[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45236-45241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21601]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010-AC75


Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf--Safety Measures and Procedures for Pipeline Modifications and 
Repairs

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed rule pertains to any pipeline modification or 
repair that involves cutting into a pipeline or opening a pipeline at a 
flange. It requires that all lessees, lease operators, and pipeline 
right-of-way holders submit in writing the measures they plan to take 
and the procedures they plan to follow to ensure the safety of offshore 
workers and to prevent pollution before beginning any repair. 
Eventually, all pipeline valves leak internally, and this poses a 
potential safety problem to offshore workers during pipeline 
modifications or repairs, because hydrocarbons and pressure 
differentials in pipelines can pose a significant hazard of fire and 
explosion.

DATES: MMS will consider all comments we receive by October 29, 2001. 
We will begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider 
comments we receive after October 29, 2001.

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 
(RPT). If you wish to e-mail comments, the RPT's e-mail address is: 
[email protected]. Reference 1010-AC75 Safety Measures in your e-
mail subject line. Include your name and return address in your e-mail 
message and mark your message for return receipt.
    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, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    MMS is authorized to issue and enforce rules to promote safe 
operations, environmental protection, and resource conservation on the 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). (The OCS 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 DOI or 
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulatory requirements. MMS also 
has sole authority to grant rights-of-way for OCS pipelines.
    Cutting into or opening an existing pipeline for purposes of 
modifying or repairing it are among the most hazardous operations 
involving offshore oil and gas production and transportation. The 
pipeline first must be properly purged of significant collections of 
hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and pressure. 
Moreover, measures must be taken to ensure that no gases or volatile 
fluids seep into the area that is to be repaired from areas in the 
pipeline that are under higher pressure.
    For example, a gas ``bubble'' in a pipeline on the seabed under 400 
feet of water may be fairly confined by the pressure exerted by 
hydrocarbons or water in the pipeline at that depth. If, however, that 
relatively limited bubble is allowed to circulate to a surface opening 
and work area where the pressure is decreased to ``one atmosphere,'' 
the bubble may quickly expand into a gas cloud that could drive 
additional gas or liquid hydrocarbons into the area and either 
asphyxiate or burn platform workers. Such an occurrence resulted in 
seven fatalities and the loss of the entire production platform at 
South Pass 60, Platform B, in March 1989. MMS's investigation report 
for this accident concluded that two contributing causes to the 
accident were ``the absence of detailed and coordinated planning for 
the project,'' and ``the absence of oversight over contractor 
activities.''
    Other multiple fatalities have occurred offshore when workers 
attempted either to cut into a pipeline or open a pig trap when they 
believed that combustible hydrocarbons or high pressure had been 
eliminated from the system. Such accidents occurred at Galveston Block 
189, Platform A in May 1970 (nine fatalities), and Main Pass 41, 
Platform B, in August 1995 (two fatalities).

[[Page 45237]]

    In the Main Pass Block 41 accident, two workers died when they 
attempted to blow down a 16-inch pipeline through its pig trap. They 
were instantly killed when they erroneously opened the pig trap door 
while it was under 1,000 pounds of pressure. Three years earlier, the 
senior worker had received a commendation in his performance appraisal 
for substantially reducing the time it takes to blow down a pipeline by 
using a pig trap. In the subsequent accident investigation hearing 
conducted by MMS, company workers said it was ``abnormal'' to blow down 
a pipeline using a pig trap, and the company Operations Supervisor said 
that it was an unacceptable method for blowing down a pipeline. 
Although the pipeline blow-down operation had been discussed at the 
daily morning meeting, there had been no agreed-upon or written 
procedure for conducting the operation.
    During late 2000, a diver was killed during a subsea pipeline 
repair because of negative pressure conditions in the pipeline 
engendered by attempts to de-pressurize the pipeline before repairs. 
Under sea-bottom conditions, the negative pressures created vacuum-like 
conditions in the pipeline relative to the outside environment. This 
accident emphasized that negative-pressure conditions in a pipeline can 
be as deadly as over-pressure conditions.

Internal Valve Leakage in Pipelines

    Early in 1998, the American Petroleum Institute (API) requested 
that MMS incorporate by reference into its regulations, at 30 CFR 
250.198, Supplements 1 and 2 to API Specification 6D (API Spec 6D), 
``Specification for Pipeline Valves (Gate, Plug, Ball, and Check 
Valves),'' Twenty-first Edition, March 31, 1994 . MMS regulations had 
incorporated API Spec 6D, but not its supplements.
    The API Subcommittee on Valves and Wellhead Equipment issued 
Supplements 1 and 2 to API Spec 6D on December 1, 1996, and December 1, 
1997, respectively. (Supplement 2 actually fully incorporates and 
expands upon Supplement 1.) For metal-to-metal seated valves, the 
Supplements changed from a ``no visible leakage'' standard to 
``allowable internal leakage rates'' according to valve size. Prior to 
API's issuing the supplements, API Spec 6D allowed no visible leakage 
from any valves.
    Valve leakage within pipelines poses a special safety concern. Once 
a pipeline system is purged of all contents and its valves closed, 
there is a danger that the system may become re-pressurized if the 
valves leak. Since all pipeline systems eventually are either cut into 
or opened at a flange for repair or modification purposes, internal 
valve leakage can have deadly consequences for unsuspecting workers. 
Also, acceptance of ``allowable leakage rates'' means that out-of-
service pipelines isolated by block valves are never completely shut 
down.
    MMS rejected Supplements 1 and 2 as documents incorporated by 
reference by issuing Notice to Lessees and Operators on the Outer 
Continental Shelf (NTL) No. 98-16N in October 1998. MMS needed more 
time to discuss the issues with API and to consider the ramifications 
of the ``allowable internal leakage'' standard for the OCS regulatory 
program. MMS reasoned:
    ``It may well be that the ``no visible leakage'' standard contained 
in the 21st and previous editions of API Spec 6D is an unreasonably 
high standard for metal-to-metal seats. Metal-to-metal seats are non-
deforming compared to non-metal-to-metal seats; therefore, it may be 
reasonable to expect that some leakage would occur between facing metal 
surfaces. Nevertheless, there appears to be no data or agreed-upon 
formula for predicting an acceptable leakage rate.''
    MMS made a concerted attempt with API to research this issue and 
held further discussions with industry. In February 1999, MMS proposed 
a research project on leakage rates to API. They surveyed their members 
on their perceptions of the ``allowable leakage rates'' and willingness 
to participate in the research project. Only 25 of 250 potential 
respondents replied. Their answers indicated that few valve suppliers 
believe that the ``no visible leakage'' standard is realistic, other 
than for special-purpose, non-off-the-shelf (i.e., expensive) valves. 
Support for new research was very limited.
    Industry representatives maintained that there are little formal 
data on leakage rates. They explained, however, that most 
correspondence on this subject focuses on leakage rates contained in 
International Standards Organization Standard 5208, Rate D. These rates 
are incorporated into Supplements 1 and 2. The API Spec 6D workgroup 
generally agreed that these leakage rates are reasonable and in line 
with their experience.
    Participants in the API Spec 6D workgroup almost unanimously agree 
that all pipeline valves leak significantly after they have been in 
service for a short time due to operational residue and abrasion. This 
indicates that initial leakage rates for new valves are usually 
irrelevant by the time a pipeline is in need of repair or placed out-
of-service. Therefore, measures in addition to ``closed valves'' are 
needed to protect workers and to ensure ``isolated pipelines'' during 
pipeline repairs.
    MMS's pipeline staff conferred on these issues in November 1999 and 
decided that rejecting the new allowable internal leakage rates would 
be unrealistic in light of what MMS had learned from its discussions 
with industry. Moreover, the maintenance of an unrealistic ``no visible 
leakage'' standard would not address the real regulatory dilemma that 
regardless of initial internal leakage rates, eventually all pipeline 
valves will leak internally.
    Therefore, the MMS workgroup recommended canceling NTL 98-16N and 
adopting Supplement 2 as a document incorporated by reference. On May 
1, 2000, MMS issued a technical amendment to its regulations adopting 
Supplement 2 to API Spec 6D as a document incorporated by reference. As 
of May 31, 2000, NTL No. 98-16N was cancelled.
    The MMS workgroup further reasoned that since internal leakage 
occurs in pipeline valves regardless of initial leakage rates, MMS must 
address this concern in its inspection and maintenance procedures. 
Therefore, the MMS workgroup also recommended the amendments to subpart 
J that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.

The Purpose of This Rule

    The proposed rule would require that all lessees, lease operators, 
and pipeline right-of-way holders consider and submit in writing the 
measures they plan to take and the procedures they plan to follow to 
ensure the safety of company or contract workers and to prevent 
pollution during pipeline modifications or repairs. These written 
measures and procedures would be required before beginning any pipeline 
modification or repair that involves cutting into a pipeline or opening 
a pipeline at a flange. Accidents involving pipeline modifications and 
repairs have the potential for fire or explosion resulting in 
fatalities, heavy equipment damage, and spills. This rulemaking is 
necessary to ensure the degree of safety necessary to protect pipeline 
workers and prevent pollution. The rule would amend 30 CFR Part 250, 
Subpart J--Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way by:
     Revising Section (Sec. ) 250.1000, paragraph (b);
     Adding a new definition to Sec. 250.1001;
     Redesignating current paragraph (c) under Sec. 250.1007 as 
paragraph (d);
     Adding a new paragraph (c) to Sec. 250.1007;

[[Page 45238]]

     Revising Sec. 250.1008, paragraph (e); and
     Revising Sec. 250.1014.
    If we can never be sure that a valve is holding its seal, then we 
have to assume that an ``isolated'' pipeline segment contains pressure, 
H2S, combustibles, or a combination of these conditions. 
Under some conditions, the segment could contain negative or vacuum 
pressure, which is also hazardous. We have to pay much closer attention 
to the work procedures and practices to prepare for modification or 
repair work on a pipeline. Accordingly, we have developed the following 
procedures that lessees, lease operators, and pipeline right-of-way 
holders would be required to implement to improve safety before and 
during pipeline modifications and repairs that would involve either 
cutting into a pipeline or opening the pipeline at a flange. In 
planning for any modifications or repairs for an existing pipeline 
segment, all lessees, lease operators, and pipeline right-of-way 
holders would be required to:
    (1) Consider the operating history of the pipeline segment to be 
modified or repaired, including past modifications or repairs and 
operating conditions peculiar to that segment;
    (2) Employ all reasonable measures to ensure that pressure in the 
pipeline segment is equal to the external pressure (internally, there 
should be neither over-pressure nor negative pressure relative to 
external pressure), and that they purge all combustibles from the 
segment immediately before conducting any work;
    (3) Develop procedures, first, to inform all facility workers (both 
company and contract workers) in advance concerning the nature of any 
upcoming modification or repair, and then to alert all facility workers 
immediately before any attempts to de-pressurize a pipeline and 
immediately before cutting into or opening any pipeline to perform the 
modification or repair;
    (4) Ensure that they maintain onsite supervision during the entire 
modification or repair; and
    (5) Provide procedures and safeguards to ensure that the segment 
remains isolated during the entire modification or repair so that 
facility workers (both company and contract) are not endangered by 
pressure differentials, H2S, or combustibles.
    We originally intended to write a requirement for out-of-service 
pipelines in this proposed rulemaking, but decided against it. However, 
we are proposing a definition for out-of-service pipelines, since 
subpart J currently does not have a criterion for declaring a pipeline 
out of service.

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 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 (Executive Order 12866)

    This is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 and does 
not require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    a. The proposed rule will not have an annual effect on the economy 
of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. The proposed rule will not create an 
adverse effect upon the ability of the United States offshore oil and 
gas industry to compete in the world marketplace, nor will the proposal 
adversely affect investment or employment factors locally. The economic 
effects of the rule would not be significant. They would add about $400 
to the cost of each pipeline modification or repair. This is not a 
large cost compared to the overall cost of a modification or repair, 
and it may reduce significantly the possibility of a fatal or 
environmentally damaging accident during the course of a repair. Direct 
costs to industry for the entire proposed rule total $80,000 annually. 
This is based on the approximately 25 applications we receive annually 
for pipeline modifications in both the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific OCS 
Regions. We also receive notifications of about 175 pipeline repairs 
annually for both Regions. All modifications and repairs add up to a 
total of 200 written procedures at an average cost of $400 each (200 
procedures  x  $400 per procedure = $80,000). This also constitutes the 
entire annual Paperwork Reduction Act burden costs for the proposed 
rule. The proposed rule will have a minor and perhaps indeterminate 
economic effect on the offshore oil and gas and transmission pipeline 
industries.
    b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. This rule does not change the relationships of the OCS oil and 
gas leasing program with other agencies' actions. These relationships 
are all encompassed in agreements and memoranda of understanding that 
will not change with this proposed rule. This rulemaking is being 
coordinated with the Office of Pipeline Safety under the DOT, according 
to the 1996 Memorandum of Understanding on OCS pipelines between the 
DOI and DOT.
    c. This rule will not affect entitlements, grants, loan programs, 
or the rights and obligations of their recipients. It is strictly a 
planning requirement to prevent accidents and environmental pollution 
on the OCS.
    d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. There is 
a precedent for actions of this type under regulations dealing with the 
OCS Lands Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Regulatory Flexibility (RF) 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 about 160 oil 
and gas producers and 88 pipeline companies. Of these operators, 80 
producers and 18 pipeline companies are considered to be ``small.'' Of 
the small producers to be affected by the proposed rule, almost all are 
represented by the North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code 211111 (crude petroleum and natural gas extraction). The 
small pipeline companies are represented primarily by NAICS codes 
486110 (crude petroleum pipelines) and 486210 (natural gas transmission 
pipelines).
    DOI's analysis of the economic impacts indicates that direct costs 
to both large and small companies for the entire rule total 
approximately $80,000 annually. The proposed rule will have a minor and 
perhaps indeterminate economic effect on any of the production or 
transportation pipeline operators on the OCS, regardless of

[[Page 45239]]

company size. This is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, 
operators choose to perform pipeline repairs or modifications on their 
own initiative, not because of an MMS safety inspection. The proposed 
rule would add relatively little to the cost of a pipeline repair. 
Thus, there would not be a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities under the RF Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The proposed 
rule would not cause the business practices of any of these companies 
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 businesses 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.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)

    This rule is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by 
the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The 
rule does not have a significant effect on energy supply, distribution, 
or use because in the overwhelming majority of cases, operators choose 
to perform pipeline repairs or modifications on their own initiative, 
not because of an MMS safety inspection. The proposed rule would add 
about $400 to the cost of each pipeline modification or repair. This is 
not a large cost compared to the overall cost of a modification or 
repair, and it may reduce significantly the possibility of a fatal or 
environmentally damaging accident during the course of a repair. MMS' 
analysis of the economic impacts indicates that direct costs to both 
large and small companies for the entire rule total approximately 
$80,000 annually. All modifications and repairs add up to a total of 
200 written procedures at an average cost of $400 each (200 procedures 
x  $400 per procedure = $80,000). This will not significantly affect 
domestic energy supply, distribution, or use.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. 
The proposed rule would add about $400 to the cost of each pipeline 
modification or repair, but this is not a large cost compared to the 
overall cost of a modification or repair. Moreover, it may reduce 
significantly the possibility of a fatal or environmentally damaging 
accident during the course of a repair. Such an accident could be 
economically disastrous for a small entity. Thus, the proposed rule 
will have a minor and perhaps indeterminate economic effect on the 
small offshore oil and gas operators and transmission pipeline 
companies. Based on our economic analysis:
    a. This rule 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 $80,000 
annually. The proposed rule will have a minor economic effect on the 
offshore oil and gas and transmission pipeline industries.
    b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. This rule does not have significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

    The proposed rule requires information collection, and an 
information collection request (form OMB 83-I) has been submitted to 
OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA. The title 
of this collection of information is ``Proposed Rulemaking--30 CFR 250, 
Subpart J, Safety Measures and Procedures for Pipeline Modifications 
and Repairs.'' Respondents include approximately 160 oil and gas 
producers and 88 pipeline companies. The frequency of reporting is on 
occasion. The information collection does not include questions of a 
sensitive nature or require proprietary information.
    This proposed rule requires reporting of the following information 
and estimated burden hours to protect the marine, coastal, and human 
environment to ensure safety and compliance with the OCS Lands Act:
    In Sec. 250.1007, new paragraph (c), each lessee, lessee's 
operator, or pipeline right-of-way holder would be required, for any 
pipeline modification or repair that involves either cutting into a 
pipeline or opening a pipeline at a flange, to provide to the MMS 
Regional Supervisor a written work plan with their application to do 
the work that addresses the specific measures they plan to take and the 
procedures they plan to follow to ensure the safety of offshore 
personnel and to prevent pollution. We estimate that about 200 such 
work plans would be submitted each year, with an estimated burden of 4 
hours per work plan, for a total annual burden of 800 hours.
    The total public reporting burden for this information collection 
requirement is estimated to be 800 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 $100 per hour, the annual paperwork burden would be 
$80,000.
    The requirement to respond is mandatory. The requirement is 
``performance-based'' in that the operator determines the safest and 
most environmentally sound method to perform a pipeline modification or 
repair. MMS uses the information to ensure that the operator has taken 
the time to think through the work procedure so that it is performed in 
a safe and environmentally sound way.
    All OCS lessees, lease operators, and pipeline rights-of-way 
holders under MMS jurisdiction are already 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 are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1010-0050. The 
proposed rule revises several sections that require information 
collection currently approved under 1010-0050. However, the revisions 
only restate current requirements and do not affect the currently 
approved burdens.
    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 the proposed rule. You may 
submit your comments directly to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Please send a copy of your comments to MMS so 
that we can summarize all written comments and address them in the 
final rule preamble. Refer to the ADDRESSES section for mailing 
instructions.
    The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. Until OMB approves the collection of information and 
assigns a control number, you are not required to respond. OMB is 
required to make its decision on the information collection aspects of 
this proposed rule between 30 to 60 days after publication in the 
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full

[[Page 45240]]

effect if OMB receives it by September 27, 2001. This does not affect 
the deadline for the public to comment to MMS on the proposed 
regulations.
    a. We specifically solicit comments on the following questions:
    (1) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for MMS to 
properly perform its functions, and will it be useful?
    (2) Are the estimates of the burden hours of the proposed 
collection reasonable?
    (3) Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality, 
clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?
    (4) Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated 
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology?
    b. In addition, the PRA requires agencies to estimate the total 
annual reporting and recordkeeping ``non-hour'' cost burden resulting 
from the collection of information. We have not identified any and 
solicit your comments on this item. For reporting and recordkeeping 
only, your response should split the cost estimate into two components: 
(1) The total capital and startup cost component, and (2) annual 
operation, maintenance, and purchase of services component. Your 
estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, and disclose 
or provide the information. You should describe the methods you use to 
estimate major cost factors, including system and technology 
acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount 
rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Generally, your 
estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: before 
October 1, 1995; to comply with requirements not associated with the 
information collection; for reasons other than to provide information 
or keep records for the Government; or as part of customary and usual 
business or private practice.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    According to Executive Order 13132, 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.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    DOI certifies that this rule does not represent a governmental 
action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property 
rights.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 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 
Executive Order 12988.

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 private sector. Anticipated costs to the private sector will be 
far below the $100 million threshold for any year that was established 
by UMRA.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

    We have analyzed this rule according to the criteria of NEPA and 
516 Departmental Manual 6, Appendix 10.4C, ``issuance and/or 
modification of regulations.'' We completed a Categorical Exclusion 
Review (CER) for this action on April 25, 2000, and concluded: ``The 
proposed rulemaking does not represent an exception to the established 
criteria for categorical exclusion, and its impacts are limited to 
administrative, economic, or technological effects. Therefore, 
preparation of an environmental document will not be required, and 
further documentation of this CER is not required.''

Clarity of This Regulation

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this proposed rule 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) 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, NW., Washington, DC 20240. 
You may also e-mail the comments to this address: [email protected]

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

    Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental 
protection, Government contracts, 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 16, 2001.
J. Steven Griles,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Minerals Management 
Service (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, the following changes are made:
    (A) Revise the title and paragraph (b) of the section to read as 
set forth below;
    (B) Paragraphs (c) through (e) are redesignated as paragraphs (d) 
through (f);
    (C) New paragraph (c) is added as set forth below.


Sec. 250.1000  What are the general requirements for pipelines and 
pipeline rights-of-way?

* * * * *
    (b) You--the lessee, lease operator, or pipeline right-of-way 
holder--must submit and obtain the Regional Supervisor's approval for 
an application before you may conduct any of the following operations:
    (1) Install a pipeline;
    (2) Modify a pipeline;
    (3) Cut into a pipeline or open a pipeline at a flange for purposes 
of modifying or repairing a pipeline; or
    (4) Decommission a pipeline.
    (c) For right-of-way pipelines (see Sec. 250.1001, Definitions) you 
must submit the applications required by paragraph (b) of this section 
and the requests required by this paragraph. You must obtain the 
Regional Supervisor's approval for each request. You must submit:

[[Page 45241]]

    (1) A request for a pipeline right-of-way grant before you install 
a right-of-way pipeline;
    (2) A request to modify an existing pipeline right-of-way grant 
before you conduct any operations that are not covered by the grant as 
approved; and
    (3) A request to relinquish an existing pipeline right-of-way grant 
before you decommission a right-of-way pipeline.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 250.1001, a definition of the term ``out-of-service 
pipeline'' is added in alphabetical order as follows:


Sec. 250.1001  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Out-of-service pipelines are those pipelines that have not been 
used to transport oil, natural gas, sulfur, or produced water for more 
than 30 consecutive days.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 250.1007, paragraph (c) is redesignated as paragraph 
(d); and a new paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 250.1007  What to include in applications.

* * * * *
    (c) If you submit an application for a pipeline modification or 
repair that involves cutting into a pipeline or opening a pipeline at a 
flange, you must include a written work plan with your application. 
Your written work plan must include a description of the specific 
measures you intend to take and the procedures you plan to follow to 
ensure the safety of offshore workers and to prevent pollution during 
the modification or repair. If you intend to repair a pipeline by 
installing a full encirclement mechanical clamp on the pipeline and do 
not intend to either cut into or open the pipeline at a flange, you do 
not have to submit a written work plan with your application. In 
writing a work plan, you must:
    (1) Consider the operating history of the pipeline segment you plan 
to modify or repair, including past modifications or repairs and 
operating conditions peculiar to the pipeline segment;
    (2) Develop all reasonable measures to ensure that pressure in the 
pipeline segment is equal to the external pressure (internally, there 
should be neither over-pressure nor negative pressure relative to 
external pressure);
    (3) Develop all reasonable measures to ensure that you purge all 
combustibles and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from the pipeline 
segment immediately before you conduct any work;
    (4) Develop procedures to inform all facility workers (both company 
and contract) in advance concerning significant aspects of the 
modification or repair;
    (5) Develop procedures to alert all facility workers immediately 
before you attempt to de-pressurize the pipeline and immediately before 
you cut into or open the pipeline to perform the modification or 
repair;
    (6) Maintain onsite supervision during the entire modification or 
repair; and
    (7) Develop procedures and safeguards to ensure that the pipeline 
segment remains isolated during the entire modification or repair so 
that facility workers (both company and contract) are not endangered by 
pressure differentials, H2S, or combustibles.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 250.1008, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 250.1008  Reports.

* * * * *
    (e) You must notify the Regional Supervisor within 24 hours after 
you decide that a pipeline repair is necessary, or immediately in cases 
of a pipeline failure. All such notifications must be made before you 
start the repair work. You must also submit a confirmation report of 
the repair of any pipeline or pipeline component to the Regional 
Supervisor within 30 days after you complete the work. Your 
confirmation report must include the following:
    (1) Description of the repair;
    (2) X-Y coordinates of the pipeline repair;
    (3) Confirmation of the damage to or failure of the pipeline as 
originally reported;
    (4) Confirmation that the repair was completed as approved by the 
Regional Supervisor; and
    (5) Results of the hydrostatic pressure test.
* * * * *
    6. Section 250.1014 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 250.1014  Relinquishment of a right-of-way grant.

    You may surrender a right-of-way grant or a portion thereof by 
filing three copies of a written relinquishment with the Regional 
Supervisor. Your relinquishment must contain those items required by 
Sec. 250.1007(d) of this subpart. Your relinquishment will take effect 
on the date you file it, provided that you have fulfilled all your 
obligations for outstanding debts, fees, or fines and the requirements 
in Sec. 250.1009(c)(9) of this subpart.

[FR Doc. 01-21601 Filed 8-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P