Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30985

(10) A copy of the management

reports prepared using the standardized

format for the national CODES report.

f. CODES Linked Database. The

grantee shall deliver to NHTSA after

linkage, at the date specified in the

Action Plan, the CODES linked

databases. NHTSA will use the data to

help facilitate the development of data

linkage capabilities at the state/areawide level and to encourage use of the

linked data for decision-making.

The deliverables will include:

(1) The database in an electronic

media and format acceptable to NHTSA,

including all persons, regardless of

injury severity (none, fatal, non-fatal),

involved in a reported motor vehicle

crash for any two calendar years of

available data since 1997, and including

medical and financial outcome

information for those who are linked.

(2) A copy of the file structure for the

linked data file.

(3) Documentation of the definitions

and file structure for each of the data

elements contained in the linked data

files.

(4) An analysis of the quality of the

linked data and a description of any

data bias, which may exist, based on an

analysis of the false positive and false

negative linked records.

3. During the effective performance

period of Cooperative Agreements

awarded as a result of this

announcement, the agreement as

applicable to the grantee shall be subject

to the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration’s General Provisions for

Assistance Agreements.

H. Keith Brewer,

Acting Associate Administrator for Research

and Development, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–14493 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–12–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–00–7126 (PD–24(R))]

New Jersey Restrictions on

Transportation of Blasting Caps With

Other Commercial Explosives

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of administrative

determination of preemption by RSPA’s

associate administrator for hazardous

materials safety.

Applicant: Institute of Makers of

Explosives (IME).

Local Laws Affected: New Jersey

Statutes Annotated (N.J.S.A.) 21:1A–

137(F); New Jersey Administrative Code

(N.J.A.C.) 12:190–6.5(d).

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.

Mode Affected: Highway.

SUMMARY: Federal hazardous material

transportation law preempts N.J.S.A.

21:1A–137F and N.J.A.C. 12:190–6.5(d)

when those provisions are interpreted

and applied to prohibit the

transportation of blasting caps

(including electric blasting caps) on the

same motor vehicle with more than

5,000 pounds of explosives, while on a

public road or during activities on

private property that are incidental to

the movement of property and involve

a safety aspect of transportation on a

public road.

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

In this determination, RSPA considers

whether Federal hazardous material

transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et

seq., preempts New Jersey statutory and

regulatory restrictions against the

transportation of blasting caps on the

same motor vehicle with more than

5,000 pounds of other commercial

explosives.

In a notice published in the Federal

Register on April 7, 2000, 65 FR 18422,

RSPA invited interested persons to

comment on an application by IME for

a determination that New Jersey’s

statutory and regulatory restrictions are

preempted on two grounds. IME stated

that these restrictions (1) concern the

‘‘handling’’ of a hazardous material in

transportation and are not substantively

the same as requirements in the HMR,

and (2) are an obstacle to the

accomplishing and carrying out the

Federal hazardous material

transportation law and the HMR. In the

notice, RSPA observed that IME’s

application did not indicate ‘‘whether

New Jersey’s restrictions cause

shipments of blasting caps and other

explosives to be routed around the State

of New Jersey, rather than on highways

through the State,’’ and RSPA requested

an explanation of ‘‘the manner in which

the New Jersey requirements are applied

and enforced.’’ 65 FR at 18423, 18424–

25. The full text of IME’s application

was set forth in Appendix A to the

notice.

In response to the April 7, 2000

notice, comments were submitted by the

Hazardous Materials Advisory Council

(HMAC) and the International Society of

Explosives Engineers (ISEE) in support

of IME’s application, and further

comments were submitted by IME. No

comments were received from the State

of New Jersey or any of its agencies, and

no person has opposed IME’s

application.

II. Federal Preemption

Section 5125 of Title 49 U.S.C.

contains several preemption provisions

that are relevant to IME’s application.

Subsection (a) provides that—in the

absence of a waiver of preemption by

DOT under 5125(e) or specific authority

in another Federal law—a requirement

of a State, political subdivision of a

State, or Indian tribe is preempted 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 tribe, as applied or enforced,

is an obstacle to accomplishing and carrying

out this chapter or a regulation prescribed

under this chapter.

These two paragraphs set forth the

‘‘dual compliance’’ and ‘‘obstacle’’

criteria that RSPA 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, 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, that is not ‘‘substantively the

same as’’ a provision of Federal

hazardous material transportation law

or a regulation prescribed under that

law, 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.

30986 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

1The words ‘‘for blasting’’ italicized in the

Hazardous Materials Table are not part of the

proper shipping name, 49 CFR 172.101(c), but are

used in the Table to distinguish blasting caps from

other detonators for ammunition and detonating

relays. See 49 CFR 173.59 (description of the term

‘‘detonators’’). As used in this determination, the

term ‘‘blasting caps’’ includes ‘‘detonators for

blasting, both electric and non-electric’’ Id.

(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.

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).

Subsection (c)(1) of 49 U.S.C. 5125

provides that, beginning two years after

DOT prescribes regulations on standards

to be applied by States and Indian tribes

in establishing requirements on

highway routing of hazardous materials,

A State or Indian tribe may establish,

maintain, or enforce a highway routing

designation over which hazardous material

may or may not be transported by motor

vehicles, or a limitation or requirement

related to highway routing, only if the

designation, limitation, or requirement

complies with section 5112(b).

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5112(b), the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA) has issued

standards that a State or Indian tribe

must follow in establishing highway

routing requirements for nonradioactive

materials, in 49 CFR part 397, subpart

C, which apply to any designations that

are established or modified after

November 14, 1994. 49 CFR 397.69(a).

These preemption provisions in 49

U.S.C. 5125 carry out Congress’s view

that a single body of uniform Federal

regulations promotes safety in the

transportation of hazardous materials. In

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 it amended the HMTA 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 section 2, 104 Stat.

3244.

A Federal Court of Appeals has found

that uniformity was the ‘‘linchpin’’ in

the design of the HMTA, including the

1990 amendments that expanded the

original preemption provisions.

Colorado Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Harmon,

951 F.2d 1571, 1575 (10th Cir. 1991). (In

1994, Congress revised, codified and

enacted the HMTA ‘‘without substantive

change,’’ at 49 U.S.C. chapter 51. Pub.

L. 103–272, 108 Stat. 745.) To also

achieve safety through consistent

Federal and State requirements,

Congress has authorized DOT to make

grants to States ‘‘for the development or

implementation of programs for the

enforcement of regulations, standards,

and orders’’ that are ‘‘compatible’’ with

the highway-related portions of the

HMR. 49 U.S.C. 31102(a). In this fiscal

year, $155 million is available for grants

to States under the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Assistance Program. See

49 CFR parts 350 & 355 and the

preamble to FMCSA’s March 21, 2000

final rule, 65 FR 15092, 15095–96.

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. 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 FMCSA). 49 CFR 1.53(b)

Section 5125(d)(1) requires that notice

of an application for a preemption

determination must be published in the

Federal Register. Following the receipt

and consideration of written comments,

RSPA 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). Any

party to the proceeding may seek

judicial review in a Federal district

court. 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).

Preemption determinations do not

address issues of preemption arising

under the Commerce Clause, the Fifth

Amendment or other provisions 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, or whether a fee is ‘‘fair’’

within the meaning of 49 U.S.C.

5125(g)(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), RSPA is

guided by the principles and policies set

forth in Executive Order No. 13132,

entitled ‘‘Federalism.’’ 64 FR 43255

(August 10, 1999). 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

that Congress intended to preempt State

law, 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

Blasting caps and electric blasting

caps are classified in the HMR as

‘‘detonators, non electric, for blasting’’

and ‘‘detonators, electric, for blasting,’’

respectively, in Division 1.1B, 1.4B, or

1.4S (depending on their explosive

properties). See 49 CFR 172.101

(Hazardous Materials Table) and 173.52

(classification codes for explosives).1

The HMR include specific provisions

for packaging detonators for

transportation, including the exceptions

set forth in 49 CFR 173.63(f), (g). The

HMR also provide that detonators and

explosives may be transported on the

same motor vehicle when certain

conditions are met with regard to the

manner in which the detonators are

packaged and the containers on the

vehicle in which packages are carried.

49 CFR 177.835(g) (set out in full in

Appendix A).

New Jersey has adopted the HMR as

State law, in regulations of its

Department of Transportation at

N.J.A.C. 16:49–1.3(i), but the State

separately prohibits the transportation

of blasting caps on the same motor

vehicle with more than 5,000 pounds of

commercial explosives. The Explosives

Act, as codified in N.J.S.A. 21:1A–128 et

seq., contains provisions governing the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30987

2The residual safety-related authority of the

Interstate Commerce Commission and the Civil

Aeronautics Board, both of which no longer exist,

is now exercised by agencies within DOT.

3According to IME, NJDL seems to take the

position that the restriction in the Explosives Act

‘‘applies to any transportation in the State,’’ but it

is uncertain whether that prohibition is selfexecuting or whether NJDL must issue regulations

under the authority conferred in N.J.S.A. 21:1A–130

before the restriction applies to an explosives

carrier. If the restriction in the Explosives Act is

self-executing, it would also not allow blasting caps

and explosives to be transported into New Jersey

and then separated onto different vehicles before

leaving the highway to enter the job site.

‘‘Transportation of explosives’’ at

N.J.S.A. 21:1A–137, including the

following restriction:

F. Blasting caps or electric blasting caps, or

both, may be transported in the same vehicle

with other commercial explosives only when

the net weight of the other commercial

explosives does not exceed 5,000 pounds.

The Explosives Act provides that the

Commissioner of the Department of

Labor shall enforce that Act, prosecute

violations, and ‘‘state the items which

are in violation of the provisions of the

act or the precautions which he deems

reasonably necessary to be taken.’’

N.J.S.A. 21:1A–130. The Explosives Act

also provides in N.J.S.A. 21:1A–141 that

it does not apply

to explosives which are in transit upon

vessels, railroad cars or vehicles or while

being held for delivery, when such

transportation and delivery are under

jurisdiction of and in conformity with

regulations adopted by the Interstate

Commerce Commission, the United States

Coast Guard or the Civil Aeronautics Board,

*** 2

According to IME, in 1998, the New

Jersey Department of Labor (NJDL)

adopted and began enforcing regulations

governing ‘‘off-highway’’ transportation

of explosives in N.J.A.C. 12:190–6.5,

including:

(d) Blasting caps or electric blasting caps,

or both, may be transported in the same

vehicle with other commercial explosives

only when the net weight of the other

commercial explosives does not exceed 5,000

pounds.

IME stated that a person using both

blasting caps and more than 5,000

pounds of other commercial explosives

at a site within New Jersey must use

separate vehicles to transport the

blasting caps and the other commercial

explosives, from the origin of the

transportation to the job site. It stated

that this requires the use of additional

trucks and, ‘‘the more trucks on the

road, irrespective of the cargo, the

higher likelihood of an accident.’’ With

its application, IME provided affidavits

from three companies stating that they

transport blasting caps and explosives

in separate vehicles to comply with

New Jersey’s requirements.

In one of these affidavits, the

president of Maurer & Scott, Inc. stated

that this practice ‘‘leads to more

explosives vehicles on the road, trucks

not loaded to capacity, inefficient

transportation, excess handling of

hazardous materials, and greater

exposure to the public’’ as well as

‘‘more vehicles * * * at the minesite

which creates an increased safety

hazard.’’ Attached to the affidavit from

Maurer & Scott were copies of that

company’s applications for an exception

to the restriction against transporting

blasting caps in the same vehicle with

more than 5,000 pounds of explosives,

and letters from NJDL denying an

exception.

IME stated that the only alternative

would be to transfer either the blasting

caps or the other commercial explosives

to a separate vehicle at some point

before leaving the public highway at the

job site. However, IME indicated that

this would violate a prohibition in the

HMR against the transfer of Division 1.1,

1.2, or 1.3 explosive materials between

vehicles ‘‘on any public highway, street,

or road, except in case of emergency.’’

49 CFR 177.835(j).3 IME stated that

transferring the blasting caps or

explosives to another vehicle would

involve ‘‘the added risk from the

unnecessary handling during loading or

re-loading to conform explosive/

detonator shipments to New Jersey’s

restrictions.’’

IME, HMAC, and ISEE all stated that

New Jersey’s statutory and regulatory

prohibitions against transporting

blasting caps on the same motor vehicle

with more than 5,000 pounds of

commercial explosives are preempted

because they are not substantively the

same as requirements in the HMR on the

‘‘handling * * * of hazardous

material.’’ 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1)(B).

Alternatively, IME stated that these

restrictions are ‘‘a detriment to safety’’

and are preempted as an ‘‘obstacle to

accomplishing and carrying out’’ the

HMR. 49 U.S.C. 5125(a)(2).

IME acknowledged ‘‘the authority of

the State to regulate the movement of

explosives that is outside the scope of’’

Federal hazardous material

transportation law and the HMR, but

stated that NJDL does not interpret its

regulation to apply only to ‘‘vehicles

transporting explosives between

locations on one site where a public

way is never entered or crossed.’’

According to IME, that agency’s position

is that vehicles carrying both blasting

caps and more than 5,000 pounds of

explosives would be in violation of

N.J.A.C. 12:190–6.5(d) ‘‘the moment

they left a public road.’’

HMAC stated that the ‘‘critical’’ issue

in this proceeding is whether N.J.A.C.

12:190–6.5(d) applies to transportation

‘‘in commerce.’’ It commented that,

because ‘‘the New Jersey off-highway

regulation is not limited to

transportation occurring entirely on

private property,’’ it affects motor

vehicles transporting Class 1 materials

‘‘over the public roads of the State to

consignee sites where these materials

are unloaded/loaded prior to further

commercial movement of the vehicle on

those public ways.’’

In its further comments, IME stated

that NJDL appears to define ‘‘offhighway’’ in a manner that applies the

prohibition in N.J.A.C. 12:190–6.5(d) to

‘‘sites where the vehicle is being loaded

or unloaded, [and] also off-highway

locations where a driver may stop for

food, fuel, rest or comfort.’’

Unfortunately, no representative of the

State of New Jersey submitted

comments to explain how the exception

for ‘‘explosives which are in transit’’ in

N.J.S.A. 21:1A–141 is interpreted and

applied to the transportation of

detonators and explosives on the same

vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR

177.835(g).

The HMR ‘‘govern safety aspects of

the transportation of hazardous material

[DOT] considers appropriate.’’ 49 U.S.C.

5103(b)(1)(B). They apply to the

‘‘offering of hazardous materials for

transportation and transportation of

hazardous materials in interstate,

intrastate, and foreign commerce by

* * * motor vehicle.’’ 49 CFR

171.1(a)(1). The HMR set forth specific

provisions on the manner in which

hazardous materials are packaged for

transportation and loaded on a motor

vehicle, including the conditions in 49

CFR 177.835(g) under which detonators

and explosives may be carried on the

same motor vehicle. The HMR also

contain provisions on the manner in

which hazardous materials are unloaded

from a motor vehicle. These

requirements for loading hazardous

materials on a vehicle, and which

materials may be carried on the same

vehicle, are clearly within the HMR’s

provisions on the ‘‘handling’’ of

hazardous materials.

Whenever the loading or unloading of

hazardous materials is ‘‘incidental to the

movement’’ of those materials on a

public roadway, that loading or

unloading is a ‘‘safety aspect’’ and part

of the transportation of the hazardous

materials ‘‘in commerce,’’ subject to the

requirements of the HMR, regardless of

whether the loading or unloading takes

30988 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

place on private property. See 49 U.S.C.

5102(12) (defining ‘‘transportation’’).

In this case, the affidavits submitted

with IME’s application state, without

contradiction from NJDL, that New

Jersey’s prohibitions against carrying

blasting caps on the same motor vehicle

with more than 5,000 pounds of

explosives affect and restrict the

transportation of those hazardous

materials on the public roadways. Those

affidavits and the comments in this

proceeding also support a conclusion,

without contradiction from NJDL, that

greater safety results when blasting caps

and explosives are transported on the

same vehicle in accordance with the

conditions in 49 CFR 177.835(g), than

when blasting caps and explosives must

be transported on separate vehicles or

transferred between vehicles at some

point before leaving a public road to

enter the delivery location.

