[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54849-54861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21621]



[[Page 54849]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 173, 174, 178, 179, and 180

[Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 (HM-251)]
RIN 2137-AE91


Hazardous Materials: Rail Petitions and Recommendations To 
Improve the Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation (RRR)

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
DOT.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PHMSA is considering revisions to the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (HMR) to improve the regulations applicable to the 
transportation of hazardous materials by rail. The revisions are based 
on eight petitions received from the regulated community and four 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations which are 
referenced by a petition. In this ANPRM, we outline the petitions and 
NTSB recommendations, identify a preliminary estimate of costs and 
benefits from the petitions, pose several questions, and solicit 
comments and data from the public. Under Executive Order 13563, Federal 
agencies were asked to periodically review existing regulations. The 
questions posed in this ANPRM and responses by commenters will be used 
in conjunction with a retrospective review of existing requirements 
aimed to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal existing rules that are 
outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number 
PHMSA-2012-0082 (HM-251) and the relevant petition number by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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 notice 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 http://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 http://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 is able to 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.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) which may be 
viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/pdf/00-8505.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Alexy, (202) 493-6245, Office of 
Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration or Ben 
Supko, (202) 366-8553, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and 
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Review of Amendments Considered
    A. Petition P-1507
    B. Petition P-1519
    C. Petition P-1547
    D. Petition P-1548
    E. Petition P-1577
    F. Petition P-1587
    G. Petition P-1595
    H. Petition P-1612
IV. 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. International Trade Analysis
    I. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking
    J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

I. Executive Summary

    PHMSA has received eight petitions for rulemaking and four NTSB 
recommendations proposing amendments to the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) applicable to the 
transportation of hazardous materials in commerce by rail. PHMSA is 
seeking public comments on whether the proposed amendments would 
enhance safety, revise, and clarify the HMR with regard to rail 
transport. Specifically, these amendments propose to: (1) Relax 
regulatory requirements to afford the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) greater discretion to authorize the movement of non-conforming 
tank cars; (2) impose additional requirements that would correct an 
unsafe condition associated with pressure relief valves (PRV) on rail 
cars transporting carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid; (3) relax 
regulatory requirements applicable to the repair and maintenance of DOT 
Specification 110, DOT Specification 106, and ICC 27 tank car tanks 
(ton tanks); (4) relax regulatory requirement for the removal of 
rupture discs for inspection if the removal process would damage, 
change, or alter the intended operation of the device; and (5) impose 
additional requirements that would enhance the standards for DOT 
Specification 111 tank cars used to transport Packing Group (PG) I and 
II hazardous materials. The NTSB recommendations directly relate to the 
enhancement of DOT Specification 111 tank cars. PHMSA looks forward to 
reviewing the public's comments pertaining to the potential economic,

[[Page 54850]]

environmental, and safety implications of the petitions discussed in 
this ANPRM. Comments received will be used in our evaluation and 
development of possible future regulatory actions on issues relating to 
the transportation of hazardous materials by rail.
    Access to the petitions, NTSB Recommendations, and background 
documents referenced in this ANPRM can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 or at DOT's Docket 
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES). PHMSA requests that commenters note 
the applicable petition number when submitting comments.

II. Background

    Federal hazmat law authorizes the Secretary of DOT (Secretary) to 
``prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including 
security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign 
commerce.'' The Secretary has delegated this authority to PHMSA. 49 CFR 
Sec.  1.97(b). The HMR, promulgated by PHMSA under the authority 
provided in Federal hazmat law, are designed to achieve three goals: 
(1) To ensure that hazardous materials are packaged and handled safely 
and securely during transportation; (2) to provide effective 
communication to transportation workers and emergency responders of the 
hazards of the materials being transported; and (3) to minimize the 
consequences of an incident should one occur. The hazardous material 
regulatory system is a risk management system that is prevention-
oriented and focused on identifying a safety or security hazard and 
reducing the probability and quantity of a hazardous material release.
    Under the HMR, hazardous materials are categorized by analysis and 
experience into hazard classes and packing groups based upon the risks 
that they present during transportation. The HMR 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. The HMR also require shippers to 
provide emergency response information applicable to the specific 
hazard or hazards of the material being transported. Finally, the HMR 
mandate training requirements for persons who prepare hazardous 
materials for shipment or who transport hazardous materials in 
commerce.
    The HMR also include operational requirements applicable to each 
mode of transportation. The Secretary has authority over all areas of 
railroad transportation safety (Federal railroad safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 
20101 et seq.), and has delegated this authority to FRA. 49 CFR 1.89. 
Pursuant to its statutory authority, FRA promulgates and enforces a 
comprehensive regulatory program (49 CFR parts 200-244) to address 
railroad track; signal systems; railroad communications; rolling stock; 
rear-end marking devices; safety glazing; railroad accident/incident 
reporting; locational requirements for the dispatch of U.S. rail 
operations; safety integration plans governing railroad consolidations; 
merger and acquisitions of control; operating practices; passenger 
train emergency preparedness; alcohol and drug testing; locomotive 
engineer certification; and workplace safety. FRA inspects railroads 
and shippers for compliance with both FRA and PHMSA regulations. FRA 
also conducts research and development to enhance railroad safety.
    As a result of the shared role in the safe and secure 
transportation of hazardous materials by rail, PHMSA and FRA work very 
closely when considering regulatory changes. The issues being 
considered under this ANPRM are derived from petitions submitted to 
PHMSA by its stakeholders. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 
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, 
interested persons may ask PHMSA to add, amend, or repeal a regulation 
by filing a petition for rulemaking along with information and 
arguments that support the requested action. (49 CFR Part 106). On 
average, thirty petitions for rulemaking are submitted to PHMSA 
annually by the regulated community, in accordance with Sec.  106.95. 
The eight petitions included in this ANPRM are applicable to the 
transportation of hazardous materials by rail and have been reviewed by 
PHMSA and FRA representatives.
    In this ANPRM, PHMSA is seeking public comment to obtain the views 
of those who are likely to be impacted in any way by the changes 
proposed in the petitions, including those who are likely to benefit 
from, be adversely affected by, or potentially be subject to additional 
regulation. Additionally, we seek comments on the four NTSB 
recommendations that are specifically referenced by Petition P-1587. 
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. This 
additional step is intended to lead to more focused and well-developed 
proposals that reflect the views of all relevant parties.
    In addition to this ANPRM, FRA published a notice on July 18, 2013 
(78 FR 42998) announcing a PHMSA and FRA public meeting scheduled for 
August 27-28, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., in the DOT 
Conference Center, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
The meeting was focused on operational factors that affect the safe 
transportation of hazardous materials by rail. During the meeting, we 
asked for input from stakeholders and interested parties. The meeting 
agenda was included in the public docket for this rulemaking. PHMSA 
requested comments on the relationship between the items identified in 
the agenda and the petitions, recommendations, and standards addressed 
in this rulemaking.

III. Review of Amendments Considered

    This ANPRM is based on Petitions P-1507, P-1519, P-1547, P-1548, P-
1577, P-1587, P-1595, and P-1612 and NTSB Recommendations R-12-5, R-12-
6, R-12-7, and R-07-4. Petition P-1587 directly references NTSB 
Recommendations R-12-5, R-12-6, R-12-7, and R-07-4. Additionally, NTSB 
Recommendations R-12-5 and R-12-6 directly relate to and reference 
petition P-1577. The following table provides a brief summary of the 
petitions and NTSB Recommendations addressed in this ANPRM:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Party submitting
 Petition/ recommendation        petition                Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-1507...................  Eastman Chemical     Revise the wording of
                            Co..                 Sec.   174.50 to afford
                                                 FRA greater discretion
                                                 in authorizing car
                                                 movement.
P-1519...................  The Compressed Gas   Revise Sec.   173.314
                            Association (CGA).   Note 5 to clearly
                                                 indicate that the
                                                 liquid portion of the
                                                 gas must not completely
                                                 fill the tank prior to
                                                 reaching the pressure
                                                 setting of the
                                                 regulating valves or
                                                 the safety relief
                                                 valve, whichever is
                                                 lower.

