Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices 35861

2Other than a specified minor leak—A leak from

a crack, crack-like defects, general corrosion, or

from any other source (except localized corrosion

pitting) on the 26-inch line pipe.

remediated. All defects detected by the

‘‘smart pig’’ are cross-referenced with

the CIS to correct any deficiencies in the

cathodic protection system, all before

October 19, 1996; and

(A4) Inspecting the 163.19 mile line

with a geometry pig followed by a high

resolution ‘‘smart pig’’ and remediation

of any defects impacting the MAOP, all

in the year 2001.

Alternative B would be performed

only if, during the implementation of

(A2), a leak other than a specified minor

leak 2 occurs. Alternative B consists of

the following:

(B1) If a leak, other than a specified

minor leak occurs during (A2) and is

remediated, the hydrostatic testing of

the four segments is completed;

(B2) Inspecting the 163.19 mile line

with a geometry pig followed by a high

resolution ‘‘smart pig.’’ Any defects

impacting the MAOP are promptly

remediated. All before October 19, 1996;

and

(B3) The period to qualify the MAOP

is extended until (B3) is completed. All

defects detected by the ‘‘smart pig’’ are

cross-referenced with the CIS to correct

any deficiencies in the cathodic

protection system. Hydrostatic testing

and remediation of any leaks occurring

in the remaining six segments (totaling

5.95 miles), all before June 30, 1997.

Basis for the Alternative Approach

CNGT’s proposed alternative

approach is based on the contention that

this transmission line is in good

physical condition. In the petition, they

supported that assertion by providing

information on the line’s construction,

operation, and maintenance history.

CNGT states that the 26-in diameter

line is constructed of submerged-arc

welded steel pipe that has been joined

by welding. The pipe is internally

coated with mill-applied liquid epoxy

and externally coated with mill-applied

coal tar enamel. The line was

hydrostatically tested and

commissioned in December 1968.

Cathodic protection is provided by

impressed current remote groundbeds

and assisted with magnesium anode

beds. CNGT states that the 21 test

stations used to monitor the level of

cathodic protection in the subject

segments do not show any areas of low

potential. CNGT states that, aside from

one failure in 1981 due to third party

damage, no other leaks have occurred

since the line has been in service.

Moreover, during the period 1990

through 1996, the MAOP of six other

such segments in this line were

requalified by hydrostatic testing under

§ 192.611(a) without a leak or failure.

The proposed alternative approach

expresses the petitioner’s confidence

that the line is in good physical

condition. Any leak other than a

specified minor leak occurring during

the hydrostatic testing of (A2) would

trigger the requirement to implement

the more costly and time consuming

Alternative B. Under (B1) and (B3),

CNGT would need to hydrostatically

test all ten segments required by

§ 192.611(a). Moreover, under (B2), they

would need to inspect the 163.19 mile

line with a geometry pig and with a high

resolution ‘‘smart pig.’’

RSPA Response

Our review of the petition for waiver

showed the following:

(1) CNGT’s contention that this

particular line is in good physical

condition is well supported with

information on the pipe, internal and

external coatings, cathodic protection,

and the transmission line’s outstanding

leak record;

(2) The provisions of § 192.611(a) for

requalification would be only partially

waived during (A2), because four of the

ten segments (representing 4.96 miles or

a 45.46% sampling of the total 10.91

miles) would be hydrostatically tested;

(3) If a leak, other than a specified

minor leak occurs during the

hydrostatic testing of (A2), then under

(B3) the remaining six segments would

be hydrostatically tested. This would

result in compliance with § 192.611(a).

Additionally, during (B2) there would

be an internal inspection of the

complete 163.19 mile transmission line;

(4) Otherwise, during (A3) and (A4),

the complete transmission line would

be internally inspected during 1996 and

internally inspected again during the

year 2001;

(5) The implementation of either (A3)

or (B2) ( the in-line inspection in 1996)

would be the first time transmission line

TL–400 has been inspected by a ‘‘smartpig;’’ and

(6) A ‘‘smart pig’’ is capable of

detecting certain flaws in the pipe wall

that (when interpreted) may disclose

defects that jeopardize the safe

operation of the gas transmission line .

CNGT would run a ‘‘smart pig’’ of the

high resolution type, which is

considered to be state-of-the-art

technology for the identification of pipe

wall defects.

In view of the foregoing, it appears

that neither Alternative A nor its back

up, Alternative B, would be inconsistent

with pipeline safety. Instead, we see the

implementation of either alternative as

contributing to the safety of this 163.19

mile transmission line. Consequently,

RSPA proposes to grant the waiver.

Interested persons are invited to

comment on the proposed waiver by

submitting their views or arguments

with supporting data, if available, in the

manner described under the heading

ADDRESSES (above). All comments

received before the date shown under

DATES (above) will be considered before

final action is taken. Late filed

comments will be considered as 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 requested by an

interested person desiring to comment

at a public hearing and raising a genuine

issue.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118(c); and 49 CFR

1.53.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 2, 1996.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 96–17300 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

Proposed Agency Information

Collection Activities; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision,

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Currently, the Office of Thrift

Supervision within the Department of

the Treasury is soliciting comments

concerning the Mutual Holding

Companies.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before September 6, 1996

to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Manager,

Dissemination Branch, Records

Management and Information Policy,

Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552,

Attention 1550–0071 and 1550–0072.

These submissions may be hand

delivered to 1700 G Street, NW. From
35862 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 131 / Monday, July 8, 1996 / Notices

9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on business days;

they may be sent by facsimile

transmission to FAX Number (202) 906–

7755. Comments over 25 pages in length

should be sent to FAX Number (202)

906–6956. Comments will be available

for inspection at 1700 G Street, NW.,

from 9:00 A.M. until 4:00 P.M. on

business days.

Requests for additional information

should be directed to Teresa Valocchi,

Business Transactions Division, Office

of Chief Counsel, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20552, (202) 906–7299.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teresa Valocchi, Business Transactions

Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Office

of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 906–

7299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title; Mutual Holding Company (No

Form).

OMB Number: 1550–0071.

Form Number: Not Applicable.

Abstract: The information collections

described herein will apply to mutual

holdings companies and their

subsidiaries. The collections are

necessary (i) to facilitate review of

transactions that present special risks,

and (ii) to monitor activities that present

special risks.

Current Actions: OTS is proposing to

renew this information collection

without revision.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Affected Public: Business or For

Profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

35.

Estimated Time Per Respondent:

102.4 hours average.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 3,585 hours.

Title: Mutual Holding Company.

OMB Number: 1550–0072.

Form Number: OTS Forms MCH–1

and MCH–2.

Abstract: The information collection

applies to mutual holding companies

and their subsidiaries. The collection is

necessary to facilitate the review of

transactions that present special risks

and to monitor activities that present

special risks.

Current Actions: OTS is proposing to

renew this information collection

without revision.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Affected Public: Business or For

Profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

14.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 375

hours average.

Estimated Total Annual Burden

Hours: 5,250 hours.

Request for Comments: Comments

submitted in response to this notice will

be summarized and/or included in the

request for OMB approval. All

comments will become a matter of

public record. Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate

of the burden of the collection of

information; (c) ways to enhance the

quality; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Dated: July 1, 1996.

Catherine C. M. Teti,

Director, Records Management and

Information Policy.

[FR Doc. 96–17180 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Agency Information Collection:

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits

Administration (VBA), Department of

Veterans Affairs, has submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) the following proposal for the

collection of information under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

OMB Control Number: 2900–0101.

Title and Form Number: Eligibility

Verification Reports.

a. Old Law Eligibility Verification

Report (Surviving Spouse), VA Form

21–0511S.

b. Old Law Eligibility Verification

Report (Veteran), VA Form 21–0511V.

c. Section 306 Eligibility Verification

Report (Surviving Spouse), VA Form

21–0512S.

d. Section 306 Eligibility Verification

Report (Veteran), VA Form 21–0512V.

e. Old Law and Section 306 Eligibility

Verification Report (Children Only), VA

Form 21–0513.

f. DIC Parent’s Eligibility Verification

Report, VA Form 21–0514.

g. Improved Pension Eligibility

Verification Report (Veteran With No

Children), VA Form 21–0516.

h. Improved Pension Eligibility

Verification Report (Veteran With

Children), VA Form 21–0517.

i. Improved Pension Eligibility

Verification Report (Surviving Spouse

With No Children), VA Form 21–0518.

j. Improved Pension Eligibility

Verification Report (Child or Children),

VA Form 21–0519C.

k. Improved Pension Eligibility

Verification Report (Surviving Spouse

With Children), VA Form 21–0519S.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Need and Uses: These reports are

used by VA regional offices to verify

continued eligibility for pension and

parents’ Dependency and Indemnity

Compensation (DIC) and to determine

whether adjustments in the rate of

payment are necessary. These reports

are also used for developing

supplemental income and estate

information from claimants who have

previously filed a formal application for

pension or parents’ DIC. It would be

impossible to administer the pension

and parents’ DIC programs without the

collection of information.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 406,250

hours.

Estimated Average Burden Per

Respondent: 30 minutes per report.

Frequency of Response: Semiannually.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

751,315.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this submission

may be obtained from Ron Taylor, VA

Clearance Officer (045A4), Department

of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420,

(202) 273–8015.

Comments and recommendations

concerning the submission should be

directed to VA’s OMB Desk Officer,

Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources

and Housing Branch, New Executive

Office Building, Room 10235,

Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395–4650.

Do not send requests for benefits to this

address.

DATES: Comments on the information

collection should be directed to the

OMB Desk Officer within 30 days of this

notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron

Taylor, VA Clearance Officer (045A4),

(202) 273–8015.

Dated: June 25, 1996.

By direction of the Secretary.

William T. Morgan,

Management Analyst.

[FR Doc. 96–17206 Filed 7–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P