[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 [email protected].

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: 
E[email protected].

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