[[Page 54851]]

 
P-1547...................  Carroll Welding      Revise the ton tank
                            Supply.              repair, maintenance,
                                                 and marking regulations
                                                 for consistency with
                                                 existing regulations
                                                 for DOT 3-series
                                                 cylinders since ton
                                                 tanks share more in
                                                 common with these
                                                 cylinders than tank
                                                 cars.
P-1548...................  American Chemistry   Proposes a change to the
                            Council (ACC).       wording in Sec.
                                                 173.31(d)(1)(vi)
                                                 intended to prevent
                                                 damage or loss of
                                                 effectiveness of
                                                 rupture discs removed
                                                 from their initial
                                                 placement in the relief
                                                 device by adding
                                                 language that would
                                                 except them from
                                                 removal if the
                                                 inspection itself would
                                                 damage, change, or
                                                 alter the intended
                                                 operation of the
                                                 device.
P-1577...................  Association of       Proposes a new standard
                            American Railroads   for newly-constructed
                            (AAR).               DOT Specification 111
                                                 tank cars used to
                                                 transport PG I and II
                                                 materials.
P-1587...................  Village of           Stresses the importance
                            Barrington,          of adopting P-1577 for
                            Illinois and The     newly-constructed and
                            Regional Answer to   existing DOT
                            Canadian Nation.     Specification 111 tank
                                                 cars in accordance with
                                                 NTSB Recommendations R-
                                                 12-5 and R-12-6. In
                                                 addition, the petition
                                                 urges PHMSA to adopt
                                                 NTSB Recommendation R-
                                                 07-4.
P-1595...................  ACC, American        Proposes that PHMSA
                            Petroleum            apply requirements
                            Institute (API)      related to top fittings
                            and The Chlorine     protection, reclosing
                            Institute, Inc.      pressure relief
                            (CI).                devices, and head and
                                                 shell thickness
                                                 requirements as
                                                 suggested in P-1577 and
                                                 P-1587 for DOT
                                                 Specification 111 tank
                                                 cars used to transport
                                                 ethanol and crude oil
                                                 in PG I and II.
P-1612...................  API, ACC, CI, and    The Petitioners request
                            The Renewable        that PHMSA separate new
                            Fuels Association    tank car regulatory
                            (RFA).               requirements from any
                                                 potential retrofits for
                                                 the timely adoption of
                                                 revised regulatory
                                                 requirements for the
                                                 construction of new DOT
                                                 Specification 111 tank
                                                 cars used for the
                                                 transportation of
                                                 ethanol and crude oil.
R-07-4...................  NTSB...............  With the assistance of
                                                 the FRA, require that
                                                 railroads immediately
                                                 provide to emergency
                                                 responders accurate,
                                                 real-time information
                                                 regarding the identity
                                                 and location of all
                                                 hazardous materials on
                                                 a train.
R-12-5...................  NTSB...............  Require that all newly-
                                                 manufactured and
                                                 existing general
                                                 service tank cars
                                                 authorized for
                                                 transportation of
                                                 denatured fuel ethanol
                                                 and crude oil in PGs I
                                                 and II have enhanced
                                                 tank head and shell
                                                 puncture resistance
                                                 systems and top
                                                 fittings protection
                                                 that exceed existing
                                                 design requirements for
                                                 DOT Specification 111
                                                 tank cars.
R-12-6...................  NTSB...............  Require that all bottom
                                                 outlet valves used on
                                                 newly-manufactured and
                                                 existing non-pressure
                                                 tank cars are designed
                                                 to remain closed during
                                                 accidents in which the
                                                 valve and operating
                                                 handle are subjected to
                                                 impact forces.
R-12-7...................  NTSB...............  Require that all newly-
                                                 manufactured and
                                                 existing tank cars
                                                 authorized for
                                                 transportation of
                                                 hazardous materials
                                                 have center sill or
                                                 draft sill attachment
                                                 designs that conform to
                                                 the revised Association
                                                 of American Railroads'
                                                 design requirements
                                                 adopted as a result of
                                                 Safety Recommendation R-
                                                 12-9.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each petition is discussed in detail below. Each description 
includes a summary of the petition, including the regulatory solution 
proposed by the petition; based on the petition, costs and benefits 
associated with the granting the action requested by the petitioner; 
and a request for comments including specific questions regarding each 
petition. Additionally, the discussion of P-1587 includes a brief 
summary of the NTSB accident report which resulted in the issuance of 
Recommendations R-12-5 through R-12-8 to PHMSA and reiterates the 
reasons for the issuance of Recommendation R-07-4. The petitions and 
NTSB accident report are included in the public docket for this 
rulemaking.

A. Petition P-1507

Summary
    In Petition P-1507, the Law Offices of McCarthy, Sweeney & 
Harkaway, P.C., on behalf of Eastman Chemical Co., propose that the 
wording of Sec.  174.50 be changed to afford FRA greater discretion in 
authorizing car movement. Eastman Chemical Co. asserts that adherence 
to the regulation impedes the flow of commerce because all non-
conforming bulk packagings, regardless of the safety risk, require a 
movement approval. Non-conforming conditions that are a relatively 
minor risk require the same approval application and evaluation process 
as a non-conforming condition that poses a clear and significant risk. 
For example, many low risk movement approvals are provided for tank 
cars that have a defective bottom outlet valve, but have been cleaned 
and purged to remove any potential hazard in transportation. Other 
common low-risk examples are jacketed tank cars with damage solely to 
the jacket causing a violation of the requirement for the jacket to be 
weather tight. An example of a high-risk approval is one that is issued 
for a hole or crack in the tank car shell or head.
    The petitioner suggests revising Sec.  174.50 to provide FRA 
greater discretion in authorizing car movement.
    Currently, Sec.  174.50 provides that:

    A leaking non-bulk package may not be forwarded until repaired, 
reconditioned, or overpacked in accordance with Sec.  173.3 of this 
subchapter. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a bulk 
packaging that no longer conforms to [the HMR] may not be forwarded 
by rail unless repaired or approved for movement by the Associate 
Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration.

Eastman Chemical Co. petitions PHMSA to add language that enables FRA 
to publish guidance on specific elements of non-conformity that would 
not require a movement approval by the Associate Administrator for 
Railroad Safety.
Costs and Benefits
    PHMSA considers the action requested by this petition to be 
deregulatory in nature. The petition did not identify specific costs 
and benefits. However, FRA has recently modified its movement approval 
process to minimize burdens without decreasing safety. On February 22, 
2011, FRA hosted a public meeting and solicited comments on the one-
time movement approval (OTMA \1\) process to address the increasing 
number of requests for OTMAs, which slowed processing

