Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10421

tank subject to COMAR 26.10.01.16.D

must appear at a place designated by

MDE and demonstrate, by passing an

examination, that he or she has

knowledge of procedures for handling

oil. MDE does not dispute that the

training received by an operator of a

CHS transport vehicle subject to

COMAR 26.13.04.01.F must include

instruction in certain Maryland

requirements and must be administered

by an instructor meeting certain

experience requirements. Finally, MDE

does not dispute that a cargo tank motor

vehicle carrying oil or a vehicle carrying

CHS may not be operated in Maryland

for the purpose of loading or unloading

within the State, unless the operator has

applied to the MDE and received the

required certificate.

As to how the provisions in question

are enforced or applied, MDE disputes

only RSPA’s characterization of the CHS

operator’s examination requirement. It

states that an examination is not

required, but that a statement from the

operator’s employer that approved

training has been completed may

suffice. See also 58 FR 29322–23 & n. 5

(CWTI/NTTC agreement with this

characterization). COMAR

26.13.04.01.F(6) provides that MDE may

require an applicant for a certificate to

pass an administered written

examination; MDE does not say

unambiguously that it never so requires.

Regardless, if, as MDE applies and

enforces its rules, there is no

examination requirement under

COMAR 26.13.04.01.F, then no

preemption of an examination

requirement is found. It remains,

however, that the requirement that CHS

vehicle operators apply for and obtain a

certificate is preempted as more strict

than the HMR.

MDE requires operator training in

Maryland hazardous waste regulations,

and concedes that the HMR do not

require this. It claims that its

requirement nevertheless is not more

strict than the HMR because the HMR

should be deemed to require operator

training in the laws of States of

operation. That the MDE believes the

HMR should require operator training in

the laws of States of operation, however,

does not mean that the HMR actually do

require that type of training.

The HMR do not prohibit an employer

from training its employees in the

requirements of the various States.

Indeed, because an employer likely

would be liable for an operator’s

violation of State law, the employer

would be wise to instruct its employees

on the laws of the States in which they

operate. Nonetheless, the HMR do not

require it. Operator training that did not

include instruction in Maryland

hazardous waste law would not for that

reason violate the HMR; it would,

however, violate COMAR

26.13.04.01.F(4). This suffices to show

that the Maryland requirement, in this

respect, is more strict than the HMR.

MDE correctly surmises that its

enforcement of the certificate

requirement against operators of

vehicles loading or unloading CHS other

than RCRA hazardous waste does not

affect the preemption determination. If

the CHS that is not RCRA hazardous

waste otherwise qualifies as a hazardous

material under the HMR, then the

determination applies to operators of

vehicles loading or unloading that

material to the same extent as it applies

to operators loading or unloading RCRA

hazardous waste. If that CHS is not a

hazardous material, the preemption

determination does not apply. Training

requirements for operators of vehicles

not transporting hazardous materials are

not preempted by the HMR.

Finally, the MDE petition suggests

some confusion about the effect of a

RSPA preemption determination that

rules unfavorably on some, but not all,

elements of a State rule. The Maryland

rules are preempted only to the extent

that they are an obstacle to

accomplishing the purposes of Federal

hazmat law. Ray v. Atlantic Richfield,

Inc., 435 U.S. 151 (1978). Accordingly,

to the extent the rules are applied and

enforced against non-domiciled

operators without the offending

elements, namely the requirement to

pass an MDE-administered examination,

the requirement for training in

Maryland laws, the instructor

experience criterion and the

certification requirement, they are not

preempted.

IV. Ruling

For the reasons stated above, the MDE

petition for reconsideration is denied.

This decision incorporates and reaffirms

the determination, set forth at 59 FR

28920, that 49 U.S.C. 5125:

Preempts Maryland regulations COMAR

26.10.01.16.D and COMAR 26.13.04.01.F,

requiring certification of operators of motor

vehicles loading or unloading hazardous

materials in Maryland, as they apply to

vehicle operators not domiciled in Maryland.

Specifically, these requirements are stricter

than Federal operator training requirements

and therefore are obstacles to accomplishing

the full purposes and objectives of [Federal

hazmat law]. As applied to vehicle operators

domiciled in Maryland, the requirements are

not preempted.

V. Final Agency Action

In accordance with 49 CFR

107.211(d), this decision constitutes

RSPA’s final agency action on the April

19, 1993 CWTI/NTTC application for a

determination of preemption as to the

above-specified Maryland requirements.

Any party to this proceeding may seek

review of this determination ‘‘by the

appropriate district court of the United

States * * * within 60 days after such

decision becomes final.’’ 49 U.S.C. 5125.

Issued in Washington, DC on February 17,

1995.

Alan I. Roberts.

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 95–4625 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Public Information Collection

Requirements Submitted to OMB for

Review

February 17, 1995.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

Public Law 96–511. 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.

U.S. Customs Service (CUS)

OMB Number: 1515–0065

Form Number: CF 7501 and CF 7501A

Type of Review: Extension

Title: Entry Summary (7501) and Entry

Continuation Sheet (7501A)

Description: Customs Form 7501 is used

by Customs as a record of the impact

transaction, to collect the proper duty,

taxes, exactions, certifications and

enforcement endorsements, and to

provide copies to Census for

statistical purposes.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit

Estimated Number of Respondents:

2,675

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 20 minutes

Frequency of Response: On occasion

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

3,454,852 hours

Clearance Officer: Laverne Williams,

(202) 927–0229, U.S. Customs

Service, Printing and Records

Management Branch, Room 6216,

1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20229
10422 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf, (202)

395–7340, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10226, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC

20503.

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–4576 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

Public Information Collection

Requirements Submitted to OMB for

Review

February 17, 1995.

The Department of Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

Public Law 96–511. 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.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: New

Form Number: IRS Form 8498

Type of Review: New collection

Title: Program Sponsor Agreement for

Continuing Education for Enrolled

Agents

Description: This information relates to

the approval of continuing

professional education programs for

individuals enrolled to practice before

the Internal Revenue Service (enrolled

agents).

Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other forprofit

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 36 minutes

Frequency of Response: Other

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 300

hours

OMB Number: 1545–0735

Regulation ID Number: LR–189–80 (T.D.

7927) Final

Type of Review: Extension

Title: Amortization of Reforestation

Expenditures

Description: Section 194 of the Internal

Revenue Code allows taxpayers to

elect amortize certain reforestation

expenditures meet certain

requirements. The regulations

implement this election provision and

allow the Service to determine if the

election is proper and allowable.

Respondents: Individuals or

households, Business or other forprofit, Farms

Estimated Number of Respondents:

12,002

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 30 minutes

Frequency of Response: Annually

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

6,001 hours

Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, (202)

622–3869, Internal Revenue Service,

Room 5571, 1111 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224

OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf, (202)

395–7340, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10226, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC

20503.

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–4577 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Environmental Impact Statement: Use

of Lands Acquired for the Columbia

Dam Component of the Duck River

Project

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA), the Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA), in cooperation with

the Tennessee Duck River Development

Agency, will prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) on alternative

uses of lands acquired as part of the

Columbia Dam component of the Duck

River Project. The project cannot be

completed as a dam and reservoir due

to the presence of endangered species.

The EIS will consider the environmental

impacts of a range of alternative uses of

TVA-owned project lands, including the

protection of resident endangered

species and potential development of a

recreational waterway between Iron

Bridge Road boat ramp to Carpenter’s

Bridge (River Mile 137 to River Mile

165). With this notice, TVA is inviting

comments on the scope of the EIS.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Dale V. Wilhelm, NEPA Liaison,

Tennessee Valley Authority, WT 8C,

400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville,

Tennessee 37902–1499.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jack L. Davis, Manager, Water Resource

Projects, Tennessee Valley Authority,

WT 10C, 400 West Summit Hill Drive,

Knoxville, Tennessee 37902–1499,

phone 615/632–4678.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TVA and

local entities began a cooperative effort

in 1964 to advance economic growth

and provide an adequate and

dependable water supply in the Duck

River watershed (in Maury, Marshall,

Bedford, and Coffee Counties, middle

Tennessee). While the state-chartered

Tennessee Duck River Development

Agency worked to develop a water

supply system to connect the five largest

cities in the watershed, TVA was

requested to investigate water resource

development. In 1965, TVA concluded

that multipurpose reservoir

development on the Duck River

mainstem offered the best potential for

meeting the area’s needs. The

construction of dams on the river would

control flooding, create water supply

sources, and provide opportunities for

water-based recreation. Eventually, two

dam sites were identified: a downstream

dam proposed to be built at Duck River

Mile 136.7, near Columbia, and an

upstream dam to be built at River Mile

248.6, near Normandy. After further

study, these two dam and reservoir

projects were presented in a 1968

planning report as components of a

combined Duck River Project.

Following the enactment of NEPA,

TVA issued a draft EIS on the project in

June 1971. A public hearing on the

proposed project was held in August

1971 and a final EIS on the Duck River

Project (TVA–OHES–EIS–72–5) was

issued in April 1972. This EIS was

supplemented in June 1974 to correct

identified deficiencies. Construction of

the 3,230-acre Normandy Dam and

Reservoir component was completed in

1976 and is currently in operation.

Construction of the 12,600-acre

Columbia Dam and Reservoir

component of the project began in 1973.

Completion of this component was

slowed and, in 1983, halted because

consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service indicated that the

reservoir could jeopardize the continued

existence of two endangered species.

These two species, the birdwing pearly

mussel and the Cumberland monkeyface

pearly mussel, had been listed as

endangered in 1975 under provisions of

the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Subsequent fieldwork and ESA listings

have indicated that two additional

endangered mussel species (tan

riffleshell and pale lilliput pearly

mussel) and an endangered plant (leafy

prairie clover) also occur in the project

area. Other species known to occur in

the area have been proposed for

endangered status or are identified