Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 213 / Monday, November 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules information, see discussion of the cost analysis in accordance with Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review.42
However, PHMSA solicits comment from stakeholders on potential economic, public safety, and environmental benefits and adverse impacts of the proposed rulemaking.
PHMSA also solicits comments on the length of its proposed suspension period and whether PHMSA should modify its proposed expiration date.
PHMSA notes that it selected the proposed date June 30, 2024 for expiration of the temporary suspension to give PHMSA adequate time to incorporate the results of the forthcoming TRB Phase II Report expected in mid-2022within its companion rulemaking under RIN
2137AF54.
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

A. Statutory/Legal Authority This NPRM is published under the authority of the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act HMTA;
49 U.S.C. 51015127. Section 5103b of the HMTA authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. The Secretary has delegated the authority granted in the HMTA to the PHMSA Administrator at 49 CFR
1.97b.
B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures Executive Order 12866 Regulatory Planning and Review 43 requires that agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating. Agencies should consider quantifiable measures and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify.
Further, Executive Order 12866 requires that agencies should select those regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity, unless a statute requires another regulatory approach. Similarly, DOT Order 2100.6A Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures requires that regulations issued by PHMSA and other DOT
Operating Administrations should consider an assessment of the potential benefits, costs, and other important impacts of the proposed action and 42 58

FR 51735 Oct. 4, 1993.

43 Ibid.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:34 Nov 05, 2021

Jkt 256001

should quantify to the extent practicable the benefits, costs, and any significant distributional impacts, including any environmental impacts.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Order 2100.6A require that PHMSA
submit significant regulatory actions to the Office of Management and Budget OMB for review. This rulemaking is considered a significant regulatory action under section 3f4 of Executive Order 12866 because the temporary suspension of the LNG by Rail final rule could raise novel legal or policy issues.
This NPRM has, therefore, been reviewed by OMB.
As discussed at greater length above, PHMSA does not expect that the proposed temporary suspension of the amendments adopted in the LNG by Rail final rule will have material, adverse impacts. Should the proposed rule be adopted such that HMR
authorization to move LNG by rail tank car is temporarily suspended, no LNG
could move under the HMR in a rail tank car until PHMSA completes its companion rulemaking under RIN
2137AF54, or June 30, 2024, whichever is earlier. Notwithstanding the considerable uncertainties regarding the market demand for rail tank car transportation of LNG, PHMSA expects little or no LNG transportation by rail tank car would have moved during the proposed suspension period for the reasons explained above; therefore, PHMSA expects little or no direct economic impact of a temporary suspension. Indeed, PHMSAs temporary suspension may in fact reduce economic burden by discouraging a shipper from ordering rail tank cars compliant with the LNG
by Rail final rule when the companion rulemaking under RIN 2137AF54
may adopt different requirements.
Additionally, should any potential shippers need to transport LNG by rail tank car during the suspension period, they could avail themselves of the PHMSA SP or FRA approval processes for such transport. Further, as explained below, temporary suspension guarantees avoidance of potential adverse public safety and environmental impacts including, but not limited to, contribution of direct and indirect GHG
emissions that could have arisen from rail tank car transportation of LNG
under the HMR. Lastly, PHMSA notes that the limited duration of its proposed suspension would also mitigate any adverse economic, public safety, or environmental impacts that could arise.
PHMSA acknowledges that, in the unlikely event demand for rail tank car transportation under the LNG by Rail final rule would materialize during the
PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

61737

suspension period in the absence of this rule, the proposed temporary suspension could result in procedural or compliance costs, lost business opportunities, and safety and environmental risks. Obtaining and complying with the conditions imposed within PHMSA-issued DOT SPs and FRA approvals authorizing rail transportation of LNG would incur costs due to regulatory uncertainty, as well as delay and compliance burdens. Each of those consequences would entail higher procedural or compliance costs, which could in turn result in lost business opportunities, or at minimum, diminish the business benefits of rail transportation of LNG.44 Further, the DOT SP and FRA approval alternatives would entail unique public safety and environmental risks, which are a function of the conditions imposed by each of PHMSA and FRA in each authorization.
Alternatively, the unavailability of HMR authorization for rail tank car transportation of LNG could prompt shipping LNG by highway via MC338
insulated cargo tanks. This alternative may involve higher costs than rail transportation, as each MC338 cargo tank which has approximately half the capacity of a DOT113 tank car would have to be shipped individually, likely forfeiting the economies of scale from rail transportation via tank car under the LNG by Rail final rule or a DOT SP
or ISO tank under an FRA approval.
For this reason, PHMSA does not expect shippers to opt for LNG transportation via MC338 cargo tank as a substitute for rail tank car transportation pursuant to the LNG by Rail final rule. To the extent that transportation via MC338
cargo tank does occur, it would entail different environmental risks including, but not limited to, greater risk of accidents and more direct GHG
emissions than rail transportation of the same volume of LNG than the transportation of LNG by rail tank car.45
Therefore, PHMSA expects that, in the event that the proposed suspension of the LNG by Rail final rule has any adverse economic impact, it would consist largely of lost business opportunities as a result of higher procedural or compliance costs and lower economies of scale from 44 See, e.g., Docket No. PHMSA20180025
00478 at 5, 30 noting that the grantee of DOTSP
20534 has indicated that it was unlikely to employ ISO tanks for rail transportation of LNG because of the high costs of that approach and 35 noting the potential for LNG by Rail final rule to create new business opportunities.
45 Id. at 3334, 56 discussing higher direct GHG
emissions from highway transportation and 3738
discussing higher risk of crashes from highway transportation.

E:FRFM08NOP1.SGM

08NOP1