Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Rail; Miscellaneous Amendments

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, and 179

[Docket No. HM-216; Amdt Nos. 171-144, 172-148, 173-252, 174-83, 178-115, 179-52]

RIN 2137-AC66

Federal Register: June 5, 1996

Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Rail; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Department's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to incorporate a number of changes to rail requirements based on rulemaking petitions from industry and RSPA initiatives. This action is necessary to update the regulations and to respond to petitions for rulemaking. The intended effect of these regulatory changes is to improve safety and reduce costs to offerors and transporters of hazardous materials.

DATES:Effective date: The effective date of these amendments is October 1, 1996.

Compliance date: Voluntary compliance with the regulations, as amended herein, is authorized June 30, 1996.

Incorporation by reference: The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in these amendments has been approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Romo, telephone (202) 366-8553, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs Administration, Washington DC, 20590-0001, or James H. Rader, telephone (202) 366-0510, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington DC, 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 19, 1995, RSPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) under Docket HM-216 [60 FR 65492]. The NPRM proposed miscellaneous changes to rail requirements contained in the HMR, based on petitions for rulemaking submitted in accordance with 49 CFR 106.31 or agency initiative.

RSPA received 22 comments in response to the proposed rule. Comments were submitted by chemical manufacturing companies, trade associations, emergency response organizations, and rail carriers. Commenters were uniformly supportive of RSPA's and FRA's efforts to respond to petitions for rulemaking and to reduce regulatory burdens by simplifying or updating existing regulations. Several commenters suggested other amendments to the HMR as part of this initiative. These suggestions are incorporated into this final rule where possible, but many are beyond the scope of the rule and should be proposed in a future rulemaking action to ensure adequate opportunity for public notice and comment.

This rule is consistent with the goals of President Clinton's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The President directed Federal agencies to review all agency regulations and eliminate or revise those that are outdated or in need of reform. A notice issued April 4, 1995 by RSPA requested comments on regulatory reform (Docket HM-222; 60 FR 17049) and announced a comprehensive review of the HMR to identify provisions that are candidates for elimination, revision, clarification, or relaxation. Certain changes in this document reflect the results of this review.

II. Summary of Regulatory Changes by Section

Listed below is a section-by-section summary of changes and, where applicable, the assigned petition number.

Part 171

Section 171.7

Various American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards are updated to reflect the most current version. Other ASTM standards that no longer would be referenced in revised §179.12 are removed. In the NPRM, RSPA did not propose any changes to ASTM A 285 and proposed an update to ASTM A 515; however, because these standards are no longer applicable, they are removed in this final rule.

Part 172

Section 172.101; The Hazardous Materials Table

Several entries in the Hazardous Materials Table are revised as proposed. For the entry "Dimethylhydrazine, unsymmetrical", assigned Special Provisions B74 and B79, Special Provision B79 is removed. Special Provision B74 requires the use of a tank car conforming to a Class 105S, 106, 110, 112J, or 114J. Special Provision B79 requires each tank car to have a tank head puncture system if the tank was constructed prior to April 1, 1989. Because Special Provision B74 requires all tank cars to meet the requirements of B79, referencing Special Provision B79 is unnecessary. For the entry for Calcium carbide, Special Provision B59 is added for both Packing Group I and II entries. This special provision will authorize the continued use of Class AAR 207 tank cars for the transportation of calcium carbide after October 1, 1996.

Sections 172.101 (The Hazardous Materials Table) and 172.330

In the Hazardous Materials Table, RSPA proposed to revise 29 entries by removing Special Provision B12 assigned to those entries in Column (7). This special provision requires the marking of tank cars with the proper shipping name or common name of the material. As part of the proposal to provide relief from this marking requirement, RSPA proposed to consolidate marking requirements currently contained in §172.102 special provisions and in Parts 173 and 179 into §172.330 and limit its applicability to certain materials which pose very high risks in transportation. RSPA proposed in the NPRM that the requirement to mark the proper shipping name or common name of a hazardous material on a tank car be limited to: Division 2.1 and 2.3 materials; Division 2.2 materials in Class DOT 107 tank cars; anhydrous ammonia; ammonia solutions with more than 50% ammonia; bromine and bromine solutions; hydrogen cyanide; chloroprene; and refrigerant or dispersant gases, as defined in §173.115. A majority of commenters supported this proposal, but several suggested that other commodities should be considered for inclusion in the proposed list of commodities requiring marking. Two emergency response organizations, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), strongly opposed elimination of the marking requirement. The IAFF claimed that fewer cars would have information providing instant confirmation of the contents, thereby delaying rescue actions while shipping papers are researched. The IAFC agreed, stating that the inability to promptly identify contents of a car involved in an incident or accident would increase the hazard to fire and emergency service responders. Very little cost or effort is involved to stencil the product or proper shipping name on the car, the IAFC added. One chemical manufacturer questioned the safety rationale of removing this requirement and stated that use of a proper shipping name is preferable for loaders/unloaders, repair and cleaning facility personnel, and emergency responders, rather than depending only on the four-digit identification number. Based on views expressed by emergency response organizations and after careful consideration of all comments on this issue, RSPA and FRA have decided to retain the requirement for marking tank cars with the proper shipping name for all commodities currently assigned B12, but to move these requirements to §172.330. Accordingly, this rule provides a list of these commodities in §172.330(a)(1). RSPA and FRA believe that a future revision of this list may be warranted because certain high hazard materials currently are not subject to this marking requirement, while other hazardous materials posing less risk appear on the list. Interested readers are invited to submit suggestions as to what proper shipping names should be removed, retained or added to the list.

