[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10230-10233]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0859; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-113-AD;
Amendment 39-16614; AD 2011-05-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
* * * * *

    * * * [T]here is a possible path for fluid ingress, resulting in
connector internal arcing and hydraulic system malfunction. In
addition, as the connectors are located in areas adjacent to fuel
tanks, such arcing associated with the presence of a fuel leakage
could lead to an uncontrolled fire.
* * * * *
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 31, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 31,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2010
(75 FR 60010). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several A330 and A340 operators have reported in service
occurrences of hydraulic pump electrical motor connector internal
arcing, resulting in:

--Either false hydraulic system overheat Electronic Centralized
Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM) warnings
--and/or hydraulic pump electrical motor malfunction.

    Investigations have shown that, due to the manufacturing
tolerances of the cables and the connectors rear grommet, there is a
possible path for fluid ingress, resulting in connector internal
arcing and hydraulic system malfunction. In addition, as the
connectors are located in areas adjacent to fuel tanks, such arcing
associated with the presence of a fuel leakage could lead to an
uncontrolled fire.
    In order to protect the hydraulic pump electrical motor
connectors against fluid ingress from the rear of the connector
grommet and prevent false hydraulic system overheat ECAM warnings
and/or hydraulic pump electrical motor malfunction, this AD requires
modification of the three hydraulic pump electrical motor connectors
associated to the Blue, Yellow and Green hydraulic systems.
    This Revision 1 is issued to delete Airbus modifications
55923S18878 and 55924S19452 from the applicability of this AD.

The modification adds heat shrink sleeves to certain cable contacts and
a sealing plug to the connector free cavity. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    The NPRM referred to the service information in the following table
as the applicable sources of service information.

                                  Table--Service Information Cited in the NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Airbus Mandatory Service
        Airplane model--                 Bulletin--           Revision--                   Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330...........................  A330-92-3088, including                01  February 22, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
A340...........................  A340-92-4081, including                01  February 22, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
A340...........................  A340-92-5053, including                01  February 22, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airbus has released the service information in the following table. No
additional work is necessary for airplanes on which earlier revisions
of the service information are done. We have updated Tables 1 and 3 of
the final rule to refer to these sources of service information. We
have also updated Table 2 of the final rule to give credit for using
Revision 01 of the service information.

                                       Table--Revised Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Airbus Mandatory Service
        Airplane model--                 Bulletin--           Revision--                   Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330...........................  A330-92-3088, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
A340...........................  A340-92-4081, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
A340...........................  A340-92-5053, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received.

Support for the NPRM

    Delta stated that it agreed with the intent of the rule.

Request To Revise Compliance Times

    Delta requested that we revise the compliance time from within
3,600-flight-hours to 10,000 flight hours or 24 months after the
effective date of the AD to allow operators the flexibility to schedule
the task during routine maintenance opportunities. Delta stated that
revising the compliance times would be more congruous with AD 2008-06-
25, Amendment 39-15437 (73 FR 14659). Delta stated that it reviewed its
maintenance records for Model A330 airplanes, and it has not
experienced a single failure of a hydraulic electric motor pump
electrical connector in approximately 738,000 hours of operation.
Furthermore, Delta stated that there have been no cases of fire as a
result of arcing within the hydraulic electric motor pump connectors
and that arcing within the connectors without the presence of flammable
fluid does not constitute a safety issue.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the
compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this
action, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and
normal maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of the
modification. In consideration of these items, we have determined that
a 3,600-flight-hour compliance time will ensure an acceptable level of
safety and allow the modifications to be done during scheduled
maintenance intervals for most affected operators. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of the final rule, we will consider
requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if
sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final
rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Include Reference for Additional Tooling

    Delta requested that we revise the NPRM to include Airbus Service
Bulletin Information Telex (SBIT) 10-0039, dated October 14, 2010, or
that we delay issuing the final rule until Revision 03 of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-92-3088 is released. Delta stated that
Airbus has informed operators that Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-92-3088 is being revised to include direct references to the
adequate tool part numbers.
    We disagree with the request to include the SBIT and with the
request to delay the final rule until Revision 03 of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-92-3088 is released. Although the SBIT does
contain tooling information, this AD does not mandate which tooling to
use. We did not revise the final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 43 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 13 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $877 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $85,226 or $1,982 per product.

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 determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
    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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-05-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-16614. Docket No. FAA-2010-0859;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-113-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
31, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -
303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes; certificated
in any category; all serial numbers; except those on which Airbus
modifications 58773 and 45968 have been embodied in production.
    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541,
and -642 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial
numbers; except those on which Airbus modifications 58773 and 45968
have been embodied in production.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
* * * * *
    * * * [T]here is a possible path for fluid ingress, resulting in
connector internal arcing and hydraulic system malfunction. In
addition, as the connectors are located in areas adjacent to fuel
tanks, such arcing associated with the presence of a fuel leakage
could lead to an uncontrolled fire.
* * * * *

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Within 3,600 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, modify the hydraulic pump electrical motor connectors of the
blue, yellow, and green electric pumps, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information
specified in Table 1 of this AD.

