4296 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

the SIP. This was made clear in 

PHMSA’s April 18, 2003, final rule, 

which was coordinated with EPA. As 

we stated in the preamble to the final 

rule, the additional K–EPA27 ‘‘marking 

requirement will preempt state marking 

requirements for cargo tanks tested with 

the EPA Method 27 test, eliminating 

possible confusion by enforcement 

personnel attempting to verify that a 

cargo tank has met the HMR leak test 

requirements.’’ 68 FR at 19263. 

The portion of 6 NYCRR 230.4(a)(3) 

which requires marking the ‘‘date each 

tank last passed the pressure and 

vacuum test * * * near the U.S. 

Department of Transportation certificate 

plate,’’ is ‘‘substantively the same as’’ 

requirements in the HMR. Otherwise, 

however, the provisions that specify 

that the marking be a minimum 2′′ size 

and include ‘‘NYSDEC’’ clearly go 

beyond—and are not substantively the 

same as—requirements in 49 CFR 

180.415(b) for the marking of a 

packaging or container that is 

‘‘represented, marked, certified, or sold 

as qualified for use in transporting 

hazardous material.’’ 

Similarly, the recordkeeping 

requirements in 6 NYCRR 230.6(b) and 

(c) are substantively different from 

specific requirements in the HMR on 

‘‘inspecting,’’ ‘‘maintaining,’’ 

‘‘repairing’’ and ‘‘testing a package [or] 

container * * * that is represented, 

marked, certified, or sold as qualified 

for use in transporting hazardous 

material in commerce.’’ 

A State requirement for additional 

markings on the cargo tank itself 

increases the potential that the markings 

required by the HMR will not be 

complete or clear and that shipments 

will be delayed by State inspectors who 

are familiar only with their own State’s 

requirements, or by Federal inspectors 

who cannot discern which markings are 

those required by the HMR. The 

inconsistencies among the gasoline tank 

truck marking requirements of the 

different States in the Northeast OTR 

and these States’ lack of complete 

reciprocity amply demonstrate the need 

for a uniform Federal marking system to 

eliminate confusion whether a cargo 

tank has undergone the required 

inspections and tests. 

Confusion and non-compliance are 

also created by the requirement in 6 

NYCRR 230.6(b) to maintain a copy of 

the pressure-vacuum test results on the 

transport vehicle. In the Harmon case, 

the Court of Appeals found that the 

HMR ‘‘require only that a limited 

amount of documentation be carried in 

the vehicle, which avoids carrier 

confusion and promotes quick access to 

critical documentation. Colorado’s 

requirement of additional information 

[to carry an inspection report on the 

vehicle] could create confusion in an 

emergency situation and could thereby 

increase the potential hazard’’ during 

transportation. 951 F.2d at 1583. 

Contrary to the assertion of the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, a 

requirement to carry the test and repair 

records on the vehicle does not 

eliminate ‘‘the need to place a copy of 

the results in archived files.’’ The 

FMCSA (or NYSDOT) inspector who 

visits a carrier’s principal place of 

business or regional or terminal office 

will be frustrated when the test results 

are not maintained at that location, but 

only on the vehicle. As NPGA 

commented, ‘‘the vehicle file is the 

primary source of information regarding 

the vehicle’s qualifications for 

continued use,’’ and the requirement to 

maintain test and repair records on the 

vehicle ‘‘would seem to cause the 

vehicle owner to not comply with these 

DOT requirements.’’ The differences 

among the States within the Northeast 

OTR make confusion and lack of 

compliance with the HMR’s 

requirements inevitable. 

NYSDEC’s two-year retention period 

for records of pressure-vacuum testing 

and repairs in 6 NYCRR 230.6(c) also 

creates confusion and potential noncompliance. Most seriously, this 

provision tells cargo tank owners that 

they may discard repair records after 

two years, but the HMR require that 

records of repair must be retained 

‘‘during the time the cargo tank motor 

vehicle is in service and for one year 

thereafter.’’ 49 CFR 180.413(f). In 

addition, the requirement to retain more 

than one set of pressure-vacuum test 

records (covering the last two or more 

annual tests, depending on the State) 

will inevitably lead to confusion as to 

which set of records cover the most 

recent testing. 

IV. Ruling 

Federal hazardous material 

transportation law does not preempt 

that part of 6 NYCRR 230.4(a)(3) 

requiring that a gasoline transport 

vehicle must be marked, near the U.S. 

DOT specification plate, with the date 

on which the tank was last tested for 

vapor tightness. However, that marking 

must be substantively the same as 

specified in 49 CFR 180.417(b): ‘‘K– 

EPA27’’ in association with the date 

(month and year) of the most recent test. 

Federal hazardous material 

transportation law preempts (1) the 

provisions in 6 NYCRR 230.4(a)(3) 

which require that the marking be a 

minimum two inches and contain ‘‘NYS 

DEC’’; (2) the requirement in 6 NYCRR 

230.6(b) for maintaining a copy of the 

most recent pressure-vacuum test 

results with the gasoline transport 

vehicle; and (3) the requirement in 6 

NYCRR 230.6(c) to retain pressurevacuum test and repair results for two 

years, because these requirements are 

not substantively the same as 

requirements in the HMR on the 

marking, inspecting, maintaining, 

repairing, or testing of a package or 

container that is represented, marked, 

certified, or sold as qualified for 

transporting hazardous material. 

V. Petition for Reconsideration/Judicial 

Review 

In accordance with 49 CFR 

107.211(a), any person aggrieved by this 

decision may file a petition for 

reconsideration within 20 days of 

publication of this decision in the 

Federal Register. A petition for judicial 

review of a final preemption 

determination must be filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia or in the Court of 

Appeals for the United States for the 

circuit in which the petitioner resides or 

has its principal place of business, 

within 60 days after the determination 

becomes final. 49 U.S.C. 5127(a). 

This decision will become PHMSA’s 

final decision 20 days after publication 

in the Federal Register if no petition for 

reconsideration is filed within that time. 

The filing of a petition for 

reconsideration is not a prerequisite to 

seeking judicial review of this decision 

under 49 U.S.C. 5127(a). 

If a petition for reconsideration is 

filed within 20 days of publication in 

the Federal Register, the action by 

PHMSA’s Chief Counsel on the petition 

for reconsideration will be PHMSA’s 

final action. 49 CFR 107.211(d). 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 15, 

2009. 

David E. Kunz, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–1431 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2008–0333] 

Pipeline Safety: Requests for Special 

Permit 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4297 

SUMMARY: The Federal pipeline safety 

laws allow a pipeline operator to 

request PHMSA to waive compliance 

with any part of the Federal pipeline 

safety regulations by granting a special 

permit to the operator. PHMSA is 

publishing this notice to provide a list 

of special permit requests we have 

received from pipeline operators 

seeking relief from compliance with 

certain pipeline safety regulations. This 

notice seeks public comment on these 

requests, including comments on any 

environmental impacts. At the 

conclusion of the 30 days comment 

period, PHMSA will evaluate each 

request individually to determine 

whether to grant or deny a special 

permit. 

DATES: Submit any comments regarding 

any of these special permit requests by 

February 23, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference 

the docket number for the special 

permit request and may be submitted in 

the following ways: 

• E-Gov Web Site: http:// 

www.Regulations.gov. This site allows 

the public to enter comments on any 

Federal Register notice issued by any 

agency. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket 

Management System: U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You should identify the 

docket number for the special permit 

request you are commenting on at the 

beginning of your comments. If you 

submit your comments by mail, submit 

two copies. To receive confirmation that 

PHMSA received your comments, 

include a self-addressed stamped 

postcard. Internet users may submit 

comments at http:// 

www.Regulations.gov. 

Note: Comments are posted without 

changes or edits to http:// 

www.Regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided. There is a privacy 

statement published on http:// 

www.Regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General: Kay McIver by telephone at 

(202) 366–0113; or, e-mail at 

kay.mciver@dot.gov. 

Technical: Steve Nanney by telephone 

at (713) 272–2855, or, e-mail at 

steve.nanney@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA 

has filed in the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) requests 

for special permits we have received 

from pipeline operators seeking relief 

from compliance with certain pipeline 

safety regulations. Each request has 

been assigned a separate docket number 

in the FDMS. We invite interested 

persons to participate by reviewing 

these special permit requests and by 

submitting written comments, data or 

other views. Please include any 

comments on environmental impacts 

granting the special permit may have. 

