82 FR 8257 - Hazardous Materials: Oregon Hazardous Waste Management Regulation

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 14 (January 24, 2017)

Page Range		8257-8259
FR Document		2017-00788

Interested parties are invited to comment on an application by NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers (NORA) for an administrative determination as to whether Federal hazardous material transportation law preempts a hazardous waste regulation of the State of Oregon that imposes a strict liability standard on transporters.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8257-8259]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0163; PDA-39(R)]

Hazardous Materials: Oregon Hazardous Waste Management Regulation

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
NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers (NORA) for an
administrative determination as to whether Federal hazardous material
transportation law preempts a hazardous waste regulation of the State
of Oregon that imposes a strict liability standard on transporters.

DATES: Comments received on or before March 10, 2017 and rebuttal
comments received on or before April 24, 2017 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: NORA'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-2016-0163 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) Scott D. Parker,
Executive Director, NORA, An Association of Responsible Recyclers, 7250
Heritage Village Plaza, Suite 201, Gainesville, VA 20155, and (2) Ellen
Rosenblum, Attorney General, Justice Building, 1162 Court Street NE.,
Salem OR 97301. 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. Parker and Ms. Rosenblum 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. 202-366-4400; facsimile No. 202-366-7041.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Application for a Preemption Determination

NORA has applied to PHMSA for a determination whether Federal
hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts
the State of Oregon's Administrative Rule (OAR), OAR 340-100-0002(1)
\1\, as it is applied to transporters. Specifically, NORA states that
the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (OEQC) interprets the
Oregon regulation, which adopts the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's regulation, 40 CFR 263.20(a)(1), as imposing a
strict liability standard on transporters of hazardous waste.\2\
According to NORA, under Oregon law, ``the transporter exercising
reasonable care may not rely on the information provided by the
generator and instead must be held to a strict liability standard.''
(emphasis omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Oregon regulation adopts by reference the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's rules and regulations governing
the management of hazardous waste, including its generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, recycling and disposal, as
prescribed in 40 CFR parts 260 to 268, 270, and 273, and subparts A
and B of part 124. See OAR 340-100-0002(1).
\2\ NORA states that this issue is being litigated and is
presently under consideration by the Oregon Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NORA presents three main arguments for why it believes Oregon's
hazardous waste regulation should be preempted. First, NORA contends
that it is not possible to comply with both the Oregon rule and the
federal requirements because the ``HMTA regulation requires the
transporter to exercise reasonable care'' while Oregon's strict
liability interpretation does not. Next, NORA argues that

[[Page 8258]]

Oregon's strict liability standard creates an obstacle for interstate
transporters. Furthermore, NORA opines that the State's inconsistent
strict liability standard will encourage the misclassification of
hazardous material. Last, NORA states ``a strict liability standard is
not `substantively the same' as a reasonable care liability standard.''
NORA notes that ``under Oregon's interpretation, a transporter who
satisfies the reasonable care standard in section 171.2(f) would
nonetheless be strictly liable for the generator's waste
mischaracterization.''
In summary, NORA contends the State of Oregon's Administrative
Rule, OAR 340-100-0002(1), should be preempted because:
It is not possible to comply with both the Oregon rule and
the federal requirements;
It creates an obstacle to carrying out the federal
requirements; and
A strict liability standard is not substantively the same
as the federal requirements.

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 section 5125(e)--if (1) complying with the
non-Federal requirement and the Federal requirement is not possible; or
(2) the non-Federal requirement, as applied and enforced, is an
obstacle to accomplishing and carrying out the Federal requirement.
These two sentences 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). Public Law 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. The five subject areas include: The designation, description,
and classification of hazardous material; the packing, repacking,
handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material; the
preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to
hazardous material and requirements related to the number, contents,
and placement of those documents; 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; and 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 that 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. And 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. Therefore, 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ 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

[[Page 8259]]

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
a hazardous waste regulation of the State of Oregon that imposes a
strict liability standard on transporters. Comments should specifically
address the preemption criteria discussed in Part II above.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 10, 2017.
Vasiliki Tsaganos,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-00788 Filed 1-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

