[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2889-2895]
[DOCID:fr16ja09-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, and 199

RIN 2137-AE29
[Docket No. PHMSA-2007-0033]

Pipeline Safety: Administrative Procedures, Address Updates, and
Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, with minor modifications, an interim
final rule issued by PHMSA on March 28, 2008, conforming PHMSA's
administrative procedures with the Pipeline Inspection, Protection,
Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 by establishing the procedures
PHMSA will follow for issuing safety orders and handling requests for
special permits, including emergency special permits. The rule also
notifies operators about electronic docket information availability;
updates addresses for filing reports, telephone numbers, and routing
symbols; and clarifies the time period for processing requests for
written interpretations of the regulations. This final rule makes minor
amendments and technical corrections to the regulatory text in response
to written public comments received after issuance of the interim final
rule.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective February 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry White, PHMSA, Office of Chief
Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 28, 2008, PHMSA issued an interim final rule (73 FR 16562)
conforming PHMSA's administrative procedures with the Pipeline
Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act)
(Pub. L. 109-468) by establishing the procedures PHMSA will follow for
issuing safety orders and handling requests for special permits,
including emergency special permits. The interim final rule also
notified operators about electronic docket information availability;
updated addresses, telephone numbers, and routing symbols; and
clarified the time period for processing requests for written
interpretations of the regulations. Because we considered these
amendments to be procedural and ministerial in nature, PHMSA made them
effective immediately, while inviting public comment on any and all
terms. Having since received and considered written comments in
response to our March 28, 2008, notice, PHMSA now is issuing this final
rule, incorporating minor amendments and technical corrections to the
regulatory text.
    Safety Orders. Pursuant to section 13 of the PIPES Act, the interim
final rule established the process by which PHMSA will initiate safety
order proceedings to address identified pipeline integrity risks that
may not rise to the level of a hazardous condition requiring immediate
corrective action under 49 U.S.C. 60112, but should be addressed over
time to prevent failures. The rule requires PHMSA to provide operators
with notice and an opportunity for a hearing before issuing a safety
order and expressly authorizes informal consultation in advance of an
administrative hearing. In the absence of consent, a safety order must
be based on a finding by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline
Safety that a pipeline facility has a condition that poses a risk to
public safety, property, or the environment. In making the required
finding, the Associate Administrator considers all relevant
information, including the nine considerations expressly enumerated in
49 U.S.C. 60117(l)(2). PHMSA expects the majority of safety order
proceedings to be resolved by consent agreement between the operator
and PHMSA. The safety order process established in the interim final
rule is largely unchanged in this final rule.
    Special Permits. To clarify the procedures governing special
permits, and to establish new procedures for exercise of the agency's
emergency authority, the interim final rule added a new section,
entitled ``Special permits,'' to our administrative procedures in 49
CFR Part 190. The rule outlines the procedures under which pipeline
operators (and prospective operators) may request special permits. It
specifies the information that must be provided in each application
and, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1)(B), provides for public
notice and hearing on applications for (non-emergency) special permits.
Section 10 of the PIPES Act provided PHMSA with the authority to issue
an emergency waiver of a pipeline safety regulation without prior
notice and hearing if necessary to address an emergency involving
pipeline transportation, and the rule outlines the procedures for
operators to request such emergency special permits. The special permit
process established in the interim final rule is largely unchanged in
this final rule.
    Other Amendments. The interim final rule also amended part 190 by
adding a new paragraph notifying operators that all materials they
submit in response to administrative enforcement actions may be placed
on publicly accessible websites. The rule sets forth the procedure for
seeking confidential treatment, along with other information concerning
the agency's new enforcement transparency website. The rule also
reflects the recent relocation of DOT Headquarters and the transition
from the Department's electronic docket management system to the
government-wide electronic docket system (found at regulations.gov),
enabling electronic service of enforcement documents. This final rule
also amends 49 CFR Parts 191-199 to correct the address for filing
annual, accident, and safety-related condition reports for hazardous
liquid pipelines (which was inadvertently omitted from the interim
final rule) and corrects addresses, telephone numbers, and routing
symbols in the regulations for filing various other forms and reports.

Comments on the Interim Final Rule

    The interim final rule conformed agency practice and procedures to
current public law and reflected the relocation of PHMSA headquarters;
it did not impose any new substantive requirements on operators or the
public. Accordingly, we determined that it was unnecessary to precede
it with a notice of proposed rulemaking. Nevertheless, we encouraged
interested persons to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by
submitting comments containing relevant information, data, or views and
indicated that we may later amend the rule based on comments received.
    PHMSA received comments on the interim final rule from ten
organizations, including industry associations, individual pipeline
operators, and a state pipeline safety representative. Most comments
expressed strong support for the rulemaking action itself or for
particular aspects of the interim final rule. For example, one
commenter stated that it ``applauds and supports the Interim Rule as an
important new tool to proactively address pipeline safety issues before
they become imminent hazards.'' Another commenter praised the informal
consultation process set forth in the rule as a ``forward thinking and
cost-effective alternative for examining and addressing safety
concerns.''
    These and other commenters also questioned certain aspects of the
interim rule, in some cases suggesting modifications to the regulatory
text. PHMSA reviewed these comments and used them in developing this
final rule. The following is a discussion of the comments by issue.

I. Address Updates and Form Filing Instructions

    One commenter representing a state pipeline safety program pointed
out that the interim final rule left various discrepancies in address-
updates and form filing instructions in parts 191-199.
    Response: PHMSA appreciates the commenter's careful review and
agrees that the address and form filing modifications identified by the
commenter should have been made in the interim rule. These remaining
address corrections and other modifications are included in this final
rule.

II. Safety Orders

Need for Prior Notice and Comment on Proposed Actions Not Expressly Set
Forth in the Statute
    Several commenters pointed out that the interim rule (Sec.
190.239(a)) identifies among the corrective actions that PHMSA may
prescribe in a safety order certain activities (specifically, ``risk
assessment'', ``risk control'', ``data integration'', and ``information
management'') that are not expressly authorized in the statute (49
U.S.C. 60117(l)(1)). These commenters contend that full notice and
comment proceedings would be needed to include these terms in the
regulatory text. The Association of Oil Pipelines and American
Petroleum Institute express concern that including these actions
``opens operators to potentially significant and unbounded actions with
no certainty of beneficial outcome, limitations on scope, or time
frames.'' They suggest ``keeping to the language in the statute'' by
striking these terms from the paragraph.
    Response: PHMSA is revising the regulatory text in order to
minimize unnecessary concern over the exercise of its new statutory
authority. Although we included terms that are not in the underlying
statutory language, we have no intention of imposing requirements
beyond what the law allows. PHMSA understands the need to ensure a
strong linkage between identified risk conditions and any mandated
corrective actions, and we are committed to tailoring any mandatory
actions to the nature and scope of the threat. Consistent with PHMSA's
regulatory approach, we consider the acquisition and use of information
key elements in the design and implementation of safety controls.
    When appropriately framed and implemented, such activities can
support more flexible and adaptive measures, as opposed to prescriptive
remedial requirements. Accordingly, we anticipate that initial actions
proposed in a Notice of Proposed Safety Order (NOPSO) will typically be
diagnostic and performance-oriented, requiring the operator to evaluate
conditions, conduct testing, and, on the basis of these activities,
develop a work plan. Far from exceeding PHMSA's jurisdiction, we
believe this approach, and the inclusion of risk assessment and related
measures in specific cases, generally will tend to protect operator
interests and ensure a direct nexus between risk conditions and
required safety controls. As we regularly do in other enforcement
actions, PHMSA will be prepared to work closely with the operator in
the resolution of technical issues and development and review of work
plans.
    It remains our view that Congress intended PHMSA to have broad
discretion to address identified pipeline risks. By its terms, the
statute authorizes PHMSA, in addition to ordering physical inspection,
testing, and repair, to require ``other appropriate action to remedy
the identified risk condition.'' This language is broad enough to cover
risk assessment, data integration and the other actions listed actions
if justified in the specific circumstances. By the same token, we
acknowledge that including the challenged terminology in the regulatory
text is not necessary in order to preserve the full scope of PHMSA's
statutory authority and that we need not consider the propriety of any
particular remedial actions in this rulemaking proceeding. Accordingly,
we are striking the challenged regulatory text and will address the
scope of PHMSA's authority to prescribe remedial actions under Sec.
60117(l)(1)) should the issue arise in the context of a specific
enforcement case.
    1. Including Initial Proposed Actions in Notice of Proposed Safety
Order.
    One commenter contended that the NOPSO should not include any
proposed actions at all. The commenter stated that it believed the
informal consultation was the appropriate time for the corrective
actions to be determined by both parties.
    Response: As we have discussed, the informal consultation process
will provide an opportunity for reaching a mutually agreeable outcome,
which may or may not include the specific corrective measures initially
proposed by PHMSA. As a process matter, however, we must specify
proposed measures in the NOPSO, in order to put the operator on due
notice of the proceeding and potential adjudicatory outcome. The
corrective measures proposed in the NOPSO limit the initial actions
that PHMSA may order unilaterally in the event that the operator does
not respond at all to a NOPSO, or if a consent agreement is not
reached. As discussed above, we anticipate that actions proposed in the
initial notice will typically be diagnostic- and performance-oriented,
requiring the operator to evaluate conditions, conduct testing, and
develop a work plan. Because the details of a work plan must be tied to
the results of diagnostic evaluation and testing, we anticipate that
most safety orders will require or contemplate consultation with PHMSA
in the development of a specific work plan.
    2. Extent of PHMSA's Discretion to Use Safety Orders.

    Several commenters noted that under Sec.  60117(l), PHMSA has broad
discretion concerning when to use a safety order as an enforcement
tool. These commenters express concern that PHMSA might use a safety
order for inappropriate purposes and suggest that PHMSA coordinate
detailed criteria for the use of safety orders with industry groups or
advisory committees.
    Response: PHMSA understands the importance of working cooperatively
with operators in carrying out our shared responsibility for pipeline
safety. The safety order process was carefully designed to provide for
maximum cooperation between PHMSA and the affected operator. A safety
order, however, is only one of several enforcement tools PHMSA may use
to address a safety problem. Selections among available enforcement
tools in particular cases are discretionary decisions for which PHMSA
is responsible and are not coordinated with industry groups or advisory
committees. PHMSA has previously outlined the basic circumstances in
which it will consider use of a safety order. As we explained in the
March 28, 2008, notice, PHMSA will consider initiating safety order
proceedings to address identified long-term risks before they become
acute and result in a hazardous condition or imminent failure. PHMSA
will consider use of a safety order when it is appropriate to this
purpose and will continue to use its other enforcement tools (i.e.,
notices of probable violation, civil penalty assessments, compliance
orders, corrective action orders, etc.) when their use is deemed
appropriate. PHMSA does not frequently encounter situations in which a
safety order would be appropriate and is unlikely to initiate more than
a very few safety order proceedings per year.
    It should also be emphasized that safety orders will be highly
case-specific and dependent on detailed facts and circumstances in each
case. Each safety order used in a given instance must be based on a
finding that the pipeline facility involved has a condition that poses
a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the
environment and the basis for that finding must be explained in the
order itself. Therefore, generic discussions about when a safety order
is appropriate may not be very useful; nor is it feasible to list all
types of scenarios in which we would or would not use one.
Nevertheless, PHMSA is always open to hearing from operators and other
stakeholders about their views on when a safety order should be used,
and operators are encouraged to communicate their views to PHMSA at any
time and by any means they find convenient. If an operator is aware of
a long-term risk condition on its pipeline that would be suitable for a
cooperative resolution with PHMSA, we encourage the operator to come
forward and inform us about the situation so a determination can be
made if a safety order proceeding would be appropriate.
    3. Transcription of Hearings.
    One commenter representing natural gas pipeline operators contended
that, in the event a safety order proceeding was not resolved through a
consent agreement and a hearing was held, a transcript should be made
of all hearings, presumably at PHMSA's expense. Another industry
commenter disagreed, stating that hearings should not be transcribed.
    Response: An operator participating in any pipeline safety
enforcement hearing may arrange for the hearing to be transcribed at
its own expense. Requesting that PHMSA provide a transcript of every
hearing at government expense would be a resource and budget issue for
PHMSA and would have to be revisited at a later time. Accordingly, no
change to this effect will be made in this final rule.
    4. Ensuring Unbiased Hearing Officers.
    One commenter acknowledged that the rule ensured that hearing
officers would have ``no significant prior involvement'' in the case,
but argued that the rule should be amended to prohibit hearing officers
from having any prior involvement whatsoever. PHMSA is committed to
ensuring that its informal enforcement hearings are fair for all
concerned. Hearing officers must be unbiased and are expected to
provide a full opportunity for the operator to present all information
it contends is relevant to the issue(s). PHMSA's hearing officers have
expertise in due process requirements, evidentiary matters, and
construing laws and regulations and have consistently executed their
responsibilities in a fair and professional manner. We would not
disqualify a hearing officer merely because he or she heard the case
mentioned or otherwise gained some general awareness of the matter.
Hearing officers are trained to identify and avoid conflicts of
interest, including recusal from hearing a case if a conflict of
interest is present or an issue of bias has arisen for any reason.
Accordingly, no change was made in the rule on this issue.
    5. Availability of Informal Consultation/Consent Agreement Option
in Other Types of PHMSA Enforcement Actions.
    One commenter suggested that the rule be amended to make the
informal consultation/consent agreement process established by the rule
for safety order proceedings available in other PHMSA enforcement
actions such as a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV), Proposed
Compliance Order, or Proposed Civil Penalty. This commenter also
suggested that with respect to an operator's response options for a
NOPV with a Proposed Compliance Order, an operator must choose between
either objecting and providing an explanation or requesting a hearing.
    Response: PHMSA's existing regulations expressly authorize consent
agreement discussions in enforcement cases involving only a Proposed
Compliance Order (see Sec.  190.219(a)). The proposal to adopt a
similar provision for enforcement cases involving a Proposed Civil
Penalty (with or without a Proposed Compliance Order), however, is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking proceeding but may be considered as
part of future policy and/or rule change(s).
    Although the options for responding to a NOPV were not the subject
of the interim final rule, in the interests of clarity, we note that
the following options are available:
     An operator that chooses not to contest any of the
violations may still submit written explanations or other information
it contends may warrant mitigation of the penalty or may reduce the
need to order compliance actions;
     An operator that chooses to contest one or more of the
violations but not request an oral hearing may still submit a written
response to the allegation(s) and/or seek mitigation of any proposed
penalty;
     An operator may request an oral hearing to contest the
allegation(s) and/or proposed assessment of a civil penalty; or
     An operator may submit a written response to the
allegation(s) and also request an oral hearing.
    We appreciate the comment and have recently clarified this point in
the ``Response Options'' enclosure which is sent out with enforcement
notices. If the opportunity arises, we may also make a minor amendment
reflecting this clarification in a future rulemaking involving Sec.
190.209.
    6. Miscellaneous Comments on Safety Orders.
    One commenter suggested that PHMSA should consider using safety
orders to address mining subsidence concerns.

    Response: PHMSA is aware that in certain parts of the country,
mining subsidence is a serious issue and would not rule out use of a
safety order to address it. However, this involves no change in the
rule.
    Finally, we are making a minor change to Sec.  190.239(b) to
clarify that an operator's response to a NOPSO should be addressed to
the PHMSA official who issued the NOPSO (typically the Regional
Director); that the Regional Director may sign a consent agreement for
PHMSA; and that a consent order must be signed by the Associate
Administrator.

III. Special Permits

    1. Modification of Special Permits on an Emergency Basis.
    One commenter noted that modification or revocation of a special
permit without prior notice and hearing should only be done in the
event of a true safety problem or emergency.
    Response: PHMSA agrees and believes that this is clearly reflected
in the rule. Accordingly, no change was necessary in the rule on this
issue.
    2. Modification or Revocation of a Special Permit for Non-
Compliance with a Term or Condition.
    One commenter expressed concern that the word ``material'' does not
precede the words ``term or condition'' in Sec.  190.341(h)(1)(v) and,
accordingly, that the interim final rule could be read to permit
revocation of a special permit based on a clerical error.
    Response: PHMSA understands that pipeline infrastructure projects
involve major investment decisions based to some degree on reliance on
special permits and that modification or revocation is a serious
matter. PHMSA has no history of modifying or revoking special permits
for clerical errors or other immaterial or frivolous reasons, and
nothing in the rule suggested a change in policy. However, in order to
prevent any conceivable misunderstanding, and for the sake of
consistency with subparagraph (ii) of this section, we are adding the
word ``material'' in this final rule. Moreover, it is worth noting that
PHMSA's enforcement remedies for noncompliance with a special permit
are not limited to modification or revocation of the permit under the
final rule. A special permit is a form of agency order, the violation
of which may subject the operator to civil penalties and other remedies
pursuant to 49 CFR 190.221. Because a holder of a special permit is not
operating under the rule that was waived, it is obligated to adhere to
all of the terms and conditions of its special permit.
    This commenter also stated its view that modification or revocation
of a special permit for non-compliance with a term or condition should
be limited to the affected pipeline segment as opposed to the entire
line.
    Response: PHMSA considers such issues on a case-by-case basis and
makes a determination concerning the proper scope of any revocation or
modification based on the nature and severity of the non-compliance and
PHMSA's assessment of the actions necessary to ensure safe operation.
If an operator contends that PHMSA's enforcement action should be
confined to a smaller portion of its line, with the exception of
emergencies, under Sec.  190.341(h)(2), the operator will have the
opportunity to show cause for narrower relief. Accordingly, no change
was made in the rule on this issue.
    3. Handling of Confidential Materials.
    One commenter suggested that materials submitted to PHMSA, that the
applicant designates as confidential, should be protected pending
PHMSA's decision whether the materials qualify for confidential
treatment.
    Response: This reflects current practice, and nothing in the rule
suggests that PHMSA would do otherwise. PHMSA intends to continue this
practice to the extent consistent with DOT policy and applicable law.
Accordingly, no change was made in the rule on this issue.
    4. Compliance Enforcement While Special Permit Application Is
Pending.
    One commenter suggested that PHMSA should include a ``safe harbor''
or ``permit shield'' that would prohibit PHMSA from citing an operator
for non-compliance with a regulation pending review and consideration
of a related special permit application.
    Response: We understand that an operator who has come forward with
a special permit application might be concerned about being cited for
non-compliance while its application is pending. Likewise, we
acknowledge that specific circumstances might warrant forbearance of
enforcement action pending consideration of a special permit
application, as where the operator has in good faith implemented
alternative safety controls and when strict compliance with an
otherwise applicable requirement would be unduly burdensome or
unreasonable. However, operators must recognize that failure to comply
with an applicable regulatory requirement is not itself a basis for
seeking a special permit and necessarily exposes an operator to some
risk of enforcement. PHMSA reviews these circumstances on a case-by-
case basis and has the discretion to conduct enforcement or refrain
from doing so. PHMSA will not enact a blanket prohibition on its
exercise of enforcement authority based on the pendency of a special
permit application. Accordingly, no change was made in the rule on this
issue.
    5. Special Permits Without an End Date.
    One commenter sought clarification that renewal does not apply to
special permits without an end date.
    Response: PHMSA agrees, and nothing in the rule would suggest
otherwise. Accordingly, no change was necessary in the rule on this
issue.
    6. Availability of Informal Consultation/Hearing Option in Special
Permit Proceedings.
    One commenter suggested that the informal consultation and hearing
process used for safety orders should also be used for special permit
proceedings.
    Response: PHMSA recognizes the importance of working closely with
special permit applicants and communicates extensively with applicants
about information that may be needed by PHMSA to process the
application and about the kinds of alternative measures that would be
needed to ensure an adequate level of safety. Since special permits
already involve extensive informal (technical) consultations between
PHMSA and the applicant and because there is also an opportunity for
(paper) hearing in the special permit process, it is unnecessary to
make any changes to the rule on this issue.
    7. Miscellaneous Comments on Special Permits.
    One commenter representing local gas distribution companies (LDCs)
voiced concern about the length of time it has historically taken to
obtain special permits for gas utilities from the responsible State
agencies and commissions. The commenter also suggested that PHMSA
should work with the LDC trade associations and State regulators to
develop guidance for issuing emergency special permits for predictable
situations such as severe winter conditions. Another commenter pointed
out that gas LDCs often develop long-term remedial plans with the State
commissions.
    Response: States handle special permits for gas distribution
systems, and State proceedings are not part of this rule. PHMSA has
been working with the States to help them develop guidance for issuing
emergency special permits and will continue to assist the States on
these issues. Nothing in the rule affects the ability of LDCs to
develop long-term

