13248 Rules and Regulations

PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- by e-mail at [email protected] finding by the Associate Adminis- PORTATION gov. trator for Pipeline Safety that a pipeline facility has a condition Pipeline and Hazardous Materi- SUPPLEMENTARY that poses a risk to public safety, als Safety Administration INFORMATION: property, or the environment. In making the required finding, the 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 193, Background Associate Administrator considers 194, 195, and 199 all relevant information, including On March 28, 2008, PHMSA the nine considerations expressly RIN 2137-AE29 issued an interim final rule (73 FR enumerated in 49 U.S.C. 60117(l) [Docket No. PHMSA-2007-0033] 16562) conforming PHMSA's ad- (2). PHMSA expects the majority ministrative procedures with the of safety order proceedings to be Pipeline Safety: Administrative Pipeline Inspection, Protection, En- resolved by consent agreement be- Procedures, Address Updates, forcement, and Safety Act of 2006 tween the operator and PHMSA. and Technical Amendments (PIPES Act) (Pub. L. 109-468) by The safety order process estab- establishing the procedures PHM- lished in the interim final rule is AGENCY: Pipeline and Haz- SA will follow for issuing safety largely unchanged in this final rule. ardous Materials Safety Adminis- orders and handling requests for Special Permits. To clarify the tration (PHMSA), U.S. Department special permits, including emergen- procedures governing special per- of Transportation (DOT). cy special permits. The interim fi- mits, and to establish new proce- nal rule also notified operators dures for exercise of the agency's ACTION: Final rule. about electronic docket information emergency authority, the interim fi- availability; updated addresses, nal rule added a new section, enti- telephone numbers, and routing tled “Special permits,” to our ad- SUMMARY: This final rule symbols; and clarified the time pe- ministrative procedures in 49 CFR adopts, with minor modifications, riod for processing requests for Part 190. The rule outlines the pro- an interim final rule issued by written interpretations of the regu- cedures under which pipeline oper- PHMSA on March 28, 2008, con- lations. Because we considered ators (and prospective operators) forming PHMSA's administrative these amendments to be procedural may request special permits. It procedures with the Pipeline In- and ministerial in nature, PHMSA specifies the information that must spection, Protection, Enforcement, made them effective immediately, be provided in each application and Safety Act of 2006 by estab- while inviting public comment on and, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. lishing the procedures PHMSA will any and all terms. Having since re- 60118(c)(1)(B), provides for public follow for issuing safety orders and ceived and considered written com- notice and hearing on applications handling requests for special per- ments in response to our March 28, for (non-emergency) special permits, including emergency special 2008, notice, PHMSA now is issu- mits. Section 10 of the PIPES Act permits. The rule also notifies oper- ing this final rule, incorporating provided PHMSA with the authori- ators about electronic docket infor- minor amendments and technical ty to issue an emergency waiver of mation availability; updates ad- corrections to the regulatory text. a pipeline safety regulation without dresses for filing reports, telephone Safety Orders. Pursuant to sec- prior notice and hearing if neces- numbers, and routing symbols; and tion 13 of the PIPES Act, the inter- sary to address an emergency in- clarifies the time period for pro- im final rule established the volving pipeline transportation, and cessing requests for written inter- process by which PHMSA will ini- the rule outlines the procedures for pretations of the regulations. This tiate safety order proceedings to operators to request such emergen- final rule makes minor amend- address identified pipeline integrity cy special permits. The special per- ments and technical corrections to risks that may not rise to the level mit process established in the inter- the regulatory text in response to of a hazardous condition requiring im final rule is largely unchanged written public comments received immediate corrective action under in this final rule. after issuance of the interim final 49 U.S.C. 60112, but should be ad- Other Amendments. The inter- rule. dressed over time to prevent fail- im final rule also amended part 190 ures. The rule requires PHMSA to by adding a new paragraph notify- DATES: Effective Date: This final provide operators with notice and ing operators that all materials they rule is effective February 17, 2009. an opportunity for a hearing before submit in response to administra- issuing a safety order and expressly tive enforcement actions may be FOR FURTHER authorizes informal consultation in placed on publicly accessible web- INFORMATION CONTACT: advance of an administrative hear- sites. The rule sets forth the proce- Larry White, PHMSA, Office of ing. In the absence of consent, a dure for seeking confidential treat- Chief Counsel, 202-366-4400, or safety order must be based on a ment, along with other information

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 Pages 2889 - 2895 1/9 PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] concerning the agency's new en- consultation process set forth in the and unbounded actions with no cer- forcement transparency website. rule as a “forward thinking and tainty of beneficial outcome, limi- The rule also reflects the recent re- cost-effective alternative for exam- tations on scope, or time frames.” location of DOT Headquarters and ining and addressing safety con- They suggest “keeping to the lan- the transition from the Departmen- cerns.” guage in the statute” by striking t's electronic docket management These and other commenters these terms from the paragraph. system to the government-wide also questioned certain aspects of Response: PHMSA is revising electronic docket system (found at the interim rule, in some cases sug- the regulatory text in order to mini- regulations.gov), enabling electron- gesting modifications to the regula- mize unnecessary concern over the ic service of enforcement docu- tory text. PHMSA reviewed these exercise of its new statutory au- ments. This final rule also amends comments and used them in devel- thority. Although we included 49 CFR Parts 191-199 to correct oping this final rule. The following terms that are not in the underlying the address for filing annual, acci- is a discussion of the comments by statutory language, we have no in- dent, and safety-related condition issue. tention of imposing requirements reports for hazardous liquid pipe- beyond what the law allows. PHM- lines (which was inadvertently I. Address Updates and Form Fil- SA understands the need to ensure omitted from the interim final rule) ing Instructions a strong linkage between identified and corrects addresses, telephone risk conditions and any mandated numbers, and routing symbols in One commenter representing a corrective actions, and we are com- the regulations for filing various state pipeline safety program point- mitted to tailoring any mandatory other forms and reports. ed out that the interim final rule left actions to the nature and scope of various discrepancies in address- the threat. Consistent with PHM- Comments on the Interim Final updates and form filing instructions SA's regulatory approach, we con- Rule in parts 191-199. sider the acquisition and use of in- Response: PHMSA appreciates formation key elements in the de- The interim final rule con- the commenter's careful review and sign and implementation of safety formed agency practice and proce- agrees that the address and form controls. dures to current public law and re- filing modifications identified by When appropriately framed flected the relocation of PHMSA the commenter should have been and implemented, such activities headquarters; it did not impose any made in the interim rule. These re- can support more flexible and new substantive requirements on maining address corrections and adaptive measures, as opposed to operators or the public. According- other modifications are included in prescriptive remedial requirements. ly, we determined that it was un- this final rule. Accordingly, we anticipate that ini- necessary to precede it with a no- tial actions proposed in a Notice of tice of proposed rulemaking. Nev- II. Safety Orders Proposed Safety Order (NOPSO) ertheless, we encouraged interested will typically be diagnostic and persons to participate in this rule- Need for Prior Notice and Com- performance-oriented, requiring the making proceeding by submitting ment on Proposed Actions Not Ex- operator to evaluate conditions, comments containing relevant in- pressly Set Forth in the Statute conduct testing, and, on the basis of formation, data, or views and indi- Several commenters pointed these activities, develop a work cated that we may later amend the out that the interim rule plan. Far from exceeding PHMSA's rule based on comments received. (§190.239(a)) identifies among the jurisdiction, we believe this ap- PHMSA received comments corrective actions that PHMSA proach, and the inclusion of risk as- on the interim final rule from ten may prescribe in a safety order cer- sessment and related measures in organizations, including industry tain activities (specifically, “risk specific cases, generally will tend associations, individual pipeline assessment”, “risk control”, “data to protect operator interests and en- operators, and a state pipeline safe- integration”, and “information sure a direct nexus between risk ty representative. Most comments management”) that are not express- conditions and required safety con- expressed strong support for the ly authorized in the statute (49 trols. As we regularly do in other rulemaking action itself or for par- U.S.C. 60117(l)(1)). These com- enforcement actions, PHMSA will ticular aspects of the interim final menters contend that full notice be prepared to work closely with rule. For example, one commenter and comment proceedings would the operator in the resolution of stated that it “applauds and sup- be needed to include these terms in technical issues and development ports the Interim Rule as an impor- the regulatory text. The Associa- and review of work plans. tant new tool to proactively address tion of Oil Pipelines and American It remains our view that Con- pipeline safety issues before they Petroleum Institute express concern gress intended PHMSA to have become imminent hazards.” Anoth- that including these actions “opens broad discretion to address identi- er commenter praised the informal operators to potentially significant fied pipeline risks. By its terms, the

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 Pages 2889 - 2895 2/9 PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] statute authorizes PHMSA, in addi- mance-oriented, requiring the oper- propriate. PHMSA does not fre- tion to ordering physical inspec- ator to evaluate conditions, conduct quently encounter situations in tion, testing, and repair, to require testing, and develop a work plan. which a safety order would be ap- “other appropriate action to remedy Because the details of a work plan propriate and is unlikely to initiate the identified risk condition.” This must be tied to the results of diag- more than a very few safety order language is broad enough to cover nostic evaluation and testing, we proceedings per year. risk assessment, data integration anticipate that most safety orders It should also be emphasized and the other actions listed actions will require or contemplate consul- that safety orders will be highly if justified in the specific circum- tation with PHMSA in the develop- case-specific and dependent on de- stances. By the same token, we ac- ment of a specific work plan. tailed facts and circumstances in knowledge that including the chal- 2. Extent of PHMSA's Discre- each case. Each safety order used lenged terminology in the regulato- tion to Use Safety Orders. in a given instance must be based ry text is not necessary in order to Several commenters noted that on a finding that the pipeline facili- preserve the full scope of PHM- under §60117(l), PHMSA has ty involved has a condition that SA's statutory authority and that we broad discretion concerning when poses a pipeline integrity risk to need not consider the propriety of to use a safety order as an enforce- public safety, property, or the envi- any particular remedial actions in ment tool. These commenters ex- ronment and the basis for that find- this rulemaking proceeding. Ac- press concern that PHMSA might ing must be explained in the order cordingly, we are striking the chal- use a safety order for inappropriate itself. Therefore, generic discus- lenged regulatory text and will ad- purposes and suggest that PHMSA sions about when a safety order is dress the scope of PHMSA's au- coordinate detailed criteria for the appropriate may not be very useful; thority to prescribe remedial ac- use of safety orders with industry nor is it feasible to list all types of tions under §60117(l)(1)) should groups or advisory committees. scenarios in which we would or the issue arise in the context of a Response: PHMSA under- would not use one. Nevertheless, specific enforcement case. stands the importance of working PHMSA is always open to hearing 1. Including Initial Proposed cooperatively with operators in car- from operators and other stakehold- Actions in Notice of Proposed rying out our shared responsibility ers about their views on when a Safety Order. for pipeline safety. The safety order safety order should be used, and One commenter contended that process was carefully designed to operators are encouraged to com- the NOPSO should not include any provide for maximum cooperation municate their views to PHMSA at proposed actions at all. The com- between PHMSA and the affected any time and by any means they menter stated that it believed the operator. A safety order, however, find convenient. If an operator is informal consultation was the ap- is only one of several enforcement aware of a long-term risk condition propriate time for the corrective ac- tools PHMSA may use to address a on its pipeline that would be suit- tions to be determined by both par- safety problem. Selections among able for a cooperative resolution ties. available enforcement tools in par- with PHMSA, we encourage the Response: As we have dis- ticular cases are discretionary deci- operator to come forward and in- cussed, the informal consultation sions for which PHMSA is respon- form us about the situation so a de- process will provide an opportunity sible and are not coordinated with termination can be made if a safety for reaching a mutually agreeable industry groups or advisory com- order proceeding would be appro- outcome, which may or may not in- mittees. PHMSA has previously priate. clude the specific corrective mea- outlined the basic circumstances in 3. Transcription of Hearings. sures initially proposed by PHM- which it will consider use of a safe- One commenter representing SA. As a process matter, however, ty order. As we explained in the natural gas pipeline operators con- we must specify proposed mea- March 28, 2008, notice, PHMSA tended that, in the event a safety or- sures in the NOPSO, in order to put will consider initiating safety order der proceeding was not resolved the operator on due notice of the proceedings to address identified through a consent agreement and a proceeding and potential adjudica- long-term risks before they become hearing was held, a transcript tory outcome. The corrective mea- acute and result in a hazardous con- should be made of all hearings, sures proposed in the NOPSO limit dition or imminent failure. PHMSA presumably at PHMSA's expense. the initial actions that PHMSA may will consider use of a safety order Another industry commenter dis- order unilaterally in the event that when it is appropriate to this pur- agreed, stating that hearings should the operator does not respond at all pose and will continue to use its not be transcribed. to a NOPSO, or if a consent agree- other enforcement tools (i.e., no- Response: An operator partici- ment is not reached. As discussed tices of probable violation, civil pating in any pipeline safety en- above, we anticipate that actions penalty assessments, compliance forcement hearing may arrange for proposed in the initial notice will orders, corrective action orders, the hearing to be transcribed at its typically be diagnostic- and perfor- etc.) when their use is deemed ap- own expense. Requesting that

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 Pages 2889 - 2895 3/9 PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24]

PHMSA provide a transcript of ev- spect to an operator's response op- One commenter suggested that ery hearing at government expense tions for a NOPV with a Proposed PHMSA should consider using would be a resource and budget is- Compliance Order, an operator safety orders to address mining sue for PHMSA and would have to must choose between either object- subsidence concerns. be revisited at a later time. Accord- ing and providing an explanation or Response: PHMSA is aware ingly, no change to this effect will requesting a hearing. that in certain parts of the country, be made in this final rule. Response: PHMSA's existing mining subsidence is a serious is- 4. Ensuring Unbiased Hearing regulations expressly authorize sue and would not rule out use of a Officers. consent agreement discussions in safety order to address it. However, One commenter acknowledged enforcement cases involving only a this involves no change in the rule. that the rule ensured that hearing Proposed Compliance Order (see Finally, we are making a minor officers would have “no significant §190.219(a)). The proposal to change to §190.239(b) to clarify prior involvement” in the case, but adopt a similar provision for en- that an operator's response to a argued that the rule should be forcement cases involving a Pro- NOPSO should be addressed to the amended to prohibit hearing offi- posed Civil Penalty (with or with- PHMSA official who issued the cers from having any prior involve- out a Proposed Compliance Order), NOPSO (typically the Regional Di- ment whatsoever. PHMSA is com- however, is beyond the scope of rector); that the Regional Director mitted to ensuring that its informal this rulemaking proceeding but may sign a consent agreement for enforcement hearings are fair for may be considered as part of future PHMSA; and that a consent order all concerned. Hearing officers policy and/or rule change(s). must be signed by the Associate must be unbiased and are expected Although the options for re- Administrator. to provide a full opportunity for the sponding to a NOPV were not the operator to present all information subject of the interim final rule, in III. Special Permits it contends is relevant to the the interests of clarity, we note that issue(s). PHMSA's hearing officers the following options are available: 1. Modification of Special Per- have expertise in due process re-  An operator that chooses not mits on an Emergency Basis. quirements, evidentiary matters, to contest any of the violations may One commenter noted that and construing laws and regula- still submit written explanations or modification or revocation of a tions and have consistently execut- other information it contends may special permit without prior notice ed their responsibilities in a fair warrant mitigation of the penalty or and hearing should only be done in and professional manner. We may reduce the need to order com- the event of a true safety problem would not disqualify a hearing offi- pliance actions; or emergency. cer merely because he or she heard  An operator that chooses to Response: PHMSA agrees and the case mentioned or otherwise contest one or more of the viola- believes that this is clearly reflect- gained some general awareness of tions but not request an oral hear- ed in the rule. Accordingly, no the matter. Hearing officers are ing may still submit a written re- change was necessary in the rule on trained to identify and avoid con- sponse to the allegation(s) and/or this issue. flicts of interest, including recusal seek mitigation of any proposed 2. Modification or Revocation from hearing a case if a conflict of penalty; of a Special Permit for Non- interest is present or an issue of  An operator may request an Compliance with a Term or Condi- bias has arisen for any reason. Ac- oral hearing to contest the allegation. cordingly, no change was made in tion(s) and/or proposed assessment One commenter expressed the rule on this issue. of a civil penalty; or concern that the word “material” 5. Availability of Informal  An operator may submit a does not precede the words “term Consultation/Consent Agreement written response to the allegation(s) or condition” in §190.341(h)(1)(v) Option in Other Types of PHMSA and also request an oral hearing. and, accordingly, that the interim Enforcement Actions. We appreciate the comment final rule could be read to permit One commenter suggested that and have recently clarified this revocation of a special permit the rule be amended to make the point in the “Response Options” based on a clerical error. informal consultation/consent enclosure which is sent out with Response: PHMSA under- agreement process established by enforcement notices. If the oppor- stands that pipeline infrastructure the rule for safety order proceed- tunity arises, we may also make a projects involve major investment ings available in other PHMSA en- minor amendment reflecting this decisions based to some degree on forcement actions such as a Notice clarification in a future rulemaking reliance on special permits and that of Probable Violation (NOPV), involving §190.209. modification or revocation is a seri- Proposed Compliance Order, or 6. Miscellaneous Comments ous matter. PHMSA has no history Proposed Civil Penalty. This com- on Safety Orders. of modifying or revoking special menter also suggested that with re- permits for clerical errors or other

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 Pages 2889 - 2895 4/9 PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] immaterial or frivolous reasons, Response: This reflects current Response: PHMSA agrees, and nothing in the rule suggested a practice, and nothing in the rule and nothing in the rule would sug- change in policy. However, in or- suggests that PHMSA would do gest otherwise. Accordingly, no der to prevent any conceivable mis- otherwise. PHMSA intends to con- change was necessary in the rule on understanding, and for the sake of tinue this practice to the extent con- this issue. consistency with subparagraph (ii) sistent with DOT policy and appli- 6. Availability of Informal of this section, we are adding the cable law. Accordingly, no change Consultation/Hearing Option in word “material” in this final rule. was made in the rule on this issue. Special Permit Proceedings. Moreover, it is worth noting that 4. Compliance Enforcement One commenter suggested that PHMSA's enforcement remedies While Special Permit Application the informal consultation and hear- for noncompliance with a special Is Pending. ing process used for safety orders permit are not limited to modifica- One commenter suggested that should also be used for special per- tion or revocation of the permit un- PHMSA should include a “safe mit proceedings. der the final rule. A special permit harbor” or “permit shield” that Response: PHMSA recognizes is a form of agency order, the vio- would prohibit PHMSA from citing the importance of working closely lation of which may subject the op- an operator for non-compliance with special permit applicants and erator to civil penalties and other with a regulation pending review communicates extensively with ap- remedies pursuant to 49 CFR and consideration of a related spe- plicants about information that may 190.221. Because a holder of a special permit application. be needed by PHMSA to process cial permit is not operating under Response: We understand that the application and about the kinds the rule that was waived, it is obli- an operator who has come forward of alternative measures that would gated to adhere to all of the terms with a special permit application be needed to ensure an adequate and conditions of its special permit. might be concerned about being level of safety. Since special per- This commenter also stated its cited for non-compliance while its mits already involve extensive in- view that modification or revoca- application is pending. Likewise, formal (technical) consultations be- tion of a special permit for non- we acknowledge that specific cir- tween PHMSA and the applicant compliance with a term or condi- cumstances might warrant forbear- and because there is also an oppor- tion should be limited to the affect- ance of enforcement action pending tunity for (paper) hearing in the ed pipeline segment as opposed to consideration of a special permit special permit process, it is unnec- the entire line. application, as where the operator essary to make any changes to the Response: PHMSA considers has in good faith implemented al- rule on this issue. such issues on a case-by-case basis ternative safety controls and when 7. Miscellaneous Comments and makes a determination con- strict compliance with an otherwise on Special Permits. cerning the proper scope of any re- applicable requirement would be One commenter representing vocation or modification based on unduly burdensome or unreason- local gas distribution companies the nature and severity of the non- able. However, operators must rec- (LDCs) voiced concern about the compliance and PHMSA's assess- ognize that failure to comply with length of time it has historically ment of the actions necessary to en- an applicable regulatory require- taken to obtain special permits for sure safe operation. If an operator ment is not itself a basis for seek- gas utilities from the responsible contends that PHMSA's enforce- ing a special permit and necessarily State agencies and commissions. ment action should be confined to a exposes an operator to some risk of The commenter also suggested that smaller portion of its line, with the enforcement. PHMSA reviews PHMSA should work with the exception of emergencies, under these circumstances on a case-by- LDC trade associations and State §190.341(h)(2), the operator will case basis and has the discretion to regulators to develop guidance for have the opportunity to show cause conduct enforcement or refrain issuing emergency special permits for narrower relief. Accordingly, from doing so. PHMSA will not for predictable situations such as no change was made in the rule on enact a blanket prohibition on its severe winter conditions. Another this issue. exercise of enforcement authority commenter pointed out that gas 3. Handling of Confidential based on the pendency of a special LDCs often develop long-term re- Materials. permit application. Accordingly, no medial plans with the State com- One commenter suggested that change was made in the rule on this missions. materials submitted to PHMSA, issue. Response: States handle spe- that the applicant designates as 5. Special Permits Without an cial permits for gas distribution confidential, should be protected End Date. systems, and State proceedings are pending PHMSA's decision One commenter sought clarifi- not part of this rule. PHMSA has whether the materials qualify for cation that renewal does not apply been working with the States to confidential treatment. to special permits without an end help them develop guidance for is- date. suing emergency special permits

