10418 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

Walnut Street, P.O. Box 1086,

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108–1086,

Telephone: 717–782–4422, or Russell E.

Campbell, Project Manager,

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation, District 3–0, 715 Jordan

Avenue, Montoursville, Pennsylvania

17754–0218, Telephone: 717–368–4380.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation and the New York State

Department of Transportation, will

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) on a proposal to

improve the safety and capacity on U.S.

Route 15 in Tioga County,

Pennsylvania, and Steuben County,

New York. The approximate length of

the study area is 12 miles (6 miles in

each state).

In Pennsylvania, the project begins

just south of the U.S. Route 15 and PA

287 intersection and continues north to

the PA/NY state line. The New York

section begins at the state line and

continues north to the project terminus

just south of Presho, where the existing

two lane roadway becomes a four-lane,

limited access highway.

This 12-mile section of U.S. Route 15

was programmed because of several

transportation considerations. It is a

direct tie between the major economic

areas of Williamsport and Corning. This

is the last section of U.S. Route 15

between these two cities to come under

consideration for upgrade (all other

sections of U.S. Route 15 are either

under design, construction, or studies

are being activated). The upgrade would

improve access to nearby recreational

areas and would sustain the existing

economy of the area by providing

improved access. A facility constructed

to present design standards would

improve safety.

A two-phased study approach will be

used to identify and evaluate

alternatives. The initial phase is for

scoping and needs assessment. The

study will then involve the

development of potential alternatives

through the study area. Each of the

alternatives will be developed such that

a means of comparison can be made

along with the No-Build Alternative.

Upgrade of the existing facility and new

alignments may be considered.

Concurrent with the development of

the alternatives, various types of data

will be gathered which will describe the

study area as it relates to the

alternatives. The following

environmental areas will be investigated

for EIS preparation: Traffic, air quality,

noise and vibration; surface water

resources; aquatic environmental;

floodplains; groundwaters; soils and

geology; wetlands; vegetation and

wildlife; endangered species;

agricultural lands assessment; visual;

socioeconomics and land use;

construction impacts; energy;

municipal, industrial, and hazardous

waste; historic and archaeological

structures and sites; Section 4(f)

evaluation; and wild and scenic rivers.

The above information will be utilized

to refine the alternatives or eliminate a

particular alternative from further

considerations because of the potential

for negative socioeconomic,

environmental, or engineering impacts.

The second phase will utilize the

alternatives selected in the initial phase

and perform a detailed analysis on each.

These alternatives will be the basis for

the detailed environmental and

engineering studies and the

Environmental Impact Statement. From

this analysis a preferred alternative will

be identified which meets the needs of

traffic demand, and satisfies the

environmental, socioeconomic, and

engineering evaluations and public

feedback.

Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

appropriate Federal agencies as well as

State and local agencies in New York

and Pennsylvania, and to private

organizations and citizens who have

previously expressed or are known to

have interest in this proposal. A series

of public and agency meetings will be

held throughout the development of the

project. In addition, a public hearing

will be held. Public notice will be given

of the time and place of the meetings

and hearing. The draft EIS will be

available for public and agency review

and comment prior to the public

hearing.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

proposed action and the EIS should be

directed to the FHWA or the

Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation at the address provided

above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning

and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding ingovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Issued on: February 15, 1995.

Manuel A. Marks,

Division Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

[FR Doc. 95–4564 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

Federal Railroad Administration

Florida East Coast Railway Company;

Public Hearing

[RS&I–AP–No. 1094]

The Florida East Coast Railway

Company (FEC) has petitioned the

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

seeking relief from the requirements of

the Rules, Standards and Instructions,

title 49 CFR, part 236, § 236.566, to the

extent that FEC be permitted to operate

foreign line nonequipped locomotives,

in automatic train control (ATC)

territory, in accordance with Centralized

Traffic Control System rules as defined

by FEC Operating Rules and title 49

CFR, part 236, § 236.567.

This proceeding is identified as FRA

Rules, Standards and Instructions

Application (RS&I–AP) Number 1094.

The FRA has issued a public notice

seeking comments of interested parties

and has conducted a field investigation

in this matter. After examining the

carrier’s proposal and the available

facts, the FRA has determined that a

public hearing is necessary before a

final decision is made on this proposal.

Accordingly, a public hearing is

hereby set for 10 a.m. on Thursday,

April 27, 1995, in the Saint Johns

County Auditorium, located at 420

Lewis Speedway, Saint Augustine,

Florida. Interested parties are invited to

present oral statements at the hearing.

The hearing will be an informal one

and will be conducted in accordance

with Rule 25 of the FRA Rules of

Practice (title 49 CFR part 211.25), by a

representative designated by the FRA.

The hearing will be a nonadversary

proceeding and, therefore, there will be

no cross-examination of persons

presenting statements. The FRA

representative will make an opening

statement outlining the scope of the

hearing. After all initial statements have

been completed, those persons wishing

to make brief rebuttal statements will be

given the opportunity to do so in the

same order in which they made their

initial statements. Additional

procedures, if necessary for the conduct

of the hearing, will be announced at the

hearing.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10419

Issued in Washington, D.C. on February 15,

1995.

Phil Olekszyk,

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for

Safety Compliance and Program

Implementation.

[FR Doc. 95–4624 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–M

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Preemption Determination No. PD–7(R);

Docket No. PDA–12(R)]

Determination That Maryland

Certification Requirements for

Transporters of Oil or Controlled

Hazardous Substances Are Preempted

by Federal Hazardous Material

Transportation Law; Decision on

Petition for Reconsideration

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Decision on petition for

reconsideration of RSPA’s

administrative determination that

Maryland certification requirements for

transporters of oil or controlled

hazardous substances are preempted by

the Federal Hazardous Material

Transportation Law.

Petitioners: Maryland Department of

the Environment (MDE).

State Laws Affected: Code of

Maryland Regulations (COMAR)

26.10.01.16.D and 26.13.04.01.F.

Applicable Federal Requirements: 49

U.S.C. 5101 et seq. (previously the

Hazardous Materials Transportation

Act, 49 App. U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and

the Hazardous Materials Regulations

(HMR), 49 CFR parts 171–180.

Mode Affected: Highway.

SUMMARY: The Maryland Department of

the Environment petition requests

reconsideration of a RSPA

determination that Federal hazardous

material transportation law preempts

Maryland regulations requiring

certification of non-domiciled operators

of motor vehicles loading or unloading

certain hazardous materials in

Maryland. The petition is denied.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles B. Holtman, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Research and Special Programs

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW,

Washington, DC 20590–0001, telephone

number (202) 366–4400.

I. Background

On June 3, 1994, RSPA published in

the Federal Register the determination

that Maryland certification

requirements, applicable to operators of

motor vehicles loading or unloading oil

or ‘‘controlled hazardous substances’’

(CHS) in Maryland, are preempted by

the Federal hazardous material

transportation law (Federal hazmat law),

to the extent that they apply to the

loading or unloading of oil or CHS that

is a hazardous material. 59 FR 28913.

RSPA found that these requirements are

training requirements, and that the

requirements, as enforced and applied,

are stricter than HMR training

requirements at 49 CFR 172.700–.704.

Specifically, COMAR 26.10.01.16.D,

which applies to operators of oil cargo

tanks, requires the operator to take and

pass a test administered by MDE at five

in-state locations and at out of-state

business locations approved by MDE.

COMAR 26.13.04.01.F, which applies to

operators of vehicles transporting CHS,

requires ‘‘[t]raining in the requirements

necessary to transport hazardous

waste,’’ which include requirements

promulgated by, and specific to,

Maryland. In addition, the instructor

must meet an experience criterion, and

MDE may require the operator to pass

an approved written examination. These

elements of the certification

requirements, RSPA found, are more

strict than the HMR. 59 FR 28919.

To the extent that the requirements

are more strict than the HMR, they

violate 49 CFR 172.701, which permits

States to apply training requirements to

non-domiciled vehicle operators only if

the requirements are no more strict than

those of the HMR. Accordingly, RSPA

reasoned, each of the two requirements

is ‘‘an obstacle to accomplishing and

carrying out’’ Federal hazmat law. 49

U.S.C. 5125(a)(2); see 59 FR 28919.

Within the 20-day time period

provided in 49 CFR 107.211(a), MDE

filed a petition for reconsideration of the

determination. It certified that, in

accordance with 49 CFR 107.211(c), it

had mailed copies of the petition to

CWTI/NTTC and to all others who had

submitted comments, with a statement

that each person, within 20 days, could

submit comments on the petition. RSPA

has received no comments on the MDE

petition.

II. Petition for Reconsideration

In its June 20, 1994 petition, MDE first

states that the three elements that RSPA

found to be more strict than the HMR

do not apply to both the oil and CHS

vehicle operator certification

requirements. It notes that only COMAR

26.10.01.16.D (oil) requires that the

operator pass a State-administered

examination; under COMAR

26.13.04.01.F (CHS), the examination

requirement is at the discretion of MDE.

Similarly, only COMAR 26.13.04.01.F

specifies required areas of training and

instructor experience requirements.

MDE concedes that its CHS vehicle

operator certification provisions

specifying required areas of training and

instructor experience criteria are

‘‘training requirements’’ within the

meaning of 49 CFR 172.701. On the

other hand, it contests the RSPA finding

that the examination requirement, and

the general requirement to obtain a

certificate, are training requirements. It

suggests, instead, that they ‘‘are

intended to demonstrate that the

training received by the drivers is

adequate to insure the safe

transportation and transfer of hazardous

materials in Maryland.’’ Because they

are not training requirements, MDE then

argues, RSPA cannot find them to be

obstacles simply because they violate 49

CFR 172.701. Rather, MDE contends,

RSPA must factually analyze whether

they are obstacles as enforced and

applied. MDE contends that CWTI/

NTTC has not submitted specific

evidence sufficient to allow RSPA to

find the requirements to be obstacles. As

an example, it notes, it does not in fact

require a CHS vehicle operator to take

an examination, but merely to submit a

statement from the operator’s employer

that approved training has been

completed.

MDE does not dispute that its rules

specifying areas of training for CHS

vehicle operators are training

requirements, but argues that they are

not more strict than the HMR. It submits

that the rules generally are consistent

with HMR requirements, differing only

in requiring knowledge of Maryland

requirements for transporting and

handling hazardous wastes. In this latter

respect, it contends that operator

familiarity with the laws of States of

operation should be deemed to be part

of required HMR training, and therefore

that the Maryland rules should not be

found to be more strict.

MDE concedes that the instructor

experience criterion is more strict than

the HMR. It argues that preemption of

this provision nevertheless should not

invalidate the entire CHS vehicle

operator certification program.

Finally, in their application CWTI/

NTTC represented that Maryland

applies the CHS vehicle operator

certification requirement only to those

loading or unloading RCRA hazardous

waste, and not to other materials

meeting the definition of CHS. Although

MDE did not take issue with that

representation in its comments, it now

indicates that it applies the certification

requirement to other CHS, including

PCB-contaminated wastes, certain

wastes associated with the production