Section 172.102

Special Provisions B4 and B10 are revised as proposed to remove a prohibition on the use of Association of American Railroads (AAR) 206 tank cars. In the §172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT), each commodity assigned this special provision must be in a packaging authorized in §173.243, which does not allow an AAR 206 tank car. Special Provision B5 is revised as proposed to authorize use of tank cars, constructed from other than aluminum plate, for ammonium nitrate fertilizer. Special Provision B12 is removed, as discussed above.

Changes to Special Provisions B42, B65, B71, B72, B74, and B76 are adopted as proposed. These provisions are revised to clarify that any class tank car with a higher test pressure than authorized also may be used. Special Provisions B42, B65, and B76 also are revised to authorize the optional marking of the tank to a lower pressure specification. All but one commenter addressing this issue supported the proposed change. Commenters agreed that the proposed option allows flexibility for safety valve settings for certain classes of pressure cars and allows the originally designed tank pressure to also remain marked on the car. One commenter believed that confusion would arise if there is an option to mark the tank with either the tank test pressure rating or a lower pressure rating, required to coincide with the pressure relief device start-to-discharge pressure. RSPA and FRA do not believe that either the current requirement or the new option will cause confusion. The option adopted in this final rule simply removes the mandatory link between marked test pressure and the safety valve start-to-discharge settings.

RSPA is removing a requirement in Special Provision B57 that the shipping name CHLOROPRENE must be marked on a tank car. This marking requirement is included in the revision of §172.330(a)(1). Based on a comment, RSPA is revising Special Provision B57 to specify a safety vent with a minimum diameter of 305 mm (12 inches) with a rupture disc pressure of not more than 45 psi. RSPA also is revising the first sentence of Special Provision B78 to specify the test pressure and to clarify which rail cars are authorized.

As pointed out by a commenter, RSPA proposed the addition of a new class DOT 120A, but overlooked the need to add corresponding special provisions. Therefore, authorizations for use of Class DOT 120A tank car tanks are added to Special Provisions B71, B74, B76, and B78.

Section 172.203

Currently, rail carrier shipping paper requirements are contained in both Parts 172 and 174. In this final rule, RSPA is moving the shipping paper requirements in Part 174 to Part 172. Commenters supported the consolidation of shipping paper requirements in Part 172. Paragraph (e)(2) is revised as proposed to replace references with a specific requirement to precede the basic shipping description with the wording "RESIDUE, LAST CONTAINED." Paragraph (g)(1) also is revised to adopt a requirement to identify a rail car, freight container, transport vehicle, or portable tank that contains a hazardous material by reporting mark and number. Several commenters requested that RSPA clarify in the final rule that annotating a reporting mark and number on a shipping paper applies only to those shipments which are assigned reporting marks. RSPA agrees and is limiting this requirement to those rail cars, transport vehicles, freight containers and portable tanks displaying a reporting mark.

Section 172.205

This section is revised as proposed. RSPA received unanimous support for its proposal to revise paragraph (f) for consistency with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hazardous waste manifest requirements for transportation by rail contained in 40 CFR 263.20(f).

Section 172.330

Paragraph (a)(1) is revised to clarify marking requirements for tank cars. See preamble discussion under §§172.101 and 172.330.

Section 172.510

Paragraph (a) is revised to require the placement of each placard on a white square background on each class DOT 113 tank car used to transport a Division 2.1 (flammable gas) material. This change will enhance compliance with switching requirements for rail cars by communicating to railroad switching crews, through a white square background, that a class DOT 113 tank car transporting a Division 2.1 material may not be cut off while in motion. (See §174.83(b).) Commenters generally supported this proposed change; however, one rail carrier opposed it, claiming that such placards require special attention and imposing the requirement on class DOT 113 tank cars containing flammable gas would dilute the meaning of the square white background and be more confusing than helpful. RSPA does not agree and believes a white square background will more effectively communicate to rail crews the presence of flammable gases, such as liquid hydrogen.

