# Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 71 FR 13289
- **title:** Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2006-03-15
- **effective on:** 2006-04-14
- **summary:** This action adopts a consensus standard to distinguish onshore gathering lines from other gas pipelines and production operations. In addition, it establishes safety rules for certain onshore gathering lines in rural areas and revises current rules for certain onshore gathering lines in nonrural areas. Operators will use a new risk-based approach to determine which onshore gathering lines are subject to PHMSA's gas pipeline safety rules and which of these rules the lines must meet. PHMSA intends this action to reduce disagreements over classifications of onshore gathering lines, increase public confidence in the safety of onshore gathering lines, and provide safety rules consistent with the risks of onshore gathering lines.
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-06-2562.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-06-2562.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-06-2562
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/03/15/06-2562/gas-gathering-line-definition-alternative-definition-for-onshore-lines-and-new-safety-standards
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 71 Issue 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006) [Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 13289-13303] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 06-2562] [[Page 13289]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 192 [Docket No. PHMSA-1998-4868; Amdt. 192-102] RIN 2137-AB15 Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This action adopts a consensus standard to distinguish onshore gathering lines from other gas pipelines and production operations. In addition, it establishes safety rules for certain onshore gathering lines in rural areas and revises current rules for certain onshore gathering lines in nonrural areas. Operators will use a new risk-based approach to determine which onshore gathering lines are subject to PHMSA's gas pipeline safety rules and which of these rules the lines must meet. PHMSA intends this action to reduce disagreements over classifications of onshore gathering lines, increase public confidence in the safety of onshore gathering lines, and provide safety rules consistent with the risks of onshore gathering lines. DATES: This final rule takes effect April 14, 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of API RP 80 in this rule as of April 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DeWitt Burdeaux by phone at 405-954- 7220 or by e-mail at [email protected] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Current Regulation of Onshore Gathering Lines; Definition Problem Gas gathering lines are pipelines used to collect natural gas from production facilities and transport it to transmission or distribution lines, which then transports it to the consumer. PHMSA's pipeline safety rules in 49 CFR part 192 apply to the transportation of natural gas and other gas by pipeline. However, onshore gathering lines in rural areas (areas outside cities, towns, villages, or designated residential or commercial areas) are subject only to Sec. 192.612, which prescribes inspection and burial requirements for lines within Gulf of Mexico inlets (Sec. Sec. 192.1(b)(4) and (b)(5)). (Note: Lines in these inlets are not covered by this final rule.) Under Sec. 192.9, gathering lines in nonrural areas must meet the same safety standards for design, construction, testing, operation, and maintenance as gas transmission lines, except the requirements of Sec. 192.150 on passage of an internal inspection device (also known as smart pigs) and subpart O on integrity management. In addition, PHMSA's drug and alcohol testing regulations in 49 CFR part 199 apply to nonrural gas gathering lines. Section 192.3 currently defines the terms ``gathering line,'' ``transmission line,'' and ``distribution line'': ``Gathering line'' means a pipeline that transports gas from a current production facility to a transmission line or main. ``Transmission line'' means a pipeline, other than a gathering line, that transports gas from a gathering line or storage facility to a gas distribution center or storage facility; operates at a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of a Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS), or transports gas within a storage field. ``Distribution line'' means a pipeline other than a gathering or transmission line. Because these definitions are circular and part 192 does not define ``production facility,'' operators and government inspectors have had difficulty distinguishing regulated gathering lines from unregulated production facilities and unregulated gathering lines from regulated transmission and distribution lines. Also, the complexity of many gathering systems has increased the difficulty of distinguishing gathering lines. B. Past Attempts To Resolve the Definition Problem and Determine the Need To Regulate