Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36373

1SCADA 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.

Commodity Parts per million

Cottonseed .................... 0.05

(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.

[Reserved]

(c) Tolerances with regional

registrations. [Reserved]

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.

[Reserved]

[FR Doc. 98–17729 Filed 7-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. RSPA–97–2362; Amdt. 195–62]

RIN 2137—AD05

Pipeline Safety: Incorporation by

Reference of Industry Standard on

Leak Detection

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule adopts as a

referenced document an industry

publication for pipeline leak detection,

API 1130, ‘‘Computational Pipeline

Monitoring,’’ published by the

American Petroleum Institute (API).

This rule requires that an operator of a

hazardous liquid pipeline use API 1130

in conjunction with other information,

in designing, evaluating, operating,

maintaining, and testing its softwarebased leak detection system. The use of

this document will significantly

advance the acceptance of leak

detection technology on hazardous

liquid pipelines. However, this rule

does not require operators to install

such systems.

DATES: This final rule takes effect July 6,

1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lloyd W. Ulrich, telephone: (202) 366–

4556, FAX: (202) 366–4566, e-mail:

lloyd.ulrich@rspa.dot.gov regarding the

subject matter of this final rule, or

Dockets Unit, (202) 366–4453, for copies

of this final rule or other material in the

docket. Further information can be

obtained by accessing OPS’ Internet

Home Page at: ops.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on Requiring Leak

Detection Equipment

A. Congressional Mandate To Issue

Regulations

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 hazardous liquid pipeline

operators would use EFRDs or other

procedures, systems, and equipment

used to detect and locate pipeline

ruptures and minimize product releases

from pipeline facilities. The Secretary

delegated this authority to the Research

and Special Programs Administration

(RSPA).

B. Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, Volpe Center Report and

Public Workshop

RSPA used several means to gather

information on EFRDs and leak

detection equipment. We issued an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPRM) (59 FR 2802, Jan. 19, 1994) to

solicit information primarily from

hazardous liquid pipeline operators

about operational data and costs related

to EFRDs and about the performance of

leak detection systems to detect and

locate hazardous liquid pipeline

ruptures and minimize product release.

The ANPRM also sought information to

help determine which critical pipeline

locations should be protected from

product releases. Commenters provided

limited usable data and generally

opposed requiring leak detection

equipment and EFRDs.

We contracted with the Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center

(Volpe Center) to conduct a research

study on SCADA 1 systems, including

leak detection systems. Its report,

‘‘Remote Control Spill Reduction

Technology: A Survey and Analysis of

Applications for Liquid Pipeline

Systems’’ (September 29, 1996), found

that because of the pipeline industry’s

diversity, each system used for leak

detection must be custom configured for

a particular pipeline system, that

SCADA and leak detection systems were

dependent on the sophistication of the

host computer and how rapidly and

diverse remote field data can be

collected, and that operators have

invested in SCADA systems, but have

invested much less in software-based

leak detection systems.

RSPA also held a public workshop on

October 19, 1995, to obtain more data on

EFRDs and leak detection systems.

Participants confirmed the Volpe Center

report’s finding that each leak detection

system is unique to the pipeline on

which it is installed. Discussions

included operational and economic

problems with leak detection systems,

as well as their operational, economic

and environmental benefits.

Detailed discussion of the ANPRM,

Volpe Center report, and workshop can

be found at 62 FR 56141; October 29,

1997.

C. Development of API 1130

In 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,’’ which addressed 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.’’ The document’s

stated purpose is to assist the pipeline

operator in selecting, implementing,

testing, and operating a CPM system,

and to help to identify the complexities,

limitations, and other implications of

detecting anomalies on liquid pipelines

using CPM systems.

RSPA and the Volpe Center staff

monitored the task force’s work.

Minutes of the task force meetings, and

copies of final drafts of API 1130, are

available in Docket No. PS–133.

D. Definition of 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. We believe that a
36374 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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 identify a

subset of environmentally sensitive

areas, areas unusually sensitive to

environmental damage, or USAs.

Because of this ongoing regulatory effort

to define USAs and the definition’s

relevance to locating EFRDs, RSPA has

decided to wait before proposing a rule

prescribing where leak detection

systems would be required.

E. First Step

Although RSPA has delayed

proposing the circumstances where

EFRDs and other equipment must be

installed on hazardous liquid pipeline

systems until it has an USA definition,

RSPA did not want to delay addressing

the safety and environmental

advantages of using software-based leak

detection technology to reduce releases

from pipeline ruptures.

Pipeline safety regulations do not

require hazardous liquid pipeline

operators to meet any leak detection

system performance standards. Thus, as

a first step in RSPA’s statutory

requirement to issue regulations

prescribing where hazardous liquid

pipeline operators would use EFRDs or

other leak detection systems, RSPA

considered adopting API 1130. RSPA

would adopt API 1130 and require

operators to use it 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 considered this action

because—

(1) We 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) API 1130 is a comprehensive

document that advances safety by

providing for more rapid detection of

ruptures and response to those ruptures,

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 would not be controversial

because the pipeline industry, the

primary user, developed the

publication.

F. Role of the Technical Hazardous

Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards

Committee (THLPSSC)

We proposed adopting API 1130 as a

referenced document in the pipeline

safety regulations to 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. The

subcommittee submitted to the

THLPSSC Chairperson several

recommendations, which THLPSSC

accepted:

(1) API 1130 in its entirety should be

referenced in the 49 CFR Part 195

regulations.

(2) The operations, maintenance, and

testing portions of API 1130 should

apply to all existing and newly-installed

CPM systems, and API 1130 in its

entirety should apply to all newly

installed CPM systems and replacement

sections of existing CPM systems.

(3) Compliance with API 1130 should

be within twelve months of

incorporation of the document into the

regulations.

(4) The document should apply only

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

rule should state that referencing API

1130 is a first step in meeting the

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 60102(j), and

is not intended to delay issuing

additional requirements or actions.

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)

A. Proposal

RSPA published an NPRM on October

29, 1997 (62 FR 56141) proposing to

incorporate API 1130 into the

regulations as a referenced document.

The NPRM incorporated THLPSSC’s

recommendations. The rule proposed

requiring an operator of a hazardous

liquid pipeline to comply with API 1130

in designing, operating, maintaining,

and testing the operator’s softwarebased leak detection system. The

proposed rule did not require an

operator to install a software-based leak

detection system, but proposed that

whenever such a leak detection system

is installed or a component replaced,

API 1130 would have to be followed.

Similarly, 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 API 1130’s

scope limitations (Section 1.3), the

NPRM limited API 1130’s applicability

to single-phase liquid pipelines.

Pipelines transporting both gas and

liquid simultaneously, called dual

phase pipelines, are prevalent in

offshore operations. A pipeline

transports gas and liquid 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

gases and liquids.

The NPRM’s comment period closed

on December 29, 1997.

B. Discussion of the Comments

Three comments were filed in the

docket: two from hazardous liquid

operators and one from API.

One operator asked three questions.

The first dealt with a ‘‘Special Note’’ in

API 1130 that API documents are

reviewed, revised, reaffirmed, or

withdrawn at least every five years. The

commenter asked how incorporating

API 1130 would affect the hazardous

liquid pipeline safety regulations should

API not reaffirm the document, and the

document was no longer available. We

review and revise the regulations

periodically to update the references to

industry and other voluntary standards.

In this rule, we are incorporating the

current version of API 1130. An

operator will have to comply with this

version of the document until we revise

the rule. Whatever API does with API

1130 in the future will not affect an

operator’s compliance with the version

we are incorporating.

The second question concerned the

use of CPM systems not described in

section 4.1.2 of API 1130. Section 4.1.2

describes seven CPM systems: line

balance, volume balance, modified

volume balance, real time transient

mode, pressure/flow monitoring,

acoustic/negative pressure wave, and

statistical analysis. The commenter

asked if CPM systems not described

could be used.

API 1130 lists and describes the seven

CPM systems that are used by the

pipeline industry today. Section 4.1.2

does not limit the use of CPM systems

to only those described. Our intent in

referencing API 1130 is to include any

CPM system, whether or not described

in the document, as long as the system

meets the requirements of API 1130.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36375

The third question concerned how we

would enforce compliance with API

1130. Enforcement strategies are not

included in the safety standards, but

rather are developed by the RSPA

enforcement staff. Each operator who

has installed a CPM system will have to

demonstrate that it is complying with

the requirements in API 1130, as it does

with any pipeline safety regulation.

The second operator suggested that

the effective date for complying with

API 1130 should be 24 months instead

of the proposed 12 months. RSPA

believes that 12 months is sufficient

compliance time for at least three

reasons. First, the operator is not

required to install a CPM system, just to

follow API 1130 if one is installed.

Second, our conversations with API

indicate that the vast majority of

operators who use CPM systems have

already adopted the practices embodied

in the document. Third, a 12-month

compliance timetable follows

THLPSSC’s recommendation.

API commented on the proposed

rule’s reference to the CPM selection

criteria in section 4.2. API stated that

the NPRM can be interpreted as

requiring compliance with all the listed

criteria in Section 4.2. However, the

introduction to Section 4.2 makes clear

that no system meets all the criteria.

RSPA has revised § 195.134 in the final

rule to clarify that all of the selection

criteria do not have to be met.

In addition, we have revised the

definition for Computation Pipeline

Monitoring to clarify that a CPM system

alerts the pipeline dispatcher of a

possible operating anomaly rather than

allows the dispatcher to respond to an

operating anomaly. This revision better

describes the function of the monitoring

tool. Also, § 195.134 has been revised by

eliminating the superfluous term ‘‘that

will be installed’’ referring to new CPM

systems.

