Pipeline Safety: Meeting on Pipeline Repairs and Permitting, 18459-18460 [05-7267]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 68 / Monday, April 11, 2005 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20782; Notice 1]
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.,
Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG has
determined that certain vehicles that it
manufactured for model years 2003,
2004 and 2005 do not comply with
S4.2.2(a) of 49 CFR 571.114, Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 114, ‘‘Theft protection.’’ On behalf
of Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG, Porsche
Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) has
filed an appropriate report pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect and
Noncompliance Reports.’’
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h), Porsche has petitioned for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Porsche’s
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
Approximately 28,949 model year
2003, 2004, and 2005 Porsche Cayenne,
Cayenne S and Cayenne Turbo vehicles
are affected. S4.2.2(a) of FMVSS No. 114
requires that
* * * provided that steering is prevented
upon the key’s removal, each vehicle * * *
[which has an automatic transmission with a
‘‘park’’ position] may permit key removal
when electrical failure of this [key-locking]
system * * * occurs or may have a device
which, when activated, permits key removal.
In the affected vehicles, the steering
does not lock when the ignition key is
removed from the ignition switch using
the optionally provided device that
permits key removal in the event of
electrical system failure or when the
transmission is not in the ‘‘park’’
position.
Porsche believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted. Porsche
states the following in its petition:
The ignition key/transmission interlock
requirements of S4.2 were promulgated in
Docket 1–21 (Notice 9 published in May 30,
1990). In that notice there was no provision
for an emergency operation system to permit
ignition key removal when the transmission
is not in ‘‘Park’’ position. In response to
several automobile manufacturer petitions for
reconsideration, the agency published Notice
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:45 Apr 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
10 (March 26, 1991) to supplement S4.2 by
the addition of S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 that did
permit an emergency operation system to be
located behind an opaque cover that could
only be removed via the use of a tool. The
use of the emergency operation system
allows the removal of the ignition key when
the transmission is not in ‘‘Park.’’ The
emergency operation system would also
permit moving the shift lever out of ‘‘Park’’
position after removal of the ignition key.
The use of the emergency operation system
was dependent upon the steering system
being locked whenever the ignition key is
removed.
Some manufacturers again filed petitions
for reconsideration to the Notice 10
amendment which the agency responded [to]
in Notice 11 (January 17, 1992). Notice 11
amended S4.2.2(a) to permit ignition key
removal even if the transmission were not in
‘‘Park’’ if there is an electrical failure of the
vehicle without activation of the emergency
operating system. When the vehicle’s
electrical system was behaving normally,
removal of the ignition key in transmission
positions other than ‘‘Park’’ would only be
permissible via the emergency operation
system. Ignition key removal in transmission
shift positions other than ‘‘Park’’ required, as
before, that the steering system would lock.
The requirement that the steering be locked
when the ignition key is removed was
debated in both Notice 10 and 11 ‘‘to ensure
that Standard No. 114’s theft protection
aspects are not jeopardized.’’ Nothing in the
record indicates that this requirement was
based on a need to prevent personal or
property damage.
Porsche states that it believes the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because the
steering lock function when the vehicle
is without electrical power and the
ignition key is removed has no safety
implication because the vehicle is
immobilized. Porsche explains:
In the Cayenne models at issue here the
removal of the ignition key using the
emergency operation system is a vehicle
security function to prevent the vehicle from
being driven by simply jump-starting the
vehicle, due to the fact that the vehicle is
equipped with an immobilizer that prevents
starting of the vehicle without the
electronically coded ignition key. The keycode is recorded in the engine control
module and cannot be electrically bypassed.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments on the petition described
above. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the
beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following
methods. Mail: Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Nassif Building, Room
PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, 20590–0001. Hand
Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18459
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It
is requested, but not required, that two
copies of the comments be provided.
The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except
Federal holidays. Comments may be
submitted electronically by logging onto
the Docket Management System Web
site at https://dms.dot.gov. Click on
‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing
the document electronically. Comments
may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or
may be submitted to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: go to https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
The petition, supporting materials,
and all comments received before the
close of business on the closing date
indicated below will be filed and will be
considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the
closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied,
notice of the decision will be published
in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.
Comment closing date: (30 days after
Publication Date).
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: April 5, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–7198 Filed 4–8–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–05–20920]
Pipeline Safety: Meeting on Pipeline
Repairs and Permitting
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS),
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of meeting
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On May 6, 2005, OPS will
hold a meeting to discuss pipeline
repairs and permitting. This meeting
provides the pipeline industry an
opportunity to share its experience with
making pipeline repairs and obtaining
permits.
The May 6, 2005, meeting
will be held at the Hyatt Regency Reston
Hotel, 1800 Presidents Street, Reston,
VA 20190. The telephone number to call
for reservations at the Hyatt Regency
Reston Hotel is (703) 925–8225. The
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM
11APN1
18460
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 68 / Monday, April 11, 2005 / Notices
particular meeting room will be posted
by the hotel the day of the meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Khayata, OPS, (404) 832–1155 or
Rita Freeman-Kelly, OPS (202) 366–
5443 about the subject matter in this
notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Integrity Management Program
The nation’s existing pipeline
infrastructure requires regular safety
and environmental reviews to ensure its
reliability and safety. To further
strengthen safety of the pipeline
infrastructure and following pipeline
ruptures in Bellingham, Washington,
and Carlsbad, New Mexico, OPS
developed the integrity management
program (IMP) requirements. OPS
amended 49 CFR part 195 to require
operators of pipelines transporting
hazardous liquid pipeline facilities to
ensure the integrity of pipeline
segments that, in the event of a leak or
rupture, could impact High
Consequence Areas (HCAs), which are
populated areas, areas unusually
sensitive to environmental damage, and
commercially navigable waterways. As
part of the IMP requirements operators
must (1) identify HCAs relevant to their
pipelines; (2) systematically identify
risks to those segments of pipelines that
could affect HCAs; and (3) address those
risks through specified methods.
While OPS was developing the gas
IMP requirements, Congress passed the
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2002 (PSIA), (Pub. L. 107–355; codified
at 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). The PSIA
mandated that PHMSA (formerly the
Research and Special Programs
Administration) adopt regulations for
gas integrity management. The
regulations addressing gas integrity
management programs are addressed in
49 CFR part 192, subpart O.
Both the liquid and gas IMP
requirements establish a timetable for
the initial inspection and periodic reinspection of pipelines. Pipeline defects
are categorized according to detailed
IMP criteria, with specific repair actions
and timeframes for each, depending on
the severity of the defect. OPS designed
its approach to achieve greater safety by
establishing performance-based
requirements that allow operators to
determine the most appropriate
inspection processes and technologies
to use in their integrity management
programs.
Operators now have some experience
with IMP and have expressed concerns
to OPS about their ability to make
repairs within the required timeframes.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:45 Apr 08, 2005
Jkt 205001
Permit Streamlining
Section 16 of the PSIA directed
Federal agencies with responsibility
over pipeline repairs to participate in an
Interagency Committee (IAC) and enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) to provide a coordinated and
expedited pipeline repair permit review
process. In 2003, the IAC was
established to implement a coordinated
environmental review and permitting
process that allows pipeline repairs to
be completed within the timeframes
specified in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195.
The IAC, organized by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (which
oversees and assists all IAC member
Federal agencies with their efforts to
expedite their review of permits),
includes representatives of Federal
agencies with responsibilities for
pipeline repair projects. In June 2004,
participating Federal agencies signed
the MOU on ‘‘Coordination of
Environmental Reviews for Pipeline
Repair Projects.’’ The MOU identifies
the roles and responsibilities of each
party, thereby improving the permitting
process coordination. In signing this
MOU, the IAC intends to expedite the
environmental permit process while
maintaining safety, pubic health, and
environmental protections. The IAC
therefore recognizes that early planning,
notice, and consultation among pipeline
operators and various Federal agencies
can result in timely decisions enabling
critical repair actions to move forward
within the context of resource
conservation.
During the June 2004 Oversight
Hearing on Pipeline Safety, CEQ
Chairman James Connaughton identified
four initiatives that the IAC would
explore to improve the permit
streamlining process: (1) Early
consultation and coordination to
minimize impacts on energy supply and
price; (2) consolidation of existing
permitting processes; and (3) adoption
of best practices for repairs and
consideration of categorical exclusions
under the National Environmental
Policy Act; and (4) identification of
instances where permit delays, specific
issues, and additional authorizations
prevent time-sensitive repairs under
current regulations. Improving the
process will help ensure that timely
decisions are made to enable pipeline
repairs to occur within the time periods
specified by 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195,
while ensuring the environmental
review and permitting responsibilities
of participating Federal agencies are
achieved.
During the meeting, OPS would like
participants to discuss the repair
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
process, repair criteria, and the agency
permitting process. During the
discussion on the repair process, and in
exploring ways to streamline the permit
process, OPS would like participants to
share the type of experience they have
had with the repair process, e.g.,
pipeline assessment, excavations, and
nature of repairs. For the repair criteria,
OPS would like participants to describe
their experience with factors that allow
them to meet or prevent them from
meeting the repair criteria defined in the
gas or hazardous liquid IMP regulations.
OPS would also like participants to
share their experience with the Federal
permitting process, such as the type of
permits requested, and the average time
it takes to obtain permits.
The agenda for this meeting will
include a discussion on:
• Repair Process
• Repair Criteria
• Agency Permitting Process
OPS plans to establish a docket and
place the record of the meeting in the
docket (https://www.dms.gov). Interested
persons may also submit their views to
the docket following the meeting.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102 and 60133.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 6, 2005.
Theodore L. Willke,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–7267 Filed 4–6–05; 3:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
Surety Companies Acceptable on
Federal Bonds: Companion Property
and Casualty Insurance Company
Financial Management Service,
Fiscal Service, Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 10 to
the Treasury Department Circular 570;
2004 Revision, published July 1, 2004,
at 69 FR 40224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
Certificate of Authority as an acceptable
surety on Federal bonds is hereby
issued to the following Company under
31 U.S.C. 9304 to 9308. Federal bondapproving officers should annotate their
reference copies of the Treasury Circular
570, 2004 Revision, on page 40233 to
reflect this addition: Company Name:
Companion Property and Casualty
Insurance Company. Business Address:
E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM
11APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 68 (Monday, April 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18459-18460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7267]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-05-20920]
Pipeline Safety: Meeting on Pipeline Repairs and Permitting
AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of meeting
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 6, 2005, OPS will hold a meeting to discuss pipeline
repairs and permitting. This meeting provides the pipeline industry an
opportunity to share its experience with making pipeline repairs and
obtaining permits.
ADDRESSES: The May 6, 2005, meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency
Reston Hotel, 1800 Presidents Street, Reston, VA 20190. The telephone
number to call for reservations at the Hyatt Regency Reston Hotel is
(703) 925-8225. The
[[Page 18460]]
particular meeting room will be posted by the hotel the day of the
meeting.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Khayata, OPS, (404) 832-1155 or
Rita Freeman-Kelly, OPS (202) 366-5443 about the subject matter in this
notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Integrity Management Program
The nation's existing pipeline infrastructure requires regular
safety and environmental reviews to ensure its reliability and safety.
To further strengthen safety of the pipeline infrastructure and
following pipeline ruptures in Bellingham, Washington, and Carlsbad,
New Mexico, OPS developed the integrity management program (IMP)
requirements. OPS amended 49 CFR part 195 to require operators of
pipelines transporting hazardous liquid pipeline facilities to ensure
the integrity of pipeline segments that, in the event of a leak or
rupture, could impact High Consequence Areas (HCAs), which are
populated areas, areas unusually sensitive to environmental damage, and
commercially navigable waterways. As part of the IMP requirements
operators must (1) identify HCAs relevant to their pipelines; (2)
systematically identify risks to those segments of pipelines that could
affect HCAs; and (3) address those risks through specified methods.
While OPS was developing the gas IMP requirements, Congress passed
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA), (Pub. L. 107-355;
codified at 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). The PSIA mandated that PHMSA
(formerly the Research and Special Programs Administration) adopt
regulations for gas integrity management. The regulations addressing
gas integrity management programs are addressed in 49 CFR part 192,
subpart O.
Both the liquid and gas IMP requirements establish a timetable for
the initial inspection and periodic re-inspection of pipelines.
Pipeline defects are categorized according to detailed IMP criteria,
with specific repair actions and timeframes for each, depending on the
severity of the defect. OPS designed its approach to achieve greater
safety by establishing performance-based requirements that allow
operators to determine the most appropriate inspection processes and
technologies to use in their integrity management programs.
Operators now have some experience with IMP and have expressed
concerns to OPS about their ability to make repairs within the required
timeframes.
Permit Streamlining
Section 16 of the PSIA directed Federal agencies with
responsibility over pipeline repairs to participate in an Interagency
Committee (IAC) and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
provide a coordinated and expedited pipeline repair permit review
process. In 2003, the IAC was established to implement a coordinated
environmental review and permitting process that allows pipeline
repairs to be completed within the timeframes specified in 49 CFR parts
192 and 195.
The IAC, organized by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
(which oversees and assists all IAC member Federal agencies with their
efforts to expedite their review of permits), includes representatives
of Federal agencies with responsibilities for pipeline repair projects.
In June 2004, participating Federal agencies signed the MOU on
``Coordination of Environmental Reviews for Pipeline Repair Projects.''
The MOU identifies the roles and responsibilities of each party,
thereby improving the permitting process coordination. In signing this
MOU, the IAC intends to expedite the environmental permit process while
maintaining safety, pubic health, and environmental protections. The
IAC therefore recognizes that early planning, notice, and consultation
among pipeline operators and various Federal agencies can result in
timely decisions enabling critical repair actions to move forward
within the context of resource conservation.
During the June 2004 Oversight Hearing on Pipeline Safety, CEQ
Chairman James Connaughton identified four initiatives that the IAC
would explore to improve the permit streamlining process: (1) Early
consultation and coordination to minimize impacts on energy supply and
price; (2) consolidation of existing permitting processes; and (3)
adoption of best practices for repairs and consideration of categorical
exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act; and (4)
identification of instances where permit delays, specific issues, and
additional authorizations prevent time-sensitive repairs under current
regulations. Improving the process will help ensure that timely
decisions are made to enable pipeline repairs to occur within the time
periods specified by 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195, while ensuring the
environmental review and permitting responsibilities of participating
Federal agencies are achieved.
During the meeting, OPS would like participants to discuss the
repair process, repair criteria, and the agency permitting process.
During the discussion on the repair process, and in exploring ways to
streamline the permit process, OPS would like participants to share the
type of experience they have had with the repair process, e.g.,
pipeline assessment, excavations, and nature of repairs. For the repair
criteria, OPS would like participants to describe their experience with
factors that allow them to meet or prevent them from meeting the repair
criteria defined in the gas or hazardous liquid IMP regulations. OPS
would also like participants to share their experience with the Federal
permitting process, such as the type of permits requested, and the
average time it takes to obtain permits.
The agenda for this meeting will include a discussion on:
Repair Process
Repair Criteria
Agency Permitting Process
OPS plans to establish a docket and place the record of the meeting
in the docket (https://www.dms.gov). Interested persons may also submit
their views to the docket following the meeting.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102 and 60133.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 6, 2005.
Theodore L. Willke,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-7267 Filed 4-6-05; 3:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P