RegulusPipeline research63 FR 12659
Passage 1[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 1998)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 12659-12660] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 98-6629] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Research and Special Programs Administration [Docket No. RSPA 97-2096; Amdt. 191-12; 192-81; 195-59] RIN 2137-AC99 Pipeline Safety: Regulations Implementing Memorandum of Understanding With the Department of the Interior AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Confirmation of effective date of direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule that excluded from DOT safety regulations producer-operated gas and hazardous liquid pipelines located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) upstream from where operating responsibility transfers to a transporting operator. Also, in response to comments from interested persons, RSPA has clarified the applicability of the direct final rule. DATES: The effective date of the direct final rule published November 19, 1997, at 62 FR 61692 is confirmed to be March 19, 1998. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.E. Herrick at (202) 366-5523, or at [email protected].#
Passage 2SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With the signing on December 10, 1996, of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), the Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOT agreed to a new division of their respective safety regulatory responsibilities over offshore pipelines on the OCS (62 FR 7037; February 14, 1997). Under the MOU, DOT will establish and enforce design, construction, operation, and maintenance regulations and investigate certain accidents for all pipelines located downstream of the point at which operating responsibility for the pipelines transfers from a producing operator to a transporting operator. DOI will regulate those producer-operated OCS pipelines located upstream of this point. The MOU also provides that individual operators of production and transportation facilities may define the boundaries of their respective facilities. RSPA published a direct final rule amending the DOT pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR parts 191, 192, and 195 consistent with the MOU (62 FR 61692; November 19, 1997). The direct final rule excluded from these DOT regulations OCS pipelines upstream from the point where operating responsibility transfers from a producing operator to a transporting operator. Also, operators were required to durably mark the specific points at which operating responsibility transfers or, if it is not practicable to durably mark a transfer point, to depict the transfer point on a schematic maintained near the transfer point. The procedures governing issuance of direct final rules are in 49 CFR 190.339. These procedures provide for public notice and opportunity for comment subsequent to publication of a direct final rule. They also provide that unless an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment is received within a specified comment period, the Administrator will issue a confirmation document advising the public that the direct final rule will either become effective on the date stated in the direct final rule or at least 30 days after the publication date of the confirmation. If an adverse comment or notice of intent#
Passage 3to file an adverse comment is received, RSPA will issue a timely notice in the Federal Register to confirm that fact and withdraw the direct final rule in whole or in part. According to the procedures, an adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. Comments that are frivolous or insubstantial are not adverse. A comment recommending a rule change in addition to the rule is not an adverse comment, unless the commenter states why the rule would be ineffective without the additional change. As discussed below, we received six comments on the direct final rule. We do not consider any of the comments to be adverse comments under the direct final rule procedures. Consequently, we are publishing this document to confirm the effective date announced in the direct final rule. The Chevron Pipe Line Company and the American Petroleum Institute commended the action. However, the other four commenters, though supportive of the direct final rule in concept, expressed concerns about application of the new rules. The Southern Natural Gas Company and its affiliate, Sea Robin Pipeline Company (hereafter collectively ``SONAT''), noted that new rules intended to exclude certain producer-operated OCS pipelines from DOT regulations would conflict with existing rules that already exclude certain offshore pipelines. Because the direct final rule did not alter these existing rules, SONAT recommended changes to them to remove the conflict. For example, SONAT suggested we revise 49 CFR 192.1(b)(1), which excludes from DOT regulations offshore gas pipelines located upstream from certain production facilities, to apply only shoreward of the OCS. In its comments, SONAT did not describe the conflict it perceived, and we believe that none exists. The new OCS exclusionary rules are fully compatible with the existing offshore exclusionary rules. Each exclusion applies independently. So, if a producer-operated OCS pipeline is excluded from DOT regulation by a new OCS exclusionary rule, that exclusion is not negated if the pipeline is not also excluded by an existing offshore exclusionary rule. Further, the existing offshore exclusionary rules are needed to maintain the jurisdictional limits of DOT regulations over those producer-operated of#
Passage 4fshore pipelines not covered by the MOU and the direct final rule. In addition, SONAT suggested we revise the new OCS exclusionary rules, each of which was inserted in a list of other exclusions, to be ``grammatically harmonious'' with the list. SONAT recommended word changes to make the new entries responsive to the introductory clause of the list. Although we appreciate the need for these suggested changes, they are editorial in nature and not essential to make the direct final rule effective or substantively valid. We will make the necessary editorial changes in a future rulemaking action. Finally, SONAT pointed out that the new rules on identifying transfer points did not provide a compliance deadline for installing durable markers. The preamble of the direct final rule mentioned that operators would have 60 days after the rules become final to durably mark transfer points. SONAT suggested we revise the rules so the deadline for marking transfer points not identifiable by durable marking--September 15, 1998--applies to marking all identified transfer points. This single deadline, SONAT said, would eliminate confusion, simplify the rules, and provide enough time for consultation and proper marking. We agree that the rules text is somewhat at variance with the preamble, but not in a way that increases the burden on operators. In the absence of a specific deadline for installing durable markers, we construe the new rules on identifying transfer points to require that all identified points be marked, either durably or schematically, by September 15, 1998. The Offshore Operators Committee, representing 87 companies, and the Chevron U.S.A. Production Company commented on a situation not covered by the MOU or the direct final rule: namely, producer-operated pipelines that run from the OCS to state territory with no transfer of operating responsibility. There is no question the state portion of these producer-operated pipelines comes under DOT regulations. But these commenters thought the direct final rule was unclear whether DOT or DOI regulations cover the OCS portion. The commenters asked that we revise the direct final rule to clarify that DOT regulations cover the OCS portion of the producer-operated pipelines so that DOT regulations apply to the entire pipeline. The direct final rule applies only to OCS pipelines on which there is a transfer of operating r#
Passage 5esponsibility from a producing operator to a transporting operator. So producer-operated OCS pipelines regulated by DOT on which there is no transfer of operating responsibility will remain under DOT regulations and may also be subject to DOI regulations. But DOI has indicated it is modifying its MOU implementation rule to address the potential dual regulation of pipelines extending downstream (shoreward) of production facilities on the OCS. Also, the commitment of DOT and DOI to develop more compatible regulations should serve to mitigate regulatory problems that arise when OCS pipelines cross the jurisdictional boundary between the two agencies. Therefore, although the commenters' suggestions are beyond the scope of the direct final rule and are not necessary to make the rule effectual, in view of the cooperative efforts of the two agencies, we believe the difficulties the commenters foresaw will be minimal. Only the Administrator of RSPA has been delegated authority to issue final rules on pipeline safety. The direct final rule on OCS pipelines was issued by the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. My signature below affirms that I subscribe to that action and to the direct final rule. Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 10, 1998. Kelley S. Coyner, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 98-6629 Filed 3-13-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P#
This material provides agency context. It does not replace binding regulatory text, and its legal effect depends on the underlying authority and facts.