[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65471-65474]
[DOCID:fr21no07-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0216; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-122-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-
54, and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F, and
DC-8-70F Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55,
DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-60F,
and DC-8-70F series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a
one-time inspection for previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel
at the longeron 28 skin splice; repetitive inspections for cracks of
the same area; and related investigative and corrective actions. The
existing AD also provides optional actions for extending the repetitive
inspection intervals. This proposed AD would re-define and more clearly
describe the optional actions for extending the repetitive inspection
intervals. This proposed AD results from our determination that the
inspections and actions described in the existing AD do not adequately
address the unsafe condition. We are proposing this AD to detect and
correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice,
which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft fuselage,
resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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: 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.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management,
Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
0216; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-122-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On January 5, 2007, we issued AD 2007-02-02, amendment 39-14889 (72
FR 3044, January 24, 2007), for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-
55, DC-8F-54, and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and Model DC-8-60, DC-8-70, DC-8-
60F, and DC-8-70F series airplanes. That AD requires a one-time
inspection for previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin panel at the
longeron 28 skin splice; repetitive inspections for cracks of the same
area; related investigative and corrective actions; and reporting
inspection findings to the manufacturer. That AD also provides optional
actions for extending the repetitive inspection intervals. That AD
resulted from a report indicating that a crack has been found in the
aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice. We issued that AD to
detect and correct cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28
skin splice, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the
aft fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2007-02-02, we have determined that the
inspections and optional modification/repair described in that AD do
not adequately address the unsafe condition. We concluded that more
careful inspection of areas already repaired and reinforced by the
installation of doublers was needed. Accordingly, we propose to re-
define and more clearly describe certain inspections and the optional
modification/repair to completely address the unsafe condition
described in that AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2007-02-02, re-define the requirements of that AD,
and clarify the optional modification/repair described in that AD
which, if done, would allow extending the repetitive inspection
intervals.

Changes to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would re-define certain requirements and clarify
the optional modification/repair of AD 2007-02-02. Since AD 2007-02-02
was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have
been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers
have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Corresponding  requirement
       Requirement in AD 2007-02-02             in this  proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (a).............................  paragraph (f).
paragraph (b).............................  paragraph (g).
paragraph (c).............................  paragraph (h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    There are approximately 508 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 244 airplanes of U.S. registry
would be affected by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80
per work hour. This proposed AD would add no additional costs; however,
we are repeating the costs from AD 2007-02-02 for the convenience of
affected operators.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                           Work hours               Cost per airplane        Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Inspection for doubler     2 to 4...........................  $160 to $320........  $39,040 to $78,080.
 installation.
Repetitive Inspections (per        2 to 8...........................  $160 to $640........  $39,040 to $156,160.
 inspection cycle).
Repair...........................  164 to 184.......................  $13,120 to $14,720..  $3,201,280 to
                                                                                $3,591,680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14889 (72 FR 3044, January 24, 2007) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2007-0216; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-122-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January
7, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-02-02.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-55, DC-8F-
54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, DC-8-
63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72, DC-8-73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from our determination that the inspections
and actions described in the existing AD do not adequately address
the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracks in the aft fuselage skin at the longeron 28 skin splice,
which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the aft
fuselage, resulting in rapid decompression of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Requirements of AD 2007-02-02

One-Time Inspection for Previous Repairs

    (f) For all airplanes: At the applicable time in paragraph
(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, do a general visual inspection to
determine if there are previous repairs of the aft fuselage skin
panel at the longeron 28 skin splice; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-
53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Then do the applicable actions
specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 24,000 total
flight cycles as of February 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD
2007-02-02): Within 24 months after February 28, 2007, or prior to
accumulating 24,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 24,000 total flight
cycles or more as of February 28, 2007: Within 12 months after
February 28, 2007.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection
is: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior area,
installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or
irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching
distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to
ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This
level of inspection is made under normally available lighting
conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or
droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or
doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.''

Repetitive Inspections for Areas That Do Not Have a Previous Repair

    (g) For areas that do not have a previous repair: Before further
flight after the initial inspection in paragraph (f) of this AD, do
general visual and high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections
for discrepancies at longeron 28 between the bolted connection of
the tail section to forward of the flat aft pressure bulkhead, on
both the left and right sides, and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Do all
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. Repeat the
general visual and HFEC inspections thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 2,000 flight cycles until an optional action in paragraph (i)
of this AD is accomplished.