[[Page 54852]]

time.\2\ The basis for the meeting was the increasing volume of 
approvals issued annually. FRA issued 380 movement approvals in 
calendar year (CY) 2007, 444 in CY 2008, 645 in CY 2009, and 906 in CY 
2010. These approvals covered a broad range of non-conformity, such as 
service equipment, tank shell, or lining failures; overloaded 
packagings; jacket, tank car shell, or head damage; stub sill weld 
cracks; failures of heater coils or thermal protection systems; tank 
cars overdue for required tests; etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Detailed information regarding FRA's OTMA program is 
available at the following URL: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04692.
    \2\ To view the meeting notice and transcript go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for ``FRA-2011-0004.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following FRA's public meeting, PHMSA and FRA conducted a peer 
review panel, which audited FRA's OTMA program. The audit highlighted 
the range and frequencies of various defective conditions and 
identified those defects that pose a lesser safety risk. The panel and 
comments received during the public meeting recommended that FRA focus 
its resources on serious safety concerns while allowing for more 
efficient handling of OTMAs.
    FRA subsequently revised its OTMA program with the goal of making 
the system more efficient and allowing better monitoring of non-
conformance. Specifically, on January 31, 2012, FRA published Hazardous 
Materials Guidance (HMG)--127 (77 FR 10799), which provides a 
standardized procedure developed by FRA to make the OTMA process more 
consistent and efficient. While an applicant isn't ``required'' to 
follow the procedure and provide the needed information to perform a 
proper safety analysis, failure to do so could cause significant delays 
in processing time, or may result in a denial of the application. 
Applicants are highly encouraged to use the procedure to expedite the 
FRA review and approval process.
Comments and Questions
    PHMSA requests comments on P-1507. Please provide comments and data 
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small 
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner. 
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
     In what ways has the January 31, 2012, publication of HMG-
127 by FRA satisfactorily addressed the petitioner's proposed 
revisions; and, in what ways is the issuance of HMG-127 inconsistent 
with regard to the petitioner's proposed revision?
     What evidence would help FRA quantify the benefits and 
costs of the current approval process? For example, what is the average 
time an applicant typically waits to obtain a final determination from 
FRA on a request for approval? What are the economic effects of this 
waiting period?
     How could FRA increase the benefits of HMG-127 and of the 
OTMA program in general?
     Has the petitioner's proposed revision been studied to 
determine reasonably foreseeable environmental and human health 
effects?
     Are there economic benefits or costs of including certain 
commonly issued Approvals into the regulations? If so, is there 
evidence to help FRA quantify those benefits and costs?
     What are some potential alternatives to the current 
approval process and HMG-127 that could further maximize benefits and 
minimize costs? What data is available to help quantify the benefits 
and costs of these alternatives?
    Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A 
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM, 
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations 
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

B. Petition P-1519

Summary
    In Petition P-1519, the CGA asserts the current wording of Sec.  
173.314 Note 5 permits the operation of tank cars designed and 
constructed for the transportation of carbon dioxide, refrigerated 
liquid, in an unsafe condition. This is the second petition submitted 
by the CGA on this topic. PHMSA rejected the previous petition because 
of a lack of information supporting the assertion. The focus of the 
petition is that, if loaded in accordance with Sec.  173.314 Note 5, a 
tank car transporting carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid, could become 
shell full prior to the internal pressure exceeding the actuation 
pressure of the PRV and/or the regulating valves. This condition may 
result in clogging of the PRV, leading to lowering of the flow capacity 
of the valve and possibly extreme hydraulic pressure. CGA petitions 
PHMSA to revise Sec.  173.314 Note 5 to clearly indicate that the 
liquid portion of the gas must not completely fill the tank prior to 
reaching the pressure setting of the regulating valves or the safety 
relief valve, whichever is lower.
Costs and Benefits
    PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition might 
have safety benefits, but add additional regulatory burden. However, 
PHMSA has not conducted an analysis of the possible actions that could 
result from this petition. The intent of this ANPRM is to gather 
relevant safety and economic data from the public regarding changes 
proposed in the petition. PHMSA notes that the petition did not provide 
data demonstrating manifestation of this potential problem. However, in 
analyzing the petition from a technical perspective, PHMSA and FRA 
engineers agree, theoretically, CGA's assertion that a shell full 
condition may result in clogging of the PRV, leading to lowering of the 
flow capacity of the valve and possibly extreme hydraulic pressure, is 
correct. The valve capacity remains the same. However, the capacity is 
based on the flow of vapor. In the case of carbon dioxide, refrigerated 
liquid, three phase flow is possible and the valve does not have the 
capacity to vent vapor, liquid, and solid. This is a result of 
adiabatic flash evaporation or auto-refrigeration. Assume a compressed 
gas that is under pressure and at a temperature above its boiling 
point. When the pressure is released (returning to atmospheric 
pressure), the temperature of the compressed gas will drop to its 
boiling point, in the case of carbon dioxide this is -109 [deg]F 
(sublimation point), which is below the freezing point of water. The 
water in the atmosphere freezes and clogs the valve. There is also a 
phase change in which the vapor changes to solid or liquid (depending 
on the pressure along the flow path). This is a fairly common concern 
during the unloading process for carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid.
    The cost of incorporating the proposed change will be a slightly 
lower payload to the affected entities, which include shippers of 
carbon dioxide. Initial FRA calculations suggest a 1-2 percent decrease 
in payload, which in turn will require 1-2 additional trips per 100 
shipments.\3\ The anticipated benefit may be additional safety in the 
transportation of carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Assume 20,000 gallon payload. Decrease payload by 2% = 
19,600 gallons. Loss of 400 gallons per trip. After 50 trips the 
total loss in payload is 20,000 (an extra trip will be needed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments and Questions
    PHMSA requests comments on P-1519. Please provide comments and data 
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small 
businesses

[[Page 54853]]

impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner. PHMSA 
specifically requests comments on the following questions:
     Can you provide data on incidents that were a direct 
result of a clogged PRV that resulted in a lower flow of the PRV and 
extreme hydraulic pressure involving the transportation of carbon 
dioxide, refrigerated liquid, or any other refrigerated liquid?
     Is this problem unique to the transportation of carbon 
dioxide, refrigerated liquid? If not, what are the additional safety 
benefits of expanding the scope of the petitioner's recommended 
revision to transportation of other refrigerated liquids?
     Please comment on the accuracy of the initial calculations 
listed above, and provide any other potential costs and benefits of the 
proposed change.
     Is there an estimate of the number of shipments (trips) of 
carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid, in rail tank cars, and the number 
of vehicle-miles and ton-miles transported annually? If so, what is the 
basis for this estimate? Is there an estimate of the cost per rail car 
per vehicle mile, per ton-mile for carbon dioxide, refrigerated liquid, 
via rail annually?
     How many of the rail tank cars identified above are shell 
full prior to the internal pressure exceeding the actuation pressure of 
the PRV and/or the regulating valves? What would the annual decrease in 
payload be if we adopt the petition? How many more trips would be 
required annually? What is the overall impact?
     Are there existing consensus standards or operating 
practices that adequately address this potential safety issue? If so, 
what are they?
     Are any other options available that could provide a 
similar safety benefit? If so, what are they?
    Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A 
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM, 
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations 
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

C. Petition P-1547

Summary
    In petition P-1547, Carroll Welding Supply identifies an area of 
confusion regarding the current requirements for the repair and 
maintenance of ton tanks. Carroll Welding Supply asserts that these 
tanks are exclusively transported by highway, yet the regulations 
require them to be repaired and marked in accordance with AAR standards 
for tank cars. More specifically, Carroll Welding Supply asserts that 
the regulations in Sec.  180.212 applicable to re-threading damaged 
tapped holes with oversized threads are different for DOT 3-series 
cylinders than for ton tanks. The petition indicates that ton tanks are 
increasingly being requalified and repaired by cylinder requalifiers, 
and not by railroad tank car repair facilities. Often the cylinder 
requalifiers are not aware of Sec.  180.513 and Appendix R of the AAR 
Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, Section C-Part III, 
Specifications for Tank Cars, Specification M-1002.\4\ A common 
practice in the chlorine industry is the use of oversize valves in 
tapped holes of DOT 3-series cylinders and oversized valves or fusible 
plugs in ton tanks. Currently, the regulations clearly do not allow any 
oversized holes in ton tanks. Carroll Welding Supply recommends 
amending the regulations by revising ton tank repair, maintenance, and 
marking regulations for consistency with existing regulations for DOT 
3-series cylinders since ton tanks share more in common with these 
cylinders than tank cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ AAR's Specifications for Tank Cars, Specification M-1002 is 
incorporated by reference in Sec.  171.1 of the HMR. Appendix R 
paragraph 24.1 allows damaged tapped holes to be repaired with 
thread inserts, and paragraph 24.1.4 specifies that the nominal 
thread size of the insert is to match the existing tapped hole. 
Further 24.1.4 does not permit oversize holes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs and Benefits
    PHMSA considers the action requested by this petition to be 
deregulatory in nature. The petition did not identify specific costs 
and benefits. Affected entities include persons who manufacture, 
repair, and/or maintain ton tanks. As stated in the petition, these 
tanks share more in common with DOT 3-series cylinders than tank cars. 
Therefore, allowing these tanks to be repaired in accordance with the 
requirements for DOT 3-series cylinders would simplify the regulations. 
The intent of this petition is to consolidate, clarify, and update 
existing regulations to promote the consistent application of long-
standing ton tank regulations and guidance while eliminating 
unnecessary, outdated, or ambiguous regulatory language or references. 
Affected entities and the general public may see incremental safety 
benefits through improved regulatory awareness, understanding, and 
compliance.
Comments and Questions
    PHMSA requests comments on P-1547. Please provide comments and data 
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small 
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner. 
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
     Would the relocation of the requirements for ton tanks 
from Part 179 to Part 178 and aligning the requirements accordingly 
address the concern of the petition?
     Will it be more or less costly to mark and repair ton 
tanks in accordance with existing regulations for DOT 3-series 
cylinders as compared to the current requirements?
     Is the use of oversized valves or fusible plugs in ton 
tanks common practice within the industry?
     How many ton tanks will be impacted by this change?
    Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A 
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM, 
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations 
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

D. Petition P-1548

Summary
    In Petition P-1548, ACC asserts that repeated removal of the 
rupture disc from the housing for inspection, as required by Sec.  
173.31(d)(1)(vi), can result in damage and a reduction in the 
effectiveness of the rupture disc. ACC contends that PHMSA has 
acknowledged this concern by issuing Special Permit DOT SP-13219, which 
allows for the shipment of certain peroxides in tank cars that have 
been inspected under a modified inspection program prior to 
transportation. The modified inspection program does not require the 
shipper to remove the rupture disc for inspection and requires the 
shipper to subject the tank to a pressure test at 10 psig for 10 
minutes to verify the rupture disc shows no sign of leakage. Currently, 
two companies are parties to this special permit.
    The ACC is proposing that PHMSA incorporate Special Permit DOT SP-
13219 into the HMR by adding language to Sec.  173.31(d)(1)(vi) that 
would except rupture discs from removal if the inspection itself would 
damage, change, or alter the intended operation of the device. While 
the special permit requires an alternative inspection program and is 
limited to shipments of only certain peroxides, the ACC petition would 
broaden the scope of the special permit to include additional 
materials. The ACC petition does not address the operational controls 
of the special permit; specifically the requirement for the tank car to 
be subjected to a pressure test of 10 psi for a minimum of 10

[[Page 54854]]

minutes to verify that the rupture disc shows no sign of leakage. PHMSA 
does not currently mandate a service interval at which rupture discs 
are required to be changed, but expects that inspections or testing 
that identifies wear or leaks will lead to rupture disc replacement.
    PHMSA has already partially modified the rupture disc inspection 
requirements in Sec.  173.31(d)(1)(vi), since this petition was filed. 
That modification addressed related safety implications of not removing 
rupture discs prior to visual inspections and created a more limited 
exception than P-1548 requests. PHMSA adopted the provision as proposed 
in a May 14, 2010 final rule issued under Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0289 
(HM-233A; 75 FR 27205). Access to the HM-233A rulemaking documents and 
comments can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
PHMSA-2009-0289 or at DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Costs and Benefits
    PHMSA considers the action requested by this petition to be 
deregulatory in nature. The petition did not identify specific costs, 
but did indicate that the proposed change would reduce the need for 
periodic renewal of the special permit and expand its use to others, 
which decreases time and expense for tank car owners, shippers, and 
PHMSA. Another potential benefit of the proposal is that it would 
eliminate the requirement to remove a rupture disc from the safety vent 
for inspection prior to transportation, thereby saving the time the 
loading rack operator needed to disassemble the device as well as the 
cost of new discs.
    Based on the petition, inspection of the rupture disc as specified 
in Sec.  173.31(d)(1)(vi) may cause or contribute to the rupture disc 
failing. For that reason, incorporating into the HMR an alternate 
method of inspecting the rupture disc that mirrors the requirements in 
Special Permit DOT SP-13219 may reduce releases and provide a safety 
benefit. A preliminary review of hazardous materials incident reports 
involving all pressure-related releases for the five-year period from 
January 2007 to January 2011 found that 40 of the 85 recorded incidents 
related to pressure relief devices involved a failed rupture disc. In 
addition, available data does not provide a credible estimate of how 
many incidents were prevented because of the inspections. However, the 
incident report forms do provide the approximate cost associated with 
these the incidents, mainly attributable to clean-up, response, and 
damages. For the 40 incidents identified above, the reported cost is 
$300,000.
Comments and Questions
    PHMSA requests comments on P-1548. Please provide comments and data 
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small 
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner. 
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
     Can commenters provide data indicating the percentage of 
rupture discs that were found to be defective during the currently 
required inspection?
     What percentage of the 40 recorded incidents that involved 
a failed rupture disc would have been prevented had the rupture disc 
not been removed and inspected in accordance with Sec.  
173.31(d)(1)(vi)? What is the basis for this conclusion if the 
commenter believes any would have been prevented?
     Is there an inspection program with an established history 
of safety that could be followed in lieu of removal and visual 
examination of the underside of the rupture disc, such as the 
procedures in Special Permit DOT SP-13219? If so, what?
     Can commenters provide an explanation of how the rupture 
disc is damaged or its effectiveness is lost as a result of the 
required inspection?
     How much time is required to inspect rupture discs in 
accordance with the existing regulation?
     What are the comparative costs and benefits of Special 
Permit DOT SP-13219 and ACC's proposal, which expands Special Permit 
DOT SP-13219 beyond limited shipments of certain peroxides and without 
the alternative inspection program?
     Under the action requested by the petitioner, what 
criteria should shippers use to determine if an inspection would 
damage, change, or alter the operation of the device?
    Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A 
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM, 
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations 
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

E. Petition P-1577

Summary
    In petition P-1577, AAR provides new standards for DOT 
Specification 111 tank cars based on findings and recommendations 
created by AAR's Tank Car Committee. The committee reviewed tank car 
performance under the current standards and investigated the benefits 
of potential improvements. The new standards AAR proposes are intended 
to enhance the safety of the existing specification. According to AAR, 
these new tank car standards would improve the ability of tank cars to 
survive an accident without the release of hazardous materials. AAR 
requests that the new standards only be required for newly constructed 
DOT Specification 111 tank cars that transport PG I and II hazardous 
materials. Key tank car requirements in the AAR petition include:
     PG I and II material tank cars to be constructed to 
286,000 lb. Gross Rail Load (GRL) standards;
     Head and shell thickness must be \1/2\ inch for TC-128B 
non jacketed cars and \7/16\ inch for jacketed cars;
     Shells of non-jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70 
must be \9/16\ inch thick;
     Shells of jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70 must 
be \1/2\ inch thick;
     New cars must be equipped with at least a \1/2\ inch half-
head shields;
     Heads and the shells must be constructed of normalized 
steel;
     Top fittings must be protected by a protective structure 
as tall as the tallest fitting; and
     A reclosing pressure relief valve must be installed.
    PHMSA notes that in addition to the tank car requirements outlined 
above, AAR created the T87.6 Task Force to consider several other 
enhancements to tank car design and rail carrier operations that would 
further enhance rail transportation safety. On July 20, 2011, at the 
summer AAR Tank Car Committee meeting, docket T87.6 was created with a 
dual charge to develop an industry standard for tank cars used to 
transport crude oil, denatured alcohol and ethanol/gasoline mixtures as 
well as consider operating requirements to reduce the risk of 
derailment of tank cars carrying crude oil classified as PG I and II, 
and ethanol. The task force recommendations were finalized on March 1, 
2012. PHMSA and FRA believe it is important to identify the additional 
safety enhancements, which may include both rail car design and rail 
carrier operational changes that were considered by the task force and 
provide the public an opportunity to comment. Below, we highlight the 
key considerations of the task force from both a tank car design and 
operations standpoint.
    Tank car design:

[[Page 54855]]

     Thermal protection to address breaches attributable to 
exposure to fire conditions;
     Roll-over protection to prevent damage to top and bottom 
fittings and limit stresses transferred from the protection device to 
the tank shell;
     Hinged and bolted manways to address a common cause of 
leakage during accidents and Non-Accident Releases (NARS);
     Bottom outlet valve elimination; and
     Increasing outage from 1% to 2% to improve puncture 
resistance.
    Rail Carrier Operations:
     Rail integrity (e.g., broken rails or welds, misaligned 
track, obstructions, track geometry, etc.) to reduce the number and 
severity of derailments;
     Alternative brake signal propagation systems (electronic 
controlled pneumatic brakes (ECP), distributed power (DP), two-way end 
of train device (EOT) to reduce the number of cars and energy 
associated with derailments;
     Speed restrictions for key trains containing 20 or more 
loaded tank cars (On August 5, 2013, AAR issued Circular No. OT-55-N 
addressing this issue); \5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On August 5, 2013, AAR published Circular No. OT-55-N. This 
document supersedes OT-55-M, issued October 1, 2012. The definition 
of a ``key train'' was revised to include ``20 car loads or portable 
tank loads of any combination of hazardous material.'' Therefore, 
the maximum speed of these trains is limited to 50 MPH. The document 
is available in the public docket for this proceeding and at the 
following URL: http://www.aar.com/CPC-1258%20OT-55-N%208-5-13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Emergency response to mitigate the risks faced by response 
and salvage personnel, the impact on the environment, and delays to 
traffic on the line.
    For more detailed information, the T87.6 Task Force Summary Report 
has been provided in its entirety in the public docket for this ANPRM 
which is accessible at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 
PHMSA-2012-0082 or at DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
Costs and Benefits
    PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition might 
have safety benefits, but add additional regulatory burden. However, 
PHMSA has not conducted an analysis of the possible actions that could 
result from this petition. The intent of this ANPRM is to gather 
relevant safety and economic data from the public regarding changes 
proposed in the petition. The petition does provide some associated 
costs and benefits. In the petition, AAR cites a member survey as the 
source for information on the consequences of derailments involving PG 
I and II hazardous materials from 2004 to 2008. The petition indicates 
that the derailment incidents resulted in 1 fatality, 11 injuries, and 
the release of approximately 925,000 gallons of materials with 
associated cleanup costs of approximately $64 million.
    The AAR petition does not provide a retrofit solution for the 
existing fleet of about 77,000 DOT Specification 111 tank cars used to 
transport PG I or II hazardous materials because of technical 
difficulties and comparative costs. In the petition, AAR notes that the 
Railway Supply Institute (RSI) ``conservatively estimates the cost of 
retrofitting existing cars with head shield and jackets [to be more 
than] $1 billion over the life of a retrofit program, not including 
cleaning and out-of-service costs.'' By comparison, AAR states that the 
cost of derailments over the past 5 years was approximately $64 
million.
    Additionally, PHMSA has received an estimate of the increased costs 
associated with the proposed revisions. In 2011, the AAR issued 
Casualty Prevention Circular (CPC) 1232, which outlines the new 
requirements for tanks constructed after October 1, 2011, for use in 
ethanol and crude oil service. The requirements of CPC 1232 are the 
same as those in this petition. RSI estimates that a new DOT 
Specification 111 tank car built to CPC 1232 will cost approximately 
$18,000 more than a car built to the standard currently required by the 
HMR. Only 7,000 to 10,000 pounds of the 23,000 pound increase in weight 
(263,000 pound car to a 286,000 pound car) results from the head shield 
and added thickness to the head and shell. Therefore, for $18,000 
initial cost, a shipper will be able to transport an additional 13,000 
to 16,000 pounds of product. The added weight of the car would also 
likely result in additional fees established by the rail carrier. We 
request comments on these costs, and benefits, as well as any fees 
associated with the action proposed in the petition. PHMSA recognizes 
that the petition may not have accounted for all economic impacts 
associated with revising the DOT Specification 111 tank car.
Comments and Questions
    PHMSA requests comments on P-1577 and the remaining rail safety 
enhancements that were considered by the task force for both tank car 
design and rail carrier. Please provide comments and data on the costs 
and benefits, as well as environmental and small businesses impacts, of 
granting the action requested by the petitioner. PHMSA specifically 
requests comments on the following questions:
     Would the proposed revisions under P-1577 decrease the 
release of hazardous materials during derailment? If so, what is the 
basis for this conclusion?
     Should PHMSA segment the petition and first address 
requirements for tank cars carrying Class 3 materials (because there is 
an abundance of work to inform the rulemaking), then the remaining 
hazard classes within PGs I and II? If so, why?
     The proposed tank car requirements do not include thermal 
protection and therefore do not address thermal damage specifically. 
Given that ethanol and crude oil are often shipped in unit trains or 
large blocks within a train and a pool fire is likely in the event of 
certain large incidents, should thermal protection requirements, such 
as those considered by the T87.6 Task Force,\6\ be a consideration? If 
so, why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A copy of the report is available in the public docket for 
this ANPRM. To view, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Under the Docket HM-233A, PHMSA modified Sec.  179.13 to 
permit the operation of tank cars at a GRL of 286,000 pounds if the 
tank car owners obtain approval from the FRA. On January 25, 2011, FRA 
published a notice outlining the specification requirements for tank 
cars operating at 286,000 pounds GRL (76 FR 4250). As established by 
the January 25, 2011 notice, the approval requirements for minimum 
thickness and materials of construction for newly-constructed tank cars 
must be based on an analysis that considers puncture velocity. Under an 
ongoing research project conducted in conjunction with both the T87.6 
Task Force and the Advance Tank Car Collaborative Research Project, 
data suggest that the puncture protection benefits of a \1/16\ increase 
in shell thickness, as proposed in P-1577, are marginal. Further, the 
enhancements proposed by P-1577 may not be of value when considered 
relative to the risk associated with the increased weight of the tank 
cars. Will the changes proposed in the petition adequately improve the 
safety (puncture resistance) of tank cars? What is the overall impact 
on rail transportation safety and risk associated with the enhancements 
proposed for DOT Specification 111 tank cars under P-1577?
     The petition addresses some of the tank car design issues 
raised by T87.6 Task Force. In the P-1577 summary provided above, PHMSA 
highlights the

[[Page 54856]]

remaining rail safety enhancements that were considered by the task 
force for both tank car design and rail carrier. What, if any, design 
and operations enhancements should PHMSA and FRA consider beyond those 
identified in P-1577 to improve the safe transportation of PG I and II 
materials?
     Does AAR Circular No. OT-55-N adequately address speed 
restrictions for key trains? Should PHMSA incorporate the language 
contained in AAR Circular No. OT-55-N into the HMR to account for the 
train speed considerations of the task force? Should PHMSA expand upon 
AAR Circular No. OT-55-N to include requirements for fewer than 20 
cars?
     Are shippers ordering CPC 1232-compliant tank cars 
voluntarily to address safety concerns and the immediate need for new 
cars or because compliance with CPC 1232 is required? If so, please 
provide any relevant data about this.
     How many CPC 1232-compliant tank cars are currently in 
service?
     PHMSA and FRA estimate that for an $18,000 initial cost, a 
shipper will be able to transport an additional 13,000 to 16,000 pounds 
of product. This would result in fewer cars required to transport the 
same amount of product. What are the safety and economic benefits of 
increasing the product capacity of the tank car?
     Positive train control (PTC) is a system of functional 
requirements for monitoring and controlling train movements to provide 
increased safety. PTC is designed to automatically stop or slow to 
prevent accidents. Specifically, PTC is designed to prevent train-to-
train collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed, unauthorized 
incursions by trains onto sections of track where repairs are being 
made and movement of a train through a track switch left in the wrong 
position. Are technologies available, such as PTC, that would prevent 
derailments? If so, please provide any relevant data--including any 
projected improvements in safety performance that would reduce current 
rail transportation risks.
     What, if any, are the additional implementation and 
operating costs associated with CPC 1232 compliant tank cars (e.g., 
higher fees charged by rail carriers)? Are there any additional 
benefits, if so, what are they?
     Would the increased cost of CPC 1232-compliant cars slow 
the replacement of older cars? How does this impact the current backlog 
of cars?
     What are the costs associated with re-tooling tank car 
construction facilities to manufacture CPC 1231-compliant tank cars? 
How would the costs impact small businesses that build these cars?
     Please comment on the accuracy of the estimated costs 
indicated by AAR and RSI, and include any additional anticipated costs 
of complying with the proposed revisions. Are there any additional 
anticipated benefits if the proposed revisions are adopted?
     If the PHMSA were to adopt the action requested by the 
petitioner, what is the appropriate timeframe for complying with the 
new requirements?
    Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A 
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM, 
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations 
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

F. Petition P-1587

Summary
    In petition P-1587, the Village of Barrington, Illinois and The 
Regional Answer to Canadian National request modifications to the HMR. 
First, they request that PHMSA correct flaws with the DOT Specification 
111 tank car by adopting the AAR standards identified in P-1577 for the 
tank cars. However, in addition to applying these standards to newly-
manufactured cars, the petitioners stress the importance of 
promulgating enhanced standards for existing tank cars used to 
transport PG I and II materials in accordance with the NTSB Railroad 
Accident Report--Derailment of CN Freight Train U70691-18 With 
Subsequent Hazardous Materials Release and Fire, Cherry Valley, 
Illinois, June 19, 2009 (RAR-12-01).
    Second, the petitioners request that PHMSA adopt NTSB 
Recommendation R-07-04 and ``require that railroads immediately provide 
to emergency responders accurate, real-time information regarding the 
identity and location of all hazardous materials on a train.'' While 
the petitioners recognize that PHMSA has made progress with its 
hazardous materials automated cargo communications for efficient and 
safe shipments (HM-ACCESS; a study to identify and eliminate barriers 
to using electronic hazardous materials (e-HM) shipping documents) 
initiative, they request that PHMSA move from the fact-finding phase of 
this initiative to the regulatory action phase. The petition asks that 
any regulations stemming from the HM-ACCESS initiative be enforceable 
with a system of random audits to promote compliance. The petitioner 
urges PHMSA to act expeditiously.
    FRA and PHMSA continue to make progress toward electronic 
communications. FRA and PHMSA have met with AAR and the American Short 
Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) to discuss the 
available systems and to identify the systemic gaps and measures to 
close those gaps. In addition, on June 25, 2012 PHMSA, working closely 
with FRA, published a final rule incorporating a several widely used 
rail special permits into the HMR (77 FR 37961). In the rule, 
requirements for electronic shipping papers, electronic data 
interchange (EDI) standards, and electronic certification for hazardous 
material rail shipments were codified in the HMR.
NTSB Recommendations Addressed
    In published findings from the June 19, 2009, incident in Cherry 
Valley, Illinois, NTSB indicated that the DOT Specification 111 tank 
car can almost always be expected to breach in the event of a 
derailment resulting in car-to-car impacts or pileups (68% failure rate 
for the Cherry Valley incident). Furthermore, NTSB's findings show that 
whether or not the bottom outlet valves on DOT Specification 111 tank 
cars are protected, they are still susceptible to failure. The findings 
are described in detail below.
    As described in detail in NTSB Railroad Accident Report RAR-12-01, 
available for review in the public docket for this rulemaking, NTSB 
determined that one of the probable causes of the June 19, 2009 
incident in Cherry Valley, Illinois, in which several derailed cars 
released hazardous materials, was the washout of the track structure at 
the grade crossing and failure to notify the train crew of the known 
washout. It also determined that inadequate design features of a DOT 
Specification 111 rail tank car made it susceptible to damage and 
catastrophic loss of hazardous material during the derailment, and 
thus, contributed to the severity of the incident.
    The Cherry Valley incident involved the derailment of 19 cars, all 
of which were tank cars carrying denatured fuel ethanol, a flammable 
liquid. Thirteen of the derailed tank cars were breached or lost 
product and caught fire. NTSB's investigation revealed that several 
motor vehicles were stopped on either side of the grade crossing 
waiting for the train to pass as the derailment occurred. As a result 
of the fire that erupted, a passenger in one of the stopped cars was 
fatally injured, two passengers in the same car received serious 
injuries, and five occupants of other cars waiting at the highway-rail 
crossing were injured. Two firefighters also sustained minor

[[Page 54857]]

injuries. The release of ethanol and fire prompted a mandatory 
evacuation of about 600 residences within a \1/2\-mile radius of the 
accident site. Damages were estimated to total $7.9 million.
    On March 2, 2012, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendations R-12-5 
thru R-12-8, which recommend that PHMSA:
     Require that all newly manufactured and existing general 
service tank cars authorized for transportation of denatured fuel 
ethanol and crude oil in PGs I and II have enhanced tank head and shell 
puncture resistance systems and top fittings protection that exceeds 
existing design requirements for DOT Specification 111 tank cars. (R-
12-5)
     Require that all bottom outlet valves used on newly 
manufactured and existing non-pressure tank cars are designed to remain 
closed during accidents in which the valve and operating handle are 
subjected to impact forces. (R-12-6).
     Require that all newly manufactured and existing tank cars 
authorized for transportation of hazardous materials have center sill 
or draft sill attachment designs that conform to the revised 
Association of American Railroads' design requirements adopted as a 
result of Safety Recommendation R-12-9. (R-12-7).
     Inform pipeline operators about the circumstances of the 
accident and advise them of the need to inspect pipeline facilities 
after notification of accidents occurring in railroad rights-of-way. 
(R-12-8).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On July 31, 2012, PHMSA published in the Federal Register 
(77 FR 45417) an advisory bulletin to all pipeline operators 
alerting them to the circumstances of the Cherry Valley derailment 
and reminding them of the importance of assuring that pipeline 
facilities have not been damaged either during a railroad accident 
or other event occurring in the right-of-way. This recommendation 
was Closed by NTSB on September 20, 2012. This action is accessible 
at the following URL: http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/ntsb/closed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, based on its findings in this accident investigation, 
NTSB reiterated the following previously issued Safety Recommendation 
to PHMSA:
     With the assistance of the Federal Railroad 
Administration, require that railroads immediately provide to emergency 
responders accurate, real-time information regarding the identity and 
location of all hazardous materials on a train. (R-07-4).
Costs and Benefits
    PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition might 
have safety benefits, but add additional regulatory burden. However, 
PHMSA has not conducted an analysis of the possible actions that could 
result from this petition. The intent of this ANPRM is to gather 
relevant safety and economic data from the public regarding changes 
proposed in the petition. The key difference is between P-1577 and the 
combination of P-1587 and the NTSB recommendations R-12-5 and R-12-6 is 
that the latter would require retrofitting of existing DOT 
Specification 111 tank cars. NTSB Recommendations R-12-7 and R-07-4 are 
currently being addressed by separate initiatives that have been 
undertaken by PHMSA and FRA. Petition P-1587 references the cost and 
benefit information contained in petition P-1577 and the NTSB accident 
report and Recommendations outlined above. However, the petition 
provides clarifying information regarding the cost of retrofitting 
existing tank cars with jackets and head shields. Petition P-1577 
states that the cost of retrofitting existing cars (77,000 with a 40 
year life cycle) with head shields and jackets alone would be over $1 
billion. This petition notes that the AAR's Tank Car Committee T87.5 
``estimated that the cost of modifying existing tank cars with jackets 
and head shields alone would be at least $15,000 per tank car.'' The 
petition further states:

    While the AAR claims that the retrofit costs cannot be justified 
because the cost of derailments was only $64 million over five 
years, Petitioners suggest that AAR's reasoning is grossly 
misleading. In order to determine the impact of the cost of 
retrofitting the existing fleet, PHMSA should note that the existing 
fleet has a future life expectancy of at least 32 years. Even if the 
estimated cost of the recommended retrofit is $15,000 per car, when 
amortized over thirty-two (32) years, the cost is less than $500 per 
year per tank car . . .
    In reviewing the derailment cost chart at Attachment B of AAR's 
petition, PHMSA should note that there is no apparent accounting for 
costs associated with civil litigation in the wake of derailments. 
However, in the Cherry Valley/Rockford derailment, [Canadian 
National Railway (CN)] paid over $36 million in October of 2011 to 
settle a lawsuit brought by the family of only one victim. AAR's 
chart, however, reflects costs of only $8 million for that incident.

