Interpretation Response #17-0132
Below is the interpretation response detail and a list of regulations sections applicable to this response.
Interpretation Response Details
Response Publish Date:
Company Name:
Individual Name: Vernon Henjes
Location State: IA Country: US
View the Interpretation Document
Response text:
June 15, 2018
Mr. Vernon Henjes
615 S Lewis Boulevard
Sioux City, IA 51106
Reference No. 17-0132
Dear Mr. Henjes:
This letter is in response to your December 7, 2017, and January 5 and 10, 2018, emails requesting clarification of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) applicable to retrofitting tank cars. Specifically, you ask if the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is reconsidering the requirement to add safety shields and increase hull thickness of tank cars that transport ethanol from 7/16 to 9/16 of an inch.
PHMSA is not considering revising or removing the requirements issued in response to the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act to fully retrofit tank cars that transport unrefined petroleum products (e.g., petroleum crude oil), ethanol, and other Class 3 flammable liquids. The FAST Act modified the retrofit schedule for crude and ethanol tank cars issued in the HM-251C Final Rule [Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0011] and required all DOT-111 flammable liquid tank cars to meet the DOT-117/117R tank car specifications based on the retrofit timeline. The retrofit includes top fitting protection, thermal protection blankets at least ½‑inch thick that meet existing thermal protection standards, full height head shields, full jackets, improved bottom outlet valve handles, and high capacity pressure relief valves; however, it does not include increasing the hull thickness of an existing tank car.
Additionally, Section 7311 of the FAST Act mandated that the DOT enter an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences (Academy) to study and test electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes and reevaluate the economic analysis supporting their use in a previously issued final rule [May 8, 2015; 80 FR 26644]. The Academy determined the ECP brake requirements were not economically justified compared to conventional braking. Therefore, as mandated by the FAST Act, PHMSA and the Federal Railroad Administration will issue a future rulemaking to rescind the ECP brake requirements from the HMR.
I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.
T. Glenn Foster
Chief, Regulatory Review and Reinvention Branch
Standards and Rulemaking Division