Repetitive Inspections and Repair for Areas That Have a Previous
Repair

    (h) For areas that have a previous repair: Within 24 months
after accomplishing the initial inspection in paragraph (f) of this
AD, remove the previous repair(s), and install a local repair, in
accordance with Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated
January 13, 2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated
January 7, 2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing
Change A, dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated
January 13, 2004. Do the inspections in paragraph (j) of this AD
thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraph (j)(1)
or (j)(2) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Optional Modification/Repair

    (i) Installing a full-length preventive modification, doing a
full-length repair, or doing a local repair, in accordance with
Boeing DC-8 Service Rework Drawing SR08530032, dated January 13,
2004, including Boeing Parts List PL SR08530032, dated January 7,
2004, Boeing Advance Engineering Order, Advanced Drawing Change A,
dated April 1, 2004, and Boeing Engineering Order, dated January 13,
2004, ends the repetitive inspection intervals specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD.

Extended Repetitive Inspection Intervals

    (j) After removing the previous repair(s) and doing the actions
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD or doing any optional repair
or modification described in paragraph (i) of this AD: Do the
actions described in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD as
applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A080, dated June 22, 2004. If
any discrepancy is discovered during any inspection required by this
paragraph, before further flight, repair the discrepancy using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (1) For areas that have been repaired on airplanes that do have
internal finger doublers installed: Within 30,000 flight cycles
after doing the optional repair or modification, do a general visual
inspection for discrepancies along all four external edges of the
doublers. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 5,000 flight cycles.
    (2) For areas that have been repaired on airplanes that do not
have internal finger doublers installed: Do the actions specified in
paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For any repair that is 12 inches or less along the longeron:
Within 15,000 flight cycles after removing the previous repair(s)
and doing the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD or doing
any optional repair or modification specified in paragraph (i) of
this AD, do a general visual inspection for discrepancies along all
four external edges of the doublers. Repeat the general visual
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight
cycles.
    (ii) For any repair that is greater than 12 inches in length
along the longeron: Within 15,000 flight cycles after removing the
previous repair(s) and doing the actions specified in paragraph (h)
of this AD or doing any optional repair or modification specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD, do a low-frequency eddy current (LFEC)
inspection for discrepancies along all four external edges of the
doublers. Repeat the LFEC inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 10,000 flight cycles.

Reporting of Results

    (k) Submit a report of positive findings of the inspections
required by paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD to Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Manager, Structure/Payloads, Technical and Fleet Support,
Service Engineering/Commercial Aviation Services, Long Beach
Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, at
the applicable time specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this
AD. The report must include the inspection results, a description of
any discrepancies found, the airplane fuselage number, and the total
number of landings and flight hours on the airplane. Information
collection requirements

contained in this AD have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0056.
    (1) For any inspection accomplished after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after performing the
inspection.
    (2) For any inspection accomplished prior to the effective date
of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (l)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2007-02-02,
amendment 39-14889, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-22725 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 21 (Thursday, February 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 9067]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-697-002.
    Applicants: Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Facts of Tonopah Solar
Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2297-003; ER16-2506-001.
    Applicants: Osborn Wind Energy, LLC, Oliver Wind III, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-material Change in Status of Osborn Wind
Energy, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-453-005.
    Applicants: Northeast Transmission Development, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: NTD submits revisions to Att. H-27A
re: Settlement Agreement on Nov 17, 2016 to be effective 2/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20161214-5228.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-864-000.
    Applicants: Bayshore Solar A, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Bayshore Solar A, LLC Co-
Tenancy Agreement to be effective 1/28/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-865-000.
    Applicants: Bayshore Solar B, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Bayshore Solar B, LLC Co-
Tenancy Agreement to be effective 1/28/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-866-000.
    Applicants: Bayshore Solar C, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Bayshore Solar C, LLC Co-
Tenancy Agreement to be effective 1/28/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-868-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-01-27 EIM
Implementation Agreement for City of Seattle to be effective 4/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-869-000.
    Applicants: Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-01-27 EIM
Implementation Agreement for City of Seattle to be effective 4/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5183.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-870-000.
    Applicants: Essential Power OPP, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-01-27 EIM
Implementation Agreement for City of Seattle to be effective 4/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-871-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of WPSC--Alger Delta
Agreement to be effective 1/27/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/27/17.
    Accession Number: 20170127-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/17/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 27, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02226 Filed 2-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


0.27
                                   285972.16
                                  3952554.18
<PHONE_NUMBER>8
                                     26H1
Unit 26 Debutanizer Reboiler
                                     Point
                                     0.26
                                   286345.17
                                  3953292.19
<PHONE_NUMBER>2
                                     29H4
Unit 29 Debutanizer Reboiler
                                     Point
                                     0.26
                                   285971.17
                                  3952912.19

                                   19B1/19H2
Unit 19.2 #2 Reheater
                                     Point
                                     0.33
                                   286239.00
                                  3953453.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>3
                                     36H1
HDS Unit Charge Heater
                                     Point
                                     0.19
                                   286367.18
                                  3953569.19
<PHONE_NUMBER>8
                                      2H1
Unit 2-2 HDS Charge Heater
                                     Point
                                     0.15
                                   285373.16
                                  3953033.19
<PHONE_NUMBER>9
                                     22H1
Alky Reboiler Furnace
                                     Point
                                     0.07
                                   286233.17
                                  3953165.19
<PHONE_NUMBER>6
                                     19H5
Unit 19.2, #1 Reboiler
                                     Point
                                     0.06
                                   286249.17
                                  3953336.19
<PHONE_NUMBER>3
                                     19H5
Unit 19.2, #2 Reboiler
                                     Point
                                     0.05
                                   286249.17
                                  3953336.19

                                    SKDBLR
Skid Boiler
                                     Point
                                     1.58
                                   285891.61
                                  3952883.70

                                      9H1
Crude Oil Heater
                                     Point
                                     0.41
                                   286304.18
                                  3953540.19

                                      5H1
Unit 5-A Feed Heater
                                     Point
                                     0.06
                                   285758.17
                                  3953012.19

                                     40H4
Unit 40 Preheater Furnace
                                     Point
                                     0.43
                                   286035.00
                                  3953137.00

                                     40H1
Unit 40 Superheater No. 1
                                     Point
                                     0.12
                                   285963.17
                                  3953024.19

                                     40H3
Unit 40 Superheater
                                     Point
                                     0.14
                                   285950.00
                                  3953027.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>3
                                     42H3
Unit 42 Fractionator Feed Heater
                                     Point
                                     0.27
                                   285972.16
                                  3952575.18
<PHONE_NUMBER>6
                                     FWP1
Fire Water Pump 1 - #8 ARDS Fire Water Pump, 67-H463
                                     Point
                                     0.07
                                   285977.00
                                  3953216.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>7
                                     FWP2
Fire Water Pump 2 - #7 ARDS Fire Water Pump, 67-H464
                                     Point
                                     0.07
                                   285987.00
                                  3953216.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>8
                                     FWP3
Fire Water Pump 3 - South NGL Fire Water Pump, 67-H741
                                     Point
                                     0.07
                                   285691.00
                                  3952775.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>9
                                     FWP4
Fire Water Pump 4 - N Refinery Fire Water Pump, 67-V371
                                     Point
                                     0.07
                                   285698.00
                                  3952774.00

                                     FWP5
Fire Water Pump 5 - S Refinery Fire Water Pump, 67-V372
                                     Point
                                     0.07
                                   285720.00
                                  3952571.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>8
                               Heaters/Furnaces
Decoking
                                     Point
                                     0.70

                                      5H3
Unit 5-C Feed Heater
                                     Point
                                     0.04
                                   285786.00
                                  3952807.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>5
                                      6H1
BHU Reduction Furnace
                                     Point
                                     0.03
                                   285410.00
                                  3952799.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>5
                                      4H2
Unit 4 Dehydrator Heater
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   285814.00
                                  3952811.00

                                     12H1
Mol Sieve Regen Gas Heater
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   285848.00
                                  3952467.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>3
                                     50HT1
Coker Heater Tank 1
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   287377.00
                                  3953021.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>4
                                     50HT2
Coker Heater Tank 2
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   286752.00
                                  3954195.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>5
                                     50HT3
Coker Heater Tank 3
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   286859.00
                                  3954189.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>9
                                     93E1
Engine No. 37
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285917.00
                                  3952298.00

                                     66FL8
100M Sour Brine Flare Pit
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   281443.00
                                  3955571.00

                                    66FL11
30M Swt Brine Flare Pit
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   281556.00
                                  3954895.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>4
                                     12E1
Engine
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285900.00
                                  3952460.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>5
                                     12E2
Engine
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285906.00
                                  3952460.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>6
                                     12E3
Engine
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285913.00
                                  3952460.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>7
                                     12E4
Engine
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285919.00
                                  3952459.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>8
                                     12E5
Engine
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285925.00
                                  3952459.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>9
                                     12E6
Engine
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285927.00
                                  3952453.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>0
                                     12E7
Engine
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285933.00
                                  3952453.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>9
                                      7E1
Unit 7 Plat Engine #1
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285464.00
                                  3952877.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>0
                                      7E2
Unit 7 Plat Engine #2
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285460.00
                                  3952877.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>1
                                      7E3
Unit 7 Plat Engine #3
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285455.00
                                  3952877.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>2
                                      7E4
Unit 7 Plat Engine #4
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285451.00
                                  3952877.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>3
                                      7E5
Unit 7 Plat Engine #5
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285446.00
                                  3952877.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>4
                                      7E6
Unit 7 Plat Engine #6
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285442.00
                                  3952877.00

                                    66FL10
100M Swt Brine Flare Pit
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   280864.00
                                  3955107.00

                                     93E2
Engine No. 38
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   285917.00
                                  3952307.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>8
                                    ENG-EB1
Unregistered PBR 106.511 from 2015
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   286139.00
                                  3952652.00

                                    ENG-EB2
Unregistered PBR 106.511 from 2015
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   285642.00
                                  3952695.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>49
                                    ENG-EB4
Unregistered PBR 106.511 from 2015
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   285395.00
                                  3953013.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>50
                                    ENG-EB6
Unregistered PBR 106.511 from 2015
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   285980.00
                                  3953149.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>52
                                    ENG-EB7
Unregistered PBR 106.511 from 2015
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   285980.00
                                  3953144.00
<PHONE_NUMBER>54
                                    ENG-EB9
Unregistered PBR 106.511 from 2015
                                     Point
                                     0.01
                                   285639.00
                                  3952696.00

                                    F-43WHB
Waste Heat Boiler Fugitives
                                     Point
                                     0.00
                                   286180.00
                                  3952609.00

                                   MISC-MSS
Miscellaneous MSS Activities (Low Emitting Activities)
                                     Point
                                     0.02

                                    MSSFUG
Planned Maintenance Activities
                                     Area
                                     0.001

Notes:
 51H1:40H3 were included in the modeling following EPA Region 6's guideline as they have emission rates greater than 0.05 g/s.
 The fire water pumps (FWP1:FWP5) only run 30 min per week, which were considered as infrequent emission sources. Therefore, they were excluded from the modeling.
 42H3 was demolished to make room for the Diesel Vacuum Tower. This emission source will be removed from the cap contributions either via the SO2 attainment alteration or via the renewal permit in the future.
 Decoking MSS (NEI ID:<PHONE_NUMBER>8) will be removed from permit.
 Sources 7H1-4, 19B1/19H1,19B1/19H2, and 19B2/19H4 represent merged stacks for more than one combustion devise. In each case the combustion devices are associated with the same process and do not operate independently of the other devices sharing the stack.
 Unit of emission rate for MSSFUG is g/s.

              APPENDIX II: Meteorological Data Processing Report


[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 50825-50826]
[DOCID:fr28au08-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0449]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Integrated Summary of
Effectiveness; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Integrated
Summary of Effectiveness.'' This draft guidance describes how an
integrated summary of effectiveness (ISE) should be prepared by
industry for new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license
applications (BLAs). This guidance, when final, will supersede section
G, Integrated Summary of Effectiveness Data, of the 1988 guidance on
``Format and Content of the Clinical and Statistical Sections of an
Application'' (Clin-Stat guidance). This guidance also incorporates the
conceptual framework of section 2.7.3, Summary of Clinical Efficacy,
from the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) guidance for
industry ``M4E The CTD --Efficacy.'' This guidance is intended to
improve the quality of product applications by describing what efficacy
information should be submitted so that FDA can make a regulatory
decision on an application.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by October 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance
(HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 1401 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. The guidance may also be obtained from
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research by mail by calling 1-
800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for electronic access to the draft guidance document. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests.

    Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Howard Chazin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 6470,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    Leonard Wilson, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-
25), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 576N,
Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Integrated Summary of Effectiveness.'' This draft guidance
describes how an ISE should be prepared by industry for NDAs and BLAs.
The ISE has been required as part of an NDA submission (21 CFR
314.50(d)(5)(v)) since 1985, but the regulation does not describe the
specific components of the ISE. The Clin-Stat guidance provides a
description of what FDA recommends be included in an ISE. However,
since the Clin-Stat guidance was published, several International
Conference on Harmonisation guidances, including the ICH guidances for
industry ``E3 Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports,'' ``E10
Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials,'' and
``M4E The CTD--Efficacy,'' have provided further recommendations for
describing individual trials and providing results of efficacy
analyses. This guidance, when final, will supersede section G of the
Clin-Stat guidance to reflect FDA's current thinking regarding the
format and content of the ISE to provide a truly integrated analysis,
rather than a summary of efficacy results from individual clinical
trials, and to satisfy FDA regulatory requirements. Although there are
no corresponding regulations requiring an ISE for BLA submissions,
applicants are encouraged to provide these analyses.
    Regarding the common technical document, the ISE is often confused
with the document included in Module 2, section 2.7.3, Summary of
Clinical Efficacy. Although one of the goals of the ISE is to summarize
the available effectiveness data, the ISE primarily is intended to be
an integrated analysis of these data, going beyond a simple summary.
The focus of the ISE is not on the detailed results of the individual
studies, which are described in individual study reports, but a
comprehensive, detailed, in-depth analysis that goes beyond individual
study results to examine the basis for the entire approach taken.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance

practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on the content
and format of the ISE. It does not create or confer any rights for or
on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved
under 0910-0001. The collections of information for submission of data
in a BLA under 21 CFR 601.2 have been approved under 0910-0338.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/cber/
guidelines.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 19, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-19906 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS-117; Notice 4]

RIN 2137-AC87

Low-Stress Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Serving Plants and Terminals

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This action proposes to exclude from RSPA's safety regulations
for hazardous liquid pipelines low-stress pipelines regulated for safety
by the U.S. Coast Guard and certain low-stress pipelines less than one
mile long serving plants and terminals. Difficulties involving
compliance with RSPA's regulations do not appear warranted by risk and
may cause operating errors that impair safety. It is RSPA's policy
toward effective government to eliminate duplicative and unnecessarily
burdensome regulations.

DATES: RSPA invites interested persons to submit comments by close of
business April 28, 1998. Late comments will be considered as far as
practicable.

ADDRESSES: Send comments in duplicate to the Dockets Unit, Room 8421,
Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Comments
should identify the docket and the notice number stated in the heading
of this notice. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of
their comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. All
comments and docketed material will be available for inspection and
copying in Room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. each business day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For copies of this notice or other material in the
docket, contact the Dockets Unit at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

	When RSPA's safety regulations for hazardous liquid  pipelines (49 CFR
part 195) were first published, the regulations did not apply to
low-stress pipelines  (34 FR 15473; Oct. 4, 1969). In recent years,
however, during a time of increased environmental awareness, critical
accidents involving low-stress pipelines led Congress to restrict DOT's
discretion to except these lines from regulation. So, in an amendment to
the pipeline safety laws, Congress directed the Secretary of
Transportation not to except from regulation a hazardous liquid pipeline
facility only because the facility operates at low internal stress (49
U.S.C. §60102(k)).

	In response to this change in the law, RSPA extended the Part 195
regulations to cover certain low-stress pipelines (Docket No. PS-117; 59
FR 35465; July 12, 1994). Except for onshore rural gathering lines and
gravity-powered lines, the following categories of low-stress pipelines
were brought under the regulations: pipelines that transport highly
volatile liquids, pipelines located onshore and outside rural areas,
pipelines located offshore, and pipelines located in waterways that are
currently used for commercial navigation (§195.1(b)(3)). Because the
rulemaking record showed that many low-stress pipelines probably were
not operated and maintained consistent with Part 195 requirements,
operators were allowed to delay compliance of their existing lines until
July 12, 1996 (§195.1(c)).

II. Interfacility Transfer Lines

A. Description

	The largest proportion of low-stress pipelines brought under Part 195
consisted of interfacility transfer lines (about two-thirds of the
pipelines and one-third of the overall mileage). The remainder included
trunk lines and gathering lines located outside rural areas.

	Interfacility transfer lines move hazardous liquids locally between
facilities such as truck, rail, and vessel transportation terminals,
manufacturing plants (including petrochemical plants), and oil
refineries, or between these facilities and associated storage or long-

distance pipeline transportation.  The lines usually are short,
averaging about a mile in length. Typically they are operated in
association with other transfer piping on the grounds of the industrial
plants and terminals they serve.

B. Related Federal Regulations

	Segments of interfacility transfer lines located on the grounds of
industrial plants and transportation terminals are subject to the
Process Safety Management regulations of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.119). These regulations, which
involve hazard analysis and control, operating and maintenance
procedures, and personnel training, are intended to reduce the risk of
fires and explosions caused by the escape of hazardous chemicals from
facility processes.

	Although on-grounds segments of interfacility transfer lines generally
are excepted from Part 195 (§195.1(b) (6) and (7)), the on-grounds
segment and regulated off-grounds segment of a line function together as
a unit. Thus, OSHA's Process Safety Management regulations, though
applicable only to on-grounds segments, affect the operation of
off-grounds segments. And, similarly, compliance with part 195 for
off-grounds segments affects operation of the unregulated on-grounds
segments.

	In addition, most transfer lines between vessels and marine
transportation-related facilities are subject to safety regulations of
the U.S. Coast Guard (33 CFR parts 154 and 156). The Coast Guard applies
these regulations to transfers of hazardous liquid from the dock loading
arm or manifold up to the first valve after the line enters the Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) containment or secondary
containment if the facilities are not protected by SPCC plans.

C. Compliance Difficulties

	Information we received in response to Notice 1 of Docket PS-117 (55 FR
45822; Oct. 31, 1990) showed that bringing interfacility transfer lines
into full compliance with part 195 would be difficult for many
operators. The primary difficulty is that their lines are not installed
and operated on the basis of part 195 standards. For example,
considering the short length and low operating stress of the lines,
additional pipe wall thickness is often used instead of cathodic
protection to resist expected corrosion. But, regardless of this
feature, under part 195, cathodic protection systems would have to be
developed and installed as required. Other part 195 requirements that
may not bring commensurate benefits for short, low-stress transfer lines
involve modifying operations and maintenance manuals, installing
pressure control equipment, and establishing programs to carry out drug
and alcohol rules under 49 CFR part 199. Also, operating personnel would
have to be trained to carry out part 195 requirements.

	After publication of the Final Rule in Docket PS-117, we learned about
another significant compliance difficulty. Transfer line operators and
their representatives said that coping with the separate federal
regulatory regimes of RSPA, OSHA, and the Coast Guard over transfer
lines was a strain on resources. As explained above, OSHA's Process
Safety Management regulations and RSPA's part 195 standards have an
overlapping effect on operation of interfacility transfer lines. This
overlap results in analogous administrative costs for records,
procedures, and manuals. Worse yet it creates opportunities for mistakes
when operating personnel have to meet different requirements with
similar objectives.

	For transfers between vessels and marine transportation-related
facilities, the Coast Guard safety regulations compound the RSPA-OSHA
overlap problem. Moreover, applying part 195 to these marine terminal
transfer lines duplicates agency efforts within DOT. It also leaves the
industry uncertain which DOT safety standards apply to particular
facilities. So the upshot of these separate regulatory regimes of RSPA,
OSHA, and the Coast Guard is not only the added costs of meeting
separate requirements directed at similar safety objectives, but also
possible confusion of operating personnel.

	The low-stress pipeline regulations also present RSPA and its
cooperating State agencies with related compliance difficulties.
Carrying out adequate compliance inspections on interfacility transfer
lines would require a significant increase in resources. We estimate
that about 11,000 miles of low-stress pipelines are now under part 195,
with over a third of the mileage composed of short interfacility
transfer lines. Just the job of finding and educating the many operators
of these short lines would likely be a major, protracted effort.

D. Stay of Enforcement

	We weighed these industry and government compliance difficulties
against the need for risk reduction on low-stress interfacility transfer
lines. Our conclusion was that the potential benefits of complying with
part 195 do not justify the compliance difficulties if the line is short
and does not cross an offshore area or a commercially navigable
waterway, or if the line is regulated by the Coast Guard. There were
several reasons for this decision. First, RSPA's pipeline safety data do
not show that short interfacility transfer lines have been a source of
significant safety problems. Another reason was that the low operating
hoop stress of interfacility transfer lines is itself a safeguard
against several accident causes. And, from the consequence perspective,
a short length means the potential spill volume would be limited should
an accident occur. Also, public exposure is typically limited in the
industrial areas where most low-stress interfacility transfer lines are
located. For marine transfer lines, the risk is reduced even further by
the Coast Guard regulations and inspection force. At the same time,
except for Coast Guard regulated lines, the potential of transfer lines
crossing offshore or a commercially navigable waterway to cause
environmental harm tipped the scale toward continued compliance with
part 195.

	In view of the above considerations, we became concerned that the
continued application of part 195 to Coast Guard regulated lines and
other short interfacility transfer lines not crossing an offshore area
or a commercially navigable waterway was not in the public interest.
Consequently, we announced a stay of enforcement of part 195 against
these lines (61 FR 24245; May 14, 1996). The stay applies to low-stress
pipelines that are regulated by the Coast Guard or that extend less than
1 mile outside plant or terminal grounds without crossing an offshore
area or any waterway currently used for commercial navigation. The stay
will remain in effect until modified or until the part 195 regulations
are finally revised as a result of the present action.

	Since announcement of the stay, we have not received any request to
lift it. More important, we have explained this new enforcement policy
at two public meetings of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Advisory Committee, a statutory panel that reviews RSPA's pipeline
safety program. We also explained our plan to revise the part 195
regulations consistent with the stay. Neither the Committee members nor
the public attendees raised any significant objection to the enforcement
policy or planned rule change. Further, State agencies who cooperate
with RSPA in enforcing safety standards over interfacility transfer
lines have not objected to the stay.

E. Direct Final Rule

	Following publication of the stay of enforcement, we issued a direct
final rule to expand the low-stress pipeline exclusion under
§195.1(b)(3) to include interfacility transfer lines that are covered
by the stay (62 FR 31364; June 9, 1997).

	The direct final rule changed §195.1(b)(3) to read as follows:

	(b) This part does not apply to--

*	 * 	* 	* 	*

	(3) Transportation through the following low-stress pipelines:

	(i) An onshore pipeline or pipeline segment that--

	(A) Does not transport HVL;

	(B) Is located in a rural area; and

	(C) Is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation;

	(ii) A pipeline subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard;
and

	(iii) A pipeline that serves refining, manufacturing, or truck, rail,
or vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less than 1 mile long
(measured outside facility grounds) and does not cross an offshore area
or a waterway currently used for commercial navigation;

*	 * 	* 	* 	*

	The procedures governing issuance of direct final rules are in 49 CFR
190.339. These procedures provide for public notice and opportunity for
comment subsequent to publication of a direct final rule. They also
provide that if an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an
adverse comment is received, RSPA will issue a timely notice in the
Federal Register to confirm that fact and withdraw the direct final rule
in whole or in part. Under the procedures, RSPA may then incorporate the
adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or may publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking.

