# U.S. DOT/RSPA - Memorandum re: Record of Vote

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 0900006480e8c285
- **title:** U.S. DOT/RSPA - Memorandum re: Record of Vote
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** current
- **official:** true
- **published on:** Not available
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** p$.A- u r i % U.S. Department , i r p / + +?-b(33- 7- 400 Seventh St., S.W. of Transportation Research amd NOV 7 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PLPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE (THLPSSC) MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE (TPSSC) Stacey L. Gerard, Asso for Pipeline Safety Request for Vote by Letter Ballot on the... Federal Communications Commission. William E Caton. Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 024304 Filed 4 4 2 ; 8 4 5 am] BILLING CODE 671W?-f DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 191,192. and I95 [Docket Number RSPA-90-61321 RIN 2137-AO42 Pipeline Safety: Producer-Operated Outer...
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8c285.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8c285.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8c285
- **source url:** https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-1999-6132-0007/attachment_1.pdf
**body:**

<<<PAGE 1>>>

p$.A- u r i %
U.S. Department , i r p / + +?-b(33- 7- 400 Seventh St., S.W.
of Transportation
Research amd NOV 7
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PLPELINE
SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE (THLPSSC)
MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS
COMMITTEE (TPSSC)
Stacey L. Gerard, Asso
for Pipeline Safety
Request for Vote by Letter Ballot on the Proposed Rulemaking:
Pipeline Safety: Producer-Operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters (67 FR 16355:l
At the THLPSSC and TPSSC committee meeting held on February 6-7,2001, the
committees were briefed on the proposals that appear in the attached notice, “Pipeline Safety:
Producer-Operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines that
Cross Directly into State Waters.” To publish a final rule, the Department of Transportation is
required to obtain a peer review from members of the technical advisory committees and to
obtain a vote on the proposed amendments. Therefore, please review the attached Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPFM) and briefing paper dated February 2001 and cast your vote on
these amendments by letter ballot (attached). Please forward completed ballots to
Cheryl Whetsel, Advisory Committee Coordinator by November 29, 2002.
If you have any questions concerning the content of the NPRM, please contact L.E.
Herrick, at (202) 366-5523 or Richard Huriaux, (202) 366-4565.
Attachments

<<<PAGE 2>>>

RSPA Fact Sheet Updated: Feb 2001 -
Producer Operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters
Advisory Committee Action: 1. Information
This proposed rule would implement a provision of the December 10, 1996, Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of
Transportation (DOT) regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) pipelines. It would addre js
producer operated natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that cross into State waters
without first connecting to a transporting operator’s facility on the OCS. In addition, it
would propose procedures by which producer and transporting operators could petition for
approval to operate under either RSPA or MMS regulations governing pipeline design,
construction, operation, and maintenance.
The MOU placed, to the greatest extent practicable, OCS production pipelines under DO1
responsibility and OCS transportation pipelines under DOT responsibility. Thus, RSPA h 1s
primary regulatory responsibility for transporter operated pipelines and associated pumpin 5
or compressor facilities on the OCS, while MMS has primary regulatory responsibility for
producer operated facilities and pipelines. Producing operators are companies that are
engaged in the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons on the OCS. Transporting
operators are companies that are engaged in the transportation of those hydrocarbons from
the OCS. There are about 150 operators of producer pipelines and about 75 operators of
transportation pipelines on the OCS. The December 10, 1996, MOU was published in a jc int
MMS-RSPA Federal Register Notice (February 14, 1997; 62 FR 7037-7039).
For producer operated pipeline facilities that cross into State waters without first connecti:ig
to a transporting operator’s facility on the OCS, we propose that pipeline segments located
upstream (generally seaward) of the last valve on the last production facility (excluding
pipeline risers and associated safety equipment) be exempted from 49 CFR Parts 190- 199.
RSPA would continue to inspect all upstream safety equipment (including valves, over-
pressure protection devices, cathodic protection equipment, and pigging devices that serve to
protect the integrity of the RSPA regulated pipeline segments.