remedial plans with the State commissions.
    Finally, we are making a minor change to Sec.  190.341(c) to
clarify that the information needed by PHMSA to process a special
permit application may include environmental information where
necessary.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This
final rule is not significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979). Because this rule conforms
agency practice and procedure to reflect current public law and does
not impose any new substantive requirements on operators or the public,
it has no significant economic impact on regulated entities, and
preparation of a regulatory impact analysis was not warranted.

B. Executive Order 13132

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
rule does not introduce any regulation that: (1) Has substantial direct
effects on the States, the relationship between the national government
and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts State
law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive
Order 13132 do not apply. Further, this rule does not have impacts on
federalism sufficient to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment.

C. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this rule does
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian
tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of
Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

D. Executive Order 13211

    This final rule is not a significant energy action under Executive
Order 13211. It is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule has not
been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this final rule conforms 49 CFR part 190 to the PIPES Act,
updates the part 190 procedures to reflect current public law, and
reflects the relocation of PHMSA headquarters, and will have no direct
or indirect economic impacts for government units, businesses, or other
organizations, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no new information collection requirements
and imposes no additional paperwork burdens. Therefore, submitting an
analysis of the burdens to OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
was unnecessary.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$100 million or more, as adjusted for inflation, to either State, local
or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and
is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule.

H. Environmental Assessment

    Because it imposes no new substantive requirements on operators or
the public, no significant environmental impacts are associated with
this final rule.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 190

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.

49 CFR Part 191

    Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 192

    Pipeline safety, Fire prevention, Security measures.

49 CFR Part 193

    Pipeline safety, Fire prevention, Security measures, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 194

    Oil pollution, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

49 CFR Part 195

    Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Incorporation by reference, Petroleum,
Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 199

    Drug testing, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the interim rule amending 49
CFR parts 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, and 199 which was published at
73 FR 16562 on March 28, 2008, is adopted as a final rule with the
following amendments:

PART 190--PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAMS AND RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 190 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, 60101 et seq.;
49 CFR 1.53.

Sec.  190.239  [Amended]

0
2. Section 190.239 is amended as follows:
0
a. Paragraph (a) is amended by removing the phrase ``risk assessment,
risk control, data integration, information management,'' from the last
sentence.
0
b. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by revising the last sentence to read as
set forth below.
0
c. Paragraph (b)(2) is amended by replacing the word PHMSA the third
time it appears with the words ``Regional Director'' and replacing the
word ``PHMSA'' the fourth time it appears with the words ``Associate
Administrator.''

Sec.  190.239  Safety orders.

    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * An operator receiving a notice will have 30 days to
respond to the PHMSA official who issued the notice.

Sec.  190.341  [Amended]

0
3. Section 190.341 is amended as follows:
0
a. Remove the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(7) and add the
word ``and'' to the end of paragraph (c)(8).
0
b. Add paragraph (c)(9) and revise paragraph (h)(1)(v) to read as
follows:

Sec.  190.341  Special permits.

* * * * *

    (c) * * *
    (9) Any other information PHMSA may need to process the application
including environmental analysis where necessary.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) The holder has failed to comply with any material term or
condition of the special permit.
* * * * *

PART 191--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
ANNUAL REPORTS, AND SAFETY-RELATED CONDITION REPORTS

0
4. The authority citation for part 191 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60117,
60118, and 60124; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec.  191.7  [Amended]

0
5. The first sentence of Sec.  191.7 is amended by adding the words
``the Information Resources Manager,'' before ``PHP-10,'' and by adding
``-0001'' to the zip code ``20590''. and the first sentence of 191.7 is
also amended by inserting a comma after the word ``Avenue.''

Sec.  191.27  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  191.27, paragraph (b) is amended by: adding the words
``Office of Pipeline Safety,'' before the words ``Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration'', adding the words
``Information Resources Manager,'' before ``PHP-10,''; and adding ``-
0001'' to the zip code ``20590''.

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
7. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec.  192.7  [Amended]

0
8. In Sec.  192.7, paragraph (b) is amended by adding the words
``Office of Pipeline Safety,'' before the words ``Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,'' and adding ``20590-0001''
after the words ``Washington, DC.''

Sec.  192.727  [Amended]

0
9. In Sec.  192.727, paragraph (g)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Adding the words ``Office of Pipeline Safety,'' before the words
``Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,'';
0
b. Adding ``Information Resources Manager,'' before ``PHP-10,'';
0
c. Adding ``-0001'' to the zip code ``20590''.

Sec.  192.949  [Amended]

0
10. In Sec.  192.949, paragraph (a) is amended by moving the words
``Information Resources Manager,'' from their current position and
placing them before ``PHP-10,'' and by adding ``-0001'' to the zip code
``20590''.

Sec.  192.951  [Amended]

0
11. In Sec.  192.951, paragraph (a) is amended by adding the words
``Information Resources Manager,'' before ``PHP-10,'' and by adding ``-
0001'' to the zip code ``20590''.

PART 193--LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS FACILITIES: FEDERAL SAFETY
STANDARDS

0
12. The authority citation for part 193 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec.  193.2013  [Amended]

0
13. In Sec.  193.2013, paragraph (b) is amended by adding ``20590-
0001'' after the words ``Washington, DC.''

PART 194--RESPONSE PLANS FOR ONSHORE OIL PIPELINES

0
14. The authority citation for part 194 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j)(1)(C), (j)(5) and (j)(6);
sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR
1.53.

Sec.  194.119  [Amended]

0
15. In Sec.  194.119, paragraph (a) is amended by adding the words
``Office of Pipeline Safety'' before the words ``Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration.''

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

0
16. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec.  195.3  [Amended]

0
17. In Sec.  195.3, paragraph (b) is amended by adding the words
``Office of Pipeline Safety,'' before the words ``Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,'' by adding the words ``U.S.
Department of Transportation'' following the words ``Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration'' and by adding the zip code
``20590-0001'' following the words ``Washington, DC.''

Sec.  195.52  [Amended]

0
18. In Sec.  195.52, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words
``267-2675,'' and adding in their place ``(202) 372-2428,'' and by
adding the zip code ``20590-0001'' after ``Washington, DC''.

Sec.  195.57  [Amended]

0
19. In Sec.  195.57, paragraph (b) is amended by adding the words
``Office of Pipeline Safety'' before ``Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration,'' and by adding ``Information Resources
Manager'' before ``PHP-10.''

Sec.  195.58  [Amended]

0
20. Section 195.58 is amended by removing the words ``the Information
Resources Manager,''; removing the words ``Room 7128, 400 Seventh
Street, SW.,'' and adding in their place ``Information Resources
Manager, PHP-10, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,''; and by adding ``-
0001'' to the zip code ``20590''.

Sec.  195.59  [Amended]

0
21. In Sec.  195.59, paragraph (a) is amended by adding the words
``Office of Pipeline Safety,'' before ``Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration,''; adding the words ``Information
Resources Manager,'' before ``PHP-10,''; and adding ``-0001'' to the
zip code ``20590''.

Sec.  195.62  [Amended]

0
22. Section 195.62 is amended by removing the words ``Information
Resources Manager, Office of Pipeline Safety, Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.'' and adding the words ``Office
of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Information
Resources Manager, PHP-10, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001.'' in their place.

PART 199--DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING

0
23. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60117, and
60118; 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec.  199.7  [Amended]

0
24. In Sec.  199.7, paragraph (a) is amended by: adding ``U.S.'' before

``Department of Transportation,''; adding ``1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE'' before ``Washington, DC''; and adding ``-0001'' to the zip code
``20590''.

Sec.  199.229  [Amended]

0
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