{"operation":"document","citation":"PI-79-025","title":"Offshore Operators Committee — Pipeline Safety Interpretation","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"1979-08-02","effective_on":null,"summary":"PI-79-025 response to Offshore Operators Committee concerning 192.1, 195.1.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-025.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-025.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-interpretation-pi-79-025","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/1979/PI79025.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nAugust 2, 1979\nMr. L. G. Otteman\nChairman, Offshore Operators Committee\nP. O. Box 60124\nNew Orleans, Louisiana 70160\nDear Mr. Otteman:\nYour letter of March 23, 1979, raises certain questions about the applicability of our pipeline\nsafety regulations (49 CFR Parts 192 and 195) to offshore pipelines in light of the jurisdictional\nlimitations set forth in the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Department of\nTransportation and the Department of the Interior on the regulation of offshore pipelines.\nAs you know, the regulations in Section 192.1 and 195.1 were amended in 1976 to reflect the\ndelineation of offshore responsibility expressed by the MOU. It is our view that these\namendments are wholly consistent with the purposes of the MOU. The minor differences in terms\nbetween the regulations and the MOU were adopted merely for drafting convenience or to state\nprovisions of the MOU in a regulatory format. The differences were not intended to depart from\nthe meaning of the MOU, and they should not cause interpretive problems because the wording of\nthe regulations is controlling in determining the applicability of Part 192 or Part 195 to an\noffshore pipeline. The MOU should not be used for that purpose except as an aid in explaining\nthe meaning of the regulations where necessary.\nYou have asked whether the regulations apply to pipeline located wholly in State waters. With\nrespect to offshore pipelines, Section 192.1(b) or 195.1(b) excludes from the scope of Part 192\nor 195 only those pipelines lying upstream from certain production facilities that are located on\nthe outer continental shelf (OCS). Offshore pipelines located wholly in State waters are not\nsubject to the exclusionary provisions of Section 192.1(b) or 195.1(b), since no part of the\npipelines would lie upstream from an OCS facility. Therefore, pipelines wholly in State waters\nwould be subject to the DOT regulations if they fall within the scope of those regulations as stated\nin Section 192.1(a) or 195.1(a).\nYou also ask whether removal at production platforms of small volumes of gas to operate\ninstruments, safety devices, and small pumps would mean that produced hydrocarbons are \"first\nseparated\" as intended by Section 192.1 or 195.1, even though principal separation, dehydration,\nor other processing occurs at a facility farther downstream. The separation to which Sections\n192.1 and 195.1 refer is a type of processing of hydrocarbons for purposes of their further\ntransportation by pipelines. This type of processing does not include separation of minor amounts\nof gas exclusively for the purpose of running instruments or equipment.\ndal\\192.1-a\\1\\79-08-02\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nAs to whether Part 192 or 195 applies to pipelines carrying both oil and gas at the same time,\nsince these pipelines present the problems of both a gas and liquid line, the regulations that\nprescribe the most stringent requirements for the commodity to which they apply would be the\nregulations applicable.\nThe following refers to the three examples appended to your letter:\nIn the first example, the pipeline shown by a dashed line between platform A and platform\nB would come under DOT jurisdiction because the commodity transported by that\npipeline is \"first separated, dehydrated, or otherwise processed\" at platform A, which lies\nupstream. The introduction of additional produced and processed hydrocarbons into the\npipeline farther downstream at platform B does not alter the fact that at platform B the\npipeline already carries a commodity that has been initially processed at an upstream\nfacility.\nWith respect to example 2, the dashed line appears to represent a pipeline that returns\nseparated gas to a production platform for usage there rather than for further\ntransportation to shore. As such, this pipeline is not used in the \"transportation of gas\"\nwithin the meaning of that term in Part 192 and thus would be outside the scope of the\nregulations.\nThe pipeline in example 3 that begins at the outlet flange of a facility of the OCS and runs\nto a facility in State waters where processing occurs would be regulated by DOT. This\npipeline would not fall outside the scope of either Part 192 or 195 because the\ndownstream facility where \"first\" processing occurs is not located on the OCS.\nRegarding your statement that the MOU has not eliminated duplications of regulation because\nUSGS still applies all of its pipeline regulations of each producer operated pipeline subject to\nDOT regulation, if you would furnish us with particulars about this matter, we would then be able\nto discuss the problem with USGS and attempt to resolve it.\nIf we can be of further assistance to you, please let us know.\nSincerely,\ndal\\192.1-a\\1\\79-08-02\n2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\n/signed/\nCesar DeLeon\nAssociate Director for\nPipeline Safety Regulation\nMaterials Transportation Bureau\ndal\\192.1-a\\1\\79-08-02\n3","truncated":false,"body_characters":4885}