[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85631-85633]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28731]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0571; FRL-10017-09-OLEM]

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (``e-Manifest'')
Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will convene the
Hazardous Waste Electronic System (``e-

Manifest'') Advisory Board for a three (3) day virtual public meeting.
The purpose of the meeting is for EPA to seek the Board's consultation
and recommendations regarding the e-Manifest system (Meeting Theme:
``Looking Ahead: Setting e-Manifest Program Priorities and User Fees
for FY2022 and FY2023'').

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 2-4, 2021, from approximately
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: This public meeting will be conducted virtually.
Registration is required to attend and/or provide oral public comment
during this meeting. Please refer to the e-Manifest Advisory Board
website at https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest-advisory-board for information on how to
register either as a public audience attendee or as an oral public
commenter.
    Comments. To make oral comments during the public meeting and be
included on the meeting agenda, please register by noon on February 23,
2021. Registration instructions will be posted on the e-Manifest
Advisory Board website at https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest-advisory-board. Any written
comments submitted for the e-Manifest Advisory Board meeting on or
before February 23, 2021, should be submitted in the public docket
under Docket number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0571 at http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments submitted to the public docket on
or before February 23, 2021, will be provided to the e-Manifest
Advisory Board for their consideration before the meeting. Anyone who
wishes to submit comments after February 23, 2021, must send their
written public comments or their oral comment requests directly to the
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. For additional instructions, see section I.B. under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting to give the EPA as
much time as possible to process your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Jenkins, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone: 703-308-
7049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be open to the public. The
full agenda and meeting materials will be available in the docket for
the meeting and at the e-Manifest Advisory Board website at https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest-advisory-board. This public meeting will be conducted
virtually, and registration is required to attend and/or participate.
Registration instructions will be posted on the e-Manifest Advisory
Board website at https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest-advisory-board. In the event EPA
needs to make subsequent changes to this meeting, EPA will post future
notices to its e-Manifest Board meeting website (https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest-advisory-board.). EPA strongly encourages the public to refer to the e-
Manifest website for the latest meeting information, as sudden changes
may be necessary.

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of particular interest to persons who are or may be subject to the
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment (e-Manifest) Act.

B. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by providing public comments
via the instructions in this document. To ensure proper receipt of your
public comments by the EPA, it is imperative that you submit your
comments, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0571, at
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (e.g., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    1. Written comments. EPA encourages the electronic submission of
written comments via http://www.regulations.gov, into docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0571 on or before February 23, 2021, to provide the e-
Manifest Advisory Board the time necessary to consider and review the
written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of the
meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after February 23,
2021, should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
    2. Oral comments. EPA encourages each individual or group wishing
to make brief oral comments to the e-Manifest Advisory Board to please
register as an oral commenter for the meeting at the e-Manifest
Advisory Board website, https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest-advisory-board, by noon on
February 23, 2021, in order to be included on the meeting agenda.
Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the date of
the meeting. Registration is required to attend and/or participate as
an oral public commenter in this public meeting. Please refer to the e-
Manifest Advisory Board website at https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest-advisory-board
for information on how to register either as an oral public commenter
or public audience attendee. Anyone submitting an oral public comments
request after February 23, 2021, should also contact the DFO listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. To the extent that time permits,
the Chair of the e-Manifest Advisory Board may permit the presentation
of oral comments at the meeting by interested persons who have not
previously requested time. The request should identify the name of the
individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) that the
individual represents, and any requirements for audiovisual
presentation support. Oral comments before the e-Manifest Advisory
Board are limited to approximately five (5) minutes unless prior
arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should provide a
copy of his or her comments and presentation to the DFO so that they
can be distributed to the e-Manifest Advisory Board at the meeting.

C. Purpose of the e-Manifest Advisory Board

    The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Advisory Board is
established in accordance with the provisions of the Hazardous Waste
Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, 42 U.S.C. 6939g, and the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The e-Manifest Advisory
Board is in the public interest and supports the EPA in performing its
duties and responsibilities. The Board shall meet annually to discuss,
evaluate the effectiveness of, and provide recommendations about the
system to the EPA Administrator.
    The sole duty of the Advisory Board is to provide advice and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator. As required by the e-Manifest
Act, the e-Manifest Advisory Board is composed of nine (9) members. One
(1) member is the EPA Administrator (or a designee), who serves as
Chairperson of the Advisory Board. The rest of the committee is
composed of:
     At least two (2) members who have expertise in information
technology;
     At least three (3) members who have experience in using or
represent users of the manifest system to track the transportation of
hazardous waste under the e-Manifest Act;
     At least three (3) members who are state representatives
responsible for processing manifests.
    All members of the e-Manifest Advisory Board, except for the EPA
Administrator, are appointed as Special Government Employees or
Representatives.

