[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43876-43881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21945]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010-AC39


Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf; Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule implements a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) regarding joint regulation of Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS) pipelines. MMS regulations will apply to all OCS oil or gas 
pipelines located upstream of the points at which operating 
responsibility for the pipelines transfers from a producing operator to 
a transporting operator. This rule requires OCS producers and 
transporters to designate the transfer point.

DATES: Effective October 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl W. Anderson, Operations Analysis 
Branch, at (703) 787-1608; e-mail Carl.A[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MMS, through delegations from the Secretary 
of the Interior, has authority to promulgate and enforce regulations 
that promote safe operations, environmental protection, and 
conservation of the natural resources of the OCS, as that area is 
defined in the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.). This authority 
includes the pipeline transportation of mineral production and the 
approval and granting of rights-of-way for the construction of 
pipelines and associated facilities on the OCS. Thus, whether a 
pipeline is built and operated under DOI or DOT regulatory 
requirements, MMS, as the Federal land management agency, reviews and 
approves all OCS pipeline right-of-way applications. MMS also 
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 of 1990 (OPA) and implemented 
under Executive Order 12777. (Under a February 3, 1994, MOU to 
implement OPA, DOI, DOT, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
divided their respective responsibilities for oil spill prevention and 
response

[[Page 43877]]

according to the definition of ``coast line'' contained in the 
Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301(c) (59 FR 9494-9495)). Nothing in 
this regulation will affect MMS' authority under either FOGRMA or OPA.
    Under an MOU between DOI and DOT dated May 6, 1976, MMS regulated 
oil and gas pipelines located upstream of the outlet flange of each 
facility where hydrocarbons were first produced or where produced 
hydrocarbons were first separated, dehydrated, or otherwise processed, 
whichever facility was farther upstream. The December 10, 1996, MOU 
redefined the DOI-DOT regulatory boundary from the OCS facility where 
hydrocarbons are first produced, separated, dehydrated, or otherwise 
processed to the point at which operating responsibility for the 
pipeline transfers from a producing operator to a transporting 
operator. (The MOU includes the flexibility to cover situations that do 
not correspond to this general definition of the regulatory boundary.) 
The MOU places, to the greatest extent practical, producer-operated 
pipelines under DOI regulation and transporter-operated pipelines under 
DOT regulation.
    The 1996 MOU was the result of negotiations that began in the 
summer of 1993 and included a high degree of participation from the 
regulated industry. In May 1996, MMS and DOT's Research and Special 
Programs Administration (RSPA) met with a joint industry workgroup 
representing OCS oil and natural gas producers and transmission 
pipeline operators led by the American Petroleum Institute. (The 
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America also participated on the 
workgroup.) The workgroup proposed that the agencies rely upon 
individual operators of production and transportation facilities to 
identify the boundaries of their respective facilities, since producers 
and transporters can best make such decisions based on the operating 
characteristics peculiar to each facility. The two agencies agreed with 
the industry proposal. Under the industry proposal, MMS would have 
primary regulatory responsibility for producer-operated facilities and 
pipelines on the OCS, while RSPA would have primary regulatory 
responsibility for transporter-operated pipelines and associated 
pumping or compressor facilities. Producing operators are companies 
which are engaged in the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons on 
the OCS. Transporting operators are companies which are engaged in the 
transportation of those hydrocarbons.
    Additional goals of the 1996 MOU are to develop compatible 
regulatory requirements for all OCS pipelines whether under DOI or DOT 
regulation and to provide for DOI to act as an agent for the DOT in 
identifying and reporting potential violations of DOT regulations at 
platforms on the OCS. As an agent, DOI may inspect all DOT-regulated 
pipeline facilities on production platforms during DOI inspections. 
(DOT-regulated pipeline facilities are those pipeline facilities that 
have not been exempted from DOT regulations under 49 CFR parts 192 and 
195.) DOI may also perform coordinated DOI/DOT inspections of pipeline 
facilities on DOT-regulated platforms. The inspections may include 
reviewing any operating or maintenance records or reports that are 
located at the inspected OCS platform facility.

