[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53298-53302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25498]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 250
RIN 1010-AC56
Producer-Operated Outer Continental Shelf Pipelines That Cross
Directly into State Waters
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would clarify some unresolved regulatory
issues involving the 1996 memorandum of understanding on Outer
Continental Shelf pipelines between the Departments of the Interior and
Transportation. It would primarily address producer-operated pipelines
that do not connect to a transporting operator's pipeline on the OCS
before crossing into State waters. It is complementary to the final
rule published on August 17, 1998, that addressed producer-operated oil
or gas pipelines that connect to transporting operators' pipelines on
the Outer Continental Shelf. The proposed rule also would set up
procedures for producer and transportation pipeline operators to get
permission to operate under either MMS or Department of Transportation
regulations governing pipeline design, construction, operation, and
maintenance according to their operating circumstances.
DATES: MMS will consider all comments we receive by November 30, 1999.
We will begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider
comments we receive after November 30, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the
Interior; Minerals Management Service; Mail Stop 4020; 381 Elden
Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817; Attention: Rules Processing Team.
Mail or hand-carry comments with respect to the information
collection burden of the proposed rule to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and Budget; Attention: Desk
Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB control number 1010-
NEW); 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl W. Anderson, Operations Analysis
Branch, at (703) 787-1608; e-mail carl.anderson@mms.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
MMS, through delegations from the Secretary of the Interior, has
authority to issue and enforce rules to promote safe operations,
environmental protection, and resource conservation on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). (The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) defines the OCS). Under this authority, MMS
regulates pipeline transportation of mineral production and rights-of-
way for pipelines and associated facilities. MMS approves all OCS
pipeline applications, regardless of whether a pipeline is built and
operated under Department of the Interior (DOI) or Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulatory requirements. MMS also has sole
authority to grant rights-of-way for OCS pipelines. MMS administers the
following laws as they relate to OCS pipelines:
(1) the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (FOGRMA)
for oil and gas production measurement, and
(2) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil
Pollution Act and implemented under Executive Order (E.O.) 12777.
(Under a February 3, 1994, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to better
define their responsibilities under the Oil Pollution Act, DOI, DOT,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency divided their
responsibilities for oil spill prevention and response according to the
definition of ``coastline'' in the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C.
1301(c) (59 FR 9494-9495).) Nothing in this rule will affect MMS's
authority under either FOGRMA or the Oil Pollution Act.
The May 6, 1976, Memorandum of Understanding
A May 6, 1976, MOU between DOI and DOT, MMS regulated oil and gas
pipelines located upstream of the ``outlet flange'' of each facility
where produced hydrocarbons were first separated, dehydrated, or
otherwise processed. A result of this arrangement was that downstream
(generally shoreward) of the first production platform where processing
takes place, DOT-regulated pipelines crossed MMS-regulated facilities.
Because of incompatible regulatory requirements, this arrangement was
not satisfactory for either agency.
The December 10, 1996, Memorandum of Understanding
In the summer of 1993, MMS and DOT's Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA) renewed their negotiations that resulted in the
MOU of December 1996. In May 1995, MMS and RSPA published a Federal
Register Notice proposing to revise the 1976 MOU and scheduling a
public meeting on the proposal (60 FR 27546-27552). Under the MOU, as
proposed in the joint notice:
The DOI area of responsibility will extend from producing wells
to 50 meters (164 feet) downstream from the base of the departing
pipeline riser on the last OCS production or processing facility. *
* * Additionally, DOI will have responsibility for the following
pipelines:
a. That portion of a pipeline otherwise subject to DOT
responsibility that crosses an OCS production or processing facility
from 50 meters upstream of the base of the incoming riser to 50
meters downstream of the base of the [departing] riser. * * *
Succeeding paragraphs described various other arrangements
involving the 50-meter regulatory boundary. The notice included an
illustrated appendix to assist readers in interpreting various
situations under which either DOI or DOT regulatory responsibility
would apply.
