermal toxicity LD50
(mg/kg)
I ........................................................................................
II .......................................................................................
III ......................................................................................
≤5.0 ....................................
>5.0 and ≤50 .....................
>50 and ≤300 ....................
≤50 .....................................
>50 and ≤200 ....................
>200 but ≤1000 .................
Packing group
5503
Inhalation toxicity by dusts
and mists LC50
(mg/L)
≤0.2.
>0.2 and ≤2.0.
>2.0 and ≤4.0.
Vapor concentration and toxicity
I (Zone A) ........................................
I (Zone B) ........................................
II ......................................................
III .....................................................
V
V
V
V
≥
≥
≥
≥
500 LC50 and LC50 ≤200
10 LC50; LC50 ≤1000 mL/m3; and the criteria for Packing Group I, Hazard Zone A are not met.
LC50; LC50 ≤3000 mL/m3; and the criteria for Packing Group I, are not met.
.2 LC50; LC50 ≤5000 mL/m3; and the criteria for Packing Group I and II, are not met.
mL/M3.
Note 1: V is the saturated vapor concentration in air of the material in mL/m3 at 20 °C and standard atmospheric pressure.
Note 2: A liquid in Division 6.1 meeting criteria for Packing Group I, Hazard Zones A or B stated in § 173.133(a)(2) is a poisonous by inhalation subject to additional hazard communication requirements in §§ 172.203(m), 172.313 and table 1 of 172.504(e).
4. Class 8—Packing Group Assignment
Packing group
Corrosivity
I .......................................................
Material that causes full thickness destruction of intact skin tissue within 60 minutes, starting after an exposure time of three minutes or less.
Material (not meeting packing group I criteria) that causes full thickness destruction of intact skin tissue
within 14 days starting after an exposure time of more than three minutes but not more than 60 minutes.
Material (not meeting packing group I or II criteria) that causes full thickness destruction of intact skin tissue within an observation period of up to 14 days starting after the exposure time of more than 60 minutes but not more than 4 hours; or
Material that does not cause full thickness destruction of intact skin tissue but exhibits a corrosion rate on
steel or aluminum surfaces exceeding 0.25 inch a year at a test temperature of 130 °F.
II ......................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
III .....................................................
Proper classification is a critical step
in the process for ensuring hazardous
materials are transported safely.
Following the selection of a proper
hazard class or classes and an
appropriate packing group for the
material, an offeror must select the
name from the Hazardous Materials
Table (HMT; 49 CFR 172.101) most
accurately describing the material being
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
shipped (e.g., Petroleum crude oil). The
selected name must account for all
hazards present. If there is no proper
shipping name that accurately describes
the material and its hazards, an offeror
may use a generic shipping description
(e.g., Hydrocarbon gas mixture,
liquefied, n.o.s.). Generic descriptions
are denoted in the HMT with an
‘‘n.o.s.,’’ meaning ‘‘not otherwise
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specified.’’ The accurate selection of the
shipping description is important in
determining the proper packaging.
In 2014, the rail and oil industry, with
PHMSA’s input, developed a
recommended practice designed to
improve crude oil rail safety through
proper classification and loading
practices. The American Petroleum
Institute (API) led the effort, which
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
5504
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
resulted in the development of an
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) recognized recommended
practice, API RP 3000, Classifying and
Loading of Crude Oil Into Rail Tank
Cars. The API RP 3000 provides
guidance on the material
characterization, transport
classification, and quantity
measurement for overfill prevention of
crude oil for the loading of rail tank
cars.
On July 23, 2014, PHMSA and the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
released a report summarizing the
analysis of Bakken crude oil data
gathered from August 2013 to May
2014.16 PHMSA and FRA conducted
tests and obtained results from 135
samples. The majority of crude oil
analyzed from the Bakken region
displayed characteristics consistent
with those of a Class 3 flammable
liquid, packing group I or II.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. High-Hazard Flammable Train
(HHFT) Rulemaking
On August 1, 2014, PHMSA, in
coordination with FRA, published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ‘‘Hazardous Materials:
Enhanced Tank Car Standards and
Operational Controls for High-Hazard
Flammable Trains’’ (HM–251; 79 FR
45015) 17 proposing requirements to
reduce the consequences and, in some
instances, reduce the probability of
accidents involving trains transporting
large quantities of Class 3 flammable
liquids. In the NPRM, PHMSA indicated
that the properties of unrefined
petroleum-based products, including
crude oil, are variable based on time,
method, and location of extraction,
whereas manufactured goods often
undergo a strict quality assurance
process designed to ensure
characteristics are within defined
parameters. Unlike manufactured goods,
organic materials from oil and gas
production represent a unique challenge
in regards to classification. The
chemical makeup of the raw material
can vary over time and geographical
location. As noted earlier, typically,
organic materials from oil and gas
production at a wellhead are passed
through a ‘‘separator’’ to remove most of
the gas, sediment, and water from the
crude oil. As such, there are multiple
hazardous liquids that are commonly
shipped from the well-site, including
16 See https://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/
DownloadableFiles/Hazmat/07_23_14_Operation_
Safe_Delivery_Report_final_clean.pdf.
17 See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201408-01/pdf/2014-17764.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
crude, natural gas condensate, and
natural gas liquid.
Given this variability, PHMSA
stressed that it is the offeror’s
responsibility, under § 173.22 of the
HMR, to ensure hazardous materials are
properly classified. To reinforce this
requirement, PHMSA proposed a new
§ 173.41 explicitly requiring a sampling
and testing program for unrefined
petroleum-based products, including
crude oil.
In the HHFT NPRM, PHMSA also
sought comments from the public on the
role of vapor pressure in classifying
flammable liquids and selecting
packagings, as well as whether vapor
pressure thresholds should be
established. PHMSA did this based on
comments received to the HHFT
ANPRM (78 FR 54849). Individuals,
government organizations, and
environmental groups, such as the
Delaware Riverkeeper Network,
supported mandating vapor pressure
testing that in their words would
‘‘increase safety and accuracy.’’
Environmental groups and offeror
Quantum Energy also suggested
packaging selection should be based on
vapor pressure. Industry stakeholders,
such as the Dangerous Goods Advisory
Council and the American Fuel and
Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM),
stated vapor pressure testing was
unnecessary. For example, AFPM
specifically stated ‘‘Bakken crude oil
vapor pressures appear to be within
operational limits required for transport
in pipelines (facility piping and
transmission lines) and for purposes of
storage in floating roof tanks; thus
operational vapor pressure limits do not
necessitate stabilization in advance of
rail transportation.’’ 18
On May 8, 2015, PHMSA, in
coordination with FRA, published a
final rule entitled ‘‘Hazardous Materials:
Enhanced Tank Car Standards and
Operational Controls for High-Hazard
Flammable Trains’’ (HM–251; 80 FR
26643) to codify requirements in the
HMR to reduce the consequences and,
in some instances, reduce the
probability of accidents involving trains
transporting large quantities of Class 3
flammable liquids. In regard to the
classification of unrefined petroleumbased products, the final rule, like the
NPRM before it, stressed the offeror’s
responsibility to properly classify and
describe a hazardous material. In the
rule, PHMSA codified § 173.41 to
require a sampling and testing program
for unrefined petroleum-based products.
PHMSA intended § 173.41 to provide
18 https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=PHMSA-2012-0082-3274.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the industry with a direct way of
establishing a program to consider the
varying characteristics and properties of
unrefined petroleum-based products.
The program applies to all modes of
transportation and offerors must certify
that a program is in place, document the
testing and sampling program outcomes,
and make information available to DOT
personnel upon request.
In the HHFT final rule, PHMSA
indicated that it could not adopt any
other specific changes related to vapor
pressure, exceptions for packing group,
or incentives to reduce volatility,
because PHMSA did not propose them
in the NPRM. 80 FR 26643, 26665.19
However, PHMSA indicated it might
consider addressing these comments in
a future action. Based on the comments
received, and P–1669, PHMSA requests
comments regarding the role of ‘‘vapor
pressure’’ in the classification process
and specifically in regards to unrefined
petroleum-based products, such as
crude oil.
C. Sandia Study
In 2014, the DOT and the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE)
commissioned a review of available
crude oil chemical and physical
property data literature 20 to
characterize and define tight crude oils
based on their chemical and physical
properties, and identify properties that
could contribute to increased potential
for accidental combustion.21 Sandia
National Laboratories (Sandia)
conducted this review and focused on
crude oil’s potential for ignition,
combustion, and explosion. A partial
list of properties surveyed includes
density (expressed as API gravity),
vapor pressure, initial boiling point,
boiling point distribution, flash point,
gas-oil ratio, ‘‘light ends’’ (dissolved
gases—including nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane,
ethane, and propane—and butanes and
other volatile liquids) composition, and
flash gas composition. Although the
review yielded a large database
encompassing a wide variety of crude
oils and their properties, it also
illustrated the difficulty in utilizing
available data as the basis for accurately
defining and meaningfully comparing
crude oils.
19 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-08/
pdf/2015-10670.pdf.