The Purpose of This Rule

    The purpose of this rule is to implement the new MOU by requiring 
OCS producing and transporting operators to designate the specific 
points on their pipelines where operating responsibility transfers from 
a producing operator to an adjoining transporting operator. The rule 
amends 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart J--Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-
Way, Sec. 250.1000, ``General Requirements,'' Sec. 250.1001, 
``Definitions,'' and Sec. 250.1007, ``Applications.'' Operators have up 
to 60 days after the date the rule is published to identify the 
specific points at which operating responsibility transfers. In most 
cases, the specific transfer points are easily identifiable either 
because of specific valves or flanges where the adjoining operations 
connect, or because of differences in paint colors that adjoining 
operators use to protect and maintain pipeline coatings or surfaces. 
For those instances in which the transfer points are not identifiable 
by a durable marking, each operator has up to 240 days after the date 
the rule is published to mark the transfer points. (The 240-day period 
gives operators time to mark the transfer points during customary 
maintenance routines.) For pipelines that go into service after that 
date, the transfer points must be identifiable on the date service 
begins.
    The operator must durably mark each transfer point directly on the 
pipeline (usually at a valve or flange). If it is not practicable to 
durably mark a transfer point, and the transfer point is located above 
water, then the operator must depict the transfer point on a schematic 
located on the facility. Some transfer points may be located subsea. In 
such cases, the operators also must identify the transfer points on 
schematics which can be provided to MMS upon request.
    For those instances in which adjoining operators cannot agree on a 
transfer point, MMS and RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) will 
make a joint determination of the boundary.
    MMS and OPS will, through their enforcement agencies and in 
consultation with the affected parties, agree to exceptions to the 
general boundary description (operations transfer point) on a facility-
by-facility or area-by-area basis. Operators also may petition, by 
letter, MMS and OPS for exceptions to the general boundary description. 
In considering all such petitions, the Regional Supervisor will consult 
with the OPS Regional Director and the affected parties.
    For existing lease term pipelines, the current designated operator 
or lessee(s) of the associated lease(s) will have operating 
responsibility for the pipeline(s). For right-of-way pipelines, MMS 
will assume that the current right-of-way grant holder has operating 
responsibility, unless the right-of-way grant holder informs MMS 
otherwise within 90 days after the date this rule is published. (There 
are about 130 designated operators of lease term pipelines and 75 
operators of transportation pipelines on the OCS.)
    Applications for new right-of-way pipelines are required to include 
an identification of the operator and a boundary demarcation point on 
the flow schematic submitted in accordance with 30 CFR 250.1007(a)(2).
    A pipeline segment originally operated under DOT regulations but 
transferred under MMS regulatory responsibility as of the effective 
date of this rule may continue to be operated under DOT design and 
construction requirements, until a significant modification or repair 
is made to the segment. When the pipeline segment undergoes a 
significant repair or modification, MMS regulatory requirements 
concerning design and construction will also be applied to that 
segment.

Discussion and Analysis of Comments

    MMS received four comments on the Notice of Proposed Rule (NPR). 
The commenters were the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron U.S.A. 
Production Company, Chevron Pipe Line Company, and the Offshore 
Operator's Committee (OOC). The American Petroleum Institute led the 
joint industry work group that developed the proposal that resulted in 
the December 1996 MOU on OCS pipelines between DOI and DOT;

[[Page 43878]]

consequently, they were supportive of the proposed rule in its 
entirety.
    The other commenters raised technical issues concerning the 
applicability of the rule to producer-operated pipelines that either 
(1) cross into State waters without first connecting to a transporting 
operator's facility on the OCS, as described in the current MOU, or (2) 
were previously subject to DOT regulation under terms of the former 
1976 MOU between DOI and DOT.
    Both Chevron U.S.A. Production Company and Chevron Pipe Line 
Company observed that the proposed regulation did not appear to allow 
OCS producer-operated pipelines to remain under DOT regulatory 
responsibility. This arises from the way in which regulatory boundaries 
in both the 1996 MOU and the proposed rule are described in terms of 
specific points on pipelines where operating responsibility transfers 
from a producing operator to an adjoining transporting operator. 
However, there is no such transfer point on certain producer pipelines 
that cross the OCS/State boundary into State waters without first 
connecting to a transporter-operated facility. Indeed, there are some 
producer lines that flow from wells located in State waters to 
production platforms located on the Federal OCS. Regardless of the 
direction of flow, producer pipelines that cross the OCS/State boundary 
are always subject to DOT regulation on the portions of the lines 
located in State waters. The two Chevron companies pointed out the 
potential for ``dual regulation'' with respect to these lines and 
recommended that the operators of these lines be able to choose that 
the entire pipeline remain under DOT regulation.
    The Chevron comments demonstrate that implementation of the MOU is 
not complete with this rulemaking.
    First, the ``Purpose'' section of the 1996 MOU concludes: ``This 
MOU puts, to the greatest extent practicable, OCS production pipelines 
under DOI responsibility and OCS transportation pipelines under DOT 
responsibility.'' This was based on two assumptions--that production 
pipeline operators generally would prefer to operate under MMS 
regulations, and that transportation pipeline operators generally would 
prefer to operate under RSPA regulations. Although these were the 
primary assumptions underlying the MOU, we recognize that we did not 
fully address all pipeline scenarios when we published the NPR of 
October 2, 1997. The NPR would have required OCS producing and 
transporting operators to designate the specific points on their 
pipelines where operating responsibility transfers from a producing 
operator to an adjoining transporting operator. However, the NPR did 
not adequately address the possibility that a pipeline may cross the 
Federal/State boundary before the transfer point. In that event, once 
in the State waters, MMS no longer could regulate the pipeline. This 
would be the case even if the production pipeline operator still were 
the operator. Because of this limitation, we are preparing a new NPR 
that will address regulatory questions concerning producer-operated 
pipelines that cross the Federal/State boundary without first 
connecting to a transporter-operated facility.
    Second, we recognize that an important principle of the industry 
agreement leading to the 1996 MOU was to allow, to the extent 
permissible, the producing or transporting operators to decide the 
regulatory boundaries on or near their facilities. The MOU provides the 
necessary flexibility to accommodate the concerns of these operators. 
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.'' In our October 2, 1997, NPR 
we did not state the regulatory language in broad enough terms to 
consider operator petitions concerning issues other than the 
appropriateness of the transfer point serving as the regulatory 
boundary. Therefore, in the forthcoming NPR we will address other 
petition matters. These matters would include petitions from operators 
of production pipelines who wish to be regulated under RSPA regulations 
and petitions from operators of transportation pipelines who wish to be 
regulated under MMS regulations.
    Three commenters were concerned about pipeline throughput for 
pipeline segments transferring from DOT to MMS responsibility because 
of differences in approved pipeline Maximum Allowable Operating 
Pressure (MAOP) and safety device pressure settings for the segments. 
Chevron Pipe Line Company noted: ``There will be cases where, moving 
from DOT regulations to MMS regulations may cause undue hardship, e.g., 
for pipelines operating under MMS requirements for high pressure 
shutdown settings (15% above normal operating pressure range) and not 
DOT (10% above MAOP) may involve throughput reduction to meet MMS 
requirements. This change may appear to be minor, but decreasing 
throughput capacity will be a major economic impact to the operators.'' 
Chevron U.S.A. Production Company offered a similar comment.
    We believe that there will not be a significant impact on pipeline 
throughput, since DOT as well as MMS allows lines to operate up to, but 
not higher than, the pipeline MAOP. If the normal pressure operating 
range allows, the primary over-pressure protection may be set at the 
pipeline MAOP and, when required, secondary protection may be set up to 
10 percent above the MAOP. This secondary protection setting will 
require specific approval on a case-by-case basis.
    Even if there were a reduction of throughput, the MMS provision to 
set over-pressure protection 15 percent above normal operating pressure 
is needed to shut in the source in case of an abnormal condition which 
may cause an emergency at an incoming facility. For example, a line 
with an MAOP of 2,160 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and with a 
normal high pressure operating range of 1,000 psig would require an 
over-pressure protection setting of 1,150 psig to effectively shut-in 
the source. However, if we used only DOT criteria, an over-pressure 
protection setting of 2,376 psig (10 percent above MAOP) would be 
allowed. That would not allow the orderly shut in of the source and may 
further compromise the safety of the facility.
    The OOC addressed this concern in terms of the hydrotest 
information that is used to establish MAOP for a pipeline. They 
expressed concern that pipelines transferring from DOT to DOI 
regulations would have to be re-hydrotested. They recommended that, for 
any pipeline segments transferring from DOT to MMS regulations after 
the effective date of the rule, MMS operational and maintenance 
requirements be applied, ``including MAOP determination based on 
existing hydrotest information.'' This provision, if adopted, may 
result in a higher MAOP for some gas pipelines since they are tested to 
1.5 x MAOP vs 1.25 x MAOP as per MMS regulations. For example, a test 
pressure of 3,240 psig divided by 1.5 will result in an MAOP of 2,160 
psig; but dividing 3,240 psig by 1.25 will result in an MAOP of 2,592 
psig.
    Because hydrotest information for any transferring line segment may 
be at least several years old, it would not be prudent for MMS to make 
a blanket acceptance of existing hydrotest information to increase the 
MAOP for segments that transfer to MMS regulations. Furthermore, the 
MAOP for the lines may be limited by the pipe,

[[Page 43879]]

valves, flanges, or connecting pipeline. MMS will accept the MAOP for 
the transferring segments as assigned according to DOT regulations, 
pending the results of a public review process to accomplish 
compatibility between DOI and DOT regulations.
    Under existing 30 CFR 250.1003, the MMS Regional Supervisor may 
approve alternative techniques, procedures, equipment, or activities 
proposed by the operator, if such measures afford a degree of 
protection, safety, or performance equal to or better than that 
intended to be achieved by MMS regulations. Thus, operators of 
pipelines transferring to MMS regulations after the effective date of 
this rule may submit to the Regional Supervisor applications to 
establish new MAOP and safety device pressure settings that affect the 
throughput of transferring pipelines.
    Section 250.1000, paragraph (c)(5), of the proposed rule specified 
that ``Pipeline segments designed and constructed under DOT regulations 
before [INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], may continue to 
operate under DOT design and construction requirements until 
significant modifications or repairs are made to those segments.'' The 
OOC requested that this requirement be modified to read, ``Pipeline 
segments designed and constructed under DOT regulations before [INSERT 
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], may continue to be modified and 
repaired in accordance with the DOT design and construction 
requirements.'' The OOC maintained that ``Pipeline segments constructed 
under DOT regulations are operating in a safe manner now. New 
modifications to the segments should match the design and construction 
requirements (the DOT design and construction regulations) for which 
the original segment was built. This avoids having two design and 
construction requirements for the same pipeline segment.''
    We have not made this change because the language in the proposal 
we published is clear that ``Pipeline segments designed and constructed 
under DOT regulations before (the effective date of the final rule), 
may continue to operate under DOT design and construction requirements 
until significant modifications or repairs are made to those 
segments.'' We have retained this language in the final rule. Moreover, 
the MOU's intent is that all pipelines operating under MMS regulatory 
authority eventually will have to conform to MMS design and 
construction requirements.

Procedural Matters

Federalism (Executive Order (E.O.) 12612)

    In accordance with E.O. 12612, the rule does not have significant 
Federalism implications. A Federalism assessment is not required.

Takings Implications Assessment (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, the rule does not have significant 
Takings Implications. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    This document is not a significant rule and is not subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.
    (1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on 
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities. An analysis of the rule indicates that the direct costs to 
industry for the entire rule total approximately $360,000 for the first 
year, and that in succeeding years, the cost of the rule to industry 
would not likely exceed $255,000.
    (2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
    (3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects or entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of 
their recipients.
    (4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system 
and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement 
under the NEPA of 1969 is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

    As part of the NPR process, OMB approved the proposed collection of 
information under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned OMB 
control number (1010-0108). MMS did not receive any comments on the 
information collection aspects in the NPR. The final rule does not 
change any of the information collection requirements. The PRA 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 current 
valid OMB control number.
    The collection of information for this rule consists of: (1) 
Reviewing existing pipeline maps, conferring and agreeing with 
operators of adjoining transportation pipeline segments concerning the 
locations of specific transfer points, and either marking directly on 
each pipeline or depicting on a schematic the specific point on each 
pipeline where operating responsibility transfers from the producing 
operator to a transporting operator; (2) identifying the operator of 
right-of-way pipelines if different from the grant holder; and (3) 
allowing for petitions for exceptions to general operations transfer 
points. As stated under the section, ``The Purpose of this Rule'', 
specific transfer points will be easily identifiable in most cases, 
either because of specific valves or flanges where the adjoining 
operations connect, or because of differences in paint that adjoining 
operators use to protect and maintain pipeline coatings or surfaces.
    The requirement to respond is mandatory. 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.
    The regulated community consists of up to 160 Federal OCS oil and 
gas lease designated operators and 70 transportation pipeline 
operators. There are approximately 3,000 points where operating 
responsibility for pipelines transfers from a producer to a 
transporter. MMS assumes that about 2,400 (representing 80 percent) of 
these transfer points are already marked. Therefore, this rule would 
require a one-time identification and marking of about 600 points where 
operating responsibility for pipelines transfers from a producer to a 
transporter. For the 2,400 transfer points that are clearly marked, 
there would be no information burden. The 600 unmarked transfer points, 
on the other hand, would require widely-varying times for marking 
depending on whether a painted line or a schematic was used to mark the 
transfer point.
    The public reporting burden for this information collection 
requirement is estimated to average 5 hours per response. This includes 
the time for