Rural Gathering Lines In 1974, DOT tried to correct the problem of distinguishing gathering lines by proposing to revise the gathering line definition (39 FR 34569; Sept. 26, 1974). However, the proposal was later withdrawn because comments indicated many terms and phrases were unclear (43 FR 42773; Sept. 21, 1978). Afterward, the problem lingered until 1986, when the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), a nonprofit association of State pipeline safety officials, surveyed its members and reported numerous and continuing disagreements with operators over gathering lines. Driven by the NAPSR survey, in 1991 DOT again proposed to revise the gathering line definition (56 FR 48505; Sept. 25, 1991). However, the public response was generally unfavorable, so DOT delayed any further action until it collected and considered more information. Part 192 does not regulate the safety of most rural gathering lines because, until 1992, the pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. Chapter 601) restricted DOT's authority over onshore gathering lines to lines in nonrural locations.\1\ In 1992, Congress gave DOT specific authority to define gas gathering lines for purposes of safety regulation, and to regulate a class of rural gathering lines called ``regulated gathering lines'' (49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(21) and 60101(b)). The new authority directed DOT to consider functional and operational characteristics in defining gathering lines. Further direction was to consider such factors as location, length of line, operating pressure, throughput, and gas composition in deciding which rural lines warrant regulation. This authority also expressly allows PHMSA to depart from the concepts of gathering under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ In 1990 Congress gave DOT limited authority over gathering lines in Gulf of Mexico inlets (see Pub. L. 101-599). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1999, in furtherance of the still open 1991 gathering line proceeding and Congress' action on gathering lines, DOT opened a Web site for public discussion of the definition problem and the need to regulate rural gathering lines (Docket No. PHMSA-1998-4868; 64 FR 12147; Mar. 11, 1999). The comments mainly focused on the comprehensive work by the American Petroleum Institute (API), later published as API Recommended Practice 80, ``Guidelines for the Definition of Onshore Gas Gathering Lines'' (API RP 80). API RP 80 defines onshore gas gathering lines through a series of definitions, descriptions, and diagrams intended to represent the varied and complex nature of production and gathering in the U.S. Although industry commenters spoke favorably about the API RP 80 gathering line definition, NAPSR objected to the use of certain ``furthermost downstream'' endpoints to mark the beginning and end of gathering. NAPSR's concern was if the definition were included in part 192, operators would have an incentive to establish or move the endpoints further downstream to reduce the amount of regulated pipelines. While considering its next step, DOT published an Advisory Bulletin to remind operators it was still regulating gathering lines according to court precedents and its prior interpretations (67 FR 64447; October 18, 2002). Then in 2003, DOT held public meetings in Austin, Texas (68 FR 62555; November 5, 2003) and Anchorage, Alaska (68 FR 67129; December 1, 2003) [[Page 13290]] to attract more comments on the best way to define gas gathering lines and what, if any, safety rules may be needed for rural gathering lines. At the meetings, DOT gave the history of the gas gathering issue and proffered a ``sliding corridor'' concept as a possible basis for deciding which lines should be regulated. Under this concept, previously used in a pipeline safety enforcement case, operators would slide along their gathering lines an imaginary corridor with dimensions 1000 feet long and the width would be based on the stress level. Wherever the corridor contained five or more dwellings, the gathering line would be subject to safety rules, the intensity of which would increase with the stress level. Transcripts of both meetings are in the docket (PHMSA-1998-4868-120 and 122). As a follow-up to these two meetings, DOT published a notice extending the time for comments and clarifying its intentions about defining and regulating gathering lines (69 FR 5305; February 4, 2004). DOT said definitions of production and gathering should not overlap State regulations on production and should be capable of consistent application by regulators and operators. Also, the notice explained the need for comments on an appropriate approach to identify rural lines warranting regulation. After the 2003 public meetings, DOT met several times with State agency officials, industry representatives, and others to obtain views on gathering line risks and the need for safety rules. Notes of these informal meetings are in Docket No. PHMSA-1998-4868. C. Public Comments Resulting From the Public Meetings Twenty-three