[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33250-33257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15273]
[[Page 33249]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Research and Special Programs Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Part 171, et al.
Tank Cars: Crashworthiness Protection Requirements; Corrections and
Response to Petitions for Reconsideration; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 26, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 33250]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 179, and 180
[Docket Nos. HM-175A and HM-201; Amdt. Nos. 171-137, 173-245, 179-50,
and 180-8]
RIN 2137-AC85
Crashworthiness Protection Requirements for Tank Cars; Detection
and Repair of Cracks, Pits, Corrosion, Lining Flaws, Thermal Protection
Flaws and Other Defects of Tank Car Tanks; Corrections and Response to
Petitions for Reconsideration
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; corrections and response to petitions for
reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises certain requirements in the Hazardous
Materials Regulations to improve the crashworthiness of tank cars and
to increase the probability of detecting critical tank car defects. In
response to two petitions for reconsideration and other comments, RSPA
is allowing an analysis using independent mathematical or computer
modeling procedures to verify compliance with the thermal protection
standard for certain tank cars. In addition, RSPA is clarifying the
head-puncture resistance requirements and thermal protection
requirements, and is making other minor editorial and technical changes
for clarity. The changes made in this document are intended to ease
certain regulatory requirements where there will be no adverse effect
on safety.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date of this final rule is July 1,
1996.
Compliance date: Compliance with the regulations, as amended
herein, is authorized as of June 26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James H. Rader (telephone 202-366-
0510), Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance; or Thomas A.
Phemister (telephone 202-366-0635), Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Railroad Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On September 21, 1995, RSPA, with the assistance of the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), published a final rule under Docket Nos.
HM-175A and HM-201 (60 FR 49048) that addressed the safe performance of
tank cars used to transport hazardous materials. The final rule amended
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to, among other changes,
expand the use of thermal protection and head protection systems on
tank cars.
FRA gave presentations providing an overview of the final rule at
numerous outreach meetings that were attended by over 750
representatives from trade associations, rail carriers, shippers, and
manufacturers and repairers of tank cars. In addition, RSPA received
two petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of the final rule.
One petition was filed by The Sulphur Institute (TSI) and the other was
filed jointly by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and CF Industries,
Incorporated (CF). The Railway Progress Institute (RPI) wrote to RSPA
requesting an editorial correction in Sec. 173.31(b)(6)(ii) to
eliminate the need for listing each tank car's reporting mark and
number to FRA for each car modified, reassigned, retired, or removed
from service. Finally, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA),
joined later by TFI, petitioned the United States Court of Appeals to
review the provision in Sec. 173.31(d)(2) that the discovery of a loose
closure on a tank car would give rise to a ``rebuttable presumption''
that a proper inspection had not been performed. Based on the merits of
the comments, questions and suggestions received and the petitions,
RSPA is revising the final rule as discussed below. Editorial
corrections and minor revisions based on suggestions from commenters or
RSPA's own initiative are discussed in the summary of regulatory
changes by section.
Because the amendments adopted herein clarify and relax certain
provisions of the September 21, 1995 final rule, and impose no new
regulatory burden on any person, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. For these same reasons, these amendments are being made
effective on the same effective date of the September 21, 1995 final
rule, without the usual 30-day delay following publication.
II. Discussion
Head protection: In Sec. 173.31(b)(3)(ii) of the final rule, RSPA
required full-head protection for tank cars carrying a Class 2 material
and tank cars constructed from aluminum or nickel plate when they are
used to transport hazardous material. Section 173.31(b)(3)(iii)
requires full compliance with this requirement by July 1, 2006. TSI
stated that the preamble discussion in the final rule indicated that
the head protection applied only to tank cars used to transport Class 2
materials and to aluminum and nickel plate tank cars used to transport
any hazardous material. However, the wording in paragraph (b)(3)(iii)
could imply that all tank cars must have head protection by the July 1,
2006 compliance date. TSI petitioned RSPA to revise the provision.
RSPA agrees with TSI that the wording in Sec. 173.31(b)(3)(iii)
could be misunderstood. RSPA notes that similar wording is used in
Sec. 173.31(b)(4)(ii), (e)(2), and (f), which specify the compliance
period for other requirements adopted in the final rule relating to
thermal protection, tank cars used to transport certain poisonous-by-
inhalation (PIH) materials, and hazardous substances. Therefore, in
this document, RSPA is revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iii), (b)(4)(ii),
(e)(2), and (f)(1) to clarify that these requirements apply to only
certain tank cars.
One commenter asked RSPA to clarify the requirements for the head
protection system required in the September 21 final rule. The
commenter asked whether the head on the tank car could be considered a
``head protection system'' if it had adequate thickness. The commenter
requested that Sec. 173.31 be modified to ``clearly state that the head
itself may serve as the tank head protection system.'' The commenter
also asked if ``cars with a configuration essentially equal to the cars
tested by DOT (DOT/FRA/ORD-92/11) be deemed * * * acceptable without
further testing''? RSPA and FRA agree that the heads on a tank car can
be considered a head protection system provided it met the appropriate
performance criteria; however, RSPA believes placing this revision in
the testing requirements in Appendix A would be more appropriate.
