Jump to content


Photo

"Final" Crude-by-Rail updated rules announced


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 15 June 2015 - 03:28 PM

The Wall Street Journal, 6/12:

 

 

Association of American Railroads Files Agency Appeal of DOT Tank Car Rule

New rules on crude oil don’t ‘sufficiently advance safety,’ association says

 

The Association of American Railroads became the latest challenger to new crude-by-rail rules Friday, filing an agency appeal with the U.S. Department of Transportation.

 

The rail industry group called for the department to remove a requirement for an expensive new braking system which rail executives have said is unproven. The challenge also asks for enhanced thermal protection for tank cars, as well as to fully eliminate the usage of older tank cars considered unsafe for carrying hazardous flammable liquids.

 

“It is the AAR’s position the rule, while a good start, does not sufficiently advance safety and fails to fully address ongoing concerns of the freight rail industry and the general public,” the group said in a statement.

 

Continue here.



#22 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 17 June 2015 - 07:36 PM

Progressive Railroading, June 2015:
 

Crude by rail: Federal rule fallout

 

A new federal rule governing the transportation of crude oil by rail signals the beginning of the next chapter in rail safety. That’s how Acting Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg characterized the rule after the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) introduced it on May 1.

 

SNIP

 

But in the weeks following the rule’s release, several crude-by-rail constituents filed lawsuits or took other actions because they believe the rule’s safety-enhancing requirements either go too far or don’t go far enough.

More  here.



#23 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 17 June 2015 - 08:23 PM

Bloomberg Business News, 6/16:
 

BNSF Charging Lower Rates for Most-Modern Crude-by-Rail Cars

 

If you want to carry crude oil in an older railroad car, it’s going to cost you.

 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC, the largest U.S. crude-by-rail carrier, is offering lower rates to lug oil in cars that meet the latest federal specifications issued in May. That means the vast majority of cars riding the rails today, known as DOT-111 and CPC-1232, will cost more to haul.

 

The new rates are part of a plan by the railroad owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. to push older cars off the tracks as regulators scrutinize the industry over a series of high-profile explosions.  .  .  .

 

.  .  .  The new pricing may spur litigation from shippers who argue that they shouldn’t face surcharges if their cars are still compliant.

 

“I assume this will be litigated,” Heller said at a conference organized by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, on Tuesday. “These are federally compliant cars. They’re licensed. From a shipper’s perspective, when they bought these other cars, they were compliant, and they still are. As long as the shipper’s compliant, why should there be a surcharge?”

 

More here.



#24 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 07 August 2015 - 06:29 PM

Shoreline Beacon, Port Elgin, ON, 8/6:

 

 
Opinion Editorial

Rail rules update welcome, not enough

 

Transport Canada took another step last week toward preventing future railway tragedies such as the one in Lac-Mégantic.

 

The announcement of a permanent update to Rule 112 of the Canadian Railway Operating Rules, which clarifies when and how trains carrying dangerous materials must be secured before being left unattended, is significant.

 

Essentially, it formalizes an emergency directive issued in 2013, shortly after an unattended freight train carrying crude oil rolled down a hill into Lac-Mégantic and exploded, killing 47 people. As of Oct. 14, railway employees must adhere permanently to a table that outlines how many handbrakes should be set before a train can be left unattended, taking into account both its weight and the incline on which it is parked.

 

Handbrakes are designed to keep the train immobile should the main air brake system fail, which is what happened in the hours leading up to the Lac-Mégantic accident.

 

This is good news, but there is still reason for concern.

 

Continue here.



#25 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 11 November 2015 - 01:18 PM

McClatcheyDC, 11/9:

 

Feds reject industry challenges to oil train safety rule

 

Highlights

Trade groups appealed several aspects of May rule

Tribal groups spurned in push to reopen comments

Agencies side with tribes on notification requirement

 

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Transportation has rejected several appeals by industry groups to its rule issued in May on the safety of trains carrying large quantities of crude oil and ethanol.

 

The department also agreed with tribal groups in the Pacific Northwest that had expressed concern about proposed changes to notification requirements to states for large rail shipments of crude oil.

 

The trade groups, which represented railroads, refiners, and chemical companies, had objected to a variety of components of the rule relating to its scope, to the timeline for completing a retrofit and replacement of tank cars used to carry flammable liquids, what level of fire protection the cars should have and whether they should be equipped with advanced electronic brakes.

 

The department rejected all of those appeals, as well as one by the Columbia River Treaty Tribes and the Northwest Treaty Tribes, which had argued that the department had not formally consulted with tribal groups on the rule and it should reopen a notice and comment period for them to participate.

 

Continue here.



#26 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 11 November 2015 - 06:27 PM

Transport Topics, 11/10:
 

PHMSA Denies Crude-by-Rail Rule Hazmat Petitions

 

 

The nation's hazardous material transportation regulator denied several administrative petitions from railroads, fuel and chemical manufacturers, tribes and others seeking changes in its crude-by-rail rule.