comments were submitted as a result of the public meetings and clarification notice. Three industry commenters expressed satisfaction with the current part 192 gathering line definition and prior DOT interpretations. But most commenters, including a coalition of trade associations, urged adoption of API RP 80 as the basis for determining onshore gas gathering lines. These commenters believed it would result in few, if any, reclassifications of pipelines from production to gathering or gathering to transmission. However, NAPSR opposed the unqualified use of API RP 80 because of its use of the term ``furthermost downstream'' to identify the beginning and possible ends of gathering. NAPSR suggested several limitations to prevent manipulating the term ``furthermost downstream'' to change production to gathering or gathering to transmission. On the need to regulate rural lines, some trade associations contended rural gathering lines generally pose a low risk to public safety, citing an incident survey the Gas Processors Association (GPA), a trade association representing gatherers and processors, conducted in December 2003. These trade associations and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) suggested that DOT should first identify and analyze the risks involved and then target regulations to specific problems. Cook Inlet Keeper, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting Alaska's Cook Inlet Watershed and North Slope Borough, the northernmost county of Alaska, advocated regulation of all unregulated lines threatening people and the environment. Cook Inlet Keeper also submitted data on releases from unregulated pipelines in Alaska. GPA presented the survey at a meeting of PHMSA's gas pipeline safety advisory committee on February 5, 2004 (Docket No. PHMSA-1998- 4470-120). The survey asked 40 operators of rural gas gathering lines about incidents impacting the public during a 5-year period (1999- 2003). The survey showed 58 incidents occurred on 171,768 miles of pipeline, about 96 percent of GPA members' gathering lines. The incidents resulted in three injuries and one death as well as evacuations, minor property damage ($5,000-$25,000), and major property damage (over $25,000). Corrosion caused most of the incidents, followed by third-party excavation, which produced the most severe consequences (including the death and two of the injuries). No other cause occurred more than twice. In comparison to transmission incidents reported to DOT over the same period, transmission lines impacted the public from three to six times more often, even though the reporting threshold for property damage was 10 times as high as the survey's threshold. GPA attributed the lower impact of rural gathering lines to operators' safety practices and to operating conditions generally involving sparsely populated areas, low pressures, and small pipe sizes. Concerning the approach to regulation, the coalition suggested an overall plan covering rural and nonrural lines under which the intensity of regulation would increase with risk determined by operating parameters and population density. Under the current plan, regulated nonrural gathering lines posing a lower risk would be subject to fewer safety rules than they are now. ONEOK, Inc., an operator of gas gathering lines, suggested a similar but more detailed tiered approach. Delta County, Colorado preferred the ``sliding corridor'' approach discussed at the public meetings. Two industry commenters favored a hands-off approach that would leave the regulation of rural gathering to State agencies already regulating oil and gas production. Several trade associations were concerned about the impact of any new DOT regulations on rural gathering lines. DOE and the Independent Petroleum Association of America were particularly concerned that increased costs could cause producers to shut in marginally profitable wells. They pointed out that since marginal wells account for about 10 percent of U.S. gas production, additional costs could reduce gas supplies. D. Alternatives To Resolve the Definition Problem Considering the previous attempts in 1974 and again in 1991 to resolve the definition problem were controversial, we concluded a single definition wholly consistent with industry's complex practices probably could not be developed. So we looked closer at API RP 80. Its development by a wide range of experienced personnel, its attention to detail, and its backing by commenters led us to believe it could, if used appropriately, distinguish gathering lines under part 192 without the controversy attendant to the earlier proposals. In reaching this conclusion, we did not intend persons to use API RP 80 for non-safety purposes, such as to identify gathering under the Natural Gas Act. By its own terms, API RP 80 applies only in the context of pipeline safety: ``[T]he definitions presented herein are not designed to address issues--nor are they intended for application--in any regulatory context other than gas pipeline safety pursuant to the Federal Pipeline Safety Act'' (section 2.6.2.4 of API RP 80). We considered the following ways API RP 80 could serve to determine onshore gas gathering under part 192: 1. Use API RP 80 as guidance to determine the beginning and end of onshore gathering under the present part 192 definition. The advantages of this alternative were some operators would likely support it and rulemaking would not be necessary. On the other hand, this alternative would probably not be sufficient to satisfy the congressional directive to define gas gathering and it would provide a shaky basis for regulating rural gathering lines. In addition, NAPSR's comments suggested many State pipeline safety [[Page 13291]] agencies would be unlikely to accept some API RP 80 provisions even as guidance. 2. Adopt API RP 80 as the basis for determining onshore gas gathering lines. This alternative had wide industry support, would likely minimize the difficulty of distinguishing gathering lines, and would likely result in few pipeline reclassifications. However, API RP 80's many supplemental definitions, descriptions, and diagrams, although helpful, could be difficult to apply uniformly. Also, as NAPSR contended, the ``furthermost downstream'' provisions of API RP 80 could result in manipulation of endpoints to avoid pipeline regulation. If that happened, State pipeline safety agencies could lose control over many miles of pipeline they now regulate, and public safety could be compromised. 3. Adopt API RP 80, but with limitations to remove opportunities for manipulation. The main advantage of this alternative was it would balance industry's desire to use API RP 80 with NAPSR's desire for definite endpoints. The disadvantage was limitations could make API RP 80 more difficult to apply. In addition, any limitation could renew industry's claims of line reclassifications. As discussed further in section II of this preamble, we chose this alternative for the proposed definition of ``onshore gathering line.'' E. Need for DOT Rules on the Safety of Onshore Rural Gathering Lines PHMSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 60102(a) to issue safety standards for gas pipeline transportation. In 1992, Congress granted DOT specific authority to define gas gathering for purposes of safety regulations. Congress also recognized that some rural gathering lines might present unacceptable risks and authorized DOT to regulate lines whose risk warranted regulation. In its report on H.R. 1489, a bill leading to the 1992 change in the law, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce said ``DOT should find out whether any gathering lines present a risk to people or the environment, and if so how large a risk and what measures should be taken to mitigate the risk.'' (H.R. Report No. 102-247, Part 1, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1991)). As discussed above, because DOT lacked information about whether the risks of rural lines warranted regulation, it held a Web discussion and then two public meetings to get input from the public on the need to regulate these lines. GPA submitted the most detailed information based on a survey of its members. Although the survey results showed rural gathering lines presented a lower risk to the public than transmission lines, the impacts to the public and property during the survey period were not insignificant. Many people living or working near rural lines suffered adverse consequences. Also, the potential for future harm was apparent, because the survey confirmed the leading threats to rural gathering lines: corrosion and excavation damage, matched the leading threats to regulated gas pipelines. Not all rural gathering lines present as low a risk as the lines in GPA's survey. Some rural lines are near pockets of housing or operate at high pressures threatening housing further away. In fact, high- pressure gathering lines in populated areas can present the same risk as regulated transmission lines. In consideration of the known and foreseeable risks presented by rural gathering lines, we decided it was no longer appropriate to maintain the almost total exemption of rural lines from part 192. But in changing the present exemption, we also decided to focus on lines posing significant risk, or lines located where a release of gas could have serious consequences. F. Approach To Regulating Onshore Gathering Lines We believe the potential for harm of some onshore gathering lines is too low to warrant DOT regulation. These lines generally have small diameters and operate at low pressures in remote or secluded areas. For other lines, we agree with commenters that the level of regulation should increase as risk increases by operating pressure and proximity to people. Under this approach, the highest risk lines would have the most regulation. This approach is consistent with the statutory directive on determining which rural gathering lines warrant regulation. In deciding what safety rules to apply according to risk, we favored the tiered models two commenters suggested. Tiers are a reasonable way to pair safety regulations with lines posing different levels of risk. However, considering the need for practicality in both compliance and enforcement, we created a model with only two tiers. This approach is discussed in more detail in section II of this preamble. Currently, part 192 regulates nonrural gathering lines and transmission lines similarly, except Sec. 192.150 pig passage and subpart O apply only to transmission lines. Nevertheless, PHMSA's incident data indicate gathering and transmission lines do not pose the same overall level of risk to the public. This data shows that transmission line incidents have had a greater impact on the public than gathering line incidents. We therefore believe a significant factor in many nonrural gathering line segments is that they operate at low pressures away from highly populated areas. So safety rules intended for all transmission lines are probably not appropriate for all gathering lines. A related problem with the current part 192 approach to regulation of nonrural lines involves line segments inside sparsely populated areas of cities or towns. Often a city or town will extend its boundaries to incorporate these rural-like areas. For instance, a low- pressure gathering line in such areas may be distant from any populated site but because it lies within city or town boundaries it becomes subject to part 192 and must meet transmission line rules. We believe a risk-based approach is the most suitable for applying part 192 rules to onshore gathering lines whether the lines are in rural or nonrural areas. Regulation of an onshore gathering line should not depend on subdivision or local government boundaries as it does now, but on the risk the line poses to the public based on its pressure and proximity to people. For example, the proximity of a line to dwellings is a much more precise measure of risk than the rural- nonrural approach currently in use. For nonrural lines, this change to a risk-based approach would maintain the current level of regulation where justified by risk. At the same time, it would lighten the present regulatory burden on less risky lines. II. Proposed Rules To get public comments on its latest approach to defining and regulating the safety of onshore gas gathering lines, on October 3, 2005, PHMSA published a supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) (70 FR 57536). The SNPRM was a continuation of the rulemaking proceeding started by the 1991 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The SNPRM sought comments on proposed new definitions of the terms ``onshore gathering line'' and ``regulated onshore gathering line.'' These definitions would provide the basis for determining which gas pipelines would be subject to part 192 rules for regulated onshore gathering lines. Any onshore gathering line not covered by the proposed definition of ``regulated onshore gathering line'' would not be subject to part 192. The SNPRM also sought comments on proposed risk-based safety rules for regulated onshore gathering lines. A description of the [[Page 13292]] proposed definitions and safety rules follows. A. Proposed Definition of ``Onshore Gathering Line'' We wanted to define ``onshore gathering line'' in a way that not only reasonably matched current classifications but also addressed NAPSR's concerns. So we proposed to allow operators to use API RP 80 to determine ``onshore gathering lines.'' But use of API RP 80 would be subject to the following five limitations on the beginning of gathering and the possible endpoints of gathering under section 2.2(a) of API RP 80: 1. Under section 2.2(a)(1), the beginning of an onshore gathering line is the furthermost downstream point in a production operation. We proposed to restrict this point to piping or equipment used solely in the process of extracting natural gas from the earth for the first time and preparing it for transportation or delivery. The purpose of the limitation was to ensure certain dual-use equipment, capable of use in either production or transportation, would be part of gathering when not used solely in the process of extracting and preparing gas for transportation. 2. Under section 2.2(a)(1)(A), the first possible endpoint is the inlet of the furthermost downstream natural gas processing plant, other than a natural gas processing plant located on a transmission line. We proposed this endpoint may not be a natural gas processing plant located further downstream than the first downstream natural gas processing plant unless the operator can demonstrate, based on sound engineering reasons, gathering should extend beyond the first plant. Past DOT interpretations and State agency enforcement actions have recognized the first downstream natural gas processing plant as the customary end of gathering. (See PHMSA's Web site for interpretations and enforcement actions: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/ .) 3. Under section 2.2(a)(1)(B), the second possible endpoint is the outlet of the furthermost downstream gathering line gas treatment facility. We proposed this endpoint would apply only if no other endpoint under sections 2.2(a)(1) (A), (C), (D) or (E) existed. 4. Under section 2.2(a)(1)(C), the third possible endpoint is the furthermost downstream point where gas produced in the same production field or separate production fields are commingled. This endpoint recognizes a gathering line may receive gas from several production fields. But because it does not restrict the distance between fields, gathering could potentially continue endlessly, causing reclassifications from transmission to gathering along the way. To set a reasonable limit, we proposed that separate production fields from which gas is commingled must be within 50 miles of each other. We specifically invited comments on whether a maximum distance is needed. 5. Under section 2.2(a)(1)(D), the fourth possible endpoint is the outlet of the furthermost downstream compressor station used to lower gathering line operating pressure to facilitate deliveries into the pipeline from production operations or to increase gathering line pressure for delivery to another pipeline. For consistency with our past interpretations and current enforcement policy, we proposed to limit this endpoint to the outlet of a compressor used to deliver gas to another pipeline. We did not propose a limitation on the fifth possible endpoint under section 2.2(a)(1)(E). This endpoint is the connection to another pipeline downstream of the furthermost downstream endpoint under sections 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (D), or in the absence of such an endpoint, the furthermost downstream production operation. The endpoint applies to connecting lines described as ``incidental gathering'' under section 2.2.1.2.6 of API RP 80. An example of a connecting line is a pipeline that runs from the outlet of a natural gas processing plant to a transmission line. PHMSA considers ``incidental gathering'' to include only lines that directly connect a transmission line to one of the endpoints (A) through (D), as limited by this final rule. Lines that connect a transmission line to one of these endpoints by way of another facility are not considered ``incidental gathering.'' B. Proposed Definition of ``Regulated Onshore Gathering Line'' We proposed to amend Sec. 192.3 to define ``regulated onshore gathering lines'' by either of two risk categories, Type A and Type B, based on operating stress and location. Type A would include lines whose maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) results in a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS, and non-metallic lines whose MAOP is more than 125 per square inch gauge (psig). The location would be Class 3 and 4 locations, as defined in Sec. 192.5, and other areas the operator determines using potential impact circles with five or more dwellings or a sliding corridor 440 yards by 1000 feet with either 5 or more dwellings per 1000 feet or 25 or more dwellings per mile, whichever results in more regulated lines. Type A lines in a Class 1 or Class 2 location would also include additional lengths of line upstream and downstream to serve as a shield against potential harm to nearby dwellings. Type B lines would include metallic lines whose MAOP produces a hoop stress of less than 20 percent of SMYS, and non-metallic lines whose MAOP is 125 psig or less. The location would be Class 3 and 4 locations and other areas determined by a sliding corridor 300 feet by 1000 feet with 5 or more dwellings per 1000 feet. Lines within a Class 1 or Class 2 location would include additional lengths of line as a shield against potential harm to nearby dwellings. C. Proposed Safety Requirements We proposed to revise Sec. 192.9 to include safety requirements for all gathering lines subject to part 192. Paragraph (b) would simply restate the present part 192 requirements applicable to offshore gathering lines. Under paragraph (c), Type A regulated onshore gathering lines would have to meet part 192 requirements applicable to transmission lines, except requirements concerning the passage of smart pigs (Sec. 192.150) and integrity management (subpart O). Because of the higher stress at which Type A lines operate and their ability to harm more of the public, we considered Type A lines to warrant safety requirements equivalent to transmission line requirements. Currently regulated gathering lines are subject to these requirements. Paragraph (d) contains the proposed requirements for Type B regulated onshore gathering lines. These lines, although located near the public and housing, operate at a lower stress than Type A lines and pose a lower-risk. So for Type B lines, we proposed safety requirements focused just on the main threats to these lines--corrosion and excavation damage. First, new lines and existing lines replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed would have to be designed, installed, constructed, initially inspected, and initially tested according to part 192 requirements. Second, operators of Type B lines would have to control corrosion according to applicable subpart I requirements; carry out a damage prevention program under Sec. 192.614; establish MAOP under Sec. 192.619; install and maintain line markers under Sec. 192.707 according to transmission line requirements; and establish a public education program as required by Sec. 192.616. To allow time for line identification and preparation for compliance, we [[Page 13293]] proposed extended compliance deadlines in paragraph (e) for operation and maintenance requirements. Similarly, we proposed to amend Sec. 192.13 to allow 1 year after the final rule takes effect before new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed lines would have to meet design and construction requirements. Also in paragraph (e), we proposed to allow operators 1 year to bring unregulated lines into compliance if they become regulated because of changes in population. In addition, we proposed to ease the transition to regulated status of newly regulated lines and lines subsequently regulated due to population increases by revising the MAOP requirements of Sec. Sec. 192.619(a)(3) and (c). The proposal would allow operation of a line at the highest actual operating pressure to which it was subjected during the 5 years before the final rule is published or the line becomes regulated. As part of the corrosion control requirements, we proposed to apply those subpart I requirements specifically applicable to pipelines installed before August 1, 1971, to regulated onshore gathering lines in existence when the final rule takes effect and not previously subject to subpart I (lines in rural locations). Other subpart I requirements specifically applicable to pipelines installed after July 31, 1971, would not apply to these existing lines unless they substantially meet the requirements. D. Related Proposals We proposed to amend Sec. 192.1(b)(4) to exclude from part 192 onshore gathering lines operating under vacuum, or at less than atmospheric pressure. We reasoned that regulation was not necessary because these lines pose little risk since they cannot release natural gas to the atmosphere. An additional amendment to this section clarifies the present rulemaking on onshore gathering lines does not affect gathering lines in inlets of the Gulf of Mexico. III. Advisory Committee Recommendations The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), a statutorily mandated advisory committee, advises PHMSA on proposed safety standards and other policies concerning gas pipelines. The committee has an authorized membership of 15 persons with membership evenly divided between government, industry, and the public. Each member is qualified to consider the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of proposed pipeline safety standards. The TPSSC considered the SNPRM at a teleconference on January 19, 2006. During the conference, we discussed the public comments summarized in section IV of this preamble and the draft Regulatory Evaluation of costs and benefits. After careful consideration, the TPSSC voted unanimously to find the SNPRM and supporting Regulatory Evaluation technically feasible, reasonable, practicable, and cost- effective, subject to resolution of the comments in the manner we discussed. A transcript of the teleconference is available in Docket No. PHMSA-98-4470. IV. Disposition of Comments on Proposed Rules We received written comments on the SNPRM from 19 sources: American Gas Association (AGA), Clark Resource Council and Powder River Basin Resource Council, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia), Cook Inlet Keeper, Dominion Delivery (Dominion), Duke Energy Field Services (Duke), Equitable Resources (Equitable), Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (NFGSC), Oil and Gas Industry Onshore Gas Gathering Regulation Coalition (Coalition), Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA), Pipeline Safety Trust (PST), Public Service Commission of West Virginia (PSCWV), Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Robert A. Honig, Susan Franzheim, and West Texas Gas, Inc. (West). In the SNPRM, we discussed the impact our proposed gathering line definition might have on economic decisions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Although we concluded the definition was unlikely to influence FERC's decisions, we suggested an alternative approach that would not define gathering lines, just which gathering lines would be regulated for safety. We specifically invited comments on the potential impact of the proposed definition on FERC decisions, on ways to avoid difficulties of the alternative approach, and on advantages and disadvantages of either approach. No one who submitted comments on the SNPRM addressed any of these issues either directly or indirectly. We continue to believe that the approach we adopt in this final rule will not have implications on FERC practice. This approach does not rely on the Natural Gas Act for determining if a pipeline is a gathering line. Commenters generally favored the proposed definitions and tiered safety requirements subject to changes discussed in the outline below. However, West was against regulation of rural gathering lines, saying it was not needed because strong economic and liability-avoidance incentives encourage safe operations, and States can act if needed. West also said the Regulatory Evaluation was based on unsubstantiated assumptions, particularly with respect to the impact of lost reserves due to premature abandonment of stripper wells. We disagree with West on the need for DOT regulation of rural gas gathering lines. Although operators have economic and legal incentives to operate these lines safely and States can take regulatory action, we think DOT regulation is still needed. As explained above in section I of this preamble, this need derives from the Congress' concern about the safety of higher-risk rural gathering, public comments favoring regulation where warranted by risk, and the incident data industry submitted showing rural gathering lines experience the same leading causes of accidents as lines PHMSA now regulates. Thus, the present exemption of rural gathering lines from nearly all safety rules in part 192 is no longer appropriate. We took West's comment on the draft Regulatory Evaluation into account in preparing a final evaluation. A. Limitations on Using API RP 80 Definition of ``Gathering Line'' As explained in the SNPRM, we proposed to adopt API RP 80 as the basis for determining onshore gathering lines and which of these lines would be subject to part 192 (70 FR 57540). Under this proposal, to determine if a pipeline is an onshore gathering line, operators would use API RP 80 in its entirety, including the definition of ``gathering line'' in section 2.2, the definition of ``production operation'' in section 2.3,\2\ the supplemental terms in section 2.4, and the Decision Trees, and Representative Applications. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ As defined in section 2.3 of API RP 80, ``production operation'' means piping and equipment used for production and preparation for transportation or delivery of hydrocarbon gas and/or liquids and includes the following processes: (a) Extraction and recovery, lifting, stabilization, treatment, separation, production processing, storage, and measurement of hydrocarbon gas and/or liquids; and (b) associated production compression, gas lift, gas injection, or fuel gas supply. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, we recognized the definition of ``gathering line'' in section 2.2 of API RP 80 is susceptible to manipulation because it uses the term ``furthermost downstream'' to identify [[Page 13294]] facilities marking the beginning and end of a gathering line. By installing certain dual-use equipment (equipment used in either production or pipeline transportation, such as separators or dehydrators) further downstream from normal production, operators could arguably extend production and reduce the amount of regulated gathering. Similarly, the ``furthermost downstream'' feature would allow operators to manipulate gathering endpoints marking the changeover to transmission, resulting in inconsistencies with prior DOT interpretations. So we proposed the following five limitations on use of the definition. 1. Limitation on Furthermost Point of Production Under section 2.2(a)(1) of API RP 80, gathering begins at the furthermost downstream point in a ``production operation.'' We proposed the following limitation on this aspect of the definition: The beginning of a gathering line may not be further downstream than piping or equipment used solely in the process of extracting natural gas from the earth for the first time and preparing it for transportation or delivery. The purpose was to classify dual-use equipment as transportation equipment if it is not used in the process of producing and preparing gas for transportation. In other words, once produced gas enters pipeline transportation, any dual-use equipment installed further downstream would be transportation equipment and not production equipment. a. Comments Coalition thought the limitation would expand gathering to include facilities, such as centralized separation, that API RP 80 describes as ``production operations.'' It offered the following alternative wording to preclude production manipulation: The beginning of a gathering line * * * shall not be artificially circumvented by: (1) The installation of one or more pieces of equipment at an extreme downstream location not normally associated with a production operation; or (2) Natural gas injection into, and subsequent withdrawal from, a gas storage cavern or field. Similarly, IPAA found the proposal confusing and said it would impact potentially thousands of producers across the country. It urged us to adopt a clear production definition, and suggested the following: ``Production Operation'' means any piping and equipment that qualify as a production operation under section 2.3 of API RP-80, with the following limitations: (1) Facilities operated in connection with natural gas storage operations shall be excluded; and (2) separation and dehydration facilities located contra
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 105993