Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 56141

equal access. Some of those LECs’ end

offices are equipped with SPC switches,

but the LECs have never received a bona

fide request to provide equal access. In

other instances, the LECs’ end offices

are not equipped with SPC switches

and, therefore, the LECs are not required

to convert to equal access according to

a specific timetable, even if a LEC

received a reasonable request for equal

access. The Commission acknowledged,

therefore, that a requirement that all

LEC end office switches be upgraded to

accept four-digit CICs by January 1,

1998, may have the unintended effect of

requiring those LECs that have never

received a bona fide request for equal

access or that are not subject to a

specific timetable for providing equal

access nonetheless to upgrade their end

offices to offer equal access by January

1, 1998. Such a requirement would

modify the Commission’s equal access

implementation schedule for non-GTE

independent telephone companies, set

by the 1985 Independent Telephone

Company Equal Access Report and

Order. More than twelve years have

passed since the adoption of the

Independent Telephone Company Equal

Access Report and Order. The Second

FNPRM therefore tentatively concludes

that all LEC end offices, including those

LECs whose end offices are equipped

with SPC switches, but have not

received a bona fide request for equal

access and those LECs whose end

offices are equipped with non-SPC

switches, should nevertheless be

required to provide equal access. This

requirement also would apply to LECs

who may have received a waiver of the

Commission’s equal access rules, to the

extent those waivers remain in place.

The Second FNPRM tentatively

concludes that LECs with SPC switches

that have not received a bona fide

request for equal access should be

required to upgrade their facilities to

provide equal access and to accept fourdigit CICs within three years of the

effective date of an Order adopted in

this proceeding. The Second FNPRM

further tentatively concludes that LECs

whose end offices are equipped with

non-SPC switches should be required to

provide equal access and to convert

their switches to accept four-digit CICs

when they next replace their switching

facilities. The Second FNPRM

tentatively concludes that requiring

LECs whose end offices are equipped

with SPC switches to upgrade their

facilities to enable them to offer equal

access, even if they have not received a

request for equal access, and LECs

whose end offices are equipped with

non-SPC switches to convert their

facilities to provide equal access, is not

inconsistent with the Commission’s

general goal, expressed in the

Independent Telephone Company Equal

Access Report and Order, that equal

access occur as soon as practicable,

regardless of whether a request has been

made for equal access, and regardless of

the type of switch with which an end

office is equipped. Moreover, the

Commission stated, in the Independent

Telephone Company Equal Access

Report and Order, that where generic

software is available, the telephone

company should endeavor to make the

necessary conversions in less than three

years. The Second FNPRM notes that

the responses to inquiries by

Commission staff indicate that the fourdigit CIC software generally is included

in equal access software packages

developed since 1995. The Commission

indicated that commenters that oppose

the tentative conclusion should discuss

why a twelve year period of time in

which to convert to provide equal

access has been insufficient and should

propose specific alternatives to the

Commission’s proposal.

Ordering Clauses

2. It is further ordered, pursuant to

Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201–205, 218

and 251(e)(1) of the Communications

Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151,

154(i), 154(j), 201–205, 218 and

251(e)(1), that the Second Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is

hereby ADOPTED.

3. It is further ordered that the

Commission’s Office of Managing

Director shall send a copy of the Second

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 52

Local exchange carrier, Numbering,

Telecommunications.

47 CFR Part 64

Communications common carriers,

Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–28678 Filed 10–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. RSPA–97–2362; Notice 1]

RIN 2137—AD05

Pipeline Safety: Incorporation by

Reference of Industry Standard on

Leak Detection

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to adopt

as a referenced document an industry

publication for pipeline leak detection,

API 1130, ‘‘Computational Pipeline

Monitoring,’’ published by the

American Petroleum Institute (API).

This proposal would require that an

operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline

use API 1130 in conjunction with other

information, in designing, evaluating,

operating, maintaining, and testing its

software-based leak detection system.

The use of this document will

significantly advance the acceptance of

leak detection technology on hazardous

liquid pipelines. However, RSPA is not

proposing to require operators to install

such systems.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments in duplicate

by December 29, 1997. Late-filed

comments will be considered to the

extent practicable. Interested persons

should submit as part of their written

comments all the material that is

relevant to any statement of fact or

argument.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Docket Facility, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Plaza 401, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. Comments should identify the

docket number (RSPA–97–2362) and the

RSPA Rulemaking Number (2137–

AD05). Commenters should submit an

original and one copy. Commenters

wishing to receive confirmation of

receipt of their comments must include

a stamped, self-addressed postcard with

their comments. The docket clerk will

date stamp the postcard and return it to

the commenter. Comments will be

available for inspection at the Docket

Facility, located on the plaza level of the

Nassif Building in Room 401. The

Docket Facility is open from 10 a.m. to

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except

on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lloyd W. Ulrich, telephone:(202) 366–

4556, FAX: (202) 366–4566, e-mail:
56142 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Proposed regulations on the circumstances

where operators would be required to use EFRDs

and other equipment have been postponed until a

definition for areas unusually sensitive to

environmental damage, or USAs, is established, as

discussed later in this notice.

2A March 1991 Departmental report entitled

‘‘Emergency Flow Restricting Devices Study (A

Study Mandated by Pub. L. 100–561)’’

recommended that the Department conduct a

research study on whether SCADA systems,

including well-designed leak detection subsystems,

should be required on hazardous liquid pipelines

to enhance the safe operation of the pipelines.

RSPA contracted with the Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) to

conduct the study.

3SCADA is an acronym for Supervisory Control

and Data Acquisition. SCADA systems utilize

computer technology to continuously gather data

(e.g., pressure, temperature, and delivery flow rates)

from remote locations on the pipeline. Dispatchers

use SCADA systems to assist in day-to-day

operating decisions on the pipeline. SCADA

systems can also provide input for real-time models

of the pipeline operation. Such models compare

current operating conditions with calculated data

values. A deviation may indicate the possibility of

a leak.

lloyd.ulrich@rspa.dot.gov regarding the

subject matter of this notice, or Dockets

Unit, (202) 366–5046, for copies of this

notice or other material in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Congressional Mandate and Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Congress, in section 212 of the

Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (codified at

49 U.S.C. 60102(j)), required the

Secretary of Transportation, by October

24, 1994, to survey and assess the

effectiveness of emergency flow

restricting devices (EFRDs) and other

procedures, systems, and equipment

used to detect and locate hazardous

liquid pipeline ruptures and minimize

product releases from hazardous liquid

pipeline facilities. Congress further

mandated that the Secretary issue

regulations two years after completing

the survey and assessment (no later than

October 24, 1996). These regulations

would prescribe the circumstances

under which operators of hazardous

liquid pipelines would use EFRDs or

other procedures, systems, and

equipment used to detect and locate

pipeline ruptures and minimize product

release from pipeline facilities 1. The

Secretary delegated this authority to the

Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA).

To conduct the required survey, RSPA

issued an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) (59 FR 2802, Jan.

19, 1994) to solicit information from the

public. The ANPRM contained

questions directed mostly to operators

of hazardous liquid pipelines about

operational data and costs related to

EFRDs and about the performance of

leak detection systems as another means

to detect and locate hazardous liquid

pipeline ruptures and minimize product

release. The ANPRM also sought

information to help determine which

critical locations should be protected

from pipeline releases.

Nineteen comments were submitted

in response to the ANPRM. Sixteen

comments were from hazardous liquid

pipeline operators, two were from leak

detection vendors, and one was from the

API. Commenters were generally against

requiring leak detection equipment and

EFRDs. Ten of the sixteen hazardous

liquid operators responded with usable

data.

B. Volpe Report

In response to a recommendation in

an earlier Departmental report 2 dealing

with pipeline EFRDs and leak detection,

the Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center (Volpe Center) released

a report entitled ‘‘Remote Control Spill

Reduction Technology: A Survey and

Analysis of Applications for Liquid

Pipeline Systems’’ (September 29,

1996). The study looked at the pipeline

industry overall and its application of

SCADA 3 and leak detection systems.

The report looked at several leak

detection performance measures

including response time, false alarms,

sensitivity, and leak location accuracy.

The report contained conclusions on

leak detection systems relevant to this

present rulemaking. One was that

because of the pipeline industry’s

diversity, each system used for leak

detection must be custom configured for

a particular pipeline system. Another

conclusion was that SCADA and leak

detection systems were dependent on

the sophistication of the host computer

and how rapidly the host computer can

gather remote field data. The report

found that operators have made major

investments in SCADA systems, but

have invested much less in softwarebased leak detection systems.

Another conclusion was the

dispatcher who operates the pipeline

system was key to SCADA and leak

detection systems operating

successfully. Most operators

interviewed for the study believed that

dispatcher training and the dispatcher’s

ability to interpret the data provided by

the SCADA system were critical in

reducing the number of incidents and

the volume of pipeline spills.

Finally, the report concluded that a

SCADA system or a leak detection

system can be configured for most

pipeline systems, but that the high cost/

benefit and the evolving technology of

such systems has slowed industry’s

adopting computer-based leak detection

systems.

C. Public Workshop

RSPA wanted to accomplish the

Congressional mandate consistent with

the President’s policy (E.O. 12866) that

regulations provide for public safety and

environmental protection at the least

cost to society. Toward this end, and

because RSPA received limited data in

response to the ANPRM’s questionnaire,

RSPA held a public workshop on

October 19, 1995, to obtain more data on

EFRDs and leak detection systems. Two

formal presentations on leak detection

were made at the workshop. One was by

Dr. Sherry Smith Borener from the

Volpe Center, who presented the

preliminary results of the report

discussed above, and the other was by

the American Petroleum Institute (API).

The Volpe Center report’s finding that

each leak detection system is unique to

the pipeline on which it is installed was

confirmed at the workshop. Industry

expressed its desire to improve its leak

detection capability, its concern about

releases to the environment, and its

dedication to automation. Also evident

was that the hazardous liquid pipeline

industry is driven by cost control.

Discussions at the workshop included

operational and economic problems

with leak detection systems.

Participants said that many dynamic

factors, such as changes in product

characteristics and hydraulic transient

conditions, can change a pipeline

system’s operating characteristics and

affect leak detection capability. Other

less frequent changes, such as the

physical parameters of the pipeline can

also impact leak detection performance.

Further, participants said that leak

detection systems increase a pipeline’s

overall maintenance, such as equipment

calibration checks and preventive

maintenance, which affects an

operator’s cost. Also, when equipment

is down, leak sensitivity may be

impaired. Participants also said that a

pipeline’s transient conditions

adversely affect leak detection system

performance.

Also discussed were operational and

economic benefits. Among these

benefits were that a leak detection

system improves a pipeline’s everyday

operation because the system allows the

operator to collect more usable

operating data about the pipeline

system, including data from remote

locations. Participants also said that a

leak detection system allows for faster

leak detection, resulting in reduced

commodity loss, lower short-term

cleanup costs from releases, and lower
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 56143

long-term remediation costs.

Participants noted that a leak’s location

is secondary to confirming that a leak

has occurred.

Discussions at the workshop brought

out that a leak detection system can

result in a more rapid response to a leak.

Participants said that the simplest

system can indicate large leaks, while

detecting smaller leaks depends on

many factors including the dispatcher’s

competency. Participants confirmed the

Volpe study’s conclusion that

dispatcher training is of paramount

importance.

D. Definition for Areas Unusually

Sensitive to Environmental Damage

Congress required that in prescribing

standards, RSPA identify the

‘‘circumstances’’ where EFRDs and

other equipment must be installed.

