[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 59 (Monday, March 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14965-14968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7654]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
[Docket No. RSPA-97-2968 (PDA-17(R))]
Preemption Determination No. PD-15(R); Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio, Requirements for Cargo Tanks
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of administrative determination of preemption by RSPA's
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
APPLICANTS: William E. Comley, Inc. (WECCO) and TWC Transportation
Corporation (TWC).
LOCAL LAWS AFFECTED: Ohio Admin. Code Sec. 4901:2-05-02.
APPLICABLE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS: Federal hazardous material
transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., and the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-180.
MODES AFFECTED: Highway.
SUMMARY: Written requirements of the State of Ohio applicable to the
transportation of hazardous materials are consistent with the HMR.
There is insufficient evidence that the Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio (PUCO) has applied or enforced requirements governing the
transportation of hypochlorite solutions in any different manner than
provided in the HMR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frazer C. Hilder, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001 (Tel. No. 202-366-4400).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
WECCO and TWC have applied for a determination that Federal
hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts
certain requirements of the State of Ohio, enforced by PUCO, with
respect to cargo tank motor vehicles used to transport hypochlorite
solutions. According to WECCO and TWC, PUCO has brought enforcement
cases against these companies based on their use of a non-DOT
specification cargo tank motor vehicle to transport hypochlorite
solutions containing more than 5% but less than 16% available chlorine.
On October 10, 1997, RSPA published a notice in the Federal Register
inviting interested parties to submit comments on whether PUCO has
required the use of a DOT specification cargo tank motor vehicle for
transportation of hypochlorite solutions containing more than 5% but
less than 16% available chlorine, after January 1, 1991. 62 FR 53049.
In that notice, RSPA also discussed the separate assertions by
WECCO and TWC that PUCO has required cargo tank motor vehicles built
under the MC 312 specification, that are unloaded at a pressure less
than 15 psig, to be (1) designed and constructed in accordance with the
ASME Code and (2) certified in some manner other than as specified in
the HMR. That notice referred to the absence of any statement by WECCO
and TWC that their trucks actually meet DOT's MC 312 specification;
rather they indicated that they applied specification plates to their
trucks to satisfy PUCO's alleged requirement for the use of a
specification cargo tank motor vehicle to transport sodium hypochlorite
with less than 16% available chlorine. As RSPA stated there:
the misrepresentation of any packaging as qualified for the
transportation of a hazardous material is a serious violation of
both 49 U.S.C. 5104(a) and the HMR, whether or not that packaging is
actually used for the transportation of hazardous materials.
However, because there is no evidence that PUCO has enforced design,
construction, and operational requirements for MC 312 specification
cargo tanks against these companies in any manner different from
that specified in the HMR, issues related to PUCO's assessment of
penalties for misrepresenting cargo tank motor vehicles as meeting
the MC 312 specification are not part of this proceeding.
62 FR at 53050.
In response to the October 10, 1997 public notice, PUCO and the
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. submitted comments in opposition to
the application. No comments were submitted by WECCO or TWC. No party
submitted rebuttal comments, although PUCO submitted a further letter
asking for a prompt dismissal of the application.
II. Federal Preemption
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) was enacted in
1975 to give the Department of Transportation greater authority ``to
protect the Nation adequately against the risks to life and property
which are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials in
commerce.'' Pub. L. 93-633 Section 102, 88 Stat. 2156, amended by Pub.
L. 103-272 and codified as revised in 49 U.S.C. 5101. The HMTA
``replace[d] a patchwork of state and federal laws and regulations * *
* with a scheme of uniform, national regulations.'' Southern Pac.
Transp. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 909 F.2d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1980).
On July 5, 1994, the HMTA was among the many Federal laws relating to
transportation that were revised, codified and enacted ``without
substantive change'' by Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745. The Federal
hazardous material transportation law is now found in 49 U.S.C. Chapter
51.
