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