20 See https://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/accesscontrol.cgi/2015/151823.pdf.
21 Tight oil is a type of oil extracted from
petroleum-bearing formations of low permeability
(typically shale or tight sandstone). These
formations produce oil through hydraulic
fracturing.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
An important outcome of the review
was formal recognition of the wideranging variability in crude oil sample
type, sampling method, and analytical
method, as well as the
acknowledgement that this variability
limits the adequacy of the available
crude oil property data set as the basis
for establishing effective and affordable
safe transport guidelines. In recognition
of the need for improved understanding
of crude oil, and especially tight crude
oil properties, the Sandia Study was
designed to characterize tight and
conventional crudes based on key
chemical and physical properties and to
identify properties that may contribute
to increased likelihood and/or severity
of combustion events that could arise
during handling and transport. The
work scope represents a phased
approach, in that knowledge gained
from completing each task will inform
the execution of subsequent tasks to
maximize efficiency in achieving overall
plan objectives. Through four tasks, the
SAE Plan,22 will characterize tight and
conventional crudes based on identified
key chemical and physical qualities and
identify properties that may contribute
to increased likelihood and/or severity
of combustion events that could arise
during handling and transport. This
project is currently in Task 2, which is
designed to determine what methods of
sampling and analysis are suitable for
characterizing the physical and
chemical properties of different crude
oils.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
D. PHMSA Actions
On January 2, 2014, PHMSA issued a
safety alert to notify the public,
emergency responders, shippers, and
carriers that crude oil from the Bakken
region may be more flammable than
traditional heavy crude oil.23 The alert
was a follow-up to the PHMSA and FRA
joint safety advisory entitled, ‘‘Safety
and Security Plans for Class 3
Hazardous Materials Transported by
Rail,’’ 78 FR 69745, published
November 20, 2013. The safety advisory
stressed that offerors need to properly
classify and describe hazardous
materials being offered for
transportation in accordance with
§ 173.22 of the HMR.
E. Pipeline Operators
In recent months, the volume of crude
oil exported by rail from North Dakota
has steadily declined to less than
22 See https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/
f32/Crude%20Oil%20Characteristics%20Research
%20SAE%20Plan.pdf.
23 See https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/
PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/1_2_14%20Rail_
Safety_Alert.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
400,000 barrels per day. The North
Dakota State Pipeline Authority
estimates that more than 500,000 barrels
per day of Bakken crude oil moves by
pipeline. Pipeline operators routinely
set upper limits on RVP levels for crude
oil that will be accepted for transport. A
sample of six North Dakota pipeline
operators indicates that they have set
RVP upper limits ranging from 9.0 to
14.7 psia for acceptable crude oil.24
Understanding how oil producers
comply with pipeline operators’ RVP
standards, or possibly instead ship
crude oil with RVP levels that exceed
pipeline operator limits by rail, would
provide useful insights for
understanding the consequences of
setting RVP limits for rail transport.
F. Accident History and Vapor Pressure
Levels
As shown above, Petition P–1669
included a table highlighting the vapor
pressures of the crude oil involved in
several high-profile train accidents.
According to the Petition, the vapor
pressures of the oil involved in the five
accidents was, at the low end, an
‘‘average between 9.0 and 9.5 psi,’’ and
at the high end, ‘‘an average of 14.3
psi.’’ It likely would be useful to have
more comprehensive information
regarding the vapor pressure levels of
Class 3 flammable liquid hazardous
materials involved in rail accidents, and
information about the nature,
characteristics and consequences of the
accidents. It would be useful to have
such information for accidents
involving other transportation modes as
well. Such information may inform
understanding of how a flammable
liquid’s vapor pressure affects the
characteristics and consequences of
accidents involving the liquid. PHMSA
24 Cf. Bakken Oil Express: RVP = 9, https://
www.boemidstream.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/
02/BOEPL-Rules-Regulations.pdf; Belle Fourche
RVP = 13.7, https://www.buttepipeline.com/sites/
default/files/tariffs/BFPL%20FERC%20112.17.0.
pdf;
Tesoro High Plains Pipeline (ND): RVP = 13,
https://phx.corporate-r.net/External.File?item=
UGFyZW50SUQ9MjU1NjYxfENoaWxkSUQ9
LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1;
Bakken Link: RVP = 9.5, https://bakkenlink.com/
data/upfiles/media/rules%20and%20regulations.
pdf;
Enbridge North Dakota Pipeline RVP = 103 kPa
(14.7 psia), https://www.enbridge.com/∼/media/
www/Site%20Documents/Informational
%20Postings/Tariffs/North%20Dakota/NDPLFERC-No-2-2-0.pdf;
Bakken Pipeline Company (Enbridge) says
absolute vapor pressure per ASTM6377 <13.7.
https://www.enbridge.com/∼/media/Rebrand/
Documents/Tariffs/2015/Bakken%20US%20FERC
%20No%20110.pdf?la=en; and
Bridger Pipeline: RVP = 9.4 summer/11 winter,
https://www.hawthornoiltransportation.com/tariffs/
ND_RatesRegs_070112.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5505
began collecting this information for rail
after July 2013. The information we
have has uncertainty since testing may
happen after the train is moved to a
final destination and there may have
been different sampling and testing
techniques used, among other issues.
PHMSA may consider publishing this
information for the NPRM once we
review and consolidate.
V. Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on the
merits of P–1669.25 PHMSA is uncertain
that the requested action in Petition P–
1669 would provide a safety benefit and
requests comments on the following
questions:
A. General Questions
1. To what extent, if at all, would requiring
crude oil shipped by rail to have a RVP of
no greater than 9.0 psi decrease the expected
degree, consequence, or magnitude of a
release or the likelihood of a fire during an
accident? Please provide relevant scientific
or other empirical information to support
your comment.
2. What, if any, peer-reviewed or other
robust information is available that addresses
the safety effectiveness and/or cost of setting
vapor pressure limits for crude oil or other
flammable liquids during transportation?
3. How do the consequences resulting from
accidents involving low-vapor pressure
flammable liquids (e.g., ethanol) 26 compare
to accidents involving high vapor pressure
flammable liquids (e.g., certain crude oil)? If
the consequences are significantly similar,
will adopting a vapor pressure limit address
the magnitude of release or the likelihood of
fire during an accident for both commodity
types?
4. Would adopting a vapor pressure limit
impact trans-border shipments? If so, how?
5. What methods can be employed to
measure environmental and human health
effects of setting a vapor pressure limit for
the transport of crude oil by rail? How would
the benefits of setting a vapor pressure limit
be quantified?
6. What options are available for reducing
the volatility of crude oil before it’s offered
for transportation and loaded into tank cars,
such as existing consensus standards or
operating practices used for conditioning
(heating and treating) crude oil? What
voluntary measures has industry taken to
reduce the volatility of crude oil shipped in
interstate commerce by any mode? If so, what
are they?
7. What other regulatory and industry
marketability measures are in place that
restrict the volatility of crude oil in transport,
such as RVP limits set by pipeline operators,
or the impact of volatile organic compound
emission standards for storage tanks and
other petroleum facilities?
8. How many carloads and trains would be
affected by setting a vapor pressure limit for
25 https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=PHMSA-2015-0253.
26 The vapor pressure of ethanol is RVP (at 100
F) is 2.0 psi.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
5506
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the transport of crude oil by rail? What
portion of current carloads would be out of
compliance with the standard proposed in P–
1669? Similarly, how many cargo ship
shipments, truck shipments and barrels of oil
transported by pipeline would be affected by
adopting the standard proposed in P–1669?
9. What are the expected impacts of
establishing a nationwide vapor pressure
standard for crude oil intended for
transportation in commerce? Should that
standard apply to all modes of transportation
or be limited to specific modes? What are the
costs and benefits of those impacts? Please
provide information and data, and include
references and sources for information and
data provided.
10. Should there be different vapor
pressure limits depending on the specific
circumstances of the shipment, such as the
mode, the quantity of material or whether the
shipment will travel through populated
areas?
11. Are there other risk factors that should
be considered instead of, or in addition to,
vapor pressure (e.g., a material’s flammability
range, specific heat or heat of vaporization)?
How do these risk factors affect the
magnitude of release or the likelihood of fire
resulting from an accident?
12. While offerors would be legally
responsible for compliance with a volatility
standard, it may be that actual compliance
would be more cost-effectively implemented
at some other point in the supply chain.
What physical, institutional, or legal
arrangements would be needed for
implementation of a vapor pressure
standard?
13. What types of additional technology,
equipment, labor, and changes to existing
operations would be needed for the
establishment of a nationwide vapor pressure
standard for crude oil intended for
transportation in commerce? What would be
the initial and recurring, and fixed and
variable costs? If changes to existing
operations would involve additional labor,
then please provide the additional time by
activity and labor category.
14. To what extent can a vapor pressure
standard be implemented within the existing
system? At what point would additional
investments be required? What level of
infrastructure change would be needed? Is
this level affected by seasonal and market
demands? How do the answers to these
questions change if crude oil production
returned to historically high volume levels?
15. What additional types of training
would be needed for the establishment of a
nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude
oil? What would be the initial and recurring
costs?
16. Compared to the current baseline, what
would be the changes to production, pretreatment, conditioning or stabilization,
loading, and transport of petroleum crude oil
if PHMSA establishes a nationwide vapor
pressure standard?
17. How should the effectiveness and
benefits of a rulemaking establishing a
nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude
oil be measured?
18. In order to estimate benefits of a
rulemaking, what consequences would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
mitigated or prevented by establishing a
nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude
oil? Have there been any U.S. crude-by-rail
accidents where a lower vapor pressure
would have made a difference in the
outcome? If yes, please provide all relevant
details to support the conclusion.
19. If PHMSA were to adopt the vapor
pressure threshold requested by the
petitioner (or another threshold), what
timeframe would be needed to comply with
the new requirements to implement the
needed treatment infrastructure throughout
the network of offerors?
20. If PHMSA were to establish a
nationwide vapor pressure standard, should
any other Class 3 hazardous materials besides
crude oil be subject to a vapor pressure limit?
If so, which ones? Please provide the basis
for your comment.
21. If PHMSA were to establish a
nationwide vapor pressure standard, should
it apply to the highway mode of
transportation? What is the impact of a vapor
pressure standard on the current highway
fleet capacity? If highway transportation is
included, what is the increased exposure for
highway deaths and injuries? How does this
compare to exposure in rail transportation?
22. What other properties of Class 3
hazardous materials are important to
consider when setting vapor pressure limits?
For example, are the following properties
important: Lower and upper explosive limits,
evaporations rates, etc.?
23. Would the flammable gases removed
from the crude oil be transported by tank cars
or cargo tanks? If so, how many additional
tank cars or cargo tank shipments of
flammable gases would be required? What
are the safety consequences of transporting
such materials or how might PHMSA
quantify such consequences? How would this
impact the overall risk assessment?
24. Given the risks associated with
transporting large quantities of flammable
liquids, are there measures that PHMSA
should consider as an alternative or in
addition to addressing material properties
such as vapor pressure or flammability range,
etc.?
B. Safety Questions
1. Do the current HMR adequately consider
the risks that flammable liquids containing
dissolved flammable or nonflammable gases
present?
2. Should vapor pressure be used to
delineate gases (and liquids with high vapor
pressures) from liquids with low vapor
pressures? If so, is the current definition of
a gas sufficient or should a different
threshold (i.e., vapor pressure or
temperature) be utilized? Answers should
also include specification to measurement
method (including V/L ratio) and sampling
method, if necessary, for that determination
when recommending different thresholds.
3. Should unrefined petroleum products
not completely gaseous at 20 °C but having
a vapor pressure greater than 300 kPa at 50
°C be subjected to the testing in
§ 173.115(a)(2) to determine whether that
material should be regulated as flammable
gas? If yes, what affect would this have on
other Class 3 hazardous materials?
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4. Should PHMSA consider adopting a new
Hazardous Materials Table (HMT; § 172.101)
entry for petroleum crude oil with a highconcentration of dissolved gases that is
similar to the entry for UN3494, Petroleum
sour crude oil, flammable, toxic? 27
5. Do flammable liquids containing
dissolved flammable and nonflammable
gases have implications for the response
community, such as hazard communication
or response considerations, that the agency
should consider?
6. If Petition P–1669 were adopted, would
there be an impact in the transportation of
other flammable products, and if so, what
would they be?
C. Vapor Pressure Questions
1. Would the use of RVP, True Vapor
Pressure, VPCRx, or some other standard be
the best method for measuring vapor pressure
for classification and packaging? Does this
method appropriately account for liquids
containing dissolved flammable and nonflammable gases under non-equilibrium
conditions? What volume to liquid ratio and
temperature would be most suitable? Why?
2. Would the definition for ‘‘live’’ and
‘‘dead’’ crude oils from ASTM D6377 and
other standards be relevant or useful in
setting a vapor pressure limit?
3. Is there a unit of measure for how much
dissolved flammable and non-flammable
gases contribute to the vapor pressure,
volatility, and flammability of crude oil?
4. Are there any materials currently
classified as a flammable liquid within the
HMR that would be impacted by a vapor
pressure threshold?
5. What are the observed vapor pressures
of tight crude oil in various stages of
production, stabilization, and transportation?
Please explain the conditions under which
sampling and testing was performed.
6. Have any other nations established
vapor pressure limits for transporting crude
oil or other flammable liquids by any mode?
If so, which nations, what limits do they use,
and what information did they use to support
the specific limits?
7. Petition P–1669 recommends a RVP of
no greater than 9.0 psi. In contrast, the NDIC
implemented a maximum vapor pressure
threshold of 13.7 psi, (VPCR4 as defined in
ASTM D6377). If PHMSA were to establish
a national vapor pressure limit, what should
it be?
8. Has any source compiled comprehensive
and reliable information regarding the vapor
pressures of Class 3 flammable liquid
hazardous materials involved in
transportation accidents, as well as
information about the nature, characteristics
and consequences associated with those
accidents? Has any source conducted
statistical or other scientific analysis
regarding the relationship between vapor
pressure and the consequences of
transportation accidents?
27 49 CFR 172.102(c)(1), Special Provision 343—
A bulk packaging that emits hydrogen sulfide in
sufficient concentration that vapors evolved from
the crude oil can present an inhalation hazard must
be marked as specified in § 172.327of this part.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
D. Packaging Questions
1. Would further limiting the filling
capacity be an effective method for reducing
the risks associated with Class 3 hazardous
materials containing dissolved gases?
VI. Regulatory Review and Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Executive Order 12866, Executive
Order 13563, Executive Order 13610,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This ANPRM is considered a
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
and was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). It is
considered a significant regulatory
action under the Regulatory Policies and
Procedures order issued by the
Department of Transportation. 44 FR
11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
Executive Orders 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735
(Oct. 4, 1993), and 13563, ‘‘Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 76
FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), require agencies
to regulate in the ‘‘most cost-effective
manner,’’ to make a ‘‘reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs,’’
and to develop regulations that ‘‘impose
the least burden on society.’’ Executive
Order 13610, ‘‘Identifying and reducing
Regulatory Burdens,’’ 77 FR 28469 (May
14, 2012), urges agencies to conduct
retrospective analyses of existing rules
to examine whether they remain
justified and whether they should be
modified or streamlined in light of
changed circumstances, including the
rise of new technologies.
Additionally, Executive Orders 12866,
13563, and 13610 require agencies to
provide a meaningful opportunity for
public participation. Accordingly,
PHMSA invites comments on these
considerations, including any cost or
benefit figures or factors, alternative
approaches, and relevant scientific,
technical and economic data. These
comments, along with the information
provided by the New York State Office
of the Attorney General, will help
PHMSA evaluate whether regulatory
action is warranted and appropriate.
B. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), requires
agencies to assure meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that may have ‘‘substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ PHMSA invites
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
State and local governments with an
interest in this rulemaking to comment
on any effect that may result if Petition
P–1669 is adopted.
C. Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination and Indian Tribal
Governments,’’ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9,
2000), requires agencies to assure
meaningful and timely input from
Indian tribal government representatives
in the development of rules that
significantly or uniquely affect Indian
communities by imposing ‘‘substantial
direct compliance costs’’ or ‘‘substantial
direct effects’’ on such communities or
the relationship and distribution of
power between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes. PHMSA invites
Indian tribal governments to provide
comments on the costs and effects the
petitions and recommendations could
have on them, if adopted.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive
Order 13272, and DOT Policies and
Procedures
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., PHMSA
must consider whether a rulemaking
would have a ‘‘significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ ‘‘Small entities’’ include small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations under 50,000.
It is possible that if PHMSA proposes
to adopt the revisions suggested in
Petition P–1669, there may be a
‘‘significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.’’
As such, PHMSA would like small
entities’ input on the issues presented in
this ANPRM. If you believe that
revisions to the HMR would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
please provide information on such
impacts.
Any future proposed rule would be
developed in accordance with Executive
Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’
68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003), and DOT’s
procedures and policies to promote
compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to ensure that potential
impacts on small entities of a regulatory
action are properly considered.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA
provide interested members of the
public and affected agencies an
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5507
opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests.
This ANPRM does not impose new
information collection requirements.
PHMSA specifically requests comments
on the information collection and
recordkeeping burdens that may result if
Petition P–1669 is adopted.
F. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375,
requires that Federal agencies analyze
proposed actions to determine whether
the action will have a significant impact
on the human environment. The
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations require Federal
agencies to conduct an environmental
review considering (1) the need for the
proposed action, (2) alternatives to the
proposed action, (3) probable
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and alternatives, and (4) the
agencies and persons consulted during
the consideration process. See 40 CFR
1508.9(b). PHMSA welcomes any data
or information related to environmental
impacts that may result if Petition P–
1669 is adopted, as well as possible
alternatives and their environmental
impacts.
G. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of any written
communications and comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000, see 65 FR
19477, or you may visit https://
www.regulations.gov.
H. Executive Order 13609 and
International Trade Analysis
Under Executive Order 13609,
‘‘Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation,’’ 77 FR 26413 (May 4,
2012), agencies must consider whether
the impacts associated with significant
variations between domestic and
international regulatory approaches are
unnecessary or may impair the ability of
American businesses to export and
compete internationally. In meeting
shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental,
and other issues, regulatory approaches
developed through international
cooperation can provide equivalent
protection to standards developed
independently while also minimizing
unnecessary differences.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
5508
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act
of 1979, Pub. L. 96–39, as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
Pub. L. 103–465, prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any
standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. For purposes of these
requirements, Federal agencies may
participate in the establishment of
international standards, so long as the
standards have a legitimate domestic
objective, such as providing for safety,
and do not operate to exclude imports
that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
PHMSA participates in the
establishment of international standards
in order to protect the safety of the
American public, and PHMSA has
assessed the effects of the proposed rule
to ensure that it does not cause
unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.
Accordingly, this rulemaking is
consistent with Executive Order 13609
and PHMSA’s obligations under the
Trade Agreement Act, as amended.
PHMSA welcomes any data or
information related to international
impacts that may result if Petition P–
1669 is adopted, as well as possible
alternatives and their international
impacts. Please describe the impacts
and the basis for the comment.
I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This
Rulemaking
This ANPRM is published under the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), which
authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to ‘‘prescribe regulations
for the safe transportation, including
security, of hazardous materials in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign
commerce.’’ The intent of this ANPRM
is to address the safety concerns raised
by Petition P–1669 in respect to the
transportation of hazardous materials in
commerce. Our goal in this ANPRM is
to gather the necessary information to
determine a course of action in a
potential Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
J. 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 April and October of each
year. The RIN contained in the heading
of this document can be used to crossreference this action with the Unified
Agenda.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
K. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal
agencies to prepare a Statement of
Energy Effects for any ‘‘significant
energy action.’’ 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 a
notice of inquiry, ANPRM, and NPRM)
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.
PHMSA welcomes any data or
information related to energy impacts
that may result if P–1669 is adopted, as
well as possible alternatives and their
energy impacts. Please describe the
impacts and the basis for the comment.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 10,
2017, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
5103(b).
