PHMSA Guidance, Potential Computer Problems Related to the Year 2000 (Y2K) - Potential Computer Problems Related to the Year 2000 (Y2K) | Regulus

Attachment 1, passage 142478 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Notices III. Alternatives It is expected that the scoping meeting and written comments will be a major source of candidate alternatives for consideration in the study. The following describes the No-Build, Enhanced Bus/Transportation Systems Management (TSM), Busway/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), and Streetcar Build Alternatives that are suggested for consideration in the Desire Corridor MIS: 1. No-Build Alternative—Existing and planned transit service and programmed new transportation facilities to the year 2020; 2. Enhanced Bus/TSM Alternative— Changes in existing bus routes to provide better service and low-cost transportation improvements, such as bus prioritization at signalized intersections and special bus lanes. 3. Busway/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Alternative—Exclusive lanes for buses and/or carpools to move people faster. 4. Streetcar Alternative—A new Desire streetcar line, possibly following a historic streetcar alignment through the French Quarter or along Rampart Street/St. Claude Avenue, or on a new alignment along the riverfront or following existing streets through the eastern portion of the Corridor. Based on public input received during scoping, variations of the above alternatives and other transportation- related improvement options, both transit and non-transit, will be considered for the Desire Corridor. IV. Probable Effects Issues and impacts to be considered during the study include potential changes to: The physical environment (air quality, noise, water quality, aesthetics, etc.); the social environment (land use, development, neighborhoods, etc.); parklands and historic resources; transportation system performance; capital operating and maintenance costs; financial resources available and financial impact on the RTA. The entire Corridor is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so potential impacts on standing structures and historic districts (i.e., noise, vibration, trees, etc.) will be important. Vehicular/ pedestrian circulation, parking and in- street operation of buses and streetcars are key considerations. Evaluation criteria will include consideration of the local goals and objectives established for the study, measures of effectiveness identified during scoping, and criteria established by FTA for ‘‘New Start’’ transit projects. Issued on: August 4, 1998. Blas M. Uribe, Deputy Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. 98–21185 Filed 8–6–98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–57–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration Potential Computer Problems Related to the Year 2000 (Y2K) AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin. RSPA is issuing an advisory bulletin to owners and operators of Hazardous Liquid and Natural Gas Pipelines. The bulletin advises the industry about the potential for Year 2000 (Y2K) computer- related problems. ADDRESSES: This document can be viewed on the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) home page at: http://ops.dot.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Little, (202) 366–4569. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Office of Pipeline Safety regulations do not require operators to automate their safety-related functions; however, many pipeline operators rely on computers for these needs. Some computer systems may fail in the Year 2000 because the programs, hardware, and data files may misread the digits ‘‘00’’ as 1900 rather than 2000. Until recently, the computer industry was not focused on the change in the millennium and the two extra digits required to show the change to the year 2000. The date fields for most computer programs were designed with six digits: two each for the year, month, and day; ‘‘19’’ was implied. In the Year 2000, some computers will record the year ‘‘00’’ and will interpret it as the year ‘‘1900.’’ Some hardware may also contain components that do not recognize the new millennium. These date calculations may be embedded in controllers that operate pipeline equipment. There is the possibility that a Year 2000 (Y2K) problem could cause this equipment to malfunction. In most cases, operators must evaluate their system-by-system operations to determine if there is a Y2K problem in their hardware or software. Most pipeline operators are aware of the potential for Y2K computer-related problems and have already taken steps to address the issue. II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–98–01 ) To: Owners and Operators of Hazardous Liquid and Natural Gas Pipelines Subject: Potential Failure of Computer Systems Controlling Pipeline Operations. Purpose: Inform system owners and operators of the need to evaluate their computer hardware and software for potential problems relating to Year 2000 (Y2K). Advisory: Recent information has identified a computer problem that may affect pipeline operations. Computers may interpret the date ‘‘2000’’ as 1900, which could result in the shutdown or interruption of any computer operated system. The Office of Pipeline Safety urges all pipeline owners and operators who have not already done so to address this issue because of the risk that it may interfere with their operations. The Office Of Pipeline Safety is working with the Oil and Gas Sector Workgroup of the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion to help assess Y2K readiness among the oil and gas industries and offer assistance by coordinating outreach activities, identifying points of contact within trade associations, and developing a forum for sharing information. Pipeline operators who have not implemented a plan for assessing their Y2K readiness should do so as soon as possible. Pipeline industry trade associations can offer assistance on this issue. The American Petroleum Institute (API), the Natural Gas Council (NGC), and the Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) have agreed to serve as umbrella organizations for the oil and gas sector; they will coordinate Y2K information for the industry and workgroup use. The President’s Council on Y2K has a web page at http://www.y2k.gov that provides an update on the Council’s activities and other useful information. The industry is encouraged to seek advice from and share information and practical solutions with the three umbrella organizations and the industry trade association representatives on the Oil and Gas Y2K Workgroup (listed below). Contact Roger Little with the Office of Pipeline Safety at (202)-366– 4569 or your state pipeline safety organization if you have questions regarding this advisory. Umbrella Organizations American Petroleum Institute, Kendra Martin, Phone: (202) 682–8517, Fax: (202) 962–4730, E-mail: MARTINK@API.ORG. Natural Gas Council, Skip Horvath, Phone: (202) 216–5920, Fax: (202)#