<<<PAGE 3>>>

Federal Communications Commission.
William E Caton.
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 024304 Filed 4 4 2 ; 8 4 5 am]
BILLING CODE 671W?-f
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs
Administration
49 CFR Parts 191,192. and I95
[Docket Number RSPA-90-61321
RIN 2137-AO42
Pipeline Safety: Producer-Operated
Outer Continental Shew Natural Gas
and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines That
cross Directly into State Waters
AGENCY. Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA). DOT.
AC710K Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This document proposes to
implement a provision of the December
10,1996, Memorandum of
Understanding [MOU) between the
Bepartmerit of the Interior (Dol) and -the
Department of Trans ortation (DOT)
regarding safety reguPations of Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) natural gas and
hazardous liquid pipelines. This rule
addresses producer-operated natural gas
and hazardous liquid pipelines that
crass into State waters without first
connecting to a transporting operator’s
facility on the OCS. This proposed rule
would also address the procedures by
which producer operators could petition
for approval to operate under RSPA
regulations governing pipeline design,
construction, operation. and
maintenance.
DATES Comments on the subject of this
proposed rule must be received on or
before June 4.2002.
ADDRESSES Comments should identify
t h e docket number of this proposed
rule, SPA-99-6132. and be mailed to
t h e Dockets Facility. US. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Plaza 401, Washington. DC 20590-
0001. You should submit the original
and one copy. Anyone who wants
confirmation of receipt of their
comments must include a stamped, self-
addressed postcard. The Dockets facility
is open from 1O:OO a.m. to 5:OO p m . .
Monday through Friday, except on
Federal holidays. Alternatively. you
may submit written comments to the
docket electronically. To do so, log on
to the Internet Web address http://
dms.dot.gov and click on “Help” for
instructions on electronic filing of
comments. All written comments
should identify the docket and notice
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 66 /Friday, April 5, 2002 I Proposed Rules 16355 -
numbers which appear in the heading of
this notice.
FOR FURTHW INFORMATION CONTACK YOU
may contact L.E. Herrick by telephone at
(202) 366-5523, by fax at (202) 366
4566, by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, RSPA. DPS-IO, room
7128.400 Seventh Street, SW..
Washington, DC 20590, or via e-mail to
le.herrick-@rspo. dot.gov regarding the
subject matter of this notice. For copies
of this notice or other material that is
referenced herein you may contact the
Dockets Facility by telephone at (202)
366-5046 2r at the addresses listed
above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOM This rule
is complementary to the RSPA Direct
Final Rule (DFR) that addressed OCS
natural gas or hazardous liquid pipeline
facilities located upstream of the points
at which operating responsibility for the
pipeline facility transfers from a
producing operator to a transporting
operator [November 19.1997; 62 FR
61692 and March 16,1998; 63 FR
12659) and to the DO1 Minerals
Management Service (MMS) rule.
“Producer Operated Pipelines that Cross
Directly into State Waters.” which was
published in the Federal Re&er on
July 2 7 , 2000 (65 FR 46092).
B a c k p u n d
In May 1996, MMS and RSPA met
with a joint industry workgroup, which
was led by the American Petroleum
Institute. The workgroup proposed that
the agencies rely upon individual
operators of natural gas and hazardous
liquid production and transportation
pipeline facilities to identify the
boundaries of their respective facilities.
The MMS and RSPA agreed with the
industry proposal and entered into an
interagency Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) on December 10,
1996. The MOU was published in a joint
MMS-RSPA Federal Register Notice
(Februar 14.1997; 62 FR 7037-7039).
The &U placed, to the greatest
practical extent, OCS production
pipetines under DO1 responsibility and
OCS transportation pipelines under
DOT responsibility. Therefore, RSPA
has primary regulatory responsibility for
transporter-operated pipelines and
associated pumping or compressor
facilities on the OCS. while MMS has
primary regulatory responsibility for
producer-operated facilities and
pipelines. 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 born the OCS. There are
approximately 150 operators of
producer pipelines and 75 opera ors of
transportation pipelines on the CCS.
The MOU established a regula? ory
boundary on the OCS at the point where
operating responsibility for the pipeline
transfers from a producing operalor to a
transporting operator. The MOU did not
address the producer-operated p pelines
that cross the FederallState boundary
without a transfer on the OCS. H3wever.
the MOU provided the agencies tvith the
flexibility to address situations tliat do
not correspond to the general delinition
of the regulatory boundary.
The purpose of this proposed iule is
to address regulatory questions
regarding producer-operated pip sline
facilities that cross the FederaVState
boundary without first connectir g t o a
transporting operator’s facility on the
OCS and to establish a procedurtr
whereby OCS producing operators may
petition to have their pipelines
regulated by RSPA. The rule would
amend 49 CFRparts 191.I(b)(l).
192.lb)(l) and 195.1(b)(5].
When we published the DFX t a
implement the December 1996 hfOU on
November 19.1997 (62 FR 6169:!). we
received comments from Chevron
U.S.A. Production Company anc
Chevron Pipe Line Company in Nhich
they observed that the proposed
regulation did not appear to allow Ocs
producer-operated pipelines to I emain
under DOT regulatory authority The
commenters requested that provision be
made to allow producers to continue to
operate under DOT regulations if
approval is obtained from DOI.
This arose because the regulafory
boundaries in the MOU and the DFR
were described in terms of spec Fic
points on OCS pipelines where
operating responsibility transfeIs from a
producing operator to a connecting
transporting operator. The prod x e r -
operated pipelines that cross t h t :
FederaVState boundary into State
waters without first connecting to a
transporter-operated facility we -e not
affected. Nor were the producer lines
that flow from State waters to
production platforms located 011 the
OCS.
Regardless of the direction of flow,producer pipelines that cross tk e
Federal/State boundary are always
subject to RSPA regulation on tie
portions of the lines located in State
waters. However, it does not mpike
operational sense to have a pipisline
segment crossing the FederallS ate
boundary subject to MMS regulations on
the OCS side of the boundary a i d RSPA
regulations on the State side of the
boundary. W e believe that a rq,ulatory

<<<PAGE 4>>>

16356
Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 66lFriday; April 5, 2002 /Proposed Rules -
boundary point is better defined in
terms of a specific point that isolates
one segment of a pipeline from another.
By contrast, the FederallState
geographic boundary does not allow the
isolation of facilities on each side of the
boundary.
Therefore, for producer-operated
pipeline facilities that cross into State
waters without first connecting to a
transporting operator's facility on the
OCS, we propose that pipeline segments
located upstream (generally seaward) of
the last valve on the last production
facility (excluding pipeline risers and
associated safety equipment) be
exempted from compliance with 4 9 CFX
parts 19&199.
Under this arrangement, producer-
operated pipeline facilities upstream
(generally seaward) of the last valve on
the last production facility on the OCS
would be regulated under MMS
regulations. RSPA would continue to
inspect all upstream safety equipment
(including valves, over-pressure
protection devices, cathodic protection
equipment. and pigging devices) that
serve to protect the integrity of the
RSPA-regulated pipeline segments. This
arrangement is consistent with the
general intent of the MOU. However,
producer-operators whose lines do not
transfer operating responsibility on the
OCS may petition RSPA for a different
regulatory boundary.
An important principle of the
industry agreement leading to tbe MOU
is to allow the operators to agree to the
regulatory boundaries on their facilities.
Therefore, producer pipeline operators
may petition RSPA's Office of Pipeline
Safety under 49 CFR 190.9 for approval
to operate under RSPA regulations
governing pipeline design, construction,
operation, and maintenance. In
considering such petitions, the RSPA
Administrator, or designee, will consult
with the MMS and the affected parties.
This proposed rule would affect about
215 producer-operated pipelines that
are being regulated according to a now-
superseded 1976 MOU between DO1
and DOT. By exempting the producer-
operated pipelines from RSPA
regulation, this rule would reduce the
overlapping regulations in accordance
with the MOU of December 10.1996.
The rulemaking would have minimal
economic impact on any of the affected
operators.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory
Policies ond Procedures
DOT does not consider this action to
be a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12666
(58 FR 51735; October 4.1993).
Therefore, it was not forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget. This
proposed rule is not significant under
DOT'S regulatory policies and
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26.
1979). A regulatory evaluation of this
proposal was prepared and placed in
the docket of this action.
Benefits
Without the proposed rule, the
pipeline operations of a large number of
producers with pipelines crossing
directly into State waters could remain
subject to overlapping regulations for
design, construction, operation, and
maintenance. This includes about 35
producers in Gulf of Mexico OCS waters
and 10 producers operating in Califomia
OCS waters. This would be contrary to
the intent of the American Petroleum
lnstitute and industry agreement and
the MOU to regulate producer-operated
pipelines under DO1 and transporter-
operated pipelines under DOT.
By imp ementing the proposed rule.
RSPA will bring these pipelines under
the provisions of the 1996 MOU. This
should serve to minimize confusion
among operators concerning which
regulations they are expected to follow.
We estimate that each OCS producer
