Pipeline Safety: Requests for Waivers of Compliance (Special Permits), 6042-6044 [E7-2094]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
6042
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Notices
amounts to a potential safety-related
trend.
The agency once again has spent
considerable resources considering
whether to re-open a defects
investigation into Steeltex tires. ODI
analyzed the available data for evidence
of a possible source and mode of failure
of the subject tires, including data
submitted by the petitioners, VOQ and
EWR data, Firestone’s claim and
adjustment data for the subject tires,
owner complaints to ODI since the close
of the prior petitions, and data available
from the agency’s prior technical
reviews of Steeltex tire petitions.
The Steeltex tires within the scope of
DP06–001 represent an immense and
diverse population of tires totaling over
23 million tires distributed over 63
different tire line, size and
manufacturing plant combinations that
are used in the harshest light truck tire
applications. ODI’s analysis of VOQ and
EWR data, and Firestone’s property
damage and warranty adjustment claim
data by individual tire line, size,
production year and manufacturing
plant, indicate that, as in prior technical
reviews, the failure rates for the subject
population of Steeltex tires are within
the range of rates observed in peer tires
of similar size, age and application.
Similarly, when the Steeltex tire data
are analyzed as a whole, the data again
show failure rates that are similar to,
and in some cases lower than, peer tires
of the same size and load rating.
In addition to examining property
damage and warranty adjustment claim
data, ODI also examined fatality and
injury claims to determine if a defect
trend in the subject tires could be
identified based on those data. Our
analysis of data involving tires within
the scope of petition DP06–001 revealed
a total of 19 fatalities in 12 crashes and
209 injuries in 121 crashes. ODI
analyzed the data to determine if
commonalities exist that would yield
evidence of a defect trend. The tires on
vehicles in these incidents were
distributed over multiple tire lines, tire
sizes, manufacturing plants and
production years. In the case of fatal
crashes, the Steeltex tires were
distributed over all three tire lines, three
different tire sizes, two assembly plants
and four of the six production years. In
the case of incidents resulting in
injuries, the Steeltex tires were
distributed over all three tire lines, four
tire sizes, all four manufacturing plants
and four of the six production years.
Although a few of the incidents
involved common tires, the failure rates
of these tires did not reveal a defect
trend.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Feb 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
The tires studied by ODI with the
highest rate of involvement in crashes
involving death or injury were the
Steeltex Radial A/T LT265/75R16 Load
Range D tires recalled by Firestone in
04T–003. These tires comprised
approximately 2 percent of all Steeltex
tires produced by Firestone from 1999
through 2005, but were involved in 20
percent of fatal crashes and 21 percent
of all crashes resulting in death or
injury. ODI’s analysis of the Steeltex
tires within the scope of DP06–001
found that the overall rate of such
crashes per tires produced is 92 percent
lower than the tires recalled in 04T–003.
When analyzed by individual tire line
and plant, the tire with the next highest
rate of crashes resulting in death or
injury had a rate 82 percent lower than
the recalled tires.
Of the alleged 19 fatalities and 209
injuries, 14 of the alleged fatalities 14
and 186 of the alleged injuries occurred
before or during our previous defect
petitions. Although there have been a
few additional crash incidents that have
occurred since denial of the last two
petitions, DP04–004 and DP04–005,
these do not demonstrate a defect trend
and no other new evidence has been
provided to ODI to support the
petitioners’ allegations of safety defects
in the subject Steeltex tires.
Additionally, as was the case at the
denial of DP04–004 and DP04–005, we
do not have a basis for determining that
these incidents, or any significant
portion of them, are attributable to
identifiable defects in a specific line and
size of Steeltex tire.
ODI is aware of three fatal crashes (six
total fatalities) involving vehicles
equipped with Steeltex tires that the
agency had not previously considered
when denying the earlier petitions
(including the one crash that occurred
in 2003 but did not come to the agency’s
attention until after those denials in
2004). Each crash involved a different
line and size of Steeltex tire. ODI’s
analysis of available data sources 15 did
not identify a defect trend with respect
to either of the three different Steeltex
tire lines or sizes involved in these
crashes.
Additionally, ODI is also aware of
twenty-one alleged crashes (twentythree total injuries) occurring since the
denial of DP04–004 and DP04–005. The
tires involved in these incidents were of
varying Steeltex tire lines, sizes,
production years, and originated from
14 One of the 14 fatalities occurred in 2003;
however ODI was unaware of the incident when
DP04–004 and DP04–005 were denied on
September 28, 2004.
