14024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Provision State effective 

date EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 

Lead NAAQS.

9/20/2011 3/18/2015 ................................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

Addressing the PSD permitting requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS.

7/17/2012 3/18/2015 ................................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

Addressing the PSD permitting requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J) 

only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS.

4/30/2014 3/18/2015 ................................

[Insert Federal Register citation].

Addressing the PSD permitting requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J) 

only. 

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 8. Section 52.2220(e), is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘110(a)(1) and 

(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of 

non-regulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State effective 

date EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS.

Tennessee ................................. 3/13/2014 3/18/2015 [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Addressing the PSD permitting requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 

110(a)(2)(J) only. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06112 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0847; FRL–9923–63] 

2-Propenoic acid, polymer With 

ethenyl acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2- 

ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and ethyl 2- 

propenoate; Tolerance Exemption 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of 2-Propenoic 

acid, polymer with ethenyl acetate, 

ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate; 

when used as an inert ingredient in a 

pesticide chemical formulation. BASF 

Corporation submitted a petition to EPA 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of 2- 

Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl 

acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate on 

food or feed commodities. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

March 18, 2015. Objections and requests 

for hearings must be received on or 

before May 18, 2015, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0874, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; main telephone 

number: (703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Publishing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14025 

C. Can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2014–0874 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before May 18, 2015. Addresses for mail 

and hand delivery of objections and 

hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 

178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2014–0874, by one of the following 

methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of January 28, 

2015 (80 FR 4527) (FRL–9921–55), EPA 

issued a document pursuant to FFDCA 

section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing 

the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 

IN–10770) filed by BASF Corporation, 

100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, NJ 

07932. The petition requested that 40 

CFR 180.960 be amended by 

establishing an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 

ethenyl acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2- 

ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and ethyl 2- 

propenoate; CAS Reg. No. 85075–52–1. 

That document included a summary of 

the petition prepared by the petitioner 

and solicited comments on the 

petitioner’s request. The Agency did not 

receive any comments. 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish an exemption 

from the requirement for a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’ 

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and 

use in residential settings, but does not 

include occupational exposure. Section 

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 

give special consideration to exposure 

of infants and children to the pesticide 

chemical residue in establishing an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result to infants and children from 

aggregate exposure to the pesticide 

chemical residue . . .’’ and specifies 

factors EPA is to consider in 

establishing an exemption. 

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory 

Findings 

EPA establishes exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance only in those 

cases where it can be shown that the 

risks from aggregate exposure to 

pesticide chemical residues under 

reasonably foreseeable circumstances 

will pose no appreciable risks to human 

health. In order to determine the risks 

from aggregate exposure to pesticide 

inert ingredients, the Agency considers 

the toxicity of the inert in conjunction 

with possible exposure to residues of 

the inert ingredient through food, 

drinking water, and through other 

exposures that occur as a result of 

pesticide use in residential settings. If 

EPA is able to determine that a finite 

tolerance is not necessary to ensure that 

there is a reasonable certainty that no 

harm will result from aggregate 

exposure to the inert ingredient, an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance may be established. 

Consistent with FFDCA section 

408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the 

available scientific data and other 

relevant information in support of this 

action and considered its validity, 

completeness and reliability and the 

relationship of this information to 

human risk. EPA has also considered 

available information concerning the 

variability of the sensitivities of major 

identifiable subgroups of consumers, 

including infants and children. In the 

case of certain chemical substances that 

are defined as polymers, the Agency has 

established a set of criteria to identify 

categories of polymers expected to 

present minimal or no risk. The 

definition of a polymer is given in 40 

CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion 

criteria for identifying these low-risk 

polymers are described in 40 CFR 

723.250(d). 

2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 

ethenyl acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2- 

ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and ethyl 2- 

propenoate conforms to the definition of 

a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) 

and meets the following criteria that are 

used to identify low-risk polymers. 

1. The polymer is not a cationic 

polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated 

to become a cationic polymer in a 

natural aquatic environment. 

2. The polymer does contain as an 

integral part of its composition the 

atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and 

oxygen. 

3. The polymer does not contain as an 

integral part of its composition, except 

as impurities, any element other than 

those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii). 

4. The polymer is neither designed 

nor can it be reasonably anticipated to 

substantially degrade, decompose, or 

depolymerize. 

5. The polymer is manufactured or 

imported from monomers and/or 

reactants that are already included on 

the TSCA Chemical Substance 

Inventory or manufactured under an 

applicable TSCA section 5 exemption. 

6. The polymer is not a water 

absorbing polymer with a number 

average molecular weight (MW) greater 

than or equal to 10,000 Daltons. 

Additionally, the polymer also meets 

as required the following exemption 

criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e). 

7. The polymer’s number average MW 

of >50,000 Daltons is greater than or 

equal to 10,000 Daltons. The polymer 

contains less than 2% oligomeric 

material below MW 500 and less than 

5% oligomeric material below MW 

1,000. 

Thus, 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 

ethenyl acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2- 

ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and ethyl 2- 

propenoate meets the criteria for a 

polymer to be considered low risk under 

40 CFR 723.250. Based on its 

conformance to the criteria in this unit, 

no mammalian toxicity is anticipated 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
14026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

from dietary, inhalation, or dermal 

exposure to 2-Propenoic acid, polymer 

with ethenyl acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2- 

ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and ethyl 2- 

propenoate. 

IV. Aggregate Exposures 

For the purposes of assessing 

potential exposure under this 

exemption, EPA considered that 2- 

Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl 

acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate 

could be present in all raw and 

processed agricultural commodities and 

drinking water, and that nonoccupational non-dietary exposure was 

possible. The number average MW of 2- 

Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl 

acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate is 

>50,000 Daltons. Generally, a polymer 

of this size would be poorly absorbed 

through the intact gastrointestinal tract 

or through intact human skin. Since 2- 

Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl 

acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate 

conform to the criteria that identify a 

low-risk polymer, there are no concerns 

for risks associated with any potential 

exposure scenarios that are reasonably 

foreseeable. The Agency has determined 

that a tolerance is not necessary to 

protect the public health. 

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances 

With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity 

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA 

requires that, when considering whether 

to establish, modify, or revoke a 

tolerance, the Agency consider 

‘‘available information’’ concerning the 

cumulative effects of a particular 

pesticide’s residues and ‘‘other 

substances that have a common 

mechanism of toxicity.’’ 

EPA has not found 2-Propenoic acid, 

polymer with ethenyl acetate, 

ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate to 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

with any other substances, and 2- 

Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl 

acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate does 

not appear to produce a toxic metabolite 

produced by other substances. For the 

purposes of this tolerance action, 

therefore, EPA has assumed that 2- 

Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl 

acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate does 

not have a common mechanism of 

toxicity with other substances. For 

information regarding EPA’s efforts to 

determine which chemicals have a 

common mechanism of toxicity and to 

evaluate the cumulative effects of such 

chemicals, see EPA’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative. 

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the 

Protection of Infants and Children 

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA 

provides that EPA shall apply an 

additional tenfold margin of safety for 

infants and children in the case of 

threshold effects to account for prenatal 

and postnatal toxicity and the 

completeness of the data base unless 

EPA concludes that a different margin of 

safety will be safe for infants and 

children. Due to the expected low 

toxicity of 2-Propenoic acid, polymer 

with ethenyl acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2- 

ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and ethyl 2- 

propenoate, EPA has not used a safety 

factor analysis to assess the risk. For the 

same reasons the additional tenfold 

safety factor is unnecessary. 

VII. Determination of Safety 

Based on the conformance to the 

criteria used to identify a low-risk 

polymer, EPA concludes that there is a 

reasonable certainty of no harm to the 

U.S. population, including infants and 

children, from aggregate exposure to 

residues of 2-Propenoic acid, polymer 

with ethenyl acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2- 

ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and ethyl 2- 

propenoate. 

VIII. Other Considerations 

A. Existing Exemptions From a 

Tolerance 

There are no existing exemptions 

from a tolerance for 2-Propenoic acid, 

polymer with ethenyl acetate, 

ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate 

polymers. 

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology 

An analytical method is not required 

for enforcement purposes since the 

Agency is establishing an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance 

without any numerical limitation. 

IX. Conclusion 

Accordingly, EPA finds that 

exempting residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 

polymer with ethenyl acetate, 

ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate from 

the requirement of a tolerance will be 

safe. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action establishes a tolerance 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this action 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This action does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.), do not apply. 

This action directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers, and food 

retailers, not States or tribes, nor does 

this action alter the relationships or 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established by Congress 

in the preemption provisions of FFDCA 

section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on States 

or tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

Tribes. Thus, the Agency has 

determined that Executive Order 13132, 

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 

13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 

9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In 

addition, this action does not impose 

any enforceable duty or contain any 

unfunded mandate as described under 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14027 

1 DOT Specification 111 tank cars are general 

purpose, nonpressure railroad tank cars commonly 

used to transport a variety of regulated hazardous 

materials, as well as nonregulated commodities. In 

2011, through issuance of Casualty Prevention 

Circular 1232, the Association of American 

Railroads (AAR) adopted an industry standard 

intended to improve the crashworthiness of DOT 

Specification 111 tank cars used in crude oil and 

ethanol service. These cars, known as CPC 1232 

cars, include a thicker shell, head protection, top 

fittings protection, and relief valves with a greater 

flow capacity as compared to baseline DOT 

Specification 111 cars. The leaking tank cars 

identified in this Directive include both a baseline 

DOT 111 Specification car and CPC–1232 cars. 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 12, 2015. 