Therefore, RSPA is clarifying in Appendix A to Part 179, paragraph 1,
that a tank-head puncture-resistance system is a function of head
thickness, jacket thickness, insulation thickness, or the material of
construction, or a combination of any of these factors. Further, RSPA
and FRA will accept testing of a specific head protection design to
qualify like designs.
Progress reporting: In a letter dated October 19, 1995, RPI asked
RSPA to revise Sec. 173.31(b)(6)(ii); RPI asserted that reporting the
mark of each modified car would be an administrative burden and stated
that what was important was providing information on the number and
percent of in-service tank cars modified, reassigned, retired, or
removed to meet the requirement in Sec. 173.31(b)(6). RSPA agrees with
RPI and has amended paragraph (b)(6)(ii). The provision that each owner
modify, reassign, retire, or remove at least 50%
[[Page 33251]]
of its in-service tank car fleet used to transport these specified
hazardous materials within the first half of the compliance period
(i.e., by July 1, 2001) is retained.
Thermal protection: In the final rule, the thermal protection
requirements formerly found in Sec. 179.105-4(a), (b), and (c) were
moved to new Sec. 179.18. In Sec. 179.18, paragraph (a) specifies that
thermal protection, when required, must be sufficient to prevent a
release of the lading, except through the pressure relief device, when
the tank car is subjected to (1) a pool fire for 100 minutes, and (2) a
torch fire for 30 minutes. The overall thermal performance of the tank
and its cargo is influenced by the heat capacity and volatility of the
cargo, the flow capacity of the pressure relief device, the heat
transfer characteristics of the tank, and the type of thermal
protection material used. Paragraph (b)(1) requires verification of
compliance with this standard by modeling the fire effects on the
entire surface of the tank car according to the procedures outlined in
a FRA contract report entitled ``Temperatures, Pressures and Liquid
Levels of Tank Cars Engulfed in Fires,'' DOT/FRA/OR&D-84/08.11 (1984)
(hereinafter referred to as ``1984 thermal model''). Prior to adoption
of the final rule, the regulations did not specify any particular
method to conduct such an analysis. The final rule also broadened the
thermal protection requirements to apply to all tank cars used to
transport Class 2 materials, with certain limited exceptions.
TFI and CF petitioned RSPA to delay the use of implementation of
the thermal protection standard and asserted that adoption of the 1984
thermal model violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
In the preamble to the final rule, RSPA and FRA discussed in detail
the objections of TFI and others to extending thermal protection to
tank cars transporting anhydrous ammonia (and other Division 2.2
materials), and indicated their agreement with the views of one
commenter who stated that ``there can be little basis for exempting
anhydrous ammonia from the thermal protection requirements because it
is not likely to catch fire once released. Its material poisonous by
inhalation (PIH) characteristic remains, and the potential for
rupturing in a non-insulated tank car is high.'' (60 FR 49053) RSPA and
FRA believe that the NPRM provided adequate notice that they might
adopt the 1984 thermal model if, as it occurred, that model had not
been updated by the time the final rule was issued.
RSPA and FRA are aware of industry support for the 1984 thermal
model and ongoing research by the FRA will address specific concerns
about the use of the model. RSPA and FRA believe the 1984 thermal model
produces supportable results at reasonable cost, but also understand
that certain persons may wish to continue to perform an analysis using
independent mathematical or computer modeling procedures to verify
compliance with the thermal protection standard. Accordingly, in this
final rule, Sec. 179.18(b)(1) is revised to allow any method of
verifying compliance with the thermal protection standard; however,
RSPA and FRA reserve the right to require evidence of a model's
effectiveness. In addition, RSPA and FRA will accept, without the need
to ``prove'' the method, the procedures outlined in the 1984 thermal
model.
III. Summary of Regulatory Changes by Section
The following review-by-section summarizes the revisions resulting
from the petitions and comments received in response to the September
21 final rule.
Part 171
Section 171.6. In the table in paragraph (b)(2), column 3, under
the entry for OMB Control Number 2137-0559, the sections identified in
the collection of information are updated to reflect recent changes.
Part 173
Section 173.31. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is amended by revising the
phrase ``in class DOT 115 tank cars, tank cars'' to read ``in class DOT
115 tank cars, single-unit tank cars'' to correct a typographical
error.
Based on the TSI petition for reconsideration, paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) is revised to clarify that existing tank cars being used to
transport a Class 2 material and tank cars manufactured from aluminum
or nickel plate that currently have no head protection must have full-
head protection installed by July 1, 2006.
Paragraph (b)(4)(i) is revised to clarify that tank cars having a
thermal protection system and tank cars that have an insulation system
that has a heat flux of no more than 0.613 kilojoules per hour, per
square meter, per degree Celsius temperature differential (0.03 B.t.u.
per square foot, per hour, per degree Fahrenheit temperature
differential) are considered to meet the thermal protection standard.
For example, tank cars currently marked ``J'' or ``T,'' tank cars
currently marked ``A'' but having a thermal protection material applied
(e.g., 2-inches of ceramic fiber and 2-inches of glass fiber found on
chlorine tank cars), and tank cars that have superior thermal
resistance, such as tank cars used for carbon dioxide (refrigerated
liquid) and nitrous oxide (refrigerated liquid), are considered to
conform to the thermal protection standard. Paragraph (b)(4)(ii) is
revised to clarify that only tank cars transporting Class 2 materials
require thermal protection.
Paragraph (b)(6)(ii) is revised to remove the requirement to
include the reporting mark of each tank car and to clarify the
reporting period and due date of the progress report.
Paragraph (d)(1)(viii) is revised to clarify that ``other safety
systems'' means ``bottom discontinuity protection.'' Paragraph (d)(2)
of the final rule contained a rebuttable presumption standard aimed
specifically at loose closures on tank cars. The ``secure and
leakproof'' standard presently contained in 49 CFR 173.24(f), coupled
with the requirement that closures be ``tool tight'' (formerly at 49
CFR 173.31(b)(3)), are not new requirements, and (d)(2) made clear the
standard that had always applied. The reasoning behind the new language
was amply discussed in the preamble to the final rule (60 FR at 49064-
49066). Simply stated, if a hazardous materials package is discovered
with loose closures, the closures were not designed properly, or they
were not tightened properly, or they were loosened in transit. Neither
RSPA nor FRA are aware of hazardous material packaging designs that
allow closures to loosen in transit by themselves, even when subjected
to overspeed impacts, as noted in the preamble to the final rule, and
no commenter offered evidence to disprove this. This does not mean that
every time closures are discovered loose, the offeror is at fault. The
preamble in the September 21 final rule listed a number of examples
where the presumption has been rebutted, taken from FRA's actual
enforcement of the HMR against railroads and their shippers. (60 FR
49065)
CMA, joined later by TFI, petitioned the United States Court of
Appeals to review the ``rebuttable presumption'' created in relation to
the discovery of loose closures on tank cars. CMA's primary contention,
as set forth in its Statement of Issues to be Raised filed with the
court, is that the presumption as stated shifts the burden of proof in
civil penalty cases from the government to the respondents and,
accordingly, is contrary to Rule 301 of the Federal
[[Page 33252]]
Rules of Evidence. Neither RSPA nor FRA agree that the presumption
shifts the burden of proof to respondents. Rather, consistent with Rule
301, the presumption simply imposes on respondents the burden of going
forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption. It is not
intended to shift to respondents the burden of proof in the sense of
the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains with FRA. However, for the
sake of clarity and consistency with the original preamble, RSPA and
FRA have revised the rule. Section 173.31(d)(2) is amended to read:
Closures on tank cars are required, in accordance with this
subchapter, to be designed and closed so that under conditions
normally incident to transportation, including the effects of
temperature and vibration, there will be no identifiable release of
a hazardous material to the environment. In any action brought to
enforce this section, the lack of securement of any closure to a
tool-tight condition, detected at any point, will establish a
rebuttable presumption that a proper inspection was not performed by
the offeror of the car. This presumption may be rebutted by any
evidence indicating that the lack of securement resulted from a
specific cause not within the control of the offeror.
Neither the original rebuttable presumption nor this amendment is
in any way intended to abrogate the protections or the burdens of Rule
301. FRA accepts, and always has, the burden of proof inherent in the
taking of an action for a civil penalty. The revised language makes
FRA's position clear by removing any suggestion that the rule limits
the types of evidence that respondents may offer and that the fact
finder may consider in a rebuttal case. This clarification harmonizes
the language of Sec. 173.31(d)(2) with the description of the provision
in the original preamble, which noted that examples of rebuttal
evidence stated in the rule were not meant to be exclusive. What is
sought in Sec. 173.31(d)(2) is a recognition of the obligation placed
on those who offer hazardous materials for transportation--closures on
tank cars must be tool tight when the car is offered and they must be
designed and closed so that they remain tool tight ``under conditions
normally incident to transportation.'' When FRA initiates a civil
penalty action for a violation of this section of the HMR, and presents
evidence of a loose closure, it expects the respondent to come forward
with rebuttal evidence, which may include evidence indicating that the
loose closures resulted from a specific cause not within the control of
the offeror. After all the evidence is presented, however, FRA still
bears the burden of proof.
Paragraph (e)(2) is revised to specify the tank test pressure and
other safety provisions required for tank cars transporting a PIH
material in place of the list of authorized tank car specifications.
Lastly, paragraph (f)(1) is revised to specify the tank test pressure
and component requirements for tank cars transporting a hazardous
substance, listed in Sec. 173.31(f)(2), in place of the list of
authorized tank car specifications.
Section 173.314. In response to suggestions made by commenters,
Note 1 in paragraph (c) is clarified by placing the English and metric
units in a separate sentence from the definition. In paragraph (n), the
paragraph heading is amended by removing the word ``chloride'' because
the paragraph applies only to ``hydrogen'' and not ``hydrogen
chloride.''
Part 179
Section 179.2. In paragraph (a)(10), the definition for ``tank car
facility'' is revised to include an entity that ``qualifies'' or
``maintains'' tank cars to clarify the definition and its relationship
to the qualification requirements in Part 180.
Section 179.7. The introductory text in paragraph (a)(2) is revised
to clarify that this provision also applies to qualification and
maintenance programs.
Paragraph (b)(5) is revised to ensure that the tank car owner's
qualification and maintenance program is included in the quality
assurance program that tank car facilities will use to identify the
characteristics of and elements on each tank car design to be inspected
and tested. This change will make clear the relationship between the
written procedures, prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section, and
the manufacturing, inspection, testing, and maintenance programs.
Paragraph (b)(7) is amended by replacing the word ``imperfections''
with ``nonconformities'' for consistency with the wording used in
paragraph (a)(3). A ``nonconformity'' means that the area under
observation does not conform to the acceptance criteria; whereas an
``imperfection'' implies there is a defect, regardless of whether the
defect conforms to the pass/fail acceptance criteria.
Paragraph (b)(9) is amended by removing the list of specific non-
destructive inspection and test methods because authorized methods for
non-destructive testing (NDT) are now listed in Sec. 180.509(e).
Paragraph (b)(10) is removed because it is no longer necessary to list
the qualification requirements for examiners performing specific types
of visual inspections based on the changes made to paragraph (b)(9).
Paragraph (b)(11) is renumbered as paragraph (b)(10) and is revised by
adding the word ``reliability'' to ensure the adequacy and
repeatability of the non-destructive inspection test technique.
Paragraphs (b) (12) and (13) are renumbered as paragraphs (b) (11) and
(12), respectively.
In paragraph (d), the word ``establish'' is corrected to read
``provide'' because the owner of the tank car generally will provide
the written procedures for inspecting the tank to the tank car
facility. In the September 21 final rule, RSPA stated that these
procedures belong in the tank car owner's written maintenance plan or
Association of American Railroads (AAR) Specifications for Tank Cars.
Further, the approach adopted by RSPA and FRA allows each tank car
owner the flexibility to develop inspection and test procedures
appropriate for each unique tank car or series of tank cars based on
operating and maintenance experience (see 60 FR 49063).
In paragraph (f), the words ``inspect, or test'' are revised to
read ``inspect, test, qualify or maintain'' for consistency with
Sec. 179.2.
Section 179.16. Paragraph (b) is revised to clarify that two
methods may be used to achieve compliance with the performance standard
prescribed for the tank-head puncture-resistance system. The method
prescribing that the tank-head resistance system must be verified by
testing in accordance with Appendix A to Part 179 is retained in
paragraph (b). The method allowing the installation of full-head
protection (shields) or full tank head jackets, as an alternative to
verification by testing, is moved to new paragraph (c). In addition, in
new paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2), the phrase ``tank-head puncture-
resistance system'' is corrected to read ``full tank-head protection
(shields) or full tank-head jackets.''
Section 179.18. In paragraph (a), the phrase ``safety relief
valve'' is revised to read ``pressure relief device'' for consistency
with existing regulations. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended to specify that
FRA's 1984 thermal model is an optional pre-approved procedure for
verifying compliance with the thermal protection standard in paragraph
(a). In paragraph (b)(2), the words ``an unlisted'' are revised to read
``a new or untried'', for consistency with language used in the opening
paragraphs of Appendix B to Part 179.
Section 179.22. In paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), the phrase ``is
equipped with'' is revised to read ``requires''. This
[[Page 33253]]
change will allow the optional marking of a tank car ``S,'' ``J,'' or
``T'' when such car has, but does not require, head or thermal
protection. Tank cars requiring such protection must be marked to show
the appropriate tank specification.
Appendix A to Part 179. In Appendix A to Part 179, a second
sentence is added to paragraph 1, based on comments received, to
clarify that tank-head puncture-resistance is a function of one or more
of the following: head thickness, jacket thickness, insulation
thickness, and the material of construction.
Part 180
Section 180.501. Paragraph (a) is amended by removing the phrase
``that the tank cars are in proper condition for transportation'' and
by inserting in its place ``continuing qualification''. This change
will help clarify that the tank cars must continue to conform to the
qualification requirements of subpart F of Part 180.
Section 180.509. Paragraph (b)(1) is revised to replace the
requirement to inspect all ``tank cars showing any evidence of a
condition....that would make them unsafe for transportation'' with a
requirement to perform a leakage pressure test after reassembly of the
tank car or service equipment. This revision will clarify that repairs
or maintenance will not subject the tank to the full inspection and
test program because repairs and maintenance must be done in accordance
with Appendix R of the AAR's Specifications for Tank Cars (see also 60
FR 49060). It also clarifies that a leakage pressure test, as
prescribed in paragraph (j), must be performed after reassembly of the
tank car. Paragraph (b)(2) is amended to clarify that leaking tank cars
or tank cars showing evidence of structural damage are required to be
inspected and tested without regard to any other periodic inspection or
test requirement. This change will clarify that the entire tank
structure is subject to an inspection and test only when the structural
integrity of the tank may have been compromised.
RSPA is removing the 10-year limit in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) for
requalification of inner linings and coatings of tank cars. Paragraph
(c)(3)(iii)(A) is revised to require that supporting documentation used
to make inspection and test interval determinations for linings or
coatings for materials corrosive to the tank be made available to FRA
personnel upon request. This requirement was in paragraph
(c)(3)(iii)(B). In addition, in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A), the phrase
``, and acceptance criteria'' is added to the first and second sentence
to clarify that an owner must determine not only the inspection
interval and test technique, but also the acceptance criteria for
linings and coatings. Paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) is revised to require
the owner of a lining or coating to provide the periodic inspection
interval, test technique, and acceptance criteria to the person
requalifying the lining or coating. This provision was added in
response to a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendation (NTSB R-95-10/R-95-11) that inspectors have sufficient
access to an owner's acceptance criteria. Section 180.511(e) of the
final rule defines the lining and coating acceptance criteria as ``no
evidence of holes or degraded areas.'' Several commenters stated all
linings and coatings have holes or degraded areas and, therefore, all
linings and coatings will fail the test. They suggested that the owner
of the lining or coating should determine the acceptance criteria
(i.e., the allowable number of discontinuities [e.g., a film defect
characterized by small pore-like or pin-hole type flaws]), because the
number of discontinuities will depend on the film-coating or rubber-
lining material, thickness, design, and surface conditions. RSPA and
FRA agree that the owner's knowledge of the lining or coating will
assist in determining with greater accuracy safe acceptance criteria
for linings and coatings.
The table in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) is revised to convert the
fractions in column two (``DOT 103 * * *, Top shell'') to their decimal
equivalent and the second and fourth column headings are revised from
``Top shell'' to read ``Top shell and head'' to allow limited
reductions in the tank head thickness.
In paragraph (i), requirements for inspecting and testing the
lining and coating based on the owner's acceptance criteria are added
as discussed earlier in this preamble.
Paragraph (j) is revised to clarify that the tank must have a
leakage test after reassembly of a tank car or its service equipment.
One commenter supplied information on leak testing that shows
acceptable results at much lower pressures. Another commenter provided
information showing that, for bubble film testing, the rate of bubble
formation, the size of bubbles formed, and the rate that individual
bubbles increase in size are means for estimating the size of a leak
(the rate of gas flow through a leak). At lower pressures, such as 10-
15 psi, a leak can be detected with acceptable test techniques. Based
on the comments, the leak test requirement is amended by removing the
pressure references and by allowing any accepted NDT practices, such as
bubble emission testing (solution film tests) and ultrasonic leak
detection. This revision provides additional relief from the
requirement without compromising safety by authorizing lower test
pressures and reducing the potential danger of a pneumatic high-
pressure test on an empty tank car.
In paragraph (l), the paragraph heading is amended by removing the
phrase ``with metal jackets or thermal protection systems.'' This
change will clarify that requirements in the paragraph also apply to
non-jacketed tank cars.
Section 180.511. Paragraph (e) is amended by replacing the phrase
``shows no evidence of holes or degraded areas'' with ``conforms to the
owner's acceptance criteria.'' This change will clarify that the
acceptance criteria are based on the owner's determinations.
Section 180.515. Paragraph (a) is amended by replacing the phrase
``paragraph (b) of this section'' with ``Appendix C of the AAR
Specifications for Tank Cars.'' This change removes the cross-reference
to paragraph (b) and simplifies the regulation.
Paragraph (b) is removed based on the change above. Paragraphs (c)
and (d) are renumbered (b) and (c) respectively.
Section 180.519. The first sentence in paragraph (b)(6) is amended
by replacing the reference ``paragraph (d)(8)'' with ``paragraph (c)''
to correct a typographical error, and by replacing the phrase ``1-60
for January 1960'' with ``01-90 for January 1990'' to update the
reference date in the example. In paragraph (b)(5), in Retest Table 1,
the last entry ``BE-275'' is revised to read ``BE-27'' to correct a
typographical error.
In paragraph (c), the phrase ``DOT 110A-Z'' is revised to read
``DOT 110A-W'' to correct a typographical error.
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is considered a non-significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Although the underlying rule was
considered significant under the Regulatory policies and Procedures of
the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034), because it affects a
significant segment of the tank car industry, this document is
considered ``non-significant'' because it clarifies and corrects
provisions of the final rule and provides consistency. This final rule
[[Page 33254]]
does not impose additional requirements and, in fact, provides relief
in some areas. The net result is that costs imposed under the final
rule published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1995 are
reduced, but without a reduction in safety. The original regulatory
evaluation of the final rule was reexamined but not modified because
changes made under this rule provide limited relief and thus will
result in minimal economic impact on the industry.
B. Executive Order 12612
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism'').