Several commenters pointed out an unintended change in wording which would broaden the requirement for a placard with a square white background to all Hazard Zone A materials, including those in a class or division other than Division 2.3 or Division 6.1. RSPA is revising the proposed wording to limit the requirement for a placard on a square white background to Hazard Zone A materials in Divisions 2.3 and 6.1. However, after reviewing these comments, RSPA believes this requirement should be broadened to apply to all Hazard Zone A materials (with corresponding changes in §174.83) and may propose such a change in a future rulemaking action.

Sections 172.510 and 172.526

The NPRM proposed the removal of provisions for the specifications for and use of RESIDUE placards. The majority of commenters to this issue supported RSPA's and FRA's proposal to eliminate these requirements. These commenters cited standardization among all transportation modes, enhanced regulatory understanding and compliance, and harmonization with NAFTA and international regulations. One chemical manufacturer noted that its emergency response personnel were not aware of any incident where the RESIDUE placard has made a difference in the outcome of the incident. This commenter maintained that eliminating this placard would result in considerable savings to the company. Several other commenters, including the Chemical Manufacturers Association, believed that the determination of what constitutes "residue" is arbitrary and stated that some residue tank cars could have a significant amount of product remaining in the tank. One rail carrier indicated that a common deficiency is the failure of an offeror to completely reverse all placards applied to a tank car. Thus, loaded tank cars will often have a RESIDUE placard as one of the four placards displayed, or conversely, residue tank cars will still have the original loaded placard in one of the holders.

Only four commenters—the IAFC, two chemical manufacturers and a government safety inspector—opposed removing the requirement for the use of a RESIDUE placard. The IAFC believed the information is crucial to fire and emergency responders because it communicates whether a tank car is full or just has residue left in the tank. The IAFC claimed the 22,000 occasions cited in the NPRM were due to poor compliance and inadequate enforcement. The commenter further stated that eliminating the RESIDUE placard may significantly increase the hazard or risk to fire or emergency response personnel. Not knowing the amount of product in a car will force responders to treat all tank cars as if they were full, which may result in unnecessary and potentially expensive actions.

RSPA and FRA disagree with the opinion expressed by IAFC that the 22,000 occasions cited in the NPRM were due both to poor compliance and inadequate enforcement since they were discovered as a result of FRA's enforcement efforts. As noted by one commenter, RSPA and FRA are aware of many "residue" tank cars which have remaining product that may contain as much as 1,000 gallons or more of hazardous material. Moreover, FRA has discovered that some shipments of liquefied compressed gases in pressure tank cars that are unloaded through equalization of pressure retain as much as one-third of the original load. In a fire, a partially-filled tank car can rupture as violently as a full tank car, thereby presenting a similar hazard to emergency responders. In fact, a partially-filled tank car exposed to fire in some circumstances may rupture in less time than a full tank car, because a partially-filled tank car has less thermal mass. Clearly, a residue placard may lead to a false sense of security. Further, RSPA and FRA believe that the primary purpose of placards is to convey the presence of a hazardous material, a "trigger" to emergency response personnel that more needs to be known about the contents of bulk packages of hazardous materials before entering a potential danger zone. By obtaining a copy of the shipping papers or freight car movement documents, emergency response personnel will gain basic information on the hazards present and the shipper's emergency response telephone number, resulting in better informed decisions about any precautions or evacuation measures needed to secure the incident site. One chemical manufacturer expressed concern that the removal of the residue placard will mandate the use of permanent pressure-sensitive placards to general service rail tank cars and, where the commodities change frequently, increase the possibility of misidentification of the commodity being transported. Nothing in the proposed rule would require the use of pressure-sensitive placards. Shippers and carriers may continue to use "tag board" placards placed within placard holders. Based on consideration of all comments received, RSPA is removing all provisions applying to the specifications for and use of RESIDUE placards.

Part 173

Section 173.24b

Commenters uniformly supported this proposal to add a mid-range temperature for calculating outage and filling limits for certain thermally protected and jacketed tank cars. This proposal was based on a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Propane Gas Association of Canada [P-1251] in cooperation with Transport Canada. Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule included provisions for anhydrous ammonia currently contained in Note 2 following the §173.314(c) table. In this final rule, RSPA is adopting a mid-range temperature calculation for anhydrous ammonia by revising Note 2 of the §173.314(c) table.

Section 173.29

Paragraph (f) is removed, consistent with the removal of §172.510(c).

Sections 173.240 through 173.244

RSPA is adding an authorization for the use of Class 120A tank car tanks in each of these sections.

