Je veux savoir à propos de…

61740

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.
This proposed rulemaking does not impose unfunded mandates under the UMRA. As explained above, it is not expected to result in costs of $100
million or more in 1996 dollars on either State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

H. Environmental Assessment The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires that Federal agencies analyze proposed actions to determine whether the action will have a significant impact on the human environment. CEQ implementing regulations 40 CFR parts 15001508
require Federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering 1
the need for the action, 2 alternatives to the action, 3 probable environmental impacts of the action and alternatives, and 4 the agencies and persons consulted during the consideration process. DOT Order 5610.1C Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts establishes DOT procedures for evaluation of environmental impacts under NEPA and its implementing regulations.
1 The Need for the Action PHMSA has determined that the recommendations from the TRB
committee, its ongoing research, and recent events stemming from the COVID19 public health emergency predicate the need to re-evaluate the amendments authorized in the LNG by Rail final rule. Research activity that PHMSA had expected would enhance its understanding of the risks attendant in rail transportation of LNG has been delayed, and uncertainties have increased in whether there will be any potential benefits, and in the underlying economic dynamics bounding those risks e.g., the quantity of LNG that will move by rail, and the routes involved.
Therefore, PHMSA proposes to amend the HMR to suspend authorization of LNG transportation in a rail tank car pending further analysis and completion of a companion rulemaking that will consider changes to the conditions under which LNG could be moved by rail, to potentially include additional safety, environmental, and environmental justice protections. This action will provide PHMSA an opportunity to review recent actions
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:34 Nov 05, 2021

Jkt 256001

that could be obstacles to Administration policies promoting public health and safety, the environment, and climate change mitigation; and to evaluate the results of ongoing and delayed research efforts to ensure the safe transportation of LNG by rail tank car.
2 Alternatives to the Action In proposing this rulemaking, PHMSA
is considering the following alternatives:
No Action Alternative If PHMSA were to select the No Action Alternative, current regulations authorizing the transport of LNG in rail tank cars would remain in effect and no provisions would be amended or added.
Therefore, the HMR would continue to authorize the transportation of LNG in DOT113C120W9 tank cars with a 9/16inch outer tank composed of TC128B
normalized steel. The following operational controls and safety measures would also remain in effect:
Each tank car must be operated in accordance with 173.319, which includes:
Testing of relief valves every 5
years annual replacement of rupture discs thermal integrity tests following an average daily pressure rise during any shipment exceeding 3 psig per day other requirements specific to liquids in cryogenic tank cars.
49 CFR part 179, subpart F contains detailed design, construction, and operational requirements for DOT
113C120W tank cars with the specification suffix 9 to be used in rail transportation of LNG.
Trains transporting 20 or more tank cars of LNG in a block, or 35 such tank cars throughout the train, must be equipped and operated with a two-way EOT device, pursuant to the requirements in 49 CFR part 232, subpart E, or a distributed-power DP
locomotive as defined in 49 CFR 229.5.
The offeror must remotely monitor each tank car while in transportation for pressure and location.
The offeror must notify the carrier if the tank pressure rise exceeds 3 psig over any 24-hour period.
Trains transporting any quantity of LNG must comply with the route planning requirements in 172.820, which requires rail carriers transporting LNG by rail tank car to conduct an annual route analysis considering, at a minimum, 27 risk factors listed in appendix D to part 172.
Each LNG tank car must have:

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

A reclosing pressure relief device with a start-to-discharge pressure of 75
psig;
a non-reclosing pressure relief device set to discharge at the tank test pressure;
a maximum permitted filling density percent by weight of 37.3
percent;
a design service temperature of 162 C 260 F;
a maximum pressure when offered for transportation not to exceed 15 psig;
a minimum steel thickness, after forming, on the outer tank shell and tank heads of 9/16 inch, which is thicker than the requirement for other DOT113C120W tank cars; and an outer tank shell constructed of AAR TC128, Grade B normalized steel plate as specified in 179.1007a, which has a higher tensile strength of 81,000 psi which makes it stronger than that used for the existing DOT113
outer shell.
The FEA, whichexcept for the finding of no significant impact thereinis adopted by reference into this NPRM, examined how the above requirements were imposed to reduce risks to human safety and the environment from the transportation of LNG in rail tank cars and incidents occurring as a result of this transportation.54 The No Action Alternative would allow the shipment of LNG in rail tank cars, and PHMSA
could continue to consider whether additional mitigations are necessary based on the expert recommendations from the TRB Phase I Report and results from ongoing and delayed research efforts.
Proposed Action Alternative This alternative is the current proposal as it appears in this NPRM, proposing to add a new special provision to the HMR that would suspend the transportation of LNG in rail tank cars while PHMSA undergoes a comprehensive review to ensure the safe transportation of LNG by rail in accordance with ongoing research and incorporation of recommendations from the TRB, as well as the best available economic analysis and climate science.
Rail transport of LNG would be permitted only on an ad hoc basis as authorized by the conditions of a PHMSA special permit 49 CFR
107.105 or in a portable tank secured to a rail car pursuant to the conditions of an FRA approval 49 CFR 174.63. The proposed amendments included in this alternative are more fully discussed in 54 See
E:FRFM08NOP1.SGM

Docket No. PHMSA201800250478.

08NOP1