 

These groups, including the American Chemistry Council, urged the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to alter parts of the rule (RIN 2137-AE91), ranging from thermal protection to braking requirements.

 

In its response, the federal regulator said that it “reasonably determined how to apply new regulations.”

 

“While we understand that shippers, carriers, and tank car manufacturers for Class 3 flammable liquids will face new challenges in the wake of these regulations, we maintain that they are capable of complying with the final rule,” PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez said in the signed document.

Continue here.



#27 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 11 November 2015 - 06:29 PM

Railway Age, 11/10:

 

AAR considers court action to alter CBR rulemaking

 

Reaffirmation by the U.S. rail and hazardous materials regulators of new rules for the movement of flammable liquids means operational migraines for railroaders, without actually addressing the underlying cause of crude oil exploding in transit.

 

The regulation package was published as a “final rule” last May jointly by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

 

The Association of American Railroads (AAR), which wanted even tougher standards for tank cars, said Nov. 10 , 2015 it is considering escalating its failed administrative appeal to the courts.

 

 

Continue here.



#28 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:52 AM

Progressive Railroading, April, 2016:
 

ECP mandate: under study and on hold

 

It’ll be awhile yet before the rail industry knows when, or if, electronically controlled pneumatic brake systems (ECP) will need to be installed on U.S. tank cars.

 

A call to mandate ECP installations came in May 2015, when the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) unveiled a rule governing the transportation of flammable liquids by rail, primarily crude and ethanol. Developed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration in coordination with Canada, the rule focused on safety improvements designed to prevent crude-by-rail accidents, mitigate consequences if an accident occurs and support emergency-response efforts.

 

SNIP

 

The ECP requirement is still on the books, but per FAST, the USDOT now must reconsider the mandate. The Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Sciences must conduct an independent “evidence-based approach” to evaluate ECP brake systems, pilot program data, and the USDOT’s research and analysis on the brakes’ costs and benefits. USDOT has until Dec. 4, 2017, to publish a “determination” that the ECP mandate either is justified or should be repealed.

 

Continue here.



#29 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 13 October 2016 - 03:43 PM

Progressive Railroading, April, 2016:
 

ECP mandate: under study and on hold

 

SNIP

 

The ECP requirement is still on the books, but per FAST, the USDOT now must reconsider the mandate. The Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Sciences must conduct an independent “evidence-based approach” to evaluate ECP brake systems, pilot program data, and the USDOT’s research and analysis on the brakes’ costs and benefits. USDOT has until Dec. 4, 2017, to publish a “determination” that the ECP mandate either is justified or should be repealed.

 

Continue here.

 

U.S. GAO:
 

Train Braking:

DOT's Rulemaking on Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes Could Benefit from Additional Data and Transparency

 
GAO-17-122: Published: Oct 12, 2016. Publicly Released: Oct 12, 2016.
 
What GAO Found

DOT based estimates of the business benefits of electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes on limited data, in part, because railroads that have used ECP brakes to date have shared limited data on their use. ECP brakes provide an electronic brake signal instantaneously throughout the train, allowing train cars to brake faster than with conventional air brakes. In supporting the May 2015 rule requiring the use of ECP brakes on certain trains hauling flammable liquid, the Department of Transportation (DOT) estimated the potential business benefits of ECP brakes, including reduced fuel consumption, reduced wear on wheels, and improved operational efficiencies. Industry stakeholders claim that DOT overestimated benefits. Seven of 10 experts GAO interviewed who commented on such benefit estimates said that DOT's estimates of business benefits, such as reduced fuel consumption, were based on experiences that may not be representative.  .  .  .

 

SNIP

 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOT acknowledge uncertainty in its revised economic analysis of ECP brakes, collect data from railroads on their use of ECP brakes, and publish additional information about ECP brake modeling. DOT disagreed with the recommendations, stating that GAO did not provide sufficient evidence. GAO believes it had sufficient evidence and stands by the recommendations, as discussed in this report.

 

 

More here.

Additional Materials:

#30 CNJRoss

CNJRoss

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPip
  • 43390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairfax, VA

Posted 05 December 2017 - 09:37 PM

Progressive Railroading, 12/5/17:

 
USDOT opts to repeal ECP brake rulemaking

 

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) repealed a May 2015 rulemaking that would have required the installation of electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes on certain tank cars, according to U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). The USDOT had until Dec. 4 to publish a determination that the ECP rule either was justified or should be repealed.

SNIP

A provision in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act directed the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) to analyze the rule and reevaluate ECP braking results. In a report issued in October, NAS officials said the approach used to mandate ECP brakes over other technologies was incomplete and unconvincing, said Thune — who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation — in a press release. NAS officials also could not conclude that ECP brakes' emergency performance was superior to other braking systems, he said.

 

Continue here.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users