    The petition indicates that based on this information, there is 
``no rational reason to not require the retrofitting of the existing 
fleet consistent with NTSB's recommendation.''
Comments and Questions
    PHMSA requests comments on P-1587. Please provide comments and data 
on the costs and benefits, as well as, environmental and small 
businesses impacts of granting the action requested by the petitioner. 
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
     Petition P-1587 indicates that the new standards should 
apply to both new construction and retrofitting the existing fleet. Can 
you provide the safety benefits and costs associated with each retrofit 
option outlined below:
    [cir] Meets NTSB Recommendation R-12-5 (enhanced tank head and 
shell puncture resistance and top fitting protection);
    [cir] Meets NTSB Recommendation R-12-6 (alternative designs to 
ensure the bottom outlet valves on the enhanced DOT Specification 111 
tank cars will remain closed during accidents.);
    [cir] Provides thermal protection to address breaches attributable 
to exposure to fire conditions;
    [cir] Provides roll-over protection to prevent damage to top and 
bottom fittings and limit stresses transferred from the protection 
device to the tank shell;
    [cir] Requires hinged and bolted manways to address a common cause 
of leakage during accidents and Non-Accident Releases (NARS);
    [cir] Requires bottom outlet valve elimination; and
    [cir] Increases outage from 1% to 2% to improve puncture 
resistance.
     RSI estimates the cost of retrofitting existing cars with 
head shield and jackets to be more than $1 billion over the life of a 
retrofit program, not including cleaning and out-of-service costs. 
Would retrofitting with head shields and jackets sufficiently address 
the concerns of the petitioner? Please explain.
     Are commenters aware of any systems currently in use that 
railroads could use to immediately provide emergency responders 
accurate, real-time information regarding the identity and location of 
all hazardous materials on a train? If so, what does the system cost? 
Are there any additional costs associated with the system? If so, what 
are they? What are the specific benefits of providing real-time 
information regarding the identity and location of all hazardous 
materials on a train to emergency responders?
     What is the failure rate for DOT Specification 111 tank 
cars? Is the 68% failure rate for DOT Specification 111 tank cars that 
occurred during the June 19, 2009, incident in Cherry Valley, Illinois 
typical? Please provide relevant data regarding the failure rate for 
DOT Specification 111 tank cars.

[[Page 54858]]

    Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. The 
petition and NTSB Recommendations are available in the public docket 
for this ANPRM, to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's 
Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

G. Petition P-1595

Summary
    In petition P-1595, ACC, API, and CI indicate that they are aware 
of petitions P-1577 and P-1587. According to the ACC, API, and CI 
petition, many PG I and II materials, with very different hazards and 
rail transportation risks, have been lumped together in petitions P-
1577 and P-1587. In petition P-1595, ACC, API, and CI request that 
PHMSA institute a separate rulemaking to specifically address new tank 
car construction standards for ethanol and crude oil in PG I and II. 
The petition suggests that PHMSA not include the other PG I and II 
materials because further analysis is required that could delay the 
rulemaking process. Key tank car requirements identified in the ACC, 
API, and CI petition include:
     Top fittings must be protected by a protective structure 
as tall as the tallest fitting;
     A reclosing pressure relief valve must be installed;
     Head and shell thickness must be \1/2\ inch for TC-128B 
non-jacketed cars and \7/16\ inch for jacketed cars;
     Shells of non-jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70 
must be \9/16\ inch thick; and
     Shells of jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70 must 
be \1/2\ inch thick.
Costs and Benefits
    PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition would 
address a safety concern, but add additional regulatory burden. The 
petition did not identify specific costs and benefits. In the petition 
ACC, API, and CI indicate that focusing on an expedited rulemaking to 
address ethanol and crude oil would better address the risks involved. 
Further, ACC, API and CI indicate that separating the ethanol and crude 
oil in PG I and II from other PG I and II materials would provide for a 
tank car design that is tailored to the requirements of the materials 
being transported. The petitioners acknowledge that ``[m]uch more 
research and analysis would be necessary to justify any significant 
change in the construction standards for tank cars carrying other PG I 
and II materials, such as corrosive materials.''
Comments and Questions
    PHMSA requests comments on P-1595. Please provide comments and data 
on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small 
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner. 
PHMSA specifically requests comments on the following questions:
     Petition P-1595 indicates that new standards should apply 
to newly constructed DOT Specification 111 tank cars used for ethanol 
and crude oil in PG I and II. Can you provide the safety benefits and 
costs associated with each new construction option outlined in the 
petition and identified below:
    [cir] Requiring top fittings to be protected by a protective 
structure as tall as the tallest fitting;
    [cir] Requiring that a reclosing pressure relief valve be 
installed;
    [cir] Requiring head and shell thickness to be \1/2\ inch for TC-
128B non-jacketed cars and \7/16\ inch for jacketed cars;
    [cir] Requiring shells of non-jacketed tank cars constructed of 
A5l6-70 to be \9/16\ inch thick; and
    [cir] Requiring shells of jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-70 
must be \1/2\ inch thick.
     What are the costs and benefits of requiring the use of 
CPC 1232-compliant tank cars for the transportation of ethanol and 
crude oil in PG I and II? How many cars are currently in this service? 
What are the implications on public safety of PHMSA considering 
standards for tank cars used to transport ethanol and crude oil in PG I 
and II, before considering standards for other PG I and II materials? 
What are the specific safety risks/vulnerabilities associated with the 
remaining hazard classes within PG I and II? Please explain how those 
vulnerabilities are best addressed.
     What will be the price difference between the DOT 
Specification 111 tank cars for PG I and II ethanol and crude oil vs. 
DOT Specification 111 tank cars used for other hazardous materials in 
PG I and II? Please explain the differences.
     Would the increased cost of PG I and II ethanol and crude 
oil cars slow the replacement of older cars? How does this impact the 
current backlog of cars?
     What are the costs associated with re-tooling tank car 
construction facilities to manufacture different DOT Specification 111 
tank cars for PG I and II ethanol and crude oil vs. other PG I and II 
materials? How would the costs impact small businesses that build these 
cars?
    Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A 
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM, 
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations 
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