	Four persons submitted comments on the direct final rule: American
Petroleum Institute (API), California Department of Fish and Game
(CDF&G), California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), and
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). API made an editorial
comment, while CIPA and WSPA argued that the direct final rule should be
expanded to also exclude from part 195 short low-stress pipelines
serving production shipping facilities in urban areas.

	However, CDF&G opposed the direct final rule. This State agency
contended the Coast Guard's regulations are not an adequate substitute
for RSPA's because the Coast Guard regulations do not specify a hold
time for pressure tests, do not apply to transfer lines that only serve
small vessels (less than 250 barrels of cargo capacity), and do not
require cathodic protection to guard against corrosion. CDF&G also said
the exclusion of short plant and terminal transfer lines should apply
only if a discharge would not impact marine waters of the United States.

	Because of the adverse comment from CDF&G, we withdrew the direct final
rule (62 FR 52511; October 8, 1997). As a result, §195.1(b)(3) remains
as it was before issuance of the direct final rule. In the withdrawal
notice, we said we would follow up the withdrawal with a notice of
proposed rulemaking based on the direct final rule and the comments we
received on it. The present action is that notice of proposed
rulemaking.

F. Proposed Rule

	In commenting on the direct final rule, API suggested we clarify that a
low-stress pipeline would be excluded from part 195 if it comes under
any one of the three categories of excluded low-stress pipelines ((i),
lines previously excluded; (ii), lines subject to Coast Guard
regulations; and (iii), certain lines serving plants and terminals). API
further suggested that replacing the word "and'' between categories (ii)
and (iii) with the word "or'' would accomplish this objective. In
addition to adopting this comment, to avoid any further
misunderstanding, we are proposing to modify the introductory phrase of
§195.1(b)(3) to read "transportation through any of the following
low-stress pipelines.''

	CIPA and WSPA argued that our rationale for excluding certain short
transfer lines serving refineries, manufacturing plants, and truck,
rail, or vessel terminals applies equally to similar transfer lines
serving production shipping facilities in urban areas. These two
commenters also said that until the direct final rule was published,
many of their members thought the stay of enforcement covered these
transfer lines (otherwise known as gathering lines) located in urban
areas because of the reference to low-stress pipelines outside "plant''
grounds in the operative words of the stay.

	Despite the parallels these commenters drew, we are not proposing to
exclude from part 195 short low-stress pipelines serving production
shipping facilities in urban areas. First of all, we never intended the
stay to apply to urban gathering lines.5 Our notice of the
stay discussed part 195 compliance problems associated with short
transfer lines that interconnect refineries; manufacturing plants;
petrochemical plants; truck, rail, or vessel transportation terminals;
and long-distance pipelines. It is within this context that the term
"plant'' was used. Also, when the notice of the stay referred to
gathering lines, the context distinguished gathering lines from other
kinds of transfer lines. Moreover, the primary reason for the stay, as
well as the direct final rule, was the overlapping effect of part 195
and OSHA's Process Safety Management regulations (29 CFR 1910.119) on
plant and terminal transfer lines. However, these OSHA regulations do
not apply to oil production operations. So, although there may be
similarities between urban gathering lines and transfer lines covered by
the stay, the absence of an overlap with the OSHA regulations
significantly weakens CIPA's and WSPA's argument for excluding short
urban gathering lines from part 195. Not only do the OSHA regulations
not compound the difficulties these lines may have in meeting part 195,
neither can the OSHA regulations be counted on to lower the risk of the
lines. And this latter point is even more important because urban
gathering lines are not as likely to exist in uninhabited industrial
areas as are the transfer lines covered by the stay.

	We share CDF&G's concern that any exclusion of plant and terminal
transfer lines not increase the risk to marine waters. But we do not
agree that the Coast Guard's regulations do not afford as much
protection as RSPA's. Although the Coast Guard's regulations do not
specify a hold time for pressure tests and do not require cathodic
protection, they do require that existing transfer lines be pressure
tested annually to at least 150 percent of the pipeline's maximum
allowable working pressure. This requirement is more rigorous than
RSPA's pressure testing standard (subpart E of part 195) for low-stress
pipelines. Not only does the RSPA standard exempt most existing low-

stress pipelines (49 CFR 195.302(b)(3)), low-stress transfer lines that
are subject to testing under the standard only have to be tested once to
no more than 125 percent of maximum operating pressure. We also believe
the higher safety margin of the Coast Guard test (50% above maximum
allowable working pressure) and the higher frequency of testing, with
on-scene Coast Guard inspection, makes the lack of a cathodic protection
requirement less important. As to the concern over transfers to small
capacity vessels, any low-stress marine transfer lines that are not
subject to Coast Guard regulations would continue to be covered by part
195, unless they are otherwise excluded under §195.1(b)(3).

	In light of CDF&G's comment about the impact on marine waters of plant
and terminal transfer lines, we also considered broadening in this
notice the provision in the direct final rule that kept under part 195
short lines crossing offshore or commercially navigable waters. As
mentioned above, our reason for not excluding these short pipelines from
regulation was their potential for environmental harm. This potential is
increased by the presence of the lines in important water resources and
by the vulnerability of the lines to outside force damage. In weighing
the need for risk reduction against the difficulties of compliance with
part 195, we decided this increased potential for environmental harm was
reason enough to keep the lines under part 195. CDF&G's suggestion to
exclude short lines only if a discharge would not impact marine waters
would possibly keep even more lines under part 195; for example, lines
that are proximate to, but do not cross, marine waters. But unlike lines
crossing offshore or commercially navigable waterways, we do not believe
that as a whole these additional short lines pose a level of risk that
outweighs their compliance difficulties. Therefore, the proposed rule
would exclude from part 195 the same low-stress pipelines that were
covered by the direct final rule.

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

	The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this action
to be a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). Therefore, OMB has not
reviewed this final rule document. DOT does not consider this action
significant under its regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979).

	RSPA prepared a study of the costs and benefits of the Final Rule that
extended part 195 to cover certain low-stress pipelines (Final
Regulatory Evaluation, Docket No. PS-117). That study, which encompassed
short or Coast Guard regulated interfacility transfer lines, showed that
the Final Rule would result in net benefits to society, with a benefit
to cost ratio of 1.5.

	The Final Regulatory Evaluation determined costs and benefits of the
Final Rule on a mileage basis. But while costs were evenly distributed,
most of the expected benefits were projected from accident data that did
not involve short or Coast Guard regulated interfacility transfer lines.
Since the present action affects only these lines, it is reasonable to
believe the action will reduce more costs than benefits. Thus, the
present action should enhance the net benefits of the Final Rule.
Because of this likely economic effect, a further regulatory evaluation
of the Final Rule in Docket No. PS-117 or of the present action is not
warranted.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

	Low stress interfacility transfer lines covered by the present action
are associated primarily with the operation of refineries, petrochemical
and other industrial plants, and materials transportation terminals. In
general, these facilities are not operated by small entities.
Nonetheless, even if small entities operate low-stress interfacility
transfer lines, their costs will be lower because this action reduces
compliance burdens. Therefore, based on the facts available about the
anticipated impact of this rulemaking action, I certify, pursuant to
Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this
rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 12612

	RSPA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685). RSPA has
determined that the action does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

	This action reduces the pipeline mileage and number of operators
subject to part 195. Consequently, it reduces the information collection
burden of part 195 that is subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information collection
requirements of part 195 through May 31, 1999 (OMB No. 2137-

0047).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

	This proposed 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 to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objective of the rule.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

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

	In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA proposes to amend 49 CFR part
195 as follows:

PART 195--[AMENDED]

	1. 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.

	2. In §195.1, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is republished,
and paragraph (b)(3) would be revised to read as follows:

§195.1  Applicability.

*	*	*	*	*

	(b) This part does not apply to--

*	*	*	*	*

	(3) Transportation through any of the following low-stress pipelines:

	(i) An onshore pipeline or pipeline segment that--

	(A) Does not transport HVL;

	(B) Is located in a rural area; and

	(C) Is located outside a waterway currently used for commercial
navigation;

	(ii) A pipeline subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard;
or

	(iii) A pipeline that serves refining, manufacturing, or truck, rail,
or vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less than 1 mile long
(measured outside facility grounds) and does not cross an offshore area
or a waterway currently used for commercial navigation;

*	*	*	*	*

	Issued in Washington, D.C. on February 23, 1998.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 98-5115 Filed 2-26-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

  "Hazardous liquid'' means petroleum, petroleum products, or anhydrous
ammonia.

  "Low-stress pipeline'' means a hazardous liquid pipeline that is
operated in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the
specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the line pipe.

 The interfacility transfer lines did not include piping that connect
high-stress pipelines with surge tanks located at plants and terminals.
This piping was already subject to the part 195 regulations as part of
the pipeline systems for which the tanks relieve surges.

 Segments of interfacility transfer lines on plant or terminal grounds
are subject to Part 195 if the segment connects a regulated pipeline
(including off-grounds segments of interfacility transfer lines) to a
surge tank or other device necessary to control the operating pressure
of the regulated pipeline.

 Rural gathering lines are excluded from part 195 by §195.1(b)(4).

PS-117, NPRM, # 4

 PAGE   2

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 1998

Pages 9993 - 9996

	  PAGE  4 /  NUMPAGES  1

PS-117, NPRM, # 4