RSPA’s current policy is to base

regulations on risk assessment. RSPA

believes that a primary high risk

circumstance would be where a pipeline

is located in an environmentally

sensitive area. RSPA has been

conducting public workshops since

1995 to enable government and industry

to better understand the problems

involved in identifying a subset of such

areas, areas unusually sensitive to

environmental damage, or USAs. RSPA

expects to publish a NPRM proposing a

definition for USAs in the Spring of

1998.

Because of the ongoing regulatory

effort to define USAs, RSPA has decided

to wait before issuing a NPRM

proposing where leak detection systems

should be required.

E. Development of API 1130

In April 1994, the API formed a task

force to develop a document on

computational pipeline monitoring

(CPM). The task force produced API

1130, entitled ‘‘Computational Pipeline

Monitoring’’ addressing the use of

software-based leak detection

equipment. API 1130 defines

computational pipeline monitoring as

‘‘an algorithmic monitoring tool that

allows the pipeline controller to

respond to a pipeline operating anomaly

which may be indicative of a

commodity release.’’ As stated in the

document,

The purpose of this publication is to assist

the pipeline operator in the selection,

implementation, testing, and operation of a

CPM system. When used in conjunction with

other API publications, this publication will

prove useful to identify the complexities,

limitations and other implications of

detecting anomalies on liquid pipelines using

CPM systems.

To gather data for a leak detection

rulemaking, RSPA and Volpe Center

staff have monitored the task force’s

work. Minutes of task force meetings, as

well as copies of final drafts of the

document, are available in Docket No.

PS–133.

II. Statement of the Problem and

Proposed Solution

Pipeline safety regulations do not

require hazardous liquid pipeline

operators to meet any leak detection

system performance standards. As

mentioned before, a lack of a USA

definition has delayed RSPA proposing

the circumstances where EFRDs and

other equipment must be installed on

hazardous liquid pipeline systems.

However, RSPA believes it should not

delay addressing the safety and

environmental advantages of using

software-based leak detection

technology to reduce releases from

pipeline ruptures. RSPA proposes to

remedy this by requiring operators to

use API 1130 in operating, maintaining,

and testing their existing software-based

leak detection systems and in designing

and installing new software-based leak

detection systems or replacing

components of existing systems. RSPA

is taking this action for several reasons.

(1) RSPA monitored the development

of API 1130 and its development is well

documented in Docket No. PS–133. The

API task force members who developed

API 1130 are experts in the pipeline

industry, well versed in leak detection

systems.

(2) Due to its comprehensiveness, API

1130 advances safety by providing for

more rapid detection of ruptures and

response to those ruptures, thus limiting

releases of hazardous liquids.

(3) Adopting API 1130 complies with

the spirit of the President’s initiative to

reduce and simplify regulations by

adopting industry developed standards.

Its adoption should not create

controversy since the pipeline industry,

the primary user, developed the

publication.

III. Role of the Technical Hazardous

Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards

Committee (THLPSSC)

The proposal to adopt API 1130 as a

referenced document in 49 CFR part 195

was brought before the THLPSSC at its

meeting on November 6, 1996. The

THLPSSC is a 15 member

Congressionally mandated advisory

committee (49 U.S.C. 60115) responsible

for reviewing proposed pipeline safety

standards for technical feasibility,

reasonableness, and practicability. The

THLPSSC Chairperson appointed a

three person subcommittee to work with

RSPA to provide technical expertise on

the feasibility of adopting API 1130 as

a referenced standard in part 195. The

subcommittee met with RSPA and

submitted to the THLPSSC Chairperson

the following recommendations, which

THLPSSC accepted:

(1) API 1130 in its entirety should be

referenced in 49 CFR part 195 regulations.

(2) The operations, maintenance, and

testing portions of API 1130 should be

applicable to all existing and newly installed

Computational Pipeline Monitoring (CPM)

systems, and API 1130 in its entirety should

be applicable to all newly installed CPM

systems or replacement sections of existing

CPM systems.

(3) Compliance with API 1130 should be

within 12 months of incorporation of this

document into the part 195 regulations.

(4) If and when API 1130 is referenced in

the part 195 regulations, the reference only

applies to single phase liquid pipelines (see

Section 1.3 of API 1130, which limits the

document’s application to single phase liquid

pipelines).

(5) The preamble to the draft and final Part

195 rules should state that the reference to

API 1130 is a first step in meeting the

mandate of section 60102(j) of the federal

pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. 601), and is not

intended to delay issuance of additional

requirements or actions under this section of

the law.

RSPA agrees with these

recommendations and has drafted this

NPRM to comply with them.

IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would require an

operator of a hazardous liquid pipeline

to comply with API 1130 in designing,

operating, maintaining, and testing the

operator’s software-based leak detection

system. Although the proposed rule

does not require an operator to install a

software-based leak detection system,

whenever such a leak detection system

is installed or a component replaced,

API 1130 would have to be followed.

Likewise, each existing software-based

leak detection system would have to

comply with the operating,

maintenance, testing, and training

provisions of API 1130.

To be consistent with the scope

limitations of Section 1.3 in API 1130,

the proposed regulation limits API 1130

applicability to single phase, liquid

pipelines. Pipelines transporting both

gas and liquid, called dual phase

pipelines, are prevalent in offshore

operations where the gas and liquid

stream is transported by pipeline to

onshore facilities where it is more

economical to separate the gas and

liquid for further transport. Designing a

leak detection system for such a

pipeline is extremely complex because

of the different physical and chemical

characteristics of gas and liquid.
56144 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1. Proposed additions to § 195.2

Definitions: The term ‘‘computational

pipeline monitoring’’ which has not

been used in 49 CFR part 195, would be

added to the list of definitions in

§ 195.2. The proposed definition is

identical to API 1130’s definition except

that the term ‘‘monitoring tool’’ is

modified to ‘‘software-based monitoring

tool.’’ RSPA is also replacing the term

‘‘controller’’ with ‘‘dispatcher’’ as

dispatcher is the term presently used in

the pipeline safety regulations.

2. Proposed addition to § 195.3

Matters incorporated by reference:

RSPA will propose that API 1130 be

added as one of the referenced API

publications under § 195.3(c)(2).

3. Proposed new section § 195.134

CPM leak detection systems: RSPA will

propose a new section in Subpart C—

Design Requirements, to require that

whenever an operator installs a CPM

leak detection system, that the operator

design it according to the design

requirements of API 1130. The proposed

new section also requires that each

component replaced on an existing

system be designed in accordance to the

design requirements of API 1130. This

conforms to the THLPSSC

recommendation that both newly

installed CPM systems and replacement

sections of existing CPM systems follow

API 1130.

4. Proposed new section § 195.444

CPM leak detection systems: RSPA

proposes a new section in Subpart FOperation and Maintenance, to require

each operator who has a CPM leak

detection system to follow API 1130 in

the operation, maintenance, and testing

of the system.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule is not considered

a significant action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and is not

considered significant under the

Department of Transportation Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26,

1979). This proposal is to adopt an

industry document, API 1130. Adopting

API 1130 should result in leak detection

systems that allow for faster leak

detection, resulting in reduced

commodity loss, lower short-term

cleanup costs from releases, and lower

long-term remediation costs. The

Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline

Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC)

recommended that we adopt the

document into part 195. This proposal

does not require an operator to adopt a

computational pipeline monitoring

system (CPM) if the operator does not

already have one. It only requires that

if an operator has such a system that the

operator follow this document. This

document represents good industry

practices. Conversations with officials of

the API confirm that the vast majority of

the industry that uses CPM already has

adopted these practices.

Because RSPA is not mandating the

use of CPM and is simply adopting the

practices already instituted and

developed by industry, RSPA believes

that the cost of this regulation will be

minimal. Therefore, RSPA believes that

a regulatory evaluation of this proposal

is not necessary.

Nonetheless, RSPA does not have

good data on any potential costs that

this proposal would have on industry.

RSPA is soliciting information on costs,

if any, of referencing API 1130. Please

send cost information to the Department

of Transportation Docket Office listed in

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

As discussed above RSPA is not

requiring that operators install CPM but

simply requiring that where hazardous

liquid operators have such a system that

they meet the standards industry

developed. As stated above, most

operators with such systems already

comply with these requirements.

Therefore, based on the facts available,

I certify pursuant to section 605 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605)

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Federalism Assessment

The proposed rulemaking action

would not have substantial direct effects

on states, on the relationship between

the Federal Government and the states,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612

(52 FR 41685, Oct. 30, 1987), RSPA has

determined that this notice does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

D. Unfunded Mandates

This proposed rule does not impose

unfunded mandates under the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995. It does not result in costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, and is the least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objective of the rule.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

There are minimal record keeping

requirements included in

API 1130 on testing and retesting of

each CPM. However, as discussed

above, this proposal does not require an

operator to have a CPM. API 1130 was

developed by the industry, and the vast

majority of the industry that uses CPM

already has adopted the practices in API

1130. Because the record keeping

requirements represent the usual and

customary practices of the industry,

there is minimal paperwork burden on

the public. Nevertheless, RSPA

prepared a paperwork analysis for this

proposed rule and submitted it to the

Office of Management and Budget(OMB)

for review. The paperwork analysis for

this proposed regulation is available for

review at the Docket Office, U.S.

Department of Transportation, Plaza

401, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington,

DC. Comments on the paperwork

burden of this proposed regulation can

be submitted within 60 days of the

publication of this notice to Office of

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, 726 Jackson

Place, NW Washington, DC 20503

ATTN.: Desk Officer for the Department

of Transportation, RSPA. Please send a

duplicate copy of comments to the

Docket Office, U.S. Department of

Transportation Plaza 401, 400 Seventh

St. SW, Washington, DC 20590–0001,

identifying the RSPA Docket Number

(RSPA–97–2362) and the RSPA

Rulemaking Number (2137–AD05).

Comments are invited on: (a) The need

for the proposed collection of

information for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; (c)

ways to enhance the quality utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of collection of information on

those who respond, including the use of

appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

Ammonia, Carbon dioxide,

Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing,

RSPA proposes to amend 49 CFR part

195 as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 209 / Wednesday, October 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 56145

PART 195—TRANSPORTATION OF

HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

1. The authority citation for Part 195

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104,

60108, 60109, 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Subpart A—General

2. Section 195.2 would be amended

by adding the definition for

Computational Pipeline Monitoring to

read as follows:

§ 195.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Computation Pipeline Monitoring

(CPM) means a software-based

monitoring tool that allows the pipeline

dispatcher to respond to a pipeline

operating anomaly that may be

indicative of a commodity release.

* * * * *

3. Section 195.3 would be amended

by redesignating paragraphs (c)(2)(i)

through (c)(2)(iii), as paragraphs

(c)(2)(ii) through (c)(2)(iv), and adding a

new paragraph (c)(2)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 195.3 Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) API 1130 ‘‘Computational Pipeline

Monitoring’’ (1st Edition, 1995).

* * * * *

Subpart C—Design Requirements

4. Section 195.134 would be added to

read as follows:

§ 195.134 CPM leak detection.

This section applies to each

hazardous liquid pipeline transporting

liquid in single phase (without gas in

the liquid). On such systems, each new

computational pipeline monitoring

(CPM) leak detection system that will be

installed and each replaced component

of an existing CPM system must comply

with the selection criteria of section 4.2

of API 1130 in its design and with any

other design criteria addressed in API

1130 for components of the CPM leak

detection system.

Subpart F—Operation and

Maintenance

5. Section 195.444 would be added to

read as follows:

§ 195.444 CPM leak detection.

Each computational pipeline

monitoring (CPM) leak detection system

installed on a hazardous liquid pipeline

transporting liquid in single phase

(without gas in the liquid) must comply

with API 1130 in operating,

maintaining, testing, record keeping,

and dispatcher training of the system.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20,

1997.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–28135 Filed 10–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P