Commenters on the May 1995 notice found the proposed 50-meter
regulatory boundary to be unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, the
boundary was not tied to an identifiable valve or other device that
could isolate any pipeline segment under consideration. Second, the
boundary was submerged and inaccessible to both operators and the
regulatory agencies.
MMS and RSPA soon agreed to ask a joint industry workgroup
representing OCS oil and natural gas producers and transmission
pipeline operators to recommend a solution for defining regulatory
boundaries.
[[Page 53299]]
In May 1996, the joint industry workgroup, led by the American
Petroleum Institute (API), proposed that the agencies rely upon
individual operators of production and transportation facilities to
agree upon the boundaries of their facilities. This was based on the
reasoning that producers and transporters can best make these decisions
because of their knowledge of the operating characteristics peculiar to
each facility. MMS and RSPA agreed with the industry proposal.
Section I, ``Purpose,'' of the resulting MOU of December 10, 1996,
concludes: ``This MOU puts, to the greatest extent practicable, OCS
production pipelines under DOI responsibility and OCS transportation
pipelines under DOT responsibility.'' Thus, MMS will have primary
regulatory responsibility for producer-operated facilities and
pipelines on the OCS, while RSPA will have primary regulatory
responsibility for transporter-operated pipelines and associated
pumping or compressor facilities. Producing operators are companies
that extract and process hydrocarbons on the OCS. Transporting
operators are companies that transport those hydrocarbons from the OCS.
(There are about 130 designated operators of producer-operated
pipelines and 75 operators of transportation pipelines on the OCS.) MMS
and RSPA published the 1996 MOU in a Federal Register notice on
February 14, 1997 (62 FR 7037-7039).
The 1996 MOU redefines the DOI-DOT regulatory boundary from the OCS
facility where hydrocarbons are first separated, dehydrated, or
processed to the point at which operating responsibility for the
pipeline transfers from a producing operator to a transporting
operator. Although the MOU does not address the question of producer-
operated pipelines that cross the Federal/State boundary without first
connecting to a transportation pipeline, it states that the two
departments intend to put producer-operated pipelines under DOI
regulation and transporter-operated lines under DOT regulation.
Moreover, the MOU includes the flexibility to cover situations that do
not correspond to the general definition of the regulatory boundary as
``the point at which operating responsibility transfers from a
producing operator to a transporting operator.'' Paragraph 7 under
``Joint Responsibilities'' in the MOU provides: ``DOI and DOT may,
through their enforcement agencies and in consultation with the
affected parties, agree to exceptions to this MOU on a facility-by-
facility or area-by-area basis. Operators may also petition DOI and DOT
for exceptions to this MOU.''
The Purpose of This Rule
The rule would amend 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart J--Pipelines and
Pipeline Rights-of-Way, Sec. 250.1000, ``General Requirements,'' and
Sec. 250.1001, ``Definitions.'' It has three purposes:
1. To address questions about producer-operated pipelines that
cross the Federal/State boundary (the ``OCS/State boundary'') without
first connecting to a transporting operator's facility on the OCS.
2. To clarify the status of producer-operated pipelines connecting
production facilities on the OCS.
3. To set up a procedure that OCS operators can use to petition to
have their pipelines regulated as either DOI or DOT facilities.
We published our first Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to
implement the December 1996 MOU on October 2, 1997 (62 FR 51614-51618).
In response to the NPR, we received comments from Chevron U.S.A.
Production Company and Chevron Pipe Line Company. They stated that the
proposed rule did not appear to allow OCS producer-operated pipelines
to remain under DOT regulatory responsibility. This was because both
the 1996 MOU and the NPR:
1. Described boundaries in terms of points on pipelines where
operating responsibility transfers from a producing operator to a
transporting operator.
2. Did not address the producer-operated pipelines that cross the
OCS/State boundary into State waters without first connecting to a
transporter-operated facility.
3. Did not address producer lines that flow from wells in State
waters to production platforms on the Federal OCS.
Regulating Producer-Operated Pipelines
Valves are the principal means of isolating one segment of a
pipeline from another. Thus, a valve location is the best place to
establish a regulatory boundary for a pipeline that crosses two
jurisdictions. By contrast, a purely geographic boundary--such as the
OCS/State boundary--does not allow for the isolation of conditions from
one side of the boundary to the other and is therefore not as desirable
as a valve for establishing a regulatory boundary. Still, in many cases
it is unavoidable that a geographic boundary will serve as the
regulatory boundary.
Concerning producer-operated pipelines that cross into State waters
without first connecting to a transporting operator's facility, we have
determined for this proposal that pipeline segments upstream (generally
seaward) of the last valve on the last OCS production facility should
be operated under DOI regulatory responsibility. DOI's regulatory
responsibility would include the last valve on the last production
facility and any related safety equipment, such as pressure safety-high
and pressure safety-low (PSHL) sensors. Under this new interpretation,
DOT would have regulatory responsibility for the pipeline segments
shoreward of the last valve. For all of these downstream pipeline
segments, DOT would have authority to inspect upstream safety equipment
(including valves, over-pressure protection devices, cathodic
protection equipment, and pigging devices, etc.) that may serve to
protect the integrity of the DOT-regulated pipeline segments.
For any OCS pipeline segment that DOT has determined to be ``DOT
non-jurisdictional,'' the OCS portion of the pipeline would be subject
to MMS regulation, and the portion of the pipeline that lies in State
waters would be under State jurisdiction.
If a producer-operated pipeline has a subsea valve located on the
OCS and shoreward of the last OCS production facility, the operator may
choose that valve as the boundary between DOI and DOT regulatory
responsibility.
Under this proposed rule, producer pipelines upstream (generally
seaward) of the last valve on the OCS and any related safety equipment,
such as PSHL sensors, would be regulated under DOI (MMS) regulations
consistent with the MOU. Paragraph (c)(6) under Sec. 250.1000 in the
proposed rule addresses producer-operated pipelines that cross directly
into State waters without first connecting to a transporter-operated
pipeline.
Without this revision, all such pipelines would remain subject to
DOT regulations for design, construction, operation, and maintenance.
This includes about 35 producers in Gulf of Mexico (GOM) OCS waters and
10 producers in California OCS waters. This would be contrary to the
intent of the API-industry agreement and the MOU, which is for DOI to
regulate producer-operated pipelines and DOT to regulate transporter-
operated pipelines.
Several pipeline operators have expressed confusion because MMS and
RSPA did not apply the policies of the MOU to all pipelines in their
previous rulemakings. DOT-regulated pipelines are still crossing MMS-
regulated production facilities, causing regulatory and jurisdictional
confusion. (This
[[Page 53300]]
proposal will reduce but not eliminate these situations.) Currently,
about 215 of the approximately 375 pipelines crossing the Federal/State
boundary are not being regulated according to the intent of the MOU.
An important principle of the industry agreement leading to the MOU
was to allow, to the extent permissible, the operators to decide the
regulatory boundaries on or near their facilities. Therefore, under the
proposed rule, producer and transportation pipeline operators may
petition, in writing, the Regional Supervisor for permission to operate
under either MMS or DOT regulations governing pipeline design,
construction, operation, and maintenance according to the operating
characteristics of their pipelines. In considering these petitions, the
Regional Supervisor will consult with the Regional Director of RSPA's
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) and the affected parties. We have added
paragraph (c)(12) to Sec. 250.1000 to respond to the concerns raised by
Chevron. It would allow producing operators who have been operating
under DOT regulations to ask, in writing, the MMS Regional Supervisor
for permission to continue operating under DOT regulations governing
pipeline design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The Regional
Supervisor will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to grant the
operator's request.
Similarly, we have added paragraph (c)(13) to Sec. 250.1000 to
allow transportation pipeline operators to ask, in writing, the MMS
Regional Supervisor for permission to operate under MMS regulations
governing pipeline design, construction, operation, and maintenance. In
considering these petitions, the Regional Supervisor will consult with
the OPS Regional Director.
With further regard to the matter of producer-operated pipelines
that cross the Federal/State boundary without first connecting to a
transportation pipeline, we have revised the definition for ``DOI
pipelines'' recently added to Sec. 250.1001 in the final rule published
on August 17, 1998 (63 FR 43876-43881). We also have added a definition
for ``DOT pipelines.''
Procedural Matters
Public Comment
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we
would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as
allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
This is not a significant rule under E.O. 12866 and does not
require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). An
analysis of the rule indicates that the direct costs to industry for
the entire rule total approximately $167,000 for the first year, and
that for succeeding years, the maximum cost of the rule to industry in
any given year would not likely exceed $53,800.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
DOI has determined that this rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. While this
rule will affect a substantial number of small entities, the economic
effects of the rule will not be significant.
The regulated community for this proposal consists of 35 producer-
pipeline operators in the GOM and 8 producer-pipeline operators in the
Pacific OCS. Of these operators, 15 are considered to be ``small.'' Of
the small operators to be affected by the proposed rule, almost all are
represented by Standard Industrial Classification code 1311 (crude
petroleum and natural gas producers).
DOI's analysis of the economic impacts indicates that direct costs
to industry for the entire rule total approximately $167,000 for the
first year, and in succeeding years, the maximum cost of the rule to
industry in any given year would not likely exceed $53,800. These
annual costs would not persist for long, because all pipelines
converted to MMS regulation eventually would come into compliance with
MMS safety valve requirements. There are up to 150 designated operators
of leases and 75 operators of transportation pipelines on the OCS (both
large and small operators), and the economic impacts on the oil and gas
production and transportation companies directly affected will be
minor. Not all operators affected will be small businesses, but much of
their modification costs may be paid to offshore service contractors
who may be classified as small businesses. Perhaps two or three
operators may eventually be required to install new automatic shutdown
valves as a result of becoming subject to MMS regulation. These few
operators will sustain the greatest economic impact from this rule.
To the extent that this rule might eventually cause some of the
relatively larger OCS operators to make modifications to their
pipelines, it may have a minor beneficial effect of increasing demand
for the services and equipment of smaller service companies and
manufacturers. This rule will not impose any new restrictions on small
pipeline service companies or manufacturers, nor will it cause their
business practices to change.
Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were
established to receive comments from small business about Federal
agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the
enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS,
call toll-free (888) 734-3247.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA.
Based on our economic analysis, this rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. As indicated in our cost analysis, direct costs to industry for
the entire proposed rule total approximately $167,000 for the first
year. In succeeding years, the cost of the rule to industry would not
likely exceed $53,800 in any given year. The proposed rule will have a
minor economic effect on the offshore oil and gas and transmission
pipeline industries.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995
This rule does not contain any unfunded mandates to State, local,
or tribal governments, nor would it impose significant regulatory costs
on the
[[Page 53301]]
private sector. Anticipated costs to the private sector will be far
below the $100 million threshold for any year that was established by
UMRA.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
DOI certifies that this rule does not represent a governmental
action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property
rights.
Federalism (E.O. 12612)
As required by E.O. 12612, the rule does not have significant
Federalism effects. The proposed rule does not change the role or
responsibilities of Federal, State, and local governmental entities.
The rule does not relate to the structure and role of States and will
not have direct, substantive, or significant effects on States.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
DOI has certified to OMB that this regulation meets the applicable
civil justice reform standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
E.O. 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
This proposed rule involves information collection that we have
submitted to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burdens, MMS invites the public and other Federal agencies
to comment on any aspect of the reporting burden in this proposed rule.
Submit your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB; Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the
Interior (OMB control number 1010-New); Washington, D.C. 20503. Send a
copy of your comments to the Rules Processing Team; Mail Stop 4024; 381
Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817. You may obtain a copy of
the supporting statement for the collection of information by
contacting the Bureau's Information Collection Clearance Officer at
(202) 208-7744.
The Act provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has up to
60 days to approve or disapprove this collection of information but may
respond after 30 days from receipt of our request. Therefore, your
comments are best assured of being considered by OMB if OMB receives
them by November 1, 1999. However, MMS will consider all comments
received during the comment period for this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
The title of this collection of information is ``Further
Implementation of Memorandum of Understanding Between the Departments
of the Interior and Transportation.''
The following are new information collection activities in the
proposed rule and estimated burden hours:
(1) In Sec. 250.1000(c)(8), operators may request MMS recognize
valves landward of the last production facility but still located on
the OCS as the point where MMS regulatory authority begins. We estimate
possibly one, maybe two, such request(s) each year with an estimated
burden of one-half hour per request for a total annual burden of 1
hour.
(2) In Sec. 250.1000(c)(12), producing operators operating
pipelines under DOT regulatory authority may petition MMS to continue
to operate under DOT upstream of the last valve on the last production
facility. In the first year, nearly all producer-pipeline operators
would decide whether to automatically convert to DOI regulation or
apply to remain under DOT regulation. We estimate that not more than 10
one-time requests to remain under DOT regulation, with an estimated
average burden of 40 hours per request. Annualized over a 3-year
period, this would result in 135 annual burden hours. We anticipate
that in following years, not more than two operators a year would
petition to change their regulatory status.
(3) In Sec. 250.1000(c)(13), transportation pipeline operators
operating pipelines under DOT regulatory authority may also petition
OPS and MMS to operate under MMS regulations governing pipeline design,
construction, operation, and maintenance. Although we have allowed for
this possibility in the proposed rule, we expect these would be rare.
We estimate the burden would be 40 hours per request.
The total public reporting burden for this information collection
requirement is estimated to be 176 annual burden hours. This includes
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
and gathering the data. The proposed rule requires no recordkeeping
burdens. At $35 per hour, the annual paperwork ``hour'' burden would be
$6,160.
The requirement to respond is mandatory in some cases and required
to obtain or retain a benefit in others. MMS uses the information to
determine the demarcation where pipelines are subject to MMS design,
construction, operation, and maintenance requirements, as distinguished
from similar OPS requirements.
Converting to DOI regulation could also result in the installation
of as many as three automatic shutdown valves, either in the first year
or in subsequent years. In these instances, operators would be subject
to the regulatory and paperwork requirements in 30 CFR 250, subpart J,
on Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way. The information collection
requirements in this subpart have already been approved by OMB under
OMB control number 1010-0050.
We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them
in the final rule. All comments will become a matter of public record.
1. We specifically solicit comments on the following questions:
(a) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the
proper performance of MMS's functions, and will it be useful?
(b) Are the estimates of the burden hours of the proposed
collection reasonable?
(c) Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality,
clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?
(d) Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information
technology?
2. In addition, the PRA requires agencies to estimate the paperwork
``non-hour cost'' burden to respondents or record keepers resulting
from the collection of information. We have not identified any such
burdens in addition to the ``hour'' burden cost. We solicit your
comments if there are any that you do not consider as part of your
usual and customary business practices.
National Environmental Policy Act
Under 516 DM 6, Appendix 10.4, ``issuance and/or modification of
regulations'' is considered a categorically excluded action causing no
significant effects on the environment and, therefore, does not require
preparation of an environmental assessment or impact statement. DOI
completed a Categorical Exclusion Review (CER) for this action on March
26, 1999, and concluded: ``The proposed rulemaking does not represent
an exception to the established criteria for categorical exclusion.
Therefore, preparation of an environmental document will not be
required, and further documentation of this CER is not required.''
Clarity of this regulation
E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy
to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed
rule
[[Page 53302]]
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the
following:
(1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
(2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
interfere with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into
more (but shorter) sections?
(5) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary
Information'' section of this preamble helpful in understanding the
rule? What else can we do to make the rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address:
Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250
Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental
protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference,
Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas development and
production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Penalties,
Pipelines, Public lands--mineral resources, Public lands--rights-of-
way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur development and
production, Sulphur exploration, Surety bonds.
Dated: September 21, 1999.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the MMS proposes to amend
30 CFR part 250 as follows:
PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331, et seq.
2. In Sec. 250.1000, paragraphs (c)(6) through (c)(13) are added as
follows:
Sec. 250.1000 General requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) Any producer operating a pipeline that crosses into State
waters without first connecting to a transporting operator's pipeline
on the OCS must comply with this subpart. Compliance must extend from
the point where hydrocarbons are first produced, through and including
the last valve and associated safety equipment (e.g., pressure safety
sensors) on the last production facility on the OCS.
(7) Any producer operating a pipeline that connects facilities on
the OCS must comply with this subpart.
(8) Any operator of a pipeline that has a valve on the OCS
downstream (generally landward) of the last production facility may ask
in writing that the MMS Regional Supervisor recognize that valve as the
point to which MMS will exercise its regulatory authority.
(9) A producer pipeline segment is not subject to MMS regulations
for design, construction, operation, and maintenance if:
(i) It is downstream (generally shoreward) of the last valve and
associated safety equipment on the last production facility on the OCS;
and
(ii) It is subject to regulation under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195.
(10) DOT may inspect all upstream safety equipment (including
valves, over-pressure protection devices, cathodic protection
equipment, and pigging devices, etc.) that serve to protect the
integrity of DOT-regulated pipeline segments.
(11) OCS pipeline segments not subject to DOT regulation under 49
CFR parts 192 and 195 are subject to all MMS regulations.
(12) A producer may request that its pipeline operate under DOT
regulations governing pipeline design, construction, operation, and
maintenance.
(i) The operator's request must be in the form of a written
petition to the MMS Regional Supervisor that states the justification
for the pipeline to operate under DOT regulation.
(ii) The Regional Supervisor will decide, on a case-by-case basis,
whether to grant the operator's request. In considering each petition,
the Regional Supervisor will consult with the Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) Regional Director.
(13) A transporter who operates a pipeline regulated by DOT may
request to operate under MMS regulations governing pipeline design,
construction, operation, and maintenance.
(i) The operator's request must be in the form a written petition
to the OPS Regional Director and the MMS Regional Supervisor.
(ii) The MMS Regional Supervisor and the OPS Regional Director will
decide how to act on this petition.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 250.1001, the definition for the term ``DOI pipelines''
is revised and the definitions for the terms ``DOT pipelines,'' and
``Production facility'' are added in alphabetical order as follows:
Sec. 250.1001 Definitions.
* * * * *
DOI pipelines include:
(1) Producer-operated pipelines extending upstream (generally
seaward) from each point on the OCS at which operating responsibility
transfers from a producing operator to a transporting operator;
(2) Producer-operated pipelines extending upstream (generally
seaward) of the last valve (including associated safety equipment) on
the last production facility on the OCS that do not connect to a
transporter-operated pipeline on the OCS before crossing into State
waters;
(3) Producer-operated pipelines connecting production facilities on
the OCS;
(4) Transporter-operated pipelines that DOI and DOT have agreed are
to be regulated as DOI pipelines; and
(5) All OCS pipelines not subject to regulation under 49 CFR parts
192 and 195.
DOT pipelines include:
(1) Transporter-operated pipelines under DOT requirements governing
design, construction, maintenance, and operation; or
(2) Producer-operated pipelines that DOI and DOT have agreed are to
be regulated under DOT requirements governing design, construction,
maintenance, and operation.
* * * * *
Production facilities means OCS facilities that receive hydrocarbon
production either directly from wells or from other facilities that
produce hydrocarbons from wells. They may include processing equipment
for treating the production or separating it into its various liquid
and gaseous components before transporting it to shore.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-25498 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