To the extent that New Jersey’s

restrictions are interpreted and applied

only to on-site storage, either before

transportation begins or after

transportation ends, they are not

preempted by Federal hazardous

materials transportation law. However,

these restrictions are preempted when

they are interpreted and applied to

prohibit the transportation of detonators

on the same motor vehicle with more

than 5,000 pounds of explosives, while

on a public road or during activities on

private property that are incidental to

the movement of property and involve

a safety aspect of transportation on a

public road. In the latter situations, New

Jersey’s restrictions in N.J.S.A. 21:1A–

137F and N.J.A.C. 12:190–6.5(d) are

preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125(a)(2) and

5125(b)(1)(B), because these

prohibitions are an obstacle to carrying

out and accomplishing the safe

transportation of hazardous materials as

permitted by 49 CFR 177.835(g) and

they are not substantively the same as

the requirements in 49 CFR 177.835(g)

on the handling of hazardous materials.

Because New Jersey’s restrictions in

N.J.S.A. 21:1A–137F and N.J.A.C.

12:190–6.5(d) are preempted by 49

U.S.C. 5125(a)(2) and 5125(b)(1)(B), it is

unnecessary to address the separate

issue, raised in RSPA’s April 7, 2000

notice, whether these restrictions are

preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125(c)(1) as a

highway routing limitation that fails to

comply with FMCSA’s standards in 49

CFR part 397.

IV. Ruling

Federal hazardous material

transportation law preempts N.J.S.A.

21:1A–137F and N.J.A.C. 12:190–6.5(d)

when those provisions are interpreted

and applied to prohibit the

transportation of blasting caps

(including electric blasting caps) on the

same motor vehicle with more than

5,000 pounds of explosives, while on a

public road or during activities on

private property that are incidental to

the movement of property and involve

a safety aspect of transportation on a

public road.

V. Petition for Reconsideration/Judicial

Review

In accordance with 49 CFR

107.211(a), any 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). New

Jersey is considered a party to this

proceeding concerning a State law and

a regulation issued by an agency of the

State, despite the fact that NJDL did not

submit comments.

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, DC on June 4, 2001.

Robert A. McGuire,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

Appendix A

49 CFR 177.835 Class I (explosive

materials)

* * * * *

(g) No detonator assembly or booster with

detonator may be transported on the same

motor vehicle with any Division 1.1, 1.2 or

1.3 material (except other detonator

assemblies, boosters with detonators or

detonators), detonating cord Division 1.4

material or Division 1.5 material. No

detonator may be transported on the same

motor vehicle with any Division 1.1, 1.2 or

1.3 material (except other detonators,

detonator assemblies or boosters with

detonators), detonating cord Division 1.4

material or Division 1.5 material unless—

(1) It is packed in a specification MC 201

(§ 178.318 of this subchapter) container; or

(2) The package conforms with

requirements prescribed in § 173.63 of this

subchapter, and its use is restricted to

instances when—

(i) There is no Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or 1.5

material loaded on the same motor vehicle;

and

(ii) A separation of 61 cm (24 inches) is

maintained between each package of

detonators and each package of detonating

cord; or

(3) It is packed and loaded in accordance

with a method approved by the Department.

One method approved by the Department

requires that—

(i) The detonators are in packagings as

prescribed in § 173.63 of this subchapter

which in turn are loaded into suitable

containers or separate compartments; and

(ii) That both the detonators and the

container or compartment meet the

requirements of the Institute of Makers of

Explosives’ Safety Library Publication No. 22

(incorporated by reference, see § 171.7 of this

subchapter).

[FR Doc. 01–14496 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

June 1, 2001.

The Department of the Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before July 9, 2001 to be

assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545–1374.

Form Number: IRS Form 8834.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Qualified Electric Vehicle

Credit.

Description: Form 8834 is used to

compute an allowable credit for

qualified electric vehicles placed in

service after June 30, 1993. Section

1913(b) under Pub. L. 102–1018 created

new section 30.

Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents/

Recordkeepers: 500.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent/Recordkeeper:

Recordkeeping—7 hrs., 10 min.