HR 8996 Introduced – Rail Hazmat Safety

Review - Last month, Rep Nehls (R,TX) introduced HR 8996, the Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2024. The bill addresses a wide variety of rail safety issues, including high-hazard trains, long-trains, defect detection, safer tank cars, close call reporting and train car telematics. It also addresses Hazmat issues, including registration fees, virtual training and emergency response grants. Many of the proposed actions include funding and grant provisions.

Definitions

Section 101 provides one definition of a key term, ‘Secretary’, used in the bill. The bill also defines seven technical terms in a proposed revision to 49 USC 20155 and adopts the use of those definitions throughout the bill. The one technical term of interest is “high-hazard train”. This term is significantly different than the existing “high-hazard flammable unit train” defined in 49 CFR 171.8, including more types of hazardous materials and smaller blocks of hazmat cars.

Overview

The bill includes the following sections of specific interest here:

Sec. 102. Safety requirements for high-hazard trains.
Sec. 103. Ensuring the safety of long trains.

Sec. 110. Safer tank cars.

Sec. 121. Grant programs for adoption of certain telematics systems.
Sec. 122. Enhancing freight railcar onboard telematics and sensor development pilot program.

Sec. 201. Hazardous materials registration fees.

Sec. 203. Hazardous materials transportation emergency response and preparedness grants.

Moving Forward

Nehls and seven of his 20 cosponsors {Rep Moulton (D,MA), Rep Strong-Sykes (D,OH), Rep Deluzio (D,PA), Rep Van Orden (R,WI), Rep D'Esposito (R,NY), Rep Holmes-Norton (D,DC), Rep Titus (D,NV)}, are member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in Committee. While there is bipartisan sponsorship I suspect that there will be significant industry (and thus Republican) opposition to many of the provisions of this bill. I am not sure that there would be sufficient bipartisan support for the bill to pass in Committee. There would certainly be sufficient opposition to ensure that the bill could not be considered by the Full House under the suspension of the rules process. This late in the session, that effectively kills this bill

Commentary

I think that the telematics provisions of this bill would probably be the most valuable if this bill were sent to the President. I do not think, however, that the bill lists enough specific devices that should be encouraged. I would add to both §121(b)(3) and §122(a)(2) the following devices:

“(E) internal railcar pressure;

“(F) pressure relief valve opening; and

“(G) whether a bottom valve is open; and”

 

For more information on the provisions of this bill, see my article at CFSN Detailed Analysis - https://patrickcoyle.substack.com/p/hr-8996-introduced - subscription required.