[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10307-10308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5552]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
[Docket No. P-97-2W; Notice 1]


Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Petition for Waiver; Northern 
Eclipse, Inc.

    Northern Eclipse, Inc. (NE) has petitioned the Research and Special 
Programs Administration (RSPA) for a waiver from compliance with 49 CFR 
storage tank impounding system. Section 193.2155(c) requires a Class 1 
impounding system whenever an LNG storage tank is located within 20,000 
feet from the nearest runway serving large aircraft. The petition 
applies to the Northern Eclipse's proposed LNG storage facility at 
Fairbanks, Alaska.
    The petitioner's rationale for the waiver from compliance rests on 
the following reasons:
    1. Fairbanks does not currently have natural gas service, and given 
the distance to gas fields and the size of the market, petitioner 
believes that LNG is the only feasible way to provide natural gas 
service in the community.
    2. Fairbanks is a small town by a lower-48 states standards, 
however, due to international air transport and reliance of Alaskans on 
air travel, Fairbanks has an international airport (FIA) with a 11,050 
foot long runway. In addition, Fairbanks has a similar runway for a 
U.S. military base (Fort Wainwright), and other smaller runways in the 
area. The 20,000 foot restriction requirement eliminates any reasonable 
site in Fairbanks for an LNG storage tank and it would not be 
economically feasible to build an impounding system which would 
withstand a direct impact from a 747, in order to provide gas service 
to the Fairbanks community.
    3. NE does not propose to locate its storage tank in the approach/
departure corridor for heavy aircraft. The areas under consideration 
are approximately two miles to the side of the FIA runway.
    4. NE proposes the use of a shop fabricated, heavy outer wall 
storage tank of less than 70,000 gallon capacity, built to National 
Aeronautical and Space Administration specifications, and likely to 
survive even a direct impact from small aircraft.
    5. Similar LNG storage tanks and dispensing facilities are 
routinely allowed at airports without impoundment as they are not 
subject to Part 193 requirements, but they pose precisely the same risk 
in the event of a collision, and due to their location at the airport 
pose a much greater risk of impact from an aircraft. To support this 
fact, NE provided pictures of an above ground NFPA 59A LNG storage tank 
at the Dallas/Fort Worth airport.
    6. Part 193 contains special provisions for LNG tanks with less 
than a 70,000 gallon capacity. However, Section 193.2155(c) fails to 
reflect the vastly different risks posed by different sized LNG storage 
tanks. A small LNG tank like that proposed by NE poses no significant 
risk, and certainly no more than any other similar small energy storage 
tank, such as a propane tank or a non-Part 193 LNG tank.
    7. During the December 9, 1996, meeting between NE and OPS on this 
issue, NE was informed that the origin of the distance of 20,000 feet 
from the airport was taken from the Federal Aviation Administration's 
(FAA) Regulations under 14 CFR part 77, which define a critical area 
surrounding a large airport. According to NE, only Sec. 77.13(a)(2)(i) 
of 14 CFR part 77, addresses 20,000 ft. restriction, which exists where 
there are runways of over 3,200 feet in length, and that section refers 
only to the heights of structures. NE believes that the FAA may be 
concerned with the height of the structure rather than the contents.
    Because of the unusual circumstances described above at NE's 
proposed LNG facility, relatively low risk to the public safety due to 
a smaller tank, and the operators's use of a shop fabricated heavy 
outer wall built to more stringent standards than those specified under 
part 193, RSPA believes that granting a waiver from the requirements of 
49 CFR 193.2155(c) would not be inconsistent with pipeline safety, nor 
would it lessen public safety in this case. The operator must comply 
with all other requirements of part 193 including Class 2 impounding 
system for the storage tank. Therefore, RSPA proposes to grant the 
waiver.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on the proposed waiver by 
submitting in duplicate such data, views, or arguments as they may 
desire. Comments should identify the docket number and the RSPA 
rulemaking number. Comments should be addressed to the Docket Facility, 
U.S. Department Of Transportation, plaza 401, 400

[[Page 10308]]

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    All comments received before April 7, 1997 will be considered 
before final action is taken. Late filed comments will be considered so 
far as practicable. No public hearing is contemplated, but one may be 
held at a time and place set in a notice in the Federal Register if 
required by an interested person desiring to comment at a public 
hearing and raising a genuine issue. All comments and other docketed 
material will be available for inspection and copying in room 401 Plaza 
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

    Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2002(h) and 2015; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 3, 1997.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 97-5552 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P