[[Page 43880]]

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing the required marking. The 
average annualized burden over a 3-year period would be 1,051 hours.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department certifies that this document will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). While this 
rule will affect a substantial number of ``small entities,'' the 
economic effects of the rule will not be significant. There are many 
companies on the OCS that are ``small businesses'' as defined by the 
Small Business Administration. However, the technology necessary for 
conducting offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities 
is very complex and costly. Most entities that engage in offshore 
activities have considerable financial resources and numbers of 
employees well beyond what would normally be considered ``small 
business.''
    DOI's analysis of the economic impacts indicate that direct costs 
to industry for the entire rule total approximately $360,000 for the 
first year, and in succeeding years, the cost of the rule to industry 
would not likely exceed $255,000 annually. These annual costs would not 
persist for long, because relatively few producer pipelines are not 
already in compliance with MMS safety valve requirements, due to their 
adherence to API standards. There are up to 130 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. The few operators having to 
install new automatic shutdown valves as a result of transferring to 
MMS regulation will sustain the greatest economic impact from this 
rule. It is impractical, however, to determine in advance which 
operators would be so affected, because the operators themselves will 
determine the transfer points between MMS regulated producer lines and 
DOT regulated transporter lines.
    To the extent that this rule might eventually cause some of the 
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)), SBREFA. 
This rule:
    (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more.
    (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 ability of U.S.-
based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

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: August 6, 1998.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Minerals Management Service 
(MMS) amends 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, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 250.1000  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) Department of the Interior (DOI) pipelines, as defined in 
Sec. 250.1001, must meet the requirements in Secs. 250.1000 through 
250.1008.
    (2) A pipeline right-of-way grant holder must identify in writing 
to the Regional Supervisor the operator of any pipeline located on its 
right-of-way, if the operator is different from the right-of-way grant 
holder.
    (3) A producing operator must identify for its own records, on all 
existing pipelines located on its lease or right-of-way, the specific 
points at which operating responsibility transfers to a transporting 
operator.
    (i) Each producing operator must, if practical, durably mark all of 
its above-water transfer points by April 14, 1999 or the date a 
pipeline begins service, whichever is later.
    (ii) If it is not practical to durably mark a transfer point, and 
the transfer point is located above water, then the operator must 
identify the transfer point on a schematic located on the facility.
    (iii) If a transfer point is located below water, then the operator 
must identify the transfer point on a schematic and provide the 
schematic to MMS upon request.
    (iv) If adjoining producing and transporting operators cannot agree 
on a transfer point by April 14, 1999, the MMS Regional Supervisor and 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 
Regional Director may jointly determine the transfer point.
    (4) The transfer point serves as a regulatory boundary. An operator 
may write to the MMS Regional Supervisor to request an exception to 
this requirement for an individual facility or area. The Regional 
Supervisor, in consultation with the OPS Regional Director and affected 
parties, may grant the request.

[[Page 43881]]

    (5) Pipeline segments designed, constructed, maintained, and 
operated under DOT regulations but transferring to DOI regulation as of 
October 16, 1998, may continue to operate under DOT design and 
construction requirements until significant modifications or repairs 
are made to those segments. After October 16, 1998, MMS operational and 
maintenance requirements will apply to those segments.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 250.1001, a definition of the term ``DOI pipelines'' is 
added in alphabetical order as follows:


Sec. 250.1001  Definitions.

* * * * *
    DOI pipeline refers to a pipeline extending upstream from a point 
on the OCS where operating responsibility transfers from a producing 
operator to a transporting operator.
* * * * *
    4. Section 250.1007 is amended by revising the heading, revising 
paragraph (a) introductory text, and adding a new sentence at the end 
of paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 250.1007  What to include in applications.

    (a) Applications to install a lease term pipeline or for a pipeline 
right-of-way grant must be submitted in quadruplicate to the Regional 
Supervisor. Right-of-way grant applications must include an 
identification of the operator of the pipeline. Each application must 
include the following:
* * * * *
    (2) * * * The schematic must indicate the point on the OCS at which 
operating responsibility transfers between a producing operator and a 
transporting operator.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-21945 Filed 8-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P