[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21840-21842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0002 (PDA-36(R)]
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Permit Requirements for Transportation
of Hazardous Material
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Public notice and invitation to comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Interested parties are invited to comment on an application by
the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) for an administrative
determination whether Federal hazardous material transportation law
preempts requirements of the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for a
permit to transport hazardous materials by motor vehicle and the fee to
obtain the permit.
DATES: Comments received on or before June 2, 2014 and rebuttal
comments received on or before July 16, 2014 will be considered before
an administrative determination is issued by PHMSA's Chief Counsel.
Rebuttal comments may discuss only those issues raised by comments
received during the initial comment period and may not discuss new
issues.
ADDRESSES: ATA's application and all comments received may be reviewed
in the Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The application and all
comments are available on the U.S. Government Regulations Web site:
http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments must refer to Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0002 and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Docket Operations Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
[[Page 21841]]
A copy of each comment must also be sent to (1) Boyd Stephenson,
Director, Hazardous Materials & Licensing Policy, American Trucking
Associations, 950 Glebe Road, Suite 210, Arlington, VA 22203; (2)
Darryl E. Jones, Fire Chief, Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire, Civic Building,
200 Ross Street, Fifth Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15219; and (3) Pittsburgh
City Solicitor, Law Department, 313 City-County Building, 414 Grant
Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. A certification that a copy has been sent
to these persons must also be included with the comment. (The following
format is suggested: ``I certify that copies of this comment have been
sent to the American Trucking Associations, the Pittsburgh Bureau of
Fire, and the Pittsburgh City Solicitor at the addresses specified in
the Federal Register.'')
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing a comment submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
A subject matter index of hazardous materials preemption cases,
including a listing of all inconsistency rulings (IRs) and preemption
determinations (PDs), is available through PHMSA's home page at http://phmsa.dot.gov. From the home page, click on ``Regulations,'' then on
``Preemption of State and Local Laws'' (in the ``Hazmat Safety''
column). A paper copy of the index will be provided at no cost upon
request to Mr. Hilder or Mr. Lopez, at the address and telephone number
set forth in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frazer C. Hilder or Vincent Lopez,
Office of Chief Counsel (PHC-10), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone No. 202-366-4400;
facsimile No. 202-366-7041.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Application for a Preemption Determination
ATA has applied to PHMSA for a determination whether Federal
hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts
provisions in Chapter 801 of Title 8 of the Pittsburgh Code, Fire
Prevention, which, according to ATA, require a person ``desiring to
transport hazardous materials by motor vehicle in, around, or through
Pittsburgh [to] pay $132 dollars and fill out an application.'' \1\ In
Section 801.01 of the Fire Prevention Code, the City of Pittsburgh
(City) has adopted ``the International Fire Code/2003, listed in
Section 403.21 of Annex A, Title 34 Pennsylvania Labor and Industry
Part XIV Uniform Construction Code, except for such portions thereof as
are changed by Section 801.02 of this chapter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ATA has also applied for a determination whether Federal
hazardous material transportation law preempts permit and inspection
fee requirements of New York City. See Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0003
(PDA-37(R)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 105.6.21 of the 2003 edition of the International Fire
Code, titled ``Hazardous Materials,'' provides that: ``An operational
permit is required to store, transport on site, dispense, use or handle
hazardous materials in excess of the amounts listed in Table
105.6.21.'' (Emphasis supplied.) This provision has been modified in
Section 801.02 of the City's Fire Prevention Code to list permit fees
(and whether an inspection fee applies) for numerous specified
materials and activities. Item No. 105.6.21J indicates that a permit is
required for ``Transportation of haz material'' and that the permit fee
is $132.\2\ The copy of the ``Application for Permit for Transportation
of Hazardous Materials'' form provided by ATA contains space for the
applicant to insert the ``amounts for each kind or category'' of
materials for ``keeping, storage, occupancy, use, sale, handling, or
manufacturing'' at the applicant's ``location'' and also indicates that
the ``permit fee'' is $132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Section 801.02 of the Pittsburgh Fire Prevention Code.
ATA's application does not indicate that the City requires an
inspection of motor vehicles used to transport hazardous materials,
and Section 105.6.21J, as modified by the City, provides that there
is no inspection fee for issuance of the permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to ATA, ``Pittsburgh charges a flat fee for all permits
under subsection 105.6.21 of its [fire prevention] code, including
105.6.21J. Carriers file a single application, and, if approved, must
be ready to present copies of the permit to enforcement officials at
their request.'' In summary, ATA contends that the City's permit and
permit fee requirements are preempted because:
Only motor carriers are required to obtain Pittsburgh's permit,
which imposes an unfair burden on a single mode of transportation.
The permit requirements also present possible substantive
dissimilarity issues violating 49 CFR 107.201(d). Finally,
Pittsburgh cannot show that it is using funds generated from its
permit fees for hazardous materials enforcement and emergency
response training.
II. Federal Preemption
Section 5125 of Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.), contains
express preemption provisions relevant to this proceeding. Subsection
(a) provides that a requirement of a State, political subdivision of a
State, or Indian tribe is preempted--unless the non-Federal requirement
is authorized by another Federal law or DOT grants a waiver of
preemption under Sec. 5125(e)--if:
(1) complying with a requirement of the State, political
subdivision, or tribe and a requirement of this chapter, a
regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous materials
transportation security regulation or directive issued by the
Secretary of Homeland Security is not possible; or
(2) the requirement of the State, political subdivision, or
tribe, as applied or enforced, is an obstacle to accomplishing and
carrying out this chapter, a regulation prescribed under this
chapter, or a hazardous materials transportation security regulation
or directive issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security.\3\
\3\ These two paragraphs set forth the ``dual compliance'' and
``obstacle'' criteria that are based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions
on preemption. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941); Florida Lime
& Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963); Ray v.
Atlantic Richfield, Inc., 435 U.S. 151 (1978). PHMSA's predecessor
agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration, applied
these criteria in issuing inconsistency rulings under the original
preemption provisions in Section 112(a) of the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act (HMTA), Public Law 93-633, 88 Stat. 2161 (Jan. 3,
1975).
Subsection (b)(1) of 49 U.S.C. 5125 provides that a non-Federal
requirement concerning any of the following subjects is preempted--
unless authorized by another Federal law or DOT grants a waiver of
preemption--when the non-Federal requirement is not ``substantively the
same as'' a provision of Federal hazardous material transportation law,
a regulation prescribed under that law, or a hazardous materials
security regulation or directive issued by the Department of Homeland
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security:
(A) the designation, description, and classification of
hazardous material.
(B) the packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous material.
(C) the preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
related to hazardous material and requirements related to the
number, contents, and placement of those documents.
(D) the written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material.
(E) the designing, manufacturing, fabricating, inspecting,
marking, maintaining, reconditioning, repairing, or testing a
package, container, or packaging component that is represented,
marked, certified, or sold
[[Page 21842]]
as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To be ``substantively the same,'' the non-Federal
requirement must conform ``in every significant respect to the
Federal requirement. Editorial and other similar de minimis changes
are permitted.'' 49 CFR 107.202(d).
In addition, 49 U.S.C. 5125(f)(1) provides that a State, political
subdivision, or Indian tribe ``may impose a fee related to transporting
hazardous material only if the fee is fair and used for a purpose
related to transporting hazardous material, including enforcement and
planning, developing, and maintaining a capability for emergency
response.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See also 49 U.S.C. 5125(c) containing standards which apply
to preemption of non-Federal requirements on highway routes over
which hazardous materials may or may not be transported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preemption provisions in 49 U.S.C. 5125 reflect Congress's
long-standing view that a single body of uniform Federal regulations
promotes safety (including security) in the transportation of hazardous
materials. Some forty years ago, when considering the HMTA, the Senate
Commerce Committee ``endorse[d] the principle of preemption in order to
preclude a multiplicity of State and local regulations and the
potential for varying as well as conflicting regulations in the area of
hazardous materials transportation.'' S. Rep. No. 1102, 93rd Cong. 2nd
Sess. 37 (1974). A United States Court of Appeals has found uniformity
was the ``linchpin'' in the design of the Federal laws governing the
transportation of hazardous materials. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm'n v.
Harmon, 951 F.2d 1571, 1575 (10th Cir. 1991).
III. Preemption Determinations
Under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d)(1), any person (including a State,
political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe) directly affected by
a requirement of a State, political subdivision or tribe may apply to
the Secretary of Transportation for a determination whether the
requirement is preempted. The Secretary of Transportation has delegated
authority to PHMSA to make determinations of preemption, except for
those concerning highway routing (which have been delegated to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration). 49 CFR 1.97(b).
Section 5125(d)(1) requires notice of an application for a
preemption determination to be published in the Federal Register.
Following the receipt and consideration of written comments, PHMSA
publishes its determination in the Federal Register. See 49 CFR
107.209(c). A short period of time is allowed for filing of petitions
for reconsideration. 49 CFR 107.211. A petition for judicial review of
a final preemption determination must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or in the Court of
Appeals for the United States for the circuit in which the petitioner
resides or has its principal place of business, within 60 days after
the determination becomes final. 49 U.S.C. 5127(a).
Preemption determinations do not address issues of preemption
arising under the Commerce Clause, the Fifth Amendment or other
provisions of the Constitution, or statutes other than the Federal
hazardous material transportation law unless it is necessary to do so
in order to determine whether a requirement is authorized by another
Federal law, or whether a fee is ``fair'' within the meaning of 49
U.S.C. 5125(f)(1). A State, local or Indian tribe requirement is not
authorized by another Federal law merely because it is not preempted by
another Federal statute. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Harmon, above,
951 F.2d at 1581 n.10. In addition, PHMSA does not generally consider
issues regarding the proper application or interpretation of a non-
Federal regulation, but rather how such requirements are actually
``applied or enforced.'' Rather, ``isolated instances of improper
enforcement (e.g., misinterpretation of regulations) do not render such
provisions inconsistent'' with Federal hazardous material
transportation law, but are more appropriately addressed in the
appropriate State or local forum. PD-14(R), Houston, Texas, Fire Code
Requirements on the Storage, Transportation, and Handling of Hazardous
Materials, 63 FR 67506, 67510 n.4 (Dec. 7, 1998), decision on petition
for reconsideration, 64 FR 33949 (June 24, 1999), quoting from IR-31,
Louisiana Statutes and Regulations on Hazardous Materials
Transportation, 55 FR 25572, 25584 (June 21, 1990), appeal dismissed as
moot, 57 FR 41165 (Sept. 9, 1992), and PD-4 (R), California
Requirements Applicable to Cargo Tanks Transporting Flammable and
Combustible Liquids, 58 FR 48940 (Sept. 20, 1993), decision on petition
for reconsideration, 60 FR 8800 (Feb. 15, 1995).
In making preemption determinations under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), PHMSA
is guided by the principles and policies set forth in Executive Order
No. 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), and
the President's May 20, 2009 memorandum on ``Preemption'' (74 FR 24693
(May 22, 2009)). Section 4(a) of that Executive Order authorizes
preemption of State laws only when a statute contains an express
preemption provision, there is other clear evidence Congress intended
to preempt State law, or the exercise of State authority directly
conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority. The President's May
20, 2009 memorandum sets forth the policy ``that preemption of State
law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only
with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States
and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.'' Section 5125
contains express preemption provisions, which PHMSA has implemented
through its regulations.
IV. Public Comments
All comments should be directed to whether 49 U.S.C. 5125 preempts
the City's requirements for a permit for transporting hazardous
materials by motor vehicle and the fee for obtaining the permit.
Comments should specifically address the preemption criteria discussed
in Part II above and set forth in detail the manner in which these
requirements are applied and enforced with respect to the
transportation of hazardous materials by motor vehicle in, around, or
through the City, including:
Any requirements or conditions for issuance of a permit,
other than completion of the application form and payment of the permit
fee;
the amount of time taken by the City to issue a permit and
the period for which a permit is issued (e.g., one year, indefinitely);
whether there is any difference in the amount of the fee
based on the number of shipments of hazardous materials transported in,
around, or through the City; and
for each of the past three calendar (or fiscal) years, the
total amount of permit fees collected by the City and all purposes for
which these fees have been used (including an identification of the
specific accounts into which the permit fees were deposited).
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2014.
Vanessa L. Allen Sutherland,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-08690 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P