Federal law expressly preempts State, local, and Indian tribe
requirements applicable to the transportation of hazardous material
that cover certain subjects and are not ``substantively the same'' as
the Federal requirements, 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1). These covered subjects
are:
(A) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous
material;
(B) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous material;
(C) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
related to hazardous material and requirements respecting the number,
contents, and placement of those documents;
(D) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
(E) The design, manufacturing, fabricating, marking, maintenance,
reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a packaging or a container
which is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use
in transporting hazardous material.
This final rule addresses the design, manufacture, repair, and
other requirements for packages represented as qualified for the use in
the transportation of hazardous material. Therefore, this final rule
preempts State, local, or Indian tribe requirements that are not
``substantively the same'' as Federal requirements on these subjects.
Section 5125(b)(2) of Title 49 U.S.C. provides that when DOT issues a
regulation concerning any of the covered subjects after November 16,
1990, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal Register the
effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date may not be
earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of the final
rule and no later than two years after the date of issuance. RSPA has
determined that the effective date of Federal preemption of this final
rule will be September 24, 1996.
Because RSPA lacks discretion in this area, preparation of a
federalism assessment is not warranted.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The entities affected
by the rule are involved in tank car leasing, maintenance, repair and
use. There are no direct or indirect adverse economic impacts for small
units of government, businesses, or other organizations.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
control number. Information collection requirements in 49 CFR 173.31,
179.7, and 180.517 are currently approved under OMB control number
2137-0559. A provision adopted in this final rule, to eliminate a
requirement to show the reporting mark of each tank car in an annual
progress report, will result in a minor reduction in the amount of
burden imposed by this collection. RSPA believes that this change in
burden is not sufficient to warrant revision of the currently approved
information collection.
E. 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 numbers contained in the
heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action
with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 171
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 173
Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,
Radioactive materials, Reporting and record keeping requirements,
Uranium.
49 CFR Part 179
Hazardous materials transportation, Railroad safety, Reporting and
record keeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 180
Hazardous materials transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle
safety, Packaging and containers, Railroad safety, Reporting and record
keeping requirements.
ln consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Chapter I is amended as
follows:
PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITION
1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 171.6 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 171.6, in paragraph (b)(2), column 3 of the table, for
the entry ``2137-0559'' the references ``173.31 (a)(4), (c)(8), (d)(8),
Table Footnote (i)'' are removed and the references
``173.31(b)(6)(ii),'' and ``179.7 (b)(2), (5), (d), 180.517 (a), (b)''
are added in numerical order.
PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS
3. The authority citation of Part 173 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 173.31 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 173.31, the following changes are made:
a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), the phrase ``in class DOT 115 tank
cars, tank cars used'' is revised to read ``in class DOT 115 tank cars,
single-unit tank cars used''.
5. ln Sec. 173.31, paragraphs (b)(3)(iii), (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii),
(b)(6)(ii), (d)(1)(viii), (d)(2), (e)(2) and (f)(1) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 173.31 Use of tank cars.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section,
those tank cars specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this
section not requiring a tank-head puncture resistance system prior to
July 1, 1996, must have a tank-head puncture resistance system
installed no later than July 1, 2006.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Tank cars transporting a Class 2 material, except for a class
106, 107A, 110, and 113 tank car. A tank car equipped with a thermal
protection system conforming to Sec. 179.18 of this subchapter, or that
has an insulation system having an overall thermal
[[Page 33255]]
conductance of no more than 0.613 kilojoules per hour, per square
meter, per degree Celsius temperature differential (0.03 B.t.u. per
square foot, per hour, per degree Fahrenheit temperature differential),
conforms to this requirement.
(ii) A tank car transporting a Class 2 material that was not
required to have thermal protection prior to July 1, 1996, must be
equipped with thermal protection no later than July 1, 2006.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) By October 1 of each year, each owner of a tank car subject to
this paragraph (b)(6) shall submit to the Hazardous Materials Division
(RRS-12), Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad
Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, a
progress report that shows the total number of in-service tank cars
that need head protection, thermal protection, or bottom-discontinuity
protection; the number of new or different tank cars acquired to
replace those tank cars required to be upgraded to a higher service
pressure; and the total number of tank cars modified, reassigned,
acquired, retired, or removed from service the previous year.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) The external thermal protection system, tank-head puncture
resistance system, coupler vertical restraint system, and bottom
discontinuity protection for conditions that make the tank car unsafe
for transportation.
* * * * *
(2) Closures on tank cars are required, in accordance with this
subchapter, to be designed and closed so that under conditions normally
incident to transportation, including the effects of temperature and
vibration, there will be no identifiable release of a hazardous
material to the environment. ln any action brought to enforce this
section, the lack of securement of any closure to a tool-tight
condition, detected at any point, will establish a rebuttable
presumption that a proper inspection was not performed by the offeror
of the car. That presumption may be rebutted by any evidence indicating
that the lack of securement resulted from a specific cause not within
the control of the offeror.