D. Public Meeting

    EPA launched the e-Manifest system on June 30, 2018. e-Manifest
provides those persons required to use a Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) manifest under either federal or state law the
option of using electronic manifests to track shipments of hazardous
waste and to meet certain RCRA requirements. By enabling the transition
from a paper-intensive process to an electronic system, EPA estimates
e-Manifest will ultimately save state and industry users more than $50
million annually, once electronic manifests are widely adopted.
    Under the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (e-
Manifest Act) of 2012, EPA must collect user fees to offset the costs
of developing and operating the e-Manifest system. In January 2018, EPA
published regulations establishing the methodology which the Agency
will use to set and collect user fees for the e-Manifest system. Under
the final rule, EPA charges a fee to receiving facilities for each
manifest submitted to EPA's e-Manifest system. User fees are tailored
to the method used to submit manifests to EPA, e.g., different fees
apply for electronic manifests than for paper manifests uploaded to the
system. In addition, EPA is required to publish revised user fee
schedules at two-year intervals.
    The purpose of this March 2-4, 2021, e-Manifest Advisory Board
meeting is for the Board to advise EPA on its proposed program
priorities and user fees for the FY2022/FY2023 cycle.

E. e-Manifest Advisory Board Documents and Meeting Minutes

    The meeting background paper along with related supporting
materials including the charge/questions to the Advisory Board, the
Advisory Board membership roster (i.e., members attending this
meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by approximately
mid-January 2021. In addition, EPA may provide additional background
documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic
copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that
might be available at http://www.regulations.gov via the docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0571 and at the e-Manifest Advisory Board
website at: https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/hazardous-waste-electronic-manifest-system-e-manifest-advisory-board.
    The e-Manifest Advisory Board will prepare meeting minutes
summarizing its recommendations to EPA approximately ninety (90) days
after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the e-Manifest
Advisory Board website, or they may be obtained from the public docket
at http://www.regulations.gov via the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2020-0571.

Carolyn Hoskinson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Land
and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2020-28731 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49282-49283]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20256]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1553-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 091219 Negotiated Rates--Mieco
Inc. R-7080-11 to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20190912-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1554-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Formula Based Negotiated
Rate--10/1/2019 Update to be effective 10/1/2019.

    Filed Date: 9/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20190912-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1555-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 091219 Negotiated Rates--Spark
Energy Gas, LLC R-3045-26 to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20190912-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-351-003.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing 2019 Settlement Compliance V1 to be
effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 9/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20190912-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/24/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1556-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Cash-Out Report Period Ending
July 31, 2019 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190913-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1557-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Annual Report of Flow Through filed
9-13-19 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190913-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 13, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-20256 Filed 9-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I've been reading through these deeming regulations and I respectfully request at least 180 days to respond. It's impossible to read this much information, research, and respond within the timeframe you request. It took years to write these regulations, therefore we request sufficient time to give an educated response.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60777-60779]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21205]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0097; PDA-38(R)]

Hazardous Materials: California Meal and Rest Break Requirements

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 National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC) for an administrative
determination as to whether Federal hazardous material transportation
law preempts regulations of the State of California that prohibit an
employer from requiring an employee to work during any mandatory meal
or rest period.

DATES: Comments received on or before October 17, 2016 and rebuttal
comments received on or before December 1, 2016 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: The NTTC'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.gov Web site:
http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments must refer to Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0097 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.
    A copy of each comment must also be sent to (1) Prasad Sharma,
Esq., Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, 1850 M Street, NW.,
Suite 280, Washington, DC 20036, and (2) Kamala D. Harris, Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General, 1300 ``I'' Street, Sacramento,
CA 95814-2919. 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
Mr. Sharma and Ms. Harris 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 and preemption
determinations, is available through PHMSA's home page at http://phmsa.dot.gov. From the home page, click on ``Hazardous Materials
Safety,'' then on ``Standards & Rulemaking,'' then on ``Preemption
Determinations'' located on the right side of the page. A paper copy of
the index will be provided at no cost upon request to Mr. Lopez, at the
address and telephone number set forth in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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.<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Application for a Preemption Determination