Before acting on any special permit 

request, PHMSA will evaluate all 

comments received on or before the 

comment closing date. We will consider 

comments received after this date if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

additional expense or delay. We may 

grant a special permit or deny a request 

based on the comments we receive. 

PHMSA has received the following 

special permit requests: 

Docket No. Requester Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permit 

PHMSA–2008–0188 ........ Texas Eastern 

Transmission, 

L.P. (‘‘TETLP’’) 

(Spectra Energy).

49 CFR 192.611 ..................................... To authorize Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. 

(TETLP) to operate two pipeline segments on its 

24-inch Line 12 system downstream of its 

Grantville Compressor station in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania to Bernville Compressor station 

in Pennsylvania without reducing operating pressure as a result of changes from Class 1 to 

Class 2 locations. Grantville Line 12 would continue to operate at its maximum allowable operating pressure (‘‘MAOP’’) of 1,050 psig without 

replacing the pipe in the new Class 2 area. 

PHMSA–2008–0213 ........ Empire Pipeline ...... 49 CFR 192.611 ..................................... To authorize the Empire Pipeline to operate 5 segments on its 24-inch natural gas pipeline without 

reducing the operating pressure as a result of 

changes from Class 1 to Class 3 locations. The 

special permit is sought with respect to these 

five segments: 

Segment 1: (MP 57.33 to MP 57.49) in the town of 

Byron, Genesee County, NY, west of NY Route 

237. 

Segment 2: (MP 76.09 to MP 76.42) located in the 

town of Henrietta, in Monroe County, NY and 

375 feet west of East River Road. 

Segment 3: (MP 84.88 to MP 85.19) located in the 

town of Pittsford, Monroe County, NY, beginning 

approximately 200 feet west of West Bloomfield 

Road and continuing approximately 3/10th of a 

mile to the west. 

Segment 4: (MP 23.30 to MP 23.81) located in the 

town of Pendleton, Niagara County, NY, west of 

Transit Road (Route 78). 

Segment 5: (MP 25.19 to MP 25.54) located in the 

town of Lockport, Niagara County, New York, 

east of Old Beattie Road. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

4298 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 

Docket No. Requester Regulation(s) affected Nature of special permit 

PHMSA–2008–0257 ........ Texas Eastern 

Transmission.

49 CFR 192.112(a)(1), 49 CFR 

192.112(c)(1), 49 CFR 

192.112(c)(2)(i), 49 CFR 

192.112(c)(2)(ii), 49 CFR 

192.112(c)(2)(iii), 49 CFR 

192.112(d)(2)(i), 49 CFR 

192.112(f)(1), 49 CFR 

192.620(d)(5)(iii).

To authorize an increase in MAOP on the Texas 

Eastern Transmission, L.P. (‘‘TETLP’’) 36-inch 

Lines 1 and 2 from the Uniontown, Pennsylvania 

compressor station to a mainline regulating station, approximately 7 miles west of its 

Lambertville, New Jersey compressor station. 

The pipeline system operating pressure would 

increase to 80% of specified minimum yield 

strength (SMYS) in Class 1 locations, 67% 

SMYS in Class 2 locations, and 56% SMYS in 

Class 3 locations. There are no Class 4 areas 

on the system and TETLP does not propose to 

include future Class 4 areas under this special 

permit. The existing pipeline system pressure is 

1000 psig and will be uprated to 1112 psig. The 

MAOP uprate is part of two proposed pipeline 

capacity expansion projects, called the TEMAS 

and TIME III Projects. 

PHMSA–2008–0285 ........ TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP 

36-inch XL Pipeline.

49 CFR 195.106 ..................................... To authorize TransCanada to design, construct 

and operate the proposed 36-inch TransCanada 

Keystone XL Pipeline Project, using a design 

factor and operating stress level of 80% SMYS. 

PHMSA–2008–0327 ........ Trunkline LNG 

(TLNG).