(e) * * *
(2) Tank car specifications. A tank car used for a material
poisonous by inhalation must have a tank test pressure of 20.7 Bar (300
psi) or greater, head protection, and a metal jacket (e.g., DOT
105S300W), except that--
(i) A higher test pressure is required if otherwise specified in
this subchapter; and
(ii) Other than as provided in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, a
tank car which does not conform to the requirements of this paragraph
(e)(2), and was authorized for the material poisonous by inhalation
under the regulations in effect on June 30, 1996, may continue in use
until July 1, 2006.
(f) * * *
(1) A tank car used for a hazardous substance listed in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section must have a tank test pressure of at least 13.8
Bar (200 psi), head protection and a metal jacket, except that--
(i) No metal jacket is required if--
(A) The tank test pressure is 23.4 Bar (340 psi) or higher; or
(B) The tank shell and heads are manufactured from AAR steel
specification TC-128, normalized;
(ii) A higher test pressure is required if otherwise specified in
this subchapter; and
(iii) Other than as provided in paragraph (b)(6) of this section, a
tank car which does not conform to the requirements of this paragraph
(f)(1), and was authorized for a hazardous substance under the
regulations in effect on June 30, 1996, may continue in use until July
1, 2006.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 173.314, Note 1 following paragraph (c) table and the
heading of paragraph (n) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 173.314 Compressed gases in tank cars and multi-unit tank cars.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Notes:
1. The percent filling density for liquefied gases is hereby
defined as the percent ratio of the mass of gas in the tank to the
mass of water that the tank will hold. For determining the water
capacity of the tank in kilograms, the mass of one liter of water at
15.5 deg.C in air is 1 kg. (the mass of one gallon of water at
60 deg.F in air is 8.32828 pounds).
* * * * *
(n) Special requirements for hydrogen. * * *
* * * * *
PART 179--SPECIFICATIONS FOR TANK CARS
7. The authority citation for Part 179 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 179.2 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 179.2, in paragraph (a)(10), the words ``inspects, or
tests'' are revised to read ``inspects, tests, qualifies, or
maintains''.
9. In Sec. 179.7, paragraph (b)(10) is removed, and paragraphs
(b)(11), (b)(12), and (b)(13) are redesignated as paragraphs (b)(10),
(b)(11), and (b)(12), respectively, and paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(5),
(b)(9), and (d) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 179.7 Quality assurance program.
(a) * * *
(2) Has the means to detect any nonconformity in the manufacturing,
repair, inspection, testing, and qualification or maintenance program
of the tank car; and
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) A description of the manufacturing, repair, inspection,
testing, and qualification or maintenance program, including the
acceptance criteria, so that an inspector can identify the
characteristics of the tank car and the elements to inspect, examine,
and test at each point.
* * * * *
(9) Qualification requirements of personnel performing non-
destructive inspections and tests.
* * * * *
(d) Each tank car facility shall provide written procedures to its
employees to ensure that the work on the tank car conforms to the
specification, AAR approval, and owner's acceptance criteria.
* * * * *
Sec. 179. 7 [Amended]
10. In addition, in Sec. 179.7, the following changes are made:
a. In paragraph (b)(7) the word ``imperfections'' is revised to
read ``nonconformities''.
b. In newly designated paragraph (b)(10), the phrase ``and
reliability'' is added after the word ``sensitivity''.
c. In paragraph (f), the words ``inspect, or test'' are revised to
read ``inspect, test, qualify or maintain''.
11. In Sec. 179.16, paragraph (b) is revised and a new paragraph
(c) is added, to read as follows:
Sec. 179.16 Tank-head puncture-resistance systems.
* * * * *
(b) Verification by testing. Compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section shall be verified by full-scale testing
according to Appendix A of this part.
(c) Alternative compliance by other than testing. As an alternative
to
[[Page 33256]]
requirements prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section, compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section may be met by
installing full-head protection (shields) or full tank-head jackets on
each end of the tank car conforming to the following:
(1) The full-head protection (shields) or full tank-head jackets
must be at least 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) thick, shaped to the contour of the
tank head and made from steel having a tensile strength greater than
379.21 N/mm2 (55,000 psi).
(2) The design and test requirements of the full-head protection
(shields) or full tank-head jackets must meet the impact test
requirements of Section 5.3 of the AAR Specifications for Tank Cars.
(3) The workmanship must meet the requirements of Section C, Part
II, Chapter 5 of the AAR Specifications for Design, Fabrication, and
Construction of Freight Cars.
12. In Sec. 179.18, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 179.18 Thermal protection systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) Compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of
this section shall be verified by analyzing the fire effects on the
entire surface of the tank car. The analysis must consider the fire
effects on and heat flux through tank discontinuities, protective
housings, underframes, metal jackets, insulation, and thermal
protection. A complete record of each analysis shall be made, retained,
and upon request, made available for inspection and copying by an
authorized representative of the Department. The procedures outlined in
``Temperatures, Pressures, and Liquid Levels of Tank Cars Engulfed in
Fires,'' DOT/FRA/OR&D-84/08.11, (1984), Federal Railroad
Administration, Washington, DC (available from the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA) shall be deemed acceptable for
analyzing the fire effects on the entire surface of the tank car.