operator spends on average one-half
person year annually per OCS pipeline
to comply with RSPA regulations.
Assuming that a loaded wage For a
person year in the pipeline industry is
$50,000, each company could realize a
savings of $25,000 annually ($50,000 x
0.5 person-years = $25,000). The annual
savings to the entire industry could be
as high as $1.125.000 ($25.000 x 45
operators = S1.125.000).
costs
The administrative costs of the
proposed rule are minimal. Papemork
costs would arise only in cases when a
producer pipeline operator decided to
request that its pipeline continue to be
regulated as a RSPA facility. We
estimate that less than 10 producer
pipeline operators will request ko
remain under RSPA regulation. We
estimate that the time for developing
each request and submitting it to MMS
and RSPA will be about 40 hours. Based
on 10 requests at 40 hours each, the
total one-time burden of requesting to
remain under RSPA regulation will be
less than 400 hours. Based on $35 per
hour, we estimate that the total
administrative cost to respondents is
less than $14,000 ($1,400 per request)
during the first year that the rule is
implemented. In the first year, nearly all
producer pipeline operators would have
decided whether to automatically
convert to M M S regulation or ap ?ly to
remain under RSPA regulation. 7 V e
anticipate that in following yearr , not
more than two operators a year vrould
submit a request to change their
regulatory status at a total cost 0.
%2,8Qo. However, for most follolring
years it is highly unlikely that ally
request would be made as a result of the
pro osedrule.
&e proposed rule does not h;,ve a
significant economic effect (less than
$100 million]: therefore. RSPA tloes not
consider it to be a major rule. We d o not
expect there to be any increases in costs
or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local
governments, agencies. or geographic
regions to result from implemer ting the
proposed rule. Any indirect effc cts on
costs or prices are anticipated ttr be
negligible. This proposed rule will not create a
serious inconsistency or othemise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency: materially
alter the budgetary impact of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan
programs; or raise novel legal c r policy
issues.
The proposed rule will not have any
effect on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
on the ability of U.S. based enlerprises
to compete with foreign based
enterprises in other markets bc cause the
economic effects are minor. Tl~erefore. a
Regulatory Impact Analysis is not
required under E.O. 12866.
B. Federalism Assessment
The proposed rule would ni)t have
substantial direct effects on States, on
the relationship between the I'ederal
Government and the States, 01' on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the va .io,,
levels of rrovemment. Therefere. in
accordan& with Executive O1.der 12612
(October 30. 1987: 52 FR 4161b5). we
have determined that this nolice does
not have sufficient Federalisr I
implications to warrant prepmtion of a
Federalism Assessment.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flex bility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 el seq.) RSPA must
consider whether a rulemaking would
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small rntities.
MMS recently conducted ,tn analysisof 150 operators on the Gulf of Mexico
OCS. For publicly-traded operators,
numbers of employees and i nnual sales
are readily available on the Internet.
MMS was not able to get infirmation on
all operators on the OCS. LJ: mg the
critermn that a small company IS one

<<<PAGE 5>>>

Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 66 /Friday, April 5, 2002 /Proposed Rules 16357 =
Lhat employs less than 500 employees, regulation. Pipeline Companies are This certification is subject to
60 operators are medium-to-large-size considered “small” if they have fewer modification as a result of a review of
of &e remaining operators, 36 than 1.500 employees, but both of these the comments received in response to
are small, based on available data. and operators would be considered ”large” this proposal.
44 others were presumed to be small under the 1~500-emPloYee criterion. D, ~~~~~~j~~ Order 13084
because no information about them was Natural gas and hazardous liquid
available on &e Internet. In sum. 80 production and ttanspofiation
This proposed rule has been airalyzed
operators on &e Gulf of Mexico OCS companies are classified under NAICS in accordance with the principle; and
may be considered to be small. Codes by the Census Bureau. The Small criteria contained in Executive Crder
fie above breakdown describes the Business Administration further 13084 (“Consultation and Coord nation
cxs sector of the natural gas and classifies “small businesses” in the with Indian Tribal Governments ’).
hazardous liquid industry as a whole various offshore Sectors as follows: (11 Because this proposed rule effec :s the
and provides the wider context in Oil and gas producers that have fewer Federally managed OCS and does not
which to examine the actual community than 500 employees; (2) liquid pipeline affect the communities of the Inclian
that would be affected by the proposed companies than have fewer than 2,500 tribal governments and nor impcise any
I-llle. employees: (3) natural gas pipeline . direct compliance costs, the funiiing
Ofthe 150 production operators in the companies that have gross annual and consultation requirements a f
Gulf of Mexico, only 35 would be receipts of 325 million or less; and (41 Executive Order 13084 do not allply.
directly affected by the proposed Nh. offshore oil and gas field exploration
Of these 35 operators. 11 are considered service or production service companies E. Executive O&f 13132
to be “small.” There are about ten that have gross annual receipts of $5
This proposed rule has been analyzed
producer pipeline operators on the million or less. There are many
in accordance with the principiis and
Pacific OCS that may be affected by the companies on the OCS that are “Small uiteria contained in Executive fhder
proposed rule, and four of these are businesses” by these definitions.
13132 [“Federalism”). This prolmsed
considered to be small. Of the small However* the
rule does not propose any regut ition
operators to be affected by the proposed for conducting offshore oil and gas that:
rule. almost all are represented by the exphation and development activities [1) H~~ substantial direct effe ..ts on
North American Lndustry Classification is very complex and costly. and most the States, the relationship betv,een the
System (NAICS) code 211111. which entities that engage in offshore activities national
and the States, oc
represents crude petroleum and natural have financial resources
the distribution of power and
gas producers. A pi eline company (non-producer) is disproportionate to their numbers of employees and well beyond what would
responsibilities among the vari,,us
ofgovernment:
a .‘smayl entity” if it is a liquid pipeline normally be considered “small
ny with fewer than 1.500 business.” These entities customarily
1’) Imposes
K:ryees, or a natural gas pipeline conduct their operations by contracting
governments; costs or On States and local
company with gross annual receipts of with offshore drilling or service
$25 million or less. There are about 18 companies. and therefore tend to have
entities operating on the OCS that can few employees in relation to their
be interpreted as “small independent financial resources.
pipeline companies.” These small There are up to 150 designated
pipeline companies provide operators of leases and 75 operators of
transportation services for several non- major oil or gas producers with which transmission ipelines on the OCS (both
large and sma P 1 operators), and the
they have an “arms-length“ but economic impacts on the oil and gas
symbiotic business relationship. These production and transmission companies
companies are represented primarily by directly affected would be minor. All
NAICS codes 486210 [crude petroleum costs imposed by the rule would be
pipelines) and 486210 (natural gas small compared to the normal operating
transmission pipelines). and maintenance expenses experienced
The larger operators to be affected by by offshore pipeline operators, Direct
the rule mostly fall into either NAICS costs to industry for the entire proposed
Code 211111 (crude petroleum and rule total less than 514.000 For the first
natural gas producers), or NAICS Code year. This rule would not impose any
324110, which represents petroleum new restrictions on small pipeline
refining. Companies operating on the service companies or manufacturers, nor
OCS and that fall into NAICS Code will it cause their business practices to
324110 tend to be the very large change.
integrated natural gas and hazardous We conclude that the proposed rule
liquid com anies.
would not have a significant economic
Two of t{e larger operators in the Gulf impact on a substantial number of small
of Mexico that have production entities. Therefore, I certify, pursuant to
pipelines are represented under NAKS section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Code 486210 (natural gas transmission). Act (5 U.S.C. 6051, that this proposal
and by NAlCS Code 221210 (natural gas will not, if implemented. have a
distribution). These classifications mean significant economic impact on a
that the operators in question normally substantial number of small entities.
operate as pipeline companies, and we However. we are particularly interested
anticipate that these two operators may in receiving comments from any small
choose to remain under RSPA business operators believing otherwise. (3]
state law.
Therefore, the consultation and
funding requirements of Executlve
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Au p s t IO,
19991 do not apply.
F. Unfunded Mandates
This proposed N ~ B would not impose
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. It would not result in costs of over
$100 million or more to either State.
local, or tribal governments, i: t the
aggregate, or to the private sector. and
is the least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives.
G. pope,ork Reduction
This proposed rule does no1 containinformation collection requiri:ments
estimated to effect more than ten
respondents per year.
H. Notional Environment01 P d i c y Act
We have analyzed this acti m for
purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 ei seq.) and
have determined that this pntposed rule
would not significantly affec: the
quality of the human envirorment. The
Environmental Assessment c f this
proposal is available for revi:w in the
docket.