Section 173.314

Paragraph (b)(5), which contains provisions for marking the proper shipping name of certain Class 2 materials on tank cars, is removed because these provisions also appear in §172.330. Paragraph (b)(6) is redesignated (b)(5) and amended to revise requirements for heat-resistant gaskets. Commenters expressed concern as to the difficulty of obtaining suitable heat-resistant materials because of the scarcity of materials (other than asbestos) that are capable of withstanding temperatures of 230 °C that are also compatible with the lading. Besides temperature and compatibility, the selection of a proper gasket must include consideration of many factors, such as the mating of the gasket to its seating surfaces, fluid media, operating pressure, flange design, bolting data, and size. RSPA and FRA agree with those comments that, because of numerous factors involved, criteria for the selection of a suitable gasket material is too technically complex for resolution at this time. Therefore, this final rule does not define a minimum temperature for heat-resistant gaskets, but identifies criteria which a shipper must consider in selecting a proper gasket. In addition, in analyzing comments to this section, RSPA and FRA discovered that when this provision was moved from §179.102-3(a)(3) to §173.314 under changes adopted in Docket HM-181, certain words were inadvertently removed. RSPA is restoring this wording to refer to "gaskets for manway cover plates."

In the paragraph (c) table, several entries are amended to add an authorization for use of a Class DOT 120A tank car tank.

RSPA also is authorizing Class DOT 112J and 112T specification tank cars for the transportation of dimethyl ether, as proposed. Currently, only the use of a DOT 105A300W tank car is authorized. This is based on an exemption issued to Aeropres Corporation (DOT-E 11000) and a petition for rulemaking [P-1253].

RSPA also is revising Note 2 in paragraph (c) of the table. This note is assigned to the entry "Ammonia, anhydrous or ammonia solutions >50 percent ammonia" and the revision will allow shippers to calculate outage and filling limits for tank cars based on corresponding changes adopted in §173.24b.

In addition, RSPA is removing paragraph (i), which currently provides alternate settings for safety relief valves on tank car tanks used for certain commodities, because pressure relief device requirements are being consolidated in §179.15.

Part 174

Section 174.3

This section prohibits a shipment of a hazardous material not prepared in accordance with Parts 171, 172, and 173 from being offered for transportation or transported by rail. The section is revised as proposed to be consistent with language contained in Parts 175, 176 and 177 for unacceptable hazardous materials shipments.

Section 174.8 through 174.10

Inspection requirements currently contained in §§174.8, 174.9 and 174.10 are consolidated into §174.9 to clarify a railroad's inspection duties at points of origination, interchange points and other locations where rail cars must be inspected. Sections 174.8 and 174.10 are removed. Section 174.9 requires a railroad to inspect each rail car for compliance with the HMR and other conditions that may make the car unsafe for transportation.

The final rule further clarifies that a railroad employee may perform inspections at "ground level." One commenter, a chemical manufacturer, opposed this proposed change because inspections would be limited to leaks detectable at ground level. Another commenter representing a chemical manufacturing company recognized the practicality of ground level inspections, and believed that shippers and carriers must work together to ensure proper securement and compliance with hazard communication standards. A commenter supporting this revision noted that requirements for above ground inspections raise substantial safety concerns, are extremely burdensome, and significantly impair efficiency. RSPA and FRA believe that ground level inspections provide an adequate level of safety and this provision is adopted with an editorial revision to clarify provisions for train crew inspection.

Section 174.11

Section 174.11 is removed as proposed because it merely references §171.12a for transportation of Canadian shipments or packagings by rail car within the U.S.

Section 174.18

Section 174.18 concerning the handling of astray packages of hazardous materials is obsolete; therefore this section is removed as proposed.

Section 174.24

Shipping paper requirements for rail carriers in Part 174 are moved to Part 172. Revised §174.24 cross-references shipping paper requirements in Part 172. One commenter expressed concern that the proposed wording of this section would allow origin carriers to accept hazardous materials without first receiving shipping papers. The commenter believed that documentation shows the offer and acceptance affiliation between shipper and carrier and proves that a shipper offered hazardous material for transportation prior to acceptance by a carrier. RSPA agrees that the wording in this section should be revised to clarify that a carrier may not accept or transport a hazardous material by rail unless the carrier receives a properly prepared shipping document from the shipper.

Numerous commenters urged RSPA to address electronic transmission of a shipper certification. Commenters claimed that adopting a provision in §172.204 to recognize electronic data interchange (EDI) or other electronic transmission of shipping paper certifications could eliminate the need for an existing exemption, DOT-E-7616. RSPA and FRA agree with commenters that this issue should be addressed, but believe that adopting new certification provisions for electronic transmissions is beyond the scope of this final rule.