                                     Table 1--Applicable Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Airbus Mandatory Service
        Airplane model--                 Bulletin--           Revision--                   Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330...........................  A330-92-3088.............              02  September 1, 2010.
A340...........................  A340-92-4081.............              02  September 1, 2010.
A340...........................  A340-92-5053.............              02  September 1, 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance with Previous Issue of
Service Information

    (h) Modifications accomplished before the effective date of this
AD in accordance with the service information specified in Table 2
of this AD are considered acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

                                       Table 2--Credit Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Airbus Mandatory
      Airplane model--           Service Bulletin--          Revision--                     Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330........................  A330-92-3088...........  Original..............  September 2, 2009.
A330........................  A330-92-3088...........  01....................  February 22, 2010.
A340........................  A340-92-4081...........  Original..............  September 2, 2009.
A340........................  A340-92-4081...........  01....................  February 22, 2010.
A340........................  A340-92-5053...........  Original..............  September 2, 2009.
A340........................  A340-92-5053...........  01....................  February 22, 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to
ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
227-1149. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response,

including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and
reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this
collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden
should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0086R1,
dated June 16, 2010, and the service information specified in Table
3 of this AD, as applicable, for related information.

                                      Table 3--Related Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Airbus Mandatory Service
        Airplane model--                 Bulletin--           Revision--                   Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330...........................  A330-92-3088, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
A340...........................  A340-92-4081, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
A340...........................  A340-92-5053, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use the service information contained in Table 4 of
this AD, as applicable, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

                                   Table 4--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Airbus Mandatory Service
        Airplane model--                 Bulletin--           Revision--                   Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330...........................  A330-92-3088, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
A340...........................  A340-92-4081, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
A340...........................  A340-92-5053, including                02  September 1, 2010.
                                  Appendix 01.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-4041 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32236-32238]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0008]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Colorado Interstate
Gas Company, LLC

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on
a

request for special permit renewal received from Colorado Interstate
Gas Company, LLC (CIG). The special permit request is seeking relief
from compliance with certain requirements in the federal pipeline
safety regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period,
PHMSA will review the comments received from this notice as part of its
evaluation to grant or deny the special permit renewal request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
June 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for this special
permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two (2) copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Note:  There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential
treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following
steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission
containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along with the
original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI
deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this matter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at [email protected].
    Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA received a renewal request of a
special permit issued on September 1, 2016, to CIG, a subsidiary of
Kinder Morgan, Inc., seeking a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR
192.611(a) and (d): Change in class location: Confirmation or revision
of maximum allowable operating pressure, 49 CFR 192.619(a): Maximum
allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines, and 49 CFR
192.5(c): Class locations.
    The September 1, 2016, special permit was granted for 16 special
permit segments totaling approximately 3.58 miles of the CIG natural
gas transmission pipeline system located in the states of Colorado and
Wyoming. This special permit renewal is being requested in lieu of pipe
replacement, pressure reduction, or new pressure tests for a Class 1 to
3 location change on eight (8) gas transmission special permit segments
totaling 6,379.96 feet (approximately 1.208 miles). The eight (8)
special permit segments that are not included in this notice nor the
below table now meet the requirements of either 49 CFR 192.611(a) or
192.619(a) for a Class 3 location. The eight (8) renewal special permit
segments, which have changed from a Class 1 to Class 3 location, are as
follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maximum allowable
                                                                          Outside                                          Year       operating pressure
 Renewal special permit segment No.            County, state             diameter        Line name     Length (feet)     installed    (pounds per square
                                                                         (inches)                                                         inch gauge)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  Adams, CO.....................              20          0002-A          782.61            1947                 920
2...................................  Adams, CO.....................              20          0002-A        1,370.52            1947                 920
3...................................  Adams, CO.....................              20          0002-B          845.14            1950                 920
4...................................  Adams, CO.....................              20          0002-B        1,366.76            1950                 920
12..................................  Morgan, CO....................              20            59-A          543.60            1995               1,050
13..................................  Morgan, CO....................              20            59-A          779.60            1995               1,050
14..................................  Morgan, CO....................              20            59-A           82.00            1995               1,050
16..................................  Sweetwater, WY................              22          0005-A          609.73            1957                 845
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The special permit renewal request, proposed special permit with
conditions, draft environmental assessment (DEA), and annual report
findings for pipeline integrity and reportable incidents for the above
listed CIG pipeline segment is available for review and public comments
in Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0008. PHMSA invites interested persons to
review and submit comments on the special permit renewal request and
DEA in the docket. Please include any comments on potential safety and
environmental impacts that may result if the special permit is granted.
Comments may include relevant data.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit renewal request,
PHMSA

will evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing
date. Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it
is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay.
PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its
decision to grant or deny this special permit request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 16, 2022, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2022-11496 Filed 5-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27355-27356]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5386; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-12]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Platte, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E en route domestic
airspace in the Platte Municipal Airport, Platte, SD area, to
facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under
control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The
FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and efficiency of
aircraft operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20591. You must
identify the docket number FAA-2016-5386/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-12,
at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E en route airspace in the Platte, SD,
area.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-5386/
Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-12.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 75-mile
radius of Platte Municipal Airport, Platte, SD. This action would
contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Minneapolis
ARTCC by safely vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal
areas.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6006 of FAA Order
7400.9Z, 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document would be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant

rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

AGL SD E6 Platte, SD [New]

