HR 22 Amended and Passed in the House

Today the House completed three days of consideration of HR 22. Instead of the originally intended 29 amendments, the House considered 117; passing 73, rejecting 35 and had 9 withdrawn from consideration after debate. The bill passed by a largely bipartisan vote of 363 to 64 (58 Republicans voted nay). After passage of the bill the House insisted on their amendments to HR 22 and requested a conference with the Senate.

Of the nine amendments that I originally identified as being of potential interest to readers of this blog, three were not considered (Lipinski, Esty, and Jackson-Lee), one (Lynch) was rejected on a near party-line recorded vote and the remaining five were adopted by voice vote.

Neither the House nor Senate will be in Washington next week (Veterans Day Recess), so it would normally be almost two weeks before the first conference committee meeting. The current surface transportation authorization runs out on November 20^th so we may see conference committee meetings (out of the public eye) next week to work out the differences.

STA Amendments to the House Floor

This afternoon the House Rules Committee met to determine which of the amendments proposed for HR 22 would be allowed to be offered on the floor of the House tomorrow. As I added to yesterday’s post there were a total of 29 amendments added to the rule for the consideration of HR 22.

Of the seven amendments that I described in yesterday’s post as being of specific interest to readers of this blog, only seven were include on the list of 29 amendments that may be offered on the floor. They are:

21. Jackson Lee (TX): Provides a report on the Internet of Things (IoT) and its potential to improve transportation services to the elderly and persons with disabilities as well as assist local, state and federal transportation planners in achieving better inefficiencies and cost effectiveness, while protecting privacy and security of persons who use IoT technology.

28. Barletta (PA), Lipinski (IL): Requires all legacy tank cars retrofit for continued Class 3 Flammable Liquid service to include enhanced top fittings protections for pressure relief valves.

29. Lynch (MA): Provides for an additional, independent safety review of an approved pipeline route or segment of route, should a state or tribal government deem it necessary.

I expect that all three of these amendments will pass.

Committee Hearings – Week of 11-1-15

With both the House and Senate in Washington this week there will only be three committee hearings that may be of specific interest to readers of this blog. The House Rules Committee will hold two hearings to look at consideration of a surface transportation authorization bill and the House Homeland Security Committee will mark-up a number of bills.

STA Rules Committee Hearing

The House Rules Committee will be holding two hearings this week trying to reconcile two different versions of the Surface Transportation Authorization Act; HR 22 (Senate version) and HR 3763. The first hearing will be this evening and will establish the rule for the general consideration of the bill (will probably us HR 22 as the vehicle). The second hearing will be on Tuesday and will determine how the proposed amendments (86 currently listed on the Committee web site) will be addressed on the floor of the House.

Homeland Security Markup

On Wednesday the House Homeland Security Committee will hold a markup hearing for seven separate bills. Of those bills only three may be of specific interest to readers of this blog and none of them have yet been introduced (Committee Drafts are available):

• State and Local Cyber Protection Act of 2015;

• Department of Homeland Security CBRNE Defense Act of 2015; and

• Strengthening Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Coordination in Our Ports Act of 2015;

I’ll have more information on these bills in a later post.

On the Floor

The House will be taking up a number of homeland security related bills under the suspension of rules this week. Of those only one may be of specific interest to readers of this blog; HR 3503, the Department of Homeland Security Support to Fusion Centers Act of 2015. Unfortunately, there will be limited debate and no chance to correct the deficiencies I noted.

The House will also probably consider the STA authorization bill that I mentioned above. It is also scheduled to address the President’s veto of HR 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016.

BTW: This week really marks the start of the House’s operation under Speaker Ryan. That may get interesting, but probably not this week.

Markup of HR 3763 Scheduled

Earlier today the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee announced that it would be holding a markup hearing for HR 3763, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015. There are no amendments currently listed for consideration, but that will certainly change before the hearing starts tomorrow morning.

As I noted earlier today there are five sections in this lengthy bill that may be of specific interest to readers of this blog:

• Sec. 7005. Wetlines.

• Sec. 7010. Thermal blankets.

• Sec. 7011. Comprehensive oil spill response plans.

• Sec. 7012. Information on high-hazard flammable trains.

• Sec. 7014. Ensuring safe implementation of positive train control systems.

Wetlines

Section 7005 would require the Secretary to withdraw the proposed rule described in the notice of proposed rulemaking issued on January 27, 2011, entitled “Safety Requirements for External Product Piping on Cargo Tanks Transporting Flammable Liquids” (76 FR 4847-4854) {§7005(a)}. Paragraph (b) would allow the Secretary to initiate a new rulemaking on the subject.

Thermal Blankets

Section 7010 would require the Secretary to issue regulations requiring that each DOT 117 tank car and each unjacketed tank car modified to the DOT 117R specification be equipped with “an insulating blanket with at least 1⁄2-inch-thick material that has been approved by the Secretary” {§7010(a)} in accordance with 49 CFR 179.18(c).

Comprehensive Oil Spill Plans

Section 7011 would add §5111 to 49 USC Chapter 51 requiring the Secretary to draft new regulations “to require any railroad carrier transporting a Class 3 flammable liquid to maintain a comprehensive oil spill response plan” {new §5111(a)}. The plan would be made public, but the Secretary would allow certain information in the plan to be withheld from the public, including “security-sensitive information, including information described in section 1520.5(a) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations” {new §5111(d)(2)(B)}. Nothing in this section address fire fighting planning.

Information on High-Hazard Flammable Trains

Section 7012 would require the Secretary to issue regulations implementing the SERC notification requirements set out in “Emergency Order Docket No. DOT–OST–2014–0067”. The bill would specifically require those regulations to address protection “from public release of proprietary information and security-sensitive information [49 CFR 1520.5]” {§7012(a)}

Positive Train Control System Implementation

Section 7014 is very similar to HR 3651 that I described earlier. There are two major differences. The provisions for allowing the Secretary to further extend the deadline past 2018 on a by railroad basis have been removed. Secondly there is a great deal more specificity in this version as to what information the railroads will be required to provide in their revised plan for implementing PTC by December 31^st, 2018.

Commentary

I remain very disappointed in the failure of Congress to realize that there is a difference in responding to an oil spill (where the task is isolate and clean up the spilled oil) and dealing with the frequently fiery and explosive aftermaths that we have been seeing with many (certainly not all) of the crude oil train derailments.

There has not been any significant public outcry about the oil spilled in these accidents. With the exception of some very brief comments about oil getting into rivers, the news about these derailments has all been about the fires and explosions or the threat of fire and explosions. The public and news media have been focused on the more visible (and potentially more deadly) aspects of these accidents which the Congress has studiously ignored.

This bill should certainly at least have some sort of study requirement for planning on preventing and suppressing fires in these crude oil spills.