15 EWR, Firestone, VOQs, and Petitioners’ List.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
three of the four manufacturing plants
noted in the petition. Again, ODI’s
analysis of the various Steeltex tire lines
and sizes involved in these incidents
did not identify a defect trend.
6.0 Conclusion
ODI has now conducted four
technical reviews of Firestone Steeltex
tires at the petitioners’ request. After
review of the data available to the
agency, and in consideration of factors
such as application, usage, the number
of failures, failure rates, peer
comparisons, severity of injury, and
examination of potential failure modes,
the agency has not found evidence of a
defect trend in a particular sub-category
of Steeltex tires that has not been
recalled or in the broad population of
over 23 million Steeltex tires within the
scope of the petition. Based on ODI’s
analysis of the information submitted in
support of the petition, information in
ODI’s internal databases, information
provided by Firestone, and information
gathered through prior technical
reviews of Steeltex tires, it is unlikely
that NHTSA would issue an order for
the notification and remedy of a safetyrelated defect in the subject tires at the
conclusion of the investigation
requested by the petitioners. Therefore,
in view of the need to allocate and
prioritize NHTSA’s limited resources to
best accomplish the agency’s safety
mission, petition DP06–001 is denied.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); delegations
of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: February 2, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7–2103 Filed 2–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
Pipeline Safety: Requests for Waivers
of Compliance (Special Permits)
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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. We are publishing
this notice to provide a list of requests
we have received from pipeline
operators seeking relief from
compliance with certain pipeline safety
regulations. This notice seeks public
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Notices
comment on these requests, including
comments on any environmental
impacts. In addition, this notice informs
the public that we are changing what we
will call a decision granting such a
request to a special permit. At the
conclusion of the comment period,
PHMSA will evaluate each request
individually to determine whether to
grant a special permit or deny the
request.
Submit any comments regarding
any of these requests for special permit
by March 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference
the docket number for the request and
may be submitted in the following ways:
• DOT Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
To submit comments on the DOT
electronic docket site, click ‘‘Comment/
Submissions,’’ click ‘‘Continue,’’ fill in
the requested information, click
‘‘Continue,’’ enter your comment, then
click ‘‘Submit.’’
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket
Management System; Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,
DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• E-Gov Web Site: https://
www.Regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any
DATES:
Docket Number
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
Instructions: You should identify the
docket number for the request you are
commenting on at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your
comments by mail, you should submit
two copies. If you wish to receive
confirmation that PHMSA received your
comments, you should include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at https://
www.Regulations.gov, and may access
all comments received by DOT at https://
dms.dot.gov by performing a simple
search for the docket number.
Note: All comments will be posted without
changes or edits to https://dms.dot.gov
including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may
search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our
dockets. You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wayne Lemoi by telephone at (404)
832–1160; or, e-mail at
wayne.lemoi@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Change in Nomenclature
PHMSA is changing the name of a
decision we make granting a request for
waiver of compliance from ‘‘decision
granting waiver’’ to ‘‘special permit’’ to
Requester
PHMSA–2006–26533 ..........
Gulf South Pipeline ...........
PHMSA–2006–26616 ..........
Ozark Gas Transmission ...
49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR
192.201, 49 CFR
192.619.
49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR
192.201, 49 CFR
192.619.
PHMSA–2007–27121 ..........
Transwestern Pipeline
Company, L.L.C.
PHMSA–2006–26530 ..........
Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company.
PHMSA–2006–26528 ..........
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR
192.201, 49 CFR
192.619.
Dominion Transmission,
Inc.
49 CFR 192.611 ................
PHMSA–2007–27122 ..........
Spectra Energy Transmission (formerly Duke
Energy Gas Transmission).
49 CFR 192.611 ................
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Comments Invited on Requests for
Waiver
PHMSA has filed in DOT’s Docket
Management System (DMS) requests for
waiver 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 DMS. We invite interested persons
to participate by reviewing these
requests and by submitting written
comments, data or other views. Please
include any comments on
environmental impacts granting the
requests may have.
Before acting on any 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 or deny these requests
based on the comments we receive.
PHMSA has received the following
requests for waivers of compliance with
pipeline safety regulations.
Nature of Waiver
CenterPoint Energy as
Transmission.
15:58 Feb 07, 2007
reflect that granting the request will not
reduce safety. We commonly add safety
conditions to decisions granting waivers
to ensure that waiving compliance with
an existing pipeline safety standard is
consistent with pipeline safety. This is
simply a name change for a decision
granting waiver under 49 U.S.C.
60118(c)(1). To avoid confusion, we will
continue to process requests for waiver
on which we have already begun work
under the old nomenclature.
Regulation(s)
PHMSA–2006–25802 ..........
VerDate Aug<31>2005
49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR
192.201, 49 CFR
192.505, 49 CFR
192.619.
49 CFR 192.463, 192.465
& Appendix D of Part
192.
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6043
To authorize operation of a 172-mile gas transmission
pipeline from Carthage, TX to Perryville, LA at a
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of
80% of the specified minimum yield strength
(SMYS).
To authorize operation of certain segments of a proposed gas transmission pipeline from Carthage, TX
to Harrisville, MS at a MAOP of 80% of SMYS.
To authorize operation of certain segments of a 233mile gas transmission pipeline (East End Expansion
Project) in Arkansas and Mississippi at a MAOP of
80% of SMYS.
To authorize operation of a 205-mile gas transmission
pipeline from La Plata, CO to Gallup, NM at a
MAOP of 80% of SMYS.
To authorize operation of a 148-mile gas pipeline from
Prudhoe Bay, AK to a pump station in the Brooks
Mountain range, AK without applying and monitoring
external cathodic protection.
To authorize operation of 5,722 ft of a gas transmission pipeline between Loudon and Quantico, VA
without reducing operating pressure as a result of a
change from a Class 1 to a Class 3 location.
To authorize operation of 2 parallel gas lines in Westmoreland County, PA without reducing operating
pressure as a result of changes from Class 1 to
Class 2 locations.
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
6044
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Notices
Docket Number
Requester
Regulation(s)
Nature of Waiver
PHMSA–2006–26612 ..........
Tennessee Gas Pipeline ...
49 CFR 192.611 ................
PHMSA–2006–26618 ..........
Tennessee Gas Pipeline ...
49 CFR 192.611 ................
PHMSA–2006–26611 ..........
Texas Gas Transmission,
LLC.
49 CFR 192.611 ................
PHMSA–2006–26531 ..........
Williams Gas Pipeline .......
49 CFR 192.611 ................
PHMSA–2006–26615 ..........
Texas Gas Transmission,
LLC.
49 CFR 192.612 ................
PHMSA–2006–26532 ..........
Chesapeake Appalachia,
L.L.C. (formerly Columbia Natural Resources).
49 CFR 192.619 ................
PHMSA–2006–26614 ..........
Northern Natural Gas
Company.
49 CFR 192.625 ................
PHMSA–2006–26617 ..........
TransCanada Keystone
Pipeline, LP.
49 CFR 195.106, 49 CFR
195.406.
PHMSA–2006–26613 ..........
BP Exploration (Alaska)
Inc.
49 CFR 195.424 ................
PHMSA–2006–26529 ..........
ConocoPhillips Alaska
Pipeline.
49 CFR 195.424 ................
PHMSA–2007–27120 ..........
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company.
49 CFR 195.452(h) ...........
To authorize operation of 2 parallel gas lines in Jasper
and Lowndes Counties, MS without reducing operating pressure as a result of changes from Class 2
to Class 3 locations.
To authorize operation of one pipeline valve section
on the Niagara Spur Loop Line, a gas transmission
pipeline in upstate New York, without reducing operating pressure required as a result of a change from
a Class 1 to a Class 3 location.
To authorize operation of 3 parallel gas lines near Lafayette, LA and 2 parallel gas lines near Louisville,
KY without reducing operating pressure as a result
of changes from Class 1 to Class 3 locations.
To authorize operation of 2 segments of gas pipelines
in Coweta, Fayette and Oconee Counties Georgia
without reducing operating pressure as a result of
changes from Class 2 to Class 3 locations.
To extend the required completion date of repairs to 5
areas of gas transmission pipeline with depths-ofcover less than 12-inches in Terrebonne Parish, LA
and federal offshore waters from November 1, 2006
to March 31, 2007.
To authorize Chesapeake to establish the MAOP of
various segments of its gas gathering pipeline system in Kentucky and West Virginia using a 5 year
operating history.
To authorize operation of the St. Joseph, MN distribution pipeline without injecting odorant into the gas
stream.
To authorize operation of a 1,369-mile crude oil pipeline from the Canadian border near Cavalier County,
ND to Payne County, OK at a MAOP of 80% of
SMYS.
To authorize movement of certain above ground hazardous liquid pipeline sections during routine inspection and maintenance activities without reducing the
operating pressure on approximately 150 miles of
hazardous liquid pipelines in the North Slope of
Alaska.
To authorize movement of certain above ground hazardous liquid pipeline sections during routine inspection and maintenance activities without reducing the
operating pressure on approximately 100 miles of
hazardous liquid pipelines in the North Slope of
Alaska.
To authorize operation of a 36.3-mile crude oil pipeline
from South Bend to New Iberia, LA at a reduced operating pressure in lieu of repairing certain anomalies discovered during an in-line inspection.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118 (c)(1) and 49
CFR 1.53.
Notice and request for
comments.
ACTION:
Issued in Washington, DC on February 2,
2007.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline
Safety.
[FR Doc. E7–2094 Filed 2–7–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request for Form 8734
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Feb 07, 2007
Jkt 211001
SUMMARY: The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is
soliciting comments concerning Form
8734, Support Schedule for Advance
Ruling Period.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before April 9, 2007 to
be assured of consideration.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Direct all written comments
to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue
Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form and instructions
should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at
(202) 622–6665, or at Internal Revenue
Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or
through the Internet at
Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Support Schedule for Advance
Ruling Period.
OMB Number: 1545–1836.
Form Number: 8734.
E:\FR\FM\08FEN1.SGM
08FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 26 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6042-6044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2094]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Pipeline Safety: Requests for Waivers of Compliance (Special
Permits)
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. We are publishing this notice to provide a list of
requests we have received from pipeline operators seeking relief from
compliance with certain pipeline safety regulations. This notice seeks
public
[[Page 6043]]
comment on these requests, including comments on any environmental
impacts. In addition, this notice informs the public that we are
changing what we will call a decision granting such a request to a
special permit. At the conclusion of the comment period, PHMSA will
evaluate each request individually to determine whether to grant a
special permit or deny the request.
DATES: Submit any comments regarding any of these requests for special
permit by March 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for the request
and may be submitted in the following ways:
DOT Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov. To submit comments on
the DOT electronic docket site, click ``Comment/Submissions,'' click
``Continue,'' fill in the requested information, click ``Continue,''
enter your comment, then click ``Submit.''
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; Room PL-401
on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
E-Gov Web Site: https://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the request
you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments. If you submit
your comments by mail, you should submit two copies. If you wish to
receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, you should
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at https://www.Regulations.gov, and may access all comments
received by DOT at https://dms.dot.gov by performing a simple search for
the docket number.
Note: All comments will be posted without changes or edits to
https://dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided.
Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lemoi by telephone at (404) 832-
1160; or, e-mail at wayne.lemoi@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Change in Nomenclature
PHMSA is changing the name of a decision we make granting a request
for waiver of compliance from ``decision granting waiver'' to ``special
permit'' to reflect that granting the request will not reduce safety.
We commonly add safety conditions to decisions granting waivers to
ensure that waiving compliance with an existing pipeline safety
standard is consistent with pipeline safety. This is simply a name
change for a decision granting waiver under 49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1). To
avoid confusion, we will continue to process requests for waiver on
which we have already begun work under the old nomenclature.
Comments Invited on Requests for Waiver
PHMSA has filed in DOT's Docket Management System (DMS) requests
for waiver 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 DMS. We invite interested
persons to participate by reviewing these requests and by submitting
written comments, data or other views. Please include any comments on
environmental impacts granting the requests may have.
Before acting on any 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 or deny these
requests based on the comments we receive.
PHMSA has received the following requests for waivers of compliance
with pipeline safety regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket Number Requester Regulation(s) Nature of Waiver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA-2006-25802................... CenterPoint Energy as 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR To authorize operation of a
Transmission. 192.201, 49 CFR 172-mile gas transmission
192.619. pipeline from Carthage, TX
to Perryville, LA at a
maximum allowable
operating pressure (MAOP)
of 80% of the specified
minimum yield strength
(SMYS).
PHMSA-2006-26533................... Gulf South Pipeline... 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR To authorize operation of
192.201, 49 CFR certain segments of a
192.619. proposed gas transmission
pipeline from Carthage, TX
to Harrisville, MS at a
MAOP of 80% of SMYS.
PHMSA-2006-26616................... Ozark Gas Transmission 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR To authorize operation of
192.201, 49 CFR certain segments of a 233-
192.619. mile gas transmission
pipeline (East End
Expansion Project) in
Arkansas and Mississippi
at a MAOP of 80% of SMYS.
PHMSA-2007-27121................... Transwestern Pipeline 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR To authorize operation of a
Company, L.L.C. 192.201, 49 CFR 205-mile gas transmission
192.505, 49 CFR pipeline from La Plata, CO
192.619. to Gallup, NM at a MAOP of
80% of SMYS.
PHMSA-2006-26530................... Alyeska Pipeline 49 CFR 192.463, To authorize operation of a
Service Company. 192.465 & Appendix D 148-mile gas pipeline from
of Part 192. Prudhoe Bay, AK to a pump
station in the Brooks
Mountain range, AK without
applying and monitoring
external cathodic
protection.
PHMSA-2006-26528................... Dominion Transmission, 49 CFR 192.611........ To authorize operation of
Inc. 5,722 ft of a gas
transmission pipeline
between Loudon and
Quantico, VA without
reducing operating
pressure as a result of a
change from a Class 1 to a
Class 3 location.
PHMSA-2007-27122................... Spectra Energy 49 CFR 192.611........ To authorize operation of 2
Transmission parallel gas lines in
(formerly Duke Energy Westmoreland County, PA
Gas Transmission). without reducing operating
pressure as a result of
changes from Class 1 to
Class 2 locations.
[[Page 6044]]
PHMSA-2006-26612................... Tennessee Gas Pipeline 49 CFR 192.611........ To authorize operation of 2
parallel gas lines in
Jasper and Lowndes
Counties, MS without
reducing operating
pressure as a result of
changes from Class 2 to
Class 3 locations.
PHMSA-2006-26618................... Tennessee Gas Pipeline 49 CFR 192.611........ To authorize operation of
one pipeline valve section
on the Niagara Spur Loop
Line, a gas transmission
pipeline in upstate New
York, without reducing
operating pressure
required as a result of a
change from a Class 1 to a
Class 3 location.
PHMSA-2006-26611................... Texas Gas 49 CFR 192.611........ To authorize operation of 3
Transmission, LLC. parallel gas lines near
Lafayette, LA and 2
parallel gas lines near
Louisville, KY without
reducing operating
pressure as a result of
changes from Class 1 to
Class 3 locations.
PHMSA-2006-26531................... Williams Gas Pipeline. 49 CFR 192.611........ To authorize operation of 2
segments of gas pipelines
in Coweta, Fayette and
Oconee Counties Georgia
without reducing operating
pressure as a result of
changes from Class 2 to
Class 3 locations.
PHMSA-2006-26615................... Texas Gas 49 CFR 192.612........ To extend the required
Transmission, LLC. completion date of repairs
to 5 areas of gas
transmission pipeline with
depths-of-cover less than
12-inches in Terrebonne
Parish, LA and federal
offshore waters from
November 1, 2006 to March
31, 2007.
PHMSA-2006-26532................... Chesapeake Appalachia, 49 CFR 192.619........ To authorize Chesapeake to
L.L.C. (formerly establish the MAOP of
Columbia Natural various segments of its
Resources). gas gathering pipeline
system in Kentucky and
West Virginia using a 5
year operating history.
PHMSA-2006-26614................... Northern Natural Gas 49 CFR 192.625........ To authorize operation of
Company. the St. Joseph, MN
distribution pipeline
without injecting odorant
into the gas stream.
PHMSA-2006-26617................... TransCanada Keystone 49 CFR 195.106, 49 CFR To authorize operation of a
Pipeline, LP. 195.406. 1,369-mile crude oil
pipeline from the Canadian
border near Cavalier
County, ND to Payne
County, OK at a MAOP of
80% of SMYS.
PHMSA-2006-26613................... BP Exploration 49 CFR 195.424........ To authorize movement of
(Alaska) Inc. certain above ground
hazardous liquid pipeline
sections during routine
inspection and maintenance
activities without
reducing the operating
pressure on approximately
150 miles of hazardous
liquid pipelines in the
North Slope of Alaska.
PHMSA-2006-26529................... ConocoPhillips Alaska 49 CFR 195.424........ To authorize movement of
Pipeline. certain above ground
hazardous liquid pipeline
sections during routine
inspection and maintenance
activities without
reducing the operating
pressure on approximately
100 miles of hazardous
liquid pipelines in the
North Slope of Alaska.
PHMSA-2007-27120................... ExxonMobil Pipeline 49 CFR 195.452(h)..... To authorize operation of a
Company. 36.3-mile crude oil
pipeline from South Bend
to New Iberia, LA at a
reduced operating pressure
in lieu of repairing
certain anomalies
discovered during an in-
line inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118 (c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.53.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 2, 2007.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E7-2094 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