49 CFR 190.341 ..................................... To authorize Trunkline LNG (TLNG) to operate 

two potassium formate heat-exchange vaporizers at the TLNG facility near Lake Charles, 

Louisiana. These vaporizers are part of a nearly 

completed expansion project at the facility and 

are referred to as the IEP (Infrastructure Expansion Project). This request is to adjust the allowed distance between the second and third 

vaporizers. 

PHMSA–2008–0330 ........ Columbia Gas 

Transmission 

(CGT).

49 CFR 192.611 ..................................... To authorize Columbia Gas Transmission (CGT) 

to operate 2 segments on its 30-inch Mainline 

200, and its 36-inch Mainline 300 pipeline systems located in Mt. Juliet, Wilson County, Tennessee, without reducing operating pressure as 

a result of changes from original Class 1 or 

Class 2 to Class 3 locations, and without replacing the pipe in Class 3 areas. 

PHMSA–2008–0331 ........ Columbia Gas 

Transmission 

(CGT).

49 CFR 192.611 ..................................... To authorize Columbia Gas Transmission (CGT) 

to operate six segments of 30-inch SM–80 and 

30-inch SM–80–Loop pipelines in Cabell and 

Putnam Counties, WV, at the current 935 psig 

operating pressure without replacing pipe in the 

Class 3 locations. The SM–80 and SM–80–Loop 

pipelines are parallel to one another across their 

full length starting at Boyd County, Kentucky 

and ending at the Lanham compressor station at 

Rocky Fork, West Virginia. 

PHMSA–2008–0332 ........ Columbia Gas 

Transmission 

(CGT).

49 CFR 192.611 ..................................... To authorize Columbia Gas Transmission (CGT) 

to operate 5 segments of 20-inch Mainline 1804 

pipeline system in Adams and York Counties, 

PA without reducing operating pressure as a result of changes from Class 1 to Class 3 locations. 

PHMSA–2008–0345 ........ Columbia Gas 

Transmission 

(CGT).

49 CFR 192.611 ..................................... To authorize Columbia Gas Transmission (CGT) 

to operate four segments of its 24-inch Mainline 

R–701 pipeline in Southern Ohio without reducing operating pressure as a result of changes 

from Class 1 to Class 3 locations. Line R–701 

runs south to north starting at Burlington, Ohio 

and ending at McArthur, Ohio. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 14 / Friday, January 23, 2009 / Notices 4299 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1) and 

49 CFR 1.53. 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 15, 

2009. 

John Gale, 

Director, Office of Regulations. 

[FR Doc. E9–1425 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Additional Designation of an Entity 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13224 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Treasury Department’s 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

(‘‘OFAC’’) is publishing the name of one 

newly-designated entity whose property 

and interests in property are blocked 

pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of 

September 23, 2001, ‘‘Blocking Property 

and Prohibiting Transactions With 

Persons Who Commit, Threaten To 

Commit, or Support Terrorism.’’ 

DATES: The designation by the Director 

of OFAC of the one entity identified in 

this notice, pursuant to Executive Order 

13224, is effective on January 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assistant Director, Compliance 

Outreach & Implementation, Office of 

Foreign Assets Control, Department of 

the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, 

tel.: 202/622–2490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic and Facsimile Availability 

This document and additional 

information concerning OFAC are 

available from OFAC’s Web site (http: 

//www.treas.gov/ofac) or via facsimile 

through a 24-hour fax-on-demand 

service, tel.: 202/622–0077. 

Background 

On September 23, 2001, the President 

issued Executive Order 13224 (the 

‘‘Order’’) pursuant to the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 

U.S.C. 1701–1706, and the United 

Nations Participation Act of 1945, 22 

U.S.C. 287c. In the Order, the President 

declared a national emergency to 

address grave acts of terrorism and 

threats of terrorism committed by 

foreign terrorists, including the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in 

New York, Pennsylvania, and at the 

Pentagon. The Order imposes economic 

sanctions on persons who have 

committed, pose a significant risk of 

committing, or support acts of terrorism. 

The President identified in the Annex to 

the Order, as amended by Executive 

Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, 13 

individuals and 16 entities as subject to 

the economic sanctions. The Order was 

further amended by Executive Order 

13284 of January 23, 2003, to reflect the 

creation of the Department of Homeland 

Security. 

