Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35859

bottom side handhold be located not

more than (21) inches from top tread of

sill step—.

Thrall Car built 629 covered hopper

cars beginning in 1995 which have the

bottom side handhold located (21–3/8)

inches from the top tread of sill step.

Car series:

CCBX 58595 thru 59000 = 406 cars.

FMLX 62001 ′′ 62040 = 40 cars.

OCPX 70901 ′′ 70944 = 44 cars.

UTCX 49148 ′′ 49287 = 139 cars.

49 CFR 231.27(e)(3) requires in part

that the bottom side handholds be

located not more than (21) inches from

top tread of sill step—.

Thrall Car state that this discrepancy

originated with the introduction of a

new car in June of 1995 and continued

until discovery. Design corrections have

been made with all subsequent covered

hopper cars.

Thrall Car request to continue the use

of these subject cars as they do not

believe this condition presents a safety

concern due to the small variance from

the standard.

Interested parties are invited to

participate in these proceedings by

submitting written views, data, or

comments. FRA does not anticipate

scheduling a public hearing in

connection with these proceedings since

the facts do not appear to warrant a

hearing. If any interested party desires

an opportunity for oral comment, they

should notify FRA, in writing, before

the end of the comment period and

specify the basis for their request.

All communications concerning these

proceedings should identify the

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver

Petition Docket Number—SA–96–2 and

must be submitted in triplicate to the

Docket Clerk, Chief Counsel, Federal

Railroad Administration, Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590.

Communications received before August

19, 1996, will be considered by FRA

before final action is taken. Comments

received after that date will be

considered as far as practicable. All

written communications concerning

these proceedings are available for

examination during regular business

hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) in Room 8201,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 1996.

Phil Olekszyk,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Compliance and Program Implementation.

[FR Doc. 96–17298 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

Notice of Application for Approval of

Discontinuance or Modification of a

Railroad Signal System or Relief From

the Requirements of 49 CFR Part 236

Pursuant to 49 CFR Part 235 and 49

U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroads

have petitioned the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) seeking approval

for the discontinuance or modification

of the signal system or relief from the

requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as

detailed below.

Block Signal Application (BS–AP)–No.

3402

Applicant: Burlington Northern Railroad

Company

Mr. William G. Peterson,

Director Signal Engineering,

1900 Continental Plaza,

777 Main Street,

Fort Worth, Texas 76102–5384.

The Burlington Northern Railroad

Company seeks approval of the

proposed discontinuance and removal

of the traffic control system (TCS),

associated with the installation of an

automatic block signal (ABS) system

with track warrant control, on the single

main track between Appleton,

Minnesota, milepost 578 and Hettinger,

South Dakota, milepost 925.9, on the

Willmar and Yellowstone Divisions,

Appleton, Mobridge, and Hettinger

Subdivision, a distance of

approximately 348 miles. The proposed

changes include: conversion of ‘‘Big

Stone Power Plant’’ and ‘‘West

Aberdeen’’ Control Points to remotecontrolled interlockings, replacement of

all power-operated and spring switches

with circuit controller monitored handoperated switches, removal of all switch

electric locks, and modification of signal

placement and spacing.

The reasons given for the proposed

changes are that reduced traffic patterns

do not justify the high cost to maintain

an aging TCS, and this application will

retain the safety of train operations

provided by an ABS system while

providing economic relief from having

to maintain the additional plant

associated with TCS.

BS–AP–No. 3403

Applicant: Burlington Northern Railroad

Company

Mr. William G. Peterson,

Director Signal Engineering,

1900 Continental Plaza,

777 Main Street,

Fort Worth, Texas 76102–5384.

The Burlington Northern Railroad

Company seeks approval of the

proposed reduction to the limits of the

automatic block signal system, on the

single main track, between ‘‘P.A.

Tower’’, milepost 109.9 and Grand

Forks, milepost 107.6, North Dakota,

Fargo Division, Grand Forks

Subdivision; consisting of the

discontinuance and removal of

automatic block signals 107.9, 107.8,

108.3. 108.4, and 109.2, and conversion

of automatic block signal 109.3 to a

distant approach signal.

The reasons given for the proposed

changes are the reduction in train

movements over the trackage and to

provide a more efficient operation.

Rules Standards & Instructions

Application (RS&I–AP)–No. 1101

Applicant: Florida East Coast Railway

Company

Mr. Charles R. Lynch,

Vice President-Maintenance,

One Malaga Street,

P.O. Box 1048,

St. Augustine, Florida 32085–1048.

The Florida East Coast Railway

Company (FEC) seeks temporary relief

from the requirements of 49 CFR, Part

236, Section 236.566 of the Rules,

Standard and Instructions, for a 30 day

period, to the extent that FEC be

permitted to operate non-operational

automatic train control (ATC) equipped

locomotives, over FEC’s entire ATC

territory by way-side signal indications

of the traffic control system, to

accommodate modifications to both the

onboard and roadway ATC equipment.

Applicant’s justification for relief: To

implement changes to the ATC system

code rates in order to enhance and

improve the reliability of the system,

associated with the designed

elimination of cab signal flips.

Any interested party desiring to

protest the granting of an application

shall set forth specifically the grounds

upon which the protest is made, and

contain a concise statement of the

interest of the protestant in the

proceeding. The original and two copies

of the protest shall be filed with the

Associate Administrator for Safety,

FRA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20590 within 45

calendar days of the date of issuance of

this notice. Additionally, one copy of

the protest shall be furnished to the

applicant at the address listed above.

FRA expects to be able to determine

these matters without oral hearing.

However, if a specific request for an oral

hearing is accompanied by a showing

that the party is unable to adequately

present his or her position by written

statements, an application may be set

for public hearing.
35860 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

1Sspecified minor leak—A leak from valve

packings, gaskets, threaded fittings, or hydrostatic

test equipment; and from localized corrosion pitting

on the 26-in line pipe.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 1996.

Phil Olekszyk,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Compliance and Program Implementation.

[FR Doc. 96–17297 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. P–96–8W; Notice 1]

CNG Transmission Company; Petition

for Waiver

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for waiver.

SUMMARY: CNG Transmission Company

(CNGT) has petitioned the Research and

Special Programs Administration

(RSPA) for a waiver from compliance

with provisions of 49 CFR 192.611(a)

requiring confirmation of the maximum

allowable operating pressure (MAOP) by

hydrostatic testing. Instead, CNGT

requests they be permitted to requalify

the MAOP by an alternative approach

involving a combination of hydrostatic

testing and inspection by an

instrumented internal inspection device

commonly known as a ‘‘smart pig’’. The

need to confirm the MAOP results from

a recent increase in the population

density along certain segments of a 26-

inch diameter gas transmission line in

Ohio.

DATES: Written comments submitted in

duplicate must be received on or before

August 7, 1996. Interested persons

should submit as part of their written

comments all the material that is

considered relevant to any statement of

fact or argument made.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

or hand delivered to the Dockets Unit

[DHM–20], Room 8421, Research and

Special Programs Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001. Comments should specify

the Docket No. stated in the heading of

this document; the original and two

copies should be submitted. Dockets

may be reviewed and copied between

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366–2036,

Office of Pipeline Safety, regarding the

subject matter of this notice or the

Dockets Unit, (202) 366–5046, for copies

of this notice or other materials in the

docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

By correspondence dated April 23,

1996, CNGT requested a waiver from

compliance with the MAOP

confirmation or revision provisions of

49 CFR 192.611(a) for pipeline segments

where the hoop stress corresponding to

the established MAOP is not

commensurate with the present class

location. The requested waiver applies

to ten segments (totaling 10.91 miles)

and located on CNGT’s transmission

line TL–400.

Transmission line TL–400 begins at

the Lebanon Compressor Station in

Warren County, Ohio, and transports

gas eastward to the Gilmore Compressor

station in Tuscarawas County, Ohio, a

distance of 163.19 miles. The 26-inch

diameter transmission line was

designed and tested to operate at an

MAOP of 850 psig.

The ten line segments that are the

subject of this waiver request operate at

a hoop stress of greater than 40% of the

specified minimum yield strength

(SMYS) and are located in areas where

a recent increase in population

indicated a change in their class

location. Accordingly, CNGT complied

with the provisions of § 192.609 and

completed a study of the subject

segments to determine: (a) their present

class location; (b) a comparison of their

original design, construction, and

testing procedures with the provisions

required for their present class location;

(c) their physical condition ascertained

from available records; (d) their

operating and maintenance history; (e)

their maximum actual operating

pressure and corresponding operating

hoop stress; and (f) the extent of the area

affected by the population increase and

other factors which may limit further

expansion of the more densely

populated area.

CNGT determined from the study

required by § 192.609 (a) and (f) that the

recent expansion of the population

density had changed the subject

segments from Class 1 locations to Class

2 locations. CNGT also determined from

the study required by § 192.609 (b)–(e)

that the ten segments were in good

physical condition. Consequently, in

accordance with the provisions of

§ 192.611 (a) and (c), CNGT must

confirm or revise the originally

established MAOP (850 psig) within the

18-month period ending October 19,

1996.

The hydrostatic test which

established the MAOP at 850 psig was

performed at a pressure of 953 psig,

although a test pressure of 935 psig

would have been sufficient under the

provisions of § 192.619(a)(2)(ii). After

October 19, 1996, these segments may

not be operated at an MAOP above 762

psig (a reduction of 88 psig) due to their

reclassification as Class 2 locations.

However, CNGT seeks to maintain the

MAOP at 850 psig in order to meet their

gas delivery commitments.

Consequently, requalification by

hydrostatic testing to a minimum

pressure of 1,063 psig would be in

accordance with § 192.611(a)(3).

TL–400 is a single long transmission

line that transports gas from third

parties to local distribution companies

and to underground storage facilities.

CNGT states that it would be

unreasonable to reduce the MAOP and

thereby lose gas throughput that would

prevent them from meeting their

contractual obligations. CNGT also

asserts that hydrostatically testing all

ten segments would require the line to

be taken out of service for a minimum

of 16 days. Additionally, CNGT asserts

that the acquisition and disposal of the

water used in the hydrostatic testing

would be burdensome.

Alternative Approach

Instead of hydrostatically testing all

ten segments, CNGT requested a waiver

permitting an alternative approach

which they believe would achieve both

an equivalent level of safety in the

subject segments and a complete

evaluation of the 163.19 mile

transmission line. Additionally, CNGT

expects the proposed approach to be

considerably less costly and to reduce

the number of days that the

transmission line would be out of

service.

CNGT’s proposal consists of two

alternatives supplemented by a work

plan (dated May 14, 1996). Although,

not set out as such in the petition, the

alternatives are identified for the

purposes of this document as

Alternative A and Alternative B:

Alternative A consists of the

following:

(A1) Conducting a close interval pipeto-soil corrosion survey (CIS) of the

163.19 mile line;

(A2) Hydrostatic testing four segments

(totaling 4.96 miles). If no leak occurs,

or only a specified minor leak 1 occurs

and is remediated, the hydrostatic

testing is completed;

(A3) Inspecting the 163.19 mile line

with a geometry pig followed by a high

resolution ‘‘smart pig.’’ Any defects

impacting the MAOP are promptly