Platte Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 43[deg]24'17'' N., long. 098[deg]49'50'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within a 75-mile radius of Platte Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 20, 2016.
Robert W. Beck,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-10553 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71118-71119]
[DOCID:fr25no05-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-25-000]

Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Application for Abandonment

November 17, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 10, 2005, Paiute Pipeline Company
(Paiute) filed an abbreviated application, pursuant to section 7(b) of
the Natural

Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for permission
and approval to abandon a firm transportation service rendered to
EaglePicher Filtration & Minerals, Inc. (EaglePicher) pursuant to Part
284 of the Commission's regulations.
    Paiute states that EaglePicher has provided Paiute with notice of
termination of its service agreement, effective as of February 28,
2006. Paiute also indicates that the terms of the service agreement
require that Paiute obtain from the Commission a specific grant of
abandonment authorization prior to abandoning service.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

[ldqu x o]eLibrary'' link and is available for review in
the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time December 9, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6477 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 59973-59974]
[DOCID:fr19no09-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13607-000]

Central Oregon Irrigation District; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene,
Protests, Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

November 12, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: P-13607-000.
    c. Date Filed: October 19, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Central Oregon Irrigation District.
    e. Name of Project: Juniper Ridge Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Juniper Ridge Hydroelectric Project would be
located on the Central Oregon Irrigation District's Pilot Butte Canal,
also referred to as the North Canal, in Deschutes County, Bend, Oregon.
The land in which all the project structures are located is owned by
the applicant.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Steven Johnson, Central Oregon Irrigation
District, 1055 SW. Lake Court, Redmond, OR 97756<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions.
    k. Deadline for Filing Responsive Documents: The Commission
directs, pursuant to section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see Order No.
533, issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23,108 (May 20, 1991)), that all
comments, motions to intervene, protests, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions concerning the application be filed with
the Commission by December 10, 2009. All reply comments must be filed
with the Commission by December 28, 2009.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    l. Description of Project: The proposed Juniper Ridge Hydroelectric
Project consists of: (1) A proposed powerhouse containing one
generating unit having an installed capacity of 5,000 kilowatts, and
(2) appurtenant facilities.
    The project would have an estimated annual generation of 12.6
megawatt-hours that would be used on-site with any excess being sold to
a local utility.
    m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, here P-12624, in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for review and reproduction at the address in item h.
above.
    n. Development Application--Any qualified applicant desiring to
file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or
before the specified deadline date for the

particular application, a competing development application, or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing
development application no later than 120 days after the specified
deadline date for the particular application. Applications for
preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit a competing development application. A notice of intent must be
served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
    p. Protests or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit a protest or
a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In
determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
application.
    q. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMMENTS'',
``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS'', ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', or
``PRESCRIPTIONS''; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. Any of these documents must be filed by providing
the original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An
additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance, Office of Energy Projects, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above address. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27735 Filed 11-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


21 While OCC is not referenced in the legislative language, pursuant to its duties to represent the legal interests of District ( D. C. Code 9 1 361), OCC must represent DHS within a timely manner should DHS seek to file the referenced neglect petition. However, other sections of the Act do specifically reference OCC. Section 301 ( f) amends D. C. Code 0 16 1623 ( d) ( 4) ( C) to provide, that at least 10 days prior to each review or permanency hearing for a child who has been adjudicated neglected, the department responsible for the supervision services to the child and his parent, guardian, or other custodian shall submit a report to [ DHS] which contains certain enumerated information including  [ wlhether the agency has initiated or intends to initiate the filing by the Corporation Counsel of a motion requesting the termination of the parent and child relationship and any reasons why it does not intend to initiate the filing of such a motion.  In addition, 5 404 ( d) of the Act, part of the Interstate Compact on Adoption and Medical Assistance, provides:

[ tlhe submission of any claim for payment or reimbursement for services or benefits pursuant to this section or the making of any statement in connection therewith, which claim or statement the m& er knows or should know to be false, misleading or fi audulent shall be punishable as perjury and shall also be subject to a fine not to exceed $ 10,000 or imprisonment for not to exceed 30 days, or both. A violation of this subsection shall be prosecuted by the Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia.

Still other obligationswhich affect the workload of the OCC emanate from court decisions founded upon one or more statutes and case law. For example, in Lashawn A. et al. v. Anthony Williams, et al., United States District Court for the District of Columbia ( C. A. No. 89 1754), the Court approved a Consent Decree which, among other things, affects the obligations and staffing of the OCC. The Consent Decree states, inter alia:

Defendants [ District] shall provide adequate legal staff to CFSA to enable the agency to meets [ sic] its legal obligations under the MFO.... A specific legal unit within the Office of the Corporation Counsel will be created to provide legal services to CFSA. This unit will provide training and witness preparation services to assist CFSA staffto effectivelypresent their cases in court....

In addition, there are various Court Rules ( see selected samples attached) which either impose additional requirements upon the OCC or expand upon those set forth in statute. Finally, there are regulatory provisions ( which have not been researched for this memorandum) which impose obligations on the OCC. For example, 9 F 3 107.2 of the District of Columbia Fire Prevention Code Supplement of 1999 DCMR 12 D ( 46 D. C. Register 9631) provides:

23 22 [ n] o permit shall be issued to any persons to engage in the business of the display or discharge of fireworksuntil the applicationfor that permit has been approved by: 1. The Fire Chief; 2. The Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness; 3. The Corporation Counsel; and 4. The Director of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.

Should you have questions regarding this memorandum, please contact either Pollie H. Goff, Assistant CorporationCounsel, Legal Counsel Division, at 724 5562 or me at 7245495

DGG/ phg Attachments ( 2)

23


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I Would like to submit a request of extension regarding a FDA bill proposal on something I feel benefits the health and well being on many Americans, Included in the attached files. I ask that my response be heard and taking into consideration regarding the Proposal on Electronic Cigarettes and a proper extension for the time frame of comments. .


[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 11695-11697]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19856]

Pipeline Safety: Issues Related to Mechanical Couplings Used in
Natural Gas Distribution Systems

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: Recent events concerning failures of mechanical couplings and
related appurtenances have raised concerns about safety in natural gas
distribution systems. This notice updates information provided in
Advisory Bulletin ADB-86-02 and advises owners and operators of gas
pipelines to consider the potential failure modes for mechanical
couplings used for joining and pressure sealing two pipes together.
Failures can occur when there is inadequate restraint for the potential
stresses on the two pipes, when the couplings are incorrectly installed
or supported, or when the coupling components such as elastomers
degrade over time. In addition, inadequate leak surveys which fail to
identify leaks requiring immediate repair can lead to more serious
incidents. This notice urges operators to review their procedures for
using mechanical couplings and ensure coupling design, installation
procedures, leak survey procedures, and personnel qualifications meet
Federal requirements. Operators should work with Federal and State
pipeline safety representatives, manufacturers, and industry partners
to determine how best to resolve potential issues in their respective
state or region. Documented repair or replacement programs may prove
beneficial to all stakeholders involved.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Sanders at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Max Kieba at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Mechanical couplings are fittings used for joining and pressure
sealing two pipes together. Other methods of joining pipe include
welding for steel and heat fusion for plastic. There have been
improvements in materials and manufacturing methods over the years, but
the basic design concept has not changed. Most couplings rely on
elastomers and compression as sealing mechanisms. Couplings appear in a
variety of configurations: Straight or inline couplings, elbows (45 or
90 degree), tees, reducing couplings (for joining pipes of different
diameters), and couplings integrated with risers. A variety of gaskets
and sleeves also exist. Properly installed and supported, couplings
successfully connect steel, cast iron, copper, and plastic pipes.
However, there is also a history of significant incidents related to
coupling failures.
    Advisory Bulletin ADB-86-02, issued February 26, 1986, informed
natural gas pipeline operators to review procedures for using
mechanical couplings and ensure coupling design, procedures, and
personnel qualifications meet 49 CFR part 192 requirements. ADB-86-02
is posted on PHMSA's Web site and in Docket ID PHMSA-RSPA-2004-19856.
The bulletin discussed pipeline failures that had been attributed to
temperature-related contraction of the plastic pipe and the inadequate
restraint capabilities of mechanical couplings.
    Additionally, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
issued a Pipeline Accident Report titled ``National Fuel Gas Company,
Natural Gas Explosion and Fire, Sharpsville, Pennsylvania, February 22,
1985'' (NTSB/PAR-85/02). The factors involved in the Sharpsville
incident were similar to those of several other incidents reported to
PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety. As documented in the NTSB report,
the cyclic effects of temperature-related contraction and expansion on
plastic pipe in an improperly designed mechanical joint can be
cumulative and lead to a failure even after several years of
satisfactory service.
    A number of incidents have occurred since issuance of ADB-86-02.
PHMSA searched 3,417 gas distribution incident reports submitted to the
agency since 1984, and identified 274 incidents that could potentially
include coupling or fitting failures. After closer examination of the
incident detail, PHMSA determined 148 of those incidents more reliably
appear to be coupling or fitting failures on steel or plastic pipe.
Although this accounts for only four to eight percent of all
distribution incidents reported to PHMSA, the significant incidents
within that data, as well as the potential for additional significant
incidents, should not be ignored. Significant incidents include the
following: a failure in Buffalo, Minnesota on February 19, 2004 that
resulted in significant property damage; a failure in Ramsey, Minnesota
on December 28, 2004 that resulted in three fatalities and one serious
injury; and, a failure in Wylie, Texas on October 16, 2006 that
resulted in two fatalities.
    It is important to note that this data only includes incidents that
were reportable to PHMSA. These numbers could be much greater if they
included incidents that were reported at the State level.
    In addition to these incidents, a number of other issues have been
cited:
     In 1993, the New York State Public Service Commission (NY
PSC) concluded an investigation concerning the increased incidence of
leaks attributed to gaskets and gas quality in a coupled steel natural
gas distribution system on Long Island.
     In 2005, Washington Gas Company issued a report on the
increased incidence of natural gas leaks attributed to gaskets and gas
quality on mechanically coupled steel pipe in a major portion of its
distribution system.
     In 2005, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO)
opened a statewide investigation due to a series of natural gas
incidents reported to PUCO by local distribution companies involving
risers, the vertical portions of the service lines that connect the
distribution systems to customers' meters. In addition to four
reportable incidents, a number of ``non-incident'' riser failures were
also reported to the staff. The PUCO opened a case to examine riser
types, reviewing installation and overall performance because of the
potential risk posed by risers as links between the gas distribution
service lines and meters, located near or within a customer's premises.
     In addition to the 2004 incidents in Minnesota already
discussed, two other incidents occurred in the State. After the first
incident, Minnesota's Office of Pipeline Safety began to review the
couplings installed in the system in question. The second incident
occurred while the study was being conducted.
    Between 1980 and 2007, seven incidents occurred in Texas. These are
outlined in a February 2008 Railroad Commission of Texas report titled
``Study Report on Compression Type Couplings.'' (http://
www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/gs/pls/TXcouplingrpt.pdf)
    These incidents involve a variety of types and sections of
couplings or risers. For example, the issues surrounding the Ohio
couplings were slightly different than the Texas couplings. Both were
related to risers, but the Ohio issues involved the compression
mechanisms located aboveground on the risers that connect meter
settings to underground service lines. The couplings in Texas have been
located on the ends of service risers where service lines connect to
risers. While some incidents in question were reportable to PHMSA and
investigated by PHMSA, those that were not were investigated by the
relevant State pipeline safety agency. This notice does not focus on a
particular State, operator, or type of coupling. Rather, it intends to
provide generally applicable advice on incidents affecting multiple
stakeholders and systems throughout the country.
    Although a number of variables exist, the safety problem appears to
involve two predominant failure modes. First, in the cases involving
pullout of pipe, often plastic, from compression couplings, an
additional and perhaps unique factor produced the pullout forces. These
additional factors could include cyclic fatigue from changing of the
seasons (especially in northern climates), or soil shifting by other
means (ground movement from earthquakes or after heavy rains). Improper
installation (most couplings currently come with product warnings) or
old age (parts of the coupling deteriorating) could also have
contributed to the pullout. Some studies found couplings that were
installed with components that differed from the original manufacturer
specifications, modified prior to installation, or missing parts
entirely. As another example of incorrect application, the coupling
involved in the Ramsey, Minnesota incident was designed to be used on
steel pipe, not plastic, and had a service tee welded to it contrary to
manufacturer's recommendations. The common factor in all incidents
involving pullout is that the compression fitting did not have adequate
restraint to assure safety under service conditions. In some cases, the
coupling failed after many years of successful service.
    The second failure mode involves leakage through the sealing
surface between the coupling and the pipe. This occurred when the
integrity of long-term viscous and elastic effects of the seals
degraded which eventually caused a leak path to develop. In some cases,
a change in the gas quality in the distribution system may have
contributed to the failure.

    Other contributing factors can also lead to incidents. These
factors include leak surveys conducted in conditions that prevent gas
from properly migrating to the surface, such as after heavy rains or
certain soil and surface features. Some incidents indicated leak
surveys involving equipment not calibrated properly or not appropriate
for the intended use, or personnel not sufficiently trained. If an
operator is doing proper leak surveys at regular intervals, an operator
can usually detect a leak early, fix the source of the leak, and
prevent an incident. There have, however, been cases where a leak
survey, using properly calibrated equipment showing no problems, was
followed by an incident involving sudden pullout only weeks later.
    Follow-up has already occurred with some of the incidents mentioned
in this bulletin:
     The NY PSC and the operator agreed to a replacement
program involving approximately 45,000 natural gas service lines
equipped with couplings.
     In Ohio, nearly 500,000 risers were identified by the
PUCO's study as prone to failure. Currently, the PUCO is working with
the operators who have these risers and the Ohio Consumers' Counsel to
set up replacement schedules and address costs.
     In May 2005, Minnesota's Office of Pipeline Safety issued
a compliance order to an operator to replace service lines installed
prior to January 1, 1984, or visually inspect the entire service line
to verify it contains only mechanical fittings that comply with 49 CFR
192.283(b). Any mechanical fittings identified that did not meet the
requirements were required to be replaced.
     The Railroad Commission of Texas has required operators to
replace, within a 2-year period, 97,000 remaining old mechanical
couplings that have been in service for some 28 to 30 years. In
addition, the Railroad Commission of Texas has adopted mandatory
replacement programs in an effort to remove compression couplings found
leaking on both steel and plastic pipe that are susceptible to pullout.
    A number of other studies, tests, and repair or replacement
programs, some of them voluntary, have been conducted in other States.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-08-02)

    To: All Gas Distribution Operators.
    Subject: Identifying Issues with Mechanical Coupling That Could
Lead to Failure.
    Advisory: Due to variables related to age of couplings, specific
procedures and installation practices, and conditions specific to
certain regions of the country, it is difficult to cite common criteria
affecting all failures that operators should address. However, PHMSA
advises operators of gas distribution pipelines using mechanical
couplings to do the following to ensure compliance with 49 CFR part
192:
    (1) Review procedures for using mechanical couplings, including the
coupling design and installation and ensure that they meet
manufacturer's recommendations;
    (2) Review leak survey procedures to ensure that leak surveys are
properly conducted, taking into account other contributing factors
(i.e., weather conditions, calibration); and,
    (3) Review personnel qualifications to ensure they address leak
surveys sufficiently.
    PHMSA also advises operators of gas distribution pipelines using
mechanical couplings to consider taking the following measures to
reduce the risk of failures of mechanical couplings:
    (4) Use Category 1 fittings only if mechanical couplings are used
on pipe sizes \1/2\' CTS (Copper Tube Size) to 2' IPS (Iron Pipe Size).
Per ASTM D2513-99 titled ``Standard Specification for Thermoplastic Gas
Pressure Pipe, Tubing and Fittings,'' Category 1 is a mechanical joint
design that provides a seal plus a resistance to a force on the pipe
end equal to or greater than that which will cause a permanent
deformation of the pipe. At this time there is insufficient data to
indicate there are issues involving fittings for larger diameter pipe.
PHMSA will revisit if such issues do arise with larger diameter pipe.
    (5) Improve recordkeeping on specific couplings that exist, i.e.,
their type, installation date, maintenance schedule, and any failures
encountered, to help identify a trend of problems that may occur with a
specific coupling or type of installation.
    (6) Consider whether to adopt a full replacement program if there
are too many unknowns related to couplings in service.
    (7) Work with Federal and State pipeline safety representatives,
manufacturers, and industry partners to determine how best to resolve
potential issues in their respective state or region.
    Documented repair and replacement programs may prove beneficial to
all stakeholders involved. If operators are unsure of the appropriate
representative, contact the individual(s) listed in this advisory
bulletin for further information.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28, 2008.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E8-4155 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


January 29, 2004 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania NW Mail Code 6205J Washington, DC 20460 Ms. Suzanne Kocchi U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1310 L. Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Dear Ms. Kocchi:

North Carolina Foam Industries ( NCFI) would like to provide an update on our activities to transition to non ozone depleting HCFC 141b blowing agent alternatives. Further we wish to comment on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal ( 67 FR 47703 47721) to formally ban HCFC 141b in insulating foam beginning in 2005. We feel the EPA should move forward to ban the use of HCFC 141b now that non ozone depleting alternatives are clearly commercially viable and available in all industry sectors.

NCFI has made significant investments over the past two years in new production facilities to manufacture urethane systems using non ODP blowing agents. In addition we have developed and qualified a full range of new urethane products incorporating hydrocarbon or HFC 245 fa blowing agents to replace our older HCFC 141b systems. We are actively phasing out our HCFC 141b formulations and encouraging all of our customers to transition to these new environmentally attractive alternatives.

  We have completed investments in new blending facilities for both Exxsol ® ( hydrocarbon) and Enovate   3000 ( HFC 245 fa) blowing agents.

B NCFI is commercially offering attractive non ODP formulations into a range of end uses including rigid spray for both roof and interior wall applications.

B In 2003 we purchased hydrocarbon capable spray foam equipment from Gusmer and Endysis and have made it widely available to spray contractors in a series of training/ demonstration programs. Ms. Suzanne Kocchi U. S. Environmental Protection Agency January 29, 2004 Page 2 NCFI has made investments in alternative blowing agent technologies and facilities in order to comply with the mandated phase out of HCFC 141b. The continued availability of HCFC 141b however has undermined our efforts to convert many customers to the non ODP alternatives. To accelerate the move to non ODP formulations in the urethane industry, the EPA should establish an HCFC 141b end use ban as proposed in the JULY 22, 2002 67 FR47703 program rule. We at NCFI have and are prepared to offer viable alternatives that truly reduce ODS emmisions.

Very truly yours,

NORTH CAROLINA FOAM INDUSTRIES Swanson Snow Division President SS: cm


[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 57562]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 3, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP93-162-019, CP88-391-039.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation submits its
cash-out report for the annual period 8/1/06 through 7/31/07 and its
report of cash-out refunds for the Annual Period, etc.
    Filed Date: 09/27/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071001-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 9, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-513-042.
    Applicants: Questar Pipeline Company.
    Description: Questar Pipeline Company submits Forty-Second Revised
Sheet 7, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective
11/1/07.
    Filed Date: 09/27/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070927-0173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 9, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP00-70-015.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits Original Sheet
85, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0092.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-725-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC submits the
corrected Appendix D, Scheduling A, Page 1 of 2 to its annual fuel
retainage quantity filing submitted on 9/28/07.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-11-000.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Hardy Storage Company, LLC submits first Annual
Retainage Adjustment Mechanism Filing pursuant to FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-12-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits their
Forty-fourth Revised Sheet 18, et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume 1, proposed to be effective 11/1/07.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-13-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits its Fourth Revised Sheet
0, et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-14-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits a filing for
approval to convert an individually certificated storage service that
provides to Public Service Electric & Gas Co., etc.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071002-0093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19867 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF
FILING TEMPLATE FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER

(03/09/07)

EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact:  Mike
Mendelsohn, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> PRIVATE

COMMENT 1] 	[Comment 1] PRIVATE  Monsanto Company tc  \l 1 "Monsanto
Company"

[COMMENT 2] 	[Insert petition number]

[COMMENT 3] 	EPA has received a pesticide petition [insert petition
number] from Monsanto Company, 800 North Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO
63167, proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal  Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),  21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

[COMMENT 4]	NA-Remove

[COMMENT 5]	 NA-Remove

[COMMENT 6]	to remove time limitation from the temporary exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for the

[COMMENT 7]	NA-Remove

[COMMENT 8]	NA-Remove

[COMMENT 9]	plant-incorporated protectant Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2
protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in all
crops and agricultural commodities.  EPA is being petitioned to
establish a permanent tolerance exemption as part of the registration of
insect-protected corn MON 89034.

[COMMENT 10]	Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as
amended, Monsanto Company has submitted the following summary of
information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition.
 This summary was prepared by Monsanto Company; The summary may have
been edited by EPA to clarify terminology, remove extraneous material,
or if the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the
findings reflected EPA’s position and not the position of the
petitioner.

[COMMENT 11]	I.  Monsanto Company Petition Summary

[COMMENT 12]	[Insert petition number]

[COMMENT 13]	A.  Product name and Proposed Use Practices

[COMMENT 14]	Corn has been genetically modified to produce Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins.  Plants producing
these proteins are derived from transformation events that contain the
insecticidal proteins and the genetic material necessary for their
expression in corn (vector ZMIR245).  The combination of Cry2Ab2 and
Cry1A.105 proteins provides a broad spectrum of activity against
lepidopteran insect pests and a tool for management of potential insect
resistance.  Both the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins have been fully
characterized and no adverse effects were observed for human health and
environmental safety.

[COMMENT 15]	B.  Product Identity/Chemistry

[COMMENT 17]	Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues.

[COMMENT 18]	The Cry2Ab2 protein is derived from Bacillus thuringiensis
subsp. kurstaki and has greater than 99% sequence identity to the wild
type Cry2Ab.  The Cry2Ab2 protein has been previously expressed in corn
(MON 84006) and cotton (MON 15985); the protein's safety has been fully
characterized.  The Cry2Ab2 safety assessment has been reviewed by EPA.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance was issued for cotton
in 2004 (40 CFR §180.1215).  A temporary tolerance exemption was
granted for the Cry2Ab2 protein produced in corn in June 2006 (40 CFR
§174.454).

[COMMENT 20]	Magnitude of residue at the time of harvest and method used
to determine the residue.

[COMMENT 21]	Cry2Ab2 residue data are not required for an assessment of
human health effects because of the lack of mammalian toxicity.

 [COMMENT 23]	 A statement of why an analytical method for detecting and
measuring the levels of the pesticide residue is not needed.

[COMMENT 24]	 An analytical method is not required because this petition
requests an exemption from tolerances.  A validated ELISA method and an
analytical method for detection of the Cry2Ab2 protein are available and
allow for identification of MON 89034 corn.

[COMMENT 25]	C.  Mammalian Toxicological Profile

Cry proteins have been used safely and effectively as pest control
agents in microbial Bt formulations for more than 45 years.  The
numerous toxicology studies conducted with these microbial products show
no significant adverse effects, and demonstrate that the products are
nontoxic to mammals.

Data have been submitted demonstrating the lack of mammalian toxicity at
high levels of exposure to purified Cry2Ab2 protein.  These data
demonstrate the safety of the protein at levels well above maximum
possible exposure levels that are reasonably anticipated in crops.  This
conclusion is consistent with the Agency position regarding toxicity and
residue data requirements for the microbial Bt products which utilize
the same proteins as these plant-incorporated protectants (40 CFR
§158.740(b)(2)(i)).  For microbial products, further toxicity and
residue testing are only triggered by significant acute effects in
studies such as the mouse oral toxicity study.

When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms and
at very low levels (Sjoblad et al. “Toxicological Considerations for
Protein Components of Biological Pesticide Products.”  Reg. Toxicol.
Pharmacol. 15:3-9, 1992).  Acute oral toxicity studies have been
evaluated for Cry2Ab2 protein.  Cry2Ab2 protein with evaluated safety
has been placed in toxicity category IV due to the lack of any evidence
of toxicity.  Furthermore, amino acid sequence comparisons of the
Cry2Ab2 protein to known toxic proteins showed no similarities.

Because Cry2Ab2 is a protein, the potential for allergic sensitivities
was evaluated.  Common food allergens are present at high concentrations
in food, are resistant to pepsin digestion, may be resistant to acid or
heat, and can be glycosylated.  Data have been submitted demonstrating
that the Cry2Ab2 protein is rapidly degraded by simulated gastric fluid
in vitro.  In a solution of simulated gastric fluid, complete
degradation of the detectable Cry2Ab2 protein occurred within 30 seconds
of incubation.

An analysis of amino acid sequences of known allergens uncovered no
evidence of sequence homology with the Cry2Ab2 protein, even at the
level of eight contiguous amino acid residues.

The genetic material encoding the Cry2Ab2 proteins and the regulatory
regions controlling expression of the cry2Ab2 gene are nucleic acids
(DNA and RNA).  DNA and RNA occur in all forms of plant and animal life
and there is no documented instance of nucleic acids being associated
with toxic effects when consumed as a component of food.  DNA and RNA
are in the category of substances generally considered as safe (GRAS).
EPA exempts nucleic acids from the FFDCA Section 408 requirements.  Data
characterizing the genetic material necessary for the production of
Cry2Ab2 in corn were provided to the Agency.  No mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary exposure to the genetic material necessary for
production of the subject plant-incorporated protectant.

[COMMENT 26]	D.  Aggregate Exposure

[COMMENT 28]	Dietary exposure

[COMMENT 29]	Cry2Ab2 is a plant-incorporated protectant in corn, thus
dietary exposure is deemed to be the most relevant route for assessing
human risk.

[COMMENT 31]	Food

[COMMENT 32]	Monsanto has considered available information on the
aggregate exposure levels to consumers and major identifiable groups of
consumers to the protein residue and related substances.  These
considerations include dietary exposure under the tolerance exemptions
in effect for the plant-incorporated protectant residue, and exposure
from non-occupational sources.  Oral exposure may occur at very low
levels from ingestion of processed corn products.  However, a lack of
mammalian toxicity and the rapid digestibility of the plant-incorporated
protectants have been demonstrated.

[COMMENT 34]	Drinking water

[COMMENT 35]	Oral exposure from ingestion of drinking water is unlikely
because the proteins are present at low levels within the plant and
previously submitted studies demonstrate that Cry2Ab2 protein are
rapidly degraded in soil and, therefore, are not present in drinking
water.

[COMMENT 37]	Non-dietary exposure

[COMMENT 38]	Exposure via skin or inhalation is not likely because the
plant-incorporated protectants are contained within plant cells, which
essentially eliminates these exposure routes or reduces them to
negligible levels.  The use sites for the Cry2Ab2 protein are all
agricultural for control of insects.  Exposure to workers and bystanders
resulting from plant pesticides will be negligible and unlikely to add
measurably to any exposure resulting from microbial or other Bacillus
thuringiensis formulations.  Exposure to infants and children via
residential or lawn use is not expected.

[COMMENT 39]	E.  Cumulative Exposure

[COMMENT 40]	Because there is no indication of mammalian toxicity to the
plant-incorporated protectants there will be no opportunity for
cumulative toxic effects.

[COMMENT 41]	F.  Safety Determination

 [COMMENT 43] 	U.S. population

[COMMENT 44]	Sufficient data have been submitted to assess the health
risk of Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic material necessary for their
production in all raw agricultural commodities.  The absence of toxicity
in high dose acute oral studies, the lack of sequence homology with
known protein toxins, rapid digestion in a gastric matrix, and minimal
allergenicity potential provide a reasonable certainty of no harm for
the U.S. general population potentially exposed to the Cry2Ab2 protein.

[COMMENT 46]	Infants and children

[COMMENT 47]	Non-dietary exposure to infants and children is not
anticipated due to the patterns of use for these plant-incorporated
protectants.  The submitted data provide no evidence of adverse
threshold effects for the Cry2Ab2 protein that would warrant application
of an additional safety factor for the protection of infants and
children.  Furthermore, the provisions for consumption patterns, special
susceptibility, and cumulative effects do not apply.

[COMMENT 48]	G.  Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

[COMMENT 49]	The lack of Cry2Ab2 homology to known toxins and allergens
and their rapid degradation in a mammalian digestive system suggests
minimal risk for adverse effects on the immune system.  These pesticidal
active ingredients are proteins derived from sources that are not known
to exert an influence on the endocrine system.

[COMMENT 50]	H.  Existing Tolerances

[COMMENT 51]	 The Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the genetic
material necessary for its production in corn is exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant incorporated protectant
in food and feed commodities of field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn
until June 30, 2009 (40 CFR §174.454).

[COMMENT 52]	I.  International Tolerances

[COMMENT 53]	No Codex maximum residue levels have been established for
these plant-incorporated protectants at this time.

Monsanto Company	04-CR-138E-3	Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  5

{<HD2>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<P>}

{<P>}

{<P>}[COMMENT]{<P>}[COMMENT]{<P>}

{<P>}

{<P>}

{<P>}[COMMENT]{<P>}[COMMENT]{<P>}

{<P>}

{<HD1>}

{<HED2>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}