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

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safety regulations in order to identify those that were outdated or in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