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 Pages 2889 - 2895 5/9 PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24] and will continue to assist the 13132 do not apply. Further, this submitting an analysis of the bur- States on these issues. Nothing in rule does not have impacts on fed- dens to OMB pursuant to the Pa- the rule affects the ability of LDCs eralism sufficient to warrant the perwork Reduction Act was unnec- to develop long-term remedial preparation of a federalism assess- essary. plans with the State commissions. ment. Finally, we are making a minor G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act change to §190.341(c) to clarify C. Executive Order 13175 that the information needed by This final rule does not impose PHMSA to process a special permit This final rule has been ana- unfunded mandates under the Un- application may include environ- lyzed in accordance with the prin- funded Mandates Reform Act of mental information where neces- ciples and criteria contained in Ex- 1995. It does not result in costs of sary. ecutive Order 13175 (“Consulta- $100 million or more, as adjusted tion and Coordination With Indian for inflation, to either State, local Rulemaking Analyses and Tribal Governments”). Because or tribal governments, in the aggre- Notices this rule does not significantly or gate, or to the private sector, and is uniquely affect the communities of the least burdensome alternative A. Executive Order 12866 and the Indian tribal governments, the that achieves the objectives of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Pro- funding and consultation require- rule. cedures ments of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. H. Environmental Assessment This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action D. Executive Order 13211 Because it imposes no new under section 3(f) of Executive Or- substantive requirements on opera- der 12866 and, therefore, was not This final rule is not a signifi- tors or the public, no significant en- subject to review by the Office of cant energy action under Executive vironmental impacts are associated Management and Budget (OMB). Order 13211. It is not a significant with this final rule. This final rule is not significant un- regulatory action under Executive der DOT Regulatory Policies and Order 12866 and is not likely to List of Subjects Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, have a significant adverse effect on 1979). Because this rule conforms the supply, distribution, or use of 49 CFR Part 19■ agency practice and procedure to energy. Further, this rule has not Administrative practice and reflect current public law and does been designated by the Administra- procedure, Penalties. not impose any new substantive re- tor of the Office of Information and quirements on operators or the pub- Regulatory Affairs as a significant 49 CFR Part 191 lic, it has no significant economic energy action. impact on regulated entities, and Pipeline safety, Reporting and preparation of a regulatory impact E. Regulatory Flexibility Act recordkeeping requirements. analysis was not warranted. Because this final rule con- 49 CFR Part 192 B. Executive Order 13132 forms 49 CFR part 190 to the PIPES Act, updates the part 190 Pipeline safety, Fire preven- This final rule has been ana- procedures to reflect current public tion, Security measures. lyzed in accordance with the prin- law, and reflects the relocation of ciples and criteria contained in Ex- PHMSA headquarters, and will 49 CFR Part 193 ecutive Order 13132 have no direct or indirect economic (“Federalism”). This rule does not impacts for government units, busi- Pipeline safety, Fire preven- introduce any regulation that: (1) nesses, or other organizations, I tion, Security measures, and Re- Has substantial direct effects on the certify that this rule will not have a porting and recordkeeping require- States, the relationship between the significant economic impact on a ments. national government and the States, substantial number of small enti- or the distribution of power and re- ties. 49 CFR Part 194 sponsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes F. Paperwork Reduction Act Oil pollution, Pipeline safety, substantial direct compliance costs Reporting and recordkeeping re- on State and local governments; or This final rule contains no new quirements. (3) preempts State law. Therefore, information collection require- the consultation and funding re- ments and imposes no additional 49 CFR Part 195 quirements of Executive Order paperwork burdens. Therefore,

Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, In- spond to the PHMSA official who amended by inserting a comma af- corporation by reference, Petrole- issued the notice. ter the word “Avenue.” um, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. §190.341 [Amended] §191.27 [Amended] 49 CFR Part 199 ■ 3. Section 190.341 is amended as ■ 6. In §191.27, paragraph (b) is Drug testing, Pipeline safety, follows: amended by: adding the words Reporting and recordkeeping re- ■ a. Remove the word “and” at the “Office of Pipeline Safety,” before quirements, Safety, Transportation. end of paragraph (c)(7) and add the the words “Pipeline and Hazardous word “and” to the end of paragraph Materials Safety Administration”, ■ For the reasons discussed in the (c)(8). adding the words “Information Re- preamble, the interim rule amend- ■ b. Add paragraph (c)(9) and resources Manager,” before “PHP- ing 49 CFR parts 190, 191, 192, vise paragraph (h)(1)(v) to read as 10,”; and adding “-0001” to the zip 193, 194, 195, and 199 which was follows: code “20590”. published at 73 FR 16562 on March 28, 2008, is adopted as a fi- PART 192-- nal rule with the following amend- §190.341 Special permits. TRANSPORTATION OF ments: NATURAL AND OTHER GAS * * * * * BY PIPELINE: MINIMUM PART 190--PIPELINE SAFETY (c) * * * FEDERAL SAFETY PROGRAMS AND (9) Any other information STANDARDS RULEMAKING PROCEDURES PHMSA may need to process the application including environmen- ■ 7. The authority citation for part ■ 1. The authority citation for part tal analysis where necessary. 192 continues to read as follows: 190 continues to read as follows: * * * * * (h) * * * Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321; 49 (1) * * * 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, U.S.C. 5101-5127, 60101 et seq.; (v) The holder has failed to 60110, 60113, and 60118; and 49 49 CFR 1.53. comply with any material term or CFR 1.53. condition of the special permit. * * * * * §190.239 [Amended] §192.7 [Amended] PART 191-- ■ 2. Section 190.239 is amended as TRANSPORTATION OF ■ 8. In §192.7, paragraph (b) is follows: NATURAL AND OTHER GAS amended by adding the words ■ a. Paragraph (a) is amended by BY PIPELINE: ANNUAL “Office of Pipeline Safety,” before removing the phrase “risk assess- REPORTS, AND SAFETY- the words “Pipeline and Hazardous ment, risk control, data integration, RELATED CONDITION Materials Safety Administration,” information management,” from REPORTS and adding “20590-0001” after the the last sentence. words “Washington, DC.” ■ b. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended ■ 4. The authority citation for part by revising the last sentence to read 191 continues to read as follows: as set forth below. §192.727 [Amended] ■ c. Paragraph (b)(2) is amended Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121, by replacing the word PHMSA the 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, ■ 9. In §192.727, paragraph (g)(1) third time it appears with the words 60117, 60118, and 60124; and 49 is amended by: “Regional Director” and replacing CFR 1.53. ■ a. Adding the words “Office of the word “PHMSA” the fourth time Pipeline Safety,” before the words it appears with the words “Asso- “Pipeline and Hazardous Materials ciate Administrator.” §191.7 [Amended] Safety Administration,”; ■ b. Adding “Information Re- ■ 5. The first sentence of §191.7 is sources Manager,” before “PHP- §190.239 Safety orders. amended by adding the words “the 10,”; Information Resources Manager,” ■ c. Adding “-0001” to the zip (b) * * * before “PHP-10,” and by adding “- code “20590”. (1) * * * An operator receiving 0001” to the zip code “20590”. and a notice will have 30 days to re- the first sentence of 191.7 is also

§192.949 [Amended] “Office of Pipeline Safety” before mation Resources Manager,”; re- the words “Pipeline and Hazardous moving the words “Room 7128, ■ 10. In §192.949, paragraph (a) is Materials Safety Administration.” 400 Seventh Street, SW.,” and amended by moving the words “In- adding in their place “Information formation Resources Manager,” PART 195-- Resources Manager, PHP-10, 1200 from their current position and TRANSPORTATION OF New Jersey Avenue, SE.,”; and by placing them before “PHP-10,” and HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY adding “- by adding “-0001” to the zip code PIPELINE 0001” to the zip code “20590”. “20590”. ■ 16. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows: §195.59 [Amended] §192.951 [Amended] Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, ■ 21. In §195.59, paragraph (a) is ■ 11. In §192.951, paragraph (a) is 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, amended by adding the words amended by adding the words “In- 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53. “Office of Pipeline Safety,” before formation Resources Manager,” be- “Pipeline and Hazardous Materials fore “PHP-10,” and by adding “- Safety Administration,”; adding the 0001” to the zip code “20590”. §195.3 [Amended] words “Information Resources Manager,” before “PHP-10,”; and PART 193--LIQUIFIED ■ 17. In §195.3, paragraph (b) is adding “-0001” to the zip code NATURAL GAS FACILITIES: amended by adding the words “20590”. FEDERAL SAFETY “Office of Pipeline Safety,” before STANDARDS the words “Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,” §195.62 [Amended] ■ 12. The authority citation for part by adding the words “U.S. Depart- 193 continues to read as follows: ment of Transportation” following ■ 22. Section 195.62 is amended the words “Pipeline and Hazardous by removing the words “Informa- Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, Materials Safety Administration” tion Resources Manager, Office of 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, and by adding the zip code “20590- Pipeline Safety, Department of 60110, 60113, and 60118; and 49 0001” following the words “Wash- Transportation, Washington, DC CFR 1.53. ington, DC.” 20590.” and adding the words “Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety §193.2013 [Amended] §195.52 [Amended] Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Information Re- ■ 13. In §193.2013, paragraph (b) ■ 18. In §195.52, paragraph (b) is sources Manager, PHP-10, 1200 is amended by adding “20590- amended by removing the words New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washing- 0001” after the words “Washing- “267-2675,” and adding in their ton, DC 20590-0001.” in their ton, DC.” place “(202) 372-2428,” and by place. adding the zip code “20590-0001” PART 194--RESPONSE PLANS after “Washington, DC”. PART 199--DRUG AND FOR ONSHORE OIL ALCOHOL TESTING PIPELINES §195.57 [Amended] ■ 23. The authority citation for part ■ 14. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows: 194 continues to read as follows: ■ 19. In §195.57, paragraph (b) is amended by adding the words Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, “Office of Pipeline Safety” before 60102, 60104, 60108, 60117, and 1321(j)(1)(C), (j)(5) and (j)(6); sec. “Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 60118; 49 CFR 1.53. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 Safety Administration,” and by CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR adding “Information Resources 1.53. Manager” before “PHP-10.” §199.7 [Amended]

■ 24. In §199.7, paragraph (a) is §194.119 [Amended] §195.58 [Amended] amended by: adding “U.S.” before

■ 15. In §194.119, paragraph (a) is ■ 20. Section 195.58 is amended “Department of Transportation,”; amended by adding the words by removing the words “the Infor- adding “1200 New Jersey Avenue,

SE” before “Washington, DC”; and adding “-0001” to the zip code “20590”.

§199.229 [Amended]

■ 25. Section 199.229(c) is amended by adding “-0001” to the zip code.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 9, 2009. Carl T. Johnson, Administrator.

[FR Doc. E9-628 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 Pages 2889 - 2895 9/9 PHMSA-2007-0033, Final Rule, 190-[14], 191-[18], 192-[109], 193-[19], 195-[90], 199-[24]