Proposed Rule: Hazardous Materials: Improving The Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials

Tuesday,
April 1, 2008
Part V
Department of
Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174 and 179

Hazardous Materials: Improving the Safety
of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of
Hazardous Materials; Proposed Rule
mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:35 Mar 31, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\01APP2.SGM 01APP2
17818 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 1, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION any personal information. Please see the SOMC—Association of American Railroads
Privacy Act heading in the ‘‘Regulatory Safety and Operations Management
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Analyses and Notices’’ section of this Committee
Safety Administration SRT—Structural Reliability Technologies
document for Privacy Act information Tank Car Manual—Association of American
related to any submitted comments or Railroads Tank Car Committee Tank Car
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174 and 179 materials. Internet users may access Manual
[Docket No. FRA–2006–25169] comments received by DOT at http:// TCC—Association of American Railroads
www.regulations.gov. Tank Car Committee
RIN 2130–AB69 TFI—The Fertilizer Institute
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: TIH—Toxic Inhalation Hazard
Hazardous Materials: Improving the William Schoonover, (202) 493–6229, TRANSCAER—Transportation Community
Safety of Railroad Tank Car Office of Safety Assurance and Awareness and Emergency Response
Transportation of Hazardous Materials Compliance, Federal Railroad TSA—Department of Homeland Security,
Transportation Security Administration
Administration; Lucinda Henriksen,
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Trinity—Trinity Industries, Inc.
(202) 493–1345, Office of Chief Counsel, Union Tank—Union Tank Car Company
Materials Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration; or UP—Union Pacific Railroad Company
(PHMSA), Department of Transportation
Michael Stevens, (202) 366–8553, Office Volpe—Volpe National Transportation
(DOT).
of Hazardous Materials Standards, Systems Center
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
(NPRM). Table of Contents for Supplementary
Administration.
Information
SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Materials Safety Administration and the II. Summary of Proposals in this NPRM
Federal Railroad Administration are Abbreviations and Terms Used in This
Document III. Statutory Authority, Congressional
proposing revisions to the Federal Mandate, and NTSB Recommendations
Hazardous Materials Regulations to AAR—Association of American Railroads IV. Brief Overview of FRA Programs to
improve the crashworthiness protection ABS—Automatic Block Signal Continuously Improve Rail Safety
of railroad tank cars designed to Action Plan—National Rail Safety Action Outside of Tank Car-Specific Efforts
transport poison inhalation hazard Plan V. Relevant Regulatory Framework
ADAMS—Automated Dynamic Analysis of VI. Railroad Accidents Involving Hazardous
materials. Specifically, we are proposing Materials Releases and Accompanying
Mechanical Systems
enhanced tank car performance ARI—American Railway Car Institute NTSB Recommendations
standards for head and shell impacts; ATIP—Automated Track Geometry Program A. Minot
operational restrictions for trains BNSF—BNSF Railway Company B. FRA’s Responses to the NTSB Tank Car
hauling tank cars containing PIH BTS—Bureau of Transportation Statistics Recommendations for Minot
materials; interim operational C3RS—Confidential Close Call Reporting C. Macdona
restrictions for trains hauling tank cars System D. Graniteville
CEQ—Council on Environmental Quality E. FRA’s Responses to the NTSB Tank Car
not meeting the enhanced performance Recommendations for Graniteville
standards; and an allowance to increase CPC—Casualty Prevention Circular
CI—Chlorine Institute VII. Evaluating the Risk Related to Potential
the gross weight of tank cars that meet Catastrophic Releases from PIH Tank
CP—Canadian Pacific
the enhanced tank-head and shell CPR—Conditional Probability of Release Cars in the Future
puncture-resistance systems. CSXT—CSX Transportation A. Graniteville
DATES: Submit comments by June 2, Department—U.S. Department of B. Minot
Transportation VIII. The Railroad Industry’s Liability and the
2008. To the extent possible, late-filed Impact of Accidents Involving the
comments will be considered as we DOW—Dow Chemical Company
Shipment of PIH Materials on Insurance
develop a final rule. DOT—U.S. Department of Transportation
Costs and Shipping Rates
ECP—Electronically Controlled Pneumatic
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments IX. Industry Efforts to Improve Railroad
Brake Systems
identified by the docket number FRA– Hazardous Materials Transportation
ETMS—Electronic Train Management Safety
2006–25169 by any of the following System A. General Industry Efforts
methods: Federal hazmat law—Federal hazardous B. Trinity Industries, Inc.’s Special Permit
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// materials transportation law (40 U.S.C. Chlorine Car
www.regulations.gov. Follow the 5101 et seq.) C. AAR Proposals for Enhanced Chlorine
instructions for submitting comments. FRA—Federal Railroad Administration and Anhydrous Ammonia Tank Cars
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. HMR—Hazardous Materials Regulations D. Dow/UP Safety Initiative and the Next
• Mail: U.S. Department of NGRTCP—Next Generation Rail Tank Car Generation Rail Tank Car Project
Project E. The Chlorine Institute Study
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room X. Discussion of Relevant Tank Car Research
NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board XI. Discussion of Public Comments
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., OMB—Office of Management and Budget A. May 31–June 1, 2006 Public Meeting
Washington, DC 20590. PHMSA—Pipeline and Hazardous Materials B. December 14, 2006 Public Meeting
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Safety Administration C. March 30, 2007 Public Meeting
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– PIH—Poison Inhalation Hazard XII. Proposed Rule and Alternatives
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room PTC—Positive Train Control XIII. Section-by-Section Analysis
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., PV—Present Value XIV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Washington, DC 20590. QA—Quality Assurance A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This

Instructions: All submissions must R&D—Research and Development Rulemaking
RSAC—Railroad Safety Advisory Committee B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
include the agency name and docket RSI—Railway Supply Institute Regulatory Policies and Procedures
number (FRA–2006–25169) for this SAFETEA–LU—Safe, Accountable, Flexible, C. Executive Order 13132
rulemaking. Note that all comments Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A D. Executive Order 13175
received will be posted without change Legacy for Users, Pub. L. 109–59 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
to http://www.regulations.gov including SBA—Small Business Administration Order 13272
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 1, 2008 / Proposed Rules 17819
F. Paperwork Reduction Act regulations require hazardous material On August 10, 2005, Congress passed
G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) tank cars to be equipped with tank-head the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act puncture resistance systems (head Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
I. Environmental Assessment protection), coupler vertical restraint Legacy for Users, Pub. L. 109–59
J. Privacy Act
systems (shelf couplers), insulation, and (SAFETEA–LU). SAFETEA–LU added
I. Background for certain high-hazard materials, section 20155 to the Federal hazmat
Hazardous materials are essential to thermal protection systems. The law. 49 U.S.C. § 20155. As discussed
the economy of the United States and to historical safety record of railroad tank below, section 20155, in part, required
the well being of its people. These car hazardous material transportation FRA to (1) validate a predictive model
demonstrates that these systems, quantifying the relevant dynamic forces
materials are used in water purification,
working in combination, have been acting on railroad tank cars under
farming, manufacturing, and other
successful in greatly reducing the accident conditions, and (2) initiate a
industrial applications. Railroads carry
potential harm to human health and the rulemaking to develop and implement
over 1.7 million shipments of hazardous
environment when tank cars are appropriate design standards for
materials annually, including millions
involved in accidents. pressurized tank cars.
of tons of explosive, poisonous, In response to these recent accidents
corrosive, flammable, and radioactive In the last several years, however,
there have been a number of rail tank and in light of Congress’s mandate in
materials. The need for hazardous SAFETEA–LU to develop and
materials to support essential services car accidents in which the car was
breached and product lost on the implement appropriate design standards
means that the transportation of highly for pressurized tank cars, PHMSA and
hazardous materials is unavoidable. ground or into the atmosphere. Of
particular concern have been accidents FRA, the two operating administrations
Rail transportation of hazardous within DOT responsible for overseeing
materials is a safe method for moving involving materials that are poisonous,
or toxic, by inhalation (referred to as the safe transportation of hazardous
large quantities of hazardous materials materials by rail, initiated a
over long distances. The vast majority of PIH or TIH materials). For example, on
January 18, 2002, a Canadian Pacific comprehensive review of design and
hazardous materials shipped by railroad operational factors that affect rail tank
tank car each year arrive at their Railway Company (CP) train derailed in
Minot, North Dakota, resulting in one car safety. DOT’s approach to enhancing
destinations safely and without the safety of rail tank cars and
incident. In the year 2004 (most recent death and 11 serious injuries due to the
transportation of hazardous materials by
data available), for example, out of the release of anhydrous ammonia when
rail tank cars is on-going and multi-
approximately 1.7 million shipments of five tank cars carrying the product
faceted. For example, DOT is utilizing a
hazardous materials transported by rail, catastrophically ruptured, and a vapor
risk management approach to identify
there were 29 accidents in which a plume covered the derailment site and
ways to enhance the safe transportation
hazardous material was released. In surrounding area. On June 28, 2004, a
of hazardous materials in tank cars,
these accidents, a total of 47 hazardous Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)
including: (1) Tank car design,
material cars released some amount of train collided with a Burlington
manufacture, and requalification; (2)
product; thus, the risk of a release was Northern and Santa Fe Railway
railroad operational issues such as
a tiny fraction of a percent (0.0028 Company (now known as BNSF Railway
human factors, track conditions and
percent or 47/1,700,000). The DOT Company) (BNSF) train in Macdona, maintenance, wayside hazard detectors,
Hazardous Materials Information Texas, breaching a loaded tank car signals and train control systems; and
System’s ten-year incident data for 1997 containing chlorine and causing the (3) improved planning and training for
through 2006 identifies a total of 17 deaths of three people and seriously emergency response.
fatalities resulting from rail hazardous injuring 30 others. On January 6, 2005, Recognizing the need for public input
materials incidents. While even one a Norfolk Southern Railway Company into this review of hazardous material
death is too many, these statistics show train collided with a standing train on tank car safety, on May 31 and June 1,
that train accidents involving a release a siding in Graniteville, South Carolina. 2006, PHMSA and FRA hosted a public
of hazardous materials that causes death The accident resulted in the breach of meeting to discuss the initiation of this
are rare. We recognize, however, that a tank car containing chlorine, and nine comprehensive review and to invite
rail shipments of hazardous materials people died from the inhalation of interested parties to participate in the
frequently move through densely chlorine vapors. Although none of these agencies’ efforts to surface and prioritize
populated or environmentally-sensitive accidents was caused by hazardous issues relating to the safe transportation
areas where the consequences of an material tank cars, the failure of the tank of hazardous materials by railroad tank
incident could be loss of life, serious cars involved led to fatalities, injuries, car. Subsequent to the meeting, FRA
injury, or significant environmental evacuations, property and established a public docket (Docket No.
damage. environmental damage. FRA–2006–25169) to provide interested
Historically, the Pipeline and parties with a central location to both
Hazardous Materials Safety 50224 (Sept. 24, 1993); Performance Oriented send and review relevant information
Administration (PHMSA), working Packaging: Changes to Classification, Hazard concerning the safety of railroad tank
Communication, Packaging and Handling
closely with the Federal Railroad Requirements Based on UN Standards and Agency car transportation of hazardous
Administration (FRA), has issued a Initiative, 55 FR 52402 (Dec. 21, 1990); materials and a venue to gather and
number of regulations to improve the Transportation of Hazardous Materials, disseminate information and views on
survivability of rail tank cars in Miscellaneous Amendments, 54 FR 38790 (Sept. 20, the issues. See 71 FR 37974 (July 3,
1989); Specifications for Railroad Tank Cars Used

accidents.1 Among other things, these to Transport Hazardous Materials, 49 FR 3468 (Jan. 2006).
27, 1984); Shippers, Specifications for Tank Cars, Building on the initial public meeting,
1Crashworthiness Protection Requirements for 49 FR 3473 (Jan. 27, 1984); Interlocking Couplers FRA and PHMSA held a second public
Tank Cars; Detection and Repair of Cracks, Pits, and Restrictions of Capacity of Tank Cars, 35 FR meeting on December 14, 2006. At this
Corrosion, Lining Flaws, Thermal Protection Flaws 14215 (Sept. 9, 1970); Shippers; Specifications for
and Other Defects of Tank Car Tanks, 60 FR 49048 Pressure Tank Cars, 42 FR 46306 (Sept. 15, 1977);
second meeting, FRA announced DOT’s
(Sept. 21, 1995); Performance-Oriented Packaging Tank Car Tank-head Protection, 41 FR 21475 (May commitment to develop an enhanced
Standards; Miscellaneous Amendments, 58 FR 26, 1976). tank car standard by 2008. In addition,
at this meeting, the agencies solicited transportation of PIH materials by effective method of improving the
input and comments in response to nine railroad tank car. Accordingly, in order accident survivability of these cars. DOT
specific questions pertaining to to enhance the safety of hazardous invites comments on all aspects of this
potential methods and goals of tank car materials transportation, and in direct proposed rule.
improvements. On March 30, 2007, response to the Congressional directive First, with regard to the proposed
PHMSA and FRA held a third public of 49 U.S.C. 20155, DOT is proposing speed and operating restrictions, we
meeting at which FRA shared the revisions to the Hazardous Materials have reviewed the results of research on
preliminary results of its research Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171– the current tank car fleet used for the
related to tank car survivability and 180) that would improve the accident transportation of PIH materials. We have
provided an update on DOT’s progress survivability of railroad tank cars used also reviewed recent accidents and
towards developing enhanced tank car to transport PIH materials. Specifically, subsequent recommendations of the
safety standards. in this NPRM, we are proposing to National Transportation Safety Board
As discussed in Section XI below, require: (NTSB). As discussed in Section X
meeting participants from both the • A maximum speed limit of 50 mph below, FRA’s research demonstrates that
railroad and shipping industries for all railroad tank cars used to the speed at which a train is traveling
expressed agreement on the need for transport PIH materials; has the greatest effect on the closing
continuous improvement in the safe • A maximum speed limit of 30 mph velocity between cars involved in a
transportation of hazardous materials by in non-signaled (i.e., dark) territory for derailment or other accident situation.
railroad tank car, particularly in light of all railroad tank cars transporting PIH Specifically, the research indicates that,
the Minot, Macdona, and Graniteville materials, unless the material is in general, the secondary car-to-car
accidents. Accordingly, after careful transported in a tank car meeting the impact speed is approximately one-half
review and consideration of all of the enhanced tank-head and shell puncture- that of the initial train speed—the speed
relevant research and data, oral resistance systems performance of the train at the time of the collision
comments at the public meetings, and standards of this proposal; or derailment. Limiting the operating
comments submitted to the docket, • As an alternative to the maximum speed of tank cars transporting PIH
PHMSA and FRA are proposing speed limit of 30 mph in dark territory, materials is one method to impose a
enhanced tank car performance submission for FRA approval of a control on the forces experienced by
standards and operating limitations complete risk assessment and risk these tank cars.
designed to minimize the loss of lading mitigation strategy establishing that The rail industry, through the
from tank cars transporting PIH operating conditions over the subject Association of American Railroads
materials in the event of an accident. track provide at least an equivalent level (AAR), has developed a detailed
Issuance of this NPRM does not mean of safety as that provided by signaled protocol on recommended operating
that FRA and PHMSA’s efforts to track; practices for the transportation of
improve tank car safety will end. • Railroad tank cars used to transport hazardous materials. These
Improving the safety and security of PIH materials to be manufactured to recommended practices were originally
hazardous materials transportation via meet enhanced performance standards implemented in 1990 by all of the Class
railroad tank car is an on-going process. for tank-head and shell puncture- 1 rail carriers operating in the United
Going forward, FRA’s hazardous resistance systems; States. In 2006, AAR issued a revised
materials research and development • The expedited replacement of tank version of this protocol, known as
(R&D) program will continue to focus on cars used for the transportation of PIH Circular OT–55–I, with short-line
reducing the rate and severity of materials manufactured before 1989 railroads also participating in the
hazardous materials releases by with non-normalized steel 2 head or implementation. Among other
optimizing the manufacture, operation, shell construction; and requirements, OT–55–I restricts the
inspection, and maintenance procedures • An allowance to increase the gross operating speeds to a maximum of 50
for the hazardous materials tank car weight on rail for tank cars designed to mph for key trains, which are defined to
fleet. FRA’s overall R&D program will meet the proposed enhanced tank-head include trains containing five or more
also continue to examine railroad and shell puncture-resistance systems tank car loads of PIH materials.
operating practices and the use of performance standards. Pursuant to OT–55–I, most trains with
technologies designed to increase In drafting this proposed rule, DOT tank cars containing PIH materials are
overall railroad safety. has carefully considered the results of transported under this speed restriction.
all of its research regarding tank car The period in which these tank cars are
II. Summary of Proposals in this NPRM
accident survivability, all comments picked up or delivered is the most likely
As discussed in detail in Section X time when a train might not contain a
received through the series of public
below, DOT’s tank car research has sufficient quantity of hazardous
meetings held in the course of DOT’s
shown that the rupture of tank cars and materials to meet the definition of a key
comprehensive review of tank car
loss of lading are principally associated train and thus not operate under the 50
safety, as well as all written comments
with the car-to-car impacts that occur as mph speed restriction. However, it is
submitted to the docket of this
a result of derailments and train-to-train likely that the class of track into the
proceeding. DOT believes that its two-
collisions. Conditions during an facility may already limit the speed
pronged approach to enhancing the
accident can be such that a coupler of below 50 mph. Under FRA’s Track
accident survivability of tank cars—that
one car impacts the head or the shell of Safety Standards,3 there are minimum
is, limiting the operating conditions of
a tank car. With sufficient speed, such safety requirements that a track must
the tank cars transporting PIH materials
impacts can lead to rupture and loss of meet, and the condition of the track is
and enhancing the tank-head and shell
lading. When a tank car is transporting directly tied to the maximum allowable
puncture-resistance performance—
PIH materials, the consequences of that operating speed for the track. Only the
represents the most efficient and cost-
loss of lading can be significant. Based two highest categories of track typically
on the information currently available, 2 Non-normalized steel is steel that has not been used for freight service, Classes 4 and 5,
DOT believes that a significant subjected to a specific heat treatment procedure that
opportunity exists to enhance the safe improves the steel’s ability to resist fracture. 3 See 49 CFR part 213.
have a maximum allowable operating to enhance the accident survivability of Rail Tank Car Project (NGRTCP), as
speed above 50 mph. In addition, 50% tank cars. One critical aspect of this discussed in Section IX below.
of track in the United States is non- enhancement is improved tank-head As proposed in this NPRM,
signaled and restricted by the Track and shell puncture-resistance standards. compliance with the proposed
Safety Standards to a speed limit of 49 The enhanced standards would require standards can be shown by computer
mph. We therefore believe that the tank cars that transport PIH materials in simulation, by simulation in
proposed restrictions in this NPRM the United States to be designed and conjunction with substructure testing,
represent an effective way to control the manufactured with a shell puncture- by full-scale impact testing, or a
forces experienced by the tank car resistance system capable of combination thereof. The highest level
during most derailment or accident withstanding impact at 25 mph and of confidence, although at the greatest
conditions without imposing an undue with a tank-head puncture-resistance cost, is provided by full-scale impact
burden on the industry. We invite system capable of withstanding impact testing. The least costly and lowest level
commenters to address whether our at 30 mph. As noted above, we are of confidence is provided by simulation
assumption that most tank cars proposing these enhanced performance alone. Substructure testing significantly
transporting PIH materials are standards in tandem with an operational increases the confidence in simulation
transported in accordance with the speed restriction of 50 mph. Because the modeling, potentially with relatively
speed restrictions in OT–55–I is secondary car-to-car impact speed in a modest costs, depending on the details
accurate, particularly for smaller and derailment or collision scenario is of the substructure test. Economic
short-line carriers. In addition, we invite approximately one-half of the initial analysis indicates that freight rail
commenters to address whether there train speed, designing and constructing industry economics should allow the
are alternative approaches to reduce the tank cars to withstand shell impacts of development of several new tank car
consequences of a train derailment or at least 25 mph and limiting the speed designs, through compliance shown
accident involving PIH materials, of those tank cars to 50 mph will ensure with simulations and substructure
including data and information in that in most instances, the car will not testing. The performance criteria
support of suggested alternative be breached if it is involved in a proposed in this NPRM provide for full-
approaches or strategies. derailment or other type of accident. scale testing, scale model or component
FRA analyzed data from chlorine Designing and constructing tank cars to testing, simulation, or comparative
incidents between 1965 and 2005, and withstand tank-head impacts of at least analysis to an approved design. We are
anhydrous ammonia incidents between 30 mph would take advantage of the proposing to require designs for which
1981 and 2005, to study those incidents greater available space for impact- no full-scale testing is performed to be
resulting in loss of product from head attenuating structures in front of the submitted to FRA for review. FRA’s
and shell punctures, cracks, and tears.4 tank-head and would help mitigate review is necessary to ensure that
This analysis suggests that a possible differences between the modeling parameters and scale or
disproportionate number of those generalized tank-head impact scenarios substructure testing are sufficient to
incidents occurred in non-signaled and the actual tank-head impacts that ensure that the necessary level of safety
(dark) territory, as compared to the occur in collisions or derailments. has been achieved. In evaluating a
percentage of total train miles in dark Empirical evidence from recent design, FRA will consider appropriate
territory. Additionally, this analysis accidents and the derailment dynamics data and analysis showing how the
showed that at the time of these research prepared by the Volpe National proposed design meets the enhanced
accidents, the median train speed was Transportation Systems Center (Volpe) performance standards for head and
40 mph and the average speed was 38 show that impacts happen to both tank shell impacts. FRA will consider proper
mph. This analysis also demonstrates car heads and shells. Tank car heads documentation of competent
that approximately 80% of the losses have historically been provided more engineering analysis or practical
occurred at speeds greater than 30 mph. protection than tank shells because the demonstrations, or both, which may
Notably, no catastrophic losses of majority of tank car punctures occurred include validated computer modeling,
chlorine occurred at speeds below 30 in rail yards to the heads of tank cars as structural crush analysis, component
mph. Based on this data, we are a result of overspeed impacts. However, testing, or any combination thereof. This
proposing an interim measure to limit given the recent PIH releases in train approach is consistent with FRA’s
the speed of the existing fleet of tank accidents, we believe that it is time to practice in determining compliance
cars used to transport PIH materials enhance the accident survivability of with equipment performance standards
when traversing non-signaled territory. the tank car, increasing the level of promulgated in other areas of railroad
Specifically, we propose to limit the protection to both the tank-head and the safety. See, e.g., 49 CFR 229.211
maximum allowable operating speed to shell. (Locomotive Crashworthiness). We
30 mph for tank cars transporting PIH To support the enhanced tank-head request comments on this proposal.
materials over non-signaled territory and shell puncture-resistance standards, Third, to ensure timely replacement
unless the tank cars meet the enhanced we are proposing performance criteria, of the PIH tank car fleet, we are
tank-head and shell puncture-resistance including impact test requirements. The proposing an implementation schedule
systems performance standards of this proposed tests reflect generalized that allows for design development and
impact scenarios as a means to evaluate manufacturing ramp-up in the first two
proposal. We are also proposing
the performance of alternative designs. years after the final rule becomes
alternate provisions that a railroad may
In the shell impact scenario, a rigid ram effective. We are also proposing that in
choose to follow in lieu of the speed
car with a punch impacts the shell of the next three years, one-half of the
restriction.
Second, we are proposing enhanced the tank car. Similarly, in the head existing fleet will be replaced, with the
tank-head and shell puncture-resistance impact scenario, a rigid ram car with a remaining fleet replacement taking
performance standards that are designed punch impacts the head of the tank car. place in the following three years. This
The test procedures are based on the schedule will allow for replacement of
4 See document no. 30 in docket no. FRA–2006– modeling developed by Volpe and the the current PIH tank car fleet within
25169, ‘‘Loss of TIH Product in Head and Shell baseline tank car testing performed in eight years from the effective date of the
Punctures, Cracks & Tears.’’ cooperation with the Next Generation final rule.
One of the factors we have taken into cars that transport PIH materials to which track infrastructure has already
consideration in developing this offset the potentially increased weight been modified to accommodate heavier
proposal is the NTSB’s of the enhanced tank car. rail cars, including how those
recommendations related to pre-1989 This measure should enable shippers modifications were accomplished and at
tank cars manufactured with non- to continue meeting customer demands what cost. We also invite comments
normalized steel. The NTSB, in its without significantly increasing the total concerning additional infrastructure
report on the Minot, North Dakota number of PIH shipments. In proposing modifications that may be required to
accident,5 concluded that low fracture to allow tank cars meeting the enhanced accommodate the heavier cars that
toughness of non-normalized steels used tank-head and shell puncture-resistance would be permitted in accordance with
for tank shells contributed to the system requirements to weigh up to the proposals in this NPRM and the
complete fracture and separation of the 286,000 pounds gross weight on rail, we extent to which PIH shipments along
derailed cars. While we believe that low recognize that there are mechanical and certain rail lines may increase because
fracture toughness of non-normalized structural concerns that must be existing infrastructure may not
steels is only one of many material and addressed to ensure the safety of these accommodate heavier cars.
design characteristics that can cars during transportation. To ensure The specific proposals in this rule are
contribute to tank car releases, the pre- that tank cars exceeding the existing explained in more detail in Section XIII,
1989 tank cars are reaching the upper 263,000 pound limitation and weighing the Section-by-Section Analysis, which
limits of their useful life. Therefore, we up to 286,000 pounds gross weight on is set forth below.
believe that these pre-1989 cars, which rail are mechanically and structurally
III. Statutory Authority, Congressional
were manufactured with non- sound, we propose to require that such
Mandate, and NTSB Recommendations
normalized steel, should be replaced in cars conform to AAR Standard S–286–
an expedited fashion. To accomplish 2002, SPECIFICATION FOR 286,000 The Federal hazardous material
this safety goal, we propose to prohibit LBS. GROSS RAIL LOAD CARS FOR transportation law (Federal hazmat law,
the use of tank cars manufactured with FREE/UNRESTRICTED INTERCHANGE 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) authorizes the
non-normalized steel heads or shells SERVICE (adopted November 2002 and Secretary of DOT (Secretary) to
beginning five years after the effective revised September 1, 2005), which we ‘‘prescribe regulations for the safe
date of the final rule. We want to propose to incorporate by reference into transportation, including security, of
emphasize that this requirement is the HMR. AAR Standard S–286–2002 is hazardous material in intrastate,
focused on the expedited removal of the the existing industry standard for interstate, and foreign commerce.’’ The
pre-1989 tank cars that were designing, building, and operating rail Secretary has delegated this authority to
manufactured using non-normalized cars at gross weights between 263,000 PHMSA. 49 CFR 1.53(b). The HMR,
steel. We recognize the efforts of the pounds and 286,000 pounds. A copy of promulgated by PHMSA, are designed
AAR to incorporate requirements for AAR Standard S–286–2002 has been to achieve three goals: (1) To ensure that
normalized steel for cars manufactured placed in the docket. hazardous materials are packaged and
after 1988. We also recognize that some We recognize that some facilities and handled safely and securely during
tank car manufacturers began using railroads do not currently have transportation; (2) to provide effective
normalized steel prior to 1988; those infrastructure sufficient to support the communication to transportation
tank cars would not be affected by this use of a 286,000 pound tank car. We workers and emergency responders of
proposal. anticipate tank car designers, working the hazards of the materials being
Finally, we are proposing to allow an with the end users, will develop tank transported; and (3) to minimize the
increase in the gross weight of tank cars cars that will meet the enhanced tank- consequences of an incident should one
allowed on rail. Improvements in tank head and shell performance standards occur. The hazardous material
car performance have historically relied while minimizing the addition of weight regulatory system is a risk management
in large part on thicker and/or stronger to the empty car. The existing tank car system that is prevention-oriented and
steel, which brings with it a specifications provide flexibility that focused on identifying a safety or
corresponding addition to the empty will allow some use of new technologies security hazard and reducing the
weight of the tank car. Therefore, a and materials to provide the improved probability and quantity of a hazardous
potential consequence of the proposed accident survivability required by this material release.
enhanced tank-head and shell puncture- proposal. DOT encourages the Under the HMR, hazardous materials
resistance performance standards in this development of innovative engineering are categorized by analysis and
NPRM could be a measurable increase design changes to meet the proposed experience into hazard classes and
in the total number of PIH rail enhanced accident survivability packing groups based upon the risks
shipments to convey the same quantity standard while minimizing added that they present during transportation.
of product to the customer since a weight to the empty tank car. We also The HMR specify appropriate packaging
heavier tank car means must contain anticipate that the growing use of rail and handling requirements for
less lading to keep within the gross cars with gross weight on rail exceeding hazardous materials, and require a
weight limit. As noted above, however, 263,000 lbs. for non-hazardous shipper to communicate the material’s
there is a long history of safe shipment commodities, such as coal and grain, hazards through the use of shipping
of hazardous materials via railroad tank will minimize the track infrastructure papers, package marking and labeling,
car, and the enhancements proposed in barriers to the use of the heavier cars and vehicle placarding. The HMR also
this NPRM will further increase the over time. For these reasons, we believe require shippers to provide emergency
accident survivability of the tank cars that the number of PIH shipments will response information applicable to the
used to transport PIH materials. not be significantly increased by the specific hazard or hazards of the
Accordingly, we are proposing to allow proposed enhanced accident material being transported. Finally, the
an increase in the gross weight allowed survivability standards. As in all aspects HMR mandate training requirements for
on rail (up to 286,000 pounds) for tank of this proposed rule, we request persons who prepare hazardous
comments on this proposal. We are materials for shipment or who transport
5 See infra Section VI for a detailed discussion of particularly interested in data and hazardous materials in commerce. The
the Minot, North Dakota accident. information concerning the extent to HMR also include operational
requirements applicable to each mode of materials designated as Class 2 The Action Plan elements focused
transportation. hazardous materials under the HMR. In heavily on preventing train accidents
The Secretary also has authority over response to the Graniteville accident, caused by human factors and track—the
all areas of railroad transportation safety the NTSB recommended, in part, that two major categories of train accident
(Federal railroad safety laws, 49 U.S.C. FRA ‘‘require railroads to implement causes. In the area of human factors,
20101 et seq.), and has delegated this operating measures such as * * * FRA has issued a proposed rule that
authority to FRA. 49 CFR 1.49. Pursuant reducing speeds through populated seeks to ensure better management of
to its statutory authority, FRA areas to minimize impact forces from railroad operational tests and
promulgates and enforces a accidents and reduce the vulnerability inspections. The proposed rule is also
comprehensive regulatory program (49 of tank cars transporting’’ certain intended to establish greater
CFR parts 200–244) to address railroad highly-hazardous materials. Each of accountability for compliance with
track, signal systems, railroad these NTSB recommendations is operating rules, particularly those that
communications, rolling stock, rear-end discussed in more detail in Section VI are involved in human factors train
marking devices, safety glazing, railroad below. accidents, such as the handling of
accident/incident reporting, locational The Department considers this NPRM switches. FRA is now completing
requirements for the dispatch of U.S. responsive to section 20155’s mandate, consultations within the RSAC
rail operations, safety integration plans as well as to the NTSB regarding resolution of public comments
governing railroad consolidations, recommendations. on the proposed rule, and a final rule
merger and acquisitions of control, will be issued this year.
IV. Brief Overview of FRA Programs To
operating practices, passenger train In November 2006, FRA fulfilled an
Continuously Improve Rail Safety
emergency preparedness, alcohol and Action Plan objective by releasing a
Outside of Tank Car-Specific Efforts
drug testing, locomotive engineer study report entitled Validation and
certification, and workplace safety. FRA FRA implements a broad and Calibration of a Fatigue Assessment
inspects railroads and shippers for extensive safety program directed at Tool for Railroad Work Schedules. That
compliance with both FRA and PHMSA reducing accidents, casualties, loss of report, and an accompanying White
regulations. FRA also conducts research property and threats to the human Paper, confirmed the impact of fatigue
and development to enhance railroad environment. Through the Railroad on human factor train accidents and
safety. In addition, both PHMSA and Accident/Incident Reporting System, announced the availability of an
FRA are working with the emergency FRA gathers data that are employed in analytical model that can be used to
response community to enhance its crafting responsive measures. See 49 evaluate crew scheduling. On February
ability to respond quickly and CFR part 225. FRA safety standards 13, 2007, DOT delivered proposed
effectively to rail transportation address track, equipment, signal and railroad safety reauthorization
accidents involving hazardous train control systems, motive power and legislation to the Congress (introduced
materials. equipment, and operating practices. by request as H.R. 1516 and S. 918) that
As noted above, on August 10, 2005, These regulations set out detailed would replace the 100-year-old Hours of
Congress passed SAFETEA–LU, which requirements for design or system Service Law with science-based
added section 20155 to the Federal performance, inspection and testing, regulations addressing fatigue.
hazmat law. 49 U.S.C. 20155. In part, and training. With respect to rail Because the genesis of human factors
section 20155 required FRA to (1) equipment accident/incidents (‘‘train accidents is often unclear, FRA joined
validate a predictive model quantifying accidents’’), the regulations seek to with a national coalition of employee
the relevant dynamic forces acting on reduce the risk of derailments, organizations and railroads to launch
railroad tank cars under accident collisions, and other losses such as fires the Confidential Close Call Reporting
conditions, and (2) initiate a rulemaking involving on-track equipment. FRA System (C3RS). The Bureau of
to develop and implement appropriate employs the Railroad Safety Advisory Transportation Statistics (BTS) supports
design standards for pressurized tank Committee (RSAC), a group comprised this effort by collecting the data and
cars. of all of FRA’s stakeholders, to help ensuring the anonymity of the persons
Prior to the Minot accident and the identify safety needs and to fashion providing reports. Local labor/
enactment of SAFETEA–LU, FRA had responsive regulations. management/FRA teams use the data to
initiated tank car structural integrity FRA also conducts R&D, both identify safety needs before a serious
research. In response to the Minot independently and in concert with the accident occurs. An initial C3RS project
accident, the NTSB made four safety railroad industry, to identify new ways is presently underway at a major UP
recommendations to FRA specific to the to enhance safety. R&D products are as facility, and additional pilots are being
structural integrity of hazardous diverse as the Track Quality Index, planned. Other human factors initiatives
material tank cars. The NTSB which can help guide investments in include projects on ‘‘behavior-based
recommended that FRA analyze the program maintenance before safety safety’’ that seek peer involvement in
impact resistance of steels in the shells limits are encountered, and a human- workplace safety, initiatives to promote
of pressure tank cars constructed before machine interface evaluation tool that crew resource management, and
1989 and establish a program to rank can help evaluate control systems and extensive research to support further
those cars according to their risk of display designs. program development. In FY 2008, FRA
catastrophic failure and implement On May 16, 2005, DOT and FRA will be seeking to integrate many of
measures to eliminate or mitigate this launched the National Rail Safety these efforts into a larger Risk Reduction
risk. The NTSB also recommended that Action Plan (Action Plan) to address Program intended to advance safety
FRA validate the predictive model being further the safety issues that face the beyond what can be accomplished with
developed to quantify the maximum nation’s rail industry. The Action Plan traditional command and control
dynamic forces acting on railroad tank targeted the most frequent, highest risk approaches.
cars under accident conditions and causes of accidents; focused federal Recognizing that the best answer to
develop and implement tank car design- oversight and inspection resources; and human factor risks is sometimes
specific fracture toughness standards for accelerated research into new technology that can ‘‘backstop’’ the
tank cars used for the transportation of technologies that can improve safety. person in cases when errors have high
consequences, FRA continues to work failures and pose the imminent risk of PHMSA and FRA encourage other
actively to promote Positive Train an accident. The President’s Budget for railroads to join in this effort.
Control (PTC) systems and similar the current fiscal year requested nine
V. Relevant Regulatory Framework
technology. For instance, FRA R&D positions for rail integrity specialists to
provided funding and technical support build a better organized and aggressive Today railroad tank cars in the United
for the BNSF’s deployment of a new approach to oversight of railroad rail States are designed, built, maintained,
Switch Position Monitoring System on integrity programs. The Congress and operated under four primary sets of
the railroad’s Avard Subdivision. This authorized funding sufficient to support regulations and guidelines: (1)
system can detect a misaligned main this staffing in February, and FRA is Regulations and orders issued under the
track switch in non-signal territory and recruiting for these positions. Federal railroad safety laws; (2)
provide notification to the dispatcher Over time, strengthened oversight of regulations and orders issued under the
for appropriate action. BNSF is also compliance with railroad safety Federal hazmat law; (3) the AAR’s
demonstrating track integrity circuit regulations, introduction of new Interchange Rules; 6 and (4) the AAR
technology that can help identify broken technology such as PTC, better Tank Car Committee’s Tank Car Manual
rails without the full expense of a signal management of fatigue affecting safety (Tank Car Manual).7
system. These technologies, which are critical employees, and other steps FRA’s freight car, safety appliance,
forward compatible with the railroad’s should yield a reduction in the risk of and power brake regulations in 49 CFR
PTC system, known as the Electronic train accidents that could affect the parts 215, 231, and 232 apply to tank
Train Management System (ETMS), are transportation of hazardous materials. cars as they do every other type of
already being installed on additional FRA is encouraged that, after over a railroad freight car. Parts 215 and 232
rail lines. FRA approved the Product decade of gradual increases in train establish minimum safety standards;
Safety Plan for ETMS Configuration I in accidents associated with the growth of railroads are free to supplement these
December 2006, under a performance- rail traffic and other factors, both the standards with additional or more
based regulation issued with RSAC train accident rate and total train stringent safety standards that are not
input in March of 2005. The Product accidents declined in 2006. This decline inconsistent with the Federal standards.
Safety Plan was submitted under likely reflects improved compliance 49 CFR 215.1 and 232.1.
subpart H of 49 CFR part 236 and with regulatory requirements, reduced The HMR treat the tank car as a
described in detail the train control stress from fatigue associated with packaging and mandate safety features,
technology, concept of operations, and service disruptions, and other factors. permissible materials and methods of
results of safety analysis for the system However, history suggests that the construction, as well as inspection and
(which in this configuration is designed underlying factors that create safety maintenance standards. A material
for single track territory either with a challenges, such as growing rail service identified as a hazardous material by the
traffic control system or without any demands that strain capacity, aging HMR may not be shipped by railroad
signal system). infrastructure, and factors beyond the tank car unless the tank car meets the
In the field of track safety, FRA is requirements of the HMR. 49 CFR
effective control of the railroads (e.g.,
taking concrete steps in both research 173.31(a).
natural disasters, impacts with heavy
and enforcement. FRA research has A separate set of standards—the AAR
vehicles at highway-rail crossings) will
provided a new tool to detect cracks in Interchange Rules, issued by AAR’s
continue to introduce substantial risk
joint bars. This optical recognition standing Tank Car Committee (TCC) 8—
technology can capture and analyze even as train accident rates decline.
Accordingly, it is necessary for PHMSA govern the tender and acceptance of rail
images for very small cracks while cars among carriers within the general
mounted on a hi-rail truck or other on- and FRA to take the additional actions
proposed in this NPRM to reduce the system of railroad transportation. The
track vehicle. The system is already in AAR Interchange Rules address a range
initial use by two major railroads. probability that future train accidents
will involve catastrophic releases of PIH of design and operational requirements
In order to ensure compliance with intended to promote uniformity and
track geometry limits under load, FRA materials. Thus, the Action Plan
provided for acceleration of the research reciprocity in car handling, including
acquired two additional Automated the obligation of rail carriers to perform
Track Geometry Program (ATIP) cars underlying this proposed rule, which is
intended to make tank cars used for PIH running repairs on equipment received
instrumented for measurement of in interchange. Historically, the AAR
geometry at track speed, supplementing service more resistant to product loss
when a train accident occurs. Interchange Rules also have addressed
an existing Office of Safety car (and use certain subjects, such as rail tank car
of FRA’s research cars for geometry The Action Plan also noted with
standards, now covered
surveys when available). This expanded approval the action of major railroads to
comprehensively by the HMR. Most
ATIP capability will permit FRA to make available to emergency responders
recently, as discussed below, the TCC
survey the core of the national rail information concerning the top 25
has issued an interchange requirement
system on an annual basis, returning to commodities transported through their
(Casualty Prevention Circular 1175, as
problem areas, as appropriate, without jurisdictions and called on the railroads
sacrificing coverage. These two to make additional efforts to provide 6 AAR, Interchange Rules, Washington, DC,
additional cars were in service as of emergency responders with hazardous published annually in a ‘‘Field Manual’’ and an
April 30, 2007. materials information, including the ‘‘Office Manual.’’
One of the most vexing areas of track location of cars hauling hazardous 7 AAR, Operations and Maintenance Dep’t,
safety work is rail integrity. The materials on specific trains. CSX Mechanical Div., Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices; Section C-Part III,

concentration of rail traffic on a smaller, Transportation and CHEMTREC—the ‘‘Specifications for Tank Cars, Specification M–
post-merger system together with 24-hour emergency assistance hotline 1002’’ (revised annually).
growth in traffic, increasing gross provided as a service by chemical 8 The Mechanical Division of AAR’s Operations
weight of cars, and a slow pace of rail manufacturers—have partnered to and Maintenance Department is responsible for
industry freight car standards and for administering
replacement has led to heavy reliance provide a demonstration of technology the Interchange Rules, a body of private law that
on internal rail inspections to detect rail that can readily provide consistent governs the acceptance and use by railroads of
flaws before they become service information to emergency responders. equipment which they do not own. See fn. 8, supra.
amended by Casualty Prevention The AAR TCC is a standing 179.4 as limitations on its rulemaking
Circular 1178) that would require tank committee of the Mechanical Division of authority.
cars transporting anhydrous ammonia AAR’s Operations and Maintenance In addition to the approval authority
and chlorine to meet tank car design Department. Voting members of the TCC noted above, in several subsections of
standards that are more stringent than include representatives of AAR member
Part 179 of the HMR, the TCC is
those specified in the HMR. railroads, as well as tank car shipper
authorized to approve fittings,
Railroads, as common carriers, are and owner organizations, tank car
builders, and chemical and industry attachments, materials, designs,
generally required to provide methods, and procedures relevant to
transportation services in a reasonable associations. In addition, the Bureau of
Explosives and the Railway Supply tank car design, construction,
manner, and they may not impose maintenance, repair, and inspection. For
unreasonable requirements as a Institute have non-voting membership
on the TCC. FRA and PHMSA, as the example, 49 CFR 179.103–2(a) provides
condition precedent to providing rail
Federal agencies responsible for that manway covers ‘‘shall be of
transportation services. Accordingly,
interchange requirements, such as oversight of the safety of hazardous approved design.’’ Similarly, 49 CFR
Casualty Prevention Circular 1178, that materials transportation by railroad, also 179.201–9 states that ‘‘a gauging device
restrict the movement of railroad tank participate in the TCC as nonvoting of an approved design must be applied
cars that meet DOT standards must be members. to permit determining the liquid level of
reasonable, and, if challenged, the Under the HMR, certain functions the lading.’’ In addition, 49 CFR 179.10
related to hazardous material tank cars states that ‘‘[t]he manner in which tanks
burden is on the railroad to establish the
are delegated to the TCC, including: (1) are attached to the car structure shall be
reasonableness of the restriction. See
Approvals for construction of tank cars approved.’’ In each instance, the term
Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. v.
meeting DOT specifications; (2) ‘‘approved’’ refers to approval by the
ICC, 611 F.2d 1162, 1169 (6th Cir. 1979);
procedures for repairs or alterations; TCC. See 49 CFR 179.2.
see also Consolidated Rail Corp. v. ICC,
and (3) recommending changes in tank
646 F.2d 642, 650 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert The primary document containing the
car specifications.9 First, the HMR
denied, 454 U.S. 1047 (1981). Two of standards governing these approvals of
require tank car manufacturers to obtain
the factors that the Surface the TCC is the Tank Car Manual. The
TCC approval for specific tank car
Transportation Board and the courts December 2000 version of the Tank Car
designs and construction methods and
consider in determining the Manual is incorporated by reference
materials and procedures for repairs and
reasonableness of interchange alterations to tank cars. The HMR into the HMR at 49 CFR 171.7; thus,
requirements are whether there are authorize the TCC to make the compliance with the Tank Car Manual’s
Federal safety standards on point and determination that the proposed design, standards is required under the HMR.
whether a railroad has the ability to seek construction, or repair procedures
changes to these standards to meet the Chapter 2 of the Tank Car Manual
conform to the applicable DOT contains the AAR requirements for DOT
safety concerns of the railroad. See specification requirements and to issue
Consolidated Rail, 646 F.2d at 651. In tank cars. As noted above, the TCC,
the approval. 49 CFR 179.3. This subject to certain limitations, may
fact, DOT has established safety authority is primarily a ministerial
standards for tank cars carrying PIH establish standards for tank cars that go
function, designed to ensure that plans beyond the standards set by DOT. For
commodities and, pursuant to this to construct, alter, or convert tank car
rulemaking, is proposing enhanced example, the Tank Car Manual requires
tanks conform to DOT regulations. In
standards for tank-head and shell that the heads and shells of pressure
accordance with 49 CFR 179.3(b), the
puncture resistance systems for these TCC must approve construction of a tank cars constructed of certain types of
cars. Through participation in this tank car that meets all Federal steel must be normalized; although DOT
rulemaking, railroads and other requirements. participated in the discussions leading
interested parties have the ability to When a party seeks to construct a to these standards and approves of
influence the enhanced safety standards railroad tank car to be used in them, the tank car specifications
ultimately adopted by DOT. As hazardous materials service that does contained in the HMR do not contain
discussed below, DOT has concluded not meet a current DOT specification comparable requirements.10 However,
that it is inappropriate at this time to (see 49 CFR 179.10–179.500–18), the as indicated above, because the
establish new standards for top fittings HMR authorize the TCC to review the December 2000 version of the Tank Car
protection, but DOT will continue to proposed specification and report its Manual is incorporated by reference
work with interested parties on research recommendations on the proposal to into the HMR, compliance with the tank
and ongoing discussions aimed at DOT. 49 CFR 179.4. In this capacity, car standards specified in that version of
establishing enhanced consensus DOT benefits greatly from the technical the Tank Car Manual is required under
standards. There is, therefore, no expertise of the TCC members. the HMR. Under the Administrative
reasonable basis for the railroads to However, final policy judgment lies Procedure Act, compliance with any
implement Casualty Prevention Circular with DOT, and only DOT is authorized other version of the Tank Car Manual
1178 at this time. Railroads are free at to approve a new tank car specification, would be required under the HMR only
any time to seek stricter tank car safety or, through issuance of a special permit
standards through a DOT rulemaking upon the incorporation of that version
in accordance with 49 CFR 107.101–
(49 CFR 106.95); to date, no rail carrier into the HMR by reference through
.127, the construction and use of a tank
has petitioned PHMSA to adopt the tank car not meeting an existing DOT rulemaking.
car standards embodied in Casualty specification. DOT does not construe

Prevention Circular 1178. FRA has the procedures established in 49 CFR 10 Chapter 2 of the Tank Car Manual also includes
notified the AAR that before the TCC
additional commodity specific tank car
can implement the proposed 9 Federal regulations also require tank car
requirements relevant to certain PIH materials
requirements in Circular 1178, the facilities to have quality assurance programs that
are approved by AAR. These programs relate to which are not included in the HMR. See §§ 2.1.2
proposal must be submitted to DOT for construction, life-cycle maintenance, and (hydrogen sulfide tank cars) and 2.1.4 (hydrogen
approval. continuing qualification for service. fluoride tank cars).
VI. Railroad Accidents Involving destroyed lading, exceeded $2.6 million. Transportation class 2 hazardous materials,
Hazardous Materials Releases and As of March 15, 2004, over $8 million including those in ‘‘low-temperature’’
Accompanying NTSB has been spent on environmental service. The performance criteria must apply
remediation. Other significant costs to the material orientation with the minimum
Recommendations
impact resistance and take into account the
The NTSB investigated three recent include: evacuation costs, truck delay, entire range of operating temperatures of the
accidents involving tank cars rerouting and associated out of service tank car.
transporting PIH materials, which expenses, expenses for disruption to
non-railroad businesses, and expenses B. FRA’s Responses to the NTSB Tank
occurred between 2002 and 2005 in Car Recommendations for Minot
Minot, North Dakota; Macdona, Texas; incurred in settling claims arising from
and Graniteville, South Carolina. In all the accident.11 In August 2004, the FRA responded to
three accidents, the NTSB On March 15, 2004, the NTSB NTSB Safety Recommendations R–04–
recommended that FRA study released Safety Recommendations R– 04 through R–04–07, which arose from
improving the safety and structural 04–01 through R–04–07 as a result of the Minot accident. As for NTSB
integrity of tank cars and develop the Minot accident. The first three Recommendation R–04–04 and R–04–
necessary operational measures to recommendations (R–04–01, R–04–02, 05, which recommended that FRA
minimize the vulnerability of tank cars and R–04–03) pertain to FRA’s oversight analyze the impact resistance of steels
involved in accidents. of continuous welded rail maintenance in the shells of pressure tank cars
programs and are not relevant to this constructed before 1989 and establish a
A. Minot rulemaking. The four remaining program to rank the cars according to
The accident occurred at recommendations (R–04–04, R–04–05, their risk of fracture, FRA advised the
approximately 1:30 a.m. on January 18, R–04–06, and R–04–07) concern tank NTSB that the TCC had developed a
2002, near Minot, North Dakota, and car structural integrity and are relevant plan to sample steels from pre-1989
resulted in the derailment of 31 cars of to this rulemaking. In fact, these four pressure tank cars and that a program to
a 112-car train. Eleven of the 31 derailed recommendations served as the basis for rank those cars would be established.
cars were pressurized tank cars the reformulation of FRA’s tank car Because of FRA’s commitment to
transporting anhydrous ammonia, a research program.12 Recommendations ranking the pre-1989 fleet, the NTSB
toxic liquefied compressed gas. Five of R–04–04 through R–04–07 read as classified Safety Recommendation R–
those tank cars (DOT 105J300W cars) follows: 04–05 as ‘‘Open—Acceptable
received sidewall impacts to their (R–04–04). Conduct a comprehensive Response.’’ The NTSB, however,
shells, causing the cars to analysis to determine the impact resistance of classified Safety Recommendation R–
catastrophically rupture and the steels in the shells of pressure tank cars 04–04 as ‘‘Open—Unacceptable
instantaneously release their contents. constructed before 1989. At a minimum, the Response’’ because the Board did not
safety analysis should include the results of
Approximately 146,700 gallons of dynamic fracture toughness tests and/or the believe that the necessary analysis
anhydrous ammonia were released from results of nondestructive testing techniques would be completed in a timely manner.
those five cars. As a result, a toxic vapor that provide information on material After FRA provided additional
plume covered the derailment site and ductility and fracture toughness. The data information to the NTSB about the
the surrounding area. The plume rose should come from samples of steel from the sampling, including preliminary
approximately 300 feet and gradually tank shells from original manufacturing or fracture toughness data relating to the
expanded five miles downwind of the from a statistically representative sampling of samples from the pre-1989 tank cars, the
the shells of the pre-1989 pressure tank car
accident site. The remaining six fleet.
NTSB reclassified Safety
pressurized tank cars transporting (R–04–05). Based on the results of the Recommendation R–04–04 as ‘‘Open—
anhydrous ammonia that derailed also Federal Railroad Administration’s Acceptable Response.’’
suffered from shell impacts. Those cars, comprehensive analysis to determine the As for NTSB Recommendation R–04–
DOT 105J300W, 112J340W, and impact resistance of the steels in the shells 06, which recommended that FRA
105S300W cars, gradually released of pressure tank cars constructed before 1989, validate its model to quantify the
74,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia as addressed in Safety Recommendation R– dynamic forces acting on tank cars in
04–04, establish a program to rank those cars
due to damage to the cars’ fittings or accident conditions, the FRA advised
according to their risk of catastrophic fracture
small punctures and/or tears to the and separation and implement measures to the NTSB that it had initiated modeling
shells. One resident was fatally injured, eliminate or mitigate this risk. This ranking programs at Volpe and the University of
and 333 people suffered other injuries should take into consideration operating Illinois at Chicago to determine in-train
(11 serious). According to the NTSB, temperatures, pressures, and maximum train forces on tank cars involved in train
early in the emergency response effort, speeds. derailments. Based on FRA’s response
the Chief of the Minot Rural Fire (R–04–06). Validate the predictive model to Safety Recommendation R–04–06, the
Department ordered residents in the the Federal Railroad Administration is NTSB classified the Recommendation as
developing to quantify the maximum
affected area to shelter-in-place (i.e., dynamic forces acting on railroad tank cars ‘‘Open—Acceptable Response.’’
remain inside their homes with the under accident conditions. Finally, as for NTSB Recommendation
windows shut). NTSB concluded that (R–04–07). Develop and implement tank R–04–07, which recommended that FRA
sheltering-in-place was an effective car design-specific fracture toughness develop tank car design-specific fracture
emergency response and credited this standards, such as a minimum average toughness standards for steels used in
action with the relatively low number of Charpy value, for steels and other materials pressure tank cars, the FRA responded
injuries, as compared to the number of of construction for pressure tank cars used by stating that more research was
for the transportation of U.S. Department of

persons affected by the vapor plume needed (approximately three years) to
(333 injuries in 11,600 persons affected). 11 On October 9, 2007, a Federal judge approved
address tank car design-specific fracture
The NTSB determined that the a $7 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit toughness standards. Because the NTSB
probable cause of the accident was an between Canadian Pacific Railroad and individuals believed there were existing solutions
undetected defective rail. Damages to affected by the accident. and accident findings from which to
rolling stock and track, as well as 12 See Section X, infra, for a more detailed gauge fracture toughness values, such as
monetary loss from the damaged or discussion of FRA’s tank car research program. Charpy impact, in June 2005, the NTSB
classified the FRA response to Safety and signal equipment were estimated at textile manufacturing facility, Avondale
Recommendation R–04–07 as ‘‘Open— $6.3 million. As of July 20, 2006, Mills, a truck driver at one of Avondale
Unacceptable Response.’’ Since June $150,000 was spent to clean-up Mills’ facilities, and an individual in a
2005, AAR, in cooperation with FRA, environmental consequences. Other residence south of the accident site.14
has developed standards that ensure a significant costs include: Evacuation Noting that emergency responders were
minimum level of impact resistance for costs, truck delay, rerouting and enroute to the scene within two minutes
normalized steel and that require that associated out of service expenses, of the accident occurring and that
Charpy tests be performed in the expenses for disruption to non-railroad emergency responders used a
orientation of the sample material with businesses, and expenses incurred in ‘‘particularly efficient and expeditious
the lowest impact property. In July settling claims arising from the accident. means’’ of evacuating affected persons,
2006, the NTSB determined that FRA On July 20, 2006, the NTSB released the NTSB concluded that the emergency
had made progress on the development Safety Recommendations R–06–14 and response efforts were ‘‘timely,
of fracture toughness standards, and it R–06–15 as a result of the Macdona appropriate, and effective.’’15 The Board
reclassified Safety Recommendation R– accident. Although neither noted, however, that despite these
04–07 ‘‘Open—Acceptable Response.’’ recommendation specifically addressed emergency response efforts, the eight
the vulnerability of tank cars involved civilian fatalities were determined to
C. Macdona in an accident, the NTSB stated that the have resulted from asphyxia that
The accident occurred at successful and timely implementation occurred within minutes of exposure to
approximately 5 a.m. on June 28, 2004, of Safety Recommendations R–04–04 chlorine gas. In other words, the
in Macdona, Texas, and resulted in the through R–04–07 (recommendations fatalities occurred within the minutes
derailment of four locomotives and 36 from the Minot accident) and R–05–16 that passed before emergency
cars belonging to two trains that through R–05–17 (recommendations responders arrived on the scene or were
collided while traveling on the same from the Graniteville accident discussed able, because of the toxic fumes, to
track in opposing directions. As the below) may have prevented/mitigated begin a safe search and rescue effort.16
eastbound 123-car train was attempting the Macdona accident and any future The property damage, including
to leave the main line to enter a parallel catastrophic releases of hazardous damages to the rolling stock and track,
siding, it was struck midpoint by a materials from pressurized tank cars exceeded $6.9 million. Other significant
westbound train traveling on the same involved in an accident. costs include: evacuation costs, truck
main line track. The 16th car of the delay, rerouting and associated out of
westbound train was a pressurized tank D. Graniteville
service expenses, expenses for
car transporting chlorine, a toxic The accident occurred at disruption to non-railroad businesses,
liquefied compressed gas. This tank car, approximately 2:30 a.m. on January 6, costs to affected local governments and
a DOT 105A500W car, was punctured in 2005, in Graniteville, South Carolina, residents, as well as expenses incurred
the lower quadrant of the tank car head when a freight train was improperly in settling claims arising from the
and the puncture terminated one inch switched from a main line track onto an accident. According to financial
beyond the seam joining the tank-head industry track and struck an documents produced by NS, the railroad
to the tank shell. The tank car unoccupied, parked train head-on, on a recorded $41 million of expenses
instantaneously released approximately rail spur leading to a textile
related to the accident in 2005 and it is
9,400 gallons of chlorine, and a toxic manufacturing facility. The collision
estimated that the costs of the
vapor plume engulfed the accident area resulted in the derailment of three
Graniteville accident were
to a radius of at least 700 feet before locomotives and 17 cars belonging to
approximately $138 million, excluding
drifting away from the site. The NTSB the two trains. Three of the 17 derailed
chlorine cleanup costs.17 This cost
noted that the vapor cloud drifted with cars were pressurized tank cars
estimate likely greatly underestimates
the wind from the accident site and transporting chlorine. One tank car, a
the actual costs incurred by those
traveled in a northwesterly direction DOT 105J500W car, was punctured in
affected by the accident. For example,
toward several residential areas within the shell by the coupler of another car,
according to various South Carolina
the city of San Antonio. NTSB further and instantaneously released
approximately 9,220 gallons of chlorine, State Emergency Operations Center and
noted that Sea-World, a large U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
commercial entertainment venue, was creating a toxic vapor plume that
engulfed the surrounding area. Situation Reports,18 schools were closed
about 10 miles northwest of Macdona in for several days, mail service for the
the path of the chlorine vapor cloud. The NTSB concluded that the
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the 14As was the case in the Macdona accident, both
probable cause of the accident was UP failure of a train crew to return a main train crew members survived the collision (the
train crew fatigue that resulted in the line switch to the normal position after engineer died later from exposure to the gas). Given
failure of the engineer and conductor to the crew completed work at the that both crew members survived the collision, no
appropriately respond to wayside Avondale Mills’ industry track. As a fatalities or serious injuries would have resulted
result of the chlorine release, 5,400 from the accident had a tank car of chlorine not
signals governing the movement of their been punctured.
train. Thirty-three persons were injured, people within a 1-mile radius of the 15NTSB, Railroad Accident Report, NTSB/RAR–
three fatally (including the UP train derailment site were evacuated for 05/04, Collision of Norfolk Southern Freight Train
conductor and two occupants of a several days. Nine persons were fatally 192 With Standing Norfolk Southern Local Train
injured and 554 sustained other injuries P22 with Subsequent Hazardous Materials Release
residence located near the accident at Graniteville, South Carolina, (Jan. 6, 2005), at p.
site).13 Damages to rolling stock, track (75 requiring hospitalization). The nine 40, Available at http://www.regulations.gov in
persons fatally injured included the docket no. FRA–2006–25169 and at http://
13 The crew of the striking train survived the train engineer, six employees of the www.ntsb.gov (Graniteville Report).
16Id.
collision and exited the locomotive unassisted, but
17 Norfolk Southern Corporation, Quarterly
could not escape the chlorine gas. The conductor inhalation of the toxic gas. Given that both crew
and engineer were able to walk some distance from members survived the collision, no fatalities or Financial Review, Fourth Quarter 2006, at p. 4.
the collision where they were transported to serious injuries would have resulted from the (downloaded at http://www.nscorp.com/nscportal/
hospitals. The engineer was treated and released, accident had a tank car of chlorine not been nscorp/pdf/financial_q4_06.pdf).
the conductor died several hours later from punctured. 18Available at http://www.epa.osc.org.
evacuated areas had to be forwarded to Southern announced that it had reached tank cars by restating what it said, in
a neighboring post office, and agreement on settlements for part, in response to the Minot accident:
preliminary estimates of costs to Aiken Graniteville residents and businesses Improvements in the crashworthiness of
County were in the millions due to that were evacuated as a result of the pressure tank cars can be realized through
potential damage to electrical systems derailment, but did not seek medical the evaluation of alternative steels and tank
and equipment within homes and attention. Under the terms of this car performance standards. The ultimate goal
businesses, the cost of the first response settlement, Norfolk Southern offered of this effort should be the construction of
and recovery operations, damage to fire each resident who was evacuated, but railroad tank cars that have sufficient impact
resistance and that eliminate the risk of
and EMS response vehicles, and the did not seek medical attention within 72 catastrophic brittle failures under all
treatment of the victims. hours of the accident a flat amount of operating conditions and in all
The fate of Avondale Mills, the textile $2,000 for the evacuation plus $200 per environments. Achieving such a goal does
manufacturing company with four person per day of the evacuation. These not necessarily require the construction of a
facilities within the vicinity of the amounts are separate from any property tank car that is puncture-proof; it may only
accident, illustrates the significant long- damage claims. Norfolk Southern settled require construction of a car that will remain
term economic impacts that may result separately with the families of the nine intact and slowly leak its contents if it is
punctured.22
from catastrophic hazardous materials people killed as a result of the accident.
transportation accidents. In July 2006, On December 12, 2005, the NTSB E. FRA’s Responses to the NTSB Tank
after spending $140 million on cleaning, released Safety Recommendations R– Car Recommendations for Graniteville.
re-cleaning, repairs, and damage 05–14 through R–05–17 as a result of On June 30, 2006, the FRA responded
mitigation as a result of the derailment, the Graniteville accident. The first to NTSB Safety Recommendations R–
Avondale Mills reported that it was recommendation (R–05–14) pertains to 05–15 through R–05–17, which arose
unable to recover financially from the railroad switching devices and is not from the Graniteville accident. As for
derailment and closed its 10 mills in directly relevant to this rulemaking. The NTSB Recommendation R–05–15,
South Carolina and Georgia. The three remaining Safety which recommended that railroads be
company cited irrevocable damage to its Recommendations (R–05–15, R–05–16, required, under certain conditions, to
core facilities, as well as market and and R–05–17) relate to operating speeds operate trains at lower speeds in non-
production losses caused by the in non-signaled territory, as well as the signaled territory, the FRA informed the
derailment. For example, the Company transportation of PIH materials and NTSB that the Recommendation was not
was unable to identify cleaning and other hazardous materials that may pose feasible for operational and economic
restoration protocols that would inhalation hazards in the event of reasons. From an operational
successfully or economically halt the unintentional release. standpoint, depending on the terrain at
chlorine’s corrosive effects, repair the Recommendations R–05–15 through R– the switches and the train make-up,
damage caused by the chlorine 05–17 read as follows: train braking could prove difficult,
exposure, and return the affected generating excessive in-train forces that
facilities and equipment to their pre- (R–05–15). Require railroads, in non-
signaled territory and in the absence of could cause derailments. From an
derailment condition. As a result, the economic standpoint, Recommendation
switch position indicator lights or other
Company was faced with the expensive automated systems that provide train crews R–05–15 would impede the movement
replacement of damaged assets in with advance notice of switch positions, to of trains, especially on tracks where
addition to the lost business, higher operate those trains at speeds that will allow many switches exist, thereby causing
manufacturing costs, and lower profits them to be safely stopped in advance of train delays and an increase in running
related to the reduction in productive misaligned switches. time. The FRA also explained that
capacities resulting from the (R–05–16). Require railroads to implement
Recommendation R–05–15 was overly
derailment.19 At the time of its closure, operating measures, such as positioning tank
cars toward the rear of trains and reducing
broad in that it would apply to all
Avondale Mills employed trains, regardless of lading. The NTSB
approximately 4,000 people. speeds through populated areas, to minimize
impact forces from accidents and reduce the classified Safety Recommendation R–
Although the costs of associated legal 05–15 as ‘‘Open—Response Received.’’
vulnerability of tank cars transporting
claims resulting from the derailment are chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, and other As for NTSB Recommendation R–05–
still accumulating, in May 2006, liquefied gases designated as poisonous by 16, which suggested that FRA require
Avondale Mills reached a $215 million inhalation. railroads to position tank cars towards
settlement with its primary property (R–05–17). Determine the most effective the rear of trains and reduce their
and casualty insurer for all claims methods of providing emergency escape speeds through populated areas, the
related to the derailment. Even with this breathing apparatus for all crewmembers on FRA advised the NTSB that it would be
multi-million dollar settlement, freight trains carrying hazardous materials
imprudent to require the placement of
Avondale Mills’ management believed that would pose an inhalation hazard in the
event of unintentional release, and then
tank cars carrying PIH materials at the
that the amount was substantially less rear of trains for several reasons. First,
require railroads to provide these breathing
than the full value of the losses incurred the placement of tank cars carrying PIH
apparatus to their crewmembers along with
as a result of the derailment.20 In June appropriate training. materials at the rear of trains could
2006, a Federal judge approved a class- expose the cars to the consequences of
action settlement in excess of $10.5 In addition, noting that the punctured rear-end collisions. Second, FRA’s
million between Norfolk Southern and car was among the strongest tank cars in research demonstrates that the preferred
almost 500 individuals who claimed service, the NTSB concluded that even location for loaded cars is towards the
they suffered serious injuries after the the ‘‘strongest tank cars in service can front of trains because, upon braking,
derailment. In May 2005, Norfolk be punctured in accidents involving heavy cars decelerate more slowly than
trains operating at moderate speeds.’’ 21 empty cars. If loaded cars are placed
19See Avondale Incorporated, Notes to
The NTSB then repeated its concern for towards the rear of trains, they would
Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited), at
note 1 (Aug. 25, 2006). Available at http://
crashworthiness integrity of railroad push the more rapidly decelerating cars
www.sec.gov.
20Id. 21Graniteville Report at p. 51. 22Id.
in front of them and generate higher buff due to deficiencies in the emergency approximately 55° F, and humidity was
forces. Finally, the switching of railroad response process or because of safety high.
cars to position tank cars containing PIH risks posed to emergency responders The NTSB concluded that
materials at the rear of trains involves prohibiting emergency responders from approximately 120,000 pounds (9,218
the risk of increased yard accidents and entering an accident area). gallons) of liquefied chlorine was
employee injuries resulting from Each of the three accidents discussed released before emergency responders
additional switching. In its response to in section VI above share certain arrived on the scene.24 The chlorine
NTSB Recommendation R–05–16, the similarities that effectively minimized settled in low areas around the railroad
FRA also noted several practical the catastrophic results of the accidents. tracks and the plume expanded to the
difficulties with slowing trains on a Each accident occurred in a relatively west of the accident site and into the
location-by-location basis (including the rural area, thereby limiting the Avondale Mills plant, generally
dangers of introducing additional train population exposed to the hazardous following the local topography, running
handling challenges, the impact of such materials release. Each accident downhill to the south and west,25 before
a speed restriction on the efficiency and occurred during the early morning being blown to the north by light winds
capacity of the rail network, as well as hours, while most of the surrounding where it hovered. The NTSB concluded
the potential negative effect that slowing populations were in their homes and that based on emergency responder
operations could have on communities not in the immediate accident vicinity. observations and the locations of those
located along the track). Nonetheless, in The meteorological conditions at the receiving fatal injuries, the cloud
its response, FRA stated that it would time of each accident effectively limited extended at least 2,500 feet to the north;
review the potential costs and benefits the speed at which the resulting toxic 1,000 feet to the east; 900 feet to the
of slowing trains carrying certain toxic plumes expanded and the distance over south; and 1,000 feet to the west.
commodities. The NTSB classified which the plumes expanded. Had any of The area to the east of the accident
Safety Recommendation R–05–16 as the accidents occurred in a more site and extending in a southerly
‘‘Open—Response Received.’’ densely populated area or later in the direction is primarily a residential area.
As for NTSB Recommendation R–05– day, it is likely that many more people To the west and extending in a
17, which recommended that FRA would have been exposed to the toxic northerly direction are several
examine the most effective methods of plumes. Had the meteorological moderate- to large-sized industrial plant
providing emergency escape breathing conditions at the time of any of the facilities, some of which operate
apparatus for crewmembers on trains accidents been different (e.g., wind continuously. A small commercial/retail
carrying PIH materials, FRA explained speed or direction, temperature, district is just north of the accident site.
to the NTSB that it would initiate a barometric pressure, or humidity) it is Given the demographics and
study of potential breathing apparatus possible that the plumes could have topography surrounding the accident
for use by crewmembers of freight trains expanded more than what actually site, had the accident occurred at a
carrying TIH materials. Based on FRA’s occurred, again, exposing many more different time of day, or had any of the
response to Safety Recommendation R– people to the toxic chemicals. To meteorological variables been different
05–17, the NTSB classified the demonstrate the potential affects of (e.g., wind speed or direction,
Recommendation as ‘‘Open— different accident conditions, such as temperature, barometric pressure, or
Acceptable Response.’’ location, time of day, or the weather, the humidity), it is likely that many more
The NTSB Safety Recommendations people would have been exposed to the
circumstances surrounding the
referenced in this section above and the chlorine plume. For instance, if the
Graniteville and Minot accidents are
publicly available responses to them accident had occurred while the
discussed below.
may be found on the http:// Avondale Mills plant was fully staffed,
www.regulations.gov Web site under A. Graniteville or during an afternoon shift change,
docket number FRA–2006–25169. hundreds of individuals could have
Graniteville is a mixed rural and
VII. Evaluating the Risk Related to suburban area of Aiken County, South been exposed. In addition, a middle
Potential Catastrophic Releases From Carolina, with a population of school is located approximately 1,000
PIH Tank Cars in the Future approximately 7,000.23 Graniteville lies feet north of the accident site (well
in a relatively shallow valley, within the area of the plume that did
Although it is not possible to occur). Had the accident happened
accurately determine the probability of approximately 200 feet above sea level.
The terrain surrounding the accident while school was in session,
future occurrences of railroad accidents approximately 500 students and scores
that would result in the catastrophic site is approximately 225 feet above sea
level, with the elevation of the industry more school personnel could have been
release of hazardous materials, it is exposed to the toxic plume.
unrealistic to assume that absent the track where the accident occurred
moderately decreasing as the track Similarly, had any meteorological
improvements proposed, consequences variables been different (e.g., wind
from future accidents involving extends north and west towards the
Avondale Mills plant. The January 6, speed or direction, temperature,
hazardous materials tank cars would be barometric pressure, or humidity), it is
of the same order of frequency and 2005, accident occurred at 2:30 in the
morning, a time at which most likely that the chlorine plume could
severity as in the past. In fact, absent the have expanded more rapidly and
improvements proposed, one or more individuals were asleep in their homes
and very few individuals were on the affected a greater area than it did. For
events could be significantly more instance, at the time of the accident, a
severe than experienced thus far. All premises of the Avondale Mills plant.
that would be required would be the At the time of the accident, a light wind 24 Note: The vaporization of liquefied chlorine at
necessary environmental conditions was blowing in a south-southwest 32 °F at atmospheric pressure can generate a
(concentrating and channeling a gas direction, the temperature was gaseous cloud with a volume 450 times greater than
plume at ground level), an exposed the volume of the liquid released. See Graniteville
23As of 2006, the approximate population of NTSB Report at 49 (citation omitted).
population of scores or hundreds within Aiken County was 152,000. U.S. Census Bureau, 25 Because chlorine gas is heavier than air with
the path of the plume, and an ineffective State & County QuickFacts (available at http:// a vapor density of 2.5 at 32 °F, it will seek the
or delayed emergency response (either quickfacts.census.gov). lowest point in the immediate area.
light wind was blowing in a south- instantaneously, approximately 146,700 compared to the number of persons
southwest direction. If the wind had gallons of anhydrous ammonia were affected by the vapor plume
been blowing at the same intensity, but released as five tank cars (approximately 330 injuries in 11,600
in a south-southeast direction, the catastrophically ruptured. A toxic vapor persons affected). However, had this
chlorine plume could have hovered over plume formed almost immediately. The accident happened at another time of
the southeasterly side of the accident plume rose approximately 300 feet and day, possibly during the morning
site, rather than the northwesterly side. gradually expanded five miles commuting hours when people are
Southeast of the accident site is downwind of the accident site and over generally not at home, or if emergency
primarily a residential area and given a population of about 11,600 people responders did not promptly direct
the size of the plume that did result, the (approximately one-third the population residents to shelter-in-place, or if the
plume could have endangered of the City of Minot). The outside local hospital had not taken appropriate
approximately 185 homes. Given the temperature at the time of the accident measures to protect itself from the
average household size of 2.68 in Aiken was ¥6 °F, a light snow had fallen plume, the consequences of the release
County,26 almost 500 people to the earlier in the day and a large amount of could have been much worse than what
southeast of the accident site could have residual snow was on the ground. occurred on January 18, 2002.
been exposed to vapors above the Recognizing the smell of the Similar to the meteorological
ERPG–3 level causing significantly more chemical, the responsible fire chief circumstances surrounding the
casualties and fatalities.27 We note as immediately determined that the Graniteville accident, had the
well that the high humidity at the time leaking material was anhydrous atmospheric variables been different
of the accident limited the plume’s rate ammonia. Because of the large amount (particularly, the temperature at the
of expansion because the chlorine of anhydrous ammonia released, time of the accident), it is likely that
reacted with the moisture in the area emergency responders were unable to many more people could have been at
(effectively diluting the chlorine) to enter the accident area for risk of exposure to the toxic plume. The
form a weak hydrochloric acid. This approximately three hours. Within 15 low atmospheric temperature at the time
weak hydrochloric acid, a highly minutes of the accident, however, 911 of the accident helped to keep the
corrosive liquid, then accumulated in operators were advising residents in the ammonia plume close to ground level as
low lying areas and on the abundant affected area to shelter-in-place (i.e., it traveled downwind and also
vegetation surrounding the accident remain inside their homes with the minimized the chemical’s vaporization,
site, limiting the expansion of the windows shut) and the emergency room accordingly limiting the spreading of
plume. At the time of the accident the of a local hospital was notified of the the plume. Had this accident happened
outside temperate was approximately 55 derailment. in the spring or summer, or any other
°F. As the NTSB noted, the liquefied Upon notification of the derailment, time of warmer temperatures, windows
the hospital activated its disaster plan in the homes may have been open and
chlorine rapidly vaporized and
and staff secured the facility against the it is likely that the ammonia plume
expanded when it spilled from the tank
hazardous vapors by shutting down air would have expanded more rapidly,
car, but the sudden release of the gas
handlers, setting up a portable air- thus exposing a greater population to
caused the product remaining in the
handling unit in the emergency room, the chemical.
tank car to auto-refrigerate and remain
and establishing an alternate emergency Although the Minot, Macdona, and
in a liquid state, slowing the release of
room entrance away from the vapor Graniteville accidents each occurred
additional gas.28 Had it been warmer,
cloud. Within three hours of the during the early morning hours, while
the higher temperature could have
accident, the ammonia cloud had most of the surrounding populations
provided additional energy for the
drifted to and encompassed the were in their homes and not in the
chlorine to expand, and it is likely that hospital. Nevertheless, throughout the
the chlorine plume would have immediate accident vicinity, because
incident, the hospital treated hazardous material transportation is not
expanded faster. approximately 300 people. limited to early morning transportation,
B. Minot Ultimately, one resident of the any of the accidents could have
neighborhood nearest the derailment occurred later in the day, when
The Minot accident occurred at site was fatally injured, two residents
approximately 1:30 in the morning, a neighboring factories were fully staffed,
were seriously injured, and 60–65 schools were in session, and
time at which most individuals were residents were rescued hours after the
sleeping inside their homes with their unsuspecting individuals were
derailment. All three residents that were otherwise outside of the protective
windows closed. Almost seriously injured left the protective confines of their homes and workplaces
26 U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder
confines of their homes and were going about their daily routines. As an
(available at http://factfinder.census.gov). directly exposed to the anhydrous example, at approximately 11 a.m. on
27 ‘‘ERGP–3 level’’ refers to the American ammonia cloud for a prolonged period October 10, 2007, a CSX train
Industrial Hygiene Association’s (AIHA) Emergency of time (given the time of day and transporting mixed freight of grain,
Response Planning Guideline level 3 which means widespread power outages as a result of
‘‘[t]he maximum airborne concentration below lumber, and tank cars of various
which it is believed that nearly all individuals
the accident, it is unknown whether hazardous materials, derailed in
could be exposed for up to one hour without these individuals had heard or seen any Painesville, Ohio,29 resulting in an
experiencing or developing life-threatening health of the emergency directives to shelter- explosion and subsequent fire as
effects.’’ See AIHA, Emergency Response Planning in-place). As a result of the accident,
Committee, Procedures and Responsibilities, at 1 hazardous materials were released to the
nine other people sustained serious environment. Although the train was
(Nov. 1, 2006) (downloaded from http://

www.aiha.org). According to AIHA the ERGP levels injuries, and 322 people, including the reportedly not carrying any toxic
are intended as health based guideline two train crew members, sustained inhalation hazard materials, and no
concentrations for single exposures to chemicals minor injuries.
and the levels are commonly used in the emergency injuries were reported, 600 people
The NTSB concluded that sheltering-
response planning industry for assessing the
adequacy of accident prevention and emergency in-place was an effective emergency 29 Painesville is located approximately 30 miles
response plans. Id. response and credited this action with from Cleveland and has an estimated population of
28 Graniteville Report at 11, 49. the relatively low number of injuries, as 20,000.
(including over 300 children from a insure railroads against the multi-billion these ‘‘key routes’’; (4) yard operating
nearby elementary school) within a half dollar risks associated with highly- practices for handling placarded tank
mile radius of the train derailment were hazardous shipments.’’ 33 In support of cars; (5) storage, loading, unloading and
evacuated. this assertion, a representative of the handling of loaded tank cars; (6)
Although the Minot, Macdona, and railroad industry noted that as a result assisting communities with emergency
Graniteville accidents each occurred in of the Minot, Macdona, and Graniteville response training and information; (7)
a relatively rural area, the accidents accidents, insurance costs for the entire shipper notification procedures; and (8)
could have occurred anywhere, railroad industry have gone up by 100 the handling of time-sensitive materials.
including in the midst of major percent.34 The Circular also (1) Restricts key trains
metropolitan areas. The Minot accident This increase in railroad insurance to a maximum speed of 50 mph; (2)
was caused by an undetected defective rates, coupled with the actual costs of requires, as practicable, that unless a
rail. A crew’s failure to appropriately the accidents, has resulted in increased siding or auxiliary track meets FRA
respond to wayside signals governing shipping rates for the shippers of Class 2 standards, a key train will hold
movement of their train led to the hazardous materials. Minimally, main track at meeting or passing points;
Macdona accident. The Graniteville shipping rates for PIH materials have (3) requires all cars in key trains to be
accident was caused by a train crew’s doubled; however, many shippers report equipped with roller bearings; and (4)
failure to correctly align a switch. Each larger increases (including at least one imposes a further speed restriction of 30
of these ‘‘causes’’ could have occurred shipper which has had its rates mph in the event a defect in a key train
in close proximity to a metropolitan increased over 4.8 times in a two-year bearing is reported by a wayside
area, thus potentially impacting a much period). detector, but is not able to be confirmed
larger population of people. The visually. A copy of the most recent
IX. Industry Efforts To Improve
Painesville, Ohio, incident, although not version of Circular OT–55–I has been
Railroad Hazardous Materials
an accident with catastrophic results, placed in the docket.
Transportation Safety
illustrates this point. As a Cleveland In addition, FRA is aware that some
City Councilman noted, had the A. General Industry Efforts carriers have individually taken
derailment occurred closer to Cleveland, The rail industry, through the AAR, voluntary steps to reduce the occurrence
more than 8,000 people could have been has developed a detailed protocol on of accidents that can lead to hazardous
affected.30 recommended railroad operating material releases. For example, BNSF
VIII. The Railroad Industry’s Liability practices for the transportation of has implemented a derailment
and the Impact of Accidents Involving hazardous materials. Although in early prevention program that includes,
the Shipment of PIH Materials on 1990 this protocol was implemented by among other efforts, implementing
Insurance Costs and Shipping Rates only the Class 1 rail carriers operating advanced train control technology;
in the United States, on July 17, 2006, utilizing various freight car condition
In 2005, railroads moved just over monitoring technologies; and installing
AAR issued a revised version of this
100,000 carloads of PIH materials and and maintaining switch point position
protocol, known as Circular OT–55–I,
nearly 37 million total carloads.31 The with short-line railroads also indicators and broken rail protection in
100,000 carloads of PIH materials equate participating in the implementation. non-signaled territory. Specific to the
to approximately 0.3 percent of all rail The Circular details recommended transportation of hazardous materials
carloads. Despite the small fraction of railroad operating practices for, among through non-signaled territory, BNSF
the railroad industry’s business other things: (1) Designating certain has also revised its operating practices
constituted by PIH materials (and the trains hauling hazardous materials as at certain locations in its system through
limited revenue it generates), railroad ‘‘key trains,’’ defined as trains which a significant amount of PIH
industry representatives, citing the containing five or more tank car loads materials are transported in an effort to
Minot, Macdona, and Graniteville of PIH materials; (2) designating decrease the probability of an accident
accidents, have noted that transporting operating speed and equipment or incident involving a train hauling
PIH materials has led to the imposition restrictions for key trains; (3) PIH material. A more detailed
of ‘‘hundreds of millions of dollars of designating ‘‘key routes’’ 35 for key discussion of BNSF’s efforts in this
liability.’’ 32 Further, noting that trains and setting standards for track regard is found in the ‘‘Discussion of
‘‘railroads can suffer multi-billion dollar inspection and wayside detectors on Public Comments’’ section below.
judgments’’ from accidents involving
highly-hazardous materials, in 2007 the 33 Hamberger Statement at 7–8. An example of B. Trinity Industries, Inc.’s Special
President and CEO of AAR testified such a judgment is In re New Orleans Train Car Permit Chlorine Car
before a Congressional committee that Leakage Fire Litigation, 795 So. 2d 364 (La. Ct. App.
2001). In that case, the Louisiana Court of Appeals
In accordance with 49 CFR 107.105,
‘‘every time a railroad moves [a highly- upheld a class-action judgment of $850,000,000 in in early 2005, Trinity Industries, Inc.
hazardous shipment] it faces potentially punitive damages and $2,100,000 in compensatory (Trinity) applied for a Special Permit to
ruinous liability’’ and that the damages against CSX Transportation, Inc. Railroads, manufacture, mark, and sell DOT
‘‘insurance industry is unwilling to as common carriers, are generally required to
provide transportation services in a reasonable 105J600W specification tank cars, for
manner and may not refuse to transport a material use in chlorine service, with a variation
30 David Summers, WKYZ–TV (Cleveland, Oh),
that the government has deemed safe for in design and construction of the
Hazardous Cargo Legislation Stalled on the Tracks transportation.
(Oct. 14, 2007). 34 Fronczak Statement.
protective housing (the ‘‘Trinity car’’).36
31 Written Statement of Edward R. Hamberger, 35 Circular OT–55–I defines the term ‘‘key routes’’
Specifically, as noted in Trinity’s
President & CEO, AAR , before the U.S. House of as ‘‘[a]ny track with a combination of 10,000 car
Representatives Committee on Transportation and loads or intermodal portable tank loads of 36 See 70 FR 12782, 12783 (Mar. 15, 2005)
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Railroads, hazardous materials, or a combination of 4,000 car (Research and Special Programs Administration,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials (Jan. 31, 2007) loadings of PIH or TIH (Hazard zone A, B,C, or D), List of Applications for Exemption). 49 U.S.C.
at 7 (Hamberger Statement). anhydrous ammonia, flammable gas, Class 1.1 or § 5117 authorizes the DOT to issue special permits
32 Statement of Bob Fronczak, Assistant Vice 1.2 explosives, environmentally-sensitive (previously referred to as ‘‘exemptions’’)
President, Environment and Hazardous Materials, chemicals, Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF), and High authorizing a variance from the HMR if the
AAR, at the Dec. 14, 2006 public meeting (Fronczak Level Radioactive Waste (HLRW) over a period of proposed variance is equivalent to the level of
Statement). See document no. 19 in the docket. one year.’’ safety required by the HMR.
application, the Trinity car varies from regulatory standard over a relatively supported by Trinity, proposed that
Federal standards because it has a short time-span. anhydrous ammonia be transported in
protective housing welded, rather than DOT 112J500W tank cars, equipped
C. AAR Proposals for Enhanced
bolted, to the tank nozzle and its with full-height half-inch thick or
Chlorine and Anhydrous Ammonia
maximum gross weight on rail is equivalent head shields and top fittings
Tank Cars
286,000 pounds (due in part to a thicker protection designed to withstand a
head and shell than current chlorine In early 2006, the Safety and rollover with a minimum linear velocity
cars).37 In response to Trinity’s Operations Management Committee of nine miles per hour. Similarly, the
application, several members of the (SOMC) of the AAR directed the AAR’s same parties proposed that chlorine be
hazardous materials shipping industry TCC to consider improved packaging for transported in tank cars built to the
expressed concern with certain aspects the shipment of chlorine and anhydrous 105J600W specification, equipped with
of the proposed Trinity car. For ammonia. Specifically, SOMC directed full-height half-inch thick or equivalent
example, commenters expressed the TCC to present a plan for developing head shields and top fittings protection
concern regarding the proposed performance standards for chlorine and designed to withstand a rollover with a
manway arrangement, noting that the anhydrous ammonia tank cars that minimum linear velocity of nine mph.
modified pressure plate and protective would reduce the conditional Alternatively, cars for each commodity
housing may present difficulties for probability of a release, given an could be designed in accordance with a
emergency responders because it was accident, by a target of 65% from the formula derived from the statistical
unclear whether the standard current values, as well as a plan to analysis in the RSI–AAR Tank Car
Emergency Kit C, which is used to phase in the new improved cars within Safety Project Report RA 05–02.40 For
contain leaks in and around the a target time frame of five to seven anhydrous ammonia, this statistical
pressure relief device and angle valves, years. The goal of a 65% reduction was formula required shell and head
was compatible with the arrangement. based on the findings of researchers at protection to reduce the conditional
Further, commenters expressed concern the University of Illinois at Urbana- probability of release (CPR) by 32%
regarding the increased car pressure and Champaign’s Railroad Engineering given that the car is derailed in an
corresponding pressure rating of the Program, which concluded that utilizing accident; for chlorine, the statistical
valves and fittings. Commenters also existing technology, the probability of a formula required shell and head
questioned the efficacy of increasing the release of anhydrous ammonia and protection to reduce the CPR by at least
thickness of the car’s steel, but utilizing chlorine from a tank car involved in an 45%.41 This railroad/Trinity proposal
steel with a lower tensile strength than accident could be reduced by 65% or contemplated that 50% of a car owner’s
current chlorine cars. Furthermore, more by substituting enhanced tank cars fleet of anhydrous ammonia and
commenters expressed concern that for the cars currently used to transport chlorine cars would be replaced with
given the increased weight of the car, these materials.39 The enhanced tank these ‘‘enhanced cars’’ within
some shipping and receiving facilities car contemplated in the University of approximately six years, with their
may not be able to handle the heavier Illinois research is the thicker, heavier entire fleets being replaced within
car. Trinity car designed for chlorine service approximately eleven years.
After careful review of Trinity’s and subject to PHMSA Special Permit At the same TCC meeting, all shipper
application, the comments received, and 14167. As noted in the AAR Risk members of the TCC, as well as every
DOT’s own analysis of the Trinity car, Analysis, the finding of a potential 65% rail tank car builder other than Trinity,
PHMSA issued the requested Special improvement is premised on replacing supported a proposal submitted jointly
Permit on April 20, 2006, authorizing the current 263,000 pound cars for by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) and the
Trinity to manufacture, mark, and sell anhydrous ammonia and chlorine with Chlorine Institute (CI). The TFI/CI
the car for use in chlorine service, 286,000 pound cars equipped with proposal for cars constructed after a
subject to certain operational additional head protection, thicker proposed effective date incorporated the
restrictions and inspection shells, and modified top fittings Federal standard for head protection (49
requirements.38 Specifically, the terms protection. CFR 179.16), with the ram car adjusted
of the Special Permit prohibit the In response to this directive, the TCC to reflect the increasing presence of cars
Trinity car from being used in free established a task force to develop the with a gross rail load of 286,000 pounds.
interchange and require the manway requested plan. The task force consisted The TFI/CI proposal contemplated
nozzle welds to be requalified annually. of a wide spectrum of interested parties, grandfathering existing cars in
The Special Permit was issued based on including hazardous material shippers, anhydrous ammonia and chlorine
the finding that the Trinity car used railroads, the Railway Supply Institute service prior to the effective date as
under the specified conditions would (RSI), and railroad industry consultants. compliant.
provide an equivalent level of safety to The task force, however, was unable to The initial result of this deliberation
current DOT specification cars and reach consensus on a recommendation was the TCC’s issuance of Casualty
additionally would provide a way to to the TCC. Prevention Circular 1175 (CPC–1175) on
gather data about an alternative to a In July 2006, the AAR TCC considered July 28, 2006. CPC–1175 proposed to
proposals for improved tank cars in implement the railroad/Trinity proposal
37 The HMR require bolted top fittings and light of its mandate from SOMC to make introduced at the July TCC meeting. In
provide for a tank car maximum gross weight on the cars transporting chlorine and response to CPC–1175, several members
rail of 263,000 pounds. See 49 CFR 179.100–12 and
179.13.
anhydrous ammonia 65% safer. At the of the hazardous materials shipping
July TCC meeting, all member railroads,
38 See 71 FR 47288, 47301 (Aug. 16, 2006)

40 RSI–AAR Railroad Tank Car Safety Research
(PHMSA Special Permit number DOT–SP 14167).
Subsequently, the Special Permit was revised on 39 Christopher P.L. Barkan, Ph.D., M. Rapik Saat, and Test Project, Safety Performance of Tank Cars
August 10, 2006 to clarify the outage and filling M.S., Railroad Engineering Program, Department of in Accidents: Probabilities of Lading Loss, RA–05–
density requirements and specify requirements for Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of 02 (Jan. 2006).
filing agreements between carriers and filing non- Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Risk Analysis of Rail 41 While this statistical analysis sought to advance
destructive testing procedures. More recently, Transport of Chlorine and Ammonia on U.S. the safety of tank cars, it does not foster new
Trinity requested that the Special Permit be revised Railroad Mainlines (Feb. 27, 2006) (AAR Risk technology because the CPR was derived from
to amend the manway protective housing design. Analysis). empirical data.
industry submitted comments to the D. Dow/UP Safety Initiative and the shipments by 2015. Recognizing that the
AAR expressing concern with certain Next Generation Rail Tank Car Project temperature, pressure, and other
aspects of the proposal. For example, In October 2005, the Dow Chemical characteristics of the material being
commenters expressed concern with the Company (Dow) and UP, Dow’s largest shipped affects the consequences of any
proposed implementation schedule, the rail service provider, formed a hazardous materials release, Dow is also
proposed top fittings arrangement, and partnership to address rail safety and focusing its efforts on improving
the scientific basis utilized for security improvements for the shipment visibility and tracking.
development of the standard. transportation of hazardous materials. Specifically, by the end of 2007, Dow’s
Commenters also questioned the Specific goals of the agreement between stated goal is to have implemented
efficacy of moving forward with the UP and Dow include: (1) Reducing idle shipment tracking via GPS technology
proposal without the benefit of the times for hazmat shipments by 50 to know, in real time, exactly where its
results of the FRA’s Volpe research percent in high-threat urban areas; (2) tank cars containing PIH materials are
designed to quantify tank car survival redesigning Dow’s customer supply located and what condition they are in.
conditions. chains to cut in half the amount of Through TRANSCAER(r), Dow has also
FRA also corresponded with the AAR ‘‘highly hazardous chemicals’’ shipped publicly committed to ‘‘touch every
in response to CPC–1175. In its letters, by 2015; (3) eliminating all community’’ through which its highly
FRA first noted that the Circular nonaccidental leaks of certain hazardous materials travel within the
contained two proposed, amended tank hazardous materials in three years; and next five years. Through this initiative,
car specifications and two proposed, (4) having hazardous material Dow’s stated intent is to provide
new specifications. Accordingly, FRA shipments monitored by satellite community awareness and emergency
noted that before the TCC could tracking tags and other sensors.43 As responder training to help ensure that
implement the proposed requirements Dow noted at the May 31-June 1, 2006, the communities through which their
in CPC–1175, in accordance with 49 PHMSA/FRA public meeting, the highly hazardous materials travel are
CFR 179.4, the proposals would have to companies’ joint effort focuses on six better prepared for potential chemical
be submitted to the Department. The areas for improvement: (1) Supply chain transportation emergencies.
FRA also expressed concern regarding redesign; (2) next generation rail tank We invite commenters to provide data
the engineering analysis underlying the car design; (3) improved shipment and information concerning the extent
proposal, specifically related to the visibility; (4) a strengthened to which other companies are
analysis of the top fittings, tank-head commitment to TRANSCAER; 44 (5) voluntarily implementing measures to
and shell, as well as the tank car’s improved rail operations safety; and (6) reduce the transportation safety risks
capacity. hazardous material shipment routing. associated with the transportation of
In response to comments received With regard to supply chain redesign, PIH materials in tank cars. We are
from FRA and the industry, on October Dow is evaluating potential ways to particularly interested in efforts planned
18, 2006, the TCC issued Casualty reduce the number and distance of or underway to modify or redesign
Prevention Circular 1176 (CPC–1176), shipments involving high-hazard supply chains, reduce the number of
which adopted as a final TCC action the materials. In this connection, Dow is shipments and the time-in-transit of
proposals set forth in CPC–1175 with evaluating the potential for co-location shipments, or enhance shipment
minor modifications to the of production and consuming facilities; visibility and tracking. We ask
implementation period initially the use of pipelines instead of rail in commenters to consider whether
proposed. Specifically, the intermediate some instances; and the conversion of implementation of these and similar
implementation goal of CPC–1175 (50% highly hazardous products to less risk-reduction measures industry-wide
of the fleet by December 31, 2012) was hazardous derivatives before shipping.45 would militate against the need to
eliminated and replaced by a At the same public meeting, Dow noted improve the accident survivability of
requirement that the tank car owners’ that since 1999, the company has the current PIH tank car fleet, as
plans for implementation be submitted reduced the amount of chlorine it ships proposed in this NPRM.
to AAR by December 31, 2007. in the United States by 80%. Dow also With regard to improving rail tank car
Subsequently, on December 18, 2006, noted that the company’s current design, Dow, UP, and the Union Tank
AAR issued Casualty Prevention commitment is to have further reduced Car Company (Union Tank), which had
Circular 1178 (CPC–1178) in response to by 50 percent the number of shipments joined the Dow/UP Partnership
appeals to CPC–1176. Although various of highly hazardous materials (i.e., PIH specifically to participate in the
aspects of CPC–1176 were appealed materials and flammable gases) and NGRTCP, initiated the NGRTCP for the
(e.g., the proposed implementation container miles traveled by those stated purpose of collaborating on the
schedule, top fittings arrangement, and design of a next generation railcar for
the scientific basis of the proposed for commodity specific tank improvement factors.
the transportation of certain hazardous
design), CPC–1178 is substantially the The tank improvement factor requirements are new materials. The project is multi-
same as CPC–1176, except the target requirements for chlorine and anhydrous ammonia. generational with the first generation
43 John D. Boyd, UP, Dow Sign Safety Pact, Traffic
implementation dates were delayed by focusing on designing a breakthrough
World (Mar. 19, 2007).
one year (i.e., tank car owners’ plans for 44 TRANSCAER (Transportation Community
next generation tank car for the
implementation were required to be Awareness and Emergency Response) is a voluntary transport of PIH materials that will meet
submitted by December 31, 2008 and national outreach effort that focuses on assisting or exceed the AAR TCC performance
tank cars were required to be 100% fleet communities to prepare for and respond to a requirements and provide a five- to ten-
possible hazardous materials transportation fold improvement in the safety and
compliant by December 31, 2018).42
incident. TRANSCAER members consist of

volunteer representatives from the chemical security performance of existing rail
42 On August 28, 2007, the TCC issued Casualty manufacturing, transportation, distributor, and tank cars in PIH service. Subsequent
Prevention Circular 1180 (CPC–1180) for public emergency response industries, as well as the generations of the project would build
comment. CPC–1180 addresses certain high-hazard government. For more information on on the first generation to leverage the
materials (including chlorine and anhydrous TRANSCAER see http://www.transcaer.com/
ammonia). CPC–1180 proposes an implementation public/about.cfm. process, methodology, and criteria used
period for a top fittings requirement consistent with 45 See Transcript of May 31–June 1, 2006, public in designing the next generation PIH
that of CPC–1178, but also includes requirements meeting in docket no. FRA–2006–25169. tank car to design a tank car appropriate
for other hazardous materials, such as E. The Chlorine Institute (CI) Study improving fittings protection and
flammable gases or chemicals that pose In late 2005, CI established a research gaskets; reviewing tank car operating
a significant risk to the environment if program to investigate tank car puncture environments; and developing new
released. Dow’s stated goal is full resistance and the potential linings, coatings, and tank car steels.
implementation within the company of development of alternative materials Since the 1970s, based on the combined
a next generation PIH tank car by the tests (e.g., un-notched Charpy test) to research efforts of the Department and
end of 2014, and full implementation of develop and validate alternative fracture industry, DOT has issued a number of
further generations of tank cars for criteria. The CI study recognizes that regulations to improve the survivability
flammable gases and environmentally- considerable advances have been made of tank cars in accidents. For example,
sensitive chemicals by the end of 2029. in the design of tank car steels to DOT has promulgated regulations
The NGRTCP team includes industry improve and increase the ductile-to- requiring the installation of tank-head
leaders and representatives from Dow, brittle transition temperature and that puncture-resistance systems (head
UP, Union Tank, as well as an external these improvements have resulted in protection), coupler vertical restraint
advisory panel of academic, industry, recent tank car failures occurring in a systems (shelf couplers), insulation, and
and former regulatory leaders to help ductile fashion due to an overload of the thermal protection systems on tank cars
guide the development of the next tank. The CI research is looking at used to transport certain hazardous
generation rail tank car design. several alternative strategies to increase materials.
Recognizing the significant the ductile performance of tank car Despite these safety improvements, as
opportunities to leverage government design, including the development of noted above, in the last several years
and industry resources in designing this novel material tests to better establish a there have been a number of rail tank
next generation rail tank car, in January relationship between overloading and car accidents in which the tank car was
2007, FRA signed a Memorandum of material failure from specimens that do breached and product was lost on the
Cooperation (MOC) with the companies not include a pre-existing crack. This ground or into the atmosphere. FRA’s
involved in the NGRTCP. This MOC information will be used to refine how research focus changed after the tragic
provides for extensive information modeling of tank car failures occurs and occurrence of these accidents.
sharing and cooperation between to help with the evaluation of the Specifically, as discussed in Section VI
ongoing FRA and industry research alternative strategies being reviewed. above, the NTSB issued seven safety
programs to improve the safety of rail recommendations to FRA as a result of
shipments of hazardous commodities X. Discussion of Relevant Tank Car the Minot derailment. Four of these
such as PIH materials. FRA hazardous Research recommendations concern tank car
materials safety and R&D personnel are The process of improving the safety of structural integrity (R–04–04, R–04–05,
actively involved in the project.46 railroad tank cars has been ongoing for R–04–06, and R–04–07), and these four
The NGRTCP is following a six sigma decades. It involves railroads, tank car recommendations served as the basis for
approach (i.e., a data driven approach builders, chemical companies, and the reformulation of FRA’s tank car
and methodology for eliminating government regulators. Historically, research and development program. The
defects) to tank car design, evaluating FRA has conducted, and continues to current FRA tank car research program
such issues as: (1) Coupler penetration fund and co-fund, a substantial amount objective is the development of effective
to tank sides and heads; (2) hydrostatic of tank car safety research and strategies to maintain tank integrity
failure; (3) ability of tanks to withstand development projects with Transport during train derailments or accidents.
ballistic impacts; (4) fittings protection; Canada, as well as with RSI and AAR, The key metric identified for this
(5) operational efficiency (including through their cooperatively funded RSI– research is the maximum speed for
payload, infrastructure, maintenance AAR Railroad Tank Car Safety Research which tank integrity is maintained. This
and re-qualification); as well as (6) fire and Test Project. The RSI–AAR Railroad metric has been identified because of
and thermal protection. Recognizing Tank Car Safety Research and Test the comparable ability for other
that the traditional method of enhancing Project conducts tank car safety research researchers to perform large deformation
tank car survivability (i.e., utilizing in two principal ways: (1) By analysis. Ascertaining the specifics of
thicker, stronger steel) is limited, the maintaining a comprehensive database material failure through analysis is still
project is evaluating the use of on the details of the damage suffered by extremely challenging. The ability to
alternative technologies and design tank cars in accidents, to enable better model tank car integrity with
concepts from other industry sectors understanding of tank car design confidence will be critical to the ability
(e.g., automotive and aerospace). The strengths and weaknesses, and (2) by of tank car manufacturers to develop
general framework for the modeling and conducting engineering analyses of new designs that conform to the
testing contemplated by the NGRTCP specific problems. The FRA further performance standards proposed in this
consists of the use of quantitative collaborates with industry through the NPRM.
TCC to develop standards for designing, Specifically, in response to NTSB’s
analysis (computer simulation using
constructing, maintaining, and safely Minot recommendation R–04–07, work
finite element analysis), component
operating railroad tank cars in North was conducted on the testing of tank car
testing, quarter- to half-scale model
America. steels to examine the dynamic fracture
testing, and limited full-scale testing.
Historically, the Department’s toughness of such steels as a function of
The project also involves a comparison
research has focused on developing service temperature. This work included
of any potential new design with
information on damage tolerance for standardized fracture mechanics tests
existing designs (e.g., the DOT
tailoring inspection intervals for specific and the comparison of results from
105A500W base car, the DOT 105J600W these tests with Charpy V-notch impact
tank car with full head shields and top tank car designs; developing non-
destructive evaluation and testing energies at different temperatures. Due
fittings protection).47 to inherent material variability, the
techniques and methodologies;
46 The MOC was amended in early 2007 when
results from the fracture toughness tests
Transport Canada joined the project. section below and in the transcript to the December
are scattered by a factor of four, which
47 Additional discussion of the NGRTCP may be 14, 2006, public meeting (document no. 22 in FRA would require a safety factor of at least
found in the ‘‘Discussion of Public Comments’’ docket no. FRA–2006–25169). 2 in a quality assurance (QA)
specification. This means, for example, information. Different probability aimed at developing a derailment model
the samples taken from a production distributions (e.g., normal, Weibull, effectively recreating the Minot
heat of steel would have to average at triangular, etc.) have been used to assess derailment. However, due to the chaotic
least twice the toughness needed for various uncertainties in the model. In events and inherent complexities (e.g.,
service. Level 3, a quantitative risk ranking, the track layout and condition; the three
Tightening the QA on steel products information obtained from other dimensional topography of the local
can result in inordinately expensive research programs will be incorporated terrain; car types in a train; and the
steel costs and most likely would be with the goal of ranking tank cars that location of each car in a train) of
cost prohibitive. Alternatively, an are perceived to be the most vulnerable derailment situations, the initial and
unacceptable gain in structure weight to catastrophic failure. Although boundary conditions that lead up to
may be required to sufficiently decrease material properties play an important specific derailment scenarios are very
the applied stresses to meet the safety role in the performance of a tank car poorly understood. Early in its research
factor with achievable material subjected to fatigue type loading, for effort, FRA realized that the exact
performance. Additionally, a overload conditions such as those circumstances and boundary conditions
specification will not provide an experienced in collisions or of the Minot derailment could not be
absolute guarantee of safety because, derailments, the ranking developed is accurately reproduced.
despite the implementation of any QA not expected to provide a tool for Accordingly, FRA revised its objective
specification, some materials released improving tank car performance. in this first phase of research from
from production may not meet the Instead, as noted above, in the NPRM, trying to replicate the conditions of the
minimum fracture toughness standard. the Department has chosen to examine Minot accident, to identifying all of the
Accordingly, although FRA is in the the potential redesign of the tank car salient features of derailment situations
process of completing the dynamic structure to minimize the effect of the based on historical accident
fracture toughness testing, it does not overload conditions, e.g., to absorb more consequence review, as well as active
appear that a workable steel energy prior to incipient rupture and accident investigations, thereby creating
specification could be developed based spread the load over as large an area as a generalized accident scenario with
on the results. Instead, in this NPRM, possible. well-defined initial and boundary
the Department has chosen to explore Currently, FRA’s research focusing on conditions. This information was then
advances in tank car safety through the accident survivability of railroad used to establish more easily analyzed
engineering redesign of tank car tank cars involves a three-step process impact scenarios. Specifically, the
structures to increase the amount of to assess the effects of various types of derailment dynamics model was used to
energy absorption a tank car experiences train accidents (e.g., derailments or estimate the post-derailment car-to-car
prior to a breach. The Department will collisions) on tank cars. Each phase interactions; that is, the gross motions of
continue to examine the dynamic involves the development of the cars as they come off the track after
fracture toughness of steels used in the computational models with different a derailment, the closing impact speeds,
construction of pressure tank cars in objectives. The first phase involved the and the orientations at which the
hazardous materials service and will development of a physics-based model derailed cars come together in a
incorporate any workable tank car to analyze the gross motions of rail cars generalized derailment scenario.
design-specific fracture toughness in a derailment (i.e., a derailment Sensitivity studies were then
standards into the HMR as appropriate dynamics model). This derailment performed to assess the relative effect of
in future rulemakings. dynamics model was then used to various factors on derailment severity.
Also in response to NTSB’s Minot estimate the closing speeds, peak impact The factors analyzed included: (1) The
recommendations, a risk model forces, and angles of incidence between number of cars derailed; (2) the
framework was developed to provide an impactor (e.g., the coupler of another secondary car-to-car closing speed; (3)
the technical basis to rank the factors car) and the tank car head or shell. The the peak forces that the couplers
affecting catastrophic failure of tank cars second phase involved the development experience; and (4) the lateral
in derailments or collisions. The risk of structural finite element analysis displacement of the derailed cars from
model framework focuses on models to simulate the structural the point of derailment. Although there
determining whether the risk of lading response of the tank car head or shell to are several potential alternative analysis
loss in an accident situation could be an assumed scenario (i.e., penetrator techniques that could be employed,
minimized by specifying a particular shape, initial closing velocity, and FRA used two different types of models
material, e.g., normalized versus non- effective collision mass). The third to calculate the gross motions of rail
normalized steel. A hierarchal approach phase is an assessment of the damage cars during a derailment scenario. One
(i.e., Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3) was created by the impacting loads, which model was a purpose-built model using
applied and as research results become entails the application of fracture an explicit derivation of the equations of
available they will be incorporated. mechanics testing and analysis motions for a two-dimensional lumped-
In Level 1, a qualitative ranking is methods. The research is being parameter representation. The second
conducted by identifying the factors that conducted by Volpe and is summarized model involved a commercially-
are perceived to affect risk. These below. In addition, a more detailed available, general-purpose model for
factors are then grossly sorted in terms discussion of the research can be found rigid-body dynamics, commonly
of their expected impact on risk (e.g., in the transcript to the March 30, 2007, accepted within the rail industry. The
high, medium, or low impacts). A public meeting (document no. 29 in inputs for the models included: (1)
simple Level 1 risk ranking has been docket no. FRA–2006–25169) and in Operational factors such as the number
completed. In Level 2, a systematic FRA’s ‘‘Research Results’’ (document of cars in the train and the masses of the
framework will be developed to provide no. 24 in docket no. FRA–2006–25169). cars; (2) descriptions of the initial
a technical basis for ranking the risk The first phase of FRA’s current conditions such as the longitudinal
factors. In this semi-quantitative research program developed speed of the train just prior to
method, a probabilistic approach will be information about the performance of a derailment and the initial angular
used to account for uncertainties due to train consist after a derailment occurs. velocity used to perturb the train set and
physical randomness and/or limited Initially, this phase of the research was cause the derailment; (3) the coefficients
of friction between the tank car trucks Both head and shell impacts were a very similar approach that parallels
(i.e., the swiveling frames of wheels analyzed, but emphasis was placed on the automotive 30 mph barrier test.
under each end of the tank car) and the head impacts because there is a greater Three full-scale tests have been
rail or the ground; (4) specific coupler body of knowledge available on head conducted to date, on April 11, 2007,
characteristics such as length, dead performance. April 26, 2007, and July 11, 2007. These
band, stiffness, and maximum swing In cooperation with FRA, extensive tests involved a side impact between a
angles; and (5) higher-level model head puncture testing was conducted by rigid ram car with a stylized punch
assumptions such as how the couplers the RSI–AAR Test Project throughout striking a standing pressurized DOT
break, the car-to-car contact forces, and the 1970’s and 1980’s. This research, specification 105 tank car broadside at
lumped mass simplification. conducted on both empty, non- the centerline of the tank, both
The input parameters were varied by pressurized and loaded, pressurized horizontally and vertically. The ram car
as much as +/¥fifty percent. The tank cars, led to the HMR’s current was ballasted to a weight of 286,000
models consistently demonstrated that specification for head protection. It is pounds. The standing tank car was
significant sensitivities are associated important when developing such pressurized to 100 psig and was loaded
with initial train speed and ground complicated models to start simply and with clay slurry with a density equal to
friction. The higher the initial train build up in levels of complexity. liquid chlorine with an outage of 10.6%.
speed, the higher the post-derailment Because head impacts are better The ram car was pulled back to a
car-to-car impact closing speed and the understood, as is the deformation of a predetermined position on the slightly
greater the number of derailed cars. tank car unloaded and unpressurized, graded tangent track and released to
However, the results indicate that, in FRA initially modeled an empty, achieve the desired impact speed. Just
general, the secondary car-to-car impact unpressurized tank car. There is greater prior to impact with the standing tank
speed is one-half that of the initial train uncertainty associated with pressurized car, the air brakes on the ram car were
speed across the variation in input fully-loaded cars, as well as activated, such that upon rebound, a
parameters. Additionally, the resulting understanding the stress states the cars second impact would not occur. In the
car-to-car impact speeds are negatively experience prior to rupture. Results first two tests, the punch face size was
affected by increases in ground friction. from the RSI–AAR head impact data, approximately 23 inches by 17 inches;
That is, for higher ground friction, the empirical puncture models, and three- in the third test, the punch face size was
resulting car-to-car closing speeds are dimensional laser mapping of the approximately 6 inches by 6 inches.
lower and fewer cars derail. Of interest The first test was a limited
damage from the cars in Graniteville
was the finding that within the instrumented assurance test designed to
were used to help establish the validity
parameters of the modeling, the mass of develop information about how the
and fidelity of the models. FRA intends
the cars was not a significant factor on colliding equipment interact and to
to continue its modeling efforts to
post-derailment car-to-car closing better understand the gross motions of
increase the level of complexity to
speeds or on the number of cars the two cars. Because the test was
analyze a loaded, pressurized car. designed to develop more detailed
derailed.
Results of the derailment dynamics The third phase of the FRA’s current information about the interacting cars’
modeling also demonstrated similar car- research program is an extension of the behavior, and puncturing the standing
to-car interactions as observed in real model development and assessment of car would have unnecessarily
world accident situations. For example, damage to tank cars from prescribed complicated the analysis and test set-up,
one type of impact occurs when two impact loading conditions that may lead the test speed was defined such that no
cars come together and the second car to catastrophic failure. The results from puncture would occur. Specifically, the
impacts the head of the first car (e.g., the full-scale tests will be used to validate first test was conducted at 9.6 mph, and
Macdona accident). A second type of the second and third phases of the as predicted, no puncture occurred. The
impact is associated with side/shell research. limited instrumentation on both the ram
impacts (e.g., the Minot accident). Both The FRA and the NGRTCP group are car and the standing tank car were
the derailment dynamics models, as conducting a series of shell impact tests analyzed and the force-time histories
well as real world incidents to provide information about the measured and predicted. The measured
documented in the RSI–AAR Tank Car performance of conventional PIH tank force-time histories from the collected
Accident Damage Database, demonstrate cars under the collision conditions data were within the standard deviation
that these head/shell impacts occur both defined from the previous research of the predicted test results.
at the centerline of the car as well as at program. In addition to providing The second test that was conducted
the ends of the cars above the trucks/ baseline performance data, the test had a fully-instrumented standing tank
bogies. By combining this information, conditions developed are intended to car. The additional instrumentation
simple impact scenarios were developed aid in the development of a testing helped to define load path into the tank
that could be readily analyzed to process that can be used to assess the car, the evolution of the plastic dent
compare the performance of different relative performance of different growth, and recovery. It also refined the
types of tank car designs (whether from designs, as well as to qualify a design. measurements of the gross motions of
the existing fleet or newer proposed The full-scale testing approach involves the colliding cars’ interaction. The test
designs). a generalized impact condition based was conducted at 14.0 mph. As with the
The second phase of FRA’s current upon the scenarios defined previously first test, this test speed was chosen so
research program utilized the and is designed to be simple to set-up, that puncture would not occur. The ram
information generated from the safe to conduct, and readily analyzed. It car was again released from a pre-
derailment dynamics modeling to assess is also designed to provide consistent defined location and allowed to roll
the forces to which cars can be and repeatable results. The test freely under gravity and the grade to
subjected in the event of a collision or conditions developed are not intended impact the standing tank car. The
derailment. This work required the to replicate any specific accident analysis of the test data are on-going,
development of large deformation finite conditions but are rather intended to but preliminary review suggests that
element models capable of analyzing result in similar failure and deformation again the force-time histories of the ram
post buckling/plastic deformations. modes as observed in accidents. This is car and the struck tank car are within
the standard deviation of the predicted full-scale sub-assembly tests build Solutions, Inc., the Brotherhood of
test results. confidence in the fidelity of the models Railroad Signalmen, Agrium U.S. Inc.,
After the second test, a careful used as they capture both material and CI, and PPG Industries (PPG). Many of
inspection of the ram car showed that a geometric nonlinear behavior exhibited these same organizations attended the
modest amount of damage was inflicted by larger scale components. Finally, in public meetings and provided oral
on the lead truck and its carbody conjunction with the NGRTC program, comments at those meetings. The
attachment. This damage was attributed full-scale prototype cars will be following discussion provides an
to the off-axis vertical motions resulting subjected to side and head impact and overview of the written and verbal
from the difference in the centerline of over-the-road testing. Each additional comments that were received. Where
the impactor and the height of the test enhances the modelers’ ability to appropriate, a more detailed discussion
center-of-gravity of the ram car. predict and capture increasingly of specific comments and how DOT has
In order to safely run a test to complicated behavior under extreme chosen to address those comments in
puncture the baseline car, either a accident loading conditions. As noted in this proposed rule can be found in
smaller punch would be needed and the the discussion of the proposed rule text, Section XIII below, the Section-by-
test speed maintained at 14 mph, or the the proposed head and shell Section analysis portion of this
center-of-gravity of the ram car would performance standard is based on the preamble.
have to be raised to be more in line with model that has been developed by
the centerline of the punch, to minimize A. May 31–June 1, 2006 Public Meeting
Volpe. As more testing is completed,
ram car vertical motions for impact any new information or refinements to The primary purpose of the first
speeds greater than 14 mph. The option the test procedure will be considered for public meeting, held on May 31–June 1,
selected was to reduce the punch size to incorporation in this proposed rule. 2006, was to surface and prioritize
6 inches by 6 inches. There was equal For the reasons outlined above, FRA’s issues relating to the safe transportation
confidence in simulating the influence research has focused on ways to of hazardous materials in railroad tank
of punch size and impact speed on tank enhance the accident survivability of cars. Attendees included representatives
rupture. DOT is seeking to significantly tank cars through implementation of an from the railroad industry, shipping
increase the impact speed at which tank enhanced performance standard for industry, railroad tank car
cars carrying PIH materials can protect head shields and tank shells. We manufacturing and repair companies,
their lading. For a wide range of sizes, recognize that there may be a number of labor organizations, the NTSB,
this goal is independent of punch size. different ways for tank car Transport Canada, and the
In order to allow for safer test manufacturers to meet this performance Transportation Security Administration
procedures and lower test speeds, it was standard, including different design- (TSA). At this meeting, commenters
decided to use the smaller punch size in types, variations in materials of from both the railroad industry and the
the regulation. construction, and the like. We invite hazardous materials shipping industry
Because of the results of the second commenters to suggest specific expressed the view that rail is the safest
test, in the third test, the punch face size measures that would be utilized to meet mode of transportation for hazardous
was approximately 6 inches by 6 inches. the proposed performance standard. In materials over land. For example, the
The standing tank car that was used addition, commenters may wish to AAR explained that since 1980, the rate
during the third test was fully- provide data and information that of rail accidents with a hazardous
instrumented. The test was conducted at would support alternative strategies for materials release per thousand rail
15.1 mph, and this test speed was achieving the goal of improved tank car carload has dropped by 89%. RSI noted
chosen so that puncture would occur. accident survivability. that approximately 1.7 million carloads
The third test was designed to confirm of hazardous materials are transported
that material failure of the tank car and XI. Discussion of Public Comments by rail throughout the United States
puncture would occur at 15 mph with As noted above, recognizing the need each year and 99.98% of those
a smaller impactor. The test also for public input as part of DOT’s shipments reach their destinations
provides a comparative baseline comprehensive review of design and without incident. Similarly, RSI
reference for the enhanced tank car operational factors affecting rail tank car commented that statistics demonstrate
designs. As with the second test, the safety, PHMSA and FRA held three that it is 16 times safer to move
ram car was again released from a pre- public meetings inviting interested hazardous materials by rail, as
defined location and allowed to roll parties to comment on relevant aspects compared to highway. Noting that it
freely under gravity and the grade to of tank car safety. As part of the public would take approximately four cargo
impact the standing tank car. The comment process, FRA established a tank trucks to deliver the amount of
analysis of the test data are on-going, public docket (Docket No. FRA–2006– hazardous materials that can be carried
but preliminary review suggests that 25169), providing interested parties in one rail tank car, several shippers
again the force-time histories of the ram with a central location to both send and expressed concern that if shippers were
car and the struck tank car are within review relevant information concerning forced to transport hazardous materials
the standard deviation of the predicted the safety of railroad tank car via highway, the overall safety risk
test results. transportation of hazardous materials. would increase because of the increased
Additional tank car testing is planned. The FRA docket contains several number of shipments on the nation’s
The further testing will provide submissions from FRA (e.g., transcripts roads. Several representatives of the
additional insight and validation to the of the three public meetings, relevant hazardous materials shipping industry
modeling. The additional tests include Congressional testimony, research expressed the view that rail
material, full-scale sub-assembly, and reports), as well as comments from transportation of hazardous materials is
full-scale prototype car tests. Materials numerous members of the regulated essential to the competitiveness of the
tests improve the constitutive models community. Specifically, written U.S. chemical and agricultural
applicable to the specific sub- comments were received from the industries, to the public health, safety
components used in alternative designs, following organizations: BASF and welfare, as well as to the economy
such as behavior of composites, foams, Corporation, the Institute of Makers of of the United States. Dow, the largest
and multi-layered metal structures. The Explosives, Dow, TFI, Trinity, Applied chemical company in the world,
indicated that its North American factors, track conditions, and signal and materials hold the main line during
business model is based on the belief train control systems designed to meets; and (4) requiring trains on
that the rail transportation of hazardous prevent accidents in the first place, as sidings to stop before PIH trains pass.
materials is the safest, most efficient, well as emergency response issues Additionally, a representative from CP
most economical, and most socially intended to ensure that in the event of presented information on the carrier’s
acceptable way of shipping hazardous an incident, emergency responders are efforts, dating back to 1995, to address
materials over land. able to respond appropriately. In human factors issues in the railroad
Despite these safety statistics, meeting addition, PHMSA has issued a proposed environment, including efforts directed
participants from both the railroad and rule that would require railroads to at crew resource management, and
shipping industries expressed gather traffic and commodity data on fatigue risk management.
agreement on the need for continuous certain explosive, radioactive, and PIH Noting member railroads’ efforts to
improvement in the safe transportation materials they transport; analyze safety reduce the occurrence of accidents that
of hazardous materials by railroad tank and security vulnerabilities of current can lead to hazardous materials releases,
car, particularly in light of the Minot, and alternative routes used for these the AAR expressed the view that
Macdona, and Graniteville accidents. materials; and select the routes that pose ‘‘[r]esponsible planning must consider
However, participants expressed the least safety and security risks after that accidents can occur’’ and ‘‘in
differing views on how to accomplish considering any mitigation measures addition to the efforts to prevent
that goal. Many representatives of that could be implemented. See 71 FR accidents, industry must also do
organizations that depend on railroads 76834 (Dec. 21, 2006). everything it can to reduce the
for shipping hazardous materials stated Other commenters noted the probability of a release of TIH
that improvements in the safe voluntary efforts already underway by [materials], such as anhydrous ammonia
transportation of hazardous materials by many hazardous materials shippers to and chlorine, should an incident
railroad tank car should be made only improve the safe transportation of their occur.’’ Based on its research through
after a ‘‘holistic’’ consideration of the materials by rail. One example of an the University of Illinois, AAR noted
rail transportation system. For instance, industry effort to address the safe that there appears to be a significant
several commenters expressed the view transportation of hazardous materials in opportunity to reduce the probability of
that not only should tank car design tank cars is the partnering of Dow and a release of anhydrous ammonia and
improvements be considered, but safety UP in a series of initiatives to improve chlorine in the event of an accident.
improvements should also address rail safety and security, including the AAR indicated that the University of
railroad operating and maintenance NGRTCP. These initiatives are Illinois research concluded that,
practices; railroad routing practices and discussed in more detail in Section IX utilizing existing technology, the
how to reduce ton miles PIH materials above. probability of a release of anhydrous
travel due to inefficient routes; shipper Railroad participants, including the ammonia and chlorine from a tank car
commodity handling practices; and AAR, CP, and BNSF, expressed the view involved in an accident could be
emergency response procedures. Both that the railroad industry itself has reduced by 65 percent or more by
the Brotherhood of Locomotive taken many voluntary steps to reduce substituting enhanced tank cars for the
Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the the occurrence of accidents that can cars currently used to transport these
United Transportation Union (UTU) lead to hazardous materials releases. For materials. AAR explained that this
echoed several of these same concerns, instance, a representative from BNSF conclusion was premised on replacing
particularly noting human factors presented information on the carrier’s the current 263,000 pound tank cars
issues, the prevalence of non-signalized derailment prevention efforts aimed at used for transporting anhydrous
territory, the training of crews to handle track caused derailments, equipment ammonia and chlorine with 286,000
hazardous materials, and crews’ access caused derailments, as well as pound tank cars equipped with
to personal protective equipment in the derailments relating to operating additional head protection, thicker
event of an incident. One commenter practices. BNSF’s efforts include shells, and enhanced top fittings
specifically suggested that DOT adopt implementing advanced train control protection (i.e., the Trinity car).
AAR Circular OT–55-I as a regulation. technology; utilizing various freight car Most commenters representing
Several commenters noted that the tank condition monitoring technologies; members of the hazardous materials
car is only one component of the rail installing and maintaining switch point shipping industry generally expressed
transportation system, and no single position indicators and broken rail support for the efforts of the AAR TCC
component of the system can provide protection in non-signalized dark to improve the transportation of
the entire means to improving tank car territory; as well as modifying the hazardous materials by rail. However,
safety. Accordingly, many commenters carrier’s operating practices when those commenters expressed concerns
expressed a desire for DOT to take a transporting a significant amount of PIH with several aspects of the TCC’s recent
leadership role in addressing the safe materials over non-signalized territory. proposals. First, commenters stated that
transportation of hazardous materials by Specifically, noting that nearly 50% of the implementation period proposed by
railroad tank car on a system-wide basis. BNSF’s PIH movement is over non- AAR (i.e., replacing the entire chlorine
FRA and PHMSA generally agree with signaled territory, BNSF explained and anhydrous tank car fleet within five
these commenters. Although this NPRM changes in its operating practices aimed to seven years) was unrealistic,
focuses on enhancing the tank car at ensuring the safe transport of PIH particularly given tank car
packaging, it also proposes certain materials over this type of territory. manufacturing capacity. One
operational restrictions specific to tank BNSF noted the following changes in commenter, Terra Industries (Terra), a
cars transporting PIH materials, and operating practices when transporting shipper of anhydrous ammonia,
DOT’s comprehensive review of design PIH materials over dark territory: (1) objected to AAR’s proposal noting that
and operational factors affecting rail Inspecting the route prior to operating the estimated costs to build cars to the
tank car safety is not so limited. As trains carrying PIH materials; (2) standard would be approximately 160%
noted above, DOT’s rail safety efforts are restricting the speed of trains carrying higher than new ammonia cars being
multi-faceted, and DOT is addressing PIH materials to 35 miles per hour; (3) built today. In addition, Terra noted that
operational issues such as human requiring that trains hauling PIH because the cars would hold
approximately 80% as much product as root causes of accidents (e.g., operating protection purposes, but because fire
compared to current ammonia cars due factors). Again, FRA and PHMSA agree protection is now provided through
to infrastructure restrictions, shippers with commenters in this respect. As layers of insulation, the metal jacket is
would need more cars in order to make described above, FRA is aggressively not necessarily needed any longer.
shipments at current levels. This, in working through a comprehensive Instead, ARI explained that certain
turn, according to Terra, would increase action plan to not only improve the carbon fibers may better serve the
the costs of shipping by approximately integrity of tank cars used to transport purpose of the metal jacket. As
75% before rail freight and fuel charges. hazardous materials, but to address the discussed in more detail in the Section-
Several other shippers and chemical root causes of such accidents as well. by-Section analysis below, this NPRM
manufacturers echoed Terra’s concern proposes to retain the requirement that
B. December 14, 2006 Public Meeting
regarding reduced capacity, noting that tank cars used to transport PIH materials
infrastructure restrictions of many Although commenters at the second be equipped with metal jackets. DOT,
facilities and some shortline railroads public meeting, which was held on however, invites further comments on
would prohibit utilizing a car weighing December 14, 2006, raised many of the the efficacy of maintaining this
286,000 pounds. These commenters also same issues discussed at the prior requirement or suggestions for effective,
noted that this reduced car capacity public meeting, discussion at the feasible alternatives.
could lead to an increased number of meeting focused on a series of nine On behalf of the NGRTCP, a
railroad tank car shipments, and in the questions posed by PHMSA and FRA in representative of Dow generally
case of anhydrous ammonia, a shift from the meeting notice publication. See 71 explained the new designs, materials,
rail transportation to highway FR 67015 (Nov. 17, 2006). Attendees and structures being explored by the
transportation. again included representatives from the project. The commenter noted that the
Terra also noted that AAR’s approach railroad industry, shipping industry, current rail car design for the typical
was inconsistent with the NTSB’s railroad tank car manufacturing and jacketed pressure car relies on the inner
recommendations in response to the repair companies, Transport Canada, tank to serve three functions: (1)
Minot accident. Specifically, Terra and TSA. Contain the commodity; (2) carry all
stated that the NTSB’s report for the First, PHMSA and FRA asked what train stresses and loads; and (3) protect
Minot accident indicated that the new designs, materials, or structures the commodity from external forces.
construction of tank cars with sufficient DOT should be investigating for The NGRTCP is evaluating the potential
impact resistance to eliminate or reduce improved accident/derailment to separate these tank functions, so that
leaks would require an evaluation of the survivability of hazardous materials the inner tank’s primary purpose is to
dynamic forces acting on the tank cars tank cars. In response to this question, contain the commodity and then
in an accident situation, as well as an CI expressed the view that advances in effectively add layers of functionality to
integrated analysis of the response of material science present an opportunity address train stresses and loads and
the tank’s structure and the tank to investigate new materials for the protect the inner tank from external
material to these forces. Terra noted that construction and protection of tank cars. forces. This commenter also noted that
AAR’s proposed approach considered For example, CI noted advances in the current jacketed pressure car is
none of these factors. steelmaking practices, composites used made up of three components: (1) An
Similarly, noting FRA’s on-going for insulation, materials used for outer shell or jacket, (2) an interstitial
research with Volpe, several thermal protection, as well as crash space (typically 10–12 inches for a
commenters stated that any potential energy management materials. chlorine tank car), and (3) the inner tank
tank car design improvements should Similarly, Trinity explained that the and that the NGRTCP is analyzing what
take into consideration the results of the AAR TCC has an ongoing program can be done to improve tank car
Volpe research. Commenters generally evaluating non-traditional steels for tank survivability by utilizing the interstitial
noted that improved tank car design is car construction (i.e., steels not typically space.
dependent on understanding and used in the construction of railroad tank Dow further explained that the
defining the environment in which the cars) and suggested that DOT should NGRTCP was evaluating two high-level
tank car is expected to perform. FRA actively participate in, and fund, this tank car designs. The first design under
and PHMSA agree that in order to activity. FRA notes that it is an active evaluation is how a typical jacketed
design an enhanced tank car with participant in the AAR task force pressure car could be improved by
increased accident survivability, an evaluating these steels, and FRA looks adding layers of functionality and
understanding of the forces acting upon forward to continuing to work with incorporating alternative technologies,
a tank car in a typical derailment or industry on this research. CI commented particularly in the interstitial space. The
collision scenario is necessary. further, however, that prior to the use of second design under evaluation by the
Accordingly, FRA has aggressively any of these new materials, DOT and NGRTCP is similar to a DOT 113/115
accelerated its research efforts related to industry would need to conduct tank-within-a-tank design. The primary
tank car integrity and, as discussed appropriate research, utilizing real purpose of the inner tank in this design
above, FRA is working cooperatively world accident data. To that end, CI is to contain the commodity. The
with industry to leverage R&D noted its ongoing research through interstitial space and outer structure of
resources. We will continue to update Structural Reliability Technologies, the tank is then used to bear trainload
this docket to reflect the results of our which preliminarily identified certain stresses and protect the inner tank from
ongoing research efforts and, as materials as having the potential to external forces. A tank-within-a-tank
indicated above, may incorporate improve accident survivability of approach allows the inner tank to be
research results in a final rule hazardous material rail cars. designed around the physical and
developed as a result of this NPRM. ARI stated that in order to chemical properties of the material
Several commenters further expressed accommodate material advances, certain being transported and allows for several
the view that the overriding goal of any existing DOT regulatory requirements different alternatives for designing the
effort must be to prevent accidents from may need to be revised. For example, interstitial space and the outer tank
occurring in the first place and that ARI noted that the J-type tank car structure to bear trainloads and protect
AAR’s proposal does not address the requires a metal external jacket for fire the inner tank. For example, Dow
explained that the inner tank could infrastructure and the regulatory scheme and (4) redesign of the pressure relief
potentially be made of a thinner steel surrounding tank car unloading. Trinity valve. We expect that modified top
than that used in current cars and suggested that DOT could facilitate fittings will be ready for service trials in
wrapped in a composite material. improvements in top fittings protection early 2008.
Additionally, deformable materials by modifying the regulations to require Although the research appears
could be used to create ‘‘crumple zones’’ lower profiles and by replacing the promising, at this time it is
in the interstitial space; the outer current hardware-specific requirements inappropriate to propose new standards
structure of the tank could be with a performance standard. As noted (by rulemaking or otherwise) for top
constructed of a different type of steel, in Section IX above, CPC–1178 would fittings protection because it is not yet
not necessarily suitable for use in a require anhydrous ammonia and clear what modifications would provide
typical pressure car; and potentially an chlorine tank cars constructed after a substantial improvement in the ability
impact resistant coating could be January 1, 2008 and used in interchange of top fittings to:
applied to the outer structure. Dow to have top fittings designed to (1) Withstand accident conditions,
noted that this could possibly result in withstand a rollover with a minimum while providing at least the same level
a stronger tank, which weighs less than linear velocity of nine mph. See of protection from non-accident
the current design. discussion in Section V above on releases,
The Department encourages industry interchange requirements. (2) Continue to work with industry’s
to continue evaluating the potential use Although DOT is aware that incidents existing loading and unloading
of the new materials, new types of steel, involving tank car top fittings do occur, infrastructure, and
and alternative designs discussed at the historical accident data demonstrates (3) Maintain compatibility with
meeting. FRA believes that, by utilizing that top fittings are not a significant current emergency response
existing technology, a significant factor in attempting to reduce the risk requirements (e.g., compatibility with
improvement can be made to enhance associated with large product losses. For Emergency Kit C, which is used to
railroad tank car accident survivability. example, considering the more than 2 contain leaks in and around the
Accordingly, the performance standards million chlorine shipments between pressure relief device and valves in the
for enhanced head and shell protection 1965 and 2005, only 1 of the 14 losses case of chlorine tank cars).
set forth in this NPRM are technology- in accidents from top fittings was We expect that FRA’s research,
neutral and are intended to allow for the reasonably deemed substantial, with together with the findings of the TCC
most design, material, and 1,000 gallons lost. During the same time and NGRTCP, will lead to a consensus-
manufacturing flexibility, while frame, the next largest chlorine release based industry standard for enhanced
significantly improving the accident from top fittings in an accident involved tank car top fittings protection. Provided
survivability of railroad tank cars. We 100 gallons, while the remaining 12 top that the design does not deviate from
ask commenters to submit data and fitting losses in accidents were small Federal regulations, the Department will
information concerning alternative amounts, many of them 10 gallons or evaluate implementation. If the
strategies for enhancing accident less, with an average loss of consensus design does deviate from
survivability that may be as effective as, approximately 13 gallons. None of these Federal standards or if the Department
or more effective than, the enhanced incidents resulted in injuries. At the deems that the industry actions are not
head and shell protection measures same time, catastrophic losses from sufficient, we will propose revised
proposed in this NPRM. tank-head or shell punctures averaged Federal standards for top fittings in a
Second, PHMSA and FRA solicited approximately 10,000 gallons per separate rulemaking proceeding as early
information regarding tank car top accident. These data demonstrate that as next year. To support these efforts,
fittings. Specifically, the agencies asked failures or breaches of tank car heads or the Department intends to hold a public
whether there were any design changes shells tend to lead to large quantities of meeting early next year to discuss the
that would enhance the survivability of chemicals released, and accordingly, need for revised top fittings standards.
tank car top fittings (e.g., modifications pose the greatest safety risk. Parties wishing the Department to
to height or placement of valves or Despite the minimal risk of consider proposed revised top fittings
modifications to the protective structure substantial releases from tank car top standards may, of course, petition the
that surrounds the valves). In response fittings in accidents, FRA and industry Department at any time for a rulemaking
to this question, commenters generally are actively researching methods for to change the existing Federal
agreed that two of the most important enhancing tank car safety through standards. 49 CFR 106.55.
factors for top fitting survivability in an modifications to top fittings. FRA has an As discussed in Section I above,
accident are lowering the profile of the ongoing research program focused on improving the safety and security of
fittings to reduce vulnerability and improving the performance of tank car hazardous materials transportation via
strengthening the protection top fittings in the event of roll-over railroad tank car is an ongoing process.
surrounding the fittings. Along those incidents. Additionally, both the TCC As we continue our comprehensive
lines, a few commenters representing and the NGRTCP are investigating review of tank car safety, we anticipate
the railroad industry suggested that the potential improvements to top fittings. holding additional public meetings to
ultimate goal of enhancing top fittings The TCC is examining the effectiveness address relevant issues other than those
protection should be a tank car with of various fitting protection devices and contained in this NPRM. At this time,
only a flange on the pressure plate that the feasibility of using recessed fittings. however, because the loss of lading from
could be skid- or roll bar-protected, or The TCC has indicated that initial side or head impacts in accident
a tank car that could be shipped with no simulations of these concepts scenarios presents the greatest risk, FRA
fittings, requiring that the fittings be demonstrate potential for providing is concentrating its efforts on those areas
installed at the point of unloading. In significant protection, particularly at for purposes of this rulemaking. We do,
response to the idea of a tank car being higher speeds. The NGRTCP is however, invite commenters to provide
shipped with no fittings, however, examining potential improvements any data or other information relative to
shippers generally expressed concern including (1) Lowering the profile of the potential modifications to tank car top
with the safety and compatibility of fittings; (2) reducing the number of fittings or potential enhanced safety
such a system given existing plant valves; (3) the use of internal closures; standards for fittings, including the
design of fittings utilized on the Trinity The NTSB further suggested that the addition, the NGRTCP is considering
tank car. Commenters may also wish to materials utilized between the inner and structural foams as energy absorbing
provide data and information outer shells should be designed so that and diffusing materials, as well as crash
concerning the costs that would be they can serve as a local impact energy energy management systems, impact
incurred to modify tank cars built to the dissipation momentum transfer limiters, the use of deformable materials
performance standard proposed in this mechanism, effectively spreading out (particularly based on experience in the
NPRM to incorporate enhanced fitting the impacting force. Following the automobile racing industry), and impact
designs. We also remind interested NTSB’s line of reasoning and noting that resistant coatings.
parties that any person may petition the pressure within a tank is a ‘‘pushback’’ In the fourth question, PHMSA and
Department to initiate a rulemaking against external forces, ARI expressed FRA solicited information pertaining to
proceeding regarding issues relevant to the view that consideration needs to be whether there were measures, other
the transportation of hazardous given to lowering the internal pressure than accident survivability, such as
materials by rail. 49 CFR 106.55. of tank cars (depending on the vapor improved security of operating fittings,
The third question posed by PHMSA pressure of the commodity contained in or an ability to locate cars beyond
and FRA pertained to tank car puncture- the car), so that impact forces result in current car movement reporting
resistance (including the puncture- deformation to the tank shell, rather systems, that could improve the overall
resistance of the head and shell), and than a puncture of the shell. safety and security of hazardous
specifically whether there are any Commenters generally noted that material shipments via railroad tank car.
design, material, or manufacturing several concepts aimed at improving In response to this question,
changes that could lead to improved tank car puncture-resistance are commenters generally noted the many
tank car puncture-resistance. In currently being explored in the voluntary efforts, which are already
response to this question, a industry, or could be explored. For underway in both the shipping and
representative of the NTSB suggested example, Trinity suggested that tank- railroad industries, designed to detect
that the relevant issue should not be head protection could be provided by hazardous materials leaks, monitor the
limited to what PHMSA and FRA ultra-high strength, non-formable, flat temperature and other conditions of
termed ‘‘puncture-resistance.’’ Instead, plates such as armor plating, thereby materials being transported in railroad
the NTSB noted that low-speed impacts permitting tank-head thickness to be tank cars, and track the locations of
by large objects lead to structural reduced to that required to contain the railroad tank car hazardous material
deformation and possible puncture, and internal pressure. CI commented that shipments. Although commenters
accordingly, any structural deformation improving puncture resistance is the generally expressed the view that the
and puncture must be looked at together single most important design factor in existing car movement reporting system,
as an issue of structural impact and enhancing accident survivability. To including the automatic equipment
response. this end, CI noted that through its identification system, is sufficient for
DOT recognizes NTSB’s point with ongoing research with Structural purposes of locating shipments in a
regard to the specific term ‘‘puncture Reliability Technologies (SRT), it is timely fashion, most commenters
resistance.’’ However, DOT’s research looking at potential improvements expressed support for utilizing
efforts are aimed at improving the through a combination of new material additional location monitoring and
accident survivability of railroad tank for tank and/or jacket construction (e.g., other shipment monitoring technologies
cars, and in examining this issue, DOT high strength/low alloy steels) and the (e.g., car securement sensors,
is considering not just the ability of a incorporation of energy-absorbing temperature sensors) depending on the
tank car to resist puncture, but as noted materials into the configuration of tank commercial viability of the technologies
in Section X above, the agency has cars and tank car jackets. Commenters and the risk presented by the product
analyzed the equipment’s overall also suggested that DOT consider being shipped.
structural response to head or shell technologies utilized in other industries. The fifth question PHMSA and FRA
impacts. DOT believes that an For example, one commenter noted posed at the public meeting pertained to
understanding of a tank car’s overall antiterrorism industry projects regarding whether, in addition to accident
structural response to impacts is self-sealing technologies. DOT, together survivability, tank cars should be
necessary in any effort to improve the with TSA and industry, are currently designed to withstand other types of
ability of a tank car to maintain its investigating the potential of utilizing extraordinary events (e.g., ballistic
integrity under accident conditions. self-sealing technologies on hazardous attack or unauthorized access to tank car
However, DOT believes that for material tank cars to aid in the quick valving). In response to this question,
purposes of regulatory language setting repair of the tank in the event of a one shipper commented that tank cars
forth a performance standard regarding breach. DOT believes that this research should not be designed to withstand
a tank car’s ability to maintain its is promising, particularly in the context extraordinary events. Instead, the
integrity under accident conditions, the of ballistic impacts. However, the environment in which tank cars operate
term ‘‘puncture resistance’’ is an technologies appear to be of limited needs to be modified to prevent such
accurate representation of the utility in the repair of tank breaches extraordinary events as derailments.
performance that needs to be achieved resulting from derailments and other Other commenters suggested that tank
(i.e., the tank car maintains its integrity collision scenarios where the area car design changes should be made to
such that no lading is released as a breached tends to be larger than what prevent unauthorized access to the cars’
result of the impact). Accordingly, in results from ballistic impacts. contents and to potentially withstand
this NPRM, DOT has maintained the Dow, on behalf of the NGRTCP, ballistic attack. Generally, however,
term ‘‘puncture resistance.’’ explained that in connection with commenters recognized the need to
The NTSB also stated that any new improved puncture-resistance, the examine any such potential changes on
tank car design should take advantage of project is examining different types of a risk basis, taking into consideration
the large increase in structural stiffness steels (e.g., the current TC–128 with whether such requirements would be
and strength that results from coupling varying sulfur contents, as well as other cost effective in particular situations
two rigid shells together, as opposed to types of steels not currently used in given the risk presented by a particular
a floating tank-within-a-tank design. railroad tank car construction). In commodity.
Noting that the HMR currently example, Trinity cited AAR’s CPC– materials). Even more specifically, AAR
include performance standards for 1176, which contains both a suggested that those PIH materials with
coupler vertical restraint systems, performance standard and a default the highest hazards and those shipped
pressure relief devices, tank-head design standard conforming to the most often, should be addressed first.
puncture-resistance systems, thermal performance standard. Expressing the With regard to the tank car itself, ARI
protection systems, and service view that CPC–1176 is a true noted that the better protected a tank car
equipment protection, the sixth performance standard, AAR encouraged is at the present time, it should be one
question PHMSA and FRA posed at the the Department to use the work already of the last cars retrofitted or taken out
public meeting pertained to whether done by the TCC. of service. In addition, ARI expressed
those standards are adequate for future We agree with an approach that the view that the order in which cars are
tank cars, and if not, what areas and specifies a performance standard. In retrofitted or taken out of service should
aspects of railroad tank cars need to be fact, in the final rule relating to be left to car owners.
improved. In response to this question, Crashworthiness Protection We agree that car owners need a
Trinity suggested that the current Requirements for Tank Cars,48 we certain amount of flexibility in
requirement in the HMR for top fittings agreed with commenters that a managing improvements to their tank
protection on pressure cars (49 CFR performance-based standard for shell- car fleets. Accordingly, this NPRM
179.100–12) is not a performance puncture resistance could have merit proposes an implementation period
standard and should be made one. In over a specification-based standard. At spread over eight years during which
addition, Trinity suggested that the that time, however, we did not have the car owners are free to manage the
HMR should be updated in other areas, data to support a performance-based implementation of the proposed
such as bottom outlet protection and standard. Since then, we have enhancements within their fleets,
requiring normalized steel for pressure assembled enough research and data to provided certain milestones are met.
cars, to make the regulations consistent allow for the promulgation of a The NPRM does provide, however, that
with industry standards. Echoing performance-based standard, which will five years after the effective date of the
comments raised at the initial public foster new technology and provide final rule, tank cars manufactured using
meeting, CI suggested that all railroad design, material, and manufacturing non-normalized steel for head or shell
freight cars be equipped with double flexibility. construction would no longer be
shelf couplers to avoid couplers on non- The seventh question on which authorized for the transportation of PIH
hazardous materials cars from becoming PHMSA and FRA solicited information materials.
disengaged and breaching a tank car pertained to how the agencies should The eighth question posed by PHMSA
containing hazardous materials. FRA is consider risk factors in determining and FRA pertained to whether the
actively researching the potential whether to require tank car safety and installation of bearing sensors or other
security enhancements. For example, on-board tracking/monitoring systems
benefits of modifying freight car
the agencies asked whether the risk of capable of monitoring, for example, tank
couplers (e.g., the use of push-back
the car/commodity pair should be car pressure, temperature, and safety
couplers or other coupler technology
considered so that improvements would conditions, would improve the safety
advancements) to potentially reduce the
first apply to the car/commodity pairs and security of hazardous materials
likelihood of a tank car being punctured
considered to have the greatest risk or shipments by railroad tank car and, if
by the coupler of another car during an
for which the car/commodity pair so, whether implementing such a
accident. If the results of FRA’s research
would benefit most from the system is feasible.
demonstrates that such coupler In response to this question,
improvement. In addition, the agencies
modifications would increase safety commenters generally noted that many
solicited information on what other risk
cost-effectively, FRA will consider such factors should be considered. hazardous materials shippers have
a requirement in a future rulemaking In response to this question, already implemented onboard tracking
proceeding. commenters generally maintained that and monitoring systems for a variety of
Commenters generally expressed a tank car safety and security reasons. A representative of the
preference for the development of enhancements should be based on the NGRTCP noted that it was expected that
performance standards, as opposed to hazard of the commodity involved, as certain on-board tracking/monitoring
hardware-specific requirements. well as the existing tank car safety systems would be included in the Next
Commenters noted, however, that there features, materials, and methods of Generation Rail Car design, but that
is not uniform agreement on what construction. For example, CI stated that many detailed practicalities of such a
constitutes a performance standard. For the appropriate way to prioritize tank system would need to be addressed
example, CI stated that a performance car safety enhancements is to start with (e.g., monitors attached to individual
standard is something that is physically those commodities that have the greatest cars or through a system of wayside
verifiable, that can be tested to, consequence and greatest likelihood of detectors, the utilization of data
considers risks and benefits, and that causing consequences if released. collected and communication of that
can be applied to new technologies and Accordingly, CI concluded that starting data to affected parties).
new designs. However, CI noted that the with PIH materials was logical. The final question posed by PHMSA
probability of release is not something Similarly, citing its efforts at developing and FRA pertained to whether the
that can be tested to. Trinity also an enhanced tank car standard, AAR installation of electronically controlled
expressed support for utilizing commented that tank car safety pneumatic (ECP) brake systems on tank
performance standards in the tank car improvements should first focus on the cars would improve the safety of
regulations. Trinity suggested that any cars carrying commodities that are hazardous materials shipments by
performance standard should also hazardous to human health (i.e., PIH railroad tank car. Only Trinity and a
include at least one default hardware- representative of the NGRTCP
specific standard that can be applied by 48 Crashworthiness Protection Requirements for
responded to this question. Expressing
those who do not have the time or Tank Cars; Detection and Repair of Cracks, Pits, the view that for ECP brakes to be
Corrosion, Lining Flaws, Thermal Protection Flaws
resources to develop their own and Other Defects of Tank Car Tanks, 60 FR 49048 effective, all equipment in a train would
performance-based design. As an (Sept. 21, 1995). have to be equipped with such brakes,
Trinity commented that ECP brakes not yet complete. Additionally, based based on historical accident
would be of little or no benefit to on historical accident data, the greatest consequences. This information was
improving hazardous material safety. A likelihood of a catastrophic release of then used to establish more easily
representative of the NGRTCP, however, material from a tank car is through the analyzed impact scenarios (i.e., post
noted that the Next Generation Rail Car tank-head or shell, not the fittings. derailment car-to-car interactions; and
will probably incorporate a duality of Accordingly, this NPRM focuses on the speeds, orientations and trajectories
systems—a traditional brake system enhancing tank-head and shell impact of the cars as a function of location in
with the anticipation of ECP brakes. resistance. FRA will, however, continue the train).
This commenter further noted that the to investigate potential improvements to Commenters also noted that although
implementation of ECP brakes is a long- tank car top fittings and if appropriate, Volpe apparently used two different
term issue. Although FRA encourages will pursue such improvements in a models in its derailment dynamics
industry to pursue implementation of separate rulemaking proceeding. study, only the results of one model
ECP brake technology as expeditiously Second, Volpe made presentations were presented in detail. As noted at the
as possible, and is encouraged by relating to FRA’s tank car research public meeting, although Volpe utilized
NGRTCP’s representation that a new program. Volpe’s presentations focused two models to investigate the
tank car design may incorporate the on three aspects of FRA’s ongoing tank derailment kinematics, each of the
duality of brake systems, FRA car research program: (1) Derailment models predicted the same trends.
recognizes that this is a long-term issue dynamics analysis (designed to Accordingly, for ease of presentation,
affecting the entire railroad industry, calculate ranges of closing speeds and only the results of the ADAMS
and accordingly, such a requirement is incidence angles between cars involved (Automatic Dynamic Analysis of
outside the scope of this rulemaking. in pile-ups); (2) dynamic structural Mechanical Systems) model were
analysis (designed to estimate the forces presented in any detail at the meeting
C. March 30, 2007 Public Meeting corresponding to closing speeds for because of the ability of the ADAMS
The third public meeting was held on head and shell impacts); and (3) damage software to provide animations of the
March 30, 2007. At this meeting, FRA assessment (designed to estimate results.
explained that DOT is aggressively deformations to tank-heads and shells Noting that Volpe’s presentation
working to develop a performance and the force at which puncture is showed that the highest closing speed
standard for an enhanced tank car expected to occur). Volpe explained that occurs for the last car that allows the
design, which will allow innovation and the key results of the derailment coupler to break, one commenter
foster new technology in the tank car dynamics study are that (1) train speed questioned what would happen if more
design process. FRA, through has the most significant effect on the couplers were allowed to break and
representatives of Volpe, presented its number of cars that derail, and (2) whether it was expected that the highest
preliminary research results regarding closing speed (that is, the car-to-car closing speed would always occur at the
tank car survivability, and solicited impact speed) is approximately one-half point. FRA explained that the highest
comments from meeting participants on the train speed at which the derailment closing speed may occur at the point of
several specific ideas regarding how occurs. the last coupler break, but again noted
DOT was considering moving forward In response to Volpe’s presentations, that the average closing speed between
with the development and meeting participants posed several cars is approximately one-half the initial
implementation of a performance questions. A few participants train speed. In addition, because
standard based on that research. In questioned why FRA did not explicitly software limitations only allowed the
addition, on behalf of the AAR, model the Minot or Graniteville modeling of up to ten coupler breaks in
Christopher P.L. Barkan, Ph.D., of the derailments and what efforts have been a particular scenario, FRA stated that
University of Illinois at Urbana- made to relate the modeling results to before any more concrete conclusions
Champaign, Railroad Engineering real world scenarios. Similarly, noting can be drawn, further research would be
Program, presented the results of a risk that Volpe’s derailment dynamics necessary.
analysis performed by the University on models were ‘‘straightforward’’ models Another commenter inquired as to
behalf of AAR pertaining to PIH that consider just one force acting how much variation in force the
materials transported by railroad tank against a car, one commenter noted that derailment model could predict and
car. real life derailment situations are whether Monte Carlo techniques (i.e., a
First, FRA noted that, in light of the generally more complicated. As noted in type of computational algorithm
NTSB recommendations in response to Section X, above, FRA’s research was utilizing random numbers and
the Minot accident and the mandates of initially aimed at developing a probability statistics to simulate the
SAFETEA–LU, the agency’s current derailment model specific to the Minot behavior of physical or mathematical
research efforts regarding tank car accident. However, due to the inherent systems) should be applied to try to
survivability are primarily focused on complexities and variables surrounding develop a more statistical understanding
tank-head and shell performance. In any derailment situation (e.g. track of the potential variability. FRA noted
response, commenters stated that DOT layout and condition, three dimensional that although Monte Carlo techniques
should also consider enhancements to topography of the local terrain, car type could be applied, FRA’s first and
top fittings protection in any rulemaking and location within train consist), the foremost focus is on predicting the
designed to improve tank car accident initial and boundary conditions of salient car-to-car interactions that take
survivability. As discussed previously particular accident scenarios cannot be place during derailments. FRA intends
in this section, although we believe that reasonably ascertained. Additionally, to analyze the forces achieved in other
improvements to tank car top fittings the initial perturbation (i.e., the train modeling programs using non-linear
may be one method of enhancing tank speed and track location) resulting in large deformation crush calculations
car safety, we are not proposing new derailments is not precisely known. and validate the models by full scale
standards for top fittings protection at Accordingly, FRA revised its research testing.
this time because the research objective to define a generalized Commenters also questioned why the
demonstrating the efficacy and derailment situation identifying the baseline car mass utilized in the
feasibility of such enhanced standards is salient features of derailment situations derailment dynamics study was 150,000
pounds (which does not represent a rail, rail car trucks, other car draft sills, which a tank car can survive the
typical light car or a typical loaded car) side sills) and accordingly, the goal of generalized impact scenarios developed
and whether the initial angular velocity FRA’s current research is to develop a in the derailment dynamics study. In
used to cause a derailment has a large standardized method for comparing the response to this portion of Volpe’s
effect on the number of cars derailed relative performance between different presentation, commenters raised two
and/or the secondary car-to-car impact tank car designs, regardless of what the main concerns. First, commenters
speeds. In response, FRA explained that impactor is in a particular scenario. questioned how the pressure and outage
the baseline values utilized in the study Additionally, as Volpe noted at the requirements used in the tests to
were varied +/¥20% to +/¥50%. meeting, the simulations have resulted establish the baseline performance of
Further, FRA noted that a sensitivity in modes of deformation that are similar current tank cars were chosen. DOT
analysis of the results from generalized to the deformations found in accident explained that although a pressure and
derailment scenarios demonstrated that vehicles. outage that could be expected in
both car mass and initial angular speed Another commenter also noted that everyday transport were utilized (i.e.,
causing a derailment are very weakly the modeling presented by Volpe at the 10.6 percent outage, 100 psi pressure),
correlated to the number of cars that meeting addressed main line because the goal is to establish the
derail. Instead, the highest sensitivities derailments only and questioned relative performance of different tank
are associated with initial train speed whether FRA intended to expand the car designs, such parameters are
and the ground friction experienced. analysis to collision scenarios. In ultimately irrelevant, provided the same
Stating that, in most real-world response to this comment, FRA pressure and outage is used for all cars
accident scenarios, tank cars are explained that generally, collisions analyzed. In other words, in order to
impacted by ‘‘coupler like’’ objects, one degenerate into derailment-like establish the relative performance of
commenter questioned the use of a situations. Accordingly, the secondary different tank car designs, all designs
square flat-surface ram in Volpe’s car-to-car interactions obtained through must be tested under the same initial
modeling to impact the tank-heads and Volpe’s modeling and review of and boundary conditions (including
shells while another commenter historical accident consequences weights, pressure, and outage).
questioned why the collision dynamic provided a methodology to simplify the Second, commenters again questioned
model of a car is shaped like a cube. impact conditions such that a why DOT was performing ‘‘simplified
Specifically, Trinity noted that in its generalized performance standard for tests’’ and not examining the effect of
own crashworthiness analysis two cars interacting could be identified. applying multiple forces simultaneously
performed on the newly designed Utilization of this performance standard in different locations on tank cars. DOT
Trinity car, a rigid coupler head was compares the relative performance responded that its goal is to establish
used as the impacting object. Further, between different tank car designs, and the relative performance of different
Trinity noted that after the FRA further plans to investigate the use tank car designs by developing a safe
crashworthiness analysis was of pushback couplers and deformable and simple test that is relatively easy to
completed, the results were compared anti-climbing systems to decrease the set up and conduct, easy to analyze, and
with real-world accidents, as well as the aggressivity between new and older tank provides repeatable results. FRA
type of punctures and tank deformations car designs in the future. reiterated that it did not intend to
that occurred. Trinity further reported With regard to the dynamic structural conduct a test that represents any
finding a good correlation between their analysis, noting the apparent ductile particular accident situation. Instead,
crashworthiness analysis and the shape properties of the model materials (i.e., FRA’s goal is to establish a test that
of punctures and deformations found in that the elliptical head almost turns provides the salient and predominant
real-world accident vehicles. itself inside out), one commenter failure modes observed from historical
FRA responded that the collision questioned what type of material model accident consequences in a consistent
dynamics model is a lumped mass was being used. At the meeting, Volpe manner.
model connected by non-linear springs explained that the tensile strength of the At the March 30, 2007 meeting, FRA
and that the masses are treated as rigid material being modeled is the minimum also presented several specific ideas
objects. Further, the collision dynamics required for TC–128 steel. Further, DOT regarding how DOT was considering
model uses as an input the force-crush noted that the results presented were of moving forward, given the results of
characteristics predicted or measured an empty tank, where material failure Volpe’s research. FRA noted that it was
from analysis and testing. This input is was not allowed. The results considering imposing a 50 mph speed
derived through the application of the represented the first step in a series of restriction on all tank cars carrying PIH
simplified collision scenarios defined models that gradually build in materials. Assuming a 50 mph speed
for the performance standards. The complexity—starting with an empty restriction, based on Volpe’s research
shape of the force crush characteristic is tank and applying first elastic, then anticipating a closing speed of 25 mph
weakly affected by the impactor size for elastic with plastic loadings, and finally in the event of a derailment or collision,
a range within +/¥50 percent of that building up to material failure. After the FRA stated that it was also considering
prescribed in the testing program. If the model results are checked against setting a performance standard requiring
impactor size was sufficiently small, analytical solutions available in tank cars to be constructed such that
then the mode of material failure literature, pressurized fluid tanks will tank-heads and shells would resist
initiation would change. The impactor be evaluated in the same manner. puncture or other catastrophic loss from
size chosen for the baseline testing At the meeting, Volpe also addressed impacts at speeds around 25 mph.
captures the salient deformation and the full-scale impact tests being Because any necessary tank car fleet
failure modes observed in accidents and performed on existing DOT 105A500W change out would require a reasonable
testing. Accordingly, neither the shape cars in an effort to develop a implementation period, as an interim
of the impactor or the car is methodology for assuring a minimum measure, FRA noted its consideration of
determinative. FRA further explained level of tank integrity, defining the imposing an interim 30 mph speed
that in accident scenarios, a tank car conditions for which a tank car is restriction in dark territory for trains
may be impacted by a variety of capable of maintaining its contents, and transporting PIH tank cars of current
different objects (e.g., couplers, pieces of identifying the maximum speed at designs, based on the higher train mile
collision risk and the increased other means of achieving the same end positive comments from the emergency
derailment risk present in dark territory. results (e.g., protecting persons from the response community, CSX
In response to FRA’s ideas, one effects of PIH materials released into the Transportation (CSXT) and Chemtrec,
commenter noted that FRA’s proposal atmosphere), and DOT invites the chemical industry’s 24-hour hotline,
presented a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach comments that might identify such entered into a pilot project in August of
to enhancing PIH transportation via means and describe how their 2005, to test improvements. The pilot
railroad tank car. This commenter noted effectiveness might be verified. project consists of providing access to
that there are many PIH materials that Mitigation of harm from accidental the Chemtrec watchstanders, who have
do not pose the same dangers as releases is a major component of any direct communications with emergency
materials such as chlorine and effort to improve the safety of hazardous responders, to CSXT’s information
anhydrous ammonia. This commenter materials transportation. DOT engages network where they can obtain virtually
expressed the view that FRA’s proposal in significant actions to help prepare real-time information, either verbally or
would be ‘‘extremely penalizing’’ to emergency responders for hazardous via electronic means, almost
those other materials. materials releases. For instance, PHMSA immediately after receiving notification
For uniformity purposes, in its periodically publishes an Emergency of an incident or accident. This system
regulations, DOT has historically Response Guidebook, which provides relies in part on train position
addressed hazardous materials as a information on initial steps to take to information from CSXT locomotives
class. Employing this rationale, DOT respond to hazardous materials equipped with Global Positioning
decided that, for the purposes of the accidents, with the objective of ensuring System receivers and means for
present rulemaking, it would similarly that it is present at every command communicating the position to the
address PIH materials as a class. center and on every emergency vehicle. CSXT operations center, together with a
Moreover, while some PIH materials As noted above, the railroad and geographic information system on
may not pose as great a threat to the chemical industries conduct outreach to which the information is displayed.
public and the environment as other local authorities through the This is a capability not yet fully
PIH materials, it is in the public’s best TRANSCAER program. In March 2005, available elsewhere in the industry, but
interest that all PIH materials are the AAR, with FRA encouragement, it could be acquired. PHMSA and FRA
transported in the safest manner adopted an amendment to its Circular request that commenters address the
possible. Additionally, in this proposed No. OT–55, which established following questions: (1) Are other rail
rule, DOT has identified a performance procedures for providing information to carriers considering the implementation
standard rather than a specific standard, local emergency response agencies of emergency response communications
which provides the regulated concerning the top 25 hazardous systems similar to that currently being
community with the flexibility to design materials transported through their tested by CSXT? (2) Are there
an enhanced tank car with features that communities. impediments to more widespread
are appropriate for the type of PIH Ensuring the availability of detailed implementation of such communication
materials that the car will transport. hazardous materials information, when systems? If so, how should these
Other commenters questioned an event does occur, is also a critical impediments be addressed? (3) Should
whether risk would be considered and means of mitigating the consequences of the Federal government promote more
how benefits of implementing such new a release. The HMR require that widespread adoption of such
requirements would be quantified. railroads maintain hazardous materials communication systems? If so, how
Lastly, one commenter expressed the information on-board trains reflecting could this be accomplished?
view that given current tank car the position of cars in the train, and More generally, we ask commenters to
manufacturing capacity, a five- to ten- hazard information regarding the consider the relationship between
year implementation period would be commodities transported in specific rail effective emergency response actions
reasonable. This commenter further cars.49 FRA actively enforces these and risk reduction. As indicated above,
noted that existing tank cars designed to requirements through periodic audits of the HMR address risk in two ways—that
carry anhydrous ammonia could be railroad information systems and is, the regulations are intended to
retrofitted and utilized to transport through review of documentation on- reduce the risk of an accident occurring
materials other than PIH materials, but board trains. and to minimize the consequences of an
existing chlorine cars, however, would In response to the accidents detailed accident should one occur. Commenters
probably need to be replaced. in this notice, FRA approached the AAR may wish to provide comments
and requested consideration of concerning the extent to which effective
XII. Proposed Rule and Alternatives additional action to ensure that detailed emergency response, including
The proposed rule would seek to and specific hazardous materials proactive measures such as alert
control destructive forces brought to information, including the position of warnings, evacuations, and shelter-in-
bear on tank cars in the course of cars in the train, is readily available to place directives, affects the basic risk
derailments and collisions by emergency responders even when crew equation (risk = the probability of an
establishing a maximum speed limit and members are disabled or otherwise accident multiplied by the
by enhancing the ability of the package unable to contact responders at the consequences of an accident) and
to withstand those forces by making it scene. FRA conducted two meetings whether there are ways to combine more
more crashworthy. Although the with the AAR, various railroads, and effective emergency response with
proposed rule would establish a emergency response organizations to accident prevention measures to
performance standard for head and shell discuss enhancements to the emergency enhance overall safety.
puncture-resistance, this is most likely response system that would ensure Similarly, Dow’s safety program for
to be achieved by a strategy to absorb emergency responders have access to these products is exploring more
energy short of breaching the tank. The necessary information during incidents effective tracking and remote
proposed rule would also impose a and accidents. As a result of the monitoring of tank cars so that, in the
more stringent limit on train speed discussions, and in response to the case of an incident or accident, critical
during the period tank cars of current parameters such as geographic location,
design remain in use. There may be 49 49 CFR part 172, subpart G; 49 CFR § 174.26. internal pressure, or product
temperature might be determined and requirement and are equipped with the second year for tank car manufacturers
provided to emergency responders. enhanced tank-head and shell puncture- to modify their manufacturing process
PHMSA and FRA invite commenters to resistance systems proposed, we are as necessary to construct the improved
address the extent to which this strategy proposing the use of the letter ‘‘N’’ in tank cars, and a further six-year period
promises advances in safety that might the specification marking. Additionally, to bring the entire North American fleet
substitute, in whole or in part, for the we are proposing to modify the of PIH tank cars into compliance with
proposals contained in this NPRM. We hierarchy of use to incorporate these the enhanced standards. The
also ask commenters to discuss whether two new delimiters in a manner Department has developed this
there are additional regulatory options consistent with the current hierarchy. In proposed implementation schedule after
that should be considered. other words, tank cars with the careful consideration of the number of
delimiter ‘‘M’’ may be used when ‘‘A’’ tank cars in PIH service and tank car
XIII. Section-by-Section Analysis or ‘‘S’’ is authorized. Tank cars with the manufacturing capacity. After the
Part 171 delimiter ‘‘N’’ may be used when tank implementation period, any tank car
cars with an ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘S,’’ ‘‘T,’’ ‘‘J,’’ or ‘‘M’’ that transports PIH materials in the
Section 171.7—Reference Material are authorized. United States, including PIH-carrying
Existing § 171.7 addresses reference We are proposing the use of two tank cars that originate in countries
materials that are not specifically set different delimiters for tank cars outside of the United States, must
forth in the HMR, but that are meeting the enhanced head and shell conform to the enhanced tank-head
incorporated by reference into the HMR. protection requirements of this proposal puncture-resistance standard. As in all
We propose to amend § 171.7(a)(3), the because there are some PIH materials for aspects of this proposal, however, the
table of material incorporated by which the HMR do not require use of a Department requests comments as to the
reference, to add the entry for AAR tank car with a thermal protection feasibility and costs of this proposed
Standard S–286–2002, Specification for system (e.g., hydrogen fluoride, implementation schedule, as well as
286,000 lbs. Gross Rail Load Cars for anhydrous ammonia). Therefore, we suggestions for any alternatives. We are
Free/Unrestricted Interchange Service, have proposed to allow a tank car to be particularly interested in data and
revised as of September 1, 2005. AAR constructed that would meet the information concerning current tank car
Standard S–286–2002 is the existing enhanced tank-head and shell puncture- manufacturing capacity and whether
industry standard for designing, resistance system requirements, but not capacity limitations will affect the
building, and operating rail cars at gross be equipped with a thermal protection implementation period proposed in this
weights between 263,000 pounds and system. NPRM.
286,000 pounds. By incorporating AAR Existing paragraph (b)(3) requires Existing paragraph (b)(6) requires tank
Standard S–286–2002 into the HMR, we head protection for all tank cars car owners to implement measures to
will ensure that tank cars exceeding the transporting Class 2 materials and tank ensure the phased-in completion of
existing 263,000 pound limitation and cars constructed from aluminum or modifications previously required by
weighing up to 286,000 pounds gross nickel plate. We are proposing to revise the Department and to annually report
weight on rail are mechanically and this paragraph to remove outdated progress on such phased-in
structurally sound. compliance dates, and require tank cars implementation. This NPRM proposes
used to transport PIH materials to be to modify paragraph (b)(6) by deleting
Part 173 equipped with an enhanced tank-head the references to paragraphs (b)(3) (head
Section 173.31—Use of Tank Cars puncture-resistance system. protection) and (e)(2) (special
Specifically, proposed paragraph requirements for tank cars used to
Existing § 173.31 addresses the use of (b)(3)(i) reiterates the existing head transport PIH materials) because the
tank cars to transport hazardous protection requirements for tank cars existing compliance dates in each
materials and contains various safety used to transport Class 2 materials, section have now passed and this NPRM
system and marking requirements. This other than PIH materials, and tank cars proposes new modifications, with new
NPRM proposes to revise existing constructed from aluminum or nickel compliance dates set forth in proposed
paragraphs (a)(6), (b)(3), (b)(6) and plate used to transport hazardous §§ 173.31(b)(3) (head protection), (b)(7)
(e)(2)(ii), as well as add new paragraphs materials. (shell protection), and (b)(8)
(b)(7) and (b)(8). Existing paragraph New paragraph (b)(3)(ii) would (implementation schedule).
(a)(6) explains that any tank car of the require all tank cars used to transport New paragraph (b)(7) would require
same class with a higher tank test PIH materials to be equipped with the tank cars used to transport PIH material
pressure than the tank car authorized in enhanced tank-head puncture-resistance to be equipped with an enhanced tank
the HMR may be used. It also specifies system of proposed 179.16(b). shell puncture-resistance system.
the hierarchy of the letters in the Specifically, beginning two years after Specifically, proposed paragraph
specification marking that indicate the effective date of the final rule, new (b)(7)(i) would require that beginning
special protective systems (e.g., ‘‘J’’ for paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) would require all two years after the effective date of the
thermally protected, jacketed cars; ‘‘T’’ new tank cars used for the final rule, all new tank cars to be used
for thermally protected, non-jacketed transportation of PIH materials to for the transportation of PIH materials
cars; ‘‘S’’ for cars with head shields but conform to the enhanced head must comply with the shell protection
without thermal protection; and ‘‘A’’ for protection requirements of 179.16(b). requirements of 179.24. Furthermore,
cars without protective systems) for Within eight years of the effective date new paragraph (b)(7)(ii) would require
which cars are equipped. We are of the final rule, new paragraph that within eight years of the effective
proposing to add the letter ‘‘M’’ to (b)(3)(ii)(B) would require all tank cars date of the final rule, all tank cars used
represent tank cars with the enhanced used to transport PIH materials to to transport PIH materials must comply
tank-head and shell puncture-resistance conform to the enhanced head with the enhanced shell protection
systems of this proposed rule, but that protection standard. This proposed standard. This proposed
do not meet the HMR’s thermal implementation period would allow one implementation schedule is consistent
protection requirement. For tank cars year for the design of tank cars meeting with that proposed for the enhanced
that meet the thermal protection the proposed performance standard, a tank-head protection system. It would
allow one year for the design of tank car fleet and approximately 20 percent protection’’ for certain PIH materials.50
cars meeting the proposed performance of the current anhydrous ammonia tank As in all aspects of this proposal, DOT
standard, a second year for tank car car fleet. Significantly, a large portion of invites comments on the proposed
manufacturers to modify their chlorine cars with non-normalized steel revisions to this section.
manufacturing process as necessary to are approaching retirement age. Because Section 173.249—Bromine
construct the improved tank cars, and a chlorine and anhydrous ammonia
further six year period to bring the account for over 80 percent of the Existing § 173.249 sets forth specific
entire North American fleet of PIH tank annual PIH shipments in the United packaging requirements, including
cars into compliance with the enhanced specific tank car requirements, for
States, the Department believes that
standard. Again, after the bromine, a PIH material. This NPRM
requiring the phase out of these cars
implementation period, any tank car proposes to add new paragraph (g) to
within the first half of the fleet the section, clarifying that railroad tank
that transports PIH materials in the replacement period is reasonable.
United States, including PIH-carrying cars transporting bromine must comply
tank cars that originate in countries Finally, proposed paragraph (b)(8)(iii) with the enhanced tank-head and shell
outside of the United States, must requires the submission of a progress puncture-resistance requirements of
conform to the enhanced tank shell report to FRA two months after the proposed §§ 179.16(b) and 179.24.
puncture-resistance standard. The initial five years of the implementation
Section 173.314—Compressed Gases in
Department requests comments as to the period has passed. Specifically, this Tank Cars and Multi-Unit Tank Cars
feasibility and costs of this proposed section would require tank car owners
implementation schedule, as well as to report to FRA the total number of in- Existing § 173.314 sets forth specific
suggestions for any alternatives. service tank cars in PIH service and the filling limits and tank car packaging
New paragraph (b)(8) is added to set number of those cars in compliance requirements for various compressed
forth the phased-in implementation with the enhanced head and shell gases, including chlorine, a PIH
schedule for the enhanced head- and protection requirements of proposed material. As relevant to this NPRM,
shell-protection requirements of §§ 179.16(b) and 179.24. In addition, existing paragraph (c) prohibits the
proposed 179.16(b) and 179.24. this paragraph would require that tank transportation of more than 90 tons of
Specifically, new paragraph (b)(8)(i) chlorine in a single unit-tank car and
car owners certify that their fleets do not
would require owners of tank cars paragraph (k) contains specific tank car
contain any pre-1989 tank cars in PIH
subject to these enhanced requirements packaging requirements relevant to
service utilizing non-normalized steel in
to have brought at least 50 percent of chlorine. We propose to revise
the head or shell construction.
their affected fleet into compliance with paragraph (k) to make clear that railroad
the new requirements within five years Existing paragraph (e)(2) requires that tank cars transporting chlorine must
of the final rule’s effective date. The tank cars used to transport PIH materials comply with the enhanced tank-head
Department believes that allowing a full must have a minimum tank test pressure and shell puncture-resistance
five years to replace half of the PIH tank of 20.7 Bar (300 psig), head protection, requirements of proposed §§ 179.16(b)
car fleet is reasonable and will ensure and a metal jacket. We are proposing to and 179.24.
the phased-in construction and use of revise this paragraph to remove the We are also proposing to replace the
tank cars meeting the enhanced outdated compliance date in (e)(2)(ii), current insulation system of 2-inches
standards. Further, this implementation and cross reference the proposed glass fiber over 2-inches ceramic fiber
period again contemplates an initial requirements for enhanced head- and with a requirement to meet the existing
one-year design period, a second year shell protection contained in proposed thermal protection requirements of
for manufacturers to modify their §§ 179.16(b) and 179.24 to make it clear § 179.18, or with a system that has an
manufacturing process as necessary to that tank cars used to transport PIH overall thermal conductance of no more
construct the improved tank cars, three materials must meet the enhanced head- than 0.613 kilojoules per hour, per
years to replace half of the fleet, and a and shell-protection requirements of square meter, per degree Celsius
final three-year period to complete fleet this proposal. We are also proposing to temperature differential. This proposal
replacement. cross reference the proposed does not impose a new requirement for
New paragraph (b)(8)(ii) prohibits the implementation schedule for the tank- the chlorine cars. Based on research
use of tank cars manufactured using head and shell puncture-resistance conducted by FRA,51 the 2+2 glass and
non-normalized steel for head or shell systems in paragraph (b)(8). This will ceramic fiber insulation used for
construction for the transportation of make it clear that five years after the chlorine cars provides an equivalent
PIH material five years after the final final rule’s effective date, at least 50 level of thermal protection as the
rule’s effective date. In other words, the percent of each tank car owner’s fleet of requirements of § 179.18. We are
Department expects that tank cars tank cars that transport PIH materials replacing the specific requirement for
constructed of non-normalized steel in must comply with the enhanced tank-
the head or shell will be phased out head and shell requirements and that
50 Crashworthiness Protection Requirements for
within the first half of the fleet Tank Cars; Detection and Repair of Cracks, Pits,
five years after the final rule’s effective Corrosion, Lining Flaws, Thermal Protection Flaws
replacement period (i.e., no later than
date, tank cars manufactured with non- and Other Defects of Tank Car Tanks; Final Rule,
five years after the effective date of the 60 FR 49048, 49054 (Sept. 21, 1995) (citing final
normalized steel for tank-heads or shells
final rule). This section is intended to rule on Performance-Oriented Packaging Standards;
ensure that tank cars constructed prior are no longer authorized for the Miscellaneous Amendments, 58 FR 50224 (Sept. 24,
to 1989 that utilize non-normalized steel transport of PIH materials. Finally, we 1993) and the NPRM, 58 FR 37612 (July 12, 1993)).
in the head or shell are the first cars are proposing to maintain the 51 W. Wright, W. Slack, and W. Jackson, Thermal
requirement that tank cars used to Insulation Systems Study for the Chlorine Tank Car,
phased out in the course of FRA–ORD–85–10, April 1985, Federal Railroad
implementing the proposed enhanced transport PIH materials be equipped Administration, Washington, DC 20590; and W.
standards. The Department understands with metal jackets because as noted in Wright, W. Slack, and W. Jackson, Evaluation of the
an earlier rulemaking proceeding, the Thermal Effectiveness of Urethane Foam and
that pre-1989 tank cars constructed of Fiberglass as Insulation Systems for Tank Cars,
non-normalized steel comprise almost purpose of the metal jacket is to provide FRA–ORD–87–11, July 1987, Federal Railroad
50 percent of the current chlorine tank ‘‘both accident damage and fire Administration, Washington, DC 20590.
the insulation system with the more Part 174 30 mph speed restriction, so long as
generic requirements to allow flexibility those alternative safety measures
Section 174.86—Maximum Allowable
in the use of the interstitial space provide an equivalent level of safety as
Operating Speed
between the tank shell and jacket. Use a traffic control system complying with
of this space for crush energy Existing § 174.86 addresses the 49 CFR part 236 (Part 236). A traffic
management is integral to improving the maximum allowable operating speed for control system is a block signal
molten metals and molten glass. We system 52 under which train movements
accident survivability of the PIH tank
propose to amend this section to (1) are authorized by block signals whose
cars.
limit the operating speed of all railroad indications supersede the superiority of
We are not proposing any change to tank cars transporting PIH materials to trains for both opposing and following
the 90-ton single-unit tank car 50 mph, and (2) in non-signaled movements on the same track. Part 236
commodity limit. However, we believe territory limit the operating speed of sets forth standards governing the use of
tank car manufacturers could employ railroad tank cars transporting PIH traffic control systems. Typically,
innovative engineering design changes materials to 30 mph, unless alternative railroads utilize a centralized traffic
to meet the proposed enhanced accident measures providing an equivalent level control system, governed by a series of
survivability standard, and it may be of safety are provided, or the material is signal arrangements and capable of
possible, using new technology and being transported in a tank car detecting the presence of trains and the
materials, to actually increase the conforming to the enhanced positions of switches. Although the vital
volume capacity of the tank car and requirements of proposed §§ 179.16(b) circuitry for a typical centralized traffic
meet the new performance standards. It and 179.24. Specifically, new paragraph control system is in the field, the
is not clear, however, that increasing the (b) would restrict all tank cars dispatcher can request movement
containing PIH materials to a maximum authority.
quantity of chlorine transported in the
operating speed of 50 mph. As Potential mitigation measures which
tank car is advantageous—to the
discussed above, the current industry could provide an equivalent (or better)
shipper, the receiver, or the emergency standard, OT–55-I, currently restricts level of safety as a traffic control system,
response community. If the 90-ton limit the operating speed of trains containing depending on the particular
were changed, we could rely solely on five or more tank car loads of PIH circumstances of a location, include an
the normal lading and filling density materials to a maximum of 50 mph and automatic block signal (ABS) system, an
limits; we could increase the limit from we believe that extending this interlocking arrangement, or a positive
90 tons to a slightly higher amount (e.g., restriction to all tank cars transporting train control system. Part 236 again sets
94 tons); or we could incorporate a PIH materials is a reasonable way to forth standards governing the
process for application to FRA for control the forces experienced by the implementation and use of ABS
approval to increase the limit above the tank car during most derailment or systems, interlockings, and certain types
90 tons, either by the manufacturer for accident conditions, without unduly of PTC systems. See 49 CFR part 236,
a specific design or by the shipper for burdening industry. Moreover, this 50 subparts B, C and H. Track circuits,
specified tank cars. We are asking mph speed restriction in conjunction which are integral to any Part 236 traffic
commenters to consider these with the 25 mph enhanced shell and the control system or ABS system, are
alternatives and provide input on 30 mph enhanced tank-head puncture- electrical devices designed to detect the
potentially changing the 90-ton limit. In resistance performance standards, presence or absence of a train on a
particular, we are interested in the should ensure that tank integrity will be certain segment of track, but also serve
potential positive or negative maintained in most derailments or other to detect broken rails due to electrical
ramifications of allowing an increase in accidents. discontinuity. Any potential alternative
New paragraph (c)(1) provides that if risk mitigation measures designed to
the quantity of chlorine in a tank car.
a tank car not meeting the enhanced comply with paragraph (c)(2), must take
We recognize that chlorine is performance standards of proposed into consideration the alternative’s
regularly transported between the §§ 179.16(b) and 179.24 is used to ability to detect broken rails.
United States and Canada. The transport PIH material over non- A railroad might also be able to
Canadian requirements for transporting signaled territory, its maximum establish equivalent safety by
chlorine do not include the 90-ton operating speed is limited to 30 mph. implementing a combination of
capacity limit; however there is a For purposes of this section, non- measures that together address the
requirement for use of tank cars with a signaled territory is defined to mean ‘‘a relevant risks, but without installing a
minimum 500 psi tank test pressure. rail line not equipped with a traffic full signal or train control system on the
control system or automatic block signal line. For instance, by installing a switch
Section 173.323—Ethylene Oxide system’’ compliant with 49 CFR part position monitoring system, track
236. As discussed above, this 30 mph integrity circuits, and additional safety
Existing § 173.323 sets forth specific
speed restriction is based on FRA’s procedures (e.g., patrolling ahead of PIH
packaging requirements, including
finding that a disproportionate number trains or reducing PIH train speeds to
specific tank car requirements, for of incidents occurring between 1965
ethylene oxide, a PIH material. Relevant something less than 49 mph), a railroad
and 2005, which resulted in loss of might be able to demonstrate that
to this proposal, paragraph (c)(1) product from head and shell punctures,
contains specific requirements for reducing PIH train speeds to 30 mph is
cracks, and tears, occurred in non- not warranted. The proposed rule would
transporting ethylene oxide in railroad signaled territory.
tank cars. Accordingly, we propose to New paragraph (c)(2) proposes an 52 A block signal system is a method of governing
revise paragraph (c)(1) to make clear alternative to complying with the speed the movement of trains into or within one or more
that railroad tank cars transporting restriction of paragraph (c)(1) in non- blocks by block signals (i.e., roadway signals
ethylene oxide must comply with the signaled territory. Specifically, operated either automatically or manually at the
entrance to a block) or cab signals (i.e., a signal
enhanced tank-head and shell puncture- paragraph (c)(2) proposes to allow located in the engineer’s compartment or cab,
resistance requirements of proposed railroads to implement alternative safety indicating a condition affecting the movement of a
§§ 179.16(b) and 179.24. measures in lieu of complying with the train).
permit any combination of technologies distances that would permit increases in pounds and 286,000 pounds. This
or procedures that could be shown to be train speed without the threat of serious standard sets forth industry-tested
effective. consequences should a release occur. practices for designing, building and
Paragraph (c)(2) further provides that We ask commenters to address the operating rail cars at gross weights
once a railroad completes a risk following questions: (1) Should an between 263,000 pounds and 286,000
assessment demonstrating that certain exception be made for those line pounds.
identified alternative measures provide segments? (2) How should any such
an equivalent level of safety to a Part Section 179.16—Tank-Head Puncture-
exception be defined? (3) Do railroads
236 traffic control system, and FRA Resistance Systems
have sufficient information regarding
approves this risk assessment, the abutting land use, and changes in land Existing § 179.16 contains the tank-
railroad may operate tank cars use over time, so that such an exception head puncture resistance requirements
containing PIH materials at up to 50 could be implemented practicably? (4) If applicable to tank cars currently
mph. Because, in this proposal, we are an exception is provided, should it required under the HMR to have tank-
providing for specific markings to extend to all PIH materials, or are there head puncture-resistance systems. We
delineate tank cars complying with the materials whose potential impacts on propose to amend this section to specify
enhanced head and shell protection the environment are so great that the an enhanced tank-head puncture-
standards proposed, railroad personnel exception should not apply? resistance performance standard for
should be able to easily identify tank tank cars used to transport PIH
cars that are not subject to the non- Part 179 materials.
signaled territory speed restriction. Section 179.13—Tank Car Capacity and As discussed above, research
DOT believes that the proposed Gross Weight Limitation prepared by Volpe was relied upon to
operating restrictions in this section are develop this performance standard.
Existing § 179.13 sets forth tank car Specifically, the speed chosen for this
responsive to NTSB Safety
capacity and gross weight limitations. performance standard, a 30 mph impact,
Recommendations R–05–15 and R–05–
Specifically, this section provides that is related to the maximum allowable
16 stemming from the Graniteville
tank cars may not exceed a capacity of operating speed of 50 mph, which is
accident. We recognize that this
34,500 gallons or 263,000 pounds gross also proposed in this NPRM. FRA is
proposal does not directly adopt the
weight on rail. These limitations date cognizant that while the proposed 25
NTSB’s recommendations to reduce
back to 1970 and were based on DOT’s mph closing speed, which is based on
speeds of tank cars transporting certain
findings that weight related stress the maximum allowable operating speed
highly-hazardous materials through
failures in track and car parts accounted of 50 mph, protects well against
populated areas or reduce speeds of all
for approximately 50 percent of all rail derailment-like events in which the
trains in non-signaled territory in the
accidents at the time. 35 FR 14216, secondary car-to-car impact speeds are
absence of advance notice of switch
14217 (Sept. 9, 1970). Accordingly, DOT approximately half the original train
positions. However, we believe that this
reasoned that imposing capacity and speed, impacts can occur in rail yards,
proposal will achieve the goal of the
gross weight limitations on tank cars at switches or turnouts, and in mainline
recommendation, i.e., to minimize
would limit the impact forces in a tracks where a tank car can be involved
impact forces from accidents and reduce
derailment and therefore lessen the in the primary collision. In this
the vulnerability of tank cars
likelihood that a tank car would be
transporting certain hazardous situation, it is desirable to have better
breached in the event of a derailment or
materials. At the same time, the protection strategies available to help
other accident. Id. at 14217. Since the
proposal will adequately take into alleviate the risk of loss of lading. The
promulgation of this section in 1970,
consideration the practical issues proposed tank-head puncture resistance
however, rail infrastructure has
related to any reduction in train speed, system can accommodate the proposed
changed, and through industry and
such as higher crew costs and longer 30 mph impact speed because there is
regulatory efforts, tank car accident
trip time. more space available in the front of the
survivability has improved.53
Comment is requested on means to tank-head to place energy absorbing
To ensure that tank cars that transport
further limit any burdens associated material between the head shield or
PIH materials and that exceed the
with the 30 mph speed restriction in jacket and the inner commodity tank
existing 263,000 pound limitation and
dark territory, and the proposed rule when compared with tank shell
weigh up to 286,000 pounds gross
may be changed based on the comments protection systems, which have more
weight on rail are mechanically and
received. For instance, because it is limited expansion space due to design
structurally sound, we propose to
desirable from a safety standpoint and constraints.
require that such cars comply with AAR
from the point of view of fuel
Standard S–286–2002, SPECIFICATION Section 179.22—Marking
conservation to maintain constant train
FOR 286,000 LBS. GROSS RAIL LOAD
speed, because most affected rail lines Existing § 179.22 contains marking
CARS FOR FREE/UNRESTRICTED
intersect scores of small towns and requirements applicable to railroad tank
INTERCHANGE SERVICE (adopted
suburban areas, and because even very cars. Specifically, this section provides
November 2002 and revised September
small populations present the potential that tank cars must be marked in
1, 2005). AAR Standard S–286–2002 is
for serious consequences, this proposal accordance with the Tank Car Manual
the existing industry standard for
would apply regardless of the and assigns meaning to each of the
designing, building, and operating rail
population size along the line. Major delimiters used in tank car specification
cars at gross weights between 263,000
hazardous material accidents have markings (e.g., a tank car with a tank-
historically occurred in small-to mid- 53 DOT has also issued several Special Permits head puncture-resistance system must
sized communities away from major allowing the use of tank cars weighing up to include the letter ‘‘S’’ in its specification
terminals, in part because of the 286,000 pounds. For example, on April 20, 2006, marking, a car with a tank-head
elevated actual speeds that can be Trinity was issued Special Permit number DOT-SP puncture-resistance system, a thermal
14167, authorizing it to manufacture, mark, and sell
attained in these areas. However, there the Trinity Cart, which has a maximum gross
protection system, and a metal jacket,
may be lines that traverse wilderness weight on rail of 286,000 pounds. See 71 FR 47288, must be marked with the letter ‘‘J’’ in its
areas or extensive farm lands over 47301 (Aug. 16, 2001). specification marking). Proposed new
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section Section 5103(b) of Federal hazmat law involving tank cars that transport PIH
would define the delimiters to be used authorizes the Secretary of materials. In addition, benefits would
to mark tank cars conforming to the Transportation to prescribe regulations accrue from a decrease in property
enhanced head- and shell-protection for the safe transportation, including damages, including damages to
requirements of this proposal. security, of hazardous materials in locomotives, railroad cars, and track;
Specifically, new paragraph (e) provides intrastate, interstate, and foreign environmental damage; track closures;
that each tank car that requires a tank- commerce. SAFETEA–LU, which added road closures; and evacuations.
head puncture-resistance system section 20155 to the Federal hazmat Moreover, there would also be a benefit
prescribed in proposed § 179.16(b), a law, requires, in part, that FRA (1) in fuel savings (which may offset some
shell puncture-resistance system validate a predictive model quantifying of the operational costs) due to limiting
prescribed in § 179.24, and without a the relevant dynamic forces acting on train operating speeds.
thermal protection, must be marked railroad tank cars under accident This document presents a 30-year
with the delimiter ‘‘M’’ in its conditions and (2) initiate a rulemaking analysis of the costs and benefits
specification marking. Similarly, new to develop and implement appropriate associated with DOT’s proposed rule,
paragraph (f) provides that each tank car design standards for pressurized tank using both 7 percent and 3 percent
that requires a tank-head puncture- cars. Additionally, the Federal Railroad discount rates. It also presents an
resistance system prescribed in Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., analysis of a regulatory alternative
proposed § 179.16(b), a shell puncture- authorizes the Secretary to issue considered, and sensitivity analyses
resistance system prescribed in § 179.24, regulations over all areas of railroad associated with varying assumptions
and a thermal protection system, must transportation safety. used for estimating PIH release-related
be marked with the delimiter ‘‘N’’ in its benefits.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT A baseline cost estimate is
specification marking. Regulatory Policies and Procedures particularly important for the conduct of
Section 179.24—Tank Shell Puncture- This proposed rule has been these analyses. The railroad industry
Resistance Systems evaluated in accordance with existing has expressed its intention to proceed
Proposed new § 179.24 specifies an policies and procedures, and with a standard of its own absent
enhanced tank shell puncture-resistance determined to be significant under both issuance of a DOT rule requiring
performance standard for tank cars used Executive Order 12866 and DOT enhanced crashworthiness of PIH tank
to transport PIH materials. Previous policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; cars. In general, industry participants
rulemakings have not focused on shell Feb. 26, 1979). We have prepared and appear to recognize the need to improve
protection, but the statutory mandate, placed in the docket a regulatory impact the design of tank cars transporting PIH
recent accidents, and Volpe’s analysis (RIA) addressing the economic materials. In fact, the AAR has
derailment dynamics research together impact of this proposed rule. PHMSA mandated (but temporarily suspended
indicate the need to extend a higher and FRA invite comments on this RIA. to permit issuance of this notice of
The costs anticipated to accrue from proposed rulemaking) use of heavier
level of protection to the tank car body,
adopting this proposed rule would cars with top fittings that meet specified
including both the tank-head and the
include: (1) The labor and material costs requirements such as the new tank cars
shell. As discussed above, research
for incorporating enhanced built by Trinity for the transportation of
prepared by Volpe was relied upon to
crashworthiness features into tank cars PIH materials. Accordingly the baseline
develop the performance standard
that transport PIH materials, (2) the for the analyses conducted reflects
proposed, a 25 mph impact test, which
design and re-engineering costs required compliance with the AAR standard by
is directly tied to the proposed speed to implement the proposed enhanced replacing the existing fleet of PIH tank
restriction of 50 mph. It is important to tank-head and shell puncture-resistance cars with AAR compliant Trinity-like
note, the impact test proposed in systems, (3) the costs for transferring tank cars. This baseline includes
Appendix C is to resist puncture at a existing PIH tank cars to other incremental costs associated with the
particular point on the shell. The commodity services, and (4) the design, construction, and operation of
performance standard requirement for maintenance and inspection costs for new Trinity-like tank cars to replace
tank car shell protection is intended to the new more crashworthy tank cars. existing cars and the transfer of existing
apply to the entire tank shell. Additionally, there would be costs PIH tank cars to other commodity
Section 179.102–17—Hydrogen incurred as a result of the operational services. The 30-year cost estimates
Chloride, Refrigerated Liquid restrictions for tank cars that transport associated with this baseline are $476.6
PIH materials, including: (1) The cost of million (PV, 7%) and $718.7 million
Existing § 179.102–17 sets forth
restricting railroad tank cars used to (PV, 3%). Annualized costs are $38.4
specific tank car packaging
transport PIH materials to 50 mph, and million (PV, 7%) and $36.7 million (PV,
requirements for hydrogen chloride,
(2) the cost of temporarily restricting 3%).
refrigerated liquid, a PIH material. We The analysis of the proposed rule
existing railroad tank cars used to
propose to revise this section by adding takes into account the incremental
transport PIH materials in non-signaled
a new paragraph (m) to make clear that impacts that would be incurred with
territory to 30 mph. Finally, there would
railroad tank cars transporting hydrogen meeting the proposed requirements (i.e.,
be a cost for the increased traffic or
chloride must comply with the the design, construction, and operation
volume of tank cars that transport PIH
enhanced tank-head and shell puncture- costs for the new DOT-compliant cars in
materials due to the increased weight,
resistance requirements of proposed excess of the baseline impacts that
and thus lower commodity capacity, of
§§ 179.16(b) and 179.24. would be incurred absent this

those cars.
XIV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices The primary potential benefits or rulemaking with the introduction of the
savings expected to accrue from the AAR-mandated cars). In addition, the
A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This implementation of this proposed rule proposed rule analyzes full impacts
Rulemaking would be the reduction in the number related to the proposed operating speed
This NPRM is published under and severity of casualties arising from restrictions). Thus, this analysis takes
authority of the Federal hazmat law. train accidents and derailments into account the fact that the AAR and
shippers have active plans to make enhanced standards proposed will be the occurrence of rail accidents
major changes in the tank car fleet that greater than the residual value of resulting in the release of PIH materials
moves PIH commodities. The 30-year conventional tank cars and Trinity-like from tank cars, and the high variability
cost estimates associated with tank cars contemplated by AAR’s new in the circumstances and consequences
implementation of the proposed rule are standard. Thus, the analysis includes a of such events, this sensitivity analysis
$350.6 million (PV, 7%) and $431.6 benefit reflecting the higher residual is useful. The 30-year benefit estimates
million (PV, 3%). Annualized costs are value for the new tank cars at year 30. associated with this scenario are
$28.3 million (PV, 7%) and $22.0 FRA then added up both of these $786,073,251 (PV, 7%) and
million (PV, 3%). groups of benefits over the next 30 $866,616,695 (PV, 3%). The second and
The benefits of the proposed rule fall years. Taking both of these groups of third sensitivity analyses address the
into two sub-groups. The first group benefits, relative to the state of the imprecision of assumptions regarding
consists of benefits that would accrue world where the AAR would enforce it’s the value of a life, which affect the level
from avoidance of collision- and interchange standard, the 30-year of safety benefits (i.e., casualty
derailment-related PIH releases benefit estimates associated with mitigation) that would result from
resulting from a combination of the implementation of the proposed rule are promulgation of the proposed rule. This
enhanced tank car crashworthiness $666 million (PV, 7%) and $1.089 analysis presents benefit levels
standards and operating speed billion (PV, 3%). Annualized benefits associated with values of a statistical
restrictions. This group of benefits are $53.7 million (PV, 7%) and $55.6 life of $3.2 million and $8.4 million.
includes reductions in casualties; million (PV, 3%). The 30-year benefit estimates associated
property damage, including damage to An evaluation of a ‘‘status quo’’ with these scenario are $562,100,371
locomotives, rail cars and track; alternative is also included. In general, (PV, 7%, VSL: $3.2M), $857,952,000
environmental damage; evacuation and industry parties appear to recognize the (PV, 7%, VSL: $8.4M).
shelter-in-place costs; track closures; need to improve the design of tank cars This rulemaking would fulfill the
road closures; and electric power transporting PIH materials. In fact, as mandate of SAFETEA-LU and respond
disruptions. Casualty mitigation previously noted, the AAR has to NTSB’s recommendations pertaining
estimates are based on a value of mandated the use of Trinity-like cars for to tank car structural integrity and
statistical life of $5.8 million. This the transportation of PIH materials in operational measures, by specifying
group of benefits also includes more interchange. Accordingly, the ‘‘status performance standards and operational
difficult to monetize benefits such as the quo’’ alternative would be to allow the restrictions sufficient to reduce the
avoidance of hazmat accident related AAR to enforce its interchange standard. likely frequency of catastrophic releases
costs incurred by Federal, state, and The costs associated with such an to a level as low as reasonably possible,
local governments and impacts to local alternative would still be represented by given the need to transport the products
businesses. As with costs, the benefits the baseline cost scenario; however, in question, and based on analysis of the
associated with introducing DOT- they would be equivalent to the costs forces that result from serious train
compliant tank cars are reduced by the the railroad industry is willing to incur accidents. PHMSA and FRA note that,
level of benefits that DOT estimates voluntarily, and thus, would not be while the proposed actions are based
would accrue from replacing existing considered true regulatory costs. In exclusively on railroad safety
cars with AAR-mandated cars absent addition, this alternative would not considerations, strengthening the
this rulemaking. This analysis includes include costs from any operating speed protective systems on PIH tank cars may
a scenario which DOT believes is the restrictions. The benefits from this also reduce the likelihood of a
most realistic projection of benefits that alternative would be those resulting catastrophic release caused by criminal
would be realized, including the from the use of a heavier car of the same acts, such as deliberately throwing a
possibility of an event with moderately basic design currently in place and can switch in the face of an oncoming train
more severe consequences than has be estimated as approximately 15% of or taking other action that could result
occurred in the past 10 years. This the benefits that would be expected to in a derailment or collision.
approach recognizes the significant result from implementation of the The proposed actions would not
probability that, given the quantity of crashworthiness requirements of the reduce to zero the probability of a
product released and the proximity of proposed rule. As with the costs, this catastrophic release. However,
potentially affected populations to alternative would not offer any of the achieving that goal is likely inconsistent
accident sites, in one or more events the business benefits associated with the with the purpose of the transportation
consequences known to be possible will DOT proposal due to the operating service provided and beyond design
be realized, with loss of life on a scale speed restrictions. The 30-year cost practice that presently can be
not previously encountered. estimates associated with this conceived. The proposed actions would
The second group of benefits consists alternative are $476.6 million (PV, 7%) substantially reduce the risk presently
of business benefits that would accrue and $718.7 million (PV, 3%). attending transportation of the subject
in response to the operating speed Finally, three sensitivity analyses products, and these reductions can be
restrictions (which may partially offset varying assumptions used to estimate achieved within a time certain.
the operating costs imposed by these the benefits of the proposed rule are Providing reassurance to the
restrictions) and the enhanced tank car included. The first addresses the communities through which these trains
design. This group includes fuel savings uncertainty regarding the consequences travel, that every feasible action has
from economic efficiencies resulting from release of PIH materials resulting been taken to safeguard those
from operating speed restrictions and from train accidents. This analysis is potentially affected, itself provides
repair savings from more salvageable based on the assumption that the societal benefits. Included among these
tank cars. DOT believes that the useful consequences of projected incidents benefits are peace of mind of residents
life of compliant tank cars introduced will be of the same average severity as and others within the potential zones of
during the 30-year analysis period will those in the past ten years. It does not danger, and likely avoidance of more
extend well beyond that period. recognize how fortunate the costly and less effective public
Moreover, the residual value at year 30 circumstances surrounding recent past responses (such as prohibiting
of tank cars constructed to meet the incidents have been. Given the rarity of transportation of the products outright
or establishing burdensome conditions necessary to eliminate or reduce an regulations on these subject matters, as
of transportation that are perceived to essentially local safety or security those regulations would be amended as
benefit individual communities while hazard, is not incompatible with a law, proposed in this NPRM. The agency
driving up total public exposure). regulation, or order of the United States welcomes comments about the extent to
Government, and does not unreasonably which the preemptive effect under this
C. Executive Order 13132
burden interstate commerce. statutory authority differs from that
This NPRM has been analyzed in While this recent amendment has discussed above.
accordance with the principles and altered the preemptive reach of Section Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2) of the
criteria contained in Executive Order 20106, it is important to note that there Federal hazmat law, if the Secretary of
13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). If adopted in a are limits to this exception. For Transportation issues a regulation
final rule, the proposals in this NPRM example, Congress provided an concerning any of the covered subjects,
would amend PHMSA’s existing exception only for an action in State the Secretary must determine and
regulations on the design and court seeking damages for personal publish in the Federal Register the
manufacturing of rail tank cars injury, death, or property damage. The effective date of Federal preemption.
authorized for the transportation of PIH statute does not provide for the recovery The effective date may not be earlier
materials and the handling of rail of punitive damages in the permitted than the 90th day following the date of
shipments of PIH materials in these rail common law tort actions. In addition, issuance of the final rule and not later
tank cars. As discussed below, State and the statue permits actions for violation than two years after the date of issuance.
local requirements on the same subject of an internal plan, rule, or standard PHMSA has determined that the
matters covered by PHMSA’s existing only when such are created pursuant to effective date of Federal preemption for
regulations and the amendments a Federal regulation or order issued by these requirements under the Federal
proposed in this NPRM, including DOT or DHS to the minimum required hazmat law would be one year from the
certain State common law tort actions, by the Federal regulation or order. date of publication of a final rule in the
are preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125 and While parties are encouraged to go Federal Register.
20106. At the same time, this NPRM beyond the minimum regulatory
does not propose any regulation that standard in establishing safety and D. Executive Order 13175
would have direct effects on the States, security standards, these requirements
the relationship between the national We analyzed this proposed rule in
are not created pursuant to Federal accordance with the principles and
government and the States, or the regulation or order. Accordingly, there
distribution of power and criteria contained in Executive Order
is no clear authorization of a common 13175 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination
responsibilities among the various law tort action alleging a violation of
levels of government. Additionally, it with Indian Tribal Governments’’).
those aspects of such an internal plan, Because this proposed rule does not
would not impose any direct rule, or standard related to the subject
compliance costs on State and local significantly or uniquely affect tribes
matter of this regulation that exceeds and does not impose substantial and
governments. Therefore, the the minimum required by the Federal
consultation and funding requirements direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
regulation or order. governments, the funding and
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. Separately, the Federal hazardous
The Federal Railroad Safety Act (49 consultation requirements of Executive
materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C.
U.S.C. 20101 et seq.) provides that all Order 13175 do not apply, and a tribal
5101 et seq., contains an express
regulations prescribed by the Secretary summary impact statement is not
provision (49 U.S.C. 5125(b))
related to railroad safety (such as the required.
preempting State, local, and Indian tribe
rule proposed in this NPRM) preempt requirements on certain covered E. Regulatory Flexibility Act and
any State law, regulation, or order subjects. Covered subjects are: Executive Order 13272; Initial
covering the same subject matter, except (1) The designation, description, and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment
a provision necessary to eliminate or classification of hazardous material;
reduce an essentially local safety or (2) the packing, repacking, handling, The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
security hazard that is not incompatible labeling, marking, and placarding of U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and Executive Order
with a Federal law, regulation, or order hazardous material; 13272 require a review of proposed and
and that does not unreasonably burden (3) the preparation, execution, and final rules to assess their impacts on
interstate commerce. An amendment to use of shipping documents related to small entities. An agency must prepare
Section 20106 enacted in 2007 alters the hazardous material and requirements an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
preemption of certain tort actions by related to the number, contents, and (IRFA) unless it determines and certifies
this section that arise from events or placement of those documents; that a rule, if promulgated, would not
activities occurring on or after January (4) the written notification, recording, have a significant impact on a
18, 2002, to the extent that a tort action and reporting of the unintentional substantial number of small entities.
seeks damages for personal injury, release in transportation of hazardous DOT has not determined whether this
death, or property damage and alleges: material; and proposed rule would have a significant
(1) A violation of the Federal standard (5) the design, manufacturing, economic impact on a substantial
of care established by regulation or fabricating, marking, maintenance, number of small entities. Therefore, we
order issued by the Secretary of reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a are publishing this IRFA to aid the
Transportation (with respect to railroad packaging or container represented, public in commenting on the potential
safety) or the Secretary of Homeland marked, certified, or sold as qualified small business impacts of the proposals
Security (with respect to railroad for use in transporting hazardous in this NPRM. We invite all interested
security); (2) a party’s violation of, or material. parties to submit data and information
failure to comply with, its own plan, This proposed rule addresses both regarding the potential economic impact
rule, or standard that it created pursuant items 2 and 5 of the HMR and would that would result from adoption of the
to a regulation or order issued by either therefore preempt any State, local, or proposals in this NPRM. We will
of the two Secretaries; or (3) a party’s Indian tribe requirement that is not consider all comments received in the
violation of a State standard that is substantively the same as PHMSA’s public comment process when making a
determination in the final Regulatory Railroad Safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 20101 et action. Five types of small entities are
Flexibility Assessment (RFA). seq.) and has delegated this authority to potentially affected by this proposed
In accordance with the Regulatory FRA. 49 CFR 1.49. rule: (1) PIH material shippers and tank
Flexibility Act, an IRFA must contain: A primary safety and security concern car owners; (2) governmental
(1) A description of the reasons why in the rail transportation of hazardous jurisdictions of small communities; (3)
action by the agency is being materials is the prevention of a small railroads; (4) small farms; and (5)
considered; catastrophic release in proximity to small explosives manufacturers.
(2) A succinct statement of the places such as populated areas, events ‘‘Small entity’’ is defined in 5 U.S.C.
objectives of, and the legal basis for, the or venues with large numbers of people 601. Section 601(3) defines a ‘‘small
proposed rule; in attendance, iconic buildings, entity’’ as having the same meaning as
(3) A description of, and where landmarks, or environmentally sensitive ‘‘small business concern’’ under section
feasible, an estimate of the number of areas. Over the past several years, 3 of the Small Business Act. This
small entities to which the proposed several very serious accidents involving includes any small business concern
rule will apply; catastrophic releases of PIH materials that is independently owned and
(4) A description of the projected from railroad tank cars have focused the operated, and is not dominant in its
reporting, recordkeeping and other attention of the public, press, NTSB, field of operation. Section 601(4)
compliance requirements of the and the Congress on the serious includes not-for-profit enterprises that
proposed rule, including an estimate of consequences of these events. Since are independently owned and operated,
the classes of small entities that will be 2002, NTSB investigated three accidents and are not dominant in their field of
subject to the requirement and the type involving tank cars transporting PIH operations within the definition of
of professional skills necessary for materials. (See section VI of the ‘‘small entities.’’ Additionally, section
preparation of the report or record; preamble for a more detailed discussion 601(5) defines as ‘‘small entities’’
(5) An identification, to the extent of the relevant accidents). In response to governments of cities, counties, towns,
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules all three accidents, the NTSB townships, villages, school districts, or
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict recommended that FRA study special districts with populations less
with the proposed rule; and improving the safety and structural than 50,000.
(6) A description of any significant integrity of tank cars and develop The U.S. Small Business
alternatives to the proposed rule that necessary operational measures to Administration (SBA) stipulates ‘‘size
accomplish the state objectives of minimize the vulnerability of tank cars standards’’ for small entities. It provides
applicable statutes and which minimize involved in accidents. In particular, in that the largest a for-profit railroad
any significant economic impact of the response to a January 18, 2002, freight business firm may be (and still classify
proposed rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. train derailment in Minot, North Dakota, as a ‘‘small entity’’) is 1,500 employees
603(b), (c). which resulted in one death and 11 for ‘‘Line-Haul Operating’’ railroads,
serious injuries due to the release of and 500 employees for ‘‘Short-Line
I. Reasons for Considering Agency anhydrous ammonia when five tank cars Operating’’ railroads.54 For PIH material
Action carrying the product catastrophically shippers potentially impacted by this
As discussed in earlier sections of this ruptured and a vapor plume covered the rule, SBA’s size standard is 750 or 1,000
preamble, in the last several years there derailment site and surrounding area, employees, depending on the industry
have been a number of serious rail tank the NTSB made four safety the shipper is in as determined by its
car accidents involving catastrophic recommendations to FRA specific to the North American Industry Classification
releases of PIH materials causing the structural integrity of hazardous System (NAICS) Code. SBA size
attention of the rail industry, PIH material tank cars. Subsequently, in standards also stipulate in NAICS Code
shippers and other members of the 2005, section 20155 of SAFETEA-LU Subsector 111 that the average annual
public, press, NTSB and the Congress to reiterated NTSB’s recommendations in receipt for ‘‘crop production’’
focus on the serious consequences of part and further directed the Secretary agriculture is $750,000 per year. Thus,
these events. In 2005 SAFETEA-LU of Transportation to ‘‘initiate a any farm that produces crops is not
directed the Secretary of Transportation rulemaking to develop and implement considered to be a small entity unless its
to ‘‘initiate a rulemaking to develop and appropriate design standards for annual revenue is less than $750,000.
implement appropriate design standards pressurized tank cars.’’ For explosives manufacturers, NAICS
for pressurized tank cars.’’ This B. Objective of Proposed Rule Code 325920, the size standard is 750
proposed rulemaking is responsive to employees.
The objective of this proposed rule is SBA size standards may be altered by
SAFETEA-LU’s mandate, as well as
to improve the crashworthiness Federal agencies in consultation with
recommendations of the NTSB.
protection of railroad tank cars designed SBA, and in conjunction with public
II. Objectives and Legal Basis for to transport PIH materials by (1) comment. Pursuant to the authority
Proposed Rule requiring enhanced tank-head and shell provided to it by SBA, FRA has
A. Legal Basis for Proposed Rule protection, and (2) limiting the published a final policy, which formally
operating speed of the tank cars. See establishes small entities as railroads
As discussed in more detail in section sections II and XII of the preamble for
III of this preamble, Federal hazmat law that meet the line haulage revenue
a more detailed discussion regarding the requirements of a Class III railroad.55
authorizes the Secretary of objective of this proposed rule.
Transportation to ‘‘prescribe regulations Currently, the revenue requirements are
for the safe transportation, including III. Description and Estimate of Small $20 million or less in annual operating
security, of hazardous material in Entities Affected revenue, adjusted annually for inflation.
intrastate, interstate, and foreign The ‘‘universe’’ of the entities to be The $20 million limit (adjusted
commerce.’’ The Secretary has delegated considered in an IRFA generally 54 ‘‘Table of Size Standards,’’ U.S. Small Business
this authority to PHMSA. The Secretary includes only those small entities that Administration, January 31, 1996, 13 CFR Part 121.
also has authority over all areas of can reasonably be expected to be See also NAICS Codes 482111 and 482112.
railroad transportation safety (Federal directly regulated by the proposed 55 See 68 FR 24891 (May 9, 2003).
annually for inflation) is based on the rule, as well as the potential impact on C. Railroads
Surface Transportation Board’s any such entities. DOT estimates that approximately 46
threshold of a Class III railroad carrier, railroads meeting the definition of
B. Governmental Jurisdictions of Small
which is adjusted by applying the ‘‘small entity’’ as described above
Communities
railroad revenue deflator adjustment.56 transport PIH materials via railroad tank
The same dollar limit on revenues is Small entities that are classified as car.57 Because the proposed rule would
established to determine whether a governmental jurisdictions of small apply to all 46 of these small railroads,
railroad shipper or contractor is a small communities may also be affected by the we have concluded that a substantial
entity. DOT proposes to use this proposals in this NPRM. As stated number of such entities would be
definition for this rulemaking. above, and defined by SBA, this term impacted.
refers to governments of cities, counties, It is important to note, however, that
A. Shippers
towns, townships, villages, school absent this rulemaking, all railroads that
Almost all hazardous materials tank districts, or special districts with transport PIH materials via railroad tank
cars, including those cars that transport populations of less than 50,000. The car, including the 46 railroads identified
PIH materials, are owned or leased by potential impact of this rulemaking to as small entities, would still have to
shippers. DOT believes that a majority, these entities is related to chlorine and incur the additional expense to
if not all, of these shippers are large the use of it in the water purification accommodate 286,000-pound tank cars
entities. DOT used data from the DOT/ process for community water districts. to comply with the new AAR PIH tank
PHMSA Hazardous Materials DOT does not know how many car standard (i.e., a 286,000-pound tank
Information System (HMIS) database to community water systems are owned by car equipped with additional head
screen for PIH material shippers that governmental jurisdictions that meet protection, thicker shell, and modified
may be small entities. The HMIS uses SBA’s definition of a small entity, how top fittings). (See section IX of this
the SBA size standards as the basis for many community water systems use preamble for a more detailed discussion
determining if a company qualifies as a chlorine at their facilities, or how many of the new AAR PIH tank car standard).
small business. DOT also gathered data could easily substitute a nondangerous As noted in section I of this preamble,
from industry trade groups such as the or less lethal material, i.e., bleach, for however, DOT anticipates that tank car
American Chemistry Council and The chlorine. designers, working with end users, will
Fertilizer Institute (TFI) to help identify DOT understands that most water develop tank cars that will meet the
the number of small shippers that might plants for small communities receive proposed enhanced tank-head and shell
be affected. After identifying the set of their chlorine via 1-ton tanks, which are performance standards of this NPRM
small businesses that could potentially transported in highway vehicles. These while minimizing the addition of weight
be impacted, DOT cross-referenced this facilities might be impacted indirectly to the empty cars. Recognizing the
group with The Official Railway by increasing prices for chlorine due to growing use of rail cars with gross
Equipment Register (October, 2007) to higher shipping rates. Also, in recent weight on rail exceeding 263,000
determine if any of these actually own years, the shipping rates for chlorine pounds for non-hazardous commodities,
tank cars subject to this rule. have been increased due to the PIH such as grain, this NPRM provides the
accidents that have occurred over the flexibility to design a tank car for the
From the DOT/PHMSA HMIS transportation of PIH materials weighing
database, and industry sources, DOT past 10 years. With the introduction of
this proposed regulation, DOT expects up to 286,000 pounds, in line with
found eight small shippers that might be AAR’s existing standard S–286–2002.
impacted. By further checking that the rates will flatten or will increase
at a slower pace because the safety Accordingly, the actual impact of the
information available on the companies’ general increase in gross weight on rail
Web sites, all eight shippers are noted features of the rule will reduce the
chance of an accident that releases PIH of products in this commodity group in
as being subsidiaries of larger relation to the overall transition now
businesses. Out of these eight, however, materials, and therefore result in lower
accident and associated costs. being completed within the industry
only one owns tank cars that would be (which has been eased by tax incentives
affected. The remaining seven shippers DOT notes that many existing
chlorine tank cars are nearing the end of and, in some cases, government-
either do not own tank cars or own tank guaranteed loan arrangements) should
cars that would not be affected by this their useful lives. Even in the absence
of the proposed rulemaking, the affected not be substantial. While we recognize
rule. The one remaining small shipper that some small railroads will not be
potentially impacted has annual entities would have to replace these
older chlorine tank cars in the next few able to accommodate the additional
revenues that exceed by 20 times the weight on some of their bridges and
FRA size standard for a small entity. years. The industry, through AAR, has
track, we believe that railroads that
Further, although this shipper is for- also been working to improve tank car
handle PIH cars have, in general,
profit, the parent company is a non- safety. As discussed in section IX of this
already made or are making the
profit. Thus, DOT believes that there are preamble, absent this regulation, new
transition to track structures and bridges
none or very few PIH material shippers AAR chlorine tank car standards will
capable of handling 286,000-pound cars
that are small businesses affected by this also result in existing tank cars being
in line with the general movement in
rule. Additionally, no small shippers replaced and entities impacted through
the industry toward these heavier
commented during the public meeting higher shipping rates.
freight cars. These railroads include
process. DOT invites commenters to Accordingly, DOT cannot accurately
many switching and terminal railroads
submit information that might assist it assess the number of governmental
in assessing the quantity of small jurisdictions of small communities that 57 Data provided by Railinc, Corp. (a subsidiary of
shippers that may be affected by the would be directly impacted by this AAR) indicates that approximately 80 short-line
requirements set forth in the proposed proposed regulation and what the and regional railroads transport PIH materials via
impact would be. DOT requests railroad tank car. Of these 80 railroads, 34 are
regional railroads that meet the Surface
56 For further information on the calculation of comment from affected governmental Transportation Board’s definition of a Class II
the specific dollar limit, please see 49 CFR Part jurisdictions as to the impact the railroad, and thus, are not considered ‘‘small
1201. proposed rule will have on them. entities’’ for the purposes of this IRFA.
that are partially or totally owned by to the farming environment because it near a dedicated supply of natural gas,
Class 1 railroads as interline must be stored and handled under high and the price and demand for the
connections. These connections have pressure. Urea, urea ammonium nitrate, product are also dependent and
previously mandated upgrading to or ammonium nitrate could be used for responsive to the price of natural gas.
286,000-pound capability. anhydrous ammonia as substitutes for Thus, the production at some plants is
For example, in 2005, the Texas agricultural purposes. Anhydrous currently down due to the increase in
Transportation Institute reported that 42 ammonia has a free ammonia percentage price of natural gas. On the demand side
percent of the short-line railroad miles of 86 percent, while the substitutes have of the economic equation there is an
that were operated in Texas that year a free ammonia percentage of 46, 28–32, increase in the demand and use of
had already been upgraded, nine and 34 percent, respectively. anhydrous ammonia due to the recent
percent would not need an upgrade, and Shippers of anhydrous ammonia do increase in ethanol demand. Ethanol is
47 percent needed upgrading if they not own tank cars; rather they are leased typically produced in the United States
wanted to transport any type of 286,000- from larger entities. According to TFI, a from corn, and the production of corn
pound shipments.58 In addition, the switch to a redesigned heavier tank car requires substantial amounts of
results of a 1998–1999 survey would increase monthly car lease rates nitrogen, much of which comes from
conducted by the ASLRRA indicated from the current level of $800–$850 per anhydrous ammonia.
that 41 percent of respondent short-line car to $1,300–$1,400 per car. TFI’s Because there are a number of factors
railroads could handle 286,000-pound members lease about 6,000 tank cars contributing to increased costs for
rail cars and 87 percent of the and ship about 52,000 cars per year. If anhydrous ammonia, it is difficult to
respondent short-line railroads these increased lease costs are passed determine how much of any increase in
indicated that they would need to through to customers, then any the price of the PIH material would be
accommodate 286,000-pound railcars in agricultural or farming operation that a product of this proposed regulation
the future.59 More current data from the utilizes anhydrous ammonia as part of and shipping via rail. We note as well
ASLRRA suggests that many of the its fertilizing program could be that increased costs may well make
railroads needing future capability to negatively impacted. substitute produces more attractive.
handle 286,000-pound rail loads for this It is important to note, however, that Currently PIH shippers are
rule have been upgraded within the past not all crops utilize anhydrous experiencing rapidly increasing rate
two years.60 ammonia, nor in the same quantities. increases as a result of the railroads’
Nevertheless, we believe that some Agriculture crops that require greater concern over possible train accidents
new 263,000-pound cars will be built leaf development, such as corn and involving the release of PIH materials.
for anhydrous ammonia service to wheat, utilize anhydrous ammonia as a The use of the more crashworthy tank
address rail line and facility fertilizer more than crops that require a cars coupled with the operating
compatibility concerns thus minimizing greater root development, e.g., carrots, restrictions DOT is proposing should
the burden of the rule on small potatoes, and beets, which utilize significantly reduce the risk of
railroads. phosphorus more as a fertilizer. catastrophic PIH releases and ultimately
In general, most of the impacts will Therefore, not all small farms will be translate into relief from these escalating
not burden the 46 small railroads impacted in the same way by an rail transportation costs. (These rate
potentially affected by this proposed increase in the shipping rates for escalations would likely continue were
rule. Any costs incurred by railroads anhydrous ammonia. DOT invites DOT not to issue its proposed rule since
most likely will be passed to shippers commenters to submit information that the car mandated by AAR’s new
and end users through higher might assist it in assessing the quantity standard (i.e., a Trinity-type car) would
transportation costs. Thus, DOT does of small agricultural operations that may probably not prevent PIH tank car
not expect this regulation to impose a be affected by the requirements set forth releases in even moderate speed train
significant burden on the affected small in the proposed rule. accidents). Shippers would be able to
railroads. We invite commenters to During DOT’s public meetings, one make the case that higher rates would
submit information that might assist us commenter noted that the survival of no longer be ‘‘reasonable’’ given the
in assessing the cost impacts on small family farms in the Northwest is tied to significantly reduced probability of a
railroads of the proposals in this NPRM. retaining a cheap source of nitrogen via catastrophic release. This ‘‘cost-savings’’
anhydrous ammonia which is would allow shippers to offset new-car
D. Farms transported via rail.61 Other costs to a large extent. Given that new
Anhydrous ammonia is an important commenters noted that NH3 costs 40 to car expenses are typically financed over
source of nitrogen fertilizer for crops. It 50 percent less per pound of nitrogen several years, we believe that the
is used in farming because it is one of than less concentrated forms of increased costs passed on by shippers to
the most efficient and widely used nitrogen.62 For example, one commenter small farmers would not be significant.
sources of nitrogen for plant growth. Its noted that anhydrous ammonia costs 24 The farmers, in turn, would be expected
use has increased because it is relatively cents per pound of nitrogen, compared to pass shipping cost increases to end
easy to apply and readily available. to 34 cents per pound for ammonium consumers in the form of higher
Nonetheless, it does carry disadvantages nitrate.63 agricultural product prices.
Anhydrous ammonia is dependent on We request comment from affected
58 Jeffrey E. Warner & Manuel Solari Terra,
natural gas for its production. In North agricultural operations as to the impact
‘‘Assessment of Texas Short Line Railroads, ‘‘ Texas America, anhydrous ammonia
Transportation Institute (Nov. 15, 2005).
that the proposed rule would have on
production plants are typically built them.
59 The Ten-Year Needs of Short Line and Regional
Railroads, Standing Committee on Rail

Transportation, American Association of State 61 U.S. DOT Public Meeting Transcripts, E. Explosives Manufacturers
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, Testimony of Fred Morscheck from the McGregor Anhydrous ammonia is also used in
DC (Dec. 1999). This report was based on a survey Company, May 31, 2006, p. 168.
producing explosives. The Institute of
conducted by the ASLRRA in 1998 and 1999 with 62 Id. p. 169.
data from 1997. 63 U.S. DOT Public Meeting Transcripts, Makers of Explosives (IME), an industry
60 John Gallagher, ‘‘Tank Car Tensions,’’ Traffic Testimony of William Wolf from The Andersons, trade group, reports that there are 22
World (June 19, 2006). Inc. (a shipper), May 31, 2006, p. 190. explosives manufacturers in the United
States. Of these 22 manufacturers, eight signaled territory, its maximum cost of new PIH tank cars. The enhanced
actually produce explosives material operating speed is limited to 30 mph. crashworthiness features, while
while the remaining 14 are associated Alternatively, paragraph (c)(2) provides increasing safety, would cause the
manufacturers making components or that railroads may implement average PIH tank car to increase in cost
assemblies. Finally, three manufacturers alternative safety measures in lieu of and also increase in weight. DOT
consume anhydrous ammonia to complying with the 30 mph speed believes that the impact from this
produce explosives. None of these three restriction, so long as those alternative increased cost in the tank cars would be
potentially impacted manufactures, safety measures provides an equivalent substantially passed from the
however, is considered a small business. level of safety as a traffic control system manufacturer to the tank car owners.
complying with 49 CFR Part 236 and the Since most tank cars are owned by the
IV. Description of Reporting,
railroad completes a risk assessment shippers, much of this cost would be
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
demonstrating this equivalent level of passed on to them. These shippers
Requirements and Impacts on Small
safety. The rule proposes that this risk would most likely pass this cost on to
Entities Resulting From Specific
assessment be submitted to FRA for the end users in the form of higher
Proposed Requirements
review and approval. shipping costs. The capacity constraints
A. Reporting Requirement of Proposed DOT does not expect a great number in the railroad system give shippers
§ 173.31(b)(8)(iii) of these applications. A typical some market power to pass on a
Proposed § 173.31(b)(8)(iii) requires submission might consist of a substantial portion of the costs (i.e.,
that after the initial 5-year commitment to install a switch position shippers do not need to cut costs to
implementation period has passed, monitoring system, track integrity attract customers). However, the
owners of PIH tank cars submit a circuits (except in areas where new rail flexibility provided by the long phase in
progress report to FRA identifying the is prevalent), and a temporary speed period of the rulemaking, and the ability
total number of in-service tank cars in reduction to 40 mph during the period of some customers to use substitute
PIH service owned and the number of a positive train control system is products or purchase from shippers that
those cars in compliance with the installed on the wayside. DOT expects rely on other modes of transportation if
enhanced head and shell protection that the average submission would costs rise beyond their willingness to
requirements of the proposed rule. This consist of between 20 and 30 pages. pay, may temper passing through of
paragraph would also require that tank DOT does not expect any of these costs. If any of the additional or
car owners certify in their progress applications to be by small railroads. marginal increases in a PIH tank car’s
reports that their fleet does not contain cost are absorbed by shippers, then few,
C. Demonstration of Compliance With if any, PIH material shippers that are
any pre-1989 tank cars in PIH service Proposed Enhanced Tank-Head and
subject to paragraph (b)(8)(ii).64 considered to be small entities would be
Shell Puncture Resistance System Tests negatively affected. Based on
DOT estimates that the burden for this
reporting would be 5 minutes per Proposed Appendix C to 49 CFR Part information from the DOT/PHMSA
pertinent tank car.65 In the Regulatory 179 provides that compliance with the HMIS registry of shippers, and industry
Impact Analysis (RIA), DOT estimated proposed enhanced tank head and shell trade groups, DOT believes no small PIH
that this requirement will cost $19,200 puncture-resistance standards can be material shippers would be impacted. If
in the beginning of the 6th year of the shown by computer simulation, by the higher cost of cars meeting the
analysis, and this cost is for each tank simulation in conjunction with proposed performance standard are not
car. In addition, DOT has provided substructure testing, by full-scale impact absorbed by shippers and are not offset
postage, envelopes, and handling testing, or a combination thereof. The by reductions in shipping rates
charges of $1 per tank car report. This lowest cost and lowest level of attributable to reduce potential liability
cost would total $7,650, which would confidence is provided by simulation for catastrophic releases, small farmers
also be incurred in the beginning of the alone. Substructure testing increases the using anhydrous ammonia for fertilizer
6th year of the analysis. The total cost confidence in simulation modeling, might be impacted. The degree to which
for this requirement is $26,800 for all potentially with relatively modest costs, they might be impacted depends, among
PIH tank car owners. DOT does not depending on the details of the other things, on their ability to pass
expect many of these tank cars to be substructure test. The highest level of costs on to consumers of agricultural
owned by small entities. Therefore, this confidence is provided by full-scale products. This may, in turn, be affected
reporting requirement would have very impact testing, along with the greatest by Federal government agricultural
cost. The cost of such compliance is not policy. FRA specifically requests
little, if any, impact on small entities.
important to this assessment. DOT comments on this issue.
B. Filing Requirement for Alternative firmly believes that no small entities 2. Transferring Current PIH Tank Cars to
Compliance With Proposed will be impacted by this requirement. Other Services
§ 174.86(c)(1)
D. Impacts on Small Entities Resulting A second impact from this proposed
Proposed § 174.86(c)(1) provides that From Specific Proposed Requirements rulemaking is the cost for transferring
if a tank car not meeting the enhanced
The impacts from this proposed the current PIH tank car fleet into
tank-head and shell puncture resistance
rulemaking would primarily result from service for other products. This cost
standards of the proposed rule is used
complying with the requirements for would only be incurred for those PIH
to transport PIH material over non-
building enhanced PIH tank cars. The tank cars that still have a useful life left.
proposed rule provides affected entities DOT has estimated a cost of $2,500 per
64 This proposed requirement restricts the use of
PIH tank cars that were manufactured using non- an 8-year period of time in which to PIH tank car for this impact. This cost
normalized steel for tank-head or shell accomplish this goal. would only be incurred to the extent
construction. Under it, tank cars manufactured that such an investment is believed to
using non-normalized steel for the tank-head or 1. Additional Cost for Enhanced PIH yield a positive return to the investor.
shell are not authorized to transport PIH materials Tank Cars
five years after the effective date of the final rule. As noted above, very few, if any, PIH
65 CALCULATION: ($30.05 wage rate) * (5 One of the impacts from this proposed material shippers are considered to be
minutes/60 minutes) * (15,300 *.5) = $19,157. regulation would be an increase in the small entities. Thus, DOT does not
believe that a substantial number of PIH 5. Cost of Restricting Traffic Speed to 50 VI. Alternatives Considered
material shippers would be impacted, mph DOT has identified no significant
nor by a significant economic amount. One of the proposed requirements of alternative to the proposed rule which
3. Maintenance, Inspections, and this rulemaking is that PIH tank cars be satisfies the mandate of SAFETEA–LU,
Training Related to the New PIH Tank limited to speeds of 50 mph on signaled related provisions of the Federal hazmat
Cars territory or track. This requirement is law, or meets the agency’s objective in
not expected to impact any small promulgating this rule, and that would
Another proposed requirement that railroads, because none of them travel at minimize the economic impact of the
could impact small entities is the speeds greater than 50 mph. proposed rule on small entities. As in
maintenance, inspection, and training 6. Increased Traffic/Volume of PIH Tank all aspects of this IRFA, DOT requests
costs related to the new PIH tank cars. Cars comments on this finding of no
This impact will be borne by the significant alternative related to small
shippers. This impact would be Due to several of the proposed entities.
temporary and would occur as the first requirements in this rulemaking, it is The process by which this proposed
new PIH tank cars are placed into anticipated that the actual volume of rule was developed provided outreach
service because DOT expects that PIH tank car traffic would increase. In to small entities. DOT held three public
initially it may be necessary to inspect general, this could affect railroads. meetings (May 31-June 1, 2006,
However, most small railroads transport December 14, 2006, and March 30,
the new tank cars more often than
PIH tank cars from the manufacturing 2007).66 At each of the public meetings,
conventional tank cars to ensure
facility to the connection point with the DOT sought comment and input from
conformance with the enhanced
Class I railroad. The traffic of these small entities on issues related to the
performance standards.
types of shipments, for the short time
safe transportation of hazardous
4. Fuel Cost: Impact of the Additional they are handled by small railroads, is
materials by railroad tank car and how
Weight in New PIH Tank Cars not expected to impact these railroads.
the proposed concepts would impact
The number of cars will be few at that
One of the impacts from this proposed small entities, as well as potential
point, and small railroads usually only
regulation would be an increased fuel alternatives that might mitigate such
run one or two trains a day.
usage by trains resulting from the impacts. Subsequent to publication of
additional 23,000 lbs that the new PIH 7. Cost of Restricting Speed to 30 mph this notice of proposed rulemaking,
in Dark Territory DOT expects to hold additional public
tank cars will carry due to the enhanced
crashworthiness features. (This In proposed § 174.86(c), PIH tank cars meetings to discuss all aspects of the
increased fuel cost would also be that do not meet the new performance proposed rule, including its potential
incurred under the new AAR PIH tank requirements would not be allowed to impact on small entities, and DOT
travel at speeds in excess of 30 mph encourages the active participation of
car standard.) Initially, this is a cost that
when that tank car travels in non- any small entity potentially affected.
would be borne by the railroads.
However, the railroads would likely signaled territory. Railroads could F. Paperwork Reduction Act
pass much of that cost on to the PIH exceed the 30 mph limit, provided
equivalent safety criteria are met. This This proposed rule may result in an
material shippers through higher increase in the information collection
shipping rates. This cost would in turn proposed requirement should not
impact small railroads since most do not and recordkeeping burden due to the
be passed on to the end users, enhanced performance standards and
depending on the product’s price operate at speeds greater than 30 mph.
This proposed requirement could serve operational restrictions for railroad tank
elasticity of demand, and the factors cars that transport PIH materials.
noted in the ‘‘Additional Cost for to delay deliveries for PIH material
shippers and contribute to higher PHMSA currently has an approved
Enhanced PIH Tank Cars’’ section information collection under OMB
above. Thus, this impact should not shipping rates. However, DOT does not
believe that there are any small PIH Control Number 2137–0559, ‘‘(Rail
affect any of the small railroads. Any Carriers and Tank Car Tanks
material shippers. DOT would
shippers that qualify as a small entity Requirements) Requirements for Rail
encourage any entities that do meet
will most likely pass the cost on to an Tank Car Tanks—Transportation of
these criteria and would be negatively
end user. Small farms and governmental Hazardous Materials by Rail,’’ with
impacted to provide comment to this
jurisdictions of small communities are 2,689 annual burden hours and an
rulemaking. Governmental jurisdictions
end users of PIH materials. They could of small communities that own a water expiration date of May 31, 2008.
potentially be impacted by this cost. system that uses chlorine could be Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA
However, the cost would be reflected in impacted. Most chlorine that is is required to provide interested
the shipping rates of these materials. transported to these facilities is members of the public and affected
The shipping rates of these products transported to the end destination via a agencies with an opportunity to
should also decrease or stop increasing truck in 1-ton tanks. This requirement comment on information collection and
due to the insurance costs related to the will serve to slow down some rail traffic recordkeeping requests. This notice
PIH materials. This is because the and increase the cost to ship via rail. identifies a revised information
proposed enhanced features for the Therefore, small farms that use collection request that PHMSA will
future PIH tank cars would serve to anhydrous ammonia as a fertilizer could submit to the Office of Management and
reduce the likelihood of a PIH material also be impacted. Budget (OMB) for approval based on the
release. Therefore, the risk of an requirements in this proposed rule.

accident or derailment occurring where V. Identification of Relevant PHMSA has developed burden
a PIH tank car is ruptured and releases Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting estimates to reflect proposals in this
its contents would have decreased, and Federal Rules NPRM. PHMSA estimates that the
therefore serve to lower the insurance There are no Federal rules that would proposals in this rulemaking will result
costs associated with the shipment of duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this
these materials. proposed rule. 66 See 71 FR 30019, 71 FR 67015, 72 FR 12259.
in approximately 2,255 additional prohibited by law, assess the effects of means that the transportation of
burden hours and $67,650.00 additional Federal regulatory actions on State, hazardous materials is unavoidable.
burden costs. PHMSA estimates that the local, and tribal governments, and the However, these shipments frequently
total information collection and private sector (other than to the extent move through heavily-populated or
recordkeeping burdens for OMB Control that such regulations incorporate environmentally-sensitive areas where
Number 2137–0559, ‘‘(Rail Carriers and requirements specifically set forth in the consequences of an incident could
Tank Car Tank Requirements) law).’’ Section 202 of the Act (2 U.S.C. be loss of life, serious injury, or
Requirements for Rail Tank Car Tanks- 1532) further requires that ‘‘before significant environmental damage. To
Transportation of Hazardous Materials promulgating any general notice of address the safety and environmental
by Rail,’’ would be as follows: proposed rulemaking that is likely to risks associated with the transportation
Total Annual Number of result in the promulgation of any rule of hazardous materials by rail, rail tank
Respondents: 400. that includes any Federal mandate that cars must conform to rigorous design,
Total Annual Responses: 16,781. may result in the expenditure by State, manufacturing, and requalification
Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,944. local, and tribal governments, in the requirements. The result is that tank
Total Annual Burden Cost: aggregate, or by the private sector, of cars are robust packagings, equipped
$170,236.25. $120,700,000 or more (adjusted with features such as shelf couplers,
Requests for a copy of the information annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and head shields, thermal insulation, and
collection should be directed to Deborah before promulgating any final rule for bottom discontinuity protection that are
Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, U.S. which a general notice of proposed designed to ensure that a tank car
Department of Transportation, Office of rulemaking was published, the agency involved in an accident will survive the
Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH– shall prepare a written statement’’ accident intact.
11), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials detailing the effect on State, local, and In the last several years, however,
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey tribal governments and the private there have been a number of rail tank
Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, sector. car accidents in which the tank car was
Washington, DC 20590–0001, The proposed rule may result in the breached and product was lost on the
Telephone (202) 366–8553. expenditure of more than $120,700,000 ground or into the atmosphere. Of
All comments should be addressed to (adjusted annually for inflation) by the particular concern have been accidents
the Dockets Unit as identified in the public sector in any one year. The involving PIH materials. The purpose of
ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking, this NPRM is to adopt regulations to
analytical requirements under Executive
and received prior to the close of the Order 12866 are similar to the analytical enhance the safety of transporting PIH
comment period identified in the requirements under the Unfunded materials by tank car. A primary safety
DATES section of this rulemaking. In Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and, concern is the prevention of a
addition, you may submit comments thus, the same analysis complies with catastrophic release in proximity to
specifically related to the information both analytical requirements. populated areas, including urban areas
collection burden to the PHMSA Desk and events or venues with large
Officer, OMB, at fax number 202–395– I. Environmental Assessment numbers of people in attendance. Also
6974. Under the Paperwork Reduction 1. Background of major concern is the release of PIH
Act of 1995, no person is required to materials in proximity to iconic
respond to an information collection The National Environmental Policy buildings, landmarks, or
unless it displays a valid OMB control Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4375, requires that environmentally-sensitive areas. Such a
number. If these proposed requirements federal agencies analyze proposed catastrophic event could be the result of
are adopted in a final rule with any actions to determine whether the action an accident—such as the January 18,
revisions, we will resubmit any revised will have a significant impact on the 2002 derailment near Minot, North
information collection and human environment. The Council on Dakota, that resulted in the derailment
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for Environmental Quality (CEQ) of 31 cars of a 112-car train.
re-approval. regulations order federal agencies to Approximately 146,700 gallons of
We specifically request comments on conduct an environmental review anhydrous ammonia were immediately
the information collection and considering: (1) The need for the released from five cars in the train set.
recordkeeping burden associated with proposed action, (2) alternatives to the As a result, a toxic vapor plume covered
developing, implementing, and proposed action, (3) probable the derailment site and the surrounding
maintaining these requirements for environmental impacts of the proposed area. As of March 15, 2004, over $8
approval under this proposed rule. action and the alternatives, and (4) the million had been spent on
agencies and persons consulted during environmental remediation from this
G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) the consideration process. 40 CFR one incident.
A RIN is assigned to each regulatory 1508.9(b). We are proposing regulations
action listed in the Unified Agenda of to enhance the safety of the 3. Alternatives Considered
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory transportation by rail of certain The goal of this proposed rule is to
Information Service Center publishes hazardous materials. We developed this enhance the safety of transporting PIH
the Unified Agenda in April and assessment to determine the effects of materials by rail. In developing this
October of each year. The RIN number this proposed rule on the environment proposed rule, we considered three
contained in the heading of this and whether a more comprehensive alternatives:
document can be used to cross-reference environmental impact statement may be Alternative 1: Do nothing.
this action with the Unified Agenda. required. This alternative continues the status
quo. In this alternative, we would not
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 2. Purpose and Need issue a proposed rule to enhance the
Pursuant to Section 201 of the Hazardous materials are transported accident survivability of tank cars (i.e.,
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 by aircraft, vessel, rail, pipeline, and limiting the operating conditions of the
(Pub. L. 104–4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each highway. The need for hazardous tank cars transporting PIH materials and
Federal agency ‘‘shall, unless otherwise materials to support essential services enhancing the tank-head and shell
puncture-resistance systems), which underlying the HMR in that it addresses anhydrous ammonia that is released.
represents the most efficient and cost- the safety risks posed by all materials The chemical can also strip protective
effective method of improving the classed as PIH materials. This oils from the feathers of shore birds,
accident survivability of these cars. alternative represents the most efficient causing drowning or infection. Such die
This is not an acceptable alternative. and cost-effective method of improving offs could spur high nutrient levels that
The transportation of PIH materials the accident survivability of tank cars could stimulate noxious blooms of
poses unique and significant safety transporting PIH materials. This algae. Terrestrial vegetation can also be
threats that warrant careful alternative should have a positive either damaged or killed, depending on
consideration of measures to address impact on the environment because it atmospheric concentrations.
safety vulnerabilities in existing would enhance the accident Similarly, in an aquatic environment,
authorized packagings. The January 6, survivability of all rail tank cars used to chlorine gas reacts with water to form
2005 derailment and release of chlorine transport PIHmaterials, thereby hypochlorous acid and hydrochloric
in Graniteville, South Carolina, is an minimizing the possibility that PIH acid. The breakdown of hydrochloric
example of the serious consequences materials would be released. acid causes a decrease in the pH of the
that can result from the unintentional water, making it more acidic. These
release of a PIH material. Selection of 4. Analysis of Environmental Impacts changes in water chemistry can cause
this alternative could have a negative The potential for environmental widespread damage to aquatic
impact on the environment because it damage or contamination exists when environments, including fish kills. If
does not reduce safety vulnerabilities packages of hazardous materials are chlorine gas is released into soil,
related to the transportation of PIH involved in transportation accidents. chlorine will react with moisture,
materials. The ecosystems that could be affected forming hypochlorous acid and
Alternative 2: Impose enhanced safety by a hazardous materials release during hydrochloric acid, which can
requirements for a limited list of PIH transportation include air, water, soil, contaminate ground water.
materials transported by rail. and ecological resources (i.e.,wildlife If adopted, we expect that the tank car
Under this alternative, we would habitats). The adverse environmental performance standards and operating
propose enhanced tank-head and shell- impacts associated with releases of most limitations will minimize the loss of
puncture resistance standards for tank hazardous materials are short-term lading in the event of a derailment or
cars used to transport a subset of PIH impacts that can be greatly reduced or train-to-train collision. Therefore, we
materials that pose the most significant eliminated through prompt clean-up of have preliminarily determined that
safety risks, such as chlorine, but not for the accident scene. there are no significant adverse
tank cars used to transport less Releases of PIH materials, such as environmental impacts associated with
hazardous materials, such as bromine or chlorine and anhydrous ammonia, may the proposals in this NPRM and that to
acrolein. result in serious health effects. High the extent there might be any
The HMR define hazardous materials concentrations of ammonia (greater than environmental impacts, they would be
by class. Any material, including a 1,700 parts per million (ppm)) in the beneficial given the reduced likelihood
mixture or solution, that meets the atmosphere cause compulsive coughing of a hazardous materials release.
definition of one of the nine defined and death, while lower concentrations
hazard classes is considered a (lower than 700 ppm) cause eye and 5. Locomotive Emissions
hazardous material and subject to the throat irritation. Ammonia is lighter The U.S. Environmental Protection
applicable regulatory requirements. This than air so that it dissipates into the Agency (EPA) finalized locomotive
ensures that the regulations atmosphere, the rate of dissipation emissions standards in 1997, which
comprehensively address the hazards depending on the weather. Chlorine gas became effective in 2000.67 Three
posed by many different types and is more than twice as heavy as air. separate sets of emission standards were
formulations of materials. Employing Therefore, it can settle in low lying established, with applicability of the
this rationale, we determined that, for areas in the absence of wind. Humans standards dependent on the date a
the purposes of this rulemaking, we detect the presence of chlorine at locomotive is first manufactured. The
would similarly address PIH materials concentrations as low as 1 to 3 ppm. At first set of standards (Tier 0) apply to
as a class. Moreover, while some PIH 30 ppm, coughing and pain result; at locomotives and locomotive engines
materials may not pose as great a threat 430 ppm death results in as little as 30 originally manufactured from 1973
to the public or the environment as minutes. Higher concentrations of through 2001, at any time they are
other PIH materials, it is in the public’s chlorine can cause rapid fatality. remanufactured. The second set of
best interest for all PIH materials to be Chlorine gas reacts with water in the air standards (Tier 1) apply to locomotives
transported in the safest manner to form vapors of hydrochloric acid and and locomotive engines originally
possible. Nonetheless, selection of this liberate nascent oxygen, both of which manufactured from 2002 through 2004.
alternative could have a positive impact cause massive tissue damage. The final, and most stringent, set of
on the environment because it would Releases of PIH materials may also standards (Tier 2) apply to locomotives
reduce safety vulnerabilities related to result in adverse environmental impacts and locomotive engines manufactured
the transportation of certain PIH to soil and ground water. For example, in or after 2005. Tier 2 locomotives and
materials. when anhydrous ammonia is released locomotive engines will be required to
Alternative 3: Impose enhanced safety into water, it floats on the surface, meet the applicable standards at the
requirements for all PIH materials rapidly dissolving into the water as time of original manufacture and at each
transported by rail. ammonium hydroxide while subsequent manufacture.
Under this alternative, we would simultaneously boiling into the As noted in the RIA to this NPRM, we
propose enhanced tank-head and shell- atmosphere as gaseous ammonia. In an expect the speed restrictions proposed
puncture resistance standards for tank aquatic or wetland environment, in this rule to produce a net cost savings
cars used to transport all materials ammonium hydroxide can cause fish, in the area of fuel. Accordingly, the use
meeting the definition of a PIH material. planktonic, and benthic organism of less fuel, combined with the
This approach is consistent with the mortality in the vicinity of the release—
overall regulatory philosophy the size depending on the volume of 67 40 CFR 92.8.
increasingly stringent locomotive review DOT’s complete Privacy Act The Proposed Rule
emissions standards of the EPA will Statement in the Federal Register
further reduce the emissions from published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR On the basis of the foregoing, PHMSA
railroad freight transportation for 19477) or at http://www.dot.gov/ proposes to amend title 49, Chapter I,
movements subject to the requirements privacy.html. Subchapter C, as follows:
of this proposal.
List of Subjects PART 171—GENERAL INFORMATION,
6. Consultations and Public Comment REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS
49 CFR Part 171
As of March 2007, FRA and PHMSA
have conducted three public meetings Exports, Hazardous materials 1. The authority citation for part 171
intended to solicit public, private, and transportation, Hazardous waste, continues to read as follows:
government comments on alternatives Imports, Incorporation by reference,
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49
(regulatory or otherwise) to address this Reporting and recordkeeping
CFR 1.45 and 1.53.
serious issue. We invite commenters to requirements.
address the possible beneficial and/or 49 CFR Part 173 2. In § 171.7, in paragraph (a)(3), in
adverse environmental impacts of the the Table of Material Incorporated by
proposals in this NPRM. We will Hazardous materials transportation, Reference, under the entry ‘‘Association
consider comments received in response Packaging and containers, Radioactive of American Railroads,’’ add the entry
to this NPRM in our assessment of the materials, Reporting and recordkeeping
‘‘AAR Standard S–286–2002,
environmental impacts of a final rule on requirements, Uranium.
Specification for 286,000 lbs. Gross Rail
this issue. 49 CFR Part 174 Load Cars for Free/Unrestricted
J. Privacy Act Hazardous materials transportation, Interchange Service, revised as of
Anyone is able to search the Radioactive materials, Rail carriers, September 1, 2005,’’ to read as follows:
electronic form of any written Railroad safety, Reporting and § 171.7 Reference material.
communications and comments recordkeeping requirements.
received into any of our dockets by the (a) * * *
49 CFR Part 179
name of the individual submitting the (3) Table of material incorporated by
document (or signing the document, if Hazardous materials transportation, reference. * * *
submitted on behalf of an association, Railroad safety, Reporting and
business, labor union, etc.). You may recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR
Source and name of material reference
* * * * * * *
Association of American Railroads
* * * * * * *
AAR Standard S–286–2002, Specification for 286,000 lbs. Gross Rail Load Cars for Free/Unrestricted Interchange Service, re- 179.13
vised as of September 1, 2005.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * (i) When the tank car delimiter is an a material poisonous by inhalation, and
‘‘A,’’ offerors may also use tank cars tank cars constructed from aluminum or
PART 173—SHIPPERS—GENERAL with a delimiter ‘‘S,’’ ‘‘J,’’ ‘‘M,’’ ‘‘N’’ or nickel plate used to transport any
REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS ‘‘T.’’ hazardous material must have a tank-
AND PACKAGINGS (ii) When the tank car delimiter is an head puncture-resistance system that
‘‘S,’’ offerors may also use tank cars conforms to the requirements of
3. The authority citation for part 173
with a delimiter ‘‘J,’’ ‘‘M,’’ ‘‘N’’ or ‘‘T.’’ § 179.16(a) of this subchapter.
continues to read as follows: (iii) When the tank car delimiter is a (ii) Tank cars used to transport
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128, 44701; 49 ‘‘T,’’ offerors may also use tank cars material poisonous by inhalation must
CFR 1.45, 1.53. with a delimiter of ‘‘J’’ or ‘‘N.’’ have a tank-head puncture-resistance
4. Amend § 173.31 as follows: (iv) When the tank car delimiter is a system that conforms to the
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(3); ‘‘J,’’ offerors may also use tank cars with requirements of § 179.16(b) of this
b. Revise paragraph (b)(6) a delimiter of ‘‘N.’’ subchapter, as follows:
introductory text; (v) When a tank car delimiter is an (A) Tank cars built after [INSERT
c. Add paragraphs (b)(7) and (b)(8); ‘‘M,’’ offerors may also use tank cars DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE
and with delimiter of ‘‘N.’’ DATE OF FINAL RULE] must have a
d. Revise paragraph (e)(2)(ii). (vi) When a tank car delimiter is an tank-head puncture-resistance system
The revisions and additions read as ‘‘N,’’ offerors may not use a tank car conforming to the requirements of
follows: with any other delimiter. § 179.16(b) of this subchapter.
* * * * * (B) Tank cars built on or before
§ 173.31 Use of Tank Cars. (b) * * * [INSERT DATE 2 YEARS AFTER
(a) * * * (3) Tank-head puncture-resistance EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
(6) Unless otherwise specifically requirements. (i) Tank cars used to must have a tank-head puncture-
provided in this part: transport a Class 2 material, other than resistance system conforming to the
requirements of § 179.16(b) by [INSERT (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(7) of this section and of meter, per degree Celsius temperature
DATE 8 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE those tank cars, the number of cars in differential (0.03 B.t.u. per square foot,
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. compliance with §§ 179.16(b) and per hour per degree Fahrenheit
* * * * * 179.24 of this subchapter. In this report, temperature differential).
(6) Scheduling of modifications and the tank car owner must also certify that (2) Tank cars must have excess flow
progress reporting. The date of its fleet does not include any tank car valves on the interior pipes of liquid
conformance for the continued use of subject to paragraph (b)(8)(ii). discharge valves.
tank cars subject to paragraphs (b)(4), * * * * * (3) Tank cars constructed to a DOT
(b)(5), and (f) of this section and (e) * * * 105A500W specification may be marked
§ 173.314(j) is subject to the following (2) * * * as a DOT 105A300W specification with
conditions and limitations. (ii) Tank-head and shell puncture- the size and type of reclosing pressure
resistance systems. As provided in relief valves required by the marked
* * * * *
paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(7) of this specification.
(7) Tank shell puncture-resistance
section, each tank car transporting a (4) Except as provided in
system. Tank cars used to transport
material poisonous by inhalation must § 173.31(b)(8), for shipments offered for
material poisonous by inhalation must
meet the tank-head and shell puncture- transportation or transported after
have a tank shell puncture-resistance
resistance system requirements of [INSERT DATE 8 YEARS AFTER
system that conforms to the
§§ 179.16(b) and 179.24 of this EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
requirements of § 179.24 of this
subchapter. Except as provided in each tank car must meet the tank-head
subchapter, as follows:
paragraph (b)(8) of this section, a tank and shell puncture-resistance system
(i) Tank cars built after [INSERT
car that does not conform to these requirements of §§ 179.16(b) and 179.24
DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE
requirements may not be used to of this subchapter.
DATE OF FINAL RULE] must have a
tank shell puncture-resistance system transport any material poisonous by * * * * *
conforming to the requirements of inhalation after [INSERT DATE 8 7. In § 173.323, revise paragraph (c)(1)
§ 179.24 of this subchapter. YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF to read as follows.
(ii) Tank cars built on or before FINAL RULE].
§ 173.323 Ethylene Oxide.
[INSERT DATE 2 YEARS AFTER * * * * *
5. Amend § 173.249 as follows: * * * * *
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] (c) * * *
must have a tank shell puncture- a. Revise the last sentence of
paragraph (a); and (1) Tank cars. Class DOT 105 tank
resistance system conforming to the cars:
requirements of § 179.24 by [INSERT b. Add new paragraph (g).
The revisions and additions read as (i) Each tank car must have a tank test
DATE 8 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE pressure of at least 20.7 Bar (300 psig);
follows:
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. and
(8) Tank-head and shell puncture- § 173.249 Bromine. (ii) Except as provided in
resistance systems implementation (a) * * * Tank cars must conform to § 173.31(b)(8), for shipments offered for
schedule and reporting requirement. the requirements in paragraphs (a) transportation or transported after
Each owner of a tank car subject to through (g) of this section. [INSERT DATE 8 YEARS AFTER
paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(7) of this EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
* * * * *
section must comply with the following (g) Except as provided in each tank car must meet the tank-head
implementation schedule and reporting § 173.31(b)(8), for shipments offered for and shell puncture-resistance system
requirements: transportation or transported after requirements of §§ 179.16(b) and 179.24
(i) No later than [INSERT DATE 5 [INSERT DATE 8 YEARS AFTER of this subchapter.
YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], * * * * *
OF THE FINAL RULE], each owner each tank car must meet the tank-head
must have brought at least 50 percent of and shell puncture-resistance system PART 174—CARRIAGE BY RAIL
its tank car fleet used to transport requirements of §§ 179.16(b) and 179.24
material poisonous by inhalation into 8. The authority citation for part 174
of this subchapter. continues to read as follows:
compliance with the requirements of 6. In § 173.314, revise paragraph (k) to
§§ 179.16(b) and 179.24 of this read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR
subchapter. 1.53
(ii) After [INSERT DATE 5 YEARS § 173.314 Compressed gases in tank cars
9. Add new § 174.2 to read as follows:
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL and multi-unit tank cars.
RULE], tank cars manufactured using * * * * * § 174.2 Limitation on actions by states,
non-normalized steel for head or shell (k) Special requirements for chlorine. local governments, and Indian tribes.
construction may not be used for the (1) Tank cars built after September 30, Sections 5125 and 20106 of Title 49,
transportation of material poisonous by 1991, and before [INSERT 2 YEARS United States Code, limit the authority
inhalation. AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE of states, political subdivisions of states,
(iii) No later than [INSERT DATE 5 FINAL RULE] must have an insulation and Indian tribes to impose
YEARS AND TWO MONTHS FROM system consisting of 5.08 cm (2 inches) requirements on the transportation of
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL glass fiber placed over 5.08 (2 inches) of hazardous materials in commerce. A
RULE], each tank car owner must ceramic fiber. Tank cars built after state, local, or Indian tribe requirement
submit to the Federal Railroad [INSERT 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE on the transportation of hazardous
Administration, Hazardous Materials DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] must have materials by rail may be preempted
Division, Office of Safety Assurance and a thermal protection system conforming under either 49 U.S.C. 5125 or 20106, or
Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, to § 179.18 of this subchapter, or have both.
SE., Washington, DC, 20590, a progress an insulation system with an overall (a) Section 171.1(f) of this subchapter
report that shows the total number of in- thermal conductance of no more than describes the circumstances under
service tank cars subject to paragraphs 0.613 kilojoules per hour, per square which 49 U.S.C. 5125 preempts a
requirement of a state, political traffic control system to broken rail to exceed 34,500 gallons capacity or
subdivision of a state, or Indian tribe. detection, provided: 263,000 pounds gross weight on rail.
(b) Under the Federal Railroad Safety (i) The risk assessment is submitted to (b) Tank cars meeting the tank-head
Act (49 U.S.C. 20106), administered by FRA’s Associate Administrator for and shell puncture-resistance
the Federal Railroad Administration Safety, for review; and requirements of § 179.16(b) and § 179.24
(see 49 CFR parts 200–268), laws, (ii) The Associate Administrator of this subchapter, may not exceed
regulations and orders related to determines in writing that the risk 34,500 gallons (130,597 L) capacity or
railroad safety, including security, shall assessment establishes that the 286,000 pounds (129,727 kg) gross
be nationally uniform to the extent requirement of paragraph (c)(2) is met. weight on rail. Tank cars exceeding
practicable. A state may adopt, or 263,000 pounds and up to 286,000
continue in force, a law, regulation, or PART 179—SPECIFICATIONS FOR pounds gross weight on rail must meet
order covering the same subject matter TANK CARS. the requirements of AAR Standard S–
as a DOT regulation or order applicable 11. The authority citation for part 179 286–2002, SPECIFICATION FOR
to railroad safety and security continues to read as follows: 286,000 LBS. GROSS RAIL LOAD CARS
(including the requirements in this FOR FREE/UNRESTRICTED
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR INTERCHANGE SERVICE (adopted
subpart) only when an additional or part 1.53.
more stringent state law, regulation, or November, 2002 and revised September
order is necessary to eliminate or reduce 12. Add a new § 179.8 to read as 1, 2005) (IBR; see § 171.7 of this
an essentially local safety or security follows: subchapter).
hazard; is not incompatible with a law, 14. Revise § 179.16 to read as follows:
§ 179.8 Limitation on actions by states,
regulation, or order of the United States local governments, and Indian tribes. § 179.16 Tank-head puncture-resistance
Government; and does not unreasonably systems.
Sections 5125 and 20106 of Title 49,
burden interstate commerce.
United States Code, limit the authority When the regulations in this
10. Revise § 174.86 to read as follows: of states, political subdivisions of states, subchapter require a tank-head
§ 174.86 Maximum allowable operating and Indian tribes to impose puncture-resistance system, the system
speed. requirements on the transportation of must meet the following requirements:
hazardous materials in commerce. A (a) Performance standard for tank
(a) For molten metals and molten
state, local, or Indian tribe requirement cars transporting a hazardous material
glass shipped in packagings other than
on the transportation of hazardous other than a material poisonous by
those prescribed in § 173.247 of this
materials by rail may be preempted inhalation. (1) For rail tank cars
subchapter, the maximum allowable
under either 49 U.S.C. 5125 or 20106, or required to have tank-head puncture-
operating speed may not exceed 24 km/
both. resistance systems pursuant to
hour (15 mph) for shipments by rail.
(a) Section 171.1(f) of this subchapter § 173.31(b)(3)(i) of this subchapter, the
(b) For trains transporting tank cars
describes the circumstances under tank-head puncture-resistance system
containing a material poisonous by
which 49 U.S.C. 5125 preempts a must be capable of sustaining, without
inhalation, the maximum allowable
requirement of a state, political any loss of lading, coupler-to tank-head
operating speed may not exceed 80.5
subdivision of a state, or Indian tribe. impacts at relative car speeds of 29 km/
km/hour (50 mph) for shipments by rail.
(b) Under the Federal Railroad Safety hour (18 mph) when:
(c) (1) Prior to [INSERT DATE 8 Act (49 U.S.C. 20106), administered by (i) The weight of the impact car is at
YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF the Federal Railroad Administration least 119,295 kg (263,000 pounds);
FINAL RULE], if a tank car that does not (see 49 CFR parts 200–268), laws, (ii) The impacted tank car is coupled
meet the tank-head and shell puncture- regulations and orders related to to one or more backup cars that have a
resistance system requirements of railroad safety, including security, shall total weight of at least 217,724 kg
§ 179.16(b) and § 179.24 of this be nationally uniform to the extent (480,000 pounds) and the hand brake is
subchapter is used to transport by rail practicable. A state may adopt, or applied on the last ‘‘backup’’ car; and
a material poisonous by inhalation, the continue in force, a law, regulation, or (iii) The impacted tank car is
maximum allowable operating speed of order covering the same subject matter pressurized to at least 6.9 Bar (100 psig).
the train may not exceed 48.3 km/hour as a DOT regulation or order applicable (2) Compliance with the requirements
(30 mph) for that tank car when to railroad safety and security of paragraph (a)(1) of this section must
transported over non-signaled territory. (including the requirements in this be verified by full-scale testing
For purposes of this section, non- subpart) only when an additional or according to appendix A of this part.
signaled territory means a rail line not more stringent state law, regulation, or (3) As an alternative to requirements
equipped with a traffic control system order is necessary to eliminate or reduce prescribed in paragraph (a)(2) of this
or automatic block signal system that an essentially local safety or security section, compliance with the
conforms to the requirements in part hazard; is not incompatible with a law, requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
236 of this chapter. regulation, or order of the United States section may be met by installing full-
(2) As an alternative to complying Government; and does not unreasonably head protection (shields) or full tank-
with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a burden interstate commerce. head jackets on each end of the tank car
railroad may provide for alternative risk 13. Revise § 179.13 to read as follows: conforming to the following:
mitigations and complete a risk (i) The full-head protection (shields)
assessment that includes appropriate § 179.13 Tank car capacity and gross or full tank-head jackets must be at least
data and analysis establishing that the weight limitation. 1.27 cm (0.5 inch) thick, shaped to the
operating conditions over the subject (a) Except as provided in paragraph contour of the tank head and made from
trackage provide at least an equivalent (b) of this section, tank cars built after steel having a tensile strength greater
level of safety as a traffic control system November 30, 1970, may not exceed than 379.21 N/mm2 (55,000 psi);
that conforms to the requirements in 34,500 gallons (130,597 L) capacity or (ii) The design and test requirements
part 236 of this chapter, including 263,000 pounds gross weight on rail. of the full-head protection (shields) or
consideration of the contribution of the Existing tank cars may not be converted full tank-head jackets must meet the
impact test requirements in Section 5.3 and with a thermal protection system, designed to carry material poisonous by
of the AAR Specifications for Tank Cars must have the letter ‘‘N’’ substituted for inhalation. Each of the following criteria
(IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter); and the letter ‘‘A,’’ ‘‘J,’’ ‘‘M,’’ ‘‘S,’’ or ‘‘T’’ in describes a collision scenario in which the
(iii) The workmanship must meet the the specification marking. integrity of the tank must be maintained.
requirements in Section C, Part II, 16. Add a new § 179.24 to read as These performance criteria are intended to
Chapter 5, of the AAR Specifications for follows: prevent loss of lading during train collisions
Design, Fabrication, and Construction of and derailments.
§ 179.24 Tank shell puncture-resistance (a) Tank Heads.
Freight Cars (IBR, see § 171.7 of this systems; performance standard.
subchapter). (1) Objective. The end structures of the
(b) Performance standard for tank When the regulations in this tank car must withstand a frontal impact
cars transporting material poisonous by subchapter require a tank shell with a proxy object which is intended to
inhalation. For rail tank cars required to puncture-resistance system, the tank approximate a loaded freight car, including
have a tank-head puncture-resistance shell puncture-resistance system must the coupler with the knuckle removed. (see
system pursuant to § 173.31(b)(3)(ii) of be capable of sustaining an impact at figure 1).
40.3 km/hour (25 mph) without loss of (2) Fixed rigid punch characteristics and
this subchapter, the tank-head puncture-
lading, as demonstrated by any of the orientation. The fixed rigid punch must have
resistance system must be capable of
methods of compliance specified in the following characteristics: It shall protrude
sustaining an impact at 48.3 km/hour
Appendix C of this part. at least 1.5 meters (60 inches) from its base
(30 mph) without loss of lading, as 17. In § 179.102–17, add a new and it shall be 0.5 meters (21 inches) above
demonstrated by any of the methods of paragraph (m) to read as follows: the lowest edge of the commodity tank. The
compliance specified in Appendix C of fixed rigid punch must have cross-section of
this part. § 179.102–17 Hydrogen chloride, 15.2 centimeters (6 inches) high by 15.2
15. In § 179.22, add paragraphs (e) refrigerated liquid.
centimeters (6 inches) wide, with 1.3
and (f) to read as follows: * * * * * centimeter (1⁄2 inch) radii on the edges of the
(m) Except as provided in impact face.
§ 179.22 Marking.
§ 173.31(b)(8) of this subchapter, each (3) Tank car characteristics. The tank car
* * * * * tank car must meet the tank-head and must be filled with no more than 10% outage
(e) Each tank car conforming to the shell puncture-resistance system with lading of the same density as the
tank-head puncture-resistance system requirements of §§ 179.16(b) and 179.24 commodity the car type is intended to carry,
requirements prescribed in § 179.16(b) of this subchapter by [INSERT DATE 8 and pressurized to at least 100 psi.
and the shell puncture-resistance YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF (4) Impact. The end structure of the tank
system requirements prescribed in FINAL RULE]. car must withstand a 48.3 km/hour (30 mph)
§ 179.24, but with no thermal protection 18. Add Appendix C to Part 179 to impact with the fixed rigid punch, resulting
system, must have the letter ‘‘M’’ read as follows: in the tank maintaining its integrity. At the
substituted for the letter ‘‘A’’ or ‘‘S’’ in instant of contact, the longitudinal centerline
the specification marking. APPENDIX C TO PART 179—
of the punch must be aligned with the
(f) Each tank car conforming to the PROCEDURES FOR ENHANCED longitudinal centerline of the tank.
tank-head puncture-resistance system TANK-HEAD AND SHELL PUNCTURE- (5) Result. There must be no loss of lading
requirements prescribed in § 179.16(b), RESISTANCE SYSTEMS TESTS due to this impact. A test is successful if
the shell puncture-resistance system This Appendix provides performance there is no visible leak from the standing tank
requirements prescribed in § 179.24, criteria for the impact evaluation of tank cars car for at least one hour after the impact.
(b) Tank Shell. punch must have cross-section of 15.2 (4) Impact. The end structure of the tank
(1) Objective. The shell structure of the centimeters (6 inches) high by 15.2 car must withstand a 40.3 km/hour (25 mph)
tank car must withstand a side impact with centimeters (6 inches) wide, with 1.3 impact with the proxy object resulting in the
a proxy object which is intended to centimeter (1⁄2 inch) radii on the edges of the tank maintaining its integrity. At the instant
approximate a loaded freight car, including impact face. of contact, the longitudinal centerline of the
the coupler with the knuckle removed (see (3) Tank car characteristics. The tank car
punch must be aligned with the lateral
figure 2). must be filled with no more than 10% outage
(2) Proxy object characteristics and with lading of the same density as the centerline of the tank.
orientation. The proxy object must have the commodity the car type is intended to carry, (5) Result. There must be no loss of lading
following characteristics: 286,000 pound and pressurized to at least 100 psi. The tank due to this impact. A test is successful if
minimum weight and rigid punch protruding car must be restrained in the direction of there is no visible leak from the standing tank
at least 1.5 meters (60 inches). The rigid impact. car for at least one hour after the impact.
EP01AP08.357</GPH>
(c) Demonstration of Compliance.— (2) Performance of the test with (4) Reference to a previous satisfactory
Compliance with the tank-head and shell substructures or models of appropriate scale design of a sufficiently similar nature; or
puncture-resistance system requirement tests incorporating those features that are (5) A combination of any of the methods
above must be demonstrated by any of the significant with respect to the item under set forth in paragraphs (2) through (4) above.
methods prescribed in this paragraph, or by investigation, when engineering experience Issued in Washington, DC on March 26,
a combination of these methods. Before a has shown results of those tests to be suitable 2008, under the authority delegated in 49
design is implemented based on the methods for design purposes. When a scale model is CFR Part 106.
in (2) through (5) below, the party seeking to used, the need for adjusting certain test Theodore L. Willke,
comply must submit all relevant Associate Administrator for Hazardous
parameters must be taken into account.
documentation and analysis to FRA and FRA Materials Safety.
(3) Calculations, computer simulation, or
will acknowledge in writing that compliance
with the requirements has been met. substructure testing using reliable and [FR Doc. E8–6563 Filed 3–31–08; 8:45 am]
(1) Full-scale testing. conservative procedures and parameters; BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
EP01AP08.358</GPH>

Proposed Rule: Hazardous Materials: Improving The Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed Rule: Hazardous Materials: Improving The Safety of Railroad Tank Car Transportation of Hazardous Materials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuesday,

49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174 and 179

Washington, DC 20590. QA—Quality Assurance A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This

1989); Specifications for Railroad Tank Cars Used

Recommended Practices; Section C-Part III,

car standards embodied in Casualty specification. DOT does not construe

for the transportation of U.S. Department of

(Nov. 1, 2006) (downloaded from http://

38 See 71 FR 47288, 47301 (Aug. 16, 2006)

incident. TRANSCAER members consist of

§§ 179.16(b) and 179.24. would be incurred absent this

59 The Ten-Year Needs of Short Line and Regional

Railroads, Standing Committee on Rail

64 This proposed requirement restricts the use of

release. Therefore, the risk of an requirements in this proposed rule.

You might also like