{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e8d45b","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":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"p$.A- u r i % U.S. Department , i r p / + +?-b(33- 7- 400 Seventh St., S.W. of Transportation Research amd NOV 7 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PLPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE (THLPSSC) MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE (TPSSC) Stacey L. Gerard, Asso for Pipeline Safety Request for Vote by Letter Ballot on the... Federal Communications Commission. William E Caton. Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 024304 Filed 4 4 2 ; 8 4 5 am] BILLING CODE 671W?-f DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Parts 191,192. and I95 [Docket Number RSPA-90-61321 RIN 2137-AO42 Pipeline Safety: Producer-Operated Outer...","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8d45b.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8d45b.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e8d45b","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-1998-4470-0104/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\np$.A- u r i %\nU.S. Department , i r p / + +?-b(33- 7- 400 Seventh St., S.W.\nof Transportation\nResearch amd NOV 7\nTO:\nFROM:\nSUBJECT:\nMEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PLPELINE\nSAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE (THLPSSC)\nMEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS\nCOMMITTEE (TPSSC)\nStacey L. Gerard, Asso\nfor Pipeline Safety\nRequest for Vote by Letter Ballot on the Proposed Rulemaking:\nPipeline Safety: Producer-Operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and\nHazardous Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters (67 FR 16355:l\nAt the THLPSSC and TPSSC committee meeting held on February 6-7,2001, the\ncommittees were briefed on the proposals that appear in the attached notice, “Pipeline Safety:\nProducer-Operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines that\nCross Directly into State Waters.” To publish a final rule, the Department of Transportation is\nrequired to obtain a peer review from members of the technical advisory committees and to\nobtain a vote on the proposed amendments. Therefore, please review the attached Notice of\nProposed Rulemaking (NPFM) and briefing paper dated February 2001 and cast your vote on\nthese amendments by letter ballot (attached). Please forward completed ballots to\nCheryl Whetsel, Advisory Committee Coordinator by November 29, 2002.\nIf you have any questions concerning the content of the NPRM, please contact L.E.\nHerrick, at (202) 366-5523 or Richard Huriaux, (202) 366-4565.\nAttachments\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nRSPA Fact Sheet Updated: Feb 2001 -\nProducer Operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and\nHazardous Liquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters\nAdvisory Committee Action: 1. Information\nThis proposed rule would implement a provision of the December 10, 1996, Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU) between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of\nTransportation (DOT) regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) pipelines. It would addre js\nproducer operated natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that cross into State waters\nwithout first connecting to a transporting operator’s facility on the OCS. In addition, it\nwould propose procedures by which producer and transporting operators could petition for\napproval to operate under either RSPA or MMS regulations governing pipeline design,\nconstruction, operation, and maintenance.\nThe MOU placed, to the greatest extent practicable, OCS production pipelines under DO1\nresponsibility and OCS transportation pipelines under DOT responsibility. Thus, RSPA h 1s\nprimary regulatory responsibility for transporter operated pipelines and associated pumpin 5\nor compressor facilities on the OCS, while MMS has primary regulatory responsibility for\nproducer operated facilities and pipelines. Producing operators are companies that are\nengaged in the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons on the OCS. Transporting\noperators are companies that are engaged in the transportation of those hydrocarbons from\nthe OCS. There are about 150 operators of producer pipelines and about 75 operators of\ntransportation pipelines on the OCS. The December 10, 1996, MOU was published in a jc int\nMMS-RSPA Federal Register Notice (February 14, 1997; 62 FR 7037-7039).\nFor producer operated pipeline facilities that cross into State waters without first connecti:ig\nto a transporting operator’s facility on the OCS, we propose that pipeline segments located\nupstream (generally seaward) of the last valve on the last production facility (excluding\npipeline risers and associated safety equipment) be exempted from 49 CFR Parts 190- 199.\nRSPA would continue to inspect all upstream safety equipment (including valves, over-\npressure protection devices, cathodic protection equipment, and pigging devices that serve to\nprotect the integrity of the RSPA regulated pipeline segments.\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nFederal Communications Commission.\nWilliam E Caton.\nActing Secretary.\n[FR Doc. 024304 Filed 4 4 2 ; 8 4 5 am]\nBILLING CODE 671W?-f\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nResearch and Special Programs\nAdministration\n49 CFR Parts 191,192. and I95\n[Docket Number RSPA-90-61321\nRIN 2137-AO42\nPipeline Safety: Producer-Operated\nOuter Continental Shew Natural Gas\nand Hazardous Liquid Pipelines That\ncross Directly into State Waters\nAGENCY. Research and Special Programs\nAdministration (RSPA). DOT.\nAC710K Notice of proposed rulemaking.\nSUMMARY: This document proposes to\nimplement a provision of the December\n10,1996, Memorandum of\nUnderstanding [MOU) between the\nBepartmerit of the Interior (Dol) and -the\nDepartment of Trans ortation (DOT)\nregarding safety reguPations of Outer\nContinental Shelf (OCS) natural gas and\nhazardous liquid pipelines. This rule\naddresses producer-operated natural gas\nand hazardous liquid pipelines that\ncrass into State waters without first\nconnecting to a transporting operator’s\nfacility on the OCS. This proposed rule\nwould also address the procedures by\nwhich producer operators could petition\nfor approval to operate under RSPA\nregulations governing pipeline design,\nconstruction, operation. and\nmaintenance.\nDATES Comments on the subject of this\nproposed rule must be received on or\nbefore June 4.2002.\nADDRESSES Comments should identify\nt h e docket number of this proposed\nrule, SPA-99-6132. and be mailed to\nt h e Dockets Facility. US. Department of\nTransportation, 400 Seventh Street,\nSW., Plaza 401, Washington. DC 20590-\n0001. You should submit the original\nand one copy. Anyone who wants\nconfirmation of receipt of their\ncomments must include a stamped, self-\naddressed postcard. The Dockets facility\nis open from 1O:OO a.m. to 5:OO p m . .\nMonday through Friday, except on\nFederal holidays. Alternatively. you\nmay submit written comments to the\ndocket electronically. To do so, log on\nto the Internet Web address http://\ndms.dot.gov and click on “Help” for\ninstructions on electronic filing of\ncomments. All written comments\nshould identify the docket and notice\nFederal Register / Vol. 67, No. 66 /Friday, April 5, 2002 I Proposed Rules 16355 -\nnumbers which appear in the heading of\nthis notice.\nFOR FURTHW INFORMATION CONTACK YOU\nmay contact L.E. Herrick by telephone at\n(202) 366-5523, by fax at (202) 366\n4566, by mail at U.S. Department of\nTransportation, RSPA. DPS-IO, room\n7128.400 Seventh Street, SW..\nWashington, DC 20590, or via e-mail to\nle.herrick-@rspo. dot.gov regarding the\nsubject matter of this notice. For copies\nof this notice or other material that is\nreferenced herein you may contact the\nDockets Facility by telephone at (202)\n366-5046 2r at the addresses listed\nabove.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIOM This rule\nis complementary to the RSPA Direct\nFinal Rule (DFR) that addressed OCS\nnatural gas or hazardous liquid pipeline\nfacilities located upstream of the points\nat which operating responsibility for the\npipeline facility transfers from a\nproducing operator to a transporting\noperator [November 19.1997; 62 FR\n61692 and March 16,1998; 63 FR\n12659) and to the DO1 Minerals\nManagement Service (MMS) rule.\n“Producer Operated Pipelines that Cross\nDirectly into State Waters.” which was\npublished in the Federal Re&er on\nJuly 2 7 , 2000 (65 FR 46092).\nB a c k p u n d\nIn May 1996, MMS and RSPA met\nwith a joint industry workgroup, which\nwas led by the American Petroleum\nInstitute. The workgroup proposed that\nthe agencies rely upon individual\noperators of natural gas and hazardous\nliquid production and transportation\npipeline facilities to identify the\nboundaries of their respective facilities.\nThe MMS and RSPA agreed with the\nindustry proposal and entered into an\ninteragency Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU) on December 10,\n1996. The MOU was published in a joint\nMMS-RSPA Federal Register Notice\n(Februar 14.1997; 62 FR 7037-7039).\nThe &U placed, to the greatest\npractical extent, OCS production\npipetines under DO1 responsibility and\nOCS transportation pipelines under\nDOT responsibility. Therefore, RSPA\nhas primary regulatory responsibility for\ntransporter-operated pipelines and\nassociated pumping or compressor\nfacilities on the OCS. while MMS has\nprimary regulatory responsibility for\nproducer-operated facilities and\npipelines. Producing operators are\ncompanies which are engaged in the\nextraction and processing of\nhydrocarbons on the OCS. Transporting\noperators are companies which are\nengaged in the transportation of those\nhydrocarbons born the OCS. There are\napproximately 150 operators of\nproducer pipelines and 75 opera ors of\ntransportation pipelines on the CCS.\nThe MOU established a regula? ory\nboundary on the OCS at the point where\noperating responsibility for the pipeline\ntransfers from a producing operalor to a\ntransporting operator. The MOU did not\naddress the producer-operated p pelines\nthat cross the FederallState boundary\nwithout a transfer on the OCS. H3wever.\nthe MOU provided the agencies tvith the\nflexibility to address situations tliat do\nnot correspond to the general delinition\nof the regulatory boundary.\nThe purpose of this proposed iule is\nto address regulatory questions\nregarding producer-operated pip sline\nfacilities that cross the FederaVState\nboundary without first connectir g t o a\ntransporting operator’s facility on the\nOCS and to establish a procedurtr\nwhereby OCS producing operators may\npetition to have their pipelines\nregulated by RSPA. The rule would\namend 49 CFRparts 191.I(b)(l).\n192.lb)(l) and 195.1(b)(5].\nWhen we published the DFX t a\nimplement the December 1996 hfOU on\nNovember 19.1997 (62 FR 6169:!). we\nreceived comments from Chevron\nU.S.A. Production Company anc\nChevron Pipe Line Company in Nhich\nthey observed that the proposed\nregulation did not appear to allow Ocs\nproducer-operated pipelines to I emain\nunder DOT regulatory authority The\ncommenters requested that provision be\nmade to allow producers to continue to\noperate under DOT regulations if\napproval is obtained from DOI.\nThis arose because the regulafory\nboundaries in the MOU and the DFR\nwere described in terms of spec Fic\npoints on OCS pipelines where\noperating responsibility transfeIs from a\nproducing operator to a connecting\ntransporting operator. The prod x e r -\noperated pipelines that cross t h t :\nFederaVState boundary into State\nwaters without first connecting to a\ntransporter-operated facility we -e not\naffected. Nor were the producer lines\nthat flow from State waters to\nproduction platforms located 011 the\nOCS.\nRegardless of the direction of flow,producer pipelines that cross tk e\nFederal/State boundary are always\nsubject to RSPA regulation on tie\nportions of the lines located in State\nwaters. However, it does not mpike\noperational sense to have a pipisline\nsegment crossing the FederallS ate\nboundary subject to MMS regulations on\nthe OCS side of the boundary a i d RSPA\nregulations on the State side of the\nboundary. W e believe that a rq,ulatory\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n16356\nFederal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 66lFriday; April 5, 2002 /Proposed Rules -\nboundary point is better defined in\nterms of a specific point that isolates\none segment of a pipeline from another.\nBy contrast, the FederallState\ngeographic boundary does not allow the\nisolation of facilities on each side of the\nboundary.\nTherefore, for producer-operated\npipeline facilities that cross into State\nwaters without first connecting to a\ntransporting operator's facility on the\nOCS, we propose that pipeline segments\nlocated upstream (generally seaward) of\nthe last valve on the last production\nfacility (excluding pipeline risers and\nassociated safety equipment) be\nexempted from compliance with 4 9 CFX\nparts 19&199.\nUnder this arrangement, producer-\noperated pipeline facilities upstream\n(generally seaward) of the last valve on\nthe last production facility on the OCS\nwould be regulated under MMS\nregulations. RSPA would continue to\ninspect all upstream safety equipment\n(including valves, over-pressure\nprotection devices, cathodic protection\nequipment. and pigging devices) that\nserve to protect the integrity of the\nRSPA-regulated pipeline segments. This\narrangement is consistent with the\ngeneral intent of the MOU. However,\nproducer-operators whose lines do not\ntransfer operating responsibility on the\nOCS may petition RSPA for a different\nregulatory boundary.\nAn important principle of the\nindustry agreement leading to tbe MOU\nis to allow the operators to agree to the\nregulatory boundaries on their facilities.\nTherefore, producer pipeline operators\nmay petition RSPA's Office of Pipeline\nSafety under 49 CFR 190.9 for approval\nto operate under RSPA regulations\ngoverning pipeline design, construction,\noperation, and maintenance. In\nconsidering such petitions, the RSPA\nAdministrator, or designee, will consult\nwith the MMS and the affected parties.\nThis proposed rule would affect about\n215 producer-operated pipelines that\nare being regulated according to a now-\nsuperseded 1976 MOU between DO1\nand DOT. By exempting the producer-\noperated pipelines from RSPA\nregulation, this rule would reduce the\noverlapping regulations in accordance\nwith the MOU of December 10.1996.\nThe rulemaking would have minimal\neconomic impact on any of the affected\noperators.\nRegulatory Analyses and Notices\nA. E.O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory\nPolicies ond Procedures\nDOT does not consider this action to\nbe a significant regulatory action under\nsection 3(f) of Executive Order 12666\n(58 FR 51735; October 4.1993).\nTherefore, it was not forwarded to the\nOffice of Management and Budget. This\nproposed rule is not significant under\nDOT'S regulatory policies and\nprocedures (44 FR 11034; February 26.\n1979). A regulatory evaluation of this\nproposal was prepared and placed in\nthe docket of this action.\nBenefits\nWithout the proposed rule, the\npipeline operations of a large number of\nproducers with pipelines crossing\ndirectly into State waters could remain\nsubject to overlapping regulations for\ndesign, construction, operation, and\nmaintenance. This includes about 35\nproducers in Gulf of Mexico OCS waters\nand 10 producers operating in Califomia\nOCS waters. This would be contrary to\nthe intent of the American Petroleum\nlnstitute and industry agreement and\nthe MOU to regulate producer-operated\npipelines under DO1 and transporter-\noperated pipelines under DOT.\nBy imp ementing the proposed rule.\nRSPA will bring these pipelines under\nthe provisions of the 1996 MOU. This\nshould serve to minimize confusion\namong operators concerning which\nregulations they are expected to follow.\nWe estimate that each OCS producer\noperator spends on average one-half\nperson year annually per OCS pipeline\nto comply with RSPA regulations.\nAssuming that a loaded wage For a\nperson year in the pipeline industry is\n$50,000, each company could realize a\nsavings of $25,000 annually ($50,000 x\n0.5 person-years = $25,000). The annual\nsavings to the entire industry could be\nas high as $1.125.000 ($25.000 x 45\noperators = S1.125.000).\ncosts\nThe administrative costs of the\nproposed rule are minimal. Papemork\ncosts would arise only in cases when a\nproducer pipeline operator decided to\nrequest that its pipeline continue to be\nregulated as a RSPA facility. We\nestimate that less than 10 producer\npipeline operators will request ko\nremain under RSPA regulation. We\nestimate that the time for developing\neach request and submitting it to MMS\nand RSPA will be about 40 hours. Based\non 10 requests at 40 hours each, the\ntotal one-time burden of requesting to\nremain under RSPA regulation will be\nless than 400 hours. Based on $35 per\nhour, we estimate that the total\nadministrative cost to respondents is\nless than $14,000 ($1,400 per request)\nduring the first year that the rule is\nimplemented. In the first year, nearly all\nproducer pipeline operators would have\ndecided whether to automatically\nconvert to M M S regulation or ap ?ly to\nremain under RSPA regulation. 7 V e\nanticipate that in following yearr , not\nmore than two operators a year vrould\nsubmit a request to change their\nregulatory status at a total cost 0.\n%2,8Qo. However, for most follolring\nyears it is highly unlikely that ally\nrequest would be made as a result of the\npro osedrule.\n&e proposed rule does not h;,ve a\nsignificant economic effect (less than\n$100 million]: therefore. RSPA tloes not\nconsider it to be a major rule. We d o not\nexpect there to be any increases in costs\nor prices for consumers, individual\nindustries, Federal, State, or local\ngovernments, agencies. or geographic\nregions to result from implemer ting the\nproposed rule. Any indirect effc cts on\ncosts or prices are anticipated ttr be\nnegligible. This proposed rule will not create a\nserious inconsistency or othemise\ninterfere with an action taken or\nplanned by another agency: materially\nalter the budgetary impact of\nentitlement, grants, user fees, or loan\nprograms; or raise novel legal c r policy\nissues.\nThe proposed rule will not have any\neffect on competition, employment,\ninvestment, productivity, innovation, or\non the ability of U.S. based enlerprises\nto compete with foreign based\nenterprises in other markets bc cause the\neconomic effects are minor. Tl~erefore. a\nRegulatory Impact Analysis is not\nrequired under E.O. 12866.\nB. Federalism Assessment\nThe proposed rule would ni)t have\nsubstantial direct effects on States, on\nthe relationship between the I'ederal\nGovernment and the States, 01' on the\ndistribution of power and\nresponsibilities among the va .io,,\nlevels of rrovemment. Therefere. in\naccordan& with Executive O1.der 12612\n(October 30. 1987: 52 FR 4161b5). we\nhave determined that this nolice does\nnot have sufficient Federalisr I\nimplications to warrant prepmtion of a\nFederalism Assessment.\nC. Regulatory Flexibility Act\nUnder the Regulatory Flex bility Act\n(5 U.S.C. 601 el seq.) RSPA must\nconsider whether a rulemaking would\nhave a significant impact on a\nsubstantial number of small rntities.\nMMS recently conducted ,tn analysisof 150 operators on the Gulf of Mexico\nOCS. For publicly-traded operators,\nnumbers of employees and i nnual sales\nare readily available on the Internet.\nMMS was not able to get infirmation on\nall operators on the OCS. LJ: mg the\ncritermn that a small company IS one\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nFederal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 66 /Friday, April 5, 2002 /Proposed Rules 16357 =\nLhat employs less than 500 employees, regulation. Pipeline Companies are This certification is subject to\n60 operators are medium-to-large-size considered “small” if they have fewer modification as a result of a review of\nof &e remaining operators, 36 than 1.500 employees, but both of these the comments received in response to\nare small, based on available data. and operators would be considered ”large” this proposal.\n44 others were presumed to be small under the 1~500-emPloYee criterion. D, ~~~~~~j~~ Order 13084\nbecause no information about them was Natural gas and hazardous liquid\navailable on &e Internet. In sum. 80 production and ttanspofiation\nThis proposed rule has been airalyzed\noperators on &e Gulf of Mexico OCS companies are classified under NAICS in accordance with the principle; and\nmay be considered to be small. Codes by the Census Bureau. The Small criteria contained in Executive Crder\nfie above breakdown describes the Business Administration further 13084 (“Consultation and Coord nation\ncxs sector of the natural gas and classifies “small businesses” in the with Indian Tribal Governments ’).\nhazardous liquid industry as a whole various offshore Sectors as follows: (11 Because this proposed rule effec :s the\nand provides the wider context in Oil and gas producers that have fewer Federally managed OCS and does not\nwhich to examine the actual community than 500 employees; (2) liquid pipeline affect the communities of the Inclian\nthat would be affected by the proposed companies than have fewer than 2,500 tribal governments and nor impcise any\nI-llle. employees: (3) natural gas pipeline . direct compliance costs, the funiiing\nOfthe 150 production operators in the companies that have gross annual and consultation requirements a f\nGulf of Mexico, only 35 would be receipts of 325 million or less; and (41 Executive Order 13084 do not allply.\ndirectly affected by the proposed Nh. offshore oil and gas field exploration\nOf these 35 operators. 11 are considered service or production service companies E. Executive O&f 13132\nto be “small.” There are about ten that have gross annual receipts of $5\nThis proposed rule has been analyzed\nproducer pipeline operators on the million or less. There are many\nin accordance with the principiis and\nPacific OCS that may be affected by the companies on the OCS that are “Small uiteria contained in Executive fhder\nproposed rule, and four of these are businesses” by these definitions.\n13132 [“Federalism”). This prolmsed\nconsidered to be small. Of the small However* the\nrule does not propose any regut ition\noperators to be affected by the proposed for conducting offshore oil and gas that:\nrule. almost all are represented by the exphation and development activities [1) H~~ substantial direct effe ..ts on\nNorth American Lndustry Classification is very complex and costly. and most the States, the relationship betv,een the\nSystem (NAICS) code 211111. which entities that engage in offshore activities national\nand the States, oc\nrepresents crude petroleum and natural have financial resources\nthe distribution of power and\ngas producers. A pi eline company (non-producer) is disproportionate to their numbers of employees and well beyond what would\nresponsibilities among the vari,,us\nofgovernment:\na .‘smayl entity” if it is a liquid pipeline normally be considered “small\nny with fewer than 1.500 business.” These entities customarily\n1’) Imposes\nK:ryees, or a natural gas pipeline conduct their operations by contracting\ngovernments; costs or On States and local\ncompany with gross annual receipts of with offshore drilling or service\n$25 million or less. There are about 18 companies. and therefore tend to have\nentities operating on the OCS that can few employees in relation to their\nbe interpreted as “small independent financial resources.\npipeline companies.” These small There are up to 150 designated\npipeline companies provide operators of leases and 75 operators of\ntransportation services for several non- major oil or gas producers with which transmission ipelines on the OCS (both\nlarge and sma P 1 operators), and the\nthey have an “arms-length“ but economic impacts on the oil and gas\nsymbiotic business relationship. These production and transmission companies\ncompanies are represented primarily by directly affected would be minor. All\nNAICS codes 486210 [crude petroleum costs imposed by the rule would be\npipelines) and 486210 (natural gas small compared to the normal operating\ntransmission pipelines). and maintenance expenses experienced\nThe larger operators to be affected by by offshore pipeline operators, Direct\nthe rule mostly fall into either NAICS costs to industry for the entire proposed\nCode 211111 (crude petroleum and rule total less than 514.000 For the first\nnatural gas producers), or NAICS Code year. This rule would not impose any\n324110, which represents petroleum new restrictions on small pipeline\nrefining. Companies operating on the service companies or manufacturers, nor\nOCS and that fall into NAICS Code will it cause their business practices to\n324110 tend to be the very large change.\nintegrated natural gas and hazardous We conclude that the proposed rule\nliquid com anies.\nwould not have a significant economic\nTwo of t{e larger operators in the Gulf impact on a substantial number of small\nof Mexico that have production entities. Therefore, I certify, pursuant to\npipelines are represented under NAKS section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility\nCode 486210 (natural gas transmission). Act (5 U.S.C. 6051, that this proposal\nand by NAlCS Code 221210 (natural gas will not, if implemented. have a\ndistribution). These classifications mean significant economic impact on a\nthat the operators in question normally substantial number of small entities.\noperate as pipeline companies, and we However. we are particularly interested\nanticipate that these two operators may in receiving comments from any small\nchoose to remain under RSPA business operators believing otherwise. (3]\nstate law.\nTherefore, the consultation and\nfunding requirements of Executlve\nOrder 13132 (64 FR 43255; Au p s t IO,\n19991 do not apply.\nF. Unfunded Mandates\nThis proposed N ~ B would not impose\nunfunded mandates under the\nUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of\n1995. It would not result in costs of over\n$100 million or more to either State.\nlocal, or tribal governments, i: t the\naggregate, or to the private sector. and\nis the least burdensome alternative that\nachieves the objectives.\nG. pope,ork Reduction\nThis proposed rule does no1 containinformation collection requiri:ments\nestimated to effect more than ten\nrespondents per year.\nH. Notional Environment01 P d i c y Act\nWe have analyzed this acti m for\npurposes of the National Environmental\nPolicy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 ei seq.) and\nhave determined that this pntposed rule\nwould not significantly affec: the\nquality of the human envirorment. The\nEnvironmental Assessment c f this\nproposal is available for revi:w in the\ndocket.\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\n16358\nFederal Register/Vol. 67, No. 661 Friday, April 5, ZOOZ/Proposed Rules =\nI. Executive Order 1321 1 lEnergy1\nWe have reviewed this proposed rule\nin accordance with Executive Order\n13211 regarding the energy of Federal\nregulations and have determined that\nthis proposed rule does not have any\nadverse effects on energy supply.\ndistribution, or use. Therefore, no\nreasonable altematives to this action x e\nnecessary.\nList of Subjects\n49 CFR 291\nGas, Pipeline safety. Reporting and\nrecordkeeping requirements.\n49 CFR Port 192\nHazardous liquid, Natural gas,\nPipeline safety, Pipelines. Reporting and\nrecordkeeping requirements.\n49 CFR Port 195\nAmmonia. Carbon dioxide,\nPetroleum. Pipeline safety, Reporting\nand recordkeeping requirements.\nFor the reasons set out in the\npreamble, 49 CFRParts 191.192 and\n1% is proposed to be amended as\nfollows.\noperating responsibility transfers from a\nproducing operator to a transporting\noperator: or\n14) Onshore gathering of gas outside of\nthe following areas:\n(i) An area within the limits of any\nincorporated or unincorporated city.\ntown, or village.\n(ii) Any designated residential or\ncommercial area such as a subdivision,\nbusiness or shopping center, or\ncommunity development.\n(61 Any pipeline system that\ntransports only petroleum gas c r\npetroleum gadair mixtures to-.\n(i) Fewer than 10 customers, if no\nportion of the system is located in a\npublic place: or\n(ii) A single customer, if the iystem is\nlocated entirely on the customc r's\npremises (no matter if a portio11 of the\nsystem is located in a public place].\nPART 195-[AMENDED]\nPART 192-[AMENDED]\n1. The authority citation for Pari 192\nwould continue to read as follows:\nAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 5103.60102, 60104.\n60108,60109.60110.60113,60118: and 49\nCFR 1.53.\n2. Section 192.1 would be amended\nby revising paragraphs &)(I) through (5)\nand adding paragraph (b)(6] to read as\nfollows:\n1. The authority citation for :'art 195\nwould continue to read as folk ws:\nAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 5103,6010::. 60104,\n60108.60109.60118: and 49 CFR . .53.\n2. Section 195.1 would be ariended\nby redesignating paragraphs [b1(7). (8)\nand (9) a s paragraphs (aI[B). [9 and [io),\nrespectively; revising paragraphs (b)(5)\nand [6); and adding a new par: graph\n(b)(7] to read as follows:\n5 195.1 Applicability.\ng 192.1 Scope of part.\nt . . * t t\n* * C * t\n(bl\n(b) *\n(I) Offshore gathering of gas in State\n(5) Transportation of hazardDus liquid\nwaters upstream Erom the outlet flange\nor carbon dioxide in offshore Iiipelines\nPART lOl--[AMENDED]\nof each facility where hydrocarbons are\nin State waters which are ]oca ed\n1. The authority citation for part 191\nproduced or where produced hydrocarbons are first separated,\nupstream from the outlet flange of each\nfacility where hydrocarbons 0. carbon\nwould continue to read as follows:\ndehydrated, or otherwise processed.\ndioxide are produced or when:\nAuthority: 49 U.S.C. 5121. 60102.60103.\nwhichever facility is farther\nproduced hydrocarbons or carbon\n60104,60108.60117.60118.60124; and 49\ndownstream:\ndioxide are first separated, deliydrated,\nCFR 1.53.\n(2) Pipelines on the Outer Continental\nor otherwise processed. whicl ever\n2. Section 191.1 would be amended\nShelf that are producer-operated and\nfacility is farther downstream\nby revising paragaph fi) to read as\ncross into State waters without first\n(6) Transportation of hazarc ous liquid\nfollows:\nconnecting to a transporting operator's\nor carbon dioxide in Outer Continental\n5 191.1 Scope.\nfacility, upstream [generally seaward) of\nShelf pipelines which are loc;,ted\n9 f t . t\nthe last valve on the last production\nupstream of the point at whic 1\nfacility (excluding pipeline risers and\nM' *\noperating responsibility trans 'em from a\nassociated safety equipment). Producing\nproducing operator to a translrorting\n(11 Offshore gathering of gas in State\noperators may petition the\nwaters upstream from the outlet flange\noperator;\nAdministrator, or designee. for approval\nof each facility where hydrocarbons are\n(7) Pipelines on the Outer C'ontinentat\nto operate under RSPA regulations\nproduced or where produced\nShelf that are producer-opera ed and\ngoverning pipeline design, construction.\nhydrocarbons are first separated,\ncross into State waters withotit first\noperation, and maintenance under 49\ndehydrated, or otherwise processed,\nconnecting to a transporting c perator's\nCFR 190.9;\nwhichever facility is farther\nfacility, upstream (generally E eaward) of\n(3) Pipelines on the Outer Continental\ndownstream;\nthe last valve on the last production\nShelf upstream of the point at which\n(2) Pipelines on the Outer Continental\nfacility [excluding pipeline risers and\noperating responsibility transfers from a\nShelf that are producer-operated and\nassociated safety equipment) Producing\ncross into State waters without first\nproducing operator to a transporting\noperators may petition the\nconnecting to a transporting operator's\noperator;\nAdministrator or designee foi approval\nfacility, upstream (generally seaward) of\n(4) Onshore gathering of gas outside of\nto operate under RSPA regulittions\nthe last valve on the last production\nthe following areas:\ngoverning pipeline design, cctnstruction,\nfacility [excluding pipeline risers and\n(i) An area within the limits of any\noperation, and maintenance iinder 49\nassociated safety equipment]. Producing\nincorporated or unincorporated city,\nCFR 190.9:\noperators may petition the\ntown, or village.\nt t . * *\nAdministrator, or designee, for approval\n(ii) Any designated residential or\nto operate under RSPA regulations\ncommercial area such as a subdivision,\nIssued in Washington. MJ on ldarch 15,\ngoverning pipeline design. construction,\nbusiness or shopping center, or\noperation, and maintenance under 49\ncommunity development.\nCFR 190.9:\n(5) Onshore gathering of gas within\n(3) Pipelines on the Outer Continental\ninlets of the Gulf of Mexico except as\nShelf upstream of the point at which\nprovided in 5 192 612; or\n2002.\nStacey L. Gerard.\nAssociate Administmlorforhpe h e So/efy.\n[FR Doc 02-6825 Filed 4-4-02: a 45 4\nBlLUHG CODE A33obD-P\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nTECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nTECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nBallot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):\nPipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous\nLiquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters\nPublished April 5,2002\nPlease check one box and return this ballot by November 29, 2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the\naddress given below:\n1. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1, 192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\n2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1,192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes arc:\nmade (attach additional sheets if necessary).\n3. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1,192 and 195 are not (or cannJt\nbe made) technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\nSignature Date\nCheryl Whetsel\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7128\nWashington, DC 20590\nTelephone: (202) 366-443 1\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n~~\nAlex P. Alvarado (G)\nChief, Pipeline Section\nJ\nMinerals Management Service\n1201 Elmwood Park Blvd.\nNew Orleans, LA 70123\nalex.al\\ alado!ll:lnrl~.c.o\\\nMembership Category: (G)=Government; (I) Industry; (P) Public\n(504) 736-2547 David Lopez (G) (703) 603-8707\nFax 736-2408 Dir., Oil Program Center Fax 603-9 1 16\nU.S. Environmental Protection Agency\n/’ 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\nWashington, DC 20460\nlopez.david!Ne~a.fio\\\nDenise A. Bode (G)\nCommissioner\nState of Oklahoma\n304 Jim Thorpe Building\nOklahoma City, OK 73105\nd.hodc!~i~accmail.occ.state.ok .us\nLinda Guthrie - contact\n/” Cook Inlet Keeper\nois N. Epstein, P.E. (P)\nSenior Engineer\n1026 W. qth Avenue\nSuite 201\nAnchorage, AK 99501\nloisi~i~inletE;ee~cr.or!!\nDenise M. Hamsher (I)\nDirector, Public & Govenment\nAffairs\nEnbridge (U.S.) Inc.\n1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300\nHouston, TX 77002\ndciiisc hamzhsrih enbi doc-us coni\nOrville D. Harris (I)\nVice President, Asset Management\nLonghorn Partners Pipeline\n3633 Allen Parkway, Suite 220\nHouston, TX 770 19\no. d . han ish l\\vilhams. coni\nMr. Willie D. Jones (I)\nogistics and Customer Service\nManager\nPipe Line Company\n(405) 521-2267\nFax 521-1409\n(907) 276-4244\next. 119\nFax 276-71 10\n(713) 821-2089\nFax 653-6710\n(713) 529-1555\nFax 524-3999\n(918) 661-1993\nFax 662-2304\nLarry Miller (P) ( 7 13) 670-2605\nChannel Development Manager Fax 670-2427\nPort of Houston Authority\n1 1 I East Loop North\nHouston, TX 77029\nlmiller@poha.com\nMary F. Morgan (I) Vice President, Customer Service\nKinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.\n500 Dallas, Suite 1000\nHouston, TX 77002\ninarv inorgaii~u,kiiiderinoraaIi.com\nA u t h Ellen Schelhaus (P)\nEnvironmental Specialist\n507 Greenblades Court\nAmold, MD 2 10 12\nHome: rschel@i’toad.net\n/ Marilyn G. Showalter (G)\nChairwoman\nWashington Utilities Transportation\nCommission\n1300 S. Evergreen Park Drive, S.W.\nOlympia, WA 98504\nm s l i o w a l t i i r l ~ ~ . u t c . ~ ~ - a . ~ ~ ~\nMary Mendoza - contact\nBruce Stein (P)\nNature Serve\n1101 Wilson Blvd, 15‘h floor\nArlington, VA 22093\nbskinyhaturzsei ve.oi q\n(713) 369-9448\nFax 560-4677\n(202) 646-5671\nFax 646-5500\n(360) 664-1 173\nFax 586-1 150\n(703) 908-1 830\nFax 908- 1 9 17\nUpdated March 5, 2002\n1\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nTECHNICAL, HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nTECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nBallot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):\nPipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous\nLiquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters\nPublished April 5,2002\nPlease check one box and return this ballot by November 29, 2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the\n2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\nThe proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191,192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes ar?\nmade (attach additional sheets if nccessq).\n3.- The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are not (or cannot\nbe made) technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\n12. -17- o Z\nDate\nCheryI Whetsel\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, SW. Room 7128\nWashington, DC 20590\nTelephone: (202) 366-443 1\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nNov-27-2002 04:39pm From- T - 0 5 5 P 001/001 :-473\nTECFINTCAL NAZARDOUS LIQUID PTPELPX SAFETY STANDARDS COMMIT TEE\nTECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STAIVDARDS COMMlTTEE\nBallot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):\nPipeline Safe@: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Haznrtlous\nLiquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters\nPublished April 5,2002\nPlease check one box and retuni this ballot by November 29,2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the\naddress given below:\n1. % The proposed amendmmts to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and pracricable.\n2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1, 192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are\nmade (anach addiriond sheets i l necessary).\n3.- The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Pam 19 1,192 and 195 are not (or cannot\nbe made) technicallf feasible, reasonable, cos-effective. and practicable.\nSignature\nI\n>- -_\n--\n/-\nCheryl Whzrsel\nResearch and Special Programs Adminisnsrion\nU. S, Department of Transparlarim\n400 Seventh Strset, Sly, Room 7128\nWashington, DC 20590\nTelephone 1 (2 02) 3 6 6-443 1\nDatC\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nTECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nTECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nBallot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):\nPipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous\nLiquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters\nPublished April 5,2002\nPlease check one box and retum this ballot by November 29,2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the\naddress given below:\n1. J/ The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\n2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191,192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes are\nmade (attach additional sheets if necessary).\n3. ~\nThe proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191,192 and 195 are not (or camlt\nbe made) technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\n<\nSignature\nDate\nCheryl Whetsel\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7128\nWashington, DC 20590\nTelephone: (202) 366-443 1\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nTECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nTECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nBallot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):\nPipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous\nLiquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters\nPublished April 5,2002\nPlease check one box and return this ballot by November 29,2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the\naddress given below:\n1. / The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191 , 192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\n2. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1 , 192 and 1 95 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes a-e\nmade (attach additional sheets if necessary).\n3. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1,192 and 195 are not (or car not\nbe made) technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\nDate\nCheryl Whetsel\nResearch and Special Programs Administration\nU.S. Department of Transportation\n400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7128\nWashington, DC 20590\nTelephone: (202) 366-443 1\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nTECHNICAL HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nTECHNICAL PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS COMMITTEE\nBallot for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM):\nPipeline Safety: Producer-operated Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Hazardous\nLiquid Pipelines that Cross Directly into State Waters\nPublished April 5,2002\nPlease check one box and retum this ballot by November 29,2002, to Cheryl Whetsel at the\naddress given below:\n1. 2. x. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1, 192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable.\nThe proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195 are technically\nfeasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if the following changes a~ e\nmade (attachradditional sheets if necessary).\nA\n-\n3. The proposed amendments to 49 CFR Parts 19 1 , 192 and 195 are","truncated":true,"body_characters":64486}