Section 1 of the Order blocks, with 

certain exceptions, all property and 

interests in property that are in or 

hereafter come within the United States 

or the possession or control of United 

States persons, of: (1) Foreign persons 

listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) 

foreign persons determined by the 

Secretary of State, in consultation with 

the Secretary of the Treasury, the 

Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Attorney 

General, to have committed, or to pose 

a significant risk of committing, acts of 

terrorism that threaten the security of 

U.S. nationals or the national security, 

foreign policy, or economy of the United 

States; (3) persons determined by the 

Director of OFAC, in consultation with 

the Departments of State, Homeland 

Security and Justice, to be owned or 

controlled by, or to act for or on behalf 

of those persons listed in the Annex to 

the Order or those persons determined 

to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 

1(d)(i) of the Order; and (4) except as 

provided in section 5 of the Order and 

after such consultation, if any, with 

foreign authorities as the Secretary of 

State, in consultation with the Secretary 

of the Treasury, the Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security and 

the Attorney General, deems 

appropriate in the exercise of his 

discretion, persons determined by the 

Director of OFAC, in consultation with 

the Departments of State, Homeland 

Security and Justice, to assist in, 

sponsor, or provide financial, material, 

or technological support for, or financial 

or other services to or in support of, 

such acts of terrorism or those persons 

listed in the Annex to the Order or 

determined to be subject to the Order or 

to be otherwise associated with those 

persons listed in the Annex to the Order 

or those persons determined to be 

subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) 

of the Order. 

On January 6, 2009, the Director of 

OFAC, in consultation with the 

Departments of State, Homeland 

Security, Justice and other relevant 

agencies, designated, pursuant to one or 

more of the criteria set forth in 

subsections 1(b), 1(c) or 1(d) of the 

Order, one entity whose property and 

interests in property are blocked 

pursuant to Executive Order 13224. 

The designee is as follows: 

1.WAAD PROJECT (a.k.a. AL-WAAD 

AL-SADIQ; a.k.a. ’MASHURA WAAD 

LAADAT AL-AAMAR; a.k.a. WAAD; 

a.k.a. WA’AD AS SADIQ; a.k.a. WAAD 

COMPANY; a.k.a. WAAD FOR 

REBUILDING THE SOUTHERN 

SUBURB; a.k.a. WAAD PROJECT FOR 

RECONSTRUCTION; a.k.a. WA’D 

PROJECT; a.k.a. WAED; a.k.a. WA’ED 

ORGANIZATION; a.k.a. WA’ID 

COMPANY), Harat Hurayk, Lebanon; 

Beirut, Lebanon; Telephone No. 

009613679153; Telephone No. 

009613380223; Telephone No. 

03889402; Telephone No. 03669916 

[SDGT]. 

Dated: January 6, 2009. 

Adam J. Szubin, 

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. 

[FR Doc. E9–1310 Filed 1–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4811–45–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Additional Designations of Individuals 

and Entities Pursuant to Executive 

Order 13448 or Executive Order 13464 

and Identifications of Individuals and 

Entities Blocked Pursuant to the JADE 

Act 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Treasury Department’s 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

(‘‘OFAC’’) is publishing the names of 

two newly-designated individuals and 

twenty-three entities whose property 

and interests in property are blocked 

pursuant to Executive Order 13448 of 

October 18, 2007, ‘‘Blocking Property 

and Prohibiting Certain Transactions 

Related to Burma’’ or Executive Order 

13464 of April 30, 2008, ‘‘Blocking 

Property and Prohibiting Certain 

Transactions Related to Burma.’’ OFAC 

is also identifying certain individuals 

and entities that are subject to the 

blocking provisions of the Tom Lantos 

Block Burmese JADE (Junta’s AntiDemocratic Efforts) Act of 2008 (the 

‘‘JADE Act’’). 

DATES: The designation by the Director 

of OFAC of two individuals and twentythree entities identified in this notice, 

pursuant to Executive Order 13448 or 

Executive Order 13464 is effective 

January 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assistant Director, Compliance 

Outreach & Implementation, Office of 

Foreign Assets Control, Department of 

the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., (Treasury Annex), 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES