Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Notices 69681

1 In a decision in this proceeding served on 

November 22, 2004, the Board granted a request by 

INRD for waiver of the 60-day advance labor notice 

requirement of 49 CFR 1150.42(e).

2See The Indiana Rail Road Company—

Operation Exemption—Monon Rail Preservation 

Corporation, STB Finance Docket No. 33670 (STB 

served Feb. 21, 2001).

preemption, RSPA’s role to is to interpret and 

clarify the Federal-State relationship in the 

regulation of hazardous materials 

transportation, ‘‘within the rule-making 

process lying at the center of the 

responsibilities of federal executive 

agencies,’’ and not to ‘‘adjudicate’’ specific 

cases as a substitute for (or reviewing the 

decision of) the cognizant State or local 

forum. Tennessee v. U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 326 F3d 729, 736 (6th Cir.), 

cert. denied, ll U.S., lll, 124 S.Ct. 464 

(2003). There is also no basis for finding that 

Louisiana’s interpretation of ‘‘immediately’’

in La. R.S. 32:1510A must be the same as the 

standard of ‘‘no later than 12 hours after the 

occurrence’’ adopted in the revisions to 49 

CFR 171.15(a) in HM–229. 68 FR at 67759. 

In the HM–229 rulemaking, RSPA 

considered, and declined to adopt, the 

recommendation of the American Trucking 

Associations, Inc. ‘‘to incorporate one-call 

notification for both local and national 

requirements’’ for immediate notification of 

an incident involving hazardous material in 

transportation. In the preamble to the final 

rule, RSPA stated that, ‘‘In the case of any 

incident involving hazardous materials that 

requires immediate emergency response, the 

local authorities should be immediately 

notified.’’ Id. at 67750. While ‘‘contacting 

emergency response entities may be of 

primary concern immediately following an 

incident * * * notification of federal 

authorities through the NRC [National 

Response Center] is also essential.’’ Id. at 

67752. RSPA also noted that it ‘‘has a system 

for identifying duplicative reporting,’’ id. at 

67751, and we must assume that DPSC is 

able to deal with the possibility of duplicate 

reports without being confused, as ATOFINA 

seems to fear. In any event, that potential 

concern does not create an ‘‘obstacle’’ to 

accomplishing and carrying out Federal 

hazardous material transportation law or the 

HMR. 

There is also insufficient information to 

find it is impossible to comply with a State 

or local requirement to call a ‘‘non-911’’

number for emergency response, or that this 

requirement will frustrate the Federal law or 

regulations. In its comments to the docket in 

HM–229, Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company asked RSPA to confirm that it is 

not ‘‘the specific individual in physical 

control of the hazardous materials (who 

could be the engineer or conductor)’’ who 

must make the telephone call. ‘‘In other 

words, carriers can continue their existing 

practice of designating persons within the 

company to make such calls (such as the 

Chief Dispatcher or the Control Center) and 

file the follow-up written reports.’’ In this 

circumstance, it would not be practicable to 

limit immediate telephone reporting to ‘‘911’’

numbers because, whenever the designated 

company representative (such as the Chief 

Dispatcher or Control Center, as suggested by 

Norfolk Southern) is located at a distance 

from the scene of the incident, its call to a 

local ‘‘911’’ number would not reach the 

appropriate emergency response personnel. 

In the absence of information to the contrary, 

it must be assumed that a designated 

company representative is able to obtain and 

contact the required emergency response 

telephone number within a brief period of 

time after learning of an incident involving 

hazardous materials in transportation, 

without diverting resources from responding 

to the incident. It must also be assumed that 

a call to the local ‘‘911’’ number in the 

vicinity of the incident would yield the 

appropriate ‘‘non-911’’ telephone number of 

the State Police or other agency required to 

be notified. 

In sum, RSPA’s prior decisions make it 

clear that a State’s immediate notification 

requirement need not be ‘‘substantively the 

same as’’ 49 CFR 171.15, as the Union Pacific

case recognized. ATOFINA’s application and 

the other comments submitted in this 

proceeding do not show that it is impossible 

for persons that are ‘‘involved’’ in an incident 

(or its clean-up) in Louisiana to immediately 

notify DPSC, in addition to (and perhaps 

before) making the required telephonic 

notification to the National Response Center 

under 49 CFR 171.15. There is also 

insufficient information to find that La. R.S. 

32:1510A as enforced and applied, to require 

another person besides the carrier to provide 

immediate telephonic notification of an 

incident, is an ‘‘obstacle’’ to accomplishing 

and carrying out Federal hazardous material 

transportation law, the HMR, or a DHS 

security regulation or directive. 

IV. Ruling 

For all the reasons set forth above and in 

IR–31, Federal hazardous material 

transportation law: (1) Does not preempt 

Louisiana’s immediate telephone notification 

requirement in La. R.S. 32:1510A, and (2) 

preempts Louisiana’s written incident 

reporting requirement in La. R.S. 32:1510B & 

C. 

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). 

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 November 22, 

2004. 

Robert A. McGuire, 

Associate Administrator for Hazardous 

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 04–26352 Filed 11–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34531] 1

The Indiana Rail Road Company—

Acquisition Exemption—Line of Monon 

Rail Preservation Corporation 

The Indiana Rail Road Company 

(INRD), a Class III rail carrier, has filed 

a verified notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1150.41 to acquire from Monon 

Rail Preservation Corporation (Monon), 

approximately 3.98 miles of rail line 

between milepost Q217.67 at Hunters, 

IN, and milepost Q213.69 at Ellettsville, 

IN, in Monroe County, IN. In 2001, 

INRD entered into an operating 

agreement with Monon, whereby INRD 

became the operator of the line.2

INRD certifies that its projected 

annual revenues as a result of this 

transaction will not result in the 

creation of a Class I or Class II rail 

carrier. 

INRD indicates that the parties would 

like to consummate the transaction on 

or shortly after December 6, 2004. 

If the notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the transaction. 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to STB Finance 

Docket No. 34531, must be filed with 

the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of each 

pleading must be served on John 

Broadley, 1054 31st Street, NW., Suite 

200, Washington, DC 20007. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at

http://www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: November 22, 2004.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–26301 Filed 11–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–01–P