Section 174.25

RSPA is removing the "placard notation" requirement since it is outdated for emergency response communication. RSPA also is removing the requirement for a "placard endorsement" placed on a waybill near the reporting mark of each rail car, freight container, transport vehicle, or portable tank that contains a hazardous material when transported by rail. Commenters supporting these proposals cited improved hazard communication requirements and technological advancements as reasons to eliminate these outdated provisions. The only commenter to oppose these proposals, IAFF, claimed that a placard notation "allows the company officer to instantly make an initial diagnosis regarding a 'go/no go' decision for imminent rescue" and "* * * offers a point of quick confirmation of the basic hazard." IAFF further noted that "* * * removing the placard endorsement cripples the ability of the incident commander to make quick and correct decisions when life safety is at stake." RSPA and FRA disagree with IAFF. Hazard communication requirements in the HMR (e.g., proper shipping name, hazard class, identification number, packing group and emergency response information) are the principal tools that emergency response personnel should use to assess the emergency. Because the current placard notation is repetitive of other hazard communication requirements and generally restates the hazard class of the material, it is considered unnecessary for making a "go/no go" decision. Removing this requirement also makes requirements for railroad transportation consistent with other modes. Accordingly, this final rule removes requirements for the placard notation and endorsement.

Other shipping paper requirements in this section, including those for tank cars containing the residue of a hazardous material, are removed or moved to Part 172.

Section 174.26

Amendments to this section are adopted as proposed. Paragraph (a) is removed because, if a carrier complies with paragraph (b), the carrier also is complying with paragraph (a). Paragraphs (b) and (c) are redesignated paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively. Newly designated paragraph (b) is revised to reference shipping paper requirements of Part 172 and specify use of other forms of car movement documents.

Sections 174.47 and 174.48

As proposed, the provisions in these sections are consolidated into revised §174.50 to prescribe requirements for forwarding shipments in violation of the HMR and damaged or leaking packages.

Section 174.49

This section is removed as proposed because open-flame lanterns are no longer used.

Section 174.50

This section is revised by consolidating requirements of §§174.47, 174.48, and 174.50 and by removing all obsolete provisions. As proposed, packages other than tank cars would have to be repaired, reconditioned, or overpacked prior to subsequent movement. Tank cars would have to be repaired or be moved under conditions approved by FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety.

RSPA and FRA have recently learned that at least one business entity has interpreted existing §174.47(b) to permit the ongoing movement of noncomplying tank cars once their "in-violation" status was reported. Neither FRA nor RSPA agree with this interpretation. Both agencies believe that the HMR have, even before these amendments, clearly prohibited such movement. FRA has consistently taken enforcement action against the movement of tank cars that are in violation of the HMR. The amendment removes any doubt that the old language might have created on the part of one shipper, and provides a method for relief where repairs cannot be made without further movement. For instance, a tank car found en route with missing placards or markings is typically "repaired" by corrective action on the spot. In more serious situations, it may not be possible to conduct an on-site repair, such as repair of a tank car with its thermal protection system torn or abraded so that it no longer meets a specification. A tank car in this condition may only be moved under the authority of an exemption.

Commenters generally believed the proposed changes will promote safety, simplify the process, and enable the shipper or carrier to take quicker action. Several commenters recommended that the proposed section be modified to authorize use of a telephone, fax, or electronic mail for notification and FRA approval, with written confirmation to be provided within a specified number of days. RSPA and FRA agree with this recommendation and are revising the section accordingly.

The Iowa Department of Transportation asked RSPA to expand the proposed provision which would allow a leaking tank car to be switched to "a location distant from habitation and highways" to include "streams" and "pipelines within the railroad rights of way." The Iowa DOT cited a National Transportation Safety Board report on activities within railroad rights of way that may disturb pipelines. This commenter expressed concern that corrosives or other chemicals could pose either an immediate risk or a long-term effect on pipelines that would not be readily apparent, with corresponding potential effects on water quality and the environment. RSPA and FRA agree in principle with the commenter, and this final rule is broadened, not just to include streams or pipelines within railroad rights of way, but to authorize limited movement of a leaking tank car to reduce or eliminate any immediate risk to human health or the environment.

Section 174.55

Proposed changes to this section were intended to clarify and streamline requirements for loading and securing packages of hazardous materials. Of the 22 comments submitted in response to the NPRM, only three commenters suggested changes to the proposed revision of this section. One commenter noted that lading securement requirements should apply to both "transport vehicles" (as stated in the NPRM) and "freight containers" (as provided in the current regulations). RSPA agrees, and the final rule reflects this change.

The NPRM contained a proposal to streamline requirements by eliminating the need to seek DOT approval for lading restraint systems that permit "limited movement." RSPA and FRA believe it is not the slight movement of hazardous materials packages that creates a safety hazard, but their unsecured movement.

All three commenters believed the proposed requirement that lading "be secured" was too vague; two favored a return to the term "blocked and braced" and the other suggested requiring "lading restraint systems." While RSPA and FRA do not agree that the proposal was too vague, RSPA is replacing the word "secured" in proposed §174.55(a) with language requiring that a package containing a hazardous material must be loaded in the transport vehicle or freight container so that it cannot fall and must be safeguarded in such a manner that other freight cannot fall onto or slide into it. This is a performance standard which acknowledges that all packages in a vehicle or container may move to a limited degree during transportation without adversely affecting their structural and containment integrity.

The performance standard adopted in this final rule provides rail shippers and carriers maximum flexibility in meeting regulatory requirements and is consistent with requirements for other modes of transportation. At times, damage-free transportation can be achieved by loading packages so tightly within a vehicle or freight container that each package is protected by those around it and the total load does not exceed the design strength of the walls or doors. For such loads, no additional equipment or material is necessary. With other load configurations, material in addition to the packages is necessary to create a tight load.

In response to concerns expressed by commenters, this final rule explicitly mandates blocking and bracing (i.e., a lading restraint system), when the required protection cannot be achieved through use of other freight.

Section 174.67

The shipping community uses interior heater coils to improve the ability of a solid or viscous product to flow and thereby reduce tank car unloading times. The interior coils consist of a series of longitudinally arranged and manifolded welded pipe so that one to four inlet and outlet pipe connections allow circulation of a heating medium, usually steam or hot oil, throughout the entire system. The current regulations require that, after a tank equipped with interior heater coils is unloaded, the inlet and outlet pipe connections must be left open for drainage and to prevent the potential collapse of the coils from the vacuum otherwise created from condensing vapors. This requirement applies whether or not the coils were actually used to heat the commodity from the tank.

Comments on this issue were split between supporters and those who opposed removal of the requirements. Several commenters thought that if steam were used, drainage of the condensate would inhibit corrosion. RSPA and FRA believe it unlikely that keeping the inlet and outlet pipe caps off will actually inhibit corrosion of the coils because heater coils become bent and often water remains trapped in pipe valleys. Further, because interior heater coils may exceed 700 feet in length there is inadequate air flow within the coils to dry them completely. In FRA's experience, the single most common failure of interior heater coils is not corrosion or collapse but failure of coil anchors. When the anchor fails, the coils move, creating stresses. Fatigue cracks may occur in these high stress areas and create the potential for a hazardous material release, RSPA has, within the last two years, issued 29 exemptions allowing the transportation of tank cars containing the residue of a hazardous material with the heater coil pipe caps on the heater coil pipes.

After considering the comments received, RSPA and FRA conclude that coil failures are usually the result of poor maintenance or operational practices, both of which should be reviewed by the industry. This final rule makes optional the current requirement that the inlet and outlet pipe connections must remain open.

Section 174.85

Corresponding changes in §§172.510 and 172.526 remove provisions for a RESIDUE placard. Two commenters noted that proposed paragraph (c) referenced "rail car" rather than "tank car", which would expand current provisions. RSPA agrees and is revising paragraph (c) to reference a tank car containing a residue of a hazardous material.

Part 178

Section 178.337-2

Two ASTM references are updated in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii).

Part 179

The following sections are revised by updating certain ASTM specifications and deleting others that are no longer used, based on a petition [P-1023] from AAR: §§179.100-7, 179.100-10, 179.100-20, 179.102-1, 179.102-2, 179.200-7, 179.200-24, 179.201-5, and 179.300-7.

Sections 179.12 through 179.12-7

Sections 179.12-1 through 179.12-7 are removed and §179.12 is revised by incorporating provisions from §§179.12-1 and 179.12-5. The design and materials of construction for interior heater coils require AAR approval. This final rule removes the DOT specification requirements and allows AAR greater flexibility in approving heater system designs.

Section 179.15

This section is added to consolidate pressure relief device requirements currently contained in §§173.314, 179.100-15, 179.200-18, 179.201-7 and 179.220-19 and adopt provisions to: (1) increase the start-to-discharge pressure of pressure relief devices for certain low pressure tanks while allowing the continued use of existing cars; (2) allow for a reduced orifice in the upstream nozzle of a pressure relief device to accommodate pressure surges; (3) increase the rupture disc burst pressure for cars so equipped; (4) standardize the start-to-discharge pressure setting for all commodities and tank car specifications; and (5) align the start-to-discharge pressure for tank cars with a setting prescribed by the ASME code for pressure vessels.

Most commenters endorsed RSPA's proposed addition of this section, with minor editorial clarifications, stating that this was a worthwhile change in the regulations that would enhance overall safety and benefit a number of shippers and carriers. CMA stated that proposed provisions in this new section would allow shippers to establish pressure relief device settings that are more directly related to the product requirements, rather than arbitrarily relating the settings to the tank test pressure.

The AAR and the Railway Progress Institute (RPI) suggested that RSPA include the "mid-range" temperature proposed in §173.24b for the calculation of outage and filling limits into pressure relief device setting requirements. RSPA proposed a mid-range temperature of 43 °C (110 °F) for certain thermally protected and jacketed tank cars. RSPA and FRA agree, and a mid-range temperature requirement is added in paragraph (b)(1).

Several commenters suggested that RSPA adopt a range for the burst pressure, as opposed to a set burst pressure (e.g., from 20 to 33 percent of the tank burst pressure for DOT 111A60W tank cars). Other commenters suggested an extension of the proposed one-year period because development of rupture discs that are designed to the dimensions of the rupture disc holder may take longer than one year and thus would not be commercially available. The commenters claimed that if this requirement were adopted and made effective within one year, the current inventory of rupture discs would become worthless.

RSPA and FRA believe the need to increase the burst pressure of a rupture disc installed in a nonreclosing pressure relief device is warranted because of the number of premature rupture disc failures in transportation which have resulted in railroad employee injuries. Of the 5,406 reported hazardous materials releases by rail from 1990 through 1994, RSPA received reports of 1,716 rupture disc failures (an average of 343 each year). RSPA also received 418 reports of railroad employee injuries as a result of a release of hazardous materials (all sources of release for an average of 84 each year). Because rupture disc failures account for nearly 32 percent of the total number of releases by rail during this study period, RSPA and FRA believe that there will be a considerable decrease in the number of premature rupture disc failures as a result of increasing the burst pressure of the rupture disc.

This final rule adopts a rupture disc burst pressure of 33 percent of the tank burst pressure because such pressures can reduce premature failures in the transportation system. Rupture discs are required to be manufactured with a tolerance of +0 to -15 percent of the burst pressure marked on the rupture disc. (See A5.02 of the AAR Tank Car Manual.) In addition, in response to concerns expressed by commenters, RSPA is extending the proposed one-year transition period in paragraph (f) to October 1, 1998. This extension will minimize cost impacts in implementing new designs and will facilitate depletion of existing inventory of rupture discs.

One commenter suggested that RSPA incorporate a requirement for a "means of inspection of the disc without releasing clamping pressure on the disc," similar to A4.07(d) in the AAR Specifications for Tank Cars. Many safety vent devices in use today have such features, including hinged covers and screw plugs, for the inspection of a rupture disc. While these devices are designed to meet the requirements of the AAR specifications, RSPA and FRA believe that in order to fully inspect a rupture disc, the disc must be removed from the safety vent device. It is important that a careful inspection (both top and bottom of the disc) be conducted for corrosion and damage because it has been FRA's experience that a rupture disc may appear normal on the top side, but be severely damaged or corroded on the bottom side. For these reasons, RSPA recently amended the regulations under Docket HM-201 to require a careful inspection of the rupture disc. See §173.31(d)(1)(vi), effective July 1, 1996 (60 FR 49048, 49073).

In addition, the following editorial changes are made to provisions proposed in the NPRM: paragraph (b)(4) is revised by removing the word "valve"; paragraph (e)(2) is revised by replacing the word "fail" with "burst" and by adding the wording "at not greater than" before "95"; a new paragraph (e)(3) is added to base the vapor tight pressure and the start-to-discharge tolerance on the discharge setting of the reclosing pressure relief device; in paragraph (f), paragraph "(b)(4)" is added after paragraph "(a)"; and paragraph (g) is revised to require each pressure relief device to communicate with the vapor space above the lading as near as practicable on the longitudinal centerline and center of the tank.

Sections 179.100-15, 179.200-18, 179.201-7, and 179.220-19

These sections contain provisions for safety relief devices. Because requirements for safety relief devices are consolidated in §179.15, RSPA is removing these sections from the HMR.

Sections 179.101-1 and 179.201-1

Individual specification requirements for pressure tank cars and non-pressure tank cars are revised. These revisions correct many typographical errors and remove several special references that are no longer applicable. RSPA also is adding a new class "DOT 120A" specification tank car and a new "DOT 111A60W6" specification tank car in the table based on two petitions for rulemaking [P-1044 and P-1119] from AAR. One commenter correctly noted that if the DOT 120A tank car is adopted, RSPA should assign packaging authorizations in Part 173 and §172.102. The commenter also requested that this car be authorized in §173.314 for "Division 2.2 not specifically identified in this table". RSPA agrees and is adding authorizations for a DOT120A tank car to appropriate sections. RSPA is removing certain entries from the table since these provisions are currently found in the text proceeding the table (see for example §§179.200-11, 179.200-14, and 179.200-16). An editorial revision is made to a reference in the §179.201-1 table for DOT 111A100W4, based on a commenter's suggestion.

Section 179.102-4

Paragraph (d), which specifies at least one pressure relief valve on a tank car tank used to transport vinyl fluoride, inhibited, is removed, consistent with the consolidation of safety relief device provisions in §179.15. In addition, paragraphs (b) and (c) are redesignated paragraphs (a) and (b), paragraphs (e) through (k) are redesignated paragraphs (c) through (i), and reserved paragraph (l) is removed.

Section 179.103-5

Paragraph (b)(2) is revised as proposed to adopt requirements for the attachment of unloading connections for bottom outlets on pressure tank cars. This revision reflects existing requirements for bottom outlets on non-pressure tank cars.

Section 179.200-7

In addition to the revision of the paragraph (b) table discussed previously, certain ASTM specifications are revised to remove references to outdated publications. The entry for ASTM B 209-70, Alloy 6061 is removed, as are footnotes 4 and 5 associated with that entry. Footnote 2 following the paragraph (d) table is revised to reference Practice A of ASTM A 262-85, which is a definitive, rapid method of identifying, by simple etching, those specimens free of susceptibility to intergranular attack.

Section 179.200-14

The first sentence of paragraph (a) and the first sentence of paragraph (b) are revised to recognize the new outage and filling limits for tank cars adopted in Docket HM-181.

Section 179.200-16

RSPA is revising the first sentence in paragraph (d) to require an outage scale visible through the manway opening when using a gauging device. RSPA is adopting a commenter's suggested alternative wording because it clarifies this provision.

Section 179.200-24

Based on a commenter's suggestion to indicate the grade of material for the entry "Material", the reference to "ASTM A 285C" is revised to read "ASTM A 516-GR 70".

Section 179.201-4

This section is adopted as proposed to refer to Footnote 2 of §179.200-7(d) rather than the AAR Specifications to specify material requirements for fittings, tubes, castings, projections, and closures.

Sections 179.220-7 and 179.300-7

References to ASTM A 515 and ASTM A 285 are removed from the table following paragraph (b) in §179.220-7 and the table following paragraph (a) in §179.300-7, because these specifications no longer are authorized for new construction.

Section 179.221-1

RSPA is revising the class DOT 115A specification table as noted in the discussion of §§179.101-1 and 179.201-1.

Sections 179.222, 179.222-1, and 179.500-17

These sections are removed because identical provisions are contained elsewhere in the HMR.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034].

The economic impact of this rule is expected to result in only minimal costs to certain persons subject to the HMR and may result in modest cost savings to a small number of persons subject to the HMR and to the agency. Because of the minimal economic impact of this rule, preparation of a regulatory impact analysis or a regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

B. Executive Order 12612

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 ("Federalism"). Federal law expressly preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements applicable to the transportation of hazardous material that cover certain subjects and are not substantively the same as Federal requirements. 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1). These subjects are:

(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous material;

(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material;

(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents pertaining to hazardous material, and requirements respecting the number, content, and placement of such documents;

(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or

(5) The design, manufacturing, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a package or container which is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the transportation of hazardous material.

This final rule preempts State, local, or Indian tribe requirements concerning these subjects unless the non-Federal requirements are "substantively the same" (see 49 CFR 107.202(d)) as the Federal requirements.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2)) provides that if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, after November 16, 1990, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. RSPA has determined that the effective date of Federal preemption for these requirements will be October 1, 1996. Thus, RSPA lacks discretion in this area, and preparation of a federalism assessment is not warranted.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule responds to petitions for rulemaking and agency review. It is intended to provide clarification of the regulations and relax certain requirements. Therefore, I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Information collection requirements in 49 CFR parts 172 and 174 pertaining to shipping papers are currently approved under OMB control number 2137-0051. A requirement to annotate a reporting mark and number on shipping documents for certain rail shipments reflects a current rail carrier operating requirement and insignificantly increases the amount of burden imposed by this collection. Some provisions adopted in this final rule, such as elimination of requirements for placing placard endorsements and placard notations on shipping documents, will result in a minor reduction in the amount of burden imposed by this collection. RSPA believes that these changes in burden are not sufficient to warrant revision of the currently approved information collection.

E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 171

Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 172

Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labels, Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium.

49 CFR Part 174

Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Railroad safety.

49 CFR Part 178

Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicles safety, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 179

Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 1996, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.

Rose A. McMurray, Acting Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.