[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58615-58618]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-39]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-B-7741]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1 percent annual-
chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before January 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-7741, to
William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section,
Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered.

A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    Administrative Procedure Act Statement. This matter is not a
rulemaking governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553. FEMA publishes flood elevation determinations for notice and
comment; however, they are governed by the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and do not fall under the APA.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  *Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) +Elevation in
                                                                  feet (NAVD) < greek-
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced    i>Depth in feet above     Communities affected
                                            elevation**                 ground
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Orange County, New York, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Meadow Creek..................  At confluence with              +378         +377  Town of Goshen.
                                       Otter Kill.
                                      Approximately 800 feet          +378         +377
                                       upstream of confluence
                                       with Otter Kill.
Cold Brook..........................  Approximately 300 feet          +439         +435  Town of Deer Park, City
                                       downstream of Beach                                of Port Jervis.
                                       Road.
                                      At confluence with              +438         +435
                                       Neversink River.
Delaware River......................  At County boundary.....         +425         +426  Town of Deer Park, City
                                                                                of Port Jervis.
                                      Approximately 645 feet          +469         +470
                                       upstream of Rail Road.
Monhagen Brook......................  Approximately 0.4 mile          None         +465  City of Middletown,
                                       downstream of Abe                                  Town of Wallkill, Town
                                       Isseks Drive.                                      of Wawayanda.
                                      Approximately 1,200             None         +606
                                       feet upstream of Mt.
                                       Hope Road.
Moodna Creek........................  Approximately 1,100             +259         +260  Town of Blooming Grove,
                                       feet downstream of                                 Town of Cornwall,
                                       spillway at Towns of                               Village of
                                       Blooming Grove and                                 Washingtonville.
                                       Cornwall corporate
                                       limits.
                                      At the confluence with          +321         +319
                                       Otter Kill and
                                       Cromline Creek.
Neversink River.....................  At the confluence with          +425         +430  City of Port Jervis,
                                       Delaware River.                                    Town of Deer Park.
                                      Approximately 275 feet          +645         +649
                                       upstream of Paradise
                                       Road.
Otter Kill..........................  Approximately 1.2 miles         +366         +365  Town of Goshen.
                                       upstream of Sora Wells
                                       Trail.
                                      Approximately 1.4 miles         None         +470
                                       upstream of State
                                       Route 17.
Tributary 12........................  At the confluence with          +368         +365  Town of Goshen.
                                       Otter Kill.
                                      Approximately 150 feet          +397         +395
                                       upstream of Craigville
                                       Road.
Perry Creek.........................  At the confluence with          None         +306  Town of Blooming Grove,
                                       Moodna Creek.                                      Village of
                                                                                Washingtonville.
                                      Approximately 500 feet          None         +537
                                       upstream of Clove Road.
Pine Tree Brook.....................  At confluence with              +580         +582  Village of Monroe.
                                       Ramapo River Reach 2.
                                      Approximately 1,020             +581         +582
                                       feet upstream of
                                       confluence with Ramapo
                                       River Reach 2.
Quaker Creek........................  Approximately 100 feet          +399         +398  Village of Florida.
                                       upstream of confluence
                                       with Browns Creek.
                                      Approximately 150 feet          None         +456
                                       upstream of Roosevelt
                                       Avenue.
Ramapo River Reach 2................  Approximately 2,150             None         +518  Village of Harriman,
                                       feet downstream of                                 Town of Monroe, Town
                                       Arden House Road.                                  of Woodbury, Village
                                                                                of Monroe.
                                      Approximately 1.4 miles         None         +838
                                       upstream of Reynolds
                                       Road.
    Tributary 1.....................  At confluence with              +522         +519  Village of Harriman,
                                       Ramapo River Reach 2.                              Town of Woodbury.
                                      Approximately 1,100             +522         +519
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Meadow Avenue.

    Tributary 26....................  At confluence with              +579         +581  Village of Monroe.
                                       Ramapo River Reach 2.
                                      Approximately 800 feet          +580         +581
                                       upstream of confluence
                                       with Ramapo River
                                       Reach 2.
Rio Grande..........................  Approximately 300 feet          +411         +412  Town of Goshen, Village
                                       downstream of State                                of Goshen.
                                       Route 17.
                                      Approximately 650 feet          +433         +430
                                       upstream of Greenwich
                                       Avenue.
    Tributary 4.....................  At the confluence with          None         +427  Village of Goshen.
                                       Rio Grande.
                                      Approximately 2,160             None         +440
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Scotchtown Road.
Satterly Creek......................  At the confluence with          +314         +312  Town of Blooming Grove,
                                       Moodna Creek.                                      Village of
                                                                                Washingtonville.
                                      At the confluence of            +344         +346
                                       Satterly Creek
                                       Tributary 5.
South Tributary to Wawayanda Creek..  At the confluence with          +519         +521  Town of Warwick,
                                       Wawayanda Creek.                                   Village of Warwick.
                                      Approximately 2 miles           None         +778
                                       upstream of Galloway
                                       Road.
Wallkill River Tributary 6..........  At the confluence with          None         +331  Town of Montgomery.
                                       Wallkill River.
                                      Approximately 1,800             None         +392
                                       feet upstream of State
                                       Route 17.
Wawayanda Creek.....................  Approximately 2,500             +506         +507  Village of Warwick,
                                       feet downstream of                                 Town of Warwick.
                                       Howe Street.
                                      Approximately 0.9 mile          +521         +522
                                       upstream of Forester
                                       Avenue.
Woodbury Creek......................  At Creamery Hill Road..         +250         +251  Town of Cornwall, Town
                                                                                of Woodbury.
                                      Approximately 1,190             None         +487
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Estrada Road.
    Tributary 11....................  At the confluence with          None         +487  Town of Woodbury.
                                       Woodbury Creek.
                                      Approximately 2,700             None         +772
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Dunderburg Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and includes BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the two listed herein. Please check the Flood Insurance Rate Map (see below) for exact locations
 of all BFEs to be changed.
Send comments to William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Section, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                 COMMUNITY NAME

City of Middletown

Maps are available for inspection at Middletown City Hall, 16 James Street, Middletown, NY.

City of Port Jervis

Maps are available for inspection at Port Jervis City Municipal Building, 14-20 Hammond Street, Port Jervis, NY.

Town of Blooming Grove

Maps are available for inspection at Blooming Grove Town Hall, 6 Horton Road, Blooming Grove, NY.

Town of Cornwall

Maps are available for inspection at Cornwall Town Hall, 183 Main Street, Cornwall, NY.

Town of Deer Park

Maps are available for inspection at Deer Park Town Building Inspector's Office, 420 Route 209, Hugenot, NY.

Town of Goshen

Maps are available for inspection at Goshen Town Hall, 41 Webster Street, NY.

Town of Monroe

Maps are available for inspection at Monroe Town Building Department, 11 Stage Road, Monroe, NY.

Town of Montgomery

Maps are available for inspection at Montgomery Town Hall, 110 Bracken Road, Montgomery, NY.

Town of Wallkill

Maps are available for inspection at Wallkill Town Hall, 99 Tower Drive, Middletown, NY.

Town of Warwick

Maps are available for inspection at Warwick Town Municipal Building, 132 Kings Highway, Warwick, NY.

Town of Wawayanda

Maps are available for inspection at Wawayanda Town Hall, 80 Ridgeberry Hill Road, Slate Hill, NY.

Town of Woodbury

Maps are available for inspection at Highlands Town Hall, 511 Route 32, Highland Mills, NY.

Village of Florida

Maps are available for inspection at Florida Village Hall, 33 South Main Street, Florida, NY.

Village of Goshen

Maps are available for inspection at Goshen Village Hall, 276 Main Street, Goshen, NY.

Village of Harriman

Maps are available for inspection at Harriman Village Hall, 1 Church Street, Harriman, NY.

Village of Monroe

Maps are available for inspection at Monroe Village Hall, 7 Stage Road, Monroe, NY.

Village of Warwick

Maps are available for inspection at Village Hall, 77 Main Street, Warwick, NY.

Village of Washingtonville

Maps are available for inspection at Washingtonville Village Hall, 29 West Main Street, Washingtonville, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'']

    Dated: October 10, 2007.
David I. Maurstad,
Federal Insurance Administrator of the National Flood Insurance
Program, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
 [FR Doc. E7-20388 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 72817-72819]
[DOCID:fr01de08-84]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0040]

Application for the Cruise Ship CORAL PRINCESS, Review for
Inclusion in the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program; Final
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final
Environmental Assessment (FEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) that evaluated the potential environmental impacts resulting
from accepting the cruise ship CORAL PRINCESS into the Shipboard
Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). The CORAL PRINCESS runs four
regular cruising routes that include Alaska, California, the Panama
Canal, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Florida. Under the STEP, the CORAL
PRINCESS will be using and testing the Hyde Marine, INC. Guardian
Ballast Water Treatment System, when the vessel operates in U.S.
waters.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket,
are part of the docket USCG-2007-0040. These documents are available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. You can also find all docketed documents on the Federal
Document Management System at http://www.regulations.gov, United States
Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0040.
    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2007-0040
using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
assessment please contact LCDR Brian Moore at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document has been tiered off the
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the STEP dated July
2004 (69 FR 71068, Dec. 8, 2004) and was prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102 (2)(c)), as
implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508) and Coast Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. From
these documents the Coast Guard has prepared a FEA and FONSI for
accepting the CORAL PRINCESS into the STEP.
    Response to Comments: The Coast Guard requested comments on the
Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) when the Notice of Availability
and Request for Public Comments was published on Friday, April 4, 2008
(73 FR 18544, Apr. 4, 2008). The Coast Guard received 19 substantive
comments total from 2 agencies. The Coast Guard has responded to all of
the comments that were within the scope of DEA.
    Both commenters stated their support for the CORAL PRINCESS
acceptance into the STEP, and that the application should be granted.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the support for including the CORAL
PRINCESS into the STEP.
    One commenter asked why California and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(USVI) were

not included in the assessment as possible discharge ports, while
Florida and Alaska were included.
    The California port was not included because the FEA only addressed
ports where ballast water discharge will take place. The vessel will
not discharge ballast water into California State waters. Therefore, no
discussion of California ports has been included. The USVI ports were
included in the applicable sections of the DEA and FEA.
    One commenter asked for clarification regarding Table 2-1. The
commenter questioned the allotted number of port arrivals, and stated
that a vessel would make significantly more arrivals at those 10 ports.
    The Coast Guard agrees with the comment; there may be up to 18
arrivals at any of the ports noted in the DEA and has changed this
number accordingly in the FEA. However, this does not mean there would
be an associated proportional increase in the amount of treated ballast
water (BW) that would be discharged into port. The vessel infrequently
takes on BW at any port and on the rare occasions when it does, it
typically discharges that water prior to departure. Therefore, the
additional number of port visits does not necessarily result in an
increase in the amount of water treated with the system or carried to a
different port or place and discharged.
    One commenter asked if the CORAL PRINCESS would be treating ballast
during all ballasting operations from years one through five, and if
the testing in the other years will be for operation and maintenance.
    The Coast Guard has clarified this issue by adding a summary of the
STEP procedures into the introduction of the FEA.
    One commenter asked how long it would take a vessel to ballast, and
if the filter is backflushed at the end of ballasting. The commenter
also asked if the filtered organisms will be returned to their point of
uptake.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the vessel normally takes on
ballast at sea and discharges that ballast also at sea. If and when it
does take on ballast at sea (which has historically been small amounts
of water), the vessel will move a short distance between the time
uptake began to the point at which the filter would begin backflushing.
During this time, the Coast Guard believes the vessel will take
approximately a half hour to fill a BW tank completely at the ballast
water pumping rate (250 m\3\/hr). At the vessel's normal operating
speeds, (12-22 kts) it will have traveled less than 20 nautical miles
in this time.
    One commenter requested a list of the State codes for turbidity
requirements and interpretations on how the assessment's findings
compare to the State code.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the request. In both the PEA and
this FEA, the potential impacts due to turbidity were considered and
were deemed to be negligible; therefore the additional background
information requested would unnecessarily encumber the FEA, detracting
from its purpose.
    Two comments asked if the 55 microns referred to the length/width
of the mesh openings (typical for 55 micron mesh nets), or the diagonal
opening. The comments expressed concern that if the length/width is 55
microns, the diagonal length would be approximately 78 microns and this
would allow organisms larger than 55 microns to pass through the
filter.
    The Coast Guard, in reviewing the STEP application package, has
determined that the filtration system has an actual opening dimension
of 55 microns using stacked filtration discs, rather than the mesh
screen type assumed by the comments. With respect to the commenters'
other concern, the Coast Guard notes that the initial filtration stage
is only the first part of the overall treatment system. The purpose of
the experimentation conducted during the vessel's participation in the
STEP is to evaluate the efficacy of the entire treatment system in
reducing the discharge of organisms.
    One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement ``* *
* at 90% UV [Ultraviolet] transmittance in the water.'' The commenter
asked if the 90% transmittance is typical of the water that would be
taken up at the specific ports described in the assessment. The
commenter also expressed that this value would decrease in turbid
water, especially in the Alaskan waters that were highly turbid due to
glacial melt runoff.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that many source waters may have
varying transmittance values. However, the UV treatment occurs after
the water has passed through the filtration system, which is intended
to remove at least some of the suspended materials which would block UV
transmission as well as removing larger organisms. The Coast Guard
notes that the point of the experiments is to evaluate the efficacy of
the treatment system under the operating conditions experienced by the
vessel.
    One commenter asked if there was any specific, pertinent
information on Alaskan wetlands that should be included in the FEA.
    While there is significant information concerning Alaskan wetlands
available, the Coast Guard disagrees that the description of sensitive
areas in Alaskan waters as presented in the DEA is insufficient to make
a decision regarding the STEP acceptance. The vessel will only be
visiting areas that it is already visiting and will not be discharging
treated water in any such wetland areas.
    One commenter asked if any Essential Fish Habitat was within the
Port Everglades region.
    The available information on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) shows
that the Port Everglades area has the following EFH: Coastal Migratory
Pelagics and Coral, Coral Reef, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitat. Based on
feedback from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the proposed action will have no
negative impact to EFH in Port Everglades.
    One commenter asked that more detail regarding the area(s) around
several of the ports be included.
    The Coast Guard has added additional detail to the description of
Port Everglades and USVI waters.
    One commenter asked how many and what types of invasive species are
found around Port Everglades. The commenter also asked if any of these
species have been known to cause any environmental or economic harm.
    It is not possible to make a definitive statement about exact
numbers of invasive species in any given water body. Some notable
species have been identified and their economic and environmental harm
estimated. This information is readily available through numerous
Nonindigenous Species (NIS) focused agency reports and work groups. The
Coast Guard disagrees that enumeration of specific invasive species
occurring in the relevant ports, and further discussion of the
potential risk of transferring those specific species from Florida to
other places, is necessary or useful for the purpose of this FEA.
Further, the purpose of any ballast water management system being
evaluated under the STEP is to prevent the transference of any
organisms, whether known to be invasive or not, from one location to
another.
    One commenter requested a list of NIS and if any of these species
have been known to cause any environmental or economic harm.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the problem of NIS in U.S.
waters is the basis of the STEP, and research on NIS and their impacts
is readily available

from numerous sources. This question is outside the scope of the FEA,
and in keeping with CEQ regulations for conducting FEAs, the extensive
supporting information is not repeated here.
    One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement
``Small percentages of estuarine areas in the ports of interest were
rated `poor' * * *''. The commenter asked if it would be possible to
avoid discharging in these areas, or to list which ports have poor
light conditions. The commenter also asked what was meant by the
description ``small percentages''.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the areas that are rated as
poor for light conditions are rated so due to the natural ambient
condition of glacial till suspended in the water. While it could be
possible for the CORAL PRINCESS to restrict its ballasting locations,
the Coast Guard disagrees with the need to do so in these or any other
areas. The very small volumes of water which could potentially be
discharged during operation of the ship's BWMS have been considered and
determined negligible. ``Small percentages'' refers to the waters in
the immediate vicinity of glacier termini.
    One commenter stated that the environmental consequences are
generalized across all regions, with little to no specific reference to
any of the previously described discharge ports. The commenter asked
that specific examples of environmental consequences for the various
habitats/ports be provided.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the water quality impacts on
the ballast water taken aboard the CORAL PRINCESS will be negligible;
therefore, generalization of the environmental impacts invalid. The
addition of repetitive specific impacts in effected ports would
unnecessarily lengthen the FEA. Based on the service history of the
CORAL PRINCESS, most ballasting is done at sea and is in small amounts.
When harbor water is intentionally pumped aboard for the tests, it will
also be discharged at sea following treatment. The proposal does
provide for the CORAL PRINCESS to use the Ballast Water Management
System as needed and occasionally a need to ballast in a port area may
be encountered. However, the Coast Guard considers the potential for
any adverse effects from ballasting, filtering, treating with
ultraviolet light and discharging relatively small quantities of sea
water back to its source to be negligible for all potential discharge
locations. As a result of the NEPA process, the only known impacts are
a slight beneficial impact on biological resources and socioeconomic
resources. Therefore, further describing habitat or location specific
impacts is not necessary.
    One commenter asked what references and/or data were used to
support the conclusions about water quality impacts of the proposed
action alternative.
    The Coast Guard has used the following rationale for the
description of likely impacts of using the system. The ship normally
takes on and discharges ballast at sea. In these cases, typically there
are fewer organisms in offshore waters compared to estuarine areas, and
hence less organic matter to be taken aboard, treated and discharged.
Similarly in the cases where the ship may take on and discharge ballast
in port, the use of the treatment system should have no measurable
adverse effects on the water quality of the ecosystem where the ballast
water is discharged.
    One commenter asked how nonindigenous species impact low income and
minority populations under the no action alternative.
    The Coast Guard has determined that an example of a potential
impact to a low income or minority population might be that a decline
in abundance of a species targeted by subsistence fisheries could occur
as a result of the introduction of nonindigenous competitors,
predators, or pathogens. Please refer to the STEP Programmatic
Environmental Assessment that also evaluated the impacts to low income
and minority populations.
    Based on the information provided in the DEA, one commenter stated
that the STEP program meets their environmental standards, and is not
likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered
species under their jurisdiction.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges the comment and support for the CORAL
PRINCESS and the STEP application.
    Final Environmental Assessment: The Final PEA for the STEP
identified and examined the reasonable alternatives available to
evaluate novel ballast water management systems for effectiveness
against NIS transportation by ships' ballast water.
    The FEA for acceptance of the CORAL PRINCESS into the STEP, and the
subsequent operation of the experimental treatment system, analyzed the
no action alternative and one action alternative that could fulfill the
purpose and need of gaining valuable scientific information on the
system's efficacy and facilitating the development of effective
treatment technologies capable of preventing the transportation of NIS
in ships' ballast water. Specifically, the FEA for the CORAL PRINCESS
acceptance into the STEP is tiered off of the PEA for the STEP, and
considers the potential impacts to the environment from the operation
of the treatment system on the CORAL PRINCESS by examining the
functioning of the system, the operational practices of the vessel, and
the potential effects on discharge water quality.
    This notice is issued under authority of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102 (2)(c)), as implemented by the Council
of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and Coast
Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1D.

