Pipeline Safety: Administrative Procedures, Address Updates, and Technical Amendments, 2889-2895 [E9-628]

Agencies

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2889-2895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-628]


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

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, 202-366-4400, or by e-mail at lawrence.white@dot.gov.

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.

[[Page 2890]]

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.

[[Page 2891]]

    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.

[[Page 2892]]

    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

[[Page 2893]]

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.

* * * * *

[[Page 2894]]

    (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

[[Page 2895]]

``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