8258 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 24, 2017 / Notices

Oregon’s strict liability standard creates another Federal law or DOT grants a provisions in 1990, it specifically found
an obstacle for interstate transporters. waiver of preemption—when the non- that many States and localities have
Furthermore, NORA opines that the Federal requirement is not enacted laws and regulations which
State’s inconsistent strict liability ‘‘substantively the same as’’ a provision vary from Federal laws and regulations
standard will encourage the of Federal hazardous material pertaining to the transportation of
misclassification of hazardous material. transportation law, a regulation hazardous materials, thereby creating
Last, NORA states ‘‘a strict liability prescribed under that law, or a the potential for unreasonable hazards
standard is not ‘substantively the same’ hazardous materials security regulation in other jurisdictions and confounding
as a reasonable care liability standard.’’ or directive issued by the Department of shippers and carriers which attempt to
NORA notes that ‘‘under Oregon’s Homeland Security. The five subject comply with multiple and conflicting
interpretation, a transporter who areas include: The designation, registration, permitting, routing,
satisfies the reasonable care standard in description, and classification of notification, and other regulatory
section 171.2(f) would nonetheless be hazardous material; the packing, requirements. And because of the
strictly liable for the generator’s waste repacking, handling, labeling, marking, potential risks to life, property, and the
mischaracterization.’’ and placarding of hazardous material; environment posed by unintentional
In summary, NORA contends the the preparation, execution, and use of releases of hazardous materials,
State of Oregon’s Administrative Rule, shipping documents related to consistency in laws and regulations
OAR 340–100–0002(1), should be hazardous material and requirements governing the transportation of
preempted because: related to the number, contents, and hazardous materials is necessary and
• It is not possible to comply with placement of those documents; the desirable. Therefore, in order to achieve
both the Oregon rule and the federal written notification, recording, and greater uniformity and to promote the
requirements; reporting of the unintentional release in public health, welfare, and safety at all
• It creates an obstacle to carrying out transportation of hazardous material levels, Federal standards for regulating
the federal requirements; and and other written hazardous materials the transportation of hazardous
• A strict liability standard is not transportation incident reporting materials in intrastate, interstate, and
substantively the same as the federal involving State or local emergency foreign commerce are necessary and
requirements. responders in the initial response to the desirable.4
II. Federal Preemption incident; and the designing, A United States Court of Appeals has
manufacturing, fabricating, inspecting, found uniformity was the ‘‘linchpin’’ in
Section 5125 of 49 U.S.C. contains marking, maintaining, reconditioning, the design of the Federal laws governing
express preemption provisions relevant repairing, or testing a package, the transportation of hazardous
to this proceeding. As amended by container, or packaging component that materials. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm’n
Section 1711(b) of the Homeland is represented, marked, certified, or sold v. Harmon, 951 F.2d 1571, 1575 (10th
Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296, as qualified for use in transporting Cir. 1991).
116 Stat. 2319), 49 U.S.C. 5125(a) hazardous material in commerce.
provides that a requirement of a State, III. Preemption Determinations
To be ‘‘substantively the same,’’ the
political subdivision of a State, or non-Federal requirement must conform Under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d)(1), any
Indian tribe is preempted—unless the ‘‘in every significant respect to the person (including a State, political
non-Federal requirement is authorized Federal requirement. Editorial and other subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe)
by another Federal law or DOT grants a similar de minimis changes are directly affected by a requirement of a
waiver of preemption under section permitted.’’ 49 CFR 107.202(d).3 State, political subdivision or tribe may
5125(e)—if (1) complying with the non- The 2002 amendments and 2005 apply to the Secretary of Transportation
Federal requirement and the Federal reenactment of the preemption for a determination whether the
requirement is not possible; or (2) the provisions in 49 U.S.C. 5125 reaffirmed requirement is preempted. The
non-Federal requirement, as applied Congress’s long-standing view that a Secretary of Transportation has
and enforced, is an obstacle to single body of uniform Federal delegated authority to PHMSA to make
accomplishing and carrying out the regulations promotes safety (including determinations of preemption, except
Federal requirement. security) in the transportation of for those concerning highway routing
These two sentences set forth the hazardous materials. More than thirty (which have been delegated to the
‘‘dual compliance’’ and ‘‘obstacle’’ years ago, when it was considering the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
criteria that PHMSA’s predecessor HMTA, the Senate Commerce Administration). 49 CFR 1.97(b).
agency, the Research and Special Committee ‘‘endorse[d] the principle of Section 5125(d)(1) requires notice of
Programs Administration, had applied preemption in order to preclude a an application for a preemption
in issuing inconsistency rulings prior to multiplicity of State and local determination to be published in the
1990, under the original preemption regulations and the potential for varying Federal Register. Following the receipt
provision in the Hazardous Materials as well as conflicting regulations in the and consideration of written comments,
Transportation Act (HMTA). Public Law area of hazardous materials PHMSA publishes its determination in
93–633 § 112(a), 88 Stat. 2161 (1975). transportation.’’ S. Rep. No. 1102, 93rd the Federal Register. See 49 CFR
The dual compliance and obstacle Cong. 2nd Sess. 37 (1974). When 107.209(c). A short period of time is
criteria are based on U.S. Supreme Congress expanded the preemption allowed for filing of petitions for
Court decisions on preemption. Hines v. reconsideration. 49 CFR 107.211. A
petition for judicial review of a final
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941); Florida 3 Additional standards apply to preemption of

Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, non-Federal requirements on highway routes over preemption determination must be filed
which hazardous materials may or may not be in the United States Court of Appeals
373 U.S. 132 (1963); Ray v. Atlantic transported and fees related to transporting
Richfield, Inc., 435 U.S. 151 (1978). hazardous material. See 49 U.S.C. 5125(c) and (f).
4 Public Law 101–615 § 2, 104 Stat. 3244. (In
Subsection (b)(1) of 49 U.S.C. 5125 See also 49 CFR 171.1(f) which explains that a
‘‘facility at which functions regulated under the 1994, Congress revised, codified and enacted the
provides that a non-Federal requirement HMR are performed may be subject to applicable HMTA ‘‘without substantive change,’’ at 49 U.S.C.
concerning any of the following subjects laws and regulations of state and local governments Chapter 51. Public Law 103–272, 108 Stat. 745 (July
is preempted—unless authorized by and Indian tribes.’’ 5, 1994).)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM 24JAN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 24, 2017 / Notices 8259

for the District of Columbia or in the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY and subject to public disclosure. Do not
Court of Appeals for the United States include any information in your
for the circuit in which the petitioner Office of the Comptroller of the comment or supporting materials that
resides or has its principal place of Currency you consider confidential or
business, within 60 days after the inappropriate for public disclosure.
determination becomes final. 49 U.S.C. Agency Information Collection
Additionally, please send a copy of
5127(a). Activities: Information Collection
your comments by mail to: OCC Desk
Renewal; Submission for OMB Review;
Preemption determinations do not Officer, 1557–0313, U.S. Office of
Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage
address issues of preemption arising Management and Budget, 725 17th
Loans
under the Commerce Clause, the Fifth Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC
Amendment or other provisions of the AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 20503 or by email to: oira submission@
Constitution, or statutes other than the Currency (OCC), Treasury. omb.eop.gov.
Federal hazardous material ACTION: Notice and request for comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
transportation law unless it is necessary Shaquita Merritt, OCC Clearance
to do so in order to determine whether SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork Officer, (202) 649–5490 or, for persons
a requirement is authorized by another who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY,
Federal law, or whether a fee is ‘‘fair’’ and respondent burden, invites the
general public and other Federal (202) 649–5597, Legislative and
within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Regulatory Activities Division, Office of
5125(f)(1). A State, local or Indian tribe agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on a continuing information the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th
requirement is not authorized by Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop
another Federal law merely because it is collection as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219.
not preempted by another Federal
statute. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm’n v. In accordance with the requirements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
Harmon, above, 951 F.2d at 1581 n.10. of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal
or sponsor, and the respondent is not agencies must obtain approval from the
In making preemption determinations
required to respond to, an information OMB for each collection of information
under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), PHMSA is
collection unless it displays a currently that they conduct or sponsor.
guided by the principles and policies set
valid Office of Management and Budget ‘‘Collection of information’’ is defined
forth in Executive Order No. 13132,
(OMB) control number. in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255
The OCC is soliciting comment 1320.3(c) to include agency requests or
(Aug. 10, 1999)), and the President’s
concerning the renewal of its requirements that members of the public
May 20, 2009 memorandum on
information collection titled submit reports, keep records, or provide
‘‘Preemption’’ (74 FR 24693 (May 22,