    Dated: November 21, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security and Stewardship.
 [FR Doc. E8-28473 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5363]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01899]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0502; FRL-9905-31-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Total Suspended Particulate Matter SIP Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The SIP revision repeals an obsolete Total Suspended Particulate Matter
rule to align the State's air quality standards with the current
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This action makes no
substantive changes to the SIP and imposes no new requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0502, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: December 23, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-01899 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52672-52673]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18447]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1080; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-33]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Dayton, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Dayton, OH. The
FAA is taking this action due to new public instrument procedures being
established at Moraine Air Park, Dayton, OH.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Moraine Air Park, Dayton, OH, to support instrument
flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 70060; December 9, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-1080
to establish Class E airspace at Dayton, OH. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.3-mile
radius of Moraine Air Park, Dayton, OH.
    This action is due to the establishment of new public instrument
procedures at Moraine Air Park.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Dayton, OH [Establish]

Moraine Air Park, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]40'56'' N, long. 84[deg]14'24'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Moraine Air Park.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 23, 2022.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-18447 Filed 8-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51199-51200]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20308]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4132-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

West Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4132-DR), dated July 26,
2013, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 26, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 26, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of West Virginia resulting from severe storms and flooding on June
13, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of West Virginia.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jack Schuback, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of West Virginia have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Mason and Roane Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of West Virginia are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-20308 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


performance of a covered task(s) adversely affected the safety or
integrity of the pipeline due to any of the following deficiencies:
    (i) Evaluation was not conducted properly;
    (ii) KSAs for the specific covered task(s) were not adequately
determined;
    (iii) Training was not adequate for the specific covered task(s);
    (iv) Change made to a covered task or the KSAs was not adequately
evaluated for necessary changes to training or evaluation;
    (v) Change to a covered task(s) or the KSAs was not adequately
communicated;
    (vi) Individual failed to recognize an abnormal operating
condition, whether it is task specific or non-task specific, which
occurs anywhere on the system;
    (vii) Individual failed to take the appropriate action following
the recognition of an abnormal operating condition (task specific or
non-task specific) that occurs anywhere on the system;
    (viii) Individual was not qualified;
    (ix) Nonqualified individual was not being directed and observed by
a qualified individual;
    (x) Individual did not follow approved procedures and/or use
approved equipment;
    (xi) Span of control was not followed;
    (xii) Evaluator or training did not follow program or meet
requirements; or

    (xiii) The qualified individual supervised more than one covered
task at the time.
    (2) [Reserved]
0
22. Section 192.809 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.809  Recordkeeping.

    Each operator must maintain records that demonstrate compliance
with this subpart.
    (a) Individual qualification records. Individual qualification
records must include:
    (1) Identification of qualified individual(s),
    (2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified
to perform;
    (3) Date(s) of current qualification;
    (4) Qualification method(s);
    (5) Evaluation to recognize and react to an abnormal operating
condition, whether it is task-specific non-task specific, which occurs
anywhere on the system;
    (6) Name of evaluator and date of evaluation; and
    (7) Training required to support an individual's qualification or
requalification.
    (b) Program records. Program records must include, at a minimum,
the following:
    (1) Program effectiveness reviews;
    (2) Program changes;
    (3) List of program abnormal operating conditions;
    (4) Program management of change notifications;
    (5) Covered task list to include all task specific and non-task
specific covered tasks;
    (6) Span of control ratios for each covered task:
    (7) Reevaluation intervals for each covered task;
    (8) Evaluations method(s) for each covered task; and
    (9) Criteria and training for evaluators.
    (c) Retention period--(1) Individual qualification records. An
operator must maintain records of qualified individuals who performed
covered tasks. Records supporting an individual's current qualification
must be retained while the individual is performing the covered task.
Records of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer
performing covered tasks must be retained for a period of five years.
    (2) Program records. An operator must maintain records required by
paragraph (b) of this section for a period of five years.
0
23. Section 192.1003 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.1003  What do the regulations in this subpart cover?

    (a) General. Unless excepted in paragraph (b) of this section this
subpart prescribes minimum requirements for an IM program for any gas
distribution pipeline covered under this part, including liquefied
petroleum gas systems. A gas distribution operator, other than a master
meter operator or a small LPG operator, must follow the requirements in
Sec. Sec.  192.1005 through 192.1013 of this subpart. A master meter
operator or small LPG operator of a gas distribution pipeline must
follow the requirements in Sec.  192.1015 of this subpart.
    (b) Exceptions. This subpart does not apply to a service line that
originates directly from a transmission, gathering, or production
pipeline.

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

0
24. The authority citation for part 195, as revised in 80 FR12762
(March 11, 2015), effective October 1, 2015, continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118,
60137, and 49 CFR 1.97.
0
25. In Sec.  195.2, add the definitions ``Confirmed discovery,'' ``In-
Line Inspection (ILI),'' ``In-Line Inspection Tool or Instrumented
Internal Inspection Device,'' and ``Significant stress corrosion
cracking'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  195.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Confirmed discovery means there is sufficient information to
determine that a reportable event may have occurred even if an
evaluation has not been completed.
* * * * *
    In-Line Inspection (ILI) means the inspection of a pipeline from
the interior of the pipe using an in-line inspection tool. Also called
intelligent or smart pigging.
    In-Line Inspection Tool or Instrumented Internal Inspection Device
means a device or vehicle that uses a non-destructive testing technique
to inspect the pipeline from the inside. Also known as intelligent or
smart pig.
* * * * *
    Significant Stress Corrosion Cracking means a stress corrosion
cracking (SCC) cluster in which the deepest crack, in a series of
interacting cracks, is greater than 10% of the wall thickness and the
total interacting length of the cracks is equal to or greater than 75%
of the critical length of a 50% through-wall flaw that would fail at a
stress level of 110% of SMYS.
* * * * *
0
26. In Sec.  195.3:
0
a. Add paragraph (b)(23);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (d) through (h) as (e) through (i)
respectively and add a new paragraph (d); and
0
c. Add paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) to the newly redesignated paragraph
(g).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  195.3  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (23) API Standard 1163, ``In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification
Standard'' 1st edition, August 2005, (API Std 1163), IBR approved for
Sec.  195.591.
* * * * *
    (d) American Society for Nondestructive Testing, P.O. Box 28518,
1711 Arlingate Lane, Columbus, OH, 43228. https://asnt.org.
    (1) ANSI/ASNT ILI-PQ-2010, ``In-line Inspection Personnel
Qualification and Certification'' (2010), (ANSI/ASNT ILI-PQ), IBR
approved for Sec.  195.591.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) NACE SP0102-2010, Standard Practice, ``Inline Inspection of
Pipelines'' approved March 3, 2010, (NACE SP0102), IBR approved for
Sec.  195.591
    (4) NACE SP0204-2008, Standard Practice, ``Stress Corrosion
Cracking Direct Assessment'' approved September 18, 2008, (NACE
SP0204), IBR approved for Sec.  195.588(c).
0
27. In Sec.  195.5, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  195.5  Conversion to service subject to this part.

* * * * *
    (d) An operator converting a pipeline from service not previously
covered by this part must notify PHMSA 60 days before the conversion
occurs as required by Sec.  195.64
0
28. In Sec.  195.11 paragraph (b)(11) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.11  What is a regulated rural gathering line and what
requirements apply?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (11) Establish and implement an operator qualification program in
accordance with Subpart G of this part before [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF A FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
* * * * *

0
29. In Sec.  195.52, paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (d)
are revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.52  Immediate notice of certain accidents.

    (a) Notice requirements. At the earliest practicable moment
following discovery, of a release of the hazardous liquid or carbon
dioxide transported resulting in an event described in Sec.  195.50,
but no later than one hour after confirmed discovery, the operator of
the system must give notice, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section of any failure that:
* * * * *
    (d) New information. Within 48 hours after the confirmed discovery
of an accident, to the extent practicable, an operator must revise or
confirm its initial telephonic notice required in paragraph (b) of this
section with a revised estimate of the amount of product released,
location of the failure, time of the failure, a revised estimate of the
number of fatalities and injuries, and all other significant facts that
are known by the operator that are relevant to the cause of the
accident or extent of the damages. If there are no changes or revisions
to the initial report, the operator must confirm the estimates in its
initial report.

Sec.  195.64  [Amended]

0
30. In Sec.  195.64, in paragraph (a), the term ``hazardous liquid'' is
removed and replaced with the term ``hazardous liquid or carbon
dioxide'' in the first sentence.
0
31. In Sec.  195.64, as amended at 80 FR 12762 (March 11, 2015),
effective October 1, 2015, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised and
paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(1)(iv) are added to read as follows:

Sec.  195.64  National Registry of Pipeline and LNG operators.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Construction of 10 or more miles of a new or replacement
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline;
    (iii) Reversal of product flow direction when the reversal is
expected to last more than 30 days. This notification is not required
for pipeline systems already designed for bi-directional flow; or
    (iv) A pipeline converted for service under Sec.  195.5, or a
change in commodity as reported on the annual report as required by
Sec.  195.49.
* * * * *
0
32. In Sec.  195.120, the title and paragraph (a) are revised to read
as follows:

Sec.  195.120  Passage of In-Line Inspection tools.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
each new pipeline and each replacement of line pipe, valve, fitting, or
other line component in a pipeline must be designed and constructed to
accommodate the passage of an In-Line Inspection tool, in accordance
with NACE SP0102-2010, Section 7 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
195.3).
* * * * *
0
33. In Sec.  195.214, as amended at 80 FR 12762 (March 11, 2015),
effective October 1, 2015, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.214  Welding procedures.

    (a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding
operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under Section
5, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  195.3), or Section IX of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
195.3). The quality of the test welds used to qualify the welding
procedures must be determined by destructive testing.
* * * * *
0
34. In Sec.  195.222, as amended at 80 FR 12762 (March 11, 2015),
effective October 1, 2015, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.222  Welders and welding operators: Qualification of welders
and welding operators.

    (a) Each welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance
with section 6, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  195.3) or section IX of the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC), (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  195.3) except that a welder or welding operator
qualified under an earlier edition than listed in Sec.  195.3, may weld
but may not requalify under that earlier edition.
* * * * *

Sec.  195.248  [Amended]

0
35. In Sec.  195.248, the phrase ``100 feet (30 millimeters)'' is
removed and replaced with the phrase ``100 feet (30.5 meters)'' in the
table to paragraph (a).
0
36. In Sec.  195.446, revise paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4), add
paragraph (b)(5), revise paragraphs (h)(4) and (h)(5), and add
paragraph (h)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  195.446  Control room management.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A controller's role during an emergency, even if the controller
is not the first to detect the emergency, including the controller's
responsibility to take specific actions and to communicate with others;
    (4) A method of recording controller shift-changes and any hand-
over of responsibility between controllers; and
    (5) The roles, responsibilities and qualifications of others who
have the authority to direct or supersede the specific technical
actions of controllers.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Training that will provide a controller a working knowledge of
the pipeline system, especially during the development of abnormal
operating conditions;
    (5) For pipeline operating setups that are periodically, but
infrequently used, providing an opportunity for controllers to review
relevant procedures in advance of their application; and
    (6) Control room team training that includes both controllers and
other individuals who would reasonably be expected to interact with
controllers (control room personnel) during normal, abnormal or
emergency situations.
* * * * *
0
37. In Sec.  Section 195.452, paragraph (a)(4) is added, paragraphs
(c)(1)(i)(A) and (j)(5)(i) are revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.452  Pipeline integrity management in high consequence areas.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Low stress pipelines as specified in Sec.  195.12.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) In-Line Inspection tool or tools capable of detecting
corrosion, cracks, and deformation anomalies including dents, gouges
and grooves. When performing an assessment using an In-Line Inspection
Tool, an operator must comply with Sec.  195.591;
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) In-Line Inspection tool or tools capable of detecting
corrosion, cracks, and deformation anomalies including dents, gouges
and grooves. When performing an assessment using an In-Line Inspection
tool, an operator must comply with Sec.  195.591;
* * * * *
0
38. Section 195.501 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.501  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator
qualification of individuals performing covered tasks as defined in
Sec.  195.503 on a pipeline facility.
0
39. Section 195.503 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.503  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart the following definitions apply:
    Abnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the
operator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation
from normal operations that may:
    (1) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or
    (2) Result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the environment.
    Adversely affects means a negative impact on the safety or
integrity of the pipeline facilities.
    Covered task means an activity identified by the operator that
affects the safety or integrity of the pipeline facility. A covered
task includes, but is not limited to, the performance of any
operations, maintenance, construction or emergency response task
    Direct and observe means the process where a qualified individual
personally observes the work activities of an individual not qualified
to perform a single covered task, and is able to take immediate
corrective action when necessary.
    Emergency response tasks are those identified operations and
maintenance covered tasks that could reasonably be expected to be
performed during an emergency to return the pipeline facilities to a
safe operating condition.
    Evaluation means a process, established and documented by the
operator, to determine an individual's ability to perform a covered
task by any of the following:
    (1) Written examination;
    (2) Oral examination;
    (3) Work performance history review;
    (4) Observation during;
    (i) Performance on the job;
    (ii) On the job training; or
    (iii) Simulations; and
    (5) Other forms of assessment
    Knowledge, skills and abilities, as it applies to individuals
performing a covered task, means that an individual can apply
information to the performance of a covered task, has the ability to
perform mental and physical activities developed or acquired through
training, and has the mental and physical capacity to perform the
covered task.
    Qualified as it applies to an individual performing a covered task,
means that an individual has been evaluated and can:
    (1) Perform assigned covered tasks;
    (2) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions that may
be encountered while performing a particular covered task;
    (3) Demonstrate technical knowledge required to perform the covered
task, such as: Equipment selection, maintenance of equipment,
calibration and proper operation of equipment, including variations
that may be encountered in the covered task performance due to
equipment and environmental differences;
    (4) Demonstrate the technical skills required to perform the
covered task, for example:
    (i) Variations required in the covered task performance due to
equipment and/or new operations differences or changes;
    (ii) Variations required in covered task performance due to
conditions or context differences (e.g., hot work versus work on
evacuated pipeline); and
    (5) Meet the physical abilities required to perform the specific
covered task (e.g., color vision or hearing).
    Safety or integrity means the reliable condition of a pipeline
facility (operationally sound or having the ability to withstand
stresses imposed) affected by any operation, maintenance or
construction task, and/or an emergency response.
    Significant changes means the following as it relates to operator
qualification:
    (1) Wholesale changes to the program;
    (2) Change in evaluation methods (i.e. performance and written to
written only);
    (3) Increases in evaluation intervals (i.e. from 1 to 5 years); or
    (4) Removal of covered tasks (not including combining covered
tasks).
    Span of control means the ratio of nonqualified to qualified
individuals where the nonqualified individual may be directed and
observed by a qualified individual when performing a covered task, with
consideration to complexity of the covered task and the operational
conditions when performing the covered task.
0
40. Section 195.505, as amended at 80 FR 12762 (March 11, 2015),
effective October 1, 2015, is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.505  Qualification program.

    (a) General. An operator must have and follow a written operator
qualification program that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section for all pipelines regulated under part 195. The written
program must be available for review by the Administrator or by a state
agency participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the program is
under the authority of that state agency.
    (b) Program requirements. The operator qualification program must,
at a minimum, include provisions to:
    (1) Identify covered tasks;
    (2) Complete the qualification of each individual performing a
covered task prior to the individual performing the covered task;
    (3)(i) Ensure through evaluation that each individual performing a
covered task is qualified to perform the covered task provided that:
    (A) Review of work performance history is not used as a sole
evaluation method.
    (B) Observation of on-the-job performance is not used as a sole
method of evaluation. (ii) However, when on-the-job performance is used
to complete an individual's competency for covered tasks, the operator
qualification procedure must define the measures used to determine
successful completion of the on-the-job performance evaluation.
    (4) Allow any individual who is not qualified pursuant to this
subpart to perform a covered task if directed and observed by a
qualified individual within the limitations of the established span of
control for the particular covered task;
    (5) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe
that the individual's performance of a covered task contributed to an
accident as defined in Sec.  195.52;
    (6) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe
that the individual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;
    (7) Establish and maintain a Management of Change program that will
communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals performing
those covered tasks;
    (8) Identify all covered tasks and the intervals at which
evaluation of an individual's qualifications is needed;
    (9) Provide training to ensure that any individual performing a
covered task has the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to
perform the task in a manner that ensures the safety and integrity of
the operator's pipeline facilities;
    (10) Provide supplemental training for the individual when
procedures and specifications are changed for the covered task;
    (11) Establish the requirements to be an Evaluator, including the
necessary training; and

    (12) Develop and implement a process to measure the program's
effectiveness in accordance with Sec.  195.505
    (c) Changes. An operator must notify the Administrator or a State
agency participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator
significantly modifies the program after the Administrator or state
agency has verified that it complies with this section. Notifications
to PHMSA may be submitted by electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to ATTN: Information
Resources Manager DOT/PHMSA/OPS, East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
0
41. Section 195.507 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.507  Program effectiveness.

    (a) General. The qualification program must include a written
process to measure the program's effectiveness. An effective program
minimizes human error caused by an individual's lack of knowledge,
skills and abilities (KSAs) to perform covered tasks. An operator must
conduct the program effectiveness review once each calendar year not to
exceed 15 months.
    (b) Process. The process to measure program effectiveness must:
    (1) Evaluate if the qualification program is being implemented and
executed as written; and
    (2) Establish provisions to amend the program to include any
changes necessary to address the findings of the program effectiveness
review.
    (c) Measures. The operator must develop program measures to
determine the effectiveness of the qualification program. The operator
must, at a minimum, include and use the following measures to evaluate
the effectiveness of the program.
    (1) Number of occurrences caused by any individual whose
performance of a covered task(s) adversely affected the safety or
integrity of the pipeline due to any of the following deficiencies:
    (i) Evaluation was not conducted properly;
    (ii) KSAs for the specific covered task(s) were not adequately
determined;
    (iii) Training was not adequate for the specific covered task(s);
    (iv) Change made to a covered task or the KSAs was not adequately
evaluated for necessary changes to training or evaluation;
    (v) Change to a covered task(s) or the KSAs was not adequately
communicated;
    (vi) Individual failed to recognize an abnormal operating
condition, whether it is task-specific or non-task specific, which
occurs anywhere on the system;
    (vii) Individual failed to take the appropriate action following
the recognition of an abnormal operating condition (task-specific or
non-task-specific) that occurs anywhere on the system;
    (viii) Individual was not qualified;
    (ix) Nonqualified individual was not being directed and observed by
a qualified individual;
    (x) Individual did not follow approved procedures and/or use
approved equipment;
    (xi) Span of control was not followed;
    (xii) Evaluator or training did not follow program or meet
requirements; or
    (xiii) The qualified individual supervised more than one covered
task at the time.
    (2) [Reserved]
0
42. Section 195.509 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.509  Recordkeeping.

    Each operator must maintain records that demonstrate compliance
with this subpart.
    (a) Individual qualification records. Individual qualification
records must include at a minimum:
    (1) Identification of qualified individual(s),
    (2) Identification of the covered tasks the individual is qualified
to perform;
    (3) Date(s) of current qualification;
    (4) Qualification method(s);
    (5) Evaluation to recognize and react to an abnormal operating
condition, whether it is task-specific or non-task-specific, which
occurs anywhere on the system;
    (6) Name of evaluator and date of evaluation; and
    (7) Training required to support an individual's qualification or
requalification.
    (b) Program records. Program records must include, at a minimum,
the following:
    (1) Program effectiveness reviews;
    (2) Program changes;
    (3) List of program abnormal operating conditions;
    (4) Program management of change notifications;
    (5) Covered task list to include all task-specific and non-task
specific covered tasks;
    (6) Span of control ratios for each covered task:
    (7) Reevaluation intervals for each covered task;
    (8) Evaluations method(s) for each covered task; and
    (9) Criteria and training for evaluators.
    (c) Retention period--(i) Individual qualification records. An
operator must maintain records of qualified individuals who performed
covered tasks. Records supporting an individual's current qualification
must be retained while the individual is performing the covered task.
Records of prior qualification and records of individuals no longer
performing covered tasks must be retained for a period of five years.
    (ii) Program records. An operator must maintain records as required
in paragraph (b) of this section for a period of five years.
0
43. In Sec.  195.588, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (c) is
added to read as follows:

Sec.  195.588  What standards apply to direct assessment?

    (a) If you use direct assessment on an onshore pipeline to evaluate
the effects of external corrosion or stress corrosion cracking, you
must follow the requirements of this section. This section does not
apply to methods associated with direct assessment, such as close
interval surveys, voltage gradient surveys, or examination of exposed
pipelines, when used separately from the direct assessment process.
* * * * *
    (c) If you use direct assessment on an onshore pipeline to evaluate
the effects of stress corrosion cracking, you must develop and follow a
Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment plan that meets all
requirements and recommendations of NACE SP0204-2008 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  195.3) and that implements all four steps of the
Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment process including pre-
assessment, indirect inspection, detailed examination and post-
assessment. As specified in NACE SP0204-2008, Section 1.1.7, Stress
Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment is complementary with other
inspection methods such as in-line inspection or hydrostatic testing
and is not necessarily an alternative or replacement for these methods
in all instances. In addition, the plan must provide for--
    (1) Data gathering and integration. An operator's plan must provide
for a systematic process to collect and evaluate data to identify
whether the conditions for stress corrosion cracking are present and to
prioritize the segments for assessment in accordance with NACE SP0204-
2008, Sections 3 and 4, and Table 1. This process must also include
gathering and evaluating data related to SCC at all sites an operator
excavates during the conduct of its pipeline operations (both within
and outside covered segments) where the criteria in NACE SP0204-2008

indicate the potential for Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment.
This data gathering process must be conducted in accordance with NACE
SP0204-2008, Section 5.3, and must include, at a minimum, all data
listed in NACE SP0204-2008, Table 2. Further, an operator must analyze
the following factors as part of this evaluation:
    (i) The effects of a carbonate-bicarbonate environment, including
the implications of any factors that promote the production of a
carbonate-bicarbonate environment such as soil temperature, moisture,
factors that affect the rate of carbon dioxide generation, and/or
cathodic protection.
    (ii) The effects of cyclic loading conditions on the susceptibility
and propagation of SCC in both high-pH and near-neutral-pH
environments.
    (iii) The effects of variations in applied cathodic protection such
as overprotection, cathodic protection loss for extended periods, and
high negative potentials.
    (iv) The effects of coatings that shield cathodic protection when
disbonded from the pipe.
    (v) Other factors that affect the mechanistic properties associated
with SCC including but not limited to operating pressures, high tensile
residual stresses, and the presence of sulfides.
    (2) Indirect inspection. In addition to the requirements and
recommendations of NACE SP0204-2008, Section 4, the plan's procedures
for indirect inspection must include provisions for conducting at least
two different, but complementary, indirect assessment electrical
surveys, and the basis on the selections as the most appropriate for
the pipeline segment based on the data gathering and integration step.
    (3) Direct examination. In addition to the requirements and
recommendations of NACE SP0204-2008, Section 5, the plan's procedures
for direct examination must provide for conducting a minimum of four
direct examinations within the SCC segment at locations determined to
be the most likely for SCC to occur.
    (4) Remediation and mitigation. If any indication of SCC is
discovered in a segment, an operator must mitigate the threat in
accordance with one of the following applicable methods:
    (i) Non-significant SCC, as defined by NACE SP0204-2008, may be
mitigated by either hydrostatic testing in accordance with paragraph
(b)(4)(ii) of this section, or by grinding out with verification by
Non-Destructive Examination (NDE) methods that the SCC defect is
removed and repairing the pipe. If grinding is used for repair, the
remaining strength of the pipe at the repair location must be
determined using ASME/ANSI B31G or RSTRENG and must be sufficient to
meet the design requirements of subpart C of this part.
    (ii) Significant SCC must be mitigated using a hydrostatic testing
program with a minimum test pressure between 100% up to 110% of the
specified minimum yield strength of the pipe for a 30 minute spike test
immediately followed by a pressure test in accordance with subpart E of
this part. The test pressure for the entire sequence must be
continuously maintained for at least 8 hours, in accordance with
subpart E of this part. Any test failures due to SCC must be repaired
by replacement of the pipe segment, and the segment retested until the
pipe passes the complete test without leakage. Pipe segments that have
SCC present, but that pass the pressure test, may be repaired by
grinding in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section.
    (5) Post assessment. In addition to the requirements and
recommendations of NACE SP0204-2008, sections 6.3, periodic
reassessment, and 6.4, effectiveness of Stress Corrosion Cracking
Direct Assessment, the plan's procedures for post assessment must
include development of a reassessment plan based on the susceptibility
of the operator's pipe to Stress Corrosion Cracking as well as on the
behavior mechanism of identified cracking. Factors to be considered
include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Evaluation of discovered crack clusters during the direct
examination step in accordance with NACE SP0204-2008, sections <IP_ADDRESS>,
5.4, and 5.5;
    (ii) Conditions conducive to creation of the carbonate-bicarbonate
environment;
    (iii) Conditions in the application (or loss) of cathodic
protection that can create or exacerbate SCC;
    (iv) Operating temperature and pressure conditions;
    (v) Cyclic loading conditions;
    (vi) Conditions that influence crack initiation and growth rates;
    (vii) The effects of interacting crack clusters;
    (viii) The presence of sulfides; and
    (ix) Disbonded coatings that shield CP from the pipe.
0
44. Section 195.591 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  195.591  In-Line inspection of pipelines.

    When conducting in-line inspection of pipelines required by this
part, each operator must comply with the requirements and
recommendations of API STD 1163-2005, Inline Inspection Systems
Qualification Standard; ANSI/ASNT ILI-PQ-2010, Inline Inspection
Personnel Qualification and Certification; and NACE SP0102-2010, Inline
Inspection of Pipelines (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  195.3).
An in-line inspection may also be conducted using tethered or remote
control tools provided they generally comply with those sections of
NACE SP0102-2010 that are applicable.

PART 199--DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING

0
45. The authority citation for part 199 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60117, and
60118; 49 CFR 1.97.

0
47. In Sec.  199.105, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  199.105  Drug tests required.

* * * * *
    (b) Post-accident testing. (1) As soon as possible but no later
than 32 hours after an accident, an operator must drug test each
surviving covered employee whose performance of a covered function
either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted
as a contributing factor to the accident. An operator may decide not to
test under this paragraph but such a decision must be based on specific
information that the covered employee's performance had no role in the
cause(s) or severity of the accident or because of the time between
that performance and the accident, it is not likely that a drug test
would reveal whether the performance was affected by drug use.
    (2) If a test required by this section is not administered within
the 32 hours following the accident, the operator must prepare and
maintain its decision stating the reasons why the test was not promptly
administered. If a test required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section is
not administered within 32 hours following the accident, the operator
must cease attempts to administer a drug test and must state in the
record the reasons for not administering the test.
* * * * *
0
47. In Sec.  199.117, paragraph (a)(5) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  199.117  Recordkeeping.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Records of decisions not to administer post-accident employee
drug tests must be kept for at least 3 years.
* * * * *
0
48. In Sec.  199.119, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  199.119  Reporting of anti-drug testing results.

    (a) Each large operator (having more than 50 covered employees)
must submit an annual Management Information System (MIS) report to
PHMSA of its anti-drug testing using the MIS form and instructions as
required by 49 CFR part 40 (at Sec.  40.26 and appendix H to part 40),
not later than March 15 of each year for the prior calendar year
(January 1 through December 31). The Administrator may require by
notice in the PHMSA Portal (https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/phmsaportallanding) that small operators (50 or fewer covered
employees), not otherwise required to submit annual MIS reports, to
prepare and submit such reports to PHMSA.
    (b) Each report required under this section must be submitted
electronically at http://damis.dot.gov. An operator may obtain the user
name and password needed for electronic reporting from the PHMSA Portal
(https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/phmsaportallanding). If electronic
reporting imposes an undue burden and hardship, the operator may submit
a written request for an alternative reporting method to the
Information Resources Manager, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The request must describe the undue burden and
hardship. PHMSA will review the request and may authorize, in writing,
an alternative reporting method. An authorization will state the period
for which it is valid, which may be indefinite. An operator must
contact PHMSA at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or electronically to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to make arrangements for submitting
a report that is due after a request for alternative reporting is
submitted but before an authorization or denial is received.
* * * * *
0
49. In Sec.  199.225, the introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) are
revised to read as follows:

Sec.  199.225  Alcohol tests required.

    Each operator must conduct the following types of alcohol tests for
the presence of alcohol:
    (a) * * *
    (1) As soon as practicable following an accident, each operator
must test each surviving covered employee for alcohol if that
employee's performance of a covered function either contributed to the
accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to
the accident. The decision not to administer a test under this section
must be based on specific information that the covered employee's
performance had no role in the cause(s) or severity of the accident.
* * * * *
0
50. In Sec.  199.227, paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  199.227  Retention of records.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Three years. Records of decisions not to administer post-
accident employee alcohol tests must be kept for a minimum of three
years.
* * * * *
0
51. In Sec.  199.229, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised as follows:

Sec.  199.229  Reporting of alcohol testing results.

    (a) Each large operator (having more than 50 covered employees)
must submit an annual MIS report to PHMSA of its alcohol testing
results using the MIS form and instructions as required by 49 CFR part
40 (at Sec.  40.26 and appendix H to part 40), not later than March 15
of each year for the prior calendar year (January 1 through December
31). The Administrator may require by notice in the PHMSA Portal
(https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/phmsaportallanding) that small operators
(50 or fewer covered employees), not otherwise required to submit
annual MIS reports, to prepare and submit such reports to PHMSA.
* * * * *
    (c) Each report required under this section must be submitted
electronically at http://damis.dot.gov. An operator may obtain the user
name and password needed for electronic reporting from the PHMSA Portal
(https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/phmsaportallanding). If electronic
reporting imposes an undue burden and hardship, the operator may submit
a written request for an alternative reporting method to the
Information Resources Manager, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The request must describe the undue burden and
hardship. PHMSA will review the request and may authorize, in writing,
an alternative reporting method. An authorization will state the period
for which it is valid, which may be indefinite. An operator must
contact PHMSA at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or electronically to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to make arrangements for submitting
a report that is due after a request for alternative reporting is
submitted but before an authorization or denial is received.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.97.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-16264 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P