Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27789

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]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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

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 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outdated or in need of reform.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

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

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 § 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 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

§ 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27791

RSPA Response

Therefore, RSPA is amending § 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 °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 § 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 °C (100 °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 °C (100 °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 °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 °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 §§ 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: § 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

(§ 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 § 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

§ 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.
27792 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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, § 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:

§ 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:

§ 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:

§ 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:

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

§ 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:

§ 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

§ 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 °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:

§ 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:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 216 and 247

[Docket No. 960516135–6135–01; I.D.

051096A]

RIN 0648–AF08

Taking and Importing of Marine

Mammals; Dolphin Safe Tuna Labeling;

Regulation Consolidation

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule consolidates

existing regulations regarding dolphin

safe tuna labeling and corrects an

address in the regulations. This action is

part of the President’s regulatory reform

initiative.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wanda L. Cain, Office of Protected

Resources, NMFS, 301–713–2055.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On September 19, 1991 (56 FR 47424),

NMFS published an interim final rule

implementing dolphin safe tuna

labeling requirements of the Dolphin

Protection Consumer Information Act,

16 U.S.C. 1385. To consolidate

regulations under the President’s

regulatory reform initiative, NMFS is

recodifying regulations governing the

requirements for the dolphin safe

labeling of tuna as subpart H of part 216.

In addition, a new paragraph is added

to § 216.24 to reference subpart H in

order to make importers aware of

dolphin safe tuna labeling requirements.

In this rule, NMFS also removes the

address of the Director, Southwest

Region, from the footnote to § 261.24

(e)(3)(iii).

Classification

This rule has been determined to be

not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

The Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, NOAA, under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) and (d)(3), for good cause

finds that because this rule makes only

nonsubstantive changes to existing

regulations that were issued pursuant to

notice-and-comment procedures, it is

not necessary to provide advance notice

and opportunity for public comment or

to delay its effectiveness for 30 days.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 216

Administrative practice and

procedure, Exports, Imports, Indians,

Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

50 CFR Part 247

Exports, Fish, Labeling, Marine

mammals, Penalties, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Seafood.

Gary Matlock,

Program Management Officer, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR parts 216 and, under

authority of 16 U.S.C. 1385 et seq., 247

are amended as follows: