51614 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(5) * * *

(ii) A requester has previously failed

to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion.

The Commission will require the

requester to pay the full amount owed

plus any applicable interest, and to

make an advance payment of the full

amount of the estimated fee before the

Commission will begin to process a new

request or a pending request from that

requester. When the Commission

requires advance payment or an

agreement to pay under this paragraph,

or under § 388.108(a)(5), the

administrative time limits prescribed in

this part will begin only after the

Commission has received the required

payments, or agreements.

(c) Fee reduction or waiver. (1) Any

fee described in this section may be

reduced or waived if the requester

demonstrates that disclosure of the

information sought is:

(i) In the public interest because it is

likely to contribute significantly to

public understanding of the operations

or activities of the government, and

(ii) Not primarily in the commercial

interest of the requester.

(2) The Commission will consider the

following criteria to determine the

public interest standard:

(i) Whether the subject of the

requested records concerns the

operations or activities of the

government;

(ii) Whether the disclosure is likely to

contribute to an understanding of

government operations or activities;

(iii) Whether disclosure of the

requested information will contribute to

public understanding; and

(iv) Whether the disclosure is likely to

contribute significantly to public

understanding of government operations

or facilities.

(3) The Commission will consider the

following criteria to determine the

commercial interest of the requester:

(i) Whether the requester has a

commercial interest that would be

furthered by the requested disclosure;

and, if so

(ii) Whether the magnitude of the

identified commercial interest of the

requester is sufficiently large, in

comparison with the public interest in

disclosure, that disclosure is primarily

in the commercial interest of the

requester.

(4) This request for fee reduction or

waiver must accompany the initial

request for records and will be decided

under the same procedures used for

record requests.

* * * * *

6. In section 388.110 the section

heading, the first sentence of paragraph

(a)(1), paragraph (a)(2), and paragraph

(b) are revised to read as follows:

§ 388.110 Procedure for appeal of denial of

requests for Commission records not

publicly available or not available through

the Public Reference Room, denial of

requests for fee waiver or reduction, and

denial of requests for expedited processing.

(a) (1) A person whose request for

records, request for fee waiver or

reduction, or request for expedited

processing is denied in whole or part

may appeal that determination to the

General Counsel or General Counsel’s

designee within 45 days of the

determination. * * *

(2) The General Counsel or the

General Counsel’s designee will make a

determination with respect to any

appeal within 20 working days after the

receipt of such appeal. An appeal of the

denial of expedited processing will be

considered as expeditiously as possible

within the 20 working day period. If, on

appeal, the denial of the request for

records, fee reduction, or expedited

processing is upheld in whole or in part,

the General Counsel or the General

Counsel’s designee will notify the

person making the appeal of the

provisions for judicial review of that

determination.

(b)(1) Extension of time. In unusual

circumstances, the time limits

prescribed for making the initial

determination pursuant to § 388.108 and

for deciding an appeal pursuant to this

section may be extended by up to 10

working days, by the Secretary, who

will send written notice to the requester

setting forth the reasons for such

extension and the date on which a

determination or appeal is expected to

be dispatched.

(2) The extension permitted by

paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be

made longer than 10 working days when

the Commission notifies the requester

within the initial response time that the

request cannot be processed in the

specified time, and the requester is

provided an opportunity to limit the

scope of the request to allow processing

within 20 working days; or to arrange

with the Commission an alternative

time frame.

(3) Two or more requests aggregated

into a single request under

§ 388.109(b)(2)(vii) may qualify for an

extension of time if the requests, as

aggregated, otherwise satisfy the

unusual circumstances specified in this

section.

(4) Unusual circumstances means:

(i) The need to search for and collect

the requested records from field

facilities or other establishments that are

separate from the office processing the

requests;

(ii) The need to search for, collect,

and appropriately examine a

voluminous amount of separate and

distinct records which are demanded in

a single request; or

(iii) The need for consultation, which

will be conducted with all practicable

speed, with another agency having a

substantial interest in the determination

of the request or among two or more

components of the agency having

substantial subject-matter interest

therein.

7. In § 388.112, paragraph(c)(1)(i)’s

reference to ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’ is

revised to read ‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(ii),’’

and paragraph (c)(1)(ii)’s reference to

‘‘paragraph (b)(3)’’ is revised to read

‘‘paragraph (b)(1)(iii).’’

[FR Doc. 97–26065 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010–AC39

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in

the Outer Continental Shelf

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: 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. Under this MOU, the

two departments jointly regulate OCS

pipelines. As specified in the MOU,

MMS regulations would pertain to all

OCS oil or gas pipelines located

upstream of the points at which

operating responsibility for the

pipelines transfer from a producing

operator to a transporting operator.

DATES: MMS will consider all comments

we receive by December 1, 1997. We

will begin reviewing comments then

and may not fully consider comments

we receive after December 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry

comments to the Department of the

Interior; Minerals Management Service;

Mail Stop 4020; 381 Elden Street;

Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817;

Attention: Rules Processing Team.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl

W. Anderson, Operations Analysis

Branch, at (703) 787–1608; e-mail

CarllAnderson@mms.gov.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 51615

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

MMS, through delegations from the

Secretary of the Interior, has authority to

promulgate and enforce regulations for

the promotion of safe operations,

protection of the environment, and

conservation of the natural resources of

the OCS, as that area is defined in the

OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).

The scope of this authority includes the

pipeline transportation of mineral

production and the approval and

granting of rights-of-way for the

construction of pipelines and associated

facilities on the OCS. MMS also

administers the following laws as they

relate to OCS pipelines: (1) the Federal

Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of

1982 (FOGRMA) for oil and gas

production measurement, and (2) the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as

amended by the Oil Pollution Act of

1990 (OPA) and implemented under

Executive Order 12777. (Under a

February 3, 1994, MOU to implement

OPA, DOI, DOT, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

divided their respective responsibilities

for oil spill prevention and response

according to the definition of ‘‘coast

line’’ contained in the Submerged Lands

Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301(c) (59 FR 9494–

9495).) Nothing in this proposed

regulation will affect MMS’ authority

under either FOGRMA or OPA.

Under an MOU between DOI and

DOT dated May 6, 1976, MMS regulated

oil and gas pipelines located upstream

of the outlet flange of each facility

where hydrocarbons were first produced

or where produced hydrocarbons were

first separated, dehydrated or otherwise

processed, whichever facility was

farther upstream. The Departments

agreed to change this regulatory

boundary with the signing of the

December 10, 1996, MOU. The 1996

MOU was the result of negotiations that

began in the summer of 1993 and

included a high degree of participation

from the regulated industry. MMS and

DOT’s Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA) solicited public

comments on a draft MOU through a

joint MMS and DOT Federal Register

Notice of May 24, 1995 (60 FR 27546–

27549). The Notice announced a public

meeting at the MMS Gulf of Mexico

OCS regional office in New Orleans,

Louisiana, on August 1, 1995, to discuss

the proposal. Over 70 people attended

the meeting which generated over 100

pages of transcribed comments from

natural gas and petroleum trade

organizations, natural gas and oil

exploration and production companies,

transmission companies, offshore

construction companies, and industry

consultants. A transcript of this meeting

is available through the agency

representative listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION section of this notice.

Twenty-three individuals and

organizations submitted written

comments on the Federal Register

notice.

In May 1996, MMS and RSPA met

with a joint industry workgroup

representing OCS oil and natural gas

producers and transmission pipeline

operators led by the American

Petroleum Institute. (The Interstate

Natural Gas Association of America also

participated on the workgroup.) The

industry workgroup proposed that the

agencies rely upon individual operators

of production and transportation

facilities to identify the boundaries of

their respective facilities, since

producers and transporters can best

make such decisions based on the

operating characteristics peculiar to

each facility. The two agencies agreed

with the industry proposal. Under the

proposal, MMS would have primary

regulatory responsibility for produceroperated facilities and pipelines on the

OCS, while RSPA would have primary

regulatory responsibility for transporteroperated pipelines and associated

pumping or compressor facilities.

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.

The Purpose of This Proposed Rule

The purpose of this proposed rule is

to require OCS producing and

transporting operators to designate the

specific points on their pipelines where

operating responsibility transfers from a

producing operator to an adjoining

transporting operator. The rule would

amend 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart J—

Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way,

section 250.150, ‘‘General

Requirements,’’ § 250.151,

‘‘Definitions,’’ and § 250.157,

‘‘Applications.’’ Operators would have

until 60 days after the date the rule

becomes final to identify the specific

points at which operating responsibility

transfers. In most cases, the specific

transfer points would be easily

identifiable either because of specific

valves or flanges where the adjoining

operations connect, or because of

differences in paint colors that adjoining

operators use to protect and maintain

pipeline coatings or surfaces. For those

instances in which the transfer points

would not be identifiable by a durable

marking, each operator would have

until 180 days after the final rule

becomes effective to mark the transfer

points. (The 180-day period would give

operators time to mark the transfer

points during customary maintenance

routines.) The operator would be

required to durably mark each transfer

point directly on the pipeline (usually at

a valve or flange). If it were not

practicable to durably mark a transfer

point, and the transfer point were

located above water, then the operator

would be required to depict the transfer

point on a schematic located on the

facility. Some transfer points could be

located subsea. In such cases, the

operators also would be required to

identify the transfer points on

schematics which would be provided to

MMS upon request.

For those instances in which

adjoining operators could not agree on

a transfer point, MMS and RSPA’s

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) would

make a joint determination of the

boundary.

MMS and OPS could, through their

enforcement agencies and in

consultation with the affected parties,

agree to exceptions to the general

boundary description (operations

transfer point) on a facility-by-facility or

area-by-area basis. Operators also could

petition, by letter, MMS and OPS for

exceptions to the general boundary

description.

For existing lease term pipelines, the

current designated operator of the

associated lease(s) would have the

operating responsibility for the

pipeline(s). For right-of-way pipelines,

MMS would assume that the current

right-of-way grant holder had the

operating responsibility, unless the

right-of-way grant holder informed

MMS otherwise within 60 days after the

effective date of this rule. (There are up

to 160 designated operators of leases

and 70 operators of transportation

pipelines on the OCS.)

Applications for new right-of-way

pipelines would be required to include

an identification of the operator and a

boundary demarcation point on the flow

schematic submitted in accordance with

30 CFR 250.157(a)(2).

A pipeline segment originally

operated under DOT regulations but

later transferred under MMS regulatory

responsibility as a result of this

proposed rulemaking could continue to

be operated under DOT requirements,

unless the MMS Regional Supervisor

determined, based on an MMS safety

assessment, that a pipeline segment or

component is unsafe. The Regional

Supervisor would then notify the

operator that MMS regulations apply to

that segment or component.
51616 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Under 30 CFR 250.3, the MMS

Supervisor for Field Operations may

approve alternative techniques,

procedures, equipment, or activities an

operator proposed if such techniques,

procedures, equipment, or activities

afford a degree of protection, safety, or

performance equal to or better than that

intended to be achieved by MMS

regulations.

Various laws enacted since 1976 have

contributed to ambiguity concerning

MMS’ and OPS’ respective

responsibilities concerning the

approximately 20,000 miles of active

OCS oil and gas pipelines and

production facilities that were regulated

under the May 6, 1976, MOU. The most

notable legislative changes included the

1978 OCS Lands Act Amendments; the

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of

1979; the OPA of 1990; and the Pipeline

Safety Act amendments of 1990, 1992,

1995, and 1996.

The December 1996 MOU would redefine MMS–OPS regulatory boundary

from the OCS facility where

hydrocarbons are first produced,

separated, dehydrated, or otherwise

processed to the point at which

operating responsibility for the pipeline

transfers from a producing operator to a

transporting operator. The MOU would

place, to the greatest extent practicable,

producer-operated pipelines under DOI

regulation and transporter-operated

pipelines under DOT regulation.

In its 1994 report ‘‘Improving the

Safety of Marine Pipelines,’’ the

National Academy of Sciences Marine

Board recommended: ‘‘To make better

use of inspection resources and help

integrate enforcement of MMS and OPS

marine pipeline safety regulations, the

committee recommends that

enforcement of OPS regulations offshore

be performed by MMS, through an

interagency agreement or redefinition of

the memorandum of understanding that

defines the jurisdictional division

between OPS and MMS * * *.’’ In

response to this recommendation, the

1996 MOU provides for DOI to act as an

agent for the DOT in identifying and

reporting potential violations of DOT

regulations at platforms on the OCS. As

an agent, DOI may inspect all DOTregulated pipeline facilities on

production platforms during DOI

inspections. DOI may also perform

coordinated DOI/DOT inspections of

pipeline facilities on DOT-regulated

platforms. The inspections may include

reviewing any operating or maintenance

records or reports that are located at the

inspected OCS platform facility.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This is not a significant rule under

E.O. 12866 and does not require review

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). An analysis of the

proposed rule indicates that the direct

costs to industry for the entire proposed

rule total approximately $360,000 for

the first year, and that in succeeding

years, the cost of the rule to industry

would not likely exceed $255,000.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

DOI has determined that this rule will

not have a significant economic effect

on a substantial number of small

entities. While this rule would affect a

substantial number of ‘‘small entities,’’

the economic effects of the rule would

not be significant. There are many

companies on the OCS that are ‘‘small

businesses’’ as defined by the Small

Business Administration. However, the

technology necessary for conducting

offshore oil and gas exploration and

development activities is very complex

and costly, and most entities that engage

in offshore activities have considerable

financial resources disproportionate to

their numbers of employees and well

beyond what would normally be

considered ‘‘small business.’’

DOI’s analysis of the economic

impacts indicates that direct costs to

industry for the entire proposed rule

total approximately $360,000 for the

first year, and in succeeding years, the

cost of the rule to industry would not

likely exceed $255,000 annually. These

annual costs would not persist for long,

because all pipelines converted to MMS

regulation eventually would come into

compliance with MMS safety valve

requirements. There are up to 160

designated operators of leases and 70

operators of transportation pipelines on

the OCS (both large and small

operators), and the economic impacts on

the oil and gas production and

transportation companies directly

affected would be minor. Not all

operators affected would be small

businesses, but much of their

modification costs may be paid to

offshore service contractors who may be

classified as small businesses. Operators

having to install new automatic

shutdown valves as a result of

transferring under MMS regulations

would sustain the greatest economic

impact from this rule. It is impractical,

however, to determine in advance

which operators would be affected,

because the operators themselves will

determine the transfer points between

producers and transporters.

To the extent that this rule might

eventually cause some of the relatively

larger OCS operators to make

modifications to their pipelines, it may

have a minor beneficial effect of

increasing demand for the services and

equipment of smaller service companies

and manufacturers. This rule would not

impose any new restrictions on small

pipeline service companies or

manufacturers, nor will it cause their

business practices to change.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains a

collection of information which we have

submitted to the OMB for review and

approval under section 3507(d) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. As

part of our continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burdens,

MMS invites the public and other

Federal agencies to comment on any

aspect of the reporting burden imposed

by this proposed rule. Submit your

comments to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB; Attention:

Desk Officer for the Department of the

Interior (OMB control number 1010–

XXXX); Washington, DC 20503. Send a

copy of your comments to the Rules

Processing Team; Mail Stop 4020; 381

Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170–

4817. You may obtain a copy of the

supporting statement for the collection

of information by contacting the

Bureau’s Information Collection

Clearance Officer at (202) 208–7744.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

provides that an agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

OMB has up to 60 days to approve or

disapprove this collection of

information but may respond after 30

days from receipt of our request.

Therefore, your comments are best

assured of being considered by OMB if

OMB receives them within 30 days of

publication of this notice. However,

MMS will consider all comments

received during the comment period for

this notice of proposed rulemaking.

The title of this collection of

information is ‘‘Implementation of

Memorandum of Understanding

Between the Departments of the Interior

and Transportation.’’

The collection of information in the

proposed rule consists of (1) reviewing

existing pipeline maps, conferring and

agreeing with operators of adjoining

transportation pipeline segments

concerning the locations of specific

transfer points, and either marking

directly on each pipeline or depicting

on a schematic the specific point on

each pipeline where operating

responsibility transfers from the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 51617

producing operator to a transporting

operator; (2) identifying the operator of

right-of-way pipelines if different from

the grant holder; and (3) allowing for

petitions for exceptions to general

operations transfer points. As stated

above under the ‘‘Intent of the Proposed

Rule’’ section, specific transfer points

will be easily identifiable in most cases,

either because of specific valves or

flanges where the adjoining operations

connect, or because of differences in

paint that adjoining operators use to

protect and maintain pipeline coatings

or surfaces.

The requirement to respond is

mandatory. MMS uses the information

to determine the demarcation where

pipelines are subject to MMS design,

construction, operation, and

maintenance requirements, as

distinguished from similar OPS

requirements.

The regulated community consists of

up to 160 Federal OCS oil and gas lease

designated operators and 70

transportation pipeline operators. There

are approximately 3,000 points where

operating responsibility for pipelines

transfers from a producer to a

transporter. MMS assumes that about

2,400 (representing 80 percent) of these

transfer points are already marked.

Therefore, this rulemaking would

require a one-time identification and

marking of about 600 points where

operating responsibility for pipelines

transfers from a producer to a

transporter. For the 2,400 transfer points

that are clearly marked, there would be

no information burden. The 600

unmarked transfer points, on the other

hand, would require widely-varying

times for marking depending on

whether a painted line or a schematic

was used to mark the transfer point.

The public reporting burden for this

proposed information collection

requirement is estimated to average 5

hours per response. This includes the

time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing the required

marking. The average annualized

burden over a 3-year period would be

1,051 hours.

MMS will summarize written

responses to this notice and address

them in the final rule. All comments

will become a matter of public record.

1. MMS specifically solicits

comments on the following questions:

(a) Is the proposed collection of

information necessary for the proper

performance of MMS’s functions, and

will it be useful?

(b) Are the estimates of the burden

hours of the proposed collection

reasonable?

(c) Do you have any suggestions that

would enhance the quality, clarity, or

usefulness of the information to be

collected?

(d) Is there a way to minimize the

information collection burden on those

who are to respond, including through

the use of appropriate automated

electronic, mechanical, or other forms of

information technology?

2. In addition, the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 requires agencies

to estimate the total annual cost burden

to respondents or record keepers

resulting from the collection of

information. MMS needs your

comments on this item. Your response

should split the cost estimate into two

components: (a) Total capital and

startup cost, and (b) annual operation,

maintenance, and purchase of services.

Your estimates should consider the

costs to generate, maintain, and disclose

or provide the information. You should

describe the methods you use to

estimate major cost factors, including

system and technology acquisition,

expected useful life of capital

equipment, discount rate(s), and the

period over which you incur costs.

Capital and startup costs include,

among other items, computers and

software you purchase to prepare for

collecting information; monitoring,

sampling, drilling, and testing

equipment; and record storage facilities.

Generally, your estimates should not

include equipment or services

purchased: before October 1, 1995; to

comply with requirements not

associated with the information

collection; for reasons other than to

provide information or keep records for

the Government; or as part of customary

and usual business or private practices.

Takings Implication Assessment

DOI certifies that the proposed rule

does not represent a governmental

action capable of interference with

constitutionally protected property

rights. Thus, a Takings Implication

Assessment need not be prepared

pursuant to E.O. 12630, Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This rule does not contain any

unfunded mandates to State, local, or

tribal governments, nor would it impose

significant regulatory costs on the

private sector. Anticipated costs to the

private sector will be far below the $100

million threshold for any year that was

established by the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act.

E.O. 12988

DOI has certified to OMB that this

proposed regulation meets the

applicable civil justice reform standards

provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12988.

National Environmental Policy Act

Under 516 DM 6, Appendix 10.4,

‘‘issuance and/or modification of

regulations’’ is considered a

categorically excluded action causing no

significant effects on the environment

and, therefore, does not require

preparation of an environmental

assessment or impact statement. DOI

completed a Categorical Exclusion

Review for this action on April 22, 1997,

and concluded: ‘‘The proposed

rulemaking does not represent an

exception to the established criteria for

categorical exclusion.’’

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

Continental shelf, Environmental

impact statements, Environmental

protection, Government contracts,

Incorporation by reference,

Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil

and gas development and production,

Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas

reserves, Penalties, Pipelines, Public

lands—mineral resources, Public

lands—rights-of-way, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur

development and production, Sulphur

exploration, Surety bonds.

Dated: September 22, 1997.

Sylvia V. Baca,

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals

Management.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, Minerals Management

Service proposes to amend 30 CFR part

250 as follows:

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND

SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

1. The authority citation for part 250

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331, et seq.

2. In § 250.150, paragraph (c) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 250.150 General requirements.

* * * * *

(c)(1) Department of the Interior (DOI)

pipelines, as defined in § 250.151 of this

subpart, must meet the requirements for

design, construction, operation,

maintenance, and abandonment

contained in §§ 250.150 through

250.158 of this subpart.
51618 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(2) A pipeline right-of-way grant

holder must identify in writing to the

Regional Supervisor the operator of any

pipeline located on its right-of-way if

the operator is different from the rightof-way grant holder.

(3) A producing operator must

identify on all existing pipelines located

on its lease or right-of-way the specific

points at which operating responsibility

transfers to a transporting operator.

(i) If the transfer points are not

identifiable by a durable marking, each

producing operator must mark all

above-water transfer points by (insert

date 180 days after the final rule is

published). The operators of new

pipelines also must durably mark all

above-water transfer points directly on

each pipeline.

(ii) If it is not practical to durably

mark a transfer point, and the transfer

point is located above water, then the

operator must depict the transfer point

on a schematic located on the facility.

(iii) If a transfer point is located

subsea, then the operator also must

identify the transfer point on a

schematic. The operator must provide

the schematic to MMS upon request.

(iv) If a producing and an adjoining

transporting operator cannot agree on a

transfer point by the date specified in

paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, the

MMS Regional Supervisor and the

Department of Transportation (DOT)

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) Regional

Director may jointly determine the

transfer point.

(4) Operators may petition, by letter,

the MMS Regional Supervisor for

exceptions to the general operations

transfer point description on a facilityby-facility or an area-by-area basis. The

Regional Supervisor, in consultation

with the OPS Regional Director and

affected parties, may grant such

exceptions.

(5) Pipeline segments designed and

constructed under DOT regulations

before (INSERT THE EFFECTIVE DATE

OF THE FINAL RULE), may continue to

operate under DOT design and

construction requirements until

significant modifications or repairs are

made to those segments. After (INSERT

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL

RULE), MMS operational and

maintenance requirements will apply to

those segments.

* * * * *

3. In § 250.151, a definition for the

term ‘‘DOI pipelines’’ is added in

alphabetical order as follows:

§ 250.151 Definitions.

* * * * *

DOI pipelines are those pipelines

extending upstream from each point on

the OCS at which operating

responsibility transfers from a

producing operator to a transporting

operator.

* * * * *

4. Section 250.157 is amended by

revising the title, revising paragraph (a)

introductory text, and adding a new

sentence at the end of paragraph (a)(2)

to read as follows:

§ 250.157 What to include in applications.

(a) Applications to install a lease term

pipeline or for a pipeline right-of-way

grant must be submitted in

quadruplicate to the Regional

Supervisor. Right-of-way grant

applications must include an

identification of the operator of the

pipeline. Each application must include

the following:

* * * * *

(2) * * * The schematic must

indicate the point on the OCS at which

operating responsibility transfers from a

producing operator to a transporting

operator.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–26073 Filed 10–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

31 CFR Part 208

RIN 1510–AA56

Management of Federal Agency

Disbursements: Hearing

AGENCY: Financial Management Service,

Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Change of date of public

hearing.

SUMMARY: This document changes the

date of the New York City public

hearing on proposed regulations relating

to the government’s use of electronic

funds transfer to make all Federal

payments, with the exception of tax

refunds, after January 1, 1999.

DATES: The public hearing in New York

City is being held on Monday, October

20, 1997 beginning at 10:00 a.m.

Requests to testify at the hearing and

outlines of testimony must be received

by Friday, October 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing in New

York City will be held at the U.S.

Alexander Hamilton Customs House, 1

Bowling Green, New York, New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regarding the hearing, contact Martha

Thomas-Mitchell at (202) 874–6757 or at

Internet address martha.thomasmitchell@fms.sprint.com. For general

information on the proposed regulation,

contact Robyn Schulhof at (202) 874–

6754 or Diana Shevlin at (202) 874–

7032.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice

of proposed rulemaking appearing in

the Federal Register on September 16,

1997 (62 FR 48714) announced that a

public hearing would be held in New

York City on October 27, 1997 at the

U.S. Alexander Hamilton Customs

House, 1 Bowling Green, New York,

New York, and that requests to speak at

the hearing were to be received 14 days

prior. The date of the hearing has

changed as well as the due date for

requests to testify at the hearing. The

location of the hearing remains the same

as originally published.

Dated: September 29, 1997.

Michael T. Smokovich,

Deputy Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 97–26197 Filed 9–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–35–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers, Department of the

Army

33 CFR Part 334

Danger Zones, Chesapeake Bay, Point

Lookout to Cedar Point, Maryland;

Correction

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DOD.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction and

extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

preamble to a proposed rule published

in the Federal Register on September 8,

1997, which concerns the Navy’s

request to amend the danger zone

regulations. In the preamble the size of

a restricted area is incorrectly expressed

in feet. It should be expressed in yards.

In addition, the comment period for this

proposed rule which is scheduled to

end on October 8, 1997, is extended

until 31, 1997, to coincide with the

comment period of a similar public

notice issued by the Army Corps of

Engineers Baltimore District.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by October 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: HQUSACE, CECW–OR,

Washington, D.C. 20314–1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Steve Elinsky at (410) 962–4503 or Mr.

Ralph Eppard at (202) 761–1783.

Correction

In the proposed rule published in the

Federal Register on September 8, 1997