C. Advisory Committee Review

As mentioned previously, the

THLPSSC accepted the subcommittee’s

recommendation to reference API 1130

in 49 CFR part 195. The NPRM was

discussed at the THLPSSC meeting in

Houston, Texas, on November 18, 1997.

The eight members present voted

unanimously to adopt API 1130 as

proposed in the NPRM.

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This rule is not considered a

significant action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,

was not reviewed by OMB. It is not

considered significant under the

Department of Transportation Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26,

1979).

As THLPSSC recommended, this rule

adopts an industry document, API 1130.

Our adopting API 1130 should result in

leak detection systems that allow for

faster leak detection, resulting in

reduced commodity loss, lower shortterm cleanup costs from releases, and

lower long-term remediation costs. The

rule does not require an operator to

install a CPM if the operator does not

already have one. It only requires that

an operator with such a system follow

API 1130. API 1130 represents good

industry practices. Our conversations

with API officials confirm that the vast

majority of the industry that uses CPM

already has adopted these practices.

In the NPRM, RSPA solicited

information on any costs to industry of

referencing API 1130. No one submitted

any information on costs in response to

this request. Therefore, RSPA believes

that the cost of this regulation will be

minimal and that a regulatory

evaluation is not necessary.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The rule does not mandate the use of

CPM but simply adopts the practices

already instituted and developed by

industry. Most operators, large, medium

and small, with such systems already

comply with these requirements and

will not incur additional costs.

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 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 rule does not have

sufficient federalism implications to

warrant preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

D. Unfunded Mandates

This 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.

This rule does not require an operator

to have a CPM. The industry developed

API 1130; 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 has

prepared a paperwork analysis and, on

April 1, 1998 submitted it to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

review. The estimated annual

information collection burden for the

entire industry is estimated to be only

100 hours per year.

Comments on the paperwork burden

have been solicited 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.

No comments were submitted in

response to the request for comment.

OMB approved the information

collection and assigned the information

collection control number 2137–0598,

which is approved through April 30,

2001. Federal agencies are required to

publish the OMB control number for

information collections in the Federal

Register. Failure to publish the

information collection control number

would mean that respondents would not

be required to respond to the

information collection.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

Ammonia, Carbon dioxide,

Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing,

RSPA amends 49 CFR part 195 as

follows:

PART 195—TRANSPORTATION OF

HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

1. The authority citation for Part 195

continues to read as follows:
36376 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 128 / Monday, July 6, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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

60108, 60109, 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Subpart A—General

2. Section 195.2 is 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 alerts the pipeline

dispatcher of a possible pipeline

operating anomaly that may be

indicative of a commodity release.

* * * * *

3. Section 195.3 is 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 is 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 and each

replaced component of an existing CPM

system must comply with 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 is 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 June 29,

1998.

Kelley S. Coyner,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–17721 Filed 7–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 223

[FRA Docket No. PTEP–1, Notice No. 4]

RIN 2130–AA96

Passenger Train Emergency

Preparedness; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule correction.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the text of the final rule

amending the safety glazing standards

for locomotives, passenger cars and

cabooses that was issued jointly with

the new final rule on passenger train

emergency preparedness and was

published on Monday, May 4, 1998 (63

FR 24630).

DATES: Effective on July 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Edward R. English, Director, Office of

Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA,

400 Seventh Street, SW., RRS–10, Mail

Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590

(telephone number: 202–632–3384), or

John A. Winkle, Esq., Trial Attorney,

Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400

Seventh Street, SW., RCC–12, Mail Stop

10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone

number: 202–632–3167).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In conjunction with promulgating the

final rule on passenger train emergency

preparedness, FRA revised part 223 of

title 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations concerning the safety

glazing standards for locomotives,

passenger cars, and cabooses. Part of

that revision included adding

definitions for both Railroad and Person

to part 223. During the revision, FRA

inadvertently used the incorrect

definition of Person. Instead of

incorporating the proper definition,

which currently appears in the final rule

on passenger train emergency

preparedness under section 239.7, FRA

repeated the definition of Railroad

under Person.

Need for Correction

As published, 49 CFR 223.5 does not

correctly define Person and could cause

confusion in determining the scope of

the regulation. Thus, that portion of the

revised safety glazing standards is in

need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on May

4, 1998, of the modification to the safety

glazing standards for locomotives,

passenger cars and cabooses, which was

contained in FR Doc. 98–11393, is

corrected as follows:

§ 223.5 [Corrected]

On page 24675, in the second column,

after the definition of Passenger train

service, the definition of ‘‘Person’’ is

corrected to read as follows:

§ 223.5 Definition.

* * * * *

Person includes all categories of

entities covered under 1 U.S.C. 1,

including, but not limited to, a railroad;

any manager, supervisor, official, or

other employee or agent of a railroad;

any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or

lessee of railroad equipment, track, or

facilities; any passenger, any trespasser

or nontrespasser; any independent

contractor providing goods or services

to a railroad; and any employee of such

owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or

independent contractor.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC.

Donald M. Itzkoff,

Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–17767 Filed 7–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P