{"operation":"document","citation":"86 FR 2210","title":"Pipeline Safety: Gas Pipeline Regulatory Reform","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2021-01-11","effective_on":"2021-03-12","summary":"PHMSA is amending the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to ease regulatory burdens on the construction, maintenance, and operation of gas transmission, distribution, and gathering pipeline systems without adversely affecting safety. The amendments in this rule are based on rulemaking petitions from stakeholders, and DOT and PHMSA initiatives to identify appropriate areas where regulations might be repealed, replaced, or modified, and PHMSA's review of public comments. PHMSA also, as of the effective date of this final rule, withdraws the March 29, 2019 \"Exercise of Enforcement Discretion Regarding Farm Taps\" and the unpublished October 27, 2015 letter to the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America announcing a stay of enforcement pertaining to certain pressure vessels.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2021-00208.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2021-00208.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2021-00208","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/11/2021-00208/pipeline-safety-gas-pipeline-regulatory-reform","body":"Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021) [Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 2210-2242] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2021-00208] [[Page 2209]] Vol. 86 Monday, No. 6 January 11, 2021 Part VI Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Parts 191 and 192 Pipeline Safety: Gas Pipeline Regulatory Reform; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2021 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 2210]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 191 and 192 [Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0046; Amdt Nos. 191-29; 192-128] RIN 2137-AF36 Pipeline Safety: Gas Pipeline Regulatory Reform AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal of enforcement discretion. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to ease regulatory burdens on the construction, maintenance, and operation of gas transmission, distribution, and gathering pipeline systems without adversely affecting safety. The amendments in this rule are based on rulemaking petitions from stakeholders, and DOT and PHMSA initiatives to identify appropriate areas where regulations might be repealed, replaced, or modified, and PHMSA's review of public comments. PHMSA also, as of the effective date of this final rule, withdraws the March 29, 2019 ``Exercise of Enforcement Discretion Regarding Farm Taps'' and the unpublished October 27, 2015 letter to the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America announcing a stay of enforcement pertaining to certain pressure vessels. DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective March 12, 2021. Incorporation by reference date: The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 12, 2021. Voluntary compliance date: March 12, 2021. Delayed compliance date: Compliance with the amendments adopted in the rule is required beginning October 1, 2021. Enforcement discretion withdrawal date: The withdrawal of 84 FR 11253 (Mar. 26, 2019) is effective as of March 12, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sayler Palabrica, Transportation Specialist, by telephone at 202-366-0559. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary II. Background III. Analysis of Comments, GPAC Recommendations, and PHMSA's Response IV. Availability of Standards Incorporated by Reference V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of This Deregulatory Action PHMSA is amending the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR) at 49 CFR parts 191 and 192 to ease regulatory burdens on the construction, operation, and maintenance of gas transmission, distribution, and gathering pipeline systems without adversely affecting safety. These amendments include regulatory relief actions identified by internal agency review, petitions for rulemaking, and public comments submitted in response to a Department of Transportation (DOT) regulatory reform notice entitled ``Notification of Regulatory Review.'' \\1\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ 82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On June 9, 2020, PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to seek public comments on proposed changes to the PSR.\\2\\ A summary of those proposed changes, and PHMSA's response to stakeholder feedback on the individual provisions, is provided below in section III (Analysis of Comments, GPAC Recommendations, and PHMSA's Response). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\2\\ 85 FR 35240. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Summary of PSR Amendments The final rule makes the following amendments to 49 CFR parts 191 and 192: A. Revision of certain requirements (at Sec. Sec. 191.11, 192.740, and 192.1003) pertaining to farm taps giving operators the choice of managing inspections of pressure regulators serving farm taps under either their distribution integrity management plan (DIMP) or by following the inspection requirements at Sec. 192.740; B. Revision of certain requirements (at Sec. Sec. 192.1003, 192.1005 and 192.1015) pertaining to master meter systems to exempt operators of these simple pipeline facilities from DIMP requirements that had been designed with complex distribution systems in mind; C. Revision of certain reporting requirements (at Sec. Sec. 191.12 and 192.1009) to eliminate a dedicated report form for mechanical fitting