‘‘Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage information to a third party. The OCC
2009)). Section 4(a) of that Executive
Loans.’’ The OCC also is giving notice requests that OMB extend its approval
Order authorizes preemption of State
that it has sent the collection to OMB for of the following collection:
laws only when a statute contains an
review. Title: Appraisals for Higher-Priced
express preemption provision, there is
other clear evidence Congress intended DATES: Comments must be submitted on Mortgage Loans.
to preempt State law, or the exercise of or before February 23, 2017. OMB Control No.: 1557–0313.
State authority directly conflicts with ADDRESSES: Because paper mail in the
Type of Review: Regular.
the exercise of Federal authority. The Washington, DC area and at the OCC is
subject to delay, commenters are Frequency of Response: On occasion.
President’s May 20, 2009 memorandum
sets forth the policy ‘‘that preemption of encouraged to submit comments by Affected Public: Businesses or other
State law by executive departments and email, if possible. Comments may be for-profit.
agencies should be undertaken only sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Estimated Number of Respondents:
with full consideration of the legitimate Activities Division, Office of the 1,399.
prerogatives of the States and with a Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: Estimated Total Annual Burden:
sufficient legal basis for preemption.’’ 1557–0313, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 19,946 hours.
Section 5125 contains express 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington,
Description:
preemption provisions, which PHMSA DC 20219. In addition, comments may
be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by This information collection relates to
has implemented through its
electronic mail to prainfo@occ.treas.gov. section 1471 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
regulations.
You may personally inspect and which added a new section 129H to the
IV. Public Comments photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. establishing special appraisal
All comments should be directed to requirements for ‘‘higher-risk
whether 49 U.S.C. 5125 preempts a For security reasons, the OCC requires
that visitors make an appointment to mortgages.’’ For certain mortgages with
hazardous waste regulation of the State an annual percentage rate that exceeds
of Oregon that imposes a strict liability inspect comments. You may do so by
calling (202) 649–6700 or, for persons the average prime offer rate by a
standard on transporters. Comments specified percentage, creditors must
should specifically address the who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY,
(202) 649–5597. Upon arrival, visitors obtain an appraisal or appraisals
preemption criteria discussed in Part II meeting certain specified standards,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

above. will be required to present valid
government-issued photo identification provide applicants with a notification
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 10, and submit to security screening in regarding the use of the appraisals, and
2017. give applicants a copy of the written
order to inspect and photocopy
Vasiliki Tsaganos, comments. appraisals used. The statute permits the
Acting Chief Counsel. All comments received, including OCC to issue a rule to include
[FR Doc. 2017–00788 Filed 1–23–17; 8:45 am] attachments and other supporting exemptions from these requirements.
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P materials, are part of the public record The OCC implemented these

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:36 Jan 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM 24JAN1

Document Created: 2018-02-01 15:12:11
Document Modified: 2018-02-01 15:12:11

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Public Notice and Invitation to comment.
Dates		Comments received on or before March 10, 2017 and rebuttal comments received on or before April 24, 2017 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.
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. 202-366-4400; facsimile No. 202-366-7041.
FR Citation		82 FR 8257

82 FR 8257 - Hazardous Materials: Oregon Hazardous Waste Management Regulation

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 14 (January 24, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration