[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safety regulations in order to identify those that were outdated or in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