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2017–00913 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 161031999–7017–01]
RIN 0648–BG41
International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna
Fisheries; 2017 and 2018 Commercial
Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin
Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing
regulations under the Tuna Conventions
Act to implement Resolution C–16–08
(Measures for the Conservation and
Management of Bluefin Tuna in the
Eastern Pacific Ocean). This InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission
(IATTC) Resolution establishes annual
and trip catch limits on commercial
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
catch of Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus
orientalis) in waters of the eastern
Pacific Ocean (EPO) for 2017 and 2018.
This action is necessary for the United
States to satisfy its obligations as a
member of the IATTC.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
and supporting documents must be
submitted in writing by February 17,
2017.
You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2016–0141, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA–NMFS–2016–
0141, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Celia Barroso, NMFS West Coast Region
Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802.
Include the identifier ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–
2016–0141’’ in the comments.
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure they are received,
documented, and considered by NMFS.
Comments sent by any other method, to
any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period, may not be considered. All
comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be
posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive or protected
information. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR) and other supporting
documents are available via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA–
NMFS–2016–0141, or contact with the
Regional Administrator, Barry A. Thom,
NMFS West Coast Region, 1201 NE
Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR
97232–1274, or
RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@
noaa.gov.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Celia Barroso, NMFS, 562–432–1850,
Celia.Barroso@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5499-5508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00913]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 179, and 180
[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0077 (HM-251D)]
RIN 2137-AF24
Hazardous Materials: Volatility of Unrefined Petroleum Products
and Class 3 Materials
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT or Department).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is considering revising the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR) to establish vapor pressure limits for unrefined
petroleum-based products and potentially all Class 3 flammable liquid
hazardous materials that would apply during the transportation of the
products or materials by any mode. PHMSA is currently assessing the
merits of a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Attorney General
of the State of New York regarding vapor pressure standards for the
transportation of crude oil. The petition requests that PHMSA implement
a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) limit less than 9.0 pounds per square inch
(psi) for crude oil transported by rail. PHMSA will use the comments in
response to this ANPRM to help assess and respond to the petition and
to evaluate any other potential regulatory actions related to sampling
and testing of crude oil and other Class 3 hazardous materials. PHMSA
will also evaluate the potential safety benefits and costs of utilizing
vapor pressure thresholds within the hazardous materials classification
process for unrefined petroleum-based products and Class 3 hazardous
materials.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 20, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2016-0077 (HM-251D) and the relevant petition number 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: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this ANPRM at the beginning of the comment. To avoid
duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov
and will include any personal information you provide. All comments
received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS), including any personal information.
Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office located at U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lad Falat, Director, Engineering and
Research, (202) 366-4545, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Suite E21-314, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Objective of This ANPRM
III. Petition P-1669 & Other Efforts To Set a Vapor Pressure
Standard for Crude Oil
A. Summary & Supporting Data for Petition P-1669
B. North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Oil Conditioning
Order No. 25417
IV. Background Information
A. Current HMR Requirements for the Classification of Unrefined
Petroleum-Based Products
B. High-Hazard Flammable Train (HHFT) Rulemaking
C. Sandia Study
D. PHMSA Actions
E. Pipeline Operators
F. Accident History and Vapor Pressure Levels
V. Comments and Questions
A. General Questions
B. Safety Questions
C. Vapor Pressure Questions
D. Packaging Questions
VI. Regulatory Review and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order
13610, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Executive Order 13132
C. Executive Order 13175
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT
Policies and Procedures
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Environmental Assessment
G. Privacy Act
H. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
K. Executive Order 13211
I. Executive Summary
On December 1, 2015, PHMSA received a petition for rulemaking from
the New York State Office of the Attorney General (New York AG)
proposing amendments to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49
CFR parts 171-180) applicable to the transportation of crude oil by
rail. PHMSA designated the petition as
[[Page 5500]]
Petition P-1669 \1\ (P-1669 or the petition). In P-1669, the New York
AG asks PHMSA to add a new paragraph (a)(6) to existing Sec. 174.310
requiring all crude oil transported by rail to have a Reid vapor
pressure (RVP) of less than 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi).\2\ The
petition is based on the premise that limiting the product's vapor
pressure will reduce the risk of death or damage from fire or explosion
in the event of an accident. Separately, the North Dakota Industrial
Commission (NDIC) implemented a maximum vapor pressure threshold of
13.7 psi, VPCRx, Reid equivalent.\3\ Therefore, in this ANPRM, PHMSA is
asking a series of questions seeking input as to whether there should
be national vapor pressure thresholds for petroleum products and/or
other Class 3 hazardous materials and, if so, what that thresholds
should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PHMSA placed a copy of the petition in docket number PHMSA-
2015-0253, which is accessible at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA-2015-0253.
\2\ RVP was a common measurement of the vapor pressure of
flammable liquids such as gasoline and crude oil.
\3\ RVP uses different equipment and procedures than Reid
equivalent. For example, Reid equivalent is done using closed
conditions to preserve the lighter ends, while RVP is conducted in
an open test chamber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA has long stressed that it is the offeror's responsibility
under Sec. 173.22 of the HMR to ensure that hazardous materials are
properly classified. To reinforce this requirement, the HMR also
require offerors of unrefined petroleum-based products, including crude
oil, to institute a sampling and testing program in accordance with
Sec. 173.41.\4\ There are numerous industry standards for sampling and
determining vapor pressure of crude oil and other Class 3 hazardous
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Unrefined petroleum-based products'' refers to hazardous
hydrocarbons that are extracted from the earth and have not yet been
refined. In the high-hazard flammable trains (HHFT) final rule,
PHMSA replaced ``mined liquids and gases'' with ``unrefined
petroleum-based products'' based on comments received in response to
the HHFT NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When taking additional steps to better understand hazardous
materials and the risks those materials may pose in transportation, DOT
always strives to rely on the best available science and information to
inform its decision making. Section 7309 of the ``Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act of 2015,'' or the ``FAST Act,'' directs the
Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary), to submit a report to Congress that
contains results of the Crude Oil Characteristics Research Sampling,
Analysis and Experiment (SAE) Plan \5\ (the Sandia Study discussed in
Section IV.C of this ANPRM will implement the SAE Plan), as well as
recommendations for regulations and legislation based on the findings
to improve the safe transport of crude oil. The findings of the Sandia
Study will help inform the Department as it moves forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f32/Crude%20Oil%20Characteristics%20Research%20SAE%20Plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Objective of This ANPRM
Federal hazardous materials law authorizes the Secretary to
``prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including
security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign
commerce.'' 49 U.S.C. 5103(b)(1). The Secretary has delegated this
authority to PHMSA, 49 CFR 1.97(b). The HMR are designed to achieve
three primary goals: (1) Help ensure that hazardous materials are
packaged and handled safely and securely during transportation; (2)
provide effective communication to transportation workers and emergency
responders of the hazards of the materials being transported; and (3)
minimize the consequences of an accident or incident should one occur.
The hazardous material regulatory system is a risk management system
that is prevention-oriented and focused on identifying safety or
security hazards and reducing the probability and consequences of a
hazardous material release.
Under the HMR, hazardous materials are categorized into hazard
classes and packing groups based on analysis of and experience with the
risks they present during transportation. The HMR: (1) Specify
appropriate packaging and handling requirements for hazardous materials
based on this classification and require a shipper to communicate the
material's hazards through the use of shipping papers, package marking
and labeling, and vehicle placarding; (2) require shippers to provide
emergency response information applicable to the specific hazard or
hazards of the material being transported; and (3) mandate training
requirements for persons who prepare hazardous materials for shipment
or transport hazardous materials in commerce. The HMR also include
operational requirements applicable to each mode of transportation.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.
requires Federal agencies to give interested persons the right to
petition an agency to issue, amend, or repeal a rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(e).
In accordance with PHMSA's rulemaking procedure regulations in 49 CFR
part 106, interested persons may ask PHMSA to add, amend, or repeal a
regulation by filing a petition for rulemaking along with information
and arguments supporting the requested action (Sec. 106.95).
The petition is based on the premise that limiting the vapor
pressure, as measured by RVP, of crude oil in rail transport below 9.0
psi will reduce the risk of death or damage from fire or explosion in
the event of an accident. However, in order to grant the petition,
PHMSA would have to:
Determine the best metric or combination of metrics (vapor
pressure or other metric) for measuring and controlling fire and
explosion risk in crude oil transport;
Quantify the improvement in safety, if any, due to risk
reduction from implementation of vapor pressure thresholds at varying
levels;
Identify the measurement techniques necessary to establish
compliance;
Identify offerors' compliance strategies and market
impacts with RVP standards at varying levels of stringency, and
estimate their economic costs and environmental impacts;
Identify other regulations and industry practices, such as
volatile organic compound emissions standards imposed through the Clean
Air Act, or State regulations, or pipeline operator RVP standards,
potentially affecting compliance strategies and costs, and safety
benefits;
Evaluate the extent to which use of DOT Specification 117
tank cars mitigates the risk of transporting crude oil;
Compare compliance costs of mitigation strategies with
risk reduction from adoption of the petition; and
Balance the benefits and costs in setting the level of the
chosen metric. If RVP is the best metric, PHMSA would have to determine
that a particular RVP limit is preferable to any other limit. For
example, if 9.0 psi is chosen, PHMSA would need to show that 9.0 psi is
preferable to some other potential limits, such as 8.0 or 11.0. This
would include considering whether there is a ``safe'' level of RVP
below which risks are minimal (which would lead to little safety
benefit from reducing RVP further), or some level of RVP where risks do
not further increase.
In this ANPRM, PHMSA is seeking public comment to obtain the views
of those who are affected by the NDIC Order, as well as those who are
likely to be impacted by the changes proposed
[[Page 5501]]
in the petition, including those who are likely to benefit from, be
adversely affected by, or potentially be subject to additional
regulation. Additionally, PHMSA seeks comment from stakeholders
regarding the many factors PHMSA must consider when evaluating the need
for and impacts of regulatory changes. In general, PHMSA requests
comments on:
Safety benefits of any proposed regulatory change,
including the relevant scientific or other empirical support;
Economic impacts, including data, on the costs and
benefits; and
Ease of compliance with the regulatory changes that
Petition P-1669 requests.