* * * * *
Sec. 179.18 [Amended]
13. In addition, in Sec. 179.18, in paragraph (a) introductory
text, the phrase ``safety relief valve'' is revised to read ``pressure
relief device'' and in paragraph (b)(2) the phrase ``an unlisted'' is
revised to read ``a new or untried''.
Sec. 179.22 [Amended]
14. In Sec. 179.22, in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), the wording
``is equipped with'' is revised to read ``requires'' each place it
appears.
15. In appendix A to part 179, paragraph 1 is amended by adding a
sentence at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 179--Procedures for Tank-Head Puncture-
Resistance Test
1. * * * Tank-head puncture-resistance is a function of one or
more of the following: Head thickness, jacket thickness, insulation
thickness, and material of construction.
* * * * *
PART 180--CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PACKAGINGS
16. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 180.501 [Amended]
17. In Sec. 180.501, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the
phrase ``that the tank cars are in proper condition for
transportation'' and adding in its place, the phrase,``continuing
qualification''.
18. In Sec. 180.509, a sentence is added at the end of paragraph
(b)(1); the introductory text of paragraph (b), and paragraphs
(c)(3)(iii) (A) and (B), (j), and the heading of paragraph (l) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 180.509 Requirements for inspection and test of specification
tank cars.
* * * * *
(b) * * *. Without regard to any other periodic inspection and test
requirements, a tank car must have an appropriate inspection and test
according to the type of defect and the type of maintenance or repair
performed if:
(1) * * *. An example is if maintenance is performed to replace a
fitting, then only a leakage pressure test needs to be performed.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) When a lining or coating is applied to protect the tank shell
from the lading, the owner of the lining or coating shall determine the
periodic inspection interval, test technique, and acceptance criteria
for the lining or coating. The owner must maintain at its principal
place of business all supporting documentation used to make such a
determination, such as the lining or coating manufacturer's recommended
inspection interval, test technique, and acceptance criteria. The
supporting documentation must be made available to FRA upon request.
(B) The owner of the lining or coating shall provide the periodic
inspection interval, test technique, and acceptance criteria for the
lining or coating to the person responsible for qualifying the lining
and coating.
* * * * *
(j) Leakage pressure test. After reassembly of a tank car or
service equipment, a tank car facility must perform a leak test on the
tank or service equipment to detect leakage, if any, between manway
covers, cover plates, and service equipment. The test may be conducted
with the hazardous material in the tank. When the test pressure exceeds
the start-to-discharge or burst pressure of a pressure relief device,
the device must be rendered inoperative. The written procedures and
test method for leak testing must ensure for the sensitivity and
reliability of the test method and for the serviceability of components
to prevent premature failure.
* * * * *
(l) Inspection and test compliance date for tank cars. * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 180.509 [Amended]
19. In addition, in Sec. 180.509, the following changes are made:
a. Paragraph (c)(3)(iii) introductory text is amended by removing
the phrase ``, and when a lining or coating is applied to protect the
tank shell from the lading, an interval based on the owner's
determination for the lining or coating, but not greater than every 10
years''.
b. In paragraph (g)(1)(ii) introductory text, the phrase
``reduction in thickness'' is revised to read ``reduction in the
required minimum thickness''.
c. In the paragraph (g)(1)(ii) table, in the second column, for the
third and fifth entries, the parenthetical ``(\3/16\ inch)'' is revised
to read ``(0.188 inch)'' each place it appears; and in the second and
fourth columns, the column heading ``Top shell'' is revised to read
``Top shell and tank head'' for each column.
d. In paragraph (i), the phrase ``and test technique'' is revised
to read ``, test technique, and acceptance criteria''.
Sec. 180.511 [Amended]
20. ln Sec. 180.511, in paragraph (e), the phrase ``shows no
evidence of holes or degraded areas'' is revised to read ``conforms to
the owner's acceptance criteria''.
Sec. 180.515 [Amended]
21. ln Sec. 180.515, the following changes are made:
[[Page 33257]]
a. In the first sentence in paragraph (a), the phrase ``paragraph
(b) of this section'' is revised to read ``Appendix C of the AAR
Specifications for Tank Cars''.
b. Paragraph (b) is removed and paragraphs (c) and (d) are
redesignated as paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively.
Sec. 180.519 [Amended]
22. In Sec. 180.519, the following changes are made:
a. In paragraph (b)(5), in the first column of Retest Table 1, the
last entry ``BE-275'' is revised to read ``BE-27''.
b. The first sentence of paragraph (b)(6) is amended by revising
the reference paragraph ``(d)(8)'' to read ``(c)'', and revising the
phrase ``1-60 for January 1960'' to read ``01-90 for January 1990''.
c. In paragraph (c), the phrase ``DOT 110A-Z'' is revised to read
``DOT 110A-W''.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 10, 1996, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-15273 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P