<<<PAGE 6>>>

16358
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 661 Friday, April 5, ZOOZ/Proposed Rules =
I. Executive Order 1321 1 lEnergy1
We have reviewed this proposed rule
in accordance with Executive Order
13211 regarding the energy of Federal
regulations and have determined that
this proposed rule does not have any
adverse effects on energy supply.
distribution, or use. Therefore, no
reasonable altematives to this action x e
necessary.
List of Subjects
49 CFR 291
Gas, Pipeline safety. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Port 192
Hazardous liquid, Natural gas,
Pipeline safety, Pipelines. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Port 195
Ammonia. Carbon dioxide,
Petroleum. Pipeline safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 49 CFRParts 191.192 and
1% is proposed to be amended as
follows.
operating responsibility transfers from a
producing operator to a transporting
operator: or
14) Onshore gathering of gas outside of
the following areas:
(i) An area within the limits of any
incorporated or unincorporated city.
town, or village.
(ii) Any designated residential or
commercial area such as a subdivision,
business or shopping center, or
community development.
(61 Any pipeline system that
transports only petroleum gas c r
petroleum gadair mixtures to-.
(i) Fewer than 10 customers, if no
portion of the system is located in a
public place: or
(ii) A single customer, if the iystem is
located entirely on the customc r's
premises (no matter if a portio11 of the
system is located in a public place].
PART 195-[AMENDED]
PART 192-[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Pari 192
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103.60102, 60104.
60108,60109.60110.60113,60118: and 49
CFR 1.53.
2. Section 192.1 would be amended
by revising paragraphs &)(I) through (5)
and adding paragraph (b)(6] to read as
follows:
1. The authority citation for :'art 195
would continue to read as folk ws:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103,6010::. 60104,
60108.60109.60118: and 49 CFR . .53.
2. Section 195.1 would be ariended
by redesignating paragraphs [b1(7). (8)
and (9) a s paragraphs (aI[B). [9 and [io),
respectively; revising paragraphs (b)(5)
and [6); and adding a new par: graph
(b)(7] to read as follows:
5 195.1 Applicability.
g 192.1 Scope of part.
t . . * t t
* * C * t
(bl
(b) *
(I) Offshore gathering of gas in State
(5) Transportation of hazardDus liquid
waters upstream Erom the outlet flange
or carbon dioxide in offshore Iiipelines
PART lOl--[AMENDED]
of each facility where hydrocarbons are
in State waters which are ]oca ed
1. The authority citation for part 191
produced or where produced hydrocarbons are first separated,
upstream from the outlet flange of each
facility where hydrocarbons 0. carbon
would continue to read as follows:
dehydrated, or otherwise processed.
dioxide are produced or when:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121. 60102.60103.
whichever facility is farther
produced hydrocarbons or carbon
60104,60108.60117.60118.60124; and 49
downstream:
dioxide are first separated, deliydrated,
CFR 1.53.
(2) Pipelines on the Outer Continental
or otherwise processed. whicl ever
2. Section 191.1 would be amended
Shelf that are producer-operated and
facility is farther downstream
by revising paragaph fi) to read as
cross into State waters without first
(6) Transportation of hazarc ous liquid
follows:
connecting to a transporting operator's
or carbon dioxide in Outer Continental
5 191.1 Scope.
facility, upstream [generally seaward) of
Shelf pipelines which are loc;,ted
9 f t . t
the last valve on the last production
upstream of the point at whic 1
facility (excluding pipeline risers and
M' *
operating responsibility trans 'em from a
associated safety equipment). Producing
producing operator to a translrorting
(11 Offshore gathering of gas in State
operators may petition the
waters upstream from the outlet flange
operator;
Administrator, or designee. for approval
of each facility where hydrocarbons are
(7) Pipelines on the Outer C'ontinentat
to operate under RSPA regulations
produced or where produced
Shelf that are producer-opera ed and
governing pipeline design, construction.
hydrocarbons are first separated,
cross into State waters withotit first
operation, and maintenance under 49
dehydrated, or otherwise processed,
connecting to a transporting c perator's
CFR 190.9;
whichever facility is farther
facility, upstream (generally E eaward) of
(3) Pipelines on the Outer Continental
downstream;
the last valve on the last production
Shelf upstream of the point at which
(2) Pipelines on the Outer Continental
facility [excluding pipeline risers and
operating responsibility transfers from a
Shelf that are producer-operated and
associated safety equipment) Producing
cross into State waters without first
producing operator to a transporting
operators may petition the
connecting to a transporting operator's
operator;
Administrator or designee foi approval
facility, upstream (generally seaward) of
(4) Onshore gathering of gas outside of
to operate under RSPA regulittions
the last valve on the last production
the following areas:
governing pipeline design, cctnstruction,
facility [excluding pipeline risers and
(i) An area within the limits of any
operation, and maintenance iinder 49
associated safety equipment]. Producing
incorporated or unincorporated city,
CFR 190.9:
operators may petition the
town, or village.
t t . * *
Administrator, or designee, for approval
(ii) Any designated residential or
to operate under RSPA regulations
commercial area such as a subdivision,
Issued in Washington. MJ on ldarch 15,
governing pipeline design. construction,
business or shopping center, or
operation, and maintenance under 49
community development.
CFR 190.9:
(5) Onshore gathering of gas within
(3) Pipelines on the Outer Continental
inlets of the Gulf of Mexico except as
Shelf upstream of the point at which
provided in 5 192 612; or
2002.
Stacey L. Gerard.
Associate Administmlorforhpe h e So/efy.
[FR Doc 02-6825 Filed 4-4-02: a 45 4
BlLUHG CODE A33obD-P

<<<PAGE 7>>>

TECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Ballot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):
Pipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous
Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters
Published April 5,2002
Please check one box and return this ballot by November 29, 2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the
address given below:
1. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1, 192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1,192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes arc:
made (attach additional sheets if necessary).
3. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1,192 and 195 are not (or cannJt
be made) technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
Signature Date
Cheryl Whetsel
Research and Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7128
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: (202) 366-443 1

<<<PAGE 8>>>

~~
Alex P. Alvarado (G)
Chief, Pipeline Section
J
Minerals Management Service
1201 Elmwood Park Blvd.
New Orleans, LA 70123
alex.al\ alado!ll:lnrl~.c.o\
Membership Category: (G)=Government; (I) Industry; (P) Public
(504) 736-2547 David Lopez (G) (703) 603-8707
Fax 736-2408 Dir., Oil Program Center Fax 603-9 1 16
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
/’ 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
lopez.david!Ne~a.fio\
Denise A. Bode (G)
Commissioner
State of Oklahoma
304 Jim Thorpe Building
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
d.hodc!~i~accmail.occ.state.ok .us
Linda Guthrie - contact
/” Cook Inlet Keeper
ois N. Epstein, P.E. (P)
Senior Engineer
1026 W. qth Avenue
Suite 201
Anchorage, AK 99501
loisi~i~inletE;ee~cr.or!!
Denise M. Hamsher (I)
Director, Public & Govenment
Affairs
Enbridge (U.S.) Inc.
1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
dciiisc hamzhsrih enbi doc-us coni
Orville D. Harris (I)
Vice President, Asset Management
Longhorn Partners Pipeline
3633 Allen Parkway, Suite 220
Houston, TX 770 19
o. d . han ish l\vilhams. coni
Mr. Willie D. Jones (I)
ogistics and Customer Service
Manager
Pipe Line Company
(405) 521-2267
Fax 521-1409
(907) 276-4244
ext. 119
Fax 276-71 10
(713) 821-2089
Fax 653-6710
(713) 529-1555
Fax 524-3999
(918) 661-1993
Fax 662-2304
Larry Miller (P) ( 7 13) 670-2605
Channel Development Manager Fax 670-2427
Port of Houston Authority
1 1 I East Loop North
Houston, TX 77029
lmiller@poha.com
Mary F. Morgan (I) Vice President, Customer Service
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
500 Dallas, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77002
inarv inorgaii~u,kiiiderinoraaIi.com
A u t h Ellen Schelhaus (P)
Environmental Specialist
507 Greenblades Court
Amold, MD 2 10 12
Home: rschel@i’toad.net
/ Marilyn G. Showalter (G)
Chairwoman
Washington Utilities Transportation
Commission
1300 S. Evergreen Park Drive, S.W.
Olympia, WA 98504
m s l i o w a l t i i r l ~ ~ . u t c . ~ ~ - a . ~ ~ ~
Mary Mendoza - contact
Bruce Stein (P)
Nature Serve
1101 Wilson Blvd, 15‘h floor
Arlington, VA 22093
bskinyhaturzsei ve.oi q
(713) 369-9448
Fax 560-4677
(202) 646-5671
Fax 646-5500
(360) 664-1 173
Fax 586-1 150
(703) 908-1 830
Fax 908- 1 9 17
Updated March 5, 2002
1

<<<PAGE 9>>>

TECHNICAL, HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Ballot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):
Pipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous
Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters
Published April 5,2002
Please check one box and return this ballot by November 29, 2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the
2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191,192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes ar?
made (attach additional sheets if nccessq).
3.- The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are not (or cannot
be made) technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
12. -17- o Z
Date
CheryI Whetsel
Research and Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, SW. Room 7128
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: (202) 366-443 1

<<<PAGE 10>>>

Nov-27-2002 04:39pm From- T - 0 5 5 P 001/001 :-473
TECFINTCAL NAZARDOUS LIQUID PTPELPX SAFETY STANDARDS COMMIT TEE
TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STAIVDARDS COMMlTTEE
Ballot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):
Pipeline Safe@: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Haznrtlous
Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters
Published April 5,2002
Please check one box and retuni this ballot by November 29,2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the
address given below:
1. % The proposed amendmmts to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and pracricable.
2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1, 192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are
made (anach addiriond sheets i l necessary).
3.- The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Pam 19 1,192 and 195 are not (or cannot
be made) technicallf feasible, reasonable, cos-effective. and practicable.
Signature
I
>- -_
--
/-
Cheryl Whzrsel
Research and Special Programs Adminisnsrion
U. S, Department of Transparlarim
400 Seventh Strset, Sly, Room 7128
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone 1 (2 02) 3 6 6-443 1
DatC

<<<PAGE 11>>>

TECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Ballot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):
Pipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous
Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters
Published April 5,2002
Please check one box and retum this ballot by November 29,2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the
address given below:
1. J/ The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191,192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are
made (attach additional sheets if necessary).
3. ~
The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191,192 and 195 are not (or camlt
be made) technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
<
Signature
Date
Cheryl Whetsel
Research and Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7128
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: (202) 366-443 1

<<<PAGE 12>>>

TECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Ballot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):
Pipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous
Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters
Published April 5,2002
Please check one box and return this ballot by November 29,2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the
address given below:
1. / The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191 , 192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1 , 192 and 1 95 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes a-e
made (attach additional sheets if necessary).
3. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1,192 and 195 are not (or car not
be made) technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
Date
Cheryl Whetsel
Research and Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7128
Washington, DC 20590
Telephone: (202) 366-443 1

<<<PAGE 13>>>

TECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Ballot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):
Pipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous
Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters
Published April 5,2002
Please check one box and retum this ballot by November 29,2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the
address given below:
1. 2. x. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1, 192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.
The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are technically
feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes a~ e
made (attachradditional sheets if necessary).
A
-
3. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1 , 192 and 195 are
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 64486