Yesterday the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs concluded their actions [added link - 5-14-15 0915 CDT] in support of the information collection
request (ICR) requirements for the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration’s (PHMSA) final rule on Flammable Hazardous Materials by Rail
Transportation. This is an integral part of OIRA’s final review of that
regulation that is still not expected to be published until sometime next
month.
The interesting thing in this notification is the data
provided [.XLSX download] by PHMSA on the burden this regulation will place
on the railroad associated with the reporting requirements of the regulation.
The bottom line first year burden data is shown below.
∙ Respondents – 1,612
∙ Responses – 1,801
∙ Hours – 73,622
∙ Cost - $5,393,387
The largest portion of this cost ($4,570,936) will be borne
directly by the providers of the mined gases and liquids (including crude oil)
to be shipped via rail in the testing and classification reporting process. The
remainder of the information collection and reporting cost will be borne by the
Class II and Class III railroads in their routing analysis and reporting
activities. According to the documentation [.DOCX Download]
provided by PHMSA there will be no requirement for such analysis by the Class I
railroads.
I would like to think that this is merely an oversight on
the part of PHMSA in their ICR documentation. In explaining the routing
analysis requirement PHMSA explains (Para 2):
PHMSA is proposing to add § 174.310(b)(1) requiring
rail operators to conduct a routing and safety security analysis for HHFTs [highly
hazards flammable trains] related to crude oil transportation. Specifically, PHMSA
is proposing to require rail carriers compile annual data on specified
shipments of hazardous materials, use the data to analyze safety and security
risks along rail routes where those materials are transported, assess
alternative routing options, and make routing decisions based on those
assessments. This data will in turn be
used by State and/or regional Fusion Centers that have been established to
coordinate with state, local, and tribal officials on security issues and which
are located within the area encompassed by the rail carrier's rail system.
There is nothing there that would seem to exempt Class I
railroads from this route analysis requirement. Later in paragraph 12 (burden
calculation), however, PHMSA specifically states that:
In performing this analysis the
rail carrier must consult with state, local, and tribal officials, as
appropriate, regarding security risks to high-consequence targets,
countermeasures already in place, and the community emergency response
capability along, or in proximity to, the route(s) utilized. This analysis will be conducted by both Class
II and Class III railroads.
Either PHMSA is understating the ICR burden or it does not
intend for Class I railroads (who are responsible for the bulk of the miles of
crude oil transportation) to conduct the routing analysis that will be required
by this new regulation. I hope (and expect) that it is the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment