[Federal Register: October 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 190)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57536-57549]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03oc05-24]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. RSPA-1998-4868; Notice 5]
RIN 2137-AB15
Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for Onshore
Lines and Proposed Safety Standards
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 25, 1991, DOT published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to revise the definition of ``gathering line'' in its gas
pipeline safety standards. Because the proposal proved controversial,
final action was postponed pending collection of additional
information. In this Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(SNPRM), PHMSA is proposing use of a consensus standard to distinguish
onshore gathering lines. PHMSA's gas pipeline safety standards do not
provide an adequate basis for distinguishing these pipelines from
production facilities and transmission lines. In addition, PHMSA is
proposing to establish safety standards for certain higher-risk onshore
gathering lines, and to relax current standards on certain low-risk
onshore gathering lines. (Onshore gathering lines in inlets of the Gulf
of Mexico are not affected by this rulemaking.) Operators would use a
new risk-based approach to determine which of its gathering lines are
``regulated onshore gathering lines'' and what safety standards the
lines must meet. At present, PHMSA's safety standards do not apply to
onshore gathering lines in rural locations, while onshore gathering
lines in non-rural locations must meet the same requirements as
transmission lines. This regulatory approach is insufficient to assure
that conditions on gathering lines that pose a greater risk to the
public and property are addressed. And it does not take into account
the lower risk some other gathering lines pose. The intended effects of
the proposed rules are improved identification of gathering lines,
improved public confidence in the safety of gathering lines, and safety
requirements better tailored to gathering line risks.
DATES: Persons interested in submitting written comments on the rules
proposed in this notice must do so by January 3, 2006. Late filed
comments will be considered so far as practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. RSPA-1998-4868 and may
be submitted in the following ways:
DOT Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. To submit comments on
the DOT electronic docket site, click ``Comment/Submissions,'' click
``Continue,'' fill in the requested information, click ``Continue,''
enter your comment, then click ``Submit.''
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; Room PL-401
on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
E-Gov Web Site: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
Instructions: You should identify the docket number, RSPA-1998-
4868, at the beginning of your comments. If you
[[Page 57537]]
submit your comments by mail, you should submit two copies. If you wish
to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, you should
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov, and may access all comments received by DOT at http://dms.dot.gov by performing a simple search for
the docket number. Note: All comments will be posted without changes or
edits to http://dms.dot.gov including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Section V,
Regulatory Analyses and Notices, of the Supplemental Information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DeWitt Burdeaux by phone at 405-954-
7220 or by e-mail at dewitt.burdeaux@dot.gov regarding the subject
matter of this notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Why Is Distinguishing Onshore Gathering Lines a Problem?
Gathering lines are pipelines used to collect and transport natural
gas from the well and related production facilities to transmission or
distribution pipelines, which then transport the gas to a gas consumer,
such as a residence or business. PHMSA safety regulations in 49 CFR
Part 192 apply to the design, construction, operation, and maintenance
of gathering, transmission, and distribution pipelines. However, the
regulations do not cover production facilities or onshore gathering
lines in locations outside cities, towns, villages, or designated
residential or commercial areas (hereinafter ``rural locations'')
(Sec. 192.1(b)(4)). (Onshore gathering lines within Gulf of Mexico
inlets have been subject to the inspection and burial requirements of
Sec. 192.612 (Sec. 192.1(b)(5)). These lines are not affected by this
rulemaking.)
Since Part 192 does not cover production facilities, in non-rural
locations, pipeline operators and government inspectors must
distinguish regulated gathering lines from unregulated production
facilities. Similarly, in rural locations they must distinguish
unregulated gathering lines from regulated transmission and
distribution lines. Yet, since the Part 192 regulations were first
published (35 FR 13248; Aug. 19, 1970), operators and government
inspectors have had difficulty making these distinctions.
The reason is twofold: First, as defined in Part 192, a ``gathering
line'' begins at a production facility, but the term ``production
facility'' is not defined. Operators and government inspectors must
interpret the term ``production facility'' to determine whether a
downstream pipeline is a gathering line. In the absence of a
definition, their interpretations vary. Second, although a
``transmission line or main'' marks the end of gathering under the
gathering line definition, Part 192 defines ``transmission line'' as a
particular type of pipeline ``other than a gathering line'' and defines
``main'' as a particular type of ``distribution line,'' which is
defined as a pipeline ``other than a gathering or transmission line.''
The circularity of these definitions makes it necessary to interpret
the term ``gathering line'' to determine whether a pipeline is a
transmission or distribution line.\1\ However, the complexity of many
gathering systems results in varied interpretations of ``gathering
line.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As stated in Sec. 192.3: ``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 distribution center or storage
facility; operates at a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS,
or transports gas within a storage field. ``Distribution line''
means a pipeline other than a gathering or transmission line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Has DOT Proposed To Revise Its Gathering Line Definition?
In 1974, the Agency tried to correct the problem of distinguishing
gathering lines by proposing to revise the gathering line definition
(39 FR 34569; Sept. 26, 1974). But because comments indicated many
terms and phrases in the proposal were unclear, it was later withdrawn
from consideration (43 FR 42773; Sept. 21, 1978).
Although the definition problem remained, the Agency took no
further action until 1986, when it asked the National Association of
Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), a non-profit association of
State pipeline safety officials, to comment on the extent of the
problem. Responses from NAPSR members showed that in the 30 states with
gathering lines, there were at least 2,800 gathering operators and
111,000 miles of gathering lines (as interpreted by the States). NAPSR
members from five States, with about 54 percent of the operators of
gathering lines and 75 percent of the mileage, stated they had
disagreements with operators over whether rural pipelines were
gathering lines or transmission lines. Members from three of these
States said the disagreements were too numerous to list. One NAPSR
member indicated numerous disagreements with two major gas gathering
and transmission pipeline operators regarding the point where the
gathering line ended. Another NAPSR member indicated continuing
disagreements over the classification of various segments of pipeline
operated by one of the largest gas gathering line operators in the
United States.
In 1991, boosted by the NAPSR survey, the Agency again proposed to
revise the gathering line definition (Docket No. PS-122; 56 FR 48505;
Sept. 25, 1991). The intent was to define the term consistent with
prevailing practices. However, as with the earlier proposal, the
response was generally unfavorable. Industry commenters disputed the
significance of the problem, and alleged widespread reclassification of
lines from production to gathering and from gathering to transmission.
The Agency delayed further action pending the collection and
consideration of more information.
C. What Are the Statutory Considerations?
PHMSA's authority to issue safety standards for gas pipeline
transportation is found in 49 U.S.C. 60102(a). Gas pipeline
transportation includes the gathering of gas in or affecting interstate
commerce. Prior to 1992, the pipeline safety law (49 U.S.C. Chapter
601) limited safety regulation of the onshore gathering of gas to
gathering lines in non-rural locations. In 1992, Congress provided DOT
specific authority to define gas gathering for purposes of safety
regulation, and to change the scope of regulation by defining
``regulated gathering.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Pub. L. 102-508, section 109; now 49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(21)
and 60101(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1992 statutory change expressly allows PHMSA to depart from the
concepts of ``gathering'' as used under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C.
717 et seq.). This allows focus on the safety purposes of the pipeline
safety law for defining regulated facilities rather than on the
purposes of the Natural Gas Act. The approach to defining and
regulating gas gathering taken in this SNPRM does not rely on concepts
of gathering as used under the Natural Gas Act. PHMSA does not intend
for anyone to rely on its definition of gas gathering to decide whether
particular lines are gathering within the meaning of the Natural Gas
Act.
In addition, the 1992 statutory change directed DOT to consider the
functional and operational characteristics of the lines in labeling
them as gathering, and to consider such factors as location, length of
line from the well site, operating pressure, throughput, and the
composition of the gas in deciding which ones to regulate. For example,
in
[[Page 57538]]
deciding which gathering lines should be regulated, PHMSA considers
location of the line in the vicinity of population as more precise than
the rural/non-rural approach in the pre-1992 law. The use of this more
precise approach coupled with the authority to define and to regulate
``regulated gathering'' lines makes it unnecessary to continue use of
statutory terminology that limits regulation of gathering in rural
areas (``outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city,
town, or village, or any other designated residential or commercial
area''). As described more fully below, the approach to regulated gas
gathering in this SNPRM follows the statutory direction.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60102(b), a gas pipeline safety standard must
be practicable and designed to meet the need for gas pipeline safety
and for protection of the environment. To accomplish this, PHMSA must
consider a number of factors in issuing a safety standard. These
factors include the relevant available pipeline safety and
environmental information, the appropriateness of the standard for the
particular type of facility, the reasonableness of the standard,
reasonably identifiable or estimated costs and benefits, any comments
received from the public, and any comments and recommendations of the
Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC). Except as
explained in the following paragraph about public comments on the 1991
proposal, PHMSA has considered these factors in the development of this
SNPRM and provides its analysis in the appropriate paragraphs of the
preamble.
With respect to public comments, PHMSA has dramatically altered its
approach to regulating gathering lines from that of the 1991 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (which was limited to a definition of
gathering lines consistent with that in the Natural Gas Act). Thus,
comments to the proposal in the 1991 NPRM are not addressed in detail
in this SNPRM. The Agency reopened the docket to public comments in an
electronic public discussion forum in 1999 and provided several other
opportunities for public input into the development of this SNPRM.
These comments have been used in the development of this SNPRM. If a
commenter to the 1991 proposal believes that this SNPRM does not
adequately address the concerns raised in earlier comments, the
commenter should raise the concerns again.
Comments and recommendations of the TPSSC will be addressed when a
final action is prepared on this SNPRM.
D. What Has PHMSA Done To Get More Public Comments on Defining and
Regulating Gathering Lines?
In 1999, in furtherance of the ongoing 1991 gathering line
proceeding and Congress' action on gathering lines, the Agency invited
further public comments on the definition problem and the need to
regulate rural gathering lines (Docket No. RSPA-1998-4868; 64 FR 12147;
Mar. 11, 1999). The comments largely focused on a comprehensive
treatment of the definition problem that the American Petroleum
Institute (API) submitted on behalf of a coalition of 23 trade
associations (RSPA-1998-4846-85). API later published the treatment as
API Recommended Practice 80, ``Guidelines for the Definition of Onshore
Gas Gathering Lines'' (API RP 80). API RP 80 defines 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 United States. You may purchase a copy of API RP 80
from API through its Web site (http://www.api.org) or review a copy in
room 2103 of the Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC
by contacting Jenny Donohue at (202) 366-4046 or jenny.donohue@dot.gov.
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 in the definition. NAPSR's concern was that 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 pipeline.
NAPSR's concern is plausible because gathering begins at the end of
production, which is not covered by Part 192. The amount of gathering
subject, or potentially subject, to regulation becomes less the further
production extends downstream. A similar situation exists at the end of
gathering, which marks the beginning of transmission or distribution
under Part 192. The amount of transmission or distribution lines
subject to regulation becomes less the further gathering lines extends
downstream.
The Agency also had doubts about adopting the API RP 80 definition,
as expressed in a letter to API dated January 12, 2001 (RSPA-1998-4868-
108). Nevertheless, the Agency did not discount the possibility of
using API RP 80 as an alternative to the 1991 proposed definition.
While considering its next step, in 2002, the Agency published an
Advisory Bulletin to remind operators it was still regulating gathering
lines according to court precedents and prior interpretations (ADB-02-
06; 67 FR 64447; October 18, 2002).
Then in 2003, the Agency held public meetings in Austin, Texas (68
FR 62555; November 5, 2003) and Anchorage, Alaska (68 FR 67129;
December 1, 2003) to attract more comments from interested persons on
the best way to define gas gathering lines and what, if any, safety
regulations may be needed for rural gathering lines. At the meetings,
the Agency 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. This concept originated in a consent order
the Agency issued to Hanley & Bird, Inc., a Pennsylvania gas production
and gathering operator.\3\ It would require operators to slide an
imaginary corridor 1000 feet long and 200 or 440 yards wide, depending
on pipeline hoop stress, along their gathering lines. Wherever the
corridor contains five or more dwellings, the gathering line would be
subject to pipeline safety regulations, and the extent of regulation
would vary by operating stress level. Transcripts of both meetings are
in the docket (RSPA-1998-4868-120 and 122).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The order may be viewed at http://ops.dot.gov/ regions/
easterndoc/ cpf13002o.wpd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the two meetings, to promote informed public
participation in resolving the gathering line issues, the Agency
published a notice that clarified its intentions about defining and
regulating gathering lines (69 FR 5305; February 4, 2004). In the
notice, the Agency clarified its intention to adopt definitions of
production and gathering that would identify the beginning of gathering
without overlapping the jurisdiction of State regulations on
production. The Agency said it was seeking definitions that could be
applied consistently by both regulators and operators. Regarding rural
gathering lines, the Agency explained the need for comments on an
appropriate approach to identifying lines that should be regulated. The
notice also extended the deadline for receipt of written comments to
March 4, 2004.
In addition to the 1999 Web discussion and 2003 public meetings,
the Agency met several times over the last two years with State agency
officials, industry representatives, and others to obtain views on
gathering line risks and the need for regulations. Notes
[[Page 57539]]
of these informal meetings are in the docket (RSPA-1998-4868).
E. What Were the Main Points Commenters Made?
Twenty-three comments were submitted following the public meetings
and clarification notice. A summary of significant comments follows.
1. Definition of Gathering Line
Three industry commenters expressed satisfaction with the current
Part 192 definition and prior Agency interpretations. But most
commenters who addressed the issue, including a coalition of trade
associations (API, the Gas Processors Association (GPA), the Louisiana
Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, the Texas Oil and Gas
Association, and the Texas Pipeline Association), urged the Agency to
adopt API RP 80 as the basis for determining onshore gas gathering
lines. These commenters welcomed the flexibility of API RP 80, and
believed it would result in few, if any, reclassifications of pipelines
from production to gathering or gathering to transmission.
Taking a different view, NAPSR opposed the unqualified use of API
RP 80 to identify gas gathering lines. First, regarding the beginning
of gathering under section 2.2(a)(1) of API RP 80, NAPSR suggested that
production operations should be limited to piping and equipment used
solely in the process of extracting natural gas from the earth for the
first time. This process involves removing natural substances from the
earth, separating out natural gas, and preparing the gas for
transportation. NAPSR stated that under its suggested limitation, any
piping that serves a function besides processing in aid of extraction
would be part of gathering operations rather than production
operations. Secondly, NAPSR suggested limitations on the end of
gathering under the API RP 80 definition. These limitations, such as
restricting the end of gathering to the first, rather than furthermost,
downstream gas processing plant, were intended to remove the
opportunity to manipulate the changeover from gathering to
transmission.
In a letter dated September 9, 2004, NAPSR suggested ``gathering
pipeline'' and ``production facility'' be defined as follows:
``Gathering pipeline'' (a) Means any pipeline or part of a
connected series of pipelines used to transport gas from the endpoint
of a production facility to the first natural gas processing plant.
(b) In the absence of a natural gas processing plant, means any
pipeline or connected series of pipelines used to:
1. Transport gas from the endpoint of a production facility to the
furthermost downstream of the following endpoints:
(A) The outlet of the first downstream gathering line gas treatment
facility; or
(B) The first downstream point where gas produced in the same
production field or contiguous production fields is commingled; or
(C) The outlet of the first downstream compressor used to
facilitate deliveries from production operations into a pipeline.
2. Transport gas from a gathering line exclusively to points in
adjacent production operations or gathering facility sites for use as
fuel, gas lift, or gas injection within those operations; and
(c) Does not include a natural gas processing plant.
``Production facility'' means any pipeline or equipment or part of
a connected series of pipelines used solely in the process of
extracting natural gas from the earth for the first time.
2. Need To Regulate Rural Gathering Lines
As to the need to regulate gas gathering lines in rural locations,
some industry commenters contended rural gathering lines generally pose
a low risk to public safety, citing an incident survey GPA conducted in
December 2003.\4\ GPA itself commented that based on its survey,
onshore gas gathering lines do not pose a significant risk that
warrants extensive new Federal regulations. A few industry commenters
and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) suggested the Agency 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 that
the Agency regulate all unregulated lines threatening people and the
environment. Cook Inlet Keeper also submitted data on releases from
unregulated pipelines in Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ GPA presented the survey at a meeting of the Agency's gas
pipeline safety advisory committee on February 5, 2004 (RSPA-1998-
4470-120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Regulatory Approach
Concerning the appropriate approach to regulation, the coalition of
trade associations suggested a tiered approach to regulating onshore
gathering lines. Under the coalition's approach, the extent of
regulation would increase with pipeline risk as determined by operating
parameters and population density. Lines posing a lower risk to the
public would be subject to fewer safety standards than they are now.
This relaxation of current regulatory burden on lower-risk lines would
help offset the added cost of regulating higher-risk gathering lines
that are not currently regulated. ONEOK, Inc., an operator of gas
gathering lines, suggested a similar but more detailed tiered approach.
The coalition's approach is summarized as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier Gathering line Regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I........................ All in Class 1 or 2 Periodic summary report
location. of incidents; line
markers; and one-call
damage prevention
programs.
All < 20% SMYS
All plastic
II....................... All >= 20% SMYS in Tier I plus corrosion
rural Class 3 or 4 control and a public
location. awareness program.
III...................... All >= 20% SMYS in Current Part 192
non-rural Class 3 requirements.
or 4 location.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta County, Colorado preferred the sliding corridor approach the
Agency had discussed at the public meetings. Two industry commenters
favored a hands-off approach that would leave the regulation of rural
gathering to State agencies that oversee oil and gas production.
[[Page 57540]]
4. Impact
Several commenters were concerned about the impact of any new
Federal regulations on gathering lines in rural locations. 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 the United States' gas production,
additional costs would have the potential to reduce the Nation's supply
of gas. (A discussion of the energy impacts of this proposal is found
under the Executive Order 13211 heading in Section V, Regulatory
Analyses and Notices, of this document.)
II. Resolving the Definition Problem
A. What Alternatives to the 1991 Proposal Did the Agency Consider?
In view of the congressional directives and the importance of
distinguishing onshore gas gathering lines, PHMSA believes resolving
the definition problem is essential. However, the Agency's previous
attempts in 1974 and again in 1991 to resolve the matter by formulating
a gathering line definition were controversial. The controversy was no
doubt due to the varied and complex configurations of gas gathering
systems throughout the industry. For this reason, PHMSA now believes a
single definition that is wholly consistent with industry practices
probably cannot be developed.
This conclusion and the comments resulting from the Austin and
Anchorage meetings have caused the Agency to take a closer look at
using API RP 80. It is a comprehensive treatment of gas gathering that
was developed by experienced personnel representing over 20 national,
regional, and State oil and gas industry associations. It covers every
aspect of the gathering function, from its beginning in production
operations, which are separately defined, to various defined endpoints.
The attention to detail and solid backing by commenters led the Agency
to believe API RP 80 can be used appropriately to distinguish gathering
lines under Part 192 without the controversy attendant to prior
proposals.
PHMSA does not intend that persons use API RP 80 for non-safety
purposes, such as to identify gathering under the Natural Gas Act. In
this regard, readers should note API RP 80, by its terms, 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).
The Agency considered the following ways API RP 80 could serve to
determine onshore gas gathering under Part 192:
1. Use API RP 80 as Guidance
Continue to apply the present Part 192 gathering line definition,
but rely on API RP 80 as guidance to determine the beginning and end of
onshore gathering. The advantages of this alternative are that comments
indicate 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 suggest many State
pipeline safety agencies would be unlikely to accept some API RP 80
provisions even as guidance.
2. Adopt API RP 80 as a Definition
Adopt API RP 80 as the basis for determining onshore gas gathering
lines. This alternative has wide industry acceptance, would likely
minimize the present difficulty of distinguishing gathering lines, and,
considering its wide acceptance, would probably result in few pipeline
reclassifications. However, besides a gathering line definition, API RP
80 contains many supplemental definitions, descriptions, and diagrams.
Although these supplemental provisions are helpful to understand the
definition, they could prove difficult to apply uniformly and probably
would lead to further varied interpretations. Also, the flexibility of
API RP 80 that industry applauds, NAPSR contends could result in
equipment being relocated to avoid regulations. 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 as a Definition, But With Limitations
Adopt API RP 80 as the basis for determining onshore gas gathering
lines, but limit operators' ability to establish endpoints merely to
avoid regulation. The main advantage of this alternative is it balances
industry's desire to use API RP 80 to determine gathering lines under
Part 192 with NAPSR's desire for more definite endpoints. The
disadvantage is that limitations could make API RP 80 more difficult to
apply. In addition, proposing any limitation on how API RP 80 is
applied could renew industry claims of line reclassifications.
B. What Are the Details of the Definition PHMSA Is Now Proposing?
PHMSA wants to define ``onshore gathering line'' in a way that not
only reasonably matches current classifications but also addresses the
concerns of State pipeline safety agencies. PHMSA, therefore, chose the
third alternative, for it alone takes into account NAPSR's concerns.
PHMSA believes NAPSR's concerns deserve considerable weight because,
under the pipeline safety law, onshore gas gathering lines are largely
intrastate pipeline facilities. As such, they are under, or eligible
for, exclusive regulation by certified State pipeline safety agencies.
When regulated by these agencies through adoption and enforcement of
PHMSA safety standards, PHMSA's role is to oversee State agency
performance. In other words, regulation of an intrastate onshore gas
gathering line by a certified State agency, removes the line from the
direct regulatory authority of PHMSA.
PHMSA is proposing to define ``onshore gathering line'' as it is
defined in section 2.2 of API RP 80, but with a few limitations on
applying the API RP 80 definition (see the proposed amendment to Sec.
192.3 below). The proposed limitations, based on NAPSR's comments, and
PHMSA's concerns that it raised during the meetings held on gathering
line regulation, are designed to assure gathering line determinations
do not stray significantly from PHMSA's historic interpretations of
gathering or do not abuse the ``furthermost downstream'' concept.
1. Beginning of Gathering
The beginning of an onshore gathering line under section 2.2(a)(1)
of API RP 80 is the furthermost downstream point in a production
operation.\5\ PHMSA is proposing 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. Under this restriction, certain dual use equipment that can
serve either a production or transportation function would be part of
gathering when not used solely in the
[[Page 57541]]
extraction and preparation of gas for transportation. For example, drip
pots, which provide a separation function, are used in pipeline
transportation to maintain the quality of gas delivered to customers.
When used this way, a drip pot would not be part of production
operations even though as a separator it could conceivably be used in
the extraction and preparation of gas for transportation. Also,
separation or dehydration equipment is often used to safeguard the
operation of gathering compressors. Under the proposed limitation, any
equipment being used to protect a gathering compressor would not be
part of production operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. End of Gathering
Under the API RP 80 definition of onshore gathering line, gathering
ends at the furthermost downstream of five possible endpoints. 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 (section 2.2(a)(1)(A) of API RP 80).
PHMSA is proposing 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, that gathering should be extended beyond that
first plant. DOT interpretations and State agency enforcement actions
have recognized the first downstream natural gas processing plant as
the customary end of gathering. The proposed limitation is based on
this practice, but it would allow operators the flexibility of ending
gathering to a further downstream processing plant essential to
gathering.
The second possible endpoint under section 2.2(a)(1)(B) of API RP
80 would apply only if no other endpoint under 2.2(a)(1) (A), (C), (D)
or (E) exists. This endpoint is the outlet of the furthermost
downstream gathering line gas treatment facility.
The third possible endpoint is the furthermost downstream point
where gas produced in the same production field or separate production
fields is commingled (section 2.2(a)(1)(C) of API RP 80). This endpoint
recognizes a gathering line may receive gas from several production
fields. However, PHMSA is concerned that since the endpoint does not
restrict the distance between separate production fields, a gathering
line could continue endlessly, causing reclassification of pipelines
from transmission to gathering. NAPSR suggested commingling should be
limited to adjacent fields. PHMSA believes ``adjacent'' is very
restrictive. To set some limit, PHMSA is proposing the separate
production fields from which gas is commingled must be within 50 miles
of each other. PHMSA is interested in receiving comments on whether a
maximum distance between production fields from which gas is commingled
should be specified.
One limitation is proposed on the fourth possible endpoint. This
endpoint is the outlet of the furthermost downstream compressor station
used to lower gathering line operating pressure or to facilitate
deliveries into the pipeline from production operations or to increase
gathering line pressure for delivery to another pipeline (section
2.2(a)(1)(D) of API RP 80). Gathering systems may contain many
compressor units. (In gathering systems, compressors are smaller, self
contained units, rather than the larger multiple unit facilities
referred to as compressor stations.) In many cases, these compressor
units lower the pressure on the upstream (suction) side to allow gas to
flow from the wells. PHMSA believes these to be necessary to the
gathering process. Also, whether they are located downstream of a
processing plant or, stand alone, in the absence of a processing plant,
many compressors serve to boost the pressure from the gathering line
into either transmission or distribution pipelines. PHMSA is proposing
to limit the endpoint to the outlet of a compressor used to deliver gas
to another pipeline. In this case, PHMSA considers the gas to have been
``gathered'' and prepared for transportation. This is consistent with
the Agency's past interpretation and enforcement policy.
The fifth possible endpoint is the connection to another pipeline
downstream of the furthermost downstream endpoint under sections
2.2(a)(1)(A) through (D) of API RP 80, or in the absence of such
endpoint, the furthermost downstream production operation (section
2.2(a)(1)(E) of API RP 80). This endpoint applies to connecting lines
called ``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.
III. Regulation of Onshore Gas Gathering Lines
A. How Are Onshore Gas Gathering Lines Currently Regulated?
1. Non-Rural Lines
In non-rural locations, the gathering of gas by pipeline has been
subject to Part 192 since these safety standards were published in
1970. Gathering lines in non-rural locations must meet the same safety
standards for design, construction, operation, and maintenance as gas
transmission lines, except Sec. 192.150, standards for passage of
smart pigs, and Subpart O of Part 192, integrity management (see Sec.
192.9).
In addition, the drug and alcohol testing regulations in 49 CFR
part 199 apply to onshore gas gathering lines in non-rural locations
because these lines are regulated by Part 192. These regulations
require operators to test personnel for use of prohibited drugs and
misuse of alcohol. Persons subject to testing are those who perform a
Part 192 regulated operation, maintenance, or emergency-response
function on a regulated pipeline.
As required by 49 CFR part 191, operators of onshore gathering
lines in non-rural locations also must submit reports to PHMSA.
Operators must submit telephonic and follow-up written reports of
incidents involving a death, hospitalization, or property damage of
$50,000 or more. Other requirements include safety-related condition
reports and annual reports about pipe inventory and leaks repaired.
2. Rural Lines
As discussed above, Part 192 does not apply to the onshore
gathering of gas in rural locations. Rural gathering lines are also
excluded from Part 191 reporting requirements and Part 199 drug and
alcohol regulations.
Until 1992, rural gathering lines were excluded by statute from
pipeline safety regulation (although in 1990 Congress granted limited
authority over gathering lines in Gulf of Mexico inlets (see Pub. L.
101-599)). In 1992, an amendment to the pipeline safety law gave DOT
authority to regulate the safety of rural lines where warranted by
risk.
B. Are Safety Regulations Needed for Onshore Rural Gathering Lines?
In 1992, Congress recognized some rural gathering lines that were
exempt from DOT's regulatory authority may present risks that warrant
safety regulation. Congress authorized DOT to define a class of
``regulated gathering lines'' that warrant safety regulation based on
information about risk. In its report on H.R. 1489, a bill that led 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, 102d Cong., 1st Session., 23 (1991)).
[[Page 57542]]
Because the reporting requirements under Part 191 covered only non-
rural gathering lines, The Agency lacked information about whether the
risks of rural lines warranted regulation. The Agency sought input from
the public on the need to regulate these lines. As discussed above, in
1999, the Agency opened a Web discussion on gathering lines and in 2003
held public meetings in Austin and Anchorage, with opportunity to
submit written comments until March 4, 2004. Although most participants
in the Web discussion and the meetings addressed the definition
problem, the public meetings also drew a few comments on the need for
regulation. Gas Processors Association (GPA), a trade association
representing gatherers and processors, submitted the most enlightening
information about gathering line risks obtained from a survey of its
members.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In 2002 the Texas Railroad Commission conducted a study to
determine the risk of unregulated production and rural gathering
lines in Texas. Most of the study's data came from small operators
with less than 10 miles of pipeline. However, the information
received did not provide a sufficient basis for a conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The survey asked 40 operators of rural gas gathering lines about
gathering line incidents that impacted the public during a 5-year
period (1999-2003). The survey showed that over this period 58
incidents occurred on 171,768 miles of pipeline, or on 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.
GPA compared these results to transmission incidents reported to
the Agency under Part 191 over the same 5-year period. The comparison
showed transmission lines impacted the public from three to six times
more often, even though the Part 191 reporting threshold for property
damage was $50,000 rather than $5,000. GPA attributed the lower impact
of rural gathering lines to operators' safety practices and to
operating conditions that generally involved sparsely-populated areas,
low pressures, and small pipe sizes.
Although the survey results showed the lines GPA surveyed presented
a lower risk to the public, the impacts to the public and property were
not insignificant. Many people living or working near those lines
suffered adverse consequences during the survey period. Moreover, the
potential for future harm is apparent, because the survey confirmed the
leading threats to Agency-regulated pipelines, corrosion and excavation
damage, are also the leading threats to rural gathering lines.
Furthermore, not all rural gathering lines present a low risk. Some
rural lines are near pockets of increased population or operate at high
pressures. 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, PHMSA believes it is no longer appropriate to
maintain the present total exemption of rural lines. But in changing
the present exemption, PHMSA is adhering to the congressional
directives by focusing on lines that expose the public to significant
risk, such as where a release of gas could have a serious consequence.
PHMSA intends, through a separate rulemaking, to propose changes to
the Part 191 reporting requirements to track the proposed changes in
this rulemaking. Thus, in the Part 191 rulemaking, all regulated
onshore gathering lines would be subject to Part 191 reporting
requirements. This will give PHMSA more information about the risks of
onshore gathering lines in rural locations.
C. What Is the Proper Approach to Regulating Onshore Gathering Lines?
PHMSA believes that for some onshore gathering lines, the potential
for harm to the public is too low to warrant pipeline safety
regulation. These lines may be characterized as generally small lines
operating at low pressures in remote areas. For other lines, PHMSA
agrees with commenters that as risk increases by operating pressure and
proximity to people, so should the level of regulation. Under this
approach, the highest risk lines would have the most regulation. This
approach is consistent with the statutory directive on determining
which gathering lines should be regulated gathering lines.
In deciding what regulations to apply according to risk, PHMSA
favors the tiered models suggested by the coalition (three tiers) and
Oneok (four tiers). Tiers are a reasonable way to pair safety
regulations with lines that pose different levels of risk. However, in
view of the need for practicality in both compliance and enforcement,
PHMSA has fashioned a simpler model that has only two tiers. This
approach is discussed in more detail below.
D. Should the Current Approach to Regulating Non-Rural Onshore
Gathering Lines Be Changed?
At present, Part 192 regulates non-rural gathering lines and
transmission lines alike (except that requirements for passage of
internal inspection devices in Sec. 192.150 and integrity management
programs in Subpart O apply only to transmission lines). The problem
with this approach is that, while individual lines may differ, the data
indicates gathering and transmission lines do not pose the same overall
level of risk to the public. Transmission line incidents have had a
greater impact on the public than gathering line incidents. The safety
data also indicates that because of the lesser risk some gathering
lines pose to the public, these lesser-risk lines should not be subject
to all regulations intended for transmission lines. Applying
regulations intended for all transmission lines is probably not
appropriate for all gathering lines. Although the data does not explain
the difference in impact, PHMSA believes a significant factor is that
many non-rural gathering lines operate at low pressures away from
highly populated areas.
Another problem with the current approach is that a city or town
may extend its boundaries to incorporate low