failures (MFFs), and modify other required report forms to incorporate more information on MFFs; D. Revision of the monetary threshold for incident reporting (at Sec. 191.3) to update for inflation over the three decades since the current monetary threshold was established, and introduce a new appendix A to part 191 to provide for annual updates to that threshold to account for inflation; E. Revision of Sec. 192.465 to clarify that operators may remotely inspect rectifier stations for external corrosion; F. Revision of atmospheric corrosion monitoring requirements (at Sec. Sec. 192.481, 192.491, 192.1007, and 192.1015) both to align the inspection interval for atmospheric corrosion on gas distribution service pipelines with leakage survey requirements at Sec. 192.723, and to clarify that consideration of corrosion risks under DIMP explicitly includes atmospheric corrosion; G. Revision of requirements governing plastic pipe (at Sec. Sec. 192.7, 192.121, 192.281, 192.285, and appendix B to part 192) to improve alignment with, and incorporate by reference, certain updated industry standards; H. Revision of test requirements for pressure vessels at Sec. 192.153 to align pressure test factor requirements with industry standards, and to clarify certain other pressure testing requirements; I. Revision of the welding process requirement at Sec. 192.229 to align better with welder requalification requirement at Sec. 192.229(d)(2); and J. Revision of language at Sec. 192.507 to extend an existing authorization for pre-testing of fabricated units and short segments of steel pipe prior to installation on pipelines with high-stress operating conditions to pipelines operating at lower-stress operating conditions. C. Costs and Benefits In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 60102, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,\\3\\ and DOT regulations at Sec. 5.13(e), PHMSA has prepared an assessment of the costs and benefits of this final rule as well as reasonable alternatives. The amendments promulgated in this final rule are deregulatory, with the intention and effect of reducing regulatory burdens, increasing flexibility, improving efficiency, and adding clarity to existing rules without adversely affecting safety. PHMSA expects the incremental cost savings to accrue on an ongoing annual basis. PHMSA used a 20-year analysis period for this final rule. PHMSA estimates the total quantified annualized cost savings to be approximately $129.8 million (at a discount rate of 7 percent) or approximately $132.5 million (at a discount rate of 3 percent). Table-1 presents the estimated total cost savings for the 20-year period and the estimated [[Page 2211]] annualized cost savings over the same period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\3\\ ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Table 1--Total Estimated Discounted Cost Savings [2019 $ in millions] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated cost Category savings ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total (20 years; discounted at 7 percent)............. $1,374.8 Total (20 years; discounted at 3 percent.............. 1,971 Annualized (discounted at 7 percent).................. 129.8 Annualized (discounted at 3 percent).................. 132.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PHMSA does not anticipate that the amendments will have an adverse impact on safety or a significant effect on the environment. The largest quantified cost savings are due to the PSR amendments related to farm taps and atmospheric corrosion discussed in sections III.A and III.F, respectively, of the preamble to this final rule. PHMSA expects other amendments to improve regulatory flexibility, clarity, and simplicity. Additional details regarding PHMSA's evaluation of the costs and benefits of this final rule are available in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) posted in the rulemaking docket. II. Background A. Regulatory Reform Executive Orders and Department Response As explained at greater length in the NPRM,\\4\\ DOT published a notice, ``Notification of Regulatory Review,'' on October 2, 2017,\\5\\ requesting recommendations on existing DOT rules and other agency actions that could be eliminated without adversely affecting safety. DOT in particular solicited the public's assistance in identifying DOT regulations and other actions which eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; impose costs that exceed benefits; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies; could be revised to use performance standards in lieu of design standards; or that potentially unnecessarily encumber energy production. After a 30-day comment period, DOT re-opened the comment period until December 1, 2017.\\6\\ DOT received nearly 3,000 public comments. Approximately 30 pertained to the PSR.\\7\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\4\\ 85 FR 35241-42. \\5\\ 82 FR 45750. \\6\\ 82 FR 51178. \\7\\ Docket No. DOT-OST-2017-0069. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. PHMSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Consistent with DOT's regulatory reform efforts and informed by PSR-pertinent comments received in response to the DOT Notification of Regulatory Review discussed above, PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) reviewed the PSR and identified unnecessary, outdated, and non- cost-justified regulatory requirements that could be repealed, replaced, or modified without adversely affecting safety. PHMSA also considered certain petitions for rulemaking and petitions for reconsideration of earlier PSR amendments. On June 9, 2020, PHMSA published an NPRM \\8\\ proposing several amendments to 49 CFR parts 191 and 192 to reduce regulatory burdens on operators of gas pipelines without adversely affecting safety. The comment period for the NPRM ended on August 10, 2020. PHMSA received 46 comments on the NPRM, including late-filed comments. PHMSA received comments from groups representing the regulated pipeline industry; groups representing various public interests, including environmental groups; State utility commissions and regulators; individual pipeline operators; and private citizens. PHMSA received late-filed comments from the National Association of State Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), the Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC), a coalition of several industry trade associations, and GPA Midstream.\\9\\ PHMSA also had a conversation with a member of the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC) and representatives of the Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) after the end of the comment period; a summary of that meeting has been placed in the rulemaking docket. Consistent with Sec. Sec. 5.13(i)(5) and 190.323, PHMSA considered the late-filed comments and materials because of their relevance to the rulemaking and the absence of additional expense or delay resulting from their consideration. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\8\\ 85 FR 35240. \\9\\ GPA, formerly the Gas Processors Association. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of the comments PHMSA received were beyond the scope of the amendments proposed in the NPRM. The issues raised in those comments may be the subject of other existing or future rulemaking proceedings. The remaining comments reflect a wide variety of views on the merits of the proposed PSR amendments. PHMSA read and considered all the comments posted to the docket for this rulemaking. These comments and PHMSA's response to those comments are described in section III. Contemporaneously with PHMSA's development of the NPRM, the President issued E.O. 13924, ``Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,'' \\10\\ directing Federal agencies to respond to the economic harm caused by the novel coronavirus by reviewing their regulations and considering taking appropriate action, consistent with applicable law, to temporarily or permanently rescind or modify those regulations to reduce regulatory burdens and thereby promote economic growth.\\11\\ PHMSA understands the cost savings expected from this final rule to be consistent with E.O. 13924's mandate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\10\\ 85 FR 31353 (May 22, 2020). \\11\\ E.O. 13924 at Sec. 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee Meeting The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, commonly known as the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC; the committee), is an advisory committee mandated by statute (49 U.S.C. 60115) that advises PHMSA on proposed safety standards. The GPAC is one of two pipeline advisory committees that focus on technical safety standards that were established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-16). The GPAC consists of 15 members, with membership divided among Federal and State agencies, the natural gas industry, [[Page 2212]] and the public. The GPAC considers the ``technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability'' of each proposed pipeline safety standard and provides PHMSA with recommended actions pertaining to those proposals. The GPAC met in an online virtual meeting on October 7, 2020 to consider the regulatory proposals of the NPRM. The GPAC members discussed comments made on the NPRM. To assist the GPAC in its deliberations, PHMSA presented a description and summary of the proposals in the NPRM and the comments received on those issues. PHMSA also assisted the committee by fostering discussion, developing recommendations, and providing direction on which issues were most pressing. A transcript of the meeting and all presented materials is available in the docket for the rulemaking and on the web page PHMSA established for the meeting.\\12\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\12\\ https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=151&nocache=4862 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The committee voted on the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability of each of the NPRM's provisions. In many instances, the committee recommended changes that the committee found would make certain proposals more feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, or practicable. These balloted recommendations and the transcript for the meeting serve as the GPAC's report pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60115. These recommendations are discussed in section III of the preamble to this final rule for each of the topics proposed in the NPRM. III. Analysis of Comments, GPAC Recommendations, and PHMSA's Response The proposals in the NPRM, substantive comments received, as well as the GPAC's recommendations are organized by topic below and are discussed in the appropriate section with PHMSA's response to and resolution of those comments. Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) On December 4, 2009, PHMSA issued a final rule titled, ``Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines.'' \\13\\ The 2009 rule created 49 CFR part 192, subpart P, requiring gas distribution operators to develop and implement integrity management (IM) programs. The NPRM contained two proposed revisions to DIMP requirements to ease or eliminate regulatory burdens on certain gas distribution operators. The first revision is to allow operators of farm taps \\14\\ connected to transmission or regulated gathering lines the option of managing maintenance of pressure regulating devices under either Sec. 192.740 or their DIMP in accordance with subpart P. As part of this amendment, PHMSA also proposed to exempt farm taps originating from unregulated gathering and production pipelines from DIMP, Sec. 192.740, and incident and annual reporting requirements in part 191. Second, the NPRM included a proposal to revise Sec. Sec. 192.1003 and 192.1015 to exempt master meter operators from DIMP due to their simplicity. Master meter systems that serve fewer than 100 customers from a single source are currently required to comply with a simplified set of DIMP requirements detailed in Sec. 192.1015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\13\\ 74 FR 63905. \\14\\ A ``farm tap'' is the common name for a pipeline directly connected to a gas transmission, production, or gathering pipeline that provides gas to a customer. The term farm tap is not defined in the PSR; however, portions of a farm tap upstream of either the outlet of the customer's meter or the connection to a customer's piping, whichever is further downstream, may be a service line regulated under part 192. See Sec. 192.3 (definition of ``service line''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Farm Taps (Sections 191.11, 192.740, 192.1003) 1. PHMSA's Proposal In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to revise Sec. Sec. 192.740 and 192.1003 to give operators the choice to manage inspections of pressure regulators serving farm taps under either their DIMP or by following the inspection requirements at Sec. 192.740. On January 23, 2017, PHMSA published a final rule that added Sec. 192.740, ``Pressure regulating, limiting, and overpressure protection-- Individual service lines directly connected to production, gathering, or transmission pipelines.'' \\15\\ Section 192.740 includes maintenance requirements for regulators and overpressure protection equipment for an individual service line that originates from a transmission, gathering, or production pipeline (i.e., a farm tap). Currently, such devices must be inspected and tested at least once every 3 calendar years, with intervals not to exceed 39 months. The 2017 rule also revised the DIMP applicability regulations at Sec. 192.1003 to exclude farm taps from DIMP requirements. The change was intended to create uniform compliance requirements for farm taps, address over- pressurization risks, and decrease the burden of meeting the DIMP requirements for transmission and gathering line operators who otherwise do not operate distribution assets. However, PHMSA had not considered that some farm taps are operated by local distribution companies rather than the operator of the transmission, gathering or production line itself. Operators who historically had included farm taps in their DIMP found it burdensome to remove those facilities from their plan and reevaluate the risks under a new, prescriptive program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\15\\ 82 FR 7972. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOT received a comment in response to the Notification of Regulatory Review from the American Gas Association (AGA), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) (collectively, ``the Associations''), which recommended that PHMSA revise Sec. Sec. 192.740 and 192.1003 to allow operators the flexibility to address the maintenance of farm taps under either of these regulatory requirements. After considering those comments, the NPRM proposed to revise Sec. Sec. 192.740 and 192.1003 to exempt farm taps originating from transmission lines and regulated gathering lines from Sec. 192.740 if they are included in a DIMP under subpart P. This provides operators the choice to manage the safety of farm tap regulators under either DIMP or the Sec. 192.740 inspection requirement. Finally, the NPRM included a proposal to exempt farm tap service lines connected to unregulated gathering or production pipelines from annual reporting (Sec. 191.11), farm tap regulator maintenance (Sec. 192.740), and DIMP (part 192, subpart P). Any portion of a farm tap that meets the definition of a service pipeline at Sec. 192.3 must still comply with all other requirements in parts 191 and 192 applicable to service pipelines, even if the source of the service pipeline is not regulated by PHMSA. For example, an entity that operates a service line connected to a production pipeline must have an operator identification number in accordance with Sec. 191.22 and must submit gas distribution incident reports for incidents that occur on the service line (Sec. 191.9). While the operator's production pipeline is exempt from part 191 (see Sec. 191.1(b)(4)), any facility that meets the definition of a service line is a regulated distribution pipeline and therefore does not fall within the exemption for unregulated gathering and production pipelines. 2. Summary of Public Comments Several commenters suggested PHMSA should simplify how farm tap requirements are presented in the PSR. The American Association of Laboratory [[Page 2213]] Accreditation (A2LA) recommend adding a provision requiring that those entities conducting inspections achieve and maintain ISO/IEC 17020 (Conformity Assessment-Requirements for the Operation of Various Types of Bodies Performing Inspection) accreditation. The FreedomWorks Foundation (FreedomWorks) commented that the proposed changes in the NPRM would especially benefit smaller operations burdened by the high cost of compliance upon startup. PST commented the proposed PSR amendments appear to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety and they do not oppose this change. One company provided an editorial suggestion that the last word in proposed Sec. 192.740(c)(3) should be ``or'' to clarify that this section (Sec. 192.740) does not apply if any one of the listed conditions apply. Several commenters commented on farm tap-related terms and definitions proposed in Sec. 192.740. Sander Resources suggested there were at least two significant definitional issues contained within the proposed rule that confused farm tap operators. The first relates to ``unregulated . . . gathering.'' Sander Resources commented that, technically, there is no such thing as ``unregulated gathering.'' All gathering lines are subject to the jurisdiction of PHMSA, but some are exempted from the requirements of part 192 as specified in Sec. 192.9. Thus, this reference could be interpreted to mean that all gathering lines are still subject to the requirements of Sec. 192.740 or Sec. 192.1003 and related provisions, which could encompass much of part 192. They recommended that PHMSA clarify what it means to be ``unregulated,'' possibly through a reference to whether a line is subject to regulation under Sec. 192.9. The Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) similarly suggested that PHMSA clarify that regulated and unregulated gathering lines are as determined in Sec. 192.8. Sander Resources (on behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, or IPAA) also raised a concern related to the definition of ``service line'' and, in particular, language in the NPRM's preamble suggesting that the part 192-regulated ``service line'' portion of a farm tap would begin at the ``first aboveground point where downstream piping can be isolated from source piping (e.g., a valve or regulator inlet).'' AGA, API, the American Public Gas Association (APGA), and INGAA (collectively, AGA et al.) jointly submitted a similar comment recommending against PHMSA defining the ``service line'' portion of a farm tap in the proposed amendment to Sec. 192.740. They commented it is neither practicable nor necessary for safety to define a uniform starting point for the service line on every farm tap directly connected to a transmission line. Their preferred approach would be to incorporate a distribution center definition that allows farm tap piping to be classified as a distribution center and explicitly allow operators to designate piping as transmission, even if the pipeline could be classified as distribution under the existing Sec. 192.3. Rather than defining where the ``service line'' starts for farm taps under part 192, TC Energy commented PHMSA should revise Sec. 192.740 to apply to ``pipelines'' serving farm tap customers instead of ``service lines,'' and eliminate the description of the source of supply to the farm tap customer. TC Energy believes that these changes would maintain the intended protections to farm tap customers and address industry concerns. A private citizen similarly commented that, in addition to these clarifications, PHMSA should clarify the definitions for transmission lines and distribution centers. GPA Midstream stated that they did not support the NPRM preamble statement that, on a farm tap, the boundary between source piping and the distribution service lines is the first aboveground isolation point downstream from the source piping. They stated that there is no legal basis for using that point to delineate where a source production, gathering, or transmission line ends and a gas distribution service line under part 192 begins in a farm tap configuration. GPA Midstream urged PHMSA to acknowledge in the final rule that an operator may exercise reasonable discretion in determining where source piping ends and distribution service line piping, if any, begins in farm tap configurations. The Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia (IOGAWV) commented PHMSA should not attempt to use its authority to change private contracts by transferring the cost of complying with the PSR to producers and unregulated gathering line operators. IOGAWV and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association (OOGA) stated PHMSA should take this opportunity to exempt farm taps from the PSR. IPAA urged PHMSA to recognize the significant difference between privately-owned farm taps, governed by contract or statute, and true distribution systems. GPA Midstream reiterated concerns with the definition of the start of a service line and the applicability of part 192 to farm taps connected to production lines and unregulated gathering lines in supplemental comments submitted after the GPAC meeting. The GPAC voted unanimously in favor of the PSR amendments proposed in the NPRM, provided that PHMSA remove Sec. 192.740(c)(4), thus eliminating language implying where a service line starts on a farm tap. 3. PHMSA Response The final rule adopts the amendments with respect to farm taps as proposed in the NPRM, but revises the proposed Sec. 192.740 as discussed below. PHMSA determined that compliance with the pressure regulator inspection requirements in Sec. 192.740 or compliance with DIMP provide an equivalent level of safety. DIMP does not include specific, prescriptive inspection requirements for pressure regulating devices; however, operators are required by Sec. 192.1007 to evaluate risks due to equipment failure under DIMP, which includes pressure regulating devices. Accordingly, farm tap operators must consider overpressure risk due to regulator failure in their DIMP, especially if the source pipeline pressure is very high. While Sec. 192.740 is focused on pressure regulator maintenance, DIMP is a broader safety program that requires operators identify, evaluate, rank, and mitigate a wide range of risks to pipeline safety. Either requirement provides safety to farm tap customers by reducing the probability of a regulator system malfunction and, in the case of DIMP, incidents caused by other threats such as excavation damage and corrosion. Therefore, this change provides greater flexibility for operators of these farm taps while still requiring that operators evaluate all equipment to protect against failures and protect human health and the physical environment. This proposed amendment was intended to provide flexibility for farm tap operators. It was not designed to resolve more general definitional questions surrounding the topic of farm taps. Therefore, PHMSA agrees with the suggestion to remove the proposed Sec. 192.740(c)(4) from the final rule, which implied where the source piping on a farm tap ends and distribution, transmission, or customer piping begins. PHMSA believes that this change resolves most of the concerns about definitional changes raised by commenters. To the extent that there are remaining questions surrounding farm taps following this rulemaking, PHMSA will use ongoing efforts such as the proposed Farm Taps Frequently Asked [[Page 2214]] Questions (FAQs); \\16\\ the remaining rulemaking projects associated with the Safety of Gas Transmission and Gas Gathering Pipelines NPRM; \\17\\ and, if necessary, additional rulemaking and guidance. While the comment from TC Energy sidesteps these definitional issues, and has the benefit of extending protection to farm taps that operate at greater than 20 percent of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) (and are therefore classified as transmission lines rather than service lines pursuant to the definition of a transmission line in Sec. 192.3), it requires defining an additional term (``farm tap customer'') which was not made available for public comment in the NPRM or discussed by other comments in the rulemaking docket. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\16\\ 85 FR 21820 (Apr. 20, 2020). \\17\\ RINs 2137-AF39 (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines) and 2137-AF38 (Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, Repair Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments), associated with PHMSA, ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: ``Pipeline Safety--Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines,'' 81 FR 20721 (Apr. 8, 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While this final rule does not define the boundaries of that portion of a farm tap that is regulated as a service line under part 192, the fact that a farm tap may include a regulated service line remains unchanged. Therefore, PHMSA disagrees with comments that the NPRM's characterization of portions of farm taps as jurisdictional service lines creates ``entirely new'' legal obligations for operators of service lines who also operate non-jurisdictional production lines and rural gathering lines that are not subject to safety regulation under part 192. Removing farm taps connected to production lines and unregulated gathering lines from the scope of the entire PSR, as suggested by some commenters, would be a consequential change from longstanding regulatory application and is beyond the scope of this final rule. PHMSA and its predecessor agencies have been explicit and consistent with respect to the applicability of the part 192 regulations to distribution service lines in farm tap applications since the earliest years of Federal gas pipeline safety oversight. The Office of Pipeline Safety revised the definition of a service line in Sec. 192.3 to clarify the point at which a service line ends and customer piping begins in an NPRM entitled, ``Minimum Federal Safety Standards for Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Definition of Service Line,'' published on April 10, 1971.\\18\\ On April 10, 1973, PHMSA finalized the proposal and defined the downstream end of a service line as the customer meter or connection to customer piping, whichever is further downstream.\\19\\ This boundary stands with minor clarifications to this day at Sec. 192.3. PHMSA formulated the definition of ``service line'' to address service lines in farm tap applications and other situations where no meter is present. PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration, again acknowledged the regulated status of service lines in farm tap applications in a final rule titled, ``Pipeline Safety: Customer-Owned Service Lines'' issued on August 14, 1995.\\20\\ Finally, providing gas to farm tap customers is not a defined gathering or production function in either Sec. 192.3 or in API Recommended Practice (RP) 80 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 192.7). While production pipelines and some gathering pipelines are not subject to safety regulation under part 192, the distribution of national gas to customers is subject to PHMSA jurisdiction (49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(21)(i)) and the applicability of part 192 (Sec. Sec. 192.1(a), 192.3) regardless of other activities in which an operator may also be engaged. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\18\\ 36 FR 9667. \\19\\ 38 FR 9083. \\20\\ 60 FR 41821. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding operators' concerns about their responsibility for customer-owned piping that they do not own or have access to, PHMSA reiterates that the final rule imposes no new requirements on operators of service lines in farm tap applications. Section 192.3 provides that a service line ends at the connection to customer-owned piping, or the outlet of the meter, whichever is further downstream. In the preamble to the 1995 customer-owned service line rule described above, PHMSA explained that that the PSR applies to the distribution of gas up to the end of a pipeline operator's service line.\\21\\ In an earlier interpretation, PHMSA also noted that customer piping downstream of the end of a service line as defined in Sec. 192.3 is not subject to part 192, provided the gas is for the customer's own use.\\22\\ Therefore, the PSR does not require the source pipeline operator to maintain customer- owned piping downstream of the customer meter as defined in Sec. 192.3. If there is no customer meter, then the service line terminates at the connection to customer-owned piping. Some operators do maintain customer piping voluntarily or as required by State, local, or contractual requirements. If an operator of a service line does not maintain the customer's piping under such arrangement, then the customer notification requirements in Sec. 192.16 may apply. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\21\\ 60 FR 41821. \\22\\ PHMSA Interpretation #PI-73-0110 (June 6, 1973), https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/interp/PI-73-0110 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHMSA agrees with certain comments to clarify language in Sec. 192.740. In the final rule, PHMSA has replaced the term ``unregulated gathering line'' with a gathering line other than a regulated gathering line as determined in Sec. 192.8. In other words, a gathering line as determined in accordance with Sec. 192.8 and API RP 80, but excluding a Type A or Type B regulated gathering line as defined in Sec. 192.8. In addition, the exceptions in paragraph (c) are now separated by an ``or'' in the final rule. Lastly, because the PSR revisions adopted in this final rule obviate the need for its March 29, 2019 ``Exercise of Enforcement Discretion Regarding Farm Taps,'' \\23\\ PHMSA withdraws that document as of the effective date of this final rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\23\\ 84 FR 11253. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Master Meter Operators (Sections 192.1003, 192.1005, 192.1015) 1. PHMSA's Proposal In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to revise Sec. Sec. 192.1003, 192.1005, and 192.1015 to exempt master meter operators from DIMP requirements. A ``master meter system'' is defined at Sec. 191.3 as a pipeline system for distributing gas where the operator purchases metered gas from an outside source for resale through a gas distribution pipeline system. Examples of master meter systems include owners of apartment complexes or mobile home parks who provide or sell gas to tenants. Unlike most gas distribution operators, delivering gas is typically not a master meter operator's primary business. When DIMP requirements were first proposed in 2008,\\24\\ PHMSA recognized that master meter systems tend to be operated by small entities with simple systems compared to normal gas distribution operators. Section 192.1015 was intended to provide a simplified set of DIMP requirements that master meter operators could easily implement and that would enhance safety. However, PHMSA has determined that Section 192.1015 requirements are neither easily implemented nor do they enhance safety. Master meter operators have struggled to implement the relatively simple master meter systems DIMP requirements that were designed for [[Page 2215]] complex gas distribution systems. In addition, PHMSA determined that there is no safety benefit from applying even that limited set of DIMP requirements to master meter systems, as compliance with other applicable pipeline safety regulations in part 192 provides robust assurance of public safety. The applicable part 192 requirements that PHMSA considered include, but are not limited to, operations and maintenance requirements at subpart L and subpart M, continuing surveillance requirements at Sec. 192.613, and the failure investigation requirement at Sec. 192.617. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\24\\ PHMSA, ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines,'' 73 FR 36015 (June 25, 2008) (DIMP NPRM). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Summary of Public Comments Several commenters generally supported exempting master meter operators from the DIMP requirements in part 192. These commenters (including the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), AmeriGas, and Superior Plus Propane (SPP)) agreed with PHMSA's characterization of master meter systems as generally small, simple systems that see little benefit from DIMP compliance. These commenters agreed that compliance with existing subparts A through N of part 192 is sufficient to ensure the safety of small, simple master meter systems. They asserted that the current requirement of subpart P to create a DIMP, even using the SHRIMP tool,\\25\\ consumes significant additional time and resources with little or no safety benefit, noting that the result of the process for master meter systems is typically a determination that there is no need for additional mitigating actions on any portion of the pipeline system. As a result, the commenters stated that the time and resources expended to comply with the DIMP requirements have no meaningful safety benefits for such systems. The PST commented that they do not oppose this change, but urged PHMSA and its State partners to ensure that master meter operators are managing the integrity risks to their systems outside the context of a DIMP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\25\\ The ``Simple, Handy, Risk-based Integrity Management Plan'' tool published by the APGA Security and Integrity Founda","truncated":true,"body_characters":236054}