[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27789-27793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13770]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192 and 193

[Docket PS-125; Notice 2]
RIN 2137-AC28


Regulatory Reinvention Initiative: Pipeline Safety Program 
Procedures; Reporting Requirements; Gas Pipeline Standards; and 
Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Standards

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule changes various administrative practices in 
the pipeline safety program and makes minor modifications to 
requirements for gas detection, protective enclosures, and pipeline 
testing temperatures. These changes will eliminate unnecessary or 
overly burdensome requirements, and reduce costs in the pipeline 
industries without compromising safety.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this final rule is July 3, 1996. 
However, affected parties will not have to comply with the information 
collection requirements in 49 CFR 193. 2819(f) and 193.2907 (a) and (b) 
until the DOT publishes in the Federal Register the Control Numbers 
assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to these 
collection of information requirements. Publication of the Control 
Numbers notifies the public that OMB has approved these requirements 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.E. Herrick, (202) 366-5523 or online 
at [email protected] regarding the subject matter of this final 
rule, or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, regarding copies of this 
final rule or other information in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In a memorandum dated March 4, 1995, the President provided 
direction to the heads of Departments and agencies on carrying out his 
Regulatory Reform Initiative for reinventing the government. As part of 
this initiative, RSPA established a program to review existing pipeline 
safety regulations in order to identify those that were outdated or in 
need of reform.
    On April 5, 1995, RSPA published a notice in the Federal Register 
soliciting comments from the pipeline industry as well as other 
interested parties (60 FR 17295, April 5, 1995). RSPA also conducted 
three outreach meetings in 1995 in Dallas, TX, Lakewood CO, and 
Houston, TX. Many comments were received both at the outreach meetings 
and in response to the Federal Register notice.
    As a result of these comments, RSPA revisited this rulemaking which 
began in 1992. On November 6, 1992, RSPA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) (57 FR 53085, November 6, 1992) proposing changes to 
parts 190, 191, 192 and 193. The comment period closed on December 7, 
1992. RSPA received comments from 22 regulated pipeline companies, 
three pipeline trade associations, one consultant, one technical 
committee, and two state agencies (29 total comments received).
    RSPA also requested a review of the proposal affecting natural gas 
facilities by mail balloting from the Technical Pipeline Safety 
Standards Committee (TPSSC). This 15-member committee was established 
by statute to consider the feasibility, reasonableness, and 
practicability of all proposed pipeline safety regulations.
    After initial balloting, each TPSSC member reviewed the ballots and 
comments of each of the other members, and had the option to change his 
or her initial vote or comment if desired. Although some TPSSC members 
did not vote on every proposed change, a majority of TPSSC members 
found all the changes adopted by this rule to be technically feasible, 
reasonable, and practicable.

Changes to Part 190 Requirements

Section 190.203  Inspections

    Section 190.203(c) currently requires that, after an Office of 
Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspection, an operator must respond to a 
``Request for Specific Information within 30 days.'' RSPA proposed 
amending this section to increase the time to 45 days. The increase 
would enable the operator to provide RSPA with more complete 
information to use in evaluating inspection results.
    RSPA received 19 comments from operators, State regulatory agencies 
and trade groups in response to this proposal. All commenters agreed 
that the time period should be extended. In addition, one commenter 
suggested that a further extension be granted to cases involving 
detailed ``specific information'' that may require longer than 45 days 
to gather.

RSPA Response

    RSPA believes that 45 days will usually be adequate. In situations 
where more time is required the Regional Director has the authority to 
extend the time allowed for a response. Therefore, the revision is 
adopted as proposed.

Section 190.209  Response Options

    RSPA proposed deleting section 190.209(c). Section 190.209(c) 
currently allows a respondent to offer a compromise to a Notice of 
Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty by submitting a check or 
money order for the amount offered to the Regional Director who 
forwards the offer to the Associate Administrator, OPS for action. If 
the Associate Administrator, OPS, accepts the offer in compromise, the 
respondent is notified in writing that the acceptance is in full 
settlement of the civil penalty action. If an offer in compromise is 
rejected, it is returned to the respondent with written notification.
    RSPA received 19 comments from operators, State regulatory agencies 
and trade groups on the proposed deletion of Sec. 190.209(c). Most 
commenters agreed with the proposed deletion. Two commenters disagree 
with the proposed deletion, preferring to retain the option and stating 
that Sec. 190.209(c) does not place an undue regulatory burden upon 
industry.
    All commenters observed that the deletion also affects 
Sec. 190.209(a)(2) and Secs. 190.227 (a), (b), and (d) and that these 
sections should also be revised for consistency.

RSPA Response

    Under current Federal policy, assessment of a penalty is not 
contemplated until after a finding of violation. As a result, RSPA has 
not routinely resolved cases without such findings. The submission of a 
check prior to establishing a finding of violation unnecessarily 
restricts a company's cash flow during the pendency of the enforcement 
case. Therefore, RSPA is adopting this provision as proposed. In 
addition, RSPA is adopting the commenters' suggestions concerning 
Secs. 190.209(a)(2); 190.227(a); 190.227(b); and 190.227(d).

Section 190.211(b)

    Section 190.211(b) currently provides that in circumstances deemed

[[Page 27790]]

appropriate by the Regional Director, and only if the respondent 
concurs, a telephone conference may be held in lieu of a hearing. RSPA 
proposed to require a telephone hearing for all probable violations 
involving penalty amounts under $10,000 in which a hearing is 
requested.
    Five commenters responded to this proposal stating that they 
believe the respondent should have the option of dealing with any 
probable violation in person. These commenters argue that the dollar 
amount of the assessment for an alleged violation may not be indicative 
of the complexity of the case.

RSPA Response

    RSPA beleives that the current practice of conducting telephone 
hearings where the amount is less than $10,000 is cost effective. 
However, based upon the comments received, RSPA will allow respondents 
to request in-person hearings. Therefore, the section is amended to 
establish telephone hearings as the preferred rather than required 
method for amounts less than $10,000.

Section 190.211(c)

    Section 190.211(c) currently states that a hearing may, under 
limited circumstances, be conducted by a representative of the OPS 
region in which the facility is located. RSPA proposed in the NPRM that 
all hearings be conducted by an attorney from the Office of the Chief 
Counsel of RSPA. All commenters agree with this proposal.

RSPA Response

    The section is amended as proposed.

Section 190.211(e)

    Section 190.211(e) currently states that at the outset of a hearing 
in response to a Notice of Probable Violation, the material in the case 
file pertinent to the issues to be determined is presented by the 
presiding official of the hearing. The respondent may examine and 
respond to or rebut this material. RSPA proposed to revise this 
regulation to provide the respondent the opportunity to review material 
in the case file pertinent to the issues prior to any hearing.
    RSPA received 20 comments in response to the proposed amendments to 
Sec. 190.211. The comments were provided by an array of trade 
organizations, state regulatory agencies and operators. All commenters 
agree with the proposed language. However, two commenters recommend 
that the case file be automatically provided to all respondents at 
least 30 days before the hearing. They conclude that any respondent 
requesting a hearing will want to review all material in the case file 
and that automatically providing the material would eliminate 
unnecessary correspondence between the respondent and the agency.

RSPA Response

    RSPA agrees that a copy of the case file should be provided to a 
respondent prior to a hearing. However, this practice should not 
include automatic mailing of a case file when a request for a hearing 
is submitted to the agency. The respondent may wish to address only 
some of the issues in the Notice of Probable Violation in the hearing; 
thus mailing the entire file may in some instances result in 
unnecessary expense. Therefore, Sec. 190.211 is amended as proposed in 
the NPRM. Section 190.211(f) is also amended to clarify that the 
respondent will continue to have the opportunity to offer any relevant 
information during the hearing.

Section 190.215  Petitions for Reconsideration

    Section 190.215(d) currently states that the filing of a petition 
for reconsideration does not stay the effectiveness of the final order. 
The proposed revision would automatically stay payment of any civil 
penalty assessed if a petition for reconsideration is filed. This will 
result in cost savings to the pipeline operator by delaying civil 
penalty payments until a decision is made on the petition for 
reconsideration.
    RSPA received 20 comments on the proposed rule from operators, 
State regulatory agencies and trade groups. All commenters support the 
proposed amendment. Two commenters suggested that all requirements or 
actions contained in a final order be stayed because the final order 
may require the respondent to make significant facility or operational 
modifications that may exceed the cost of any civil penalty and these 
expenses should be delayed, until final resolution of the case, unless 
a clear public safety risk exists.

RSPA Response

    RSPA agrees that final orders requiring significant facility or 
operational modifications should sometimes be delayed until final 
resolution of the case. However, because an automatic stay could delay 
corrective actions related to safety without an evaluation of any 
potential impact of the delay, the rule does not provide for an 
automatic stay in the case of orders requiring action other than the 
payment of money. Stays in cases involving corrective action will be 
considered on a case-by-case basis.

Section 190.227  Payment of Penalty

    Section 190.227(a) currently states that payment of a civil penalty 
must be made by certified check or money order payable to the 
``Department of Transportation.'' RSPA proposed to continue to allow 
this method for a civil penalty of less than $10,000. Under new 
Sec. 190.227(b), RSPA proposed to require that payments of $10,000 or 
more be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve 
Communications System to the account of the U.S. Treasury.
    In response to the proposed amendment of Sec. 190.227, RSPA 
received 20 comments from operators, State regulatory agencies, and 
trade groups. Most commenters agree with the proposed amendment. One 
commenter recommends that the proposed language in Sec. 190.227(b) be 
modified to read ``twenty business days or thirty calendar days.'' 
This, he suggests, would aid smaller companies.
    Four commenters disagree with the proposed changes to the 
regulation. They question RSPA's need to require wire transfers of 
civil penalties of $10,000 or more. They argue that this restriction 
serves no purpose and unnecessarily limits the options of payees.

RSPA Response

    RSPA is required by Departmental regulations (49 CFR 89.21(b)(3)) 
to collect amounts over $10,000 through wire transfer. Therefore, the 
proposed amendment to Sec. 190.227 will be adopted.

Changes to Part 191 Requirements

    The following discussion explains the changes in part 191:

Section 191.1  Scope

    Currently Sec. 191.1(b)(1) contains the phrase ``on the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS)''. RSPA proposed to delete this phrase because 
the regulation does not clearly specify where the applicability of part 
191 begins on offshore gathering lines in state waters. An operator 
recommended a similar change in comments responding to an NPRM 
proposing to clarify the definition of gathering lines (56 FR 48505; 
September 25, 1991; Docket PS-122).
    RSPA's revision will clarify that part 191 does not apply to field 
production lines; i.e., flow lines in state offshore waters, similar to 
the present exception on the OCS. No substantive comments were received 
in response to this proposal.

[[Page 27791]]

RSPA Response

    Therefore, RSPA is amending Sec. 191.1 as proposed.

Changes to Part 192 Requirements

    The following discussion explains the change to part 192:

Section 192.513  Test Requirements for Plastic Pipelines

    This regulation prescribes minimum test requirements for plastic 
pipelines to ensure discovery of all potentially hazardous leaks. RSPA 
proposed to amend paragraph (c) of the rule to clarify that, at 
elevated temperatures, the test pressure is limited by the reduced 
hydrostatic strength of the thermoplastic material. RSPA also proposed 
to amend paragraph (d) of the rule which would benefit pipeline 
operators who during hot summer days are unable to pressure test newly 
constructed pipelines because the temperature of the thermoplastic 
material exceeds 38  deg.C (100N F). The proposal would permit field 
pressure testing up to the same temperature used to determine 
hydrostatic design strength as defined by the design pressure formula 
in Sec. 192.121.
    In response to the proposal, RSPA received 21 comments from 
operators, State regulatory agencies, and trade groups. Most commenters 
supported the intent of the proposed rule. However, a few commenters 
said that the wording of the proposed rule would undermine the intent. 
They were concerned that although the proposed rule would raise the 
temperature limit for testing of some pipelines (those with a long-term 
hydrostatic strength based on a temperature above 38  deg.C (100 
deg.F)), it would lower the currently allowable temperature limit for 
other pipelines (those whose long-term hydrostatic strength is based on 
a design temperature of less than 38  deg.C (100  deg.F).
    One commenter stated that many operators base their pressure 
ratings for plastic pipe on a standard temperature of 23NC (73N F). For 
many parts of the United States, this design standard is adequate 
because it exceeds the operating temperature of buried plastic piping 
in those geographical regions. However, temperatures above ground often 
exceed 23NC (73N F). The proposed rule would prohibit operators for 
whom this applies from conducting pressure tests on hotter days until 
temperatures fall below 23NC (73N F). The commenters suggested a better 
approach would be to limit test temperatures to the temperature at 
which the long-term hydrostatic design basis was determined only if the 
temperatures of the plastic piping material exceed 38  deg.C (100N F).

RSPA Response

    RSPA recognizes the difficulties associated with the language of 
the proposed rule. To better express the intent of this rule, the 
maximum temperature limit for testing of plastic pipelines will be set 
at either 38  deg.C (100N F) or the temperature at which the long-term 
hydrostatic test was determined, whichever is greater.
    In the discussion of the NPRM, it was stated that the Gas Piping 
Technology Committee (GPTC) proposed modified language in Secs. 192.513 
(c) and (d). The GPTC has notified RSPA that although the GPTC Plastic 
Task Group is considering a similar proposal, the GPTC has not proposed 
any modified language.

Changes to Part 193 Requirements

    The following discussion explains the changes to part 193: 
Sec. 193.2819 Gas detection. Operators at LNG plants must continuously 
monitor all enclosed buildings for hazardous concentrations of 
flammable gases and vapors, using permanent detection systems that 
provide visible or audible alarms (Sec. 193.2819(f)). All enclosed 
buildings must be monitored, even if the building is not connected to a 
source of flammable fluid. For example, a tool shed that does not house 
a flammable fluid and is not connected to a source of flammable fluid 
must have a fixed gas detection and alarm system. Because RSPA's review 
concluded that the risk of flammable gas or vapor accumulating inside 
such buildings is negligible, we proposed to apply Sec. 193.2819(f) 
only to buildings ``that house a flammable fluid or are connected by 
piping or conduit to a source of flammable fluid.''
    Twelve TPSSC members supported the proposal completely, one member 
supported it but recommended deletion of ``or conduit,'' and two 
members abstained. The reason given for deleting ``or conduit'' was 
that the National Electrical Code (NEC), referenced in part 193, 
requires conduits between hazardous and non-hazardous areas to be 
sealed to prevent accidental migration of flammable gas or vapor.
    RSPA received comments on the proposed rule from 15 operators, two 
pipeline-related associations, and one consultant. None of these 
commenters objected to the proposal. However, two commenters suggested 
we delete ``or conduit'' because of the NEC safeguard mentioned above, 
while two others suggested that ``conduit'' be modified by 
``uninterrupted.''
    Two commenters recommended that RSPA expand the proposed exception 
to include buildings whose only source of flammable fluid is fuel for 
heating or cooking. When these sources were low pressure and odorized, 
it was concluded that they posed minimal risk.

RSPA Response

    Deleting the words ``or conduit'' would not be appropriate because 
all existing conduits may not have been installed under current NEC 
standards and thus may not be sealed against possible intrusion of gas. 
However, in the final rule, RSPA has added the word ``uninterrupted'' 
between ``or'' and ``conduit''. This will relieve an operator from the 
need to protect a building which is sealed pursuant to the NEC against 
accidental migration of gas or vapor. We did not adopt the comment to 
expand the proposed exception to buildings whose only source of 
flammable fluid is fuel. The risk is not minimal in the context of an 
LNG plant.
When LNG is piped into a building for heating or cooking, there is an 
opportunity for gas to escape undetected inside the building and 
ignite. However slight this opportunity, the potential consequences of 
any building fire or explosion are magnified by the LNG plant setting. 
Thus, we do not believe the existing rule should be relaxed further to 
exclude buildings whose only source of flammable fluid is gas for 
heating or cooking.

Section 193.2907  Protective Enclosure Construction

    Paragraphs (b) (1) through (3) and (c) of this rule dictate 
specific material and design features of protective enclosures (i.e., 
fences and walls) that surround certain LNG facilities. For example, 
fences must be chainlink of at least No. 11 American wire gauge. RSPA's 
review concluded that such prescriptive requirements are unnecessary 
and overly burdensome in view of the performance standard under 
Sec. 193.2907(a) governing the design and construction of protective 
enclosures. That standard provides that each protective enclosure must 
have sufficient strength and configuration to obstruct unauthorized 
access to the facilities enclosed. RSPA, therefore, proposed to repeal 
the prescriptive requirements and rely solely on the performance 
standard.
    Twelve TPSSC members fully supported the proposal, one member 
supported it but recommended an editorial change, and two members 
abstained. The editorial change was not explained and has not been 
adopted.

[[Page 27792]]

    RSPA received comments on the proposed rule from 12 operators and 
one pipeline-related association. Each of these commenters supported 
the proposal.

RSPA Response

    Therefore, Sec. 193.2907 is amended as proposed.
Rulemaking Analyses:

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Documentation for the information collection requirements for parts 
191 and 193 was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
during the original rulemaking processes. Currently, regulations in 
part 191 are covered by OMB Control Numbers 2137-0522 and 2137-0578. 
The Control Numbers for regulations in part 193 have expired and are 
currently in the process of renewal through review by OMB. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, no persons are required to respond to a 
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 
number. Therefore the information collection requirements of part 193 
will not be effective until the renewal process is complete and is 
announced in a subsequent Federal Register notice. The applicable 
Control Number will remain 2137-0048. Part 190 imposes no paperwork 
requirements on the pipeline industry. Regulations in part 192 are 
covered by OMB Control Numbers 2137-0049 and 2137-0583. The notice 
proposed no additional information collection requirements. 
Accordingly, there is no need to repeat those submissions in this final 
rule.

E. O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action 
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore was not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is 
not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the DOT 
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). A Regulatory Evaluation has been 
prepared and is available in the Docket. RSPA estimates the changes to 
existing rules will result in an estimated savings of $1,200,000 for 
the pipeline industry, without associated costs and with no adverse 
affect on safety. As discussed above, these savings will come largely 
from the elimination of unnecessary requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Few of the companies subject to this rulemaking meet the criteria 
for small companies. However, RSPA sought such impact information in 
response to this rulemaking. Accordingly, based on the facts available 
concerning the impact of the proposal and the response received, I 
certify under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this 
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

E. O. 12612

    RSPA has analyzed the rule changes under the criteria of Executive 
Order 12612 (52 FR 41685; October 30,1987). We find it does not warrant 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 190

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, and Pipeline 
safety.

49 CFR Part 191

    Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 192

    Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

49 CFR Part 193

    Fire prevention, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, and Security measures.

    In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA is amending 49 CFR parts 
190, 191, 192, and 193 as follows:

PART 190--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 190 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5123, 60108, 60112, 60117, 60118, 60120, 
60122, and 60123; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. Section 190.203 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 190.203  Inspections.

* * * * *
    (c) If, after an inspection, the Associate Administrator, OPS 
believes that further information is needed to determine appropriate 
action, the Associate Administrator, OPS may send the owner or operator 
a ``Request for Specific Information'' to be answered within 45 days 
after receipt of the letter.
* * * * *
    3. Section 190.209 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(2); by 
redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph(a)(2); by redesignating 
paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(3); and by removing paragraph (c) and 
redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (c).
    4. Section 190.211 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e), 
and (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 190.211  Hearing.

* * * * *
    (b) A telephone hearing will be held if the amount of the proposed 
civil penalty or the cost of the proposed corrective action is less 
than $10,000,unless the respondent submits a written request for an in-
person hearing. Hearings are held in a location agreed upon by the 
presiding official, OPS and the respondent.
    (c) An attorney from the Office of the Chief Counsel, Research and 
Special Programs Administration, serves as the presiding official at 
the hearing.
* * * * *
    (e) Upon request by respondent, and whenever practicable, the 
material in the case file pertinent to the issues to be determined is 
provided to the respondent 30 days before the hearing. The respondent 
may respond to or rebut this material at the hearing.
    (f) During the hearing, the respondent may offer any facts, 
statements, explanations, documents, testimony or other items which are 
relevant to the issues under consideration.
* * * * *
    5. Section 190.215 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 190.215  Petitions for reconsideration.

* * * * *
    (d) The filing of a petition under this section stays the payment 
of any civil penalty assessed. However, unless the Associate 
Administrator, OPS otherwise provides, the order, including any 
required corrective action, is not stayed.
* * * * *
    6. Section 190.227 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 190.227  Payment of penalty.

    (a) Except for payments exceeding $10,000, payment of a civil 
penalty proposed or assessed under this subpart may be made by 
certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this 
case) payable to ``U.S. Department of Transportation'' to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial 
Operations Division (AMZ-320), P.O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, 
or by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System 
(Fedwire) to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Payments exceeding 
$10,000 must be made by wire transfer. Payments, or in the case of wire 
transfers, notices of payment, must be sent to the Chief, General 
Accounting

[[Page 27793]]

Branch (M-86.2), Accounting Operations Division, Office of the 
Secretary, room 2228, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Payment of a civil penalty assessed in a final order issued 
under Sec. 190.213 or affirmed in a decision on a petition for 
reconsideration must be made within 20 days after receipt of the final 
order or decision. Failure to do so will result in the initiation of 
collection action, including the accrual of interest and penalties, in 
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 49 CFR part 89.

PART 191--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 191 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60117, 
60118, and 60124; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. Section 191.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 191.1  Scope.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Offshore gathering of gas upstream from the outlet flange of 
each facility where hydrocarbons are produced or where produced 
hydrocarbons are first separated, dehydrated, or otherwise processed, 
whichever facility is farther downstream; or
* * * * *

PART 192--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 192 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. Section 192.513 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 192.513  Test requirements for plastic pipelines.

* * * * *
    (c) The test pressure must be at least 150 percent of the maximum 
operating pressure or 50 psig, whichever is greater. However, the 
maximum test pressure may not be more than three times the pressure 
determined under Sec. 192.121, at a temperature not less than the pipe 
temperature during the test.
    (d) During the test, the temperature of thermoplastic material may 
not be more than 38  deg.C (100N F), or the temperature at which the 
material's long-term hydrostatic strength has been determined under the 
listed specification, whichever is greater.

PART 193--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 193 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60109, 
60110, and 60113; 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. Section 193.2819 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 193.2819  Gas detection.

* * * * *
    (f) All enclosed buildings that house a flammable fluid or are 
connected by piping or uninterrupted conduit to a source of flammable 
fluid must be continuously monitored for the presence of flammable 
gases and vapors with a fixed flammable gas detection system that 
provides a visible or audible alarm outside the enclosed building. The 
systems must be provided and maintained according to the applicable 
requirements of ANSI/NFPA 59A.
    3. Section 193.2907 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 193.2907  Protective enclosure construction.

    (a) Each protective enclosure must have sufficient strength and 
configuration to obstruct unauthorized access to the facilities 
enclosed.
    (b) Openings in or under protective enclosures must be secured by 
grates, doors or covers of construction and fastening of sufficient 
strength such that the integrity of the protective enclosure is not 
reduced by any opening.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington DC, on May 23, 1996.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-13770 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P