Attachment 1, passage 2Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 1998 / Notices 42479 216–0874, E-mail: SKIP.HORVATH@INGAA.ORG Gas Industry Standards Board, Rae McQuade, Phone: (713) 757–4175, Fax: (713) 757–2491, E-mail: GISB@AOL.COM. Industry Trade Associations Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, Terry Boss, (202) 216–5930 American Gas Association, Gary Gardner, (703) 841–8515 American Public Gas Association, Bob Cave, (703) 352–3890 Gas Processors Association, Johnny Dreyer, 918–493–7047 Association of Oil Pipe Lines, Michele Joy, Phone: (202) 408–7970 American Petroleum Institute, Kendra Martin, Phone: (202) 682–8517 State Pipeline Safety Organizations National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (Call Roger Little at (202) 366–4569 if you need the number of your state pipeline safety representative) National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), Sally Allbright, (202) 898–2200 Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 3, 1998. Richard B. Felder, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 98–21178 Filed 8–6–98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–60–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. MC–F–20929] Laidlaw, Inc., et al.—Control—Dave Transportation Services, et al.; Merger—Allegheny Valley Transit Inc. et al. AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. ACTION: Notice tentatively approving finance application. SUMMARY: Laidlaw, Inc. (Laidlaw or applicant), has filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 14303 to control 10 motor passenger carriers through direct or indirect stock ownership and to merge 21 motor passenger carriers into Laidlaw Transit, Inc. (Transit), a subsidiary of Laidlaw. Persons wishing to oppose the application must follow the rules at 49 CFR part 1182, subpart B. The Board has tentatively approved the transaction and, if no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action. DATES: Comments are due by September 21, 1998. Applicants may reply by October 6, 1998. If no comments are received by September 21, 1998, this notice will become effective on that date. ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10 copies of any comments referring to STB Docket No. MC–F–20929 to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423– 0001. In addition, send one copy of any comments to applicant’s representative: Mark J. Andrews, Barnes & Thornburg, Franklin Tower, Suite 500, 1401 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600 [TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 565– 1695.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Laidlaw, a publicly-held Canadian noncarrier, seeks authority to control 10 motor carrier subsidiaries through direct or indirect stock ownership and to merge 21 motor carriers into Transit. Apparently, the transactions have previously occurred, but the required authority had not been obtained from the Board or its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Laidlaw indicates that it is coming forward voluntarily to seek nunc pro tunc authorization for these transactions. Laidlaw initially contends that the transactions may not be subject to Board jurisdiction, claiming that the transactions will affect regulated passenger service only in form rather than substance. See Stone Container Corporation—Control Exemption— Southwest Forest Industries Inc., Finance Docket No. 30998 (ICC served Apr. 1, 1987). We disagree. Laidlaw’s principal business is motor carrier transit, and its acquisition of control and merger of motor carriers is precisely the sort of authority Congress desired to regulate by enacting 49 U.S.C. 14303. Eight of the motor carriers subsidiaries Laidlaw seeks authority to control are: (1) Dave Transportation Services, Inc. (Dave Transportation) (MC–144040), which is authorized to provide charter and special operations nationwide except in Hawaii; (2) Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. (Greyhound Canada) (MC– 304126), which is authorized to provide nationwide charter and special operations as well as limited regular- route service in Michigan, New York and Washington near U.S.-Canada border crossings;1 (3) Laidlaw Transit Ltd. (Limited) (MC–102189), which is authorized to provide nationwide charter and special operations as well as limited regular-route service in Michigan near a U.S.-Canada border crossing; (4) Roesch Lines, Inc. (Roesch) (MC–119843), which is authorized to provide nationwide charter and special operations and intrastate operations in California; (5) Safe Ride Services, Inc. (Safe Ride) (MC–246193), which is authorized to provide charter and special operations nationwide except in Alaska and Hawaii; (6) The DAVE Companies Inc. (DAVE) (no federal authority but holds intrastate authority in California and Minnesota);2 (7)Vancom Transportation—Illinois L.P. (Vancom) (MC–167816), which is authorized to provide charter and special operations nationwide except in Alaska and Hawaii; and (8) Willett Motor Coach Co. (Willett) (MC–16073), which is authorized to provide charter and special operations between the Chicago, IL area and 14 States and the District of Columbia. Transit, the ninth carrier subsidiary (MC–161299), holds nationwide charter and special operations authority as a result of a transaction authorized in Laidlaw Transit, Inc. et al.—Control and Merger Exemption—National School Bus Service, Inc, Charterways Transportation Limited, Enterprise Transit Corp., and MCS Interstate, Inc., STB Finance Docket No. 33007 (STB served Oct. 25, 1996). The tenth carrier subsidiary, Gray Line of Vancouver Holdings Limited (Gray Line), proposes to acquire operating authority in MC–94107 held by Pacific Northwest Bus Company, Ltd., authorizing nationwide charter and special operations and regular route service between Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and nearby U.S.- Canada border crossings. Applicant further seeks approval for the merger into Transit of the following motor carriers: (1) Allegheny Valley Transit, Inc. (MC–172080); (2) Blanchard Charter Service, Inc. (MC– 177427); (3) Cheshire Transportation Co. (MC–27518); (4) Hunt’s Bus Co., Inc. (MC–212740); (5) Jelco LaCrosse, Inc. (MC–165562); (6) Johnson’s Bus, Inc. (MC–153441); (7) Mark IV Charter Lines, Inc. (MC–141743); (8) Mobility, Inc. (MC–182217); (9) Palmer Motor Coach Service, Inc. (MC–106642); (10) Peaslee Transportation, Inc. (MC–167553); (11) Raleigh Transportation Services, Inc. (MC–165041) (Raleigh); (12) Strain’s Bus Co., Inc. (MC–148366) ; (13) Timberlane 1 Apparently, Greyhound Canada is not affiliated with Greyhound Lines, Inc. of Dallas, TX. 2 Laidlaw maintains that, even though this carrier holds only intrastate authority, control of this entity falls within the preemptive provisions of 49 U.S.C. 14303(f). The provisions of section 14303(f) apply to the extent Laidlaw’s control of DAVE is subject to our jurisdiction.#