27808 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices

increasing and that future resolutions to

these hazards may become more

complex. Certain species that frequent

landfills, such as ring-billed gulls, are

increasing in unprecedented numbers.

At the same time, the public is

becoming more involved in wildlife

management issues. The National

Environmental Policy Act may require

public involvement in the solution of a

wildlife-related airport safety problem.

The public’s involvement may be costly

and time consuming, resulting in a

trade-off of accepting potential hazards

while possible solutions are debated.

The likelihood of bird strikes may be

further exacerbated by design changes to

modern aircraft, which incorporate

larger inlet engines to achieve reduced

noise levels. These larger, quieter

engines give birds less warning and

require them to avoid a larger surface

area.

Findings

1. FAA believes that current data is

insufficient to permit an accurate and

consistent quantification of the risk

created by locating landfills within 5

miles of an airport. Although a

quantified risk assessment is not

available, the potential hazard of bird

strikes has been established in reports

following aircraft accidents.

2. FAA believes that landfills

constitute a potential hazard to aviation

if located within 5 miles from a runway

end for the following reasons:

a. Bird strikes in the vicinity of waste

disposal activities located within 5

miles of an airport have been a factor in

numerous accidents, some involving

loss of human life.

b. Bird activity is generally recognized

to occur at altitudes that brings it into

the path of aircraft during approach and

departure operations, the most critical

time for aircraft performance.

c. Modern aircraft, with quieter

engines and larger engine inlets,

increase the potential for bird strikes

due to the reduced warning resulting

from quieter engines with greater frontal

areas which combine to increase the

chances of birds being struck or

ingested.

d. Bird mitigation techniques,

although offered as a solution, have not

been proven effective over extended

periods of time. In addition, future

mitigation programs will become more

complicated and require more time to

implement, resulting in a trade-off of

potential hazards.

e. Landfills are intense attractants to

birds. When located in or adjacent to

airspace used by aircraft, a potential

hazard will result.

3. As total bird control is not possible,

the best solution is to restrict actions on

or in the vicinity of an active airport to

reduce bird attractions.

4. The distance criteria contained in

FAA Order 52.005A serve as a

reasonable basis for determining the

incompatibility of a landfill site with

airport operations.

Recommendations

Although not a solution to all airportrelated bird hazards, locating intense

attractions to wildlife, such as landfills,

outside the areas specified by the FAA

reduces the risk of a potentially

hazardous collision between aircraft and

birds. Progress has been made toward

this goal by the EPA. Although EPA

stops short of prohibiting landfills

within the 5,000 and 10,000 foot areas

designated by the FAA, it does require

that operators of existing municipal

solid waste landfills within those areas

demonstrate to the State agency that

issues municipal solid waste permits

that such units do not pose a bird

hazard to aircraft. Additionally,

proponents of new or expanded landfill

sites within 5 miles of an airport must

notify the affected airport and the FAA

of their intentions.

In an effort to enhance aviation safety.

FAA recommends that no new or

expanded municipal solid waste or

putrescible landfill be located within

the FAA specified 5,000 and 10,000 foot

criteria or in the approach/departure

areas within 5 miles of an airport if

deemed incompatible with safe aircraft

operations.

[FR Doc. 95–12899 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Research and Development Programs

Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

public meeting at which NHTSA will

describe and discuss specific research

and development projects and request

suggestions for agenda topics.

DATES AND TIMES: The National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration will hold

a public meeting devoted primarily to

presentations of specific research and

development projects on June 27, 1995,

beginning at 1:30 p.m. and ending at

approximately 5:00 p.m. The deadline

for interested parties to suggest agenda

topics is 4:15 p.m. on June 8, 1995.

Questions may be submitted in advance

regarding the agency’s research and

development projects. They must be

submitted in writing by June 19, 1995,

to the address given below. If sufficient

time is available, questions received

after the June 19 date will be answered

at the meeting in the discussion period.

The individual, group, or company

asking a question does not have to be

present for the question to be answered.

A consolidated list of the questions

submitted by June 19 will be available

at the meeting and will be mailed to

requesters after the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Ramada Inn, near Detroit Metro

Airport, 8270 Wickham Rd., Romulus,

MI 48174. Suggestions for specific R&D

topics as described below and questions

for the June 27, 1995, meeting relating

to the agency’s research and

development programs should be

submitted to the Office of the Associate

Administrator for Research and

Development, NRD–01, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Room 6206, 400 Seventh St., SW,

Washington, DC 20590. The fax number

is 202–366–5930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

NHTSA intends to provide detailed

presentations about its research and

development programs in a series of

quarterly public meetings. The series

started in April 1993. The purpose is to

make available more complete and

timely information regarding the

agency’s research and development

programs. This tenth meeting in the

series will be held on June 27, 1995.

NHTSA requests suggestions from

interested parties on the specific agenda

topics. NHTSA will base its decisions

about the agenda, in part, on the

suggestions it receives by close of

business at 4:15 p.m. on June 8, 1995.

Before the meeting, it will publish a

notice with an agenda listing the

research and development topics to be

discussed. NHTSA asks that the

suggestions be taken from the list below

and that they be limited to six, in

priority order, so that the presentations

at the June 27 R&D meeting can be most

useful to the audience. Please note that

almost all of these topics have been

discussed at the previous nine meetings

to some extent and that presentations at

the tenth meeting will be reports on

current status, results, and plans.

Specific Crashworthiness R&D topics

are:

Improved frontal crash protection

problem analysis and program status,

Advanced glazing research,

Highway traffic injury studies,

Head and neck injury research,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 1995 / Notices 27809

Lower extremity injury research,

Thorax injury research,

Human injury simulation and analysis,

Crash test dummy component

development,

Vehicle aggressivity and fleet

compatibility,

Upgrade side crash protection,

Upgrade seat and occupant restraint

systems,

Child safety research, and

Electric and alternate fuel vehicle safety.

Specific Crash Avoidance R&D topics

are:

Truck crashworthiness/occupant

protection,

Truck tire traction,

Portable data acquisition system for

crash avoidance research,

Systems to enhance EMS response

(automatic collision notification)

Vehicle motion environment,

Crash causal analysis,

Human factors guidelines for crash

avoidance warning devices,

Longer combination vehicle safety,

Drowsy driver monitoring

Driver workload assessment, and

Performance guidelines for IVHS

systems (approach).

Questions regarding research projects

that have been submitted in writing not

later than close of business on June 19,

1995, will be answered as time permits.

Beginning with this tenth meeting, the

time allotted to answering questions has

been increased. A transcript of the

meeting, copies of materials handed out

at the meeting, and copies of the

suggestions offered by commenters will

be available for public inspection in the

NHTSA’s Technical Reference Section,

Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., SW,

Washington, DC 20590. Copies of the

transcript will then be available at 10

cents a page, upon request to NHTSA’s

Technical Reference Section. The

Technical Reference Section is open to

the public from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

NHTSA will provide technical aids to

participants as necessary, during the

Research and Development Programs

Meeting. Thus, any person desiring the

assistance of ‘‘auxiliary aids’’ (e.g., signlanguage interpreter, telecommunication

devices for deaf persons (TTDs), readers,

taped texts, braille materials, or large

print materials and/or a magnifying

device), please contact Rita Gibbons on

202–366–4862 by close of business June

21, 1995.

FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita

Gibbons, Administrative Staff Assistant,

Office of research and Development, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Telephone 202–366–4862. Fax

number: 202–366–5930.

Issued: May 19, 1995.

George L. Parker,

Associate Administrator for Research and

Development.

[FR Doc. 95–12832 Filed 5–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. P–94–1W; Notice 2]

Columbia Gulf Transmission

Company; Transportation of Natural

Gas by Pipeline, Grant of Waiver

Columbia Gulf Transmission

Company (Columbia Gulf) has

petitioned the Research and Special

Programs Administration (RSPA) for a

waiver from compliance with 49 CFR

192.612(b)(3), which requires that gas

pipeline facilities in the Gulf of Mexico

found to be exposed on the seabed or

constituting a hazard to navigation be

reburied so that the top of the pipe is

36 inches below the seabed for normal

excavation or 18 inches for rock

excavation.

During a DOT-required survey,

Columbia Gulf discovered that a 260

foot portion of the 36-inch Bluewater

Mainline 200 did not meet the 12-inch

depth of cover requirements of

§ 192.612. At the point where coverage

is not sufficient, Columbia Gulf’s

pipeline crosses over a Trunkline Gas

Company (Trunkline) 16-inch pipeline

and an Amoco Production Company

(AMOCO) abandoned 4-inch pipeline.

Therefore, Columbia Gulf cannot

comply with the lowering requirement

without first lowering or crossing below

the Trunkline and Amoco pipelines.

This coincidental lowering would

present the potential for damage to these

lines which could cause environmental

pollution.

This waiver will allow Columbia Gulf

to cover 813 feet along the subject

pipeline segment with a concrete mesh

blanket alternative to the 36-inch depth

of cover requirement. The waiver will

also extend the time limitation required

for compliance with § 192.612 until

November 30, 1995, to allow for

completion of the work.

A ‘‘concrete mesh blanket’’ unit is an

8 foot x 20 foot section constructed from

160 individually cast 17 inch x 17 inch

x 9 inch beveled concrete briquettes

inter-connected with 3⁄4 inch

polypropelene UV stabilized line. A

total of 41 (8 foot x 20 foot x 9 inch)

units of ‘‘concrete mesh blanket’’ will be

required to cover the 813 feet of affected

pipeline. Each of the 41 units will be

hydrojetted flush with the seabed and

permanently anchored with six screw

anchors.

The top of the 12-inch pipeline the

mesh blanket is intended to cover is

presently buried 6 inches below

unconsolidated bottom in the Gulf of

Mexico from Lat. 29°30′21.46′′, Long.

92°22′54.08′′ to Lat. 29°30′13.4′′, Long.

92°22′53.98′′; Block 15, Vermillion area,

approximately 8 miles South of Pecan

Island, LA. The pipeline is coated with

concrete.

The use of the proposed blanket will

effectively cover the pipeline to 15

inches (9′′ blanket + 6′′ cover). The

required reburial is to 36 inches below

the bottom or 18 inches below a rock

bottom. Therefore this waiver is

necessary to allow for the use of the

concrete mesh blanket.

Columbia Gulf will also install a rock

shield over the pipeline before

installation of the blanket. The rock

shield must be of at least 3⁄8 inches of

thickness constructed of an appropriate

material, such as ‘‘Tuff N Nuff’’

manufactured by Submar.

In response to this petition and the

justification contained therein, RSPA

issued a notice of petition for waiver

inviting interested parties to comment

(Notice 1)(60 FR 10893, Feb. 28, 1995).

In that notice, RSPA explained why

granting a waiver from the requirements

of § 192.612 to allow placement of the

concrete mesh blanket would not have

a deleterious impact on safety.

Comments were received from three

pipeline operators and one interstate

pipeline association. Each commentor

endorsed the petition and recommended

granting the waiver.

One commentor further recommended

that RSPA also require Columbia Gulf to

notify Trunkline at least 48 hours in

advance so as to allow a Trunkline

inspector to be present while work is in

progress in the vicinity of its pipeline.

RSPA agrees, and hereby requires

Columbia Gulf to notify Trunkline as

described.

In view of these reasons and those

stated in the foregoing discussion,

RSPA, by this order, finds that a waiver

of compliance with § 192.612(c)(3) is

consistent with pipeline safety.

Accordingly, Columbia Gulf

Transmission Company’s petition from

compliance with § 192.612(b)(3) is

granted.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1672(d); § 1.53, and

appendix A of part 106.