_ £ -

OAR Box 1813 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

163) F.R. June 3, 1996 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 11/5/2008 1:25:06 PM Sheet 163 of 166 
P.2 

SS-oZ 

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / -9G / Ru Regulations 27785 

§14.619 [Amended] 

19. In § 14.619, paragraphs (bj ar 

are amended by removing "$40,c 

each time i! appears and adding, i i 

place. "$100,000"; and paragi 

.er amended by removing "i 

General Counsel and claims in ext 

$100,000 may be compromised, settled, 

or waived only with the prior approval 

of. 

[FR Doc. 9&-13476 Filed 5-31-96:8:45 ami 

BILLING COOE S32O-01-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[AD-FRL-6512-6] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for: 

Chromium Emissions From Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; 

Ethylene Oxide Commercial 

Sterilization and Fumigation 

Operations; Perchloroethylene Dry 

Cleaning Facilities; and Secondary 

Lead Smelting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action promulgates final 

action to amend certain sections ofthe 

following promulgated standards: 

"National Emission Standards for 

Chromium Emissions from Hard and 

Decorative Chromium Electroplating 

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Final 

Rule" (subpart N): "National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Ethylene Oxide Commercial 

Sterilization and Fumigation 

Operations" (subpart O); "National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Source Categories: 

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning 

Facilities" (subpart M); and "National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Secondary Lead 

Smelting" (subpart X). Today's action 

amends the Final Rules' requirement 

that nonmajor sources (emitting or 

having the potential to emit less than 10 

tons per year of any hazardous air 

pollutant or 25 tons per year of any 

combination of hazardous air 

pollutants) obtain title V operating 

permits. The action being taken today 

will substantially reduce the 

unnecessary and undue regulatory 

burden for States and local agencies, the 

EPA Regional Offices, and the industry 

during a time when all available 

resources are necessary for the initial 

implementation of the '' 

program for nn 

still required to meet all ape 

emission con:! 

control te (MACT) 

standards. The only cha i 

proposal to promulgate; 

year defer r he other 

rules, is also ir for 

nonmajor • 

smelters (subpart X) source i 

DATES: Effective Date: Juno 3, 1996. 

•ial Review: Unde; 

307(b)(1) of th^ vv of 

national emission .-••• 

hazardous air pollutants P) is 

available only by filing a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeithe District of Colun i i thin 

60 days of tod; his 

final rule. Under se<

 ; ofthe 

be requirements that an 

subject of today's notice may no! 

challenged later in civ;' na l 

proceedings brought by the EPA to 

enforce these requirements. 

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket Nn. A-88-

02. containing the supporting 

information for the original subpart N 

NESHAP and this a. Jo. A88-03. containing the supporting 

information for the original subpart O 

NESHAP, Docket No. A-88-

containing the supporting inform; 

for the original subpart M NESHAP, and 

Docket No. A-92—43. containing the 

supporting information for the original 

subpart X NESHAP, are available for 

public inspection and copying betweon 

8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.. Monday 

through Friday, at the EPA Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center. Waterside Mall, room M-1500. 

first floor. 401 M Street S.W.. 

Washington. D.C. 20460. or by ca! 

(202) 260-7548. These dock 

contain infonnation considered by the 

EPA in developing this final rule. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lalit Banker, Emission Standards 

Division (MD-13). Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agenc 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number (919) 541-

5420. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The proposal notice was published in 

the Federal Register on December 

1995 (60 FR 64002). No publii 

was requested. Seventeen letters 

commenting on the proposed rule were 

luring the public come. 

•*d. 

n. Summary 

•nmmary i tsal 

The | 

g author; 

the fi 

mium eli 

commen 

opera! 

cleaning faciliti 

pern i 

public comm( 

EPA, one changi 

rule since proposal. Th 

11 be alio 

ndary lead smi 

pears fron .-rmit 

for 

nonmajor 

categories 

Comments 

additional permam 

exemptions for 

categories for 

exemptions were being 

Although a mn 

supported pennant 

these nonmajo 

decided not to grant perman< 

exemptions to any addit 

goriesattib the 

EPA will make a decision regarding 

additional permanent i 

time the temporary exempt i"; 

During the permit defen 

EPA linue to evalu 

local agencies implementation and 

enforcement of thi' 

rces outsir 

permit, the likely benefit of psuch sources, and thu co 

burdens on such sources associated 

i obtaining a title V permit 

B. Significant Comments anti Re 

Comments on the | 

received from the industry ao 

and local regulatory agone State .; 

lined with the EPA option lo all 

states to defer 

requirements for nonni 

represent; 

disagreed with this recomn 

contending that permitt*' 

nonmajor soui 

constitute an undue regu 

exceptionally 
27786 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 

businesses covered by the section 112 

standards. The State of Florida 

maintains that a general permit is the 

most efficient and cost-effective process 

by which States can implement 

emission standard requirements. 

The commenter articulated that the 

deferral of permitting requirements for 

area sources is problematic for the 

following reasons. First, the deferral 

will create unnecessary confusion for 

affected sources that will still be subject 

to the NESHAP requirements. Second, 

permits are needed to practically verify 

emission limitations and work practices 

to which a source is subject. Third, the 

commenter questions whether the 

enforcement of NESHAP requirements 

can be accomplished by means other 

than a permit. The commenters 

experience has been that small 

businesses support a general permit that 

states the applicable NESHAP 

requirements. Lastly, the commenter 

believes that the lack of a permit 

requirement will result in unequal 

enforcement of emission limitations by 

individual States or local air pollution 

control agencies. 

The EPA believes that the rationale 

described in the proposal for the 

temporary exemption option, as well as 

supportive public comments, strongly 

support the deferral of permitting for 

nonmajor sources; therefore, the EPA 

has not made any changes to this 

option. Nevertheless, the issues which 

the above commenter raises will be 

examined during the process of 

determining whether to permit or allow 

the exemption of nonmajor sources at 

the conclusion of the 5 year deferral. It 

should be noted that todays action does 

not preclude any State/local permitting 

authority from proceeding to permit the 

nonmajor sources discussed in this 

notice at their discretion during the 

deferral period. 

Two commenters specifically 

questioned the EPA's justification in not 

allowing the deferral of nonmajor 

secondary lead smelters. The EPA had 

proposed that requiring nonmajor 

secondary lead smelters to obtain Part 

70 permits without delay would not be 

impracticable or infeasible for the State 

or local permitting authorities involved 

and would not unnecessarily burden 

these companies since, in contrast to the 

hundreds or thousands of sources in the 

four other source categories, there are 

only a few secondary lead smelters 

which are nonmajor sources. The 

commenters contend that requiring 

nonmajor secondary lead smelters to 

obtain a title V permit is also 

unnecessary and could cause undue 

burden both to the industry as well as 

to the State agencies and will not 

enhance any environmental benefits. 

Upon consideration of these 

comments and further evaluation, the 

EPA believes that the relatively few 

number of sources in a category is not 

an important distinction, and tiiat States 

should, therefore, also be allowed to 

temporarily exempt nonmajor secondary 

lead smelters from permitting 

requirements, along with sources in the 

other source categories. This change 

from proposal is consistent with the 

EPA's decision for deferral for the other 

area source categories. As explained 

previously, comments were received on 

the other nonmajor source categories 

requesting an option for permanent 

permit exemptions. The EPA will 

continue to evaluate factors related to 

this issue and make a decision regarding 

permanent exemptions by the time the 

temporary exemptions expire. This 

ongoing evaluation reinforced the 

advisability of also providing the 

opportunity for the deferral of permits 

to secondary lead smelters, so that the 

permit requirements for all nonmajor 

sources can be addressed as a package. 

These nonmajor sources are still 

required to comply with the ^ 

requirements of the promulgated 

standard for secondary lead smelters 

regardless of whether they will be 

permitted in the near term. While the 

EPA disagrees with the assertion that 

permitting under title Vdoes not yield 

an environmental benefit, the EPA does 

agree that to require the immediate 

permitting of nonmajor secondary lead 

smelters is unnecessarily burdiensome 

during the initial years ofthe title V 

program. 

III. Administrative Requirements 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The infonnation collection 

requirements ofthe previously 

promulgated National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) were submitted to and 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). Today's changes to 

the NESHAP would not increase the 

information collection burden estimates 

made previously. In fact, they are 

expected to reduce the required 

paperwork by providing the opportunity 

for delays for some sources and 

exemptions for others from 

requirements to obtain a title V permit. 

B. Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Agency must determine whether a 

regulatory action is "significant" and 

therefore subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines "significant 

regulatory action" as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector ofthe economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a sericus inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President's priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive 

Order, the OMB has notified the EPA 

that it does not consider this to be a 

"significant regulatory action" within 

the meaning of the Executive Order. 

Therefore, the EPA did not submit this 

action to the OMB for review. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the EPA to 

consider potential impacts of 

regulations on small entities. A 

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) is 

required if preliminary analysis 

indicates "a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities". As explained earlier in this 

rule, these amendments would reduce 

the impacts on small entities 

(specifically small businesses) by 

allowing States to delay some and 

exempt others from the requirement to 

obtain a title V permit. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

D. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) 

Subtitle E of SBREFA establishes 

opportunity for Congress to review and 

potentially disapprove nonmajor rules 

promulgated on or after March 29,1996 

or major rules promulgated after March 

1,1996. With limited exceptions, it 

provides that no rule promulgated on or 

after March 29,1996, may take effect 

until it is submitted to Congress and the 

Comptroller General along with 

specified supporting documentation. 

Different requirements apply to major 

rules. This rule, which is nonmajor, is 
P.4 

Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, ?296 / Rules and Regulations 277m 

bsing submitted to Congress in 

accordance with these requirements. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

("unfunded Mandates Act"), (signed 

into law on March 22,1995) requires 

that the Agency prepare a budgetary 

impact statement to accompany any 

proposed or final rule that includes a 

Federal Mandate that may result in 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any 1 year. Section 203 requires the 

Agency to establish a plan for obtaining 

input from and informing, educating, 

and advising any small governments 

that may be significantly or uniquely 

affected by the rule. 

As explained earlier in this notice, 

these amendments would reduce the 

cost to State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector by 

allowing States to delay some and 

exempt others from the requirement to 

obtain a title V permit. Therefore, the 

EPA has not prepared a budgetary 

impact statement for these amendments. 

List of Subjects im 40 CFR Part S3 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 22,1998. 

Carol M. Browner, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as set forth below: 

PAKT S3—[AMINOIilQiJ" 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart Kl—[Amss-idledl] 

2. Section 63.340 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.340 Applics-Iifty and tfesignatiora of 

sous-ess. 

* A * ft * 

(e)(1) The Administrator has 

determined, pursuant to the criteria 

under section 502(e) cf the Act, that an 

owner or operator of the following types 

of operations that are not by themselves 

major sources and that are not located 

at major sources, as defined under 6.0 

CFR 70.2, is permanently exempt from 

title V permitting requirements for that 

operation: 

(i) Any decorative chromium 

electroplating operation or chromium 

anodizing operation that uses fume 

suppressants as an emission reduction 

technology; and 

(ii) Any decorative chromium 

electroplating operation that usss a 

trivalent chromium bath that 

incorporates a wetting agent as a bath 

ingredient. 

(2) An owner or operator of any other 

affected source subject to the provisions 

of this subpart is subject to title V 

permitting requirements. These affected 

sources, if not major or located at major 

sources as defined under 40 CFR 70.2, 

may be deferred by the applicable title 

V permitting authority from title V 

permitting requirements for 5 years after 

the date on which the EPA first 

approves a part 70 program (i.e., until 

December 9,1999). All sources receiving 

deferrals shall submit title V permit 

applications within 12 months of such 

date (by December 9, 2000). All sources 

receiving deferrals still must meet the 

compliance schedule as stated in 

§63.343. 

3. Section 63.342 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(c)(2)(i)(B) and introductory text of 

paragraph (f)(3)(i) to read as follows: 

§63.342 SftaK_a?ds. 

ft ft it ft ft 

(c)

 ft * * 

( 2 ) *» * ft 

(i) * * * 

(B) By accepting a Federallyenforceable limit on the maximum 

cumulative potential rectifier capacity 

of a hard chromium electroplating 

facility and by maintaining monthly 

records in accordance with 

§ 63.346(b)(12) to demonstrate that the 

limit has not been exceeded. ** * ** 

* * A * * 

(fj* ft * 

( 3 ) * * ft 

(i) The owner or operator of an 

affected source subject to the work 

piactices of this paragraph (f) shall 

prepare an operation and maintenance 

plan to be implemented no later than 

the compliance date. The plan shall bo 

incorporated by reference into tho 

source's title V permit, if end when a 

title V permit is required. The plan shall 

include the following elements: 

4. In § 63.344, paragraphs (e)(3)(v) end 

(e)(4)(iv) are amended by revising tlie 

word "less" to read "more". 

5. Section 63.347 is amended by 

revising the introductory text in 

paragraph (e)(2) and paragraph (f)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§33.347 Reporting i-csjulTemojita 

* * * * * 

( e ) * * <. 

(2) If the State in which the source is 

located has not been delegated the 

authority to implement the rule, each 

time a notification of compliance status 

is required under this part, the owner or 

operator of an affected source shall 

submit to the Administrator a 

notification of complianco status, aignad 

by the responsible official (as defined in 

§ 63.2) who shall certify its accurecy, 

attesting to whether the affected source 

has complied with this subpart. If tho 

State has been delegated the authority, 

the notification of compliance status 

shall be submitted to the appropriate 

authority. The notification shall list for 

each affected source: 

* * * * * 

(1) If the State in which the source is 

located has not been delegated the 

authority to implement the rule, the 

owner or operator of an affected source 

shall report to the Administrator the 

results of any performance test 

conducted as required by § 63.7 or 

§ 63.343(b). If tlie State has been 

delegated the authority, Lhe owner or 

operator of an affected source should 

report performance test results to tho 

appropriate authority. 

* * * * * 

6. Table 1 to subpart N of Part 63 is 

amended by revising tho entry for 

"63.5(a)" to read as foliows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART S3—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N 

General provisions 

reference Applies to subpart N Comment 

63.5(a) Yes Except replacs the term "source" and "stationary source" in § 63.5(a) (1) and (2) of subpart A with 

"affected sources." 
P.5 

27788 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART N OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART N—Continued 

General provisions 

reference 

* 

Applies to subpart N 

* 

Comment 

« * * * 

Subpart O—[Amended] 

7. Section 63.360 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§63.360 Applicability. 

**** * 

(f) The owner or operator of a source, 

subject to the provisions of the title 40, 

chapter I, part 63 subpart O, using 1 ton 

(see definition) is subject to title V 

permitting requirements. These affected 

sources, if not major or located at major 

sources as defined under 40 CFR 70.2, 

may be deferred by the appUcable title 

V permitting authority from title V 

permitting requirements for 5 years after 

the date on which the EPA first 

approves a part 70 program (i.e., until 

December 9,1999). All sources 

receiving deferrals shall submit title V 

permit applications within 12 months of 

such date (by December 9, 2000). All 

sources receiving deferrals still must 

meet compUance schedule as stated in 

this §63.360. 

Subpart M—[Amended] 

8. Section 63.320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§63.320 Applicability. 

* * * * * * 

(k) The owner or operator of any 

source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart M is subject to title V permitting 

requirements. These affected sources, if 

not major or located at major sources as 

defined under 40 CFR 70.2, may be 

deferred by the applicable title V 

permitting authority from title V 

permitting requirements for 5 years after 

the date on which the EPA first 

approves a part 70 program (i.e., until 

December 9,1999). All sources 

receiving deferrals shall submit title V 

permit applications within 12 months of 

such date (by December 9, 2000). All 

sources receiving deferrals still must 

meet compliance schedule as stated in 

this §63.320. 

Subpart X—[Amended] 

9. Section 63.541 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§63.541 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(c) The owner or operator of any 

source subject to the provisions of this 

subpart X is subject to title V permitting 

requirements. These affected sources, if 

not major or located at major sources as 

defined under 40 CFR 70.2, may be 

deferred by the applicable title V 

permitting authority from title V 

permitting requirements for 5 years after 

the date on which the EPA first 

approves a part 70 program (i.e., until 

December 9,1999). All sources 

receiving deferrals shall submit title V 

permit applications within 12 months of 

such date (by December 9, 2000). All 

sources receiving deferrals still must 

meet compliance schedule as stated in 

§63.546. 

[FR Doc. 96-13825 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am] 

BILUNO CODE 6560-60-P 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL-5512-1] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of deletion of Newport 

Dump Superfund Site, Wilder, 

Kentucky, from the National Priorities 

List 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) announces the 

deletion of the Newport Dump 

Superfund Site in Wilder, Kentucky, 

from the National Priorities List (NPL), 

{Appendix B ofthe National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP)}. EPA and the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky have 

determined that all appropriate Fundfinanced responses under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), as amended, have been 

implemented and that no further 

cleanup is appropriate. Moreover, EPA 

and the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

determined that response actions 

conducted at the site to date have been 

protective of public health, welfare, and 

the environment. This deletion does not 

preclude future action under Superfund. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza 

Montalvo, Remedial Project Manager, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, North Superfund Remedial 

Branch, 345 Courtland Street NE., 

Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-7791, 

extension 2030. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to 

be deleted from the NPL is: Newport 

Dump Superfund Site, Wilder, 

Kentucky. 

A Notice of Intent To Delete for this 

site was published on May 16,1988 

(SW-FRI^3380-7). A Revised Notice of 

Intent To Delete was published on 

March 8,1996 (FRl^-5436-5). The 

closing date for comments on the 

Revised Notice of Intent To Delete was 

April 17,1996. EPA received no 

comments. 

EPA identifies sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health, welfare, or the environment and 

it maintains the NPL as the Ust of those 

sites. Any site deleted from the NPL 

remains eligible for Fund-financed 

remedial actions in the unlikely event 

that conditions at the site warrant such 

action in the future. Section 

300.425(e)(3) ofthe NCP states that 

Fund-financed actions may be taken at 

sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of 

a site from the NPL does not affect 

responsible party liability or impede 

agency efforts to recover costs 

associated with response efforts. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental Protection, Air 

PoUution Control, Chemicals, 

Hazardous Waste, Hazardous 

Substances, Intergovernmental 

Relations, Penalties, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements, 

Superfund, Water Pollution Control, 

and Water Supply. 

Dated: May 21,1996. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA 

Region 4. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

The authority citation for Part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 

1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; 3 CFR 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 
P.6 

Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations' 2778S 

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing the site 

Newport Dump, Newport, Kentucky. 

[FR Doc. 96-13826 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am) 

BILUNG CODE 6530-60-P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Research! and Special Programs 

'49 CFR Parts 180, 181, 192 and 1193 

[Docket PS-125; Notice 2] 

RIM 2137-,ftC28 

Regulators-- Reinvention Initiative: 

Pipeline Satfetw Program Procedures; 

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. 

He-rick, (202) 366-5523 or online at 

herrickl@rspa.dot.gov 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 these that were 

outdated or in need of reform. 

On April 5,19S5, 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, Lakawood 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 die 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 mis 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 thai 

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 whe**e 

more time is required the Regional 

Director has the authority to extond tho 

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 Probablo 

Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty by 

submitting a check or meney 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 offor 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 delation of 

§ 190.209(c). Most commenters agreed 

with the proposed deletion. Two 

commenters disagree with the proposod 

deletion, preferring to retain the option 

and stating that: § 190.209(c) does not 

place an undue regulatory burden upon 

industry. 

All commenters observed that the 

deletion also affects § 190.209(a)(2) and 

§§ 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 §§ 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 
P.7 

27790 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 

appiopriate 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 ofthe OPS region in 

which the facility is located. RSPA 

proposed in the NPRM that all hearings 

be conducted by an attorney from the 

Office ofthe 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 § 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, § 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 ofthe case, unless a 

clear pubhc 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 190.227 will be 

adopted. 

Changes to Part 191 Requirements 

The following discussion explains the 

changes in part 191: 

Section 191.1 Scope 

Currently § 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.