This ANPRM will provide an opportunity for public participation in
the development of regulatory amendments and promote greater exchange
of information and perspectives among the various stakeholders. PHMSA
issued this notice to help respond to Petition P-1669 and, more
broadly, to consider a focused and well-developed regulatory path
forward that reflects the views of all relevant parties.
III. Petition P-1669 & Other Efforts To Set a Vapor Pressure Standard
for Crude Oil
A. Summary & Supporting Data for P-1669
In Petition P-1669,\6\ the New York State Office of the Attorney
General petitioned PHMSA to revise Sec. 174.310 to establish a
nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude oil shipped by rail
throughout the United States. The petition states, ``At present, no
federal regulation exists to limit the volatility of crude oil shipped
in railroad tank cars. This petition for rulemaking seeks to close that
loophole and reduce the risk of harm to American communities.'' The
petition further requests PHMSA to ``assert its rulemaking authority,
as delegated by the Secretary of Transportation, and establish a
federal RVP limit for crude oil transported by rail in the United
States at an appropriate level that is less than 9.0 psi.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA-2015-0253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this
ANPRM, and can be viewed at either https://www.regulations.gov or DOT's
Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
Petition P-1669 makes the following claims to support the
establishment of a vapor pressure threshold for crude oil.
Specifically, the petition asserts:
1. Shipments of Bakken crude oil by rail are vastly expanding;
2. A disturbing trend of train explosions [exists] involving
shipments of Bakken crude oil;
3. Bakken crude oil is highly volatile and extremely flammable; and
4. The volatility of crude oil can be effectively reduced with
existing technology.
The petition also provides the following table to highlight the
vapor pressures of the crude oil involved in several high-profile train
accidents:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid Vapor pressure of
Source Bakken crude oil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lac-M[eacute]gantic, Quebec (July 6, 2013) Average between 9.0 to 9.5
psi.\7\
Heimdal, North Dakota (May 6, 2015)....... 10.8 psi.\8\
PHMSA Operation Safe Delivery............. Average of 12.3 psi.\9\
Mt. Carbon, West Virginia (February 16, 13.9 psi.\10\
2015).
Lynchburg, Virginia (April 2015).......... Average of 14.3 psi.\11\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Petition P-1669 summarizes the NDIC Standards
(discussed in Section IV.E of this ANPRM) and the HHFT final rule
(discussed in Section IV.B of this ANPRM) arguing in support of a new
RVP limit of less than 9.0 psi for the safe transportation of crude oil
by rail. However, the petition did not identify specific costs and
benefits, or robust empirical information, to support the proposed
limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada Laboratory
Report LP148/2013, Aug. 19, 2014. The TSB Report notes that the
vapor pressure measurements of these samples may be lower than the
vapor pressure of the Bakken crude oil in the Lac-M[eacute]gantic
accident: ``The occurrence crude oil samples were taken at
atmospheric pressure. This could lead to an underestimation of the
crude oil[']s volatility due to evaporation loss of very light
constituents.''
\8\ See Stern, M., ``How to Prevent an Oil Train Disaster,''
N.Y. Times, May 19, 2015.
\9\ ``Operation Safe Delivery Update,'' Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, at 16, available at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_8A422ABDC16B72E5F166FE34048CCCBFED3B0500/filename/
07_23_14_Operation_Safe_Delivery_Report_final_clean.pdf.
\10\ See Gold, R., ``Crude on Derailed Train Contained High
Level of Gas,'' Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2015.
\11\ See Sobczak, B., ``Crude in Va. oil-train derailment was
highly volatile--safety data,'' EnergyWire, E&E Publishing, LLC,
Aug. 25, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. North Dakota Industrial Commission Oil Conditioning Order No. 25417
In December 2014, NDIC issued Oil Conditioning Order No. 25417
(Order), which requires operators of Bakken crude oil produced in the
state of North Dakota to separate the gaseous and light hydrocarbons
from all Bakken crude oil.\12\ The Order requires the use of a gas-
liquid separator and/or an emulsion heater-treater capable of
separating the gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons, prohibits blending of
Bakken crude oil with specific materials, and requires crude oil
produced to have a Vapor Pressure (using ASTM D6377) not greater than
13.7 psi or 1 psi less than the vapor pressure of stabilized crude oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/Approved-or25417.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to NDIC, the measurements taken under the Order use the
ASTM D6377 with a vapor to liquid (V/L) ratio of 4 and a temperature of
100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C), which is equivalent to a Reid Vapor Pressure
measurement. The Order requires the 13.7 psi limit to be measured as
pounds per square inch absolute (psia) and not pounds per square inch
gauge (psig). According to NDIC, psia is used to make clear that the
pressure is relative to a vacuum rather than the ambient atmospheric
pressure.
IV. Background Information
In 1990, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA),
the predecessor agency to PHMSA, published a final rule under Docket
HM-181 which adopted a new classification system for gases, which
assigned new divisions for flammable gas (2.1), non-flammable, non-
toxic compressed gas (2.2), and toxic/poisonous gases (2.3). The new
system defined flammable gases according to their (1) state as a gas at
ambient conditions (i.e., 14.7 psia (101.4 kPa) and 68 [deg]F (20
[deg]C)) and (2) flammability, as determined by existing flammability
limits. There were no vapor pressure requirements.
[[Page 5502]]
RSPA adopted the definition of a ``gas'' from the United Nations
(UN) Transport of Dangerous Goods Model Regulation in an effort to
harmonize its regulations with international standards in 1994. The HM-
181 final rule did not address a particular method of testing vapor
pressure, or otherwise address how the new definition would impact the
existing definition of flammable gas in 49 CFR 173.115. However, as
late as 1990, RSPA's definitions of gases were limited to gases under
pressure, e.g., compressed gases, cryogenic liquids, and refrigerant or
dispersant gases. Both the definition of compressed gas, and the
related definition of flammable compressed gas, contemplated using the
RVP testing method described in ASTM D 323.
A. Current HMR Requirements for the Classification of Unrefined
Petroleum-Based Products
Unrefined petroleum-based products, including crude oil, have
variable chemical compositions. Differences in the chemical makeup of
the raw material can vary across different times and wellheads.
Typically, organic materials from oil and gas production at a wellhead
are passed through a ``separator'' to separate the gas, oil, and water
from the crude oil produced. As such, there are multiple hazardous
liquids that are commonly shipped from the well-site, including crude
oil, condensate, and natural gas liquids.\13\ A limited separation
process, which is insufficient to remove the lightest components, could
increase the volatility of the crude oil. In accordance with Sec.
173.22 of the HMR, the offeror must consider all hazards when
classifying a hazardous material. The table below identifies key
classification considerations for unrefined petroleum-based products:
\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Condensate refers to C5-C8, natural
gas liquids (NGLs) refers to C2-C8, both
separated from the crude oil during initial processing.
\14\ The HMR define three states of matter in 49 CFR 171.8:
Solid, liquid, or gas. A liquid is a material, other than an
elevated temperature material, with a melting point or initial
melting point of 20 [deg]C (68 [deg]F) or lower at a standard
pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 psia). In other words, it is a liquid in
its normal state at ambient temperature and standard pressure. A gas
is a material which has a vapor pressure greater than 300 kPa (43.5
psia) at 50 [deg]C (122 [deg]F) or is completely gaseous at 20
[deg]C (68 [deg]F) at a standard pressure of 101.3 kPa (14.7 psia).
A solid is a material which is not a gas or a liquid.
\15\ kPa: kiloPascals; psia: pounds per square inch absolute;
psig: pounds per square inch gauge; LC50: Lethal
Concentration measure.
Current Classification Considerations for Unrefined Petroleum-Based Products 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Division Name Definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2......................... 2.1....................... Flammable Gas............ Any material which is a gas
at 68 [deg]F or less and
14.7 psia of pressure (a
material which has a boiling
point of 68 [deg]F or less
at 14.7 psia) which--
(1) Is ignitable at 14.7 psia
when in a mixture of 13
percent or less by volume
with air; or
(2) Has a flammable range at
14.7 psia with air of at
least 12 percent regardless
of the lower limit.
2.2....................... Non-flammable, Non- Any material (or mixture)
poisonous compressed gas. which--(1) Exerts in the
packaging a gauge pressure
of 200 kPa (29.0 psig/43.8
psia) or greater at 68
[deg]F, is a liquefied gas
or is a cryogenic liquid,
and (2) Does not meet the
definition of Division 2.1
or 2.3.
2.3....................... Gas Poisonous by A material which is a gas at
Inhalation. 68 [deg]F or less and a
pressure of 14.7 psia (a
material which has a boiling
point of 68 [deg]F or less
at 14.7 psia) and which--(1)
Is known to be so toxic to
humans as to pose a hazard
to health during
transportation, or (2) In
the absence of adequate data
on human toxicity, is
presumed to be toxic to
humans because when tested
on laboratory animals it has
an LC50 value of not more
than 5000 mL/m\3\ (see Sec.
173.116(a) for assignment
of Hazard Zones A, B, C or
D). LC50 values for mixtures
may be determined using the
formula in Sec.
173.133(b)(1)(i) or CGA P-20
(IBR, see Sec. 171.7).
3......................... .......................... Flammable and Combustible Flammable liquids--liquid
Liquids. with a flash point of 140
[deg]F or less.
Combustible liquids--liquid
with a flash point above 140
[deg]F and below 200 [deg]F
that does not meet any other
hazard class definition.
6......................... 6.1....................... Poisonous material....... A material, other than a gas,
which is known to be so
toxic to humans as to afford
a hazard to health during
transportation, or which, in
the absence of adequate data
on human toxicity:
(1) Is presumed to be toxic
to humans because it falls
within any one of the
categories specified in Sec.
173.132(a)(1) (Oral
Toxicity, Dermal Toxicity,
or Inhalation Toxicity) when
tested on laboratory animals
(whenever possible, animal
test data that has been
reported in the chemical
literature should be used);
or
(2) Is an irritating
material, with properties
similar to tear gas, which
causes extreme irritation,
especially in confined
spaces.
8......................... .......................... Corrosive material....... A liquid or solid that causes
full thickness destruction
of human skin at the site of
contact within a specified
period of time. A liquid, or
a solid which may become
liquid during
transportation, that has a
severe corrosion rate on
steel or aluminum based on
the criteria in Sec.
173.137(c)(2) is also a
corrosive material. Whenever
practical, in vitro test
methods authorized in Sec.
173.137 or historical data
authorized in Sec.
173.136(c) should be used to
determine whether a material
is corrosive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5503]]
As illustrated in the above table, an offeror must account for
whether their crude oil exhibits hazards beyond that of a Class 3
hazardous material. Below are some examples of the impacts of potential
hazards and the risks posed if those properties are not identified and
considered:
Dissolved gases--may result in pressure build-up inside
the tank car, increasing the volatility of the material and requiring a
more robust packaging.
Corrosivity--may corrode the tank car and its components,
requiring an inner lining.
Toxicity--may pose an inhalation hazard to human life upon
release from the tank car without ignition.
Part 173 of the HMR contains testing methods for the various hazard
classes and respective criteria for packing groups. In the event an
offeror determines a hazardous material meets more than one hazard
class, the offeror must determine the primary hazard. The HMR (at Sec.
173.2a) require a hazardous material to be classed according to the
highest applicable hazard class. The following list illustrates the
precedence of the hazard classes that are most frequently associated
with unrefined petroleum-based products:
(1) Division 2.3 (poisonous gases);
(2) Division 2.1 (flammable gases);
(3) Division 2.2 (non-flammable gases);
(4) Division 6.1 (poisonous liquids), Packing Group I, poisonous-
by-inhalation only;
(5) Class 3 (flammable and combustible liquids);
(6) Class 8 (corrosive materials) or Division 6.1 (poisonous
liquids or solids other than Packing Group I, poisonous-by-inhalation);
and
(7) Combustible liquids.
When making classification determinations, the offeror of the
hazardous material must also consider the packing groups associated
with each hazard class. Packing group indicates a grouping according to
the severity of the hazard presented by hazardous materials. The
packing group must be determined by applying the following criteria:
1. Class 2 Packing Group Assignment
Materials meeting the definition of Division 2.1 or 2.2 are not
assigned packing groups. Division 2.3 materials are assigned hazard
zones related to the toxicity of the material. See Sec. 173.116.
2. Class 3 Packing Group Assignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial
Flash point (closed- boiling
Packing group cup) point
([deg]F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................................... ....................... <=95
II.................................. <73 [deg]F............. >95
III................................. >=73 [deg]F, <=140 >95
[deg]F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Class 6--Division 6.1 Packing Group Assignment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation toxicity by
Packing group Oral toxicity LD50 (mg/ Dermal toxicity LD50 dusts and mists LC50
kg) (mg/kg) (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.................................... <=5.0.................. <=50................... <=0.2.
II................................... >5.0 and <=50.......... >50 and <=200.......... >0.2 and <=2.0.
III.................................. >50 and <=300.......... >200 but <=1000........ >2.0 and <=4.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packing group Vapor concentration and toxicity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I (Zone A)........................ V >= 500 LC50 and LC50 <=200 mL/
M\3\.
I (Zone B)........................ V >= 10 LC50; LC50 <=1000 mL/m\3\;
and the criteria for Packing Group
I, Hazard Zone A are not met.
II................................ V >= LC50; LC50 <=3000 mL/m\3\; and
the criteria for Packing Group I,
are not met.
III............................... V >= .2 LC50; LC50 <=5000 mL/m\3\;
and the criteria for Packing Group
I and II, are not met.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: V is the saturated vapor concentration in air of the material in
mL/m\3\ at 20 [deg]C and standard atmospheric pressure.
Note 2: A liquid in Division 6.1 meeting criteria for Packing Group I,
Hazard Zones A or B stated in Sec. 173.133(a)(2) is a poisonous by
inhalation subject to additional hazard communication requirements in
Sec. Sec. 172.203(m), 172.313 and table 1 of 172.504(e).
4. Class 8--Packing Group Assignment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packing group Corrosivity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I................................. Material that causes full thickness
destruction of intact skin tissue
within 60 minutes, starting after
an exposure time of three minutes
or less.
II................................ Material (not meeting packing group
I criteria) that causes full
thickness destruction of intact
skin tissue within 14 days starting
after an exposure time of more than
three minutes but not more than 60
minutes.
III............................... Material (not meeting packing group
I or II criteria) that causes full
thickness destruction of intact
skin tissue within an observation
period of up to 14 days starting
after the exposure time of more
than 60 minutes but not more than 4
hours; or
Material that does not cause full
thickness destruction of intact
skin tissue but exhibits a
corrosion rate on steel or aluminum
surfaces exceeding 0.25 inch a year
at a test temperature of 130
[deg]F.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proper classification is a critical step in the process for
ensuring hazardous materials are transported safely. Following the
selection of a proper hazard class or classes and an appropriate
packing group for the material, an offeror must select the name from
the Hazardous Materials Table (HMT; 49 CFR 172.101) most accurately
describing the material being shipped (e.g., Petroleum crude oil). The
selected name must account for all hazards present. If there is no
proper shipping name that accurately describes the material and its
hazards, an offeror may use a generic shipping description (e.g.,
Hydrocarbon gas mixture, liquefied, n.o.s.). Generic descriptions are
denoted in the HMT with an ``n.o.s.,'' meaning ``not otherwise
specified.'' The accurate selection of the shipping description is
important in determining the proper packaging.
In 2014, the rail and oil industry, with PHMSA's input, developed a
recommended practice designed to improve crude oil rail safety through
proper classification and loading practices. The American Petroleum
Institute (API) led the effort, which
[[Page 5504]]
resulted in the development of an American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) recognized recommended practice, API RP 3000, Classifying and
Loading of Crude Oil Into Rail Tank Cars. The API RP 3000 provides
guidance on the material characterization, transport classification,
and quantity measurement for overfill prevention of crude oil for the
loading of rail tank cars.
On July 23, 2014, PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) released a report summarizing the analysis of Bakken crude oil
data gathered from August 2013 to May 2014.\16\ PHMSA and FRA conducted
tests and obtained results from 135 samples. The majority of crude oil
analyzed from the Bakken region displayed characteristics consistent
with those of a Class 3 flammable liquid, packing group I or II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See https://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Hazmat/07_23_14_Operation_Safe_Delivery_Report_final_clean.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. High-Hazard Flammable Train (HHFT) Rulemaking
On August 1, 2014, PHMSA, in coordination with FRA, published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Hazardous Materials:
Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard
Flammable Trains'' (HM-251; 79 FR 45015) \17\ proposing requirements to
reduce the consequences and, in some instances, reduce the probability
of accidents involving trains transporting large quantities of Class 3
flammable liquids. In the NPRM, PHMSA indicated that the properties of
unrefined petroleum-based products, including crude oil, are variable
based on time, method, and location of extraction, whereas manufactured
goods often undergo a strict quality assurance process designed to
ensure characteristics are within defined parameters. Unlike
manufactured goods, organic materials from oil and gas production
represent a unique challenge in regards to classification. The chemical
makeup of the raw material can vary over time and geographical
location. As noted earlier, typically, organic materials from oil and
gas production at a wellhead are passed through a ``separator'' to
remove most of the gas, sediment, and water from the crude oil. As
such, there are multiple hazardous liquids that are commonly shipped
from the well-site, including crude, natural gas condensate, and
natural gas liquid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-08-01/pdf/2014-17764.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given this variability, PHMSA stressed that it is the offeror's
responsibility, under Sec. 173.22 of the HMR, to ensure hazardous
materials are properly classified. To reinforce this requirement, PHMSA
proposed a new Sec. 173.41 explicitly requiring a sampling and testing
program for unrefined petroleum-based products, including crude oil.
In the HHFT NPRM, PHMSA also sought comments from the public on the
role of vapor pressure in classifying flammable liquids and selecting
packagings, as well as whether vapor pressure thresholds should be
established. PHMSA did this based on comments received to the HHFT
ANPRM (78 FR 54849). Individuals, government organizations, and
environmental groups, such as the Delaware Riverkeeper Network,
supported mandating vapor pressure testing that in their words would
``increase safety and accuracy.'' Environmental groups and offeror
Quantum Energy also suggested packaging selection should be based on
vapor pressure. Industry stakeholders, such as the Dangerous Goods
Advisory Council and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
(AFPM), stated vapor pressure testing was unnecessary. For example,
AFPM specifically stated ``Bakken crude oil vapor pressures appear to
be within operational limits required for transport in pipelines
(facility piping and transmission lines) and for purposes of storage in
floating roof tanks; thus operational vapor pressure limits do not
necessitate stabilization in advance of rail transportation.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2012-0082-3274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 8, 2015, PHMSA, in coordination with FRA, published a final
rule entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and
Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains'' (HM-251; 80 FR
26643) to codify requirements in the HMR to reduce the consequences
and, in some instances, reduce the probability of accidents involving
trains transporting large quantities of Class 3 flammable liquids. In
regard to the classification of unrefined petroleum-based products, the
final rule, like the NPRM before it, stressed the offeror's
responsibility to properly classify and describe a hazardous material.
In the rule, PHMSA codified Sec. 173.41 to require a sampling and
testing program for unrefined petroleum-based products. PHMSA intended
Sec. 173.41 to provide the industry with a direct way of establishing
a program to consider the varying characteristics and properties of
unrefined petroleum-based products. The program applies to all modes of
transportation and offerors must certify that a program is in place,
document the testing and sampling program outcomes, and make
information available to DOT personnel upon request.
In the HHFT final rule, PHMSA indicated that it could not adopt any
other specific changes related to vapor pressure, exceptions for
packing group, or incentives to reduce volatility, because PHMSA did
not propose them in the NPRM. 80 FR 26643, 26665.\19\ However, PHMSA
indicated it might consider addressing these comments in a future
action. Based on the comments received, and P-1669, PHMSA requests
comments regarding the role of ``vapor pressure'' in the classification
process and specifically in regards to unrefined petroleum-based
products, such as crude oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-05-08/pdf/2015-10670.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Sandia Study
In 2014, the DOT and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
commissioned a review of available crude oil chemical and physical
property data literature \20\ to characterize and define tight crude
oils based on their chemical and physical properties, and identify
properties that could contribute to increased potential for accidental
combustion.\21\ Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) conducted this
review and focused on crude oil's potential for ignition, combustion,
and explosion. A partial list of properties surveyed includes density
(expressed as API gravity), vapor pressure, initial boiling point,
boiling point distribution, flash point, gas-oil ratio, ``light ends''
(dissolved gases--including nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide,
methane, ethane, and propane--and butanes and other volatile liquids)
composition, and flash gas composition. Although the review yielded a
large database encompassing a wide variety of crude oils and their
properties, it also illustrated the difficulty in utilizing available
data as the basis for accurately defining and meaningfully comparing
crude oils.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See https://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2015/151823.pdf.
\21\ Tight oil is a type of oil extracted from petroleum-bearing
formations of low permeability (typically shale or tight sandstone).
These formations produce oil through hydraulic fracturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5505]]
An important outcome of the review was formal recognition of the
wide-ranging variability in crude oil sample type, sampling method, and
analytical method, as well as the acknowledgement that this variability
limits the adequacy of the available crude oil property data set as the
basis for establishing effective and affordable safe transport
guidelines. In recognition of the need for improved understanding of
crude oil, and especially tight crude oil properties, the Sandia Study
was designed to characterize tight and conventional crudes based on key
chemical and physical properties and to identify properties that may
contribute to increased likelihood and/or severity of combustion events
that could arise during handling and transport. The work scope
represents a phased approach, in that knowledge gained from completing
each task will inform the execution of subsequent tasks to maximize
efficiency in achieving overall plan objectives. Through four tasks,
the SAE Plan,\22\ will characterize tight and conventional crudes based
on identified key chemical and physical qualities and identify
properties that may contribute to increased likelihood and/or severity
of combustion events that could arise during handling and transport.
This project is currently in Task 2, which is designed to determine
what methods of sampling and analysis are suitable for characterizing
the physical and chemical properties of different crude oils.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/06/f32/Crude%20Oil%20Characteristics%20Research%20SAE%20Plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. PHMSA Actions
On January 2, 2014, PHMSA issued a safety alert to notify the
public, emergency responders, shippers, and carriers that crude oil
from the Bakken region may be more flammable than traditional heavy
crude oil.\23\ The alert was a follow-up to the PHMSA and FRA joint
safety advisory entitled, ``Safety and Security Plans for Class 3
Hazardous Materials Transported by Rail,'' 78 FR 69745, published
November 20, 2013. The safety advisory stressed that offerors need to
properly classify and describe hazardous materials being offered for
transportation in accordance with Sec. 173.22 of the HMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/1_2_14%20Rail_Safety_Alert.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Pipeline Operators
In recent months, the volume of crude oil exported by rail from
North Dakota has steadily declined to less than 400,000 barrels per
day. The North Dakota State Pipeline Authority estimates that more than
500,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude oil moves by pipeline. Pipeline
operators routinely set upper limits on RVP levels for crude oil that
will be accepted for transport. A sample of six North Dakota pipeline
operators indicates that they have set RVP upper limits ranging from
9.0 to 14.7 psia for acceptable crude oil.\24\ Understanding how oil
producers comply with pipeline operators' RVP standards, or possibly
instead ship crude oil with RVP levels that exceed pipeline operator
limits by rail, would provide useful insights for understanding the
consequences of setting RVP limits for rail transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Cf. Bakken Oil Express: RVP = 9, https://www.boemidstream.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/BOEPL-Rules-Regulations.pdf; Belle Fourche RVP = 13.7, https://www.buttepipeline.com/sites/default/files/tariffs/BFPL%20FERC%20112.17.0.pdf;
Tesoro High Plains Pipeline (ND): RVP = 13, https://phx.corporate-r.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjU1NjYxfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1;
Bakken Link: RVP = 9.5, https://bakkenlink.com/data/upfiles/media/rules%20and%20regulations.pdf;
Enbridge North Dakota Pipeline RVP = 103 kPa (14.7 psia), http:/
/www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/
Informational%20Postings/Tariffs/North%20Dakota/NDPL-FERC-No-2-2-
0.pdf;
Bakken Pipeline Company (Enbridge) says absolute vapor pressure
per ASTM6377 <13.7. https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Rebrand/
Documents/Tariffs/2015/Bakken%20US%20FERC%20No%20110.pdf?la=en; and
Bridger Pipeline: RVP = 9.4 summer/11 winter, https://www.hawthornoiltransportation.com/tariffs/ND_RatesRegs_070112.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Accident History and Vapor Pressure Levels
As shown above, Petition P-1669 included a table highlighting the
vapor pressures of the crude oil involved in several high-profile train
accidents. According to the Petition, the vapor pressures of the oil
involved in the five accidents was, at the low end, an ``average
between 9.0 and 9.5 psi,'' and at the high end, ``an average of 14.3
psi.'' It likely would be useful to have more comprehensive information
regarding the vapor pressure levels of Class 3 flammable liquid
hazardous materials involved in rail accidents, and information about
the nature, characteristics and consequences of the accidents. It would
be useful to have such information for accidents involving other
transportation modes as well. Such information may inform understanding
of how a flammable liquid's vapor pressure affects the characteristics
and consequences of accidents involving the liquid. PHMSA began
collecting this information for rail after July 2013. The information
we have has uncertainty since testing may happen after the train is
moved to a final destination and there may have been different sampling
and testing techniques used, among other issues. PHMSA may consider
publishing this information for the NPRM once we review and
consolidate.
V. Comments and Questions
PHMSA requests comments on the merits of P-1669.\25\ PHMSA is
uncertain that the requested action in Petition P-1669 would provide a
safety benefit and requests comments on the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=PHMSA-2015-0253.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. General Questions
1. To what extent, if at all, would requiring crude oil shipped
by rail to have a RVP of no greater than 9.0 psi decrease the
expected degree, consequence, or magnitude of a release or the
likelihood of a fire during an accident? Please provide relevant
scientific or other empirical information to support your comment.
2. What, if any, peer-reviewed or other robust information is
available that addresses the safety effectiveness and/or cost of
setting vapor pressure limits for crude oil or other flammable
liquids during transportation?
3. How do the consequences resulting from accidents involving
low-vapor pressure flammable liquids (e.g., ethanol) \26\ compare to
accidents involving high vapor pressure flammable liquids (e.g.,
certain crude oil)? If the consequences are significantly similar,
will adopting a vapor pressure limit address the magnitude of
release or the likelihood of fire during an accident for both
commodity types?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The vapor pressure of ethanol is RVP (at 100 F) is 2.0 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Would adopting a vapor pressure limit impact trans-border
shipments? If so, how?
5. What methods can be employed to measure environmental and
human health effects of setting a vapor pressure limit for the
transport of crude oil by rail? How would the benefits of setting a
vapor pressure limit be quantified?
6. What options are available for reducing the volatility of
crude oil before it's offered for transportation and loaded into
tank cars, such as existing consensus standards or operating
practices used for conditioning (heating and treating) crude oil?
What voluntary measures has industry taken to reduce the volatility
of crude oil shipped in interstate commerce by any mode? If so, what
are they?
7. What other regulatory and industry marketability measures are
in place that restrict the volatility of crude oil in transport,
such as RVP limits set by pipeline operators, or the impact of
volatile organic compound emission standards for storage tanks and
other petroleum facilities?
8. How many carloads and trains would be affected by setting a
vapor pressure limit for
[[Page 5506]]
the transport of crude oil by rail? What portion of current carloads
would be out of compliance with the standard proposed in P-1669?
Similarly, how many cargo ship shipments, truck shipments and
barrels of oil transported by pipeline would be affected by adopting
the standard proposed in P-1669?
9. What are the expected impacts of establishing a nationwide
vapor pressure standard for crude oil intended for transportation in
commerce? Should that standard apply to all modes of transportation
or be limited to specific modes? What are the costs and benefits of
those impacts? Please provide information and data, and include
references and sources for information and data provided.
10. Should there be different vapor pressure limits depending on
the specific circumstances of the shipment, such as the mode, the
quantity of material or whether the shipment will travel through
populated areas?
11. Are there other risk factors that should be considered
instead of, or in addition to, vapor pressure (e.g., a material's
flammability range, specific heat or heat of vaporization)? How do
these risk factors affect the magnitude of release or the likelihood
of fire resulting from an accident?
12. While offerors would be legally responsible for compliance
with a volatility standard, it may be that actual compliance would
be more cost-effectively implemented at some other point in the
supply chain. What physical, institutional, or legal arrangements
would be needed for implementation of a vapor pressure standard?
13. What types of additional technology, equipment, labor, and
changes to existing operations would be needed for the establishment
of a nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude oil intended for
transportation in commerce? What would be the initial and recurring,
and fixed and variable costs? If changes to existing operations
would involve additional labor, then please provide the additional
time by activity and labor category.
14. To what extent can a vapor pressure standard be implemented
within the existing system? At what point would additional
investments be required? What level of infrastructure change would
be needed? Is this level affected by seasonal and market demands?
How do the answers to these questions change if crude oil production
returned to historically high volume levels?
15. What additional types of training would be needed for the
establishment of a nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude oil?
What would be the initial and recurring costs?
16. Compared to the current baseline, what would be the changes
to production, pre-treatment, conditioning or stabilization,
loading, and transport of petroleum crude oil if PHMSA establishes a
nationwide vapor pressure standard?
17. How should the effectiveness and benefits of a rulemaking
establishing a nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude oil be
measured?
18. In order to estimate benefits of a rulemaking, what
consequences would be mitigated or prevented by establishing a
nationwide vapor pressure standard for crude oil? Have there been
any U.S. crude-by-rail accidents where a lower vapor pressure would
have made a difference in the outcome? If yes, please provide all
relevant details to support the conclusion.
19. If PHMSA were to adopt the vapor pressure threshold
requested by the petitioner (or another threshold), what timeframe
would be needed to comply with the new requirements to implement the
needed treatment infrastructure throughout the network of offerors?
20. If PHMSA were to establish a nationwide vapor pressure
standard, should any other Class 3 hazardous materials besides crude
oil be subject to a vapor pressure limit? If so, which ones? Please
provide the basis for your comment.
21. If PHMSA were to establish a nationwide vapor pressure
standard, should it apply to the highway mode of transportation?
What is the impact of a vapor pressure standard on the current
highway fleet capacity? If highway transportation is included, what
is the increased exposure for highway deaths and injuries? How does
this compare to exposure in rail transportation?
22. What other properties of Class 3 hazardous materials are
important to consider when setting vapor pressure limits? For
example, are the following properties important: Lower and upper
explosive limits, evaporations rates, etc.?
23. Would the flammable gases removed from the crude oil be
transported by tank cars or cargo tanks? If so, how many additional
tank cars or cargo tank shipments of flammable gases would be
required? What are the safety consequences of transporting such
materials or how might PHMSA quantify such consequences? How would
this impact the overall risk assessment?
24. Given the risks associated with transporting large
quantities of flammable liquids, are there measures that PHMSA
should consider as an alternative or in addition to addressing
material properties such as vapor pressure or flammability range,
etc.?
B. Safety Questions
1. Do the current HMR adequately consider the risks that
flammable liquids containing dissolved flammable or nonflammable
gases present?
2. Should vapor pressure be used to delineate gases (and liquids
with high vapor pressures) from liquids with low vapor pressures? If
so, is the current definition of a gas sufficient or should a
different threshold (i.e., vapor pressure or temperature) be
utilized? Answers should also include specification to measurement
method (including V/L ratio) and sampling method, if necessary, for
that determination when recommending different thresholds.
3. Should unrefined petroleum products not completely gaseous at
20 [deg]C but having a vapor pressure greater than 300 kPa at 50
[deg]C be subjected to the testing in Sec. 173.115(a)(2) to
determine whether that material should be regulated as flammable
gas? If yes, what affect would this have on other Class 3 hazardous
materials?
4. Should PHMSA consider adopting a new Hazardous Materials
Table (HMT; Sec. 172.101) entry for petroleum crude oil with a
high-concentration of dissolved gases that is similar to the entry
for UN3494, Petroleum sour crude oil, flammable, toxic? \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 49 CFR 172.102(c)(1), Special Provision 343--A bulk
packaging that emits hydrogen sulfide in sufficient concentration
that vapors evolved from the crude oil can present an inhalation
hazard must be marked as specified in Sec. 172.327of this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Do flammable liquids containing dissolved flammable and
nonflammable gases have implications for the response community,
such as hazard communication or response considerations, that the
agency should consider?
6. If Petition P-1669 were adopted, would there be an impact in
the transportation of other flammable products, and if so, what
would they be?
C. Vapor Pressure Questions
1. Would the use of RVP, True Vapor Pressure, VPCRx, or some
other standard be the best method for measuring vapor pressure for
classification and packaging? Does this method appropriately account
for liquids containing dissolved flammable and non-flammable gases
under non-equilibrium conditions? What volume to liquid ratio and
temperature would be most suitable? Why?
2. Would the definition for ``live'' and ``dead'' crude oils
from ASTM D6377 and other standards be relevant or useful in setting
a vapor pressure limit?
3. Is there a unit of measure for how much dissolved flammable
and non-flammable gases contribute to the vapor pressure,
volatility, and flammability of crude oil?
4. Are there any materials currently classified as a flammable
liquid within the HMR that would be impacted by a vapor pressure
threshold?
5. What are the observed vapor pressures of tight crude oil in
various stages of production, stabilization, and transportation?
Please explain the conditions under which sampling and testing was
performed.
6. Have any other nations established vapor pressure limits for
transporting crude oil or other flammable liquids by any mode? If
so, which nations, what limits do they use, and what information did
they use to support the specific limits?
7. Petition P-1669 recommends a RVP of no greater than 9.0 psi.
In contrast, the NDIC implemented a maximum vapor pressure threshold
of 13.7 psi, (VPCR4 as defined in ASTM D6377). If PHMSA
were to establish a national vapor pressure limit, what should it
be?
8. Has any source compiled comprehensive and reliable
information regarding the vapor pressures of Class 3 flammable
liquid hazardous materials involved in transportation accidents, as
well as information about the nature, characteristics and
consequences associated with those accidents? Has any source
conducted statistical or other scientific analysis regarding the
relationship between vapor pressure and the consequences of
transportation accidents?
[[Page 5507]]
D. Packaging Questions
1. Would further limiting the filling capacity be an effective
method for reducing the risks associated with Class 3 hazardous
materials containing dissolved gases?
VI. Regulatory Review and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13610,
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This ANPRM is considered a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). It is considered a significant regulatory
action under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order issued by the
Department of Transportation. 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979).
Executive Orders 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR
51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), and 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), require agencies to regulate in
the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and
to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.''
Executive Order 13610, ``Identifying and reducing Regulatory Burdens,''
77 FR 28469 (May 14, 2012), urges agencies to conduct retrospective
analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and
whether they should be modified or streamlined in light of changed
circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.
Additionally, Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13610 require
agencies to provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation.
Accordingly, PHMSA invites comments on these considerations, including
any cost or benefit figures or factors, alternative approaches, and
relevant scientific, technical and economic data. These comments, along
with the information provided by the New York State Office of the
Attorney General, will help PHMSA evaluate whether regulatory action is
warranted and appropriate.
B. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999),
requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and
local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' PHMSA
invites State and local governments with an interest in this rulemaking
to comment on any effect that may result if Petition P-1669 is adopted.
C. Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination and Indian
Tribal Governments,'' 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000), requires agencies to
assure meaningful and timely input from Indian tribal government
representatives in the development of rules that significantly or
uniquely affect Indian communities by imposing ``substantial direct
compliance costs'' or ``substantial direct effects'' on such
communities or the relationship and distribution of power between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. PHMSA invites Indian tribal
governments to provide comments on the costs and effects the petitions
and recommendations could have on them, if adopted.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Policies
and Procedures
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq., PHMSA must consider whether a rulemaking would have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' ``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations under 50,000.
It is possible that if PHMSA proposes to adopt the revisions
suggested in Petition P-1669, there may be a ``significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' As such, PHMSA
would like small entities' input on the issues presented in this ANPRM.
If you believe that revisions to the HMR would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, please
provide information on such impacts.
Any future proposed rule would be developed in accordance with
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003), and DOT's procedures
and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
to ensure that potential impacts on small entities of a regulatory
action are properly considered.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of
the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on
information collection and recordkeeping requests. This ANPRM does not
impose new information collection requirements. PHMSA specifically
requests comments on the information collection and recordkeeping
burdens that may result if Petition P-1669 is adopted.
F. Environmental Assessment
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375,
requires that Federal agencies analyze proposed actions to determine
whether the action will have a significant impact on the human
environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
require Federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering
(1) the need for the proposed action, (2) alternatives to the proposed
action, (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and
alternatives, and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the
consideration process. See 40 CFR 1508.9(b). PHMSA welcomes any data or
information related to environmental impacts that may result if
Petition P-1669 is adopted, as well as possible alternatives and their
environmental impacts.
G. Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, see 65 FR 19477, or
you may visit https://www.regulations.gov.
H. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis
Under Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation,'' 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012), agencies must consider
whether the impacts associated with significant variations between
domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may
impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete
internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety,
labor, security, environmental, and other issues, regulatory approaches
developed through international cooperation can provide equivalent
protection to standards developed independently while also minimizing
unnecessary differences.
[[Page 5508]]
Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, Pub. L. 96-39, as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub. L. 103-465, prohibits
Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies
may participate in the establishment of international standards, so
long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as
providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet
this objective. The statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
for U.S. standards.
PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards
in order to protect the safety of the American public, and PHMSA has
assessed the effects of the proposed rule to ensure that it does not
cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Accordingly, this
rulemaking is consistent with Executive Order 13609 and PHMSA's
obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.
PHMSA welcomes any data or information related to international
impacts that may result if Petition P-1669 is adopted, as well as
possible alternatives and their international impacts. Please describe
the impacts and the basis for the comment.
I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
This ANPRM is published under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b),
which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of
hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.''
The intent of this ANPRM is to address the safety concerns raised by
Petition P-1669 in respect to the transportation of hazardous materials
in commerce. Our goal in this ANPRM is to gather the necessary
information to determine a course of action in a potential Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
J. 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
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
K. Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal
agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant
energy action.'' 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 a notice of
inquiry, ANPRM, and NPRM) 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.
PHMSA welcomes any data or information related to energy impacts
that may result if P-1669 is adopted, as well as possible alternatives
and their energy impacts. Please describe the impacts and the basis for
the comment.
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 10, 2017, under the
authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b).
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2017-00913 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