Susan Lewis, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.960, the table is amended 

by alphabetically adding an entry for ‘‘2- 

Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl 

acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2- 

propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate, 

minimum number average molecular 

weight (50,149 Daltons)’’ after the entry 

for ‘‘2-propenoic acid polymer, with 1,3- 

butadiene and ethenylbenzene, 

minimum number average molecular 

weight (in amu), 9400’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.960 Polymers; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 

Polymer CAS No. 

*******

2-Propenoic acid, polymer with ethenyl acetate, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and ethyl 2-propenoate, minimum 

number average molecular weight (50,149 Daltons) ....................................................................................................................... 85075–52–1 

*******

[FR Doc. 2015–06227 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Chapter II 

[Railworthiness Directive, Notice No. 1] 

Railworthiness Directive for Railroad 

Tank Cars Equipped With Certain 

McKenzie Valve & Machining LLC 

Valves 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of railworthiness 

directive. 

SUMMARY: Recent FRA investigations 

identified several railroad tank cars 

transporting hazardous materials and 

leaking small quantities of product from 

the cars’ liquid lines. FRA’s 

investigation revealed that the liquid 

lines of the leaking tank cars were 

equipped with a certain type of 3′′ ball 

valve marketed and sold by McKenzie 

Valve and Machining (McKenzie) 

(formerly McKenzie Valve & Machining 

Company), an affiliate company of 

Union Tank Car Company (UTLX). FRA 

further found certain closure plugs 

installed on the 3′′ valves cause 

mechanical damage to the valves, which 

leads to the destruction of the valves’ 

seal integrity and that the 3′′ valves, as 

well as similarly-designed 1′′ and 2′′ 

valves provided by this manufacturer 

are not approved for use on tank cars. 

FRA is issuing this Railworthiness 

Directive (Directive) to all owners of 

tank cars used to transport hazardous 

materials within the United States to 

ensure they identify and appropriately 

remove and replace these valves with 

approved valves consistent with Federal 

regulations. 

DATES: This Directive is effective March 

18, 2015. This Directive is applicable 

March 13, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

Alexy, Staff Director, Hazardous 

Materials Division, Office of Technical 

Oversight, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

telephone (202) 493–6245; Karl.Alexy@

dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recent 

FRA investigations identified several 

DOT Specification 111 railroad tank 

cars transporting hazardous materials 

and leaking small quantities of 

product.1 One instance occurred during 

the week of January 11, 2015, and 

involved a train of 100 tank cars loaded 

with crude oil being transported by 

BNSF Railway (BNSF) from Tioga, ND, 

to a refinery in Anacortes, WA. BNSF 

discovered 14 tank cars leaking crude 

oil en route and in accordance with the 

applicable regulations, notified FRA of 

the releases. Upon discovery of the 

defective condition of these cars, BNSF 

removed the cars from the train (at 

Hauser, ID; Vancouver and Auburn, 

WA, respectively). When the train 

arrived at its final destination in 

Anacortes, the consignee, Tesoro 

Refining, discovered two additional cars 

leaking product. In all, BNSF and 

Tesoro identified 16 leaking tank cars 

from the original train consist. 

On January 15, 2015, FRA inspected 

seven of the identified leaking tank cars 

that BNSF removed from the train in 

Vancouver. The FRA inspector observed 

crude oil on the sides of each of these 

cars, and upon inspection of each tank 

car’s top fittings, found product leaking 

from the liquid line ball valves and 

around each valve’s closure plug. FRA 

also found the standalone closure plugs 

in each of these valves loose. Further 

inspection revealed that the valve balls 

had visual signs of mechanical damage. 

The mechanical damage FRA observed 

indicated that the bottom face of the 

closure plug came in contact with the 

valve ball, consequentially preventing 

complete engagement of the closure 

plug. 

A second instance involved a single 

tank car loaded with mineral spirits (a 

Class 3 flammable liquid) found leaking 

on January 15, 2015, in a BNSF yard in 

Denver, CO. FRA’s preliminary 

investigation shows that the leak 

occurred through the liquid line valve 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES