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
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