A statutory provision for Federal preemption was central to the
HMTA. In 1974, 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). More recently, a Federal
Court of Appeals found that uniformity was the ``linchpin'' in the
design of the HMTA, including the 1990 amendments which expanded the
preemption provisions. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Harmon,
[[Page 14966]]
951 F.2d 1571, 1575 (10th Cir. 1991). In 1990, Congress specifically
found that:
(3) many States and localities have enacted laws and regulations
which vary from Federal laws and regulations pertaining to the
transportation of hazardous materials, thereby creating the
potential for unreasonable hazards in other jurisdictions and
confounding shippers and carriers which attempt to comply with
multiple and conflicting registration, permitting, routing,
notification, and other regulatory requirements,
(4) because of the potential risks to life, property, and the
environment posed by unintentional releases of hazardous materials,
consistency in laws and regulations governing the transportation of
hazardous materials is necessary and desirable,
(5) in order to achieve greater uniformity and to promote the
public health, welfare, and safety at all levels, Federal standards
for regulating the transportation of hazardous materials in
intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce are necessary and
desirable.
Pub. L.101-615 Sec. 2, 104 Stat. 3244.
Following the 1990 amendments and the subsequent 1994 codification
of the Federal hazardous material transportation law, in the absence of
a waiver of preemption by DOT under 49 U.S.C. 5125(e), ``a requirement
of a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe'' is
explicitly preempted (unless it is authorized by another Federal law)
if
(1) Complying with a requirement of the State, political
subdivision or tribe and a requirement of this chapter or a
regulation issued under this chapter is not possible; or
(2) The requirement of the State, political subdivision, or
Indian tribe, as applied or enforced, is an obstacle to the
accomplishing and carrying out this chapter or a regulation
prescribed under this chapter.
49 U.S.C. 5125(a). These two paragraphs set forth the ``dual
compliance'' and ``obstacle'' criteria which RSPA had applied in
issuing inconsistency rulings before 1990. While advisory in nature,
these inconsistency rulings were ``an alternative to litigation for a
determination of the relationship of Federal and State or local
requirements'' and also a possible ``basis for an application * * *
[for] a waiver of preemption.'' Inconsistency Ruling (IR) No. 2, Rhode
Island Rules and Regulations Governing the Transportation of Liquefied
Natural Gas and Liquefied Propane Gas, etc. 44 FR 75566, 76657 (Dec.
20, 1979). The dual compliance and obstacle criteria 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).
In the 1990 amendments, Congress also confirmed that there is no
room for differences from Federal requirements in certain key matters
involving the transportation of hazardous material. As now codified, a
non-Federal requirement ``about any of the following subjects, that is
not substantively the same as a provision of this chapter or a
regulation prescribed under this chapter,'' is preempted unless it is
authorized by another Federal law or DOT grants a waiver of preemption:
(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 design, manufacturing, fabricating, marking,
maintenance, reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a packaging or
a container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for
use in transporting hazardous material.
49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1). RSPA has defined ``substantively the same'' to
mean ``conforms in every significant respect to the Federal
requirement. Editorial and other similar de minimis changes are
permitted.'' 49 CFR 107.202(d).
Under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d)(1), any directly affected person may apply
to the Secretary of Transportation for a determination whether a State,
political subdivision or Indian tribe requirement is preempted. This
administrative determination replaced RSPA's process for issuing
inconsistency rulings. The Secretary of Transportation has delegated to
RSPA the authority to make determinations of preemption, except for
those concerning highway routing which have been delegated to FHWA. 49
CFR 1.53(b). Under RSPA's regulations, preemption determinations are
issued by RSPA's Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials
Safety. 49 CFR 107.209(a).
Section 5125(d)(1) requires that notice of an application for a
preemption determination must be published in the Federal Register. Id.
Following the receipt and consideration of written comments, RSPA
publishes its determination in the Federal Register. See 49 CFR
107.209(d). A short period of time is allowed for filing of petitions
for reconsideration. 49 CFR 107.211. Any party to the proceeding may
seek judicial review in a Federal district court. 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).
RSPA's authority to issue preemption determinations does not
provide a means for review or appeal of State enforcement proceedings,
not does RSPA consider any of the State's procedural requirements
applied in an enforcement proceedings. The filing of an application for
a preemption determination does not operate to stay a State enforcement
proceeding.
Preemption determinations do not address issues of preemption
arising under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or under 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. 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 making preemption determinations under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), RSPA
is guided by the principles and policy set forth in Executive Order No.
12,612, entitled ``Federalism'' (52 FR 41685, Oct. 30, 1987). Section
4(a) of that Executive Order authorizes preemption of State laws only
when a statute contains an express preemption provision, there is other
firm and palpable evidence of Congressional intent to preempt, or the
exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of
Federal authority. Section 5125 contains express preemption provisions,
which RSPA has implemented through its regulations.
III. Discussion
The State of Ohio has adopted (as State law) the requirements in
the HMR applicable to highway transportation of hazardous materials,
including hypochlorite solutions. Ohio Admin. Code 4901:2-05-02. Since
January 1, 1991, the HMR have provided that hypochlorite solutions
containing more than 5% but less than 16% available chlorine may be
transported in ``non-DOT specification cargo tank motor vehicles
suitable for transport of liquids'' and that also meet the general
requirements for bulk packagings set forth in 49 CFR 173.24 and
173.24b. 49 CFR 173.241(b); see also 172.101 (Hazardous Materials
Table). (At present, hypochlorite solutions up to 5% available chlorine
are not subject to the HMR. During a transition period that continued
until October 1, 1996, the HMR also authorized the transportation of
hypochlorite solutions containing up to 7% available chlorine by weight
transported in nonspecification cargo tanks that were ``free from leaks
and
[[Page 14967]]
[with] all discharge openings * * * securely closed during
transportation.'' 49 CFR 173.510 (1990 ed.))
Accordingly, the written requirements of the State of Ohio are
fully consistent with the HMR. The issue presented by the application
and supporting documents submitted by WECCO and TWC is whether PUCO is
applying and enforcing requirements for the transportation of
hypochlorite solutions in a manner different than provided in the HMR
and as adopted by Ohio. The documents submitted by WECCO and TWC,
including opinions and orders of PUCO, indicate the following:
1. On June 3 and September 26, 1991, PUCO inspected WECCO's truck
No. 88 and cited WECCO both times for several violations including
transporting hypochlorite solution in an unauthorized package.
2. At the time of PUCO's 1991 inspections, truck No. 88 did not
have any specification plate. Sometime thereafter, WECCO attached
specification plates to its three cargo tanks, including truck No. 88.
3. In its December 17, 1992 Opinion and Order relating to the 1991
citations, PUCO stated that, ``in order to be an authorized package for
the transportation of sodium hypochlorite under HMR 49 C.F.R.
173.277(a)(9), respondent's tank must be classified as an MC 310, MC
311, MC 312 or DOT 412 cargo tank.'' PUCO also found that truck No. 88
``has several design flaws which prevent it from qualifying under the
HMR as a specification MC 312 cargo tank.'' PUCO assessed a fine of
$11,470 against WECCO, which included $10,750 for violations of 49 CFR
173.277, transporting hazardous material in an unauthorized package and
willfully misrepresenting cargo tank certification. Of the total fine,
$5,000 was suspended for six months.
4. On June 22, 1993, PUCO inspected truck No. 88, which had been
transferred by WECCO to TWC, and cited TWC for eight violations
including leaking closures, transporting hypochlorite solution in an
unauthorized package, and misrepresenting that the package met the MC
312 specification. On PUCO's hazardous materials report form, the
contents of the cargo tank are indicated as ``Hypochlorite Solution, PG
III.''
5. On July 3, 1993, PUCO inspected TWC's truck No. 66 and cited TWC
for seven violations including leaking closures, transporting
hypochlorite solution in an unauthorized package, and misrepresenting
that the package met the MC 312 specification. On WECCO's shipping
paper attached to PUCO's hazardous materials report form, the
hypochlorite solution is classed within ``PG III.''
6. In its October 25, 1995 Opinion and Order relating to the 1993
citations, PUCO found that ``numerous defects for both cargo tanks
[Nos. 88 and 66] * * * preclude either from meeting the specifications
of an MC 312 cargo tank.'' PUCO also stated that whether or not TWC
``need[ed] an MC 312 certified cargo tank to haul sodium hypochlorite
solution of the concentration involved in these cases * * * is not an
issue before us and respondent has not been charged with any such
violation.'' PUCO assessed a total civil forfeiture of $14,290.50
against TWC for violations that included transporting hypochlorite
solution in unauthorized packages and in tanks misrepresented as
meeting MC 312 specifications, in violation of 49 CFR 173.33(a) and 49
CFR 171.2(c), respectively.
In its comments, PUCO states that ``this case presents no
preemption controversy.'' It summarizes its enforcement proceedings
against WECCO and TWC and states that these companies failed to appeal
the PUCO orders as provided by Ohio statutes. PUCO further denies that
it has ever required any carrier of hypochlorite solutions, between 5%
and 16% available chlorine, to use a DOT specification cargo tank motor
vehicle. According to an affidavit from the Chief of the Hazardous
Materials Division of PUCO's Transportation Department, a search of
data covering all commercial vehicle inspections since January 1, 1991
failed to reveal any other instance where PUCO had cited a carrier for
transporting Packing Group III hypochlorite solutions in an
unauthorized cargo tank motor vehicle. Rather, PUCO stresses that the
cargo tanks used by WECCO and TWC ``contained a number of design flaws
that rendered them unsuitable for hazardous materials carriage.''
PUCO asserts that the principal issue in these enforcement
proceedings was whether WECCO and TWC had misrepresented their cargo
tank motor vehicles as meeting the MC 312 specification. It states
that, in the proceedings that led to the December 17, 1992 Opinion and
Order, WECCO presented no evidence as to the level of available
chlorine in the sodium hypochlorite being transported. PUCO indicates
that its October 25, 1995 Opinion and Order found that TWC's tanks were
unauthorized because ``Leakage was again discovered at several points
along the tank's pressure and discharge system, and a strong chlorine
odor was observed by the Commission's field safety inspector.'' Both
PUCO and NTTC argue that WECCO and TWC have improperly invoked RSPA's
preemption determination process, and that the applicants' sole remedy
is to appeal the PUCO enforcement orders as provided by Ohio law rather
than to seek a determination from DOT.
Under all the information available in this case, it is unclear
whether PUCO's December 17, 1992 and October 25, 1995 Opinions and
Orders actually find that WECCO and TWC violated Ohio requirements by
transporting sodium hypochlorite with less than 16% available chlorine
in a non-DOT specification vehicle. Nonetheless, there is no evidence
that PUCO applies or enforces a general requirement for the use of a
DOT-specification cargo tank motor vehicle to transport hypochlorite
solutions with less than 16% available chlorine. If PUCO misinterpreted
or misapplied the HMR's requirements (as adopted in Ohio law) in the
specific enforcement proceedings involving WECCO and TWC, those parties
could have appealed the orders in those proceedings in accordance with
Ohio law. This is not a ground for a finding of preemption, especially
where (as here) the State's written requirement is identical to the
HMR. In 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), petition for reconsideration pending, RSPA recently
reiterated that,
As a general matter, an inconsistent or erroneous interpretation
of a non-Federal regulation should be addressed in the appropriate
State or local forum, because ``isolated instances of improper
enforcement (e.g., misinterpretation of regulations) do not render
such provisions inconsistent'' with Federal hazardous material
transportation law. 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), quoted
in PD-4(R), California Requirements Applicable to Cargo Tanks
Transporting Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 58 FR 48940 (Sept.
20, 1993), decision on reconsideration, 60 FR 8800 (Feb. 15, 1995).
IV. Ruling
Written requirements of the State of Ohio applicable to the
transportation of hazardous materials are consistent with the HMR.
There is insufficient evidence that PUCO has applied or enforced
requirements governing the transportation of hypochlorite solutions in
any different manner than provided in the HMR.
[[Page 14968]]
V. Petition for Reconsideration/Judicial Review
In accordance with 49 CFR 107.211(a), ``[a]ny person aggrieved'' by
this decision may file a petition for reconsideration within 20 days of
publication of this decision in the Federal Register. Any party to this
proceeding may seek review of RSPA's decision ``in an appropriate
district court of the United States * * * not later than 60 days after
the decision becomes final.'' 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).
This decision will become RSPA's final decision 20 days after
publication in the Federal Register if no petition for reconsideration
is filed within that time. The filing of a petition for reconsideration
is not a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of this decision under
49 U.S.C. 5125(f).
If a petition for reconsideration of this decision is filed within
20 days of publication in the Federal Register, the action by RSPA's
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety on the petition
for reconsideration will be RSPA's final decision. 49 CFR 107.211(d).
Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 23, 1999.
Alan I. Roberts,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 99-7654 Filed 3-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