    NTTC has applied to PHMSA for a determination whether Federal
hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts
California meal and rest break requirements, as applied to hazardous
materials carriers. NTTC states ``California law . . . generally
prohibits an employer (e.g., a motor carrier) from requiring an
employee (e.g., a driver) to work during any meal or rest period
mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission
(`IWC').'' \1\ The IWC Order for the transportation industry, codified
in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 8, section 11090,
contains the requirements for meal and rest periods. Under the rules,
an employee is entitled to a thirty minute meal period after five hours
of work and a second thirty minute meal period after ten hours of work.
Generally, the employee must be ``off duty'' during the meal period.
For rest periods, employees are entitled to a ten minute rest period
for every four hours worked. And, if a meal or rest period is not
provided, the employer shall pay the employee one hour of pay.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See CA LABOR Sec. Sec.  226.7 (2015); 512 (2015).
    \2\ The relevant IWC provisions for meal and rest periods are
located in section 11 (Meal Periods) and section 12 (Rest Periods).
See 8 CCR Sec. Sec.  11090(11) and (12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NTTC presents three main arguments for why it believes the meal and
rest break requirements should be preempted. First, NTTC contends that
the California requirements ``were not promulgated with an eye toward
safe transportation of hazardous materials[,]'' or the Federal hours of
service regulations, and thus, they create the potential for
unnecessary delay when a driver must deviate from his or her route to
comply with the requirements. Next, NTTC argues that the meal and rest
break requirements conflict with the Hazardous Material Regulations
(HMR)'s attendance requirements because under certain circumstances,
the HMR ``implicate the driver `working' under California law.'' As
such, NTTC says that a carrier (employer) cannot comply with both the
State and Federal requirements. Last, NTTC points out that although not
mandatory in the HMR security plan requirements, many motor carriers
include a ``constant attendance of cargo'' requirement in their written
security plans. However, NTTC contends that the California meal and
rest break requirements are inflexible and may create unnecessary stops
or prohibit constant attendance. Therefore, NTTC believes the
requirements are an obstacle to the security objectives of the HMR.
    In summary, NTTC contends the California meal and rest break
regulations should be preempted because they:
     Create unnecessary delay for the transportation of
hazardous materials;
     Conflict with the HMR attendance requirements; and
     Create an obstacle to accomplishing the security
objectives of the HMR.

II. Federal Preemption

    Section 5125 of 49 U.S.C. contains express preemption provisions
relevant to this proceeding. As amended by Section 1711(b) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2319), 49
U.S.C. 5125(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.

    These two paragraphs set forth the ``dual compliance'' and
``obstacle'' criteria that PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and
Special Programs Administration, had applied in issuing inconsistency
rulings prior to 1990, under the original preemption provision in the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA). Pub. L. 93-633 Sec.
112(a), 88 Stat. 2161 (1975). 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).
    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 and
other written hazardous materials transportation incident reporting
involving State or local emergency responders in the initial
response to the incident.
    (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 as qualified for use in transporting
hazardous material in commerce.

    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).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additional standards apply to preemption of non-Federal
requirements on highway routes over which hazardous materials may or
may not be transported and fees related to transporting hazardous
material. See 49 U.S.C. 5125(c) and (f). See also 49 CFR 171.1(f)
which explains that a ``facility at which functions regulated under
the HMR are performed may be subject to applicable laws and
regulations of state and local governments and Indian tribes.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 amendments and 2005 reenactment of the preemption
provisions in 49 U.S.C. 5125 reaffirmed Congress's long-standing view
that a single body of uniform Federal regulations promotes safety
(including security) in the transportation of hazardous materials. More
than thirty years ago, when it was 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). When Congress expanded the preemption provisions in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990, it specifically found:

    (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.

    Public Law 101-615 Sec.  2, 104 Stat. 3244. (In 1994, Congress
revised, codified and enacted the HMTA ``without substantive change,''
at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51. Public Law 103-272, 108 Stat. 745 (July 5,
1994).) 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 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
regulations of the State of California that prohibit an employer from
requiring an employee to work during any mandatory meal or rest period.
Comments should specifically address the preemption criteria discussed
in Part II above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2016.
Joseph Solomey,
Senior Assistant Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-21205 Filed 9-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P