H. Petition P-1612

Summary
    In petition P-1612, ACC, API, CI, and RFA indicate they stand ready 
and willing to work with PHMSA and other stakeholders to ensure that 
the recently increased volumes of crude oil and ethanol that move by 
rail are transported safely. The petitioners indicate that they support 
the tank car changes proposed in petition P-1577 and the T87.6 Task 
Force Summary Report. Further, the petitioners indicate that PHMSA has 
the authority and responsibility to institute these new requirements 
for these tank cars to ensure certainty for stakeholders. The 
petitioners clearly indicate that expediting regulatory requirements 
for new tank cars transporting crude oil and ethanol will increase rail 
transportation safety, remove economic uncertainty, and eliminate 
increasing risks of future economic harm. As such, petition P-1612 
requests that PHMSA act expeditiously by issuing a direct final rule to 
implement the changes P-1577 and the T87.6 Task Force Summary Report 
for ethanol and crude oil.
Costs and Benefits
    PHMSA believes that the action requested by this petition might 
have safety benefits, but add additional regulatory burden. However, 
PHMSA has not conducted an analysis of the possible actions that could 
result from this petition. The intent of this ANPRM is to gather 
relevant safety and economic data from the public regarding changes 
proposed in the petition. The petition did not identify specific costs 
and benefits. In the petition ACC, API, CI, and RFA indicate that 
focusing on an expedited rulemaking to adopt the changes proposed in 
petition P-1577 and the T87.6 Task Force Summary Report for new tank 
cars transporting crude oil and ethanol is appropriate for a number of 
reasons. First, the petitioners indicate that there has been a 
significant increase in rail shipment of crude oil, while most other PG 
I and II materials shipping patterns have been relatively consistent. 
The petitioners indicate that the increase in shipments of both ethanol 
and crude oil and abundance of available information provides an 
opportunity to significantly increase the safety of these shipments 
immediately. The petitioners indicate that delaying further, to allow 
more time

[[Page 54859]]

to formulate a rule for unrelated tank car retrofits, would 
unnecessarily increase the risk of a release in the unlikely event that 
an incident occur.
    Second, the petitioners indicate that tank cars for crude oil and 
ethanol service are currently being manufactured. The petitioners 
indicate that delays in establishing a new construction standard for 
these tank cars may result in many tank cars being manufactured that do 
not meet future requirements. The petitioners indicate that this is 
impractical and would increase compliance costs significantly. The 
petitioners indicate that many tank cars may be required to go back to 
the shop for retrofits which will increase demand for shop space and 
delay tank cars from being placed back into service.
    Finally, petition P-1612 states that ``many builders and shippers 
have made significant capital investments in tank cars built to P-1577 
and T87.6 construction standards in good faith, expecting PHMSA's 
approval of that standard.'' The petitioners indicate that the 
involvement of the DOT in the T87.6 Task Force and the safety 
improvements contained in the T87.6 Task Force Summary Report gave 
industry the impression that the changes would be codified. Petition P-
1612 goes on to state, ``As a result, those cars should be considered 
in compliance with any regulatory requirements included in the final 
rule without being required to undergo retrofits.''
Comments and Questions
     PHMSA requests comments on P-1612. Please provide comments 
and data on the costs and benefits, as well as environmental and small 
businesses impacts, of granting the action requested by the petitioner. 
PHMSA asks commenters to consider the potential economic and safety 
implications associated with the petition. In addition, PHMSA 
specifically requests comments on the following questions:
     What are the implications on public safety of PHMSA 
addressing standards for new construction of tank cars used to 
transport ethanol and crude oil without also considering enhancements 
to the existing fleet?
     Petition P-1612 states that PHMSA should, ``initiate an 
expedited rulemaking on regulatory requirements for new tank car 
construction standards for cars transporting crude oil and ethanol as a 
stand-alone rulemaking and address potential retrofits proposals at a 
later date in a separate rulemaking.'' Would such a requirement include 
ethanol and crude oil in PG I, II, and III?
     What are the costs and benefits of requiring ethanol and 
crude oil in PG III to be shipped in DOT Specification 111 tank cars 
that are CPC 1232-compliant?
     Petition P-1612 states that the ``Petitioners continue to 
support P-1577 and the T87.6 Task Force recommendations, which 
recommend no retrofit requirements for the existing fleet of tank cars 
carrying crude oil and ethanol.'' Please provide the safety benefits 
and costs associated the following key considerations of P-1577 and the 
task force from both a tank car design and operations standpoint:
    [cir] Enhancing the tank car by:
    [ssquf] Constructing tank cars to 286,000 lb. GRL standards;
    [ssquf] Increasing head and shell thickness to \1/2\ inch for TC-
128B non-jacketed cars and \7/16\ inch for jacketed cars;
    [ssquf] Requiring shells of non-jacketed tank cars constructed of 
A5l6-70 to be \9/16\ inch thick;
    [ssquf] Requiring shells of jacketed tank cars constructed of A5l6-
70 to be \1/2\ inch thick;
    [ssquf] Equipping cars with at least a \1/2\ inch half-head 
shields;
    [ssquf] Requiring heads and the shells to be constructed of 
normalized steel;
    [ssquf] Requiring top fittings to be protected by a protective 
structure as tall as the tallest fitting;
    [ssquf] Requiring a reclosing pressure relief valve to be 
installed;
    [ssquf] Adding thermal protection to address breaches attributable 
to exposure to fire conditions;
    [ssquf] Adding roll-over protection to prevent damage to top and 
bottom fittings and limit stresses transferred from the protection 
device to the tank shell;
    [ssquf] Adding hinged and bolted manways to address a common cause 
of leakage during accidents and NARS;
    [ssquf] Eliminating bottom outlet valves; and
    [ssquf] Increasing outage from 1% to 2% to improve puncture 
resistance.
    [cir] Enhancing rail operations in the following areas:
    [ssquf] Rail integrity (e.g., broken rails or welds, buckled track, 
obstructions, track geometry, etc.) to reduce the number and severity 
of derailments;
    [ssquf] Alternative brake signal propagation systems ECP, DP, EOT 
to reduce the number of cars and energy associated with derailments;
    [ssquf] Speed restrictions for key trains; and
    [ssquf] Emergency response to mitigate the risks faced by response 
and salvage personnel, the impact on the environment, and delays to 
traffic on the line.
     Petition P-1612 makes the following statement, ``The 
increase in shipments of these commodities, which should create a sense 
of urgency to ensure they are moved as safely as possible, combined 
with PHMSA's understanding of their properties and a wealth of 
technical information to draw from, provides an opportunity to 
significantly increase the safety of these shipments immediately.'' 
Please provide any available technical information and justification 
that clearly indicates what is meant by the statement ``significantly 
increase the safety of these shipments.''
     Considering the statement from petition P-1612 and the 
request for more technical information and justification in the bullet 
above, please provide a quantitative estimate that supports the 
issuance of a direct final rule as requested by petition P-1612.
    Please note the applicable petition number in your submission. A 
copy of the petition is available in the public docket for this ANPRM, 
to view go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations 
Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

IV. 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). The ANPRM 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'') and 
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') 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, issued May 10, 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,

[[Page 54860]]

technical and economic data. These comments, along with the noted 
petitions and recommendations, will help PHMSA evaluate whether the 
proposed rulemakings are needed and appropriate.

B. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 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.'' We invite state and local governments 
with an interest in this rulemaking to comment on any effect that 
revisions to the HMR may cause.

C. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175 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. We invite 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.), we 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 the petitions for rulemaking and NTSB Recommendations, 
there may be a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.'' As such, we 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'') 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. Depending on the 
results of our request for comments to this ANPRM, a decrease may 
result in the annual burden and costs under OMB Control Number 2137-
0559. This reduction would be based on P-1507. Specifically, the burden 
associated with submitting an approval application would be reduced if 
PHMSA adds language that enables FRA to publish guidance on specific 
elements of non-conformity that would no longer be subject to approval 
by the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety.
    PHMSA specifically requests comments on the information collection 
and recordkeeping burdens associated with this ANPRM.

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. 40 CFR 1508.9(b). PHMSA welcomes any data or 
information related to environmental impacts that may result if the 
petitions and recommendations are 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, 
published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or 
you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

H. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under Executive Order 13609, 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.
    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 we have 
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 E.O. 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 the petitions and recommendations are 
adopted, as well as possible alternatives and their international 
impacts. Please describe the impacts and the basis for the comment.

[[Page 54861]]

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 petitions and recommendations addressed in the ANPRM purport to 
address safety issues with 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 2013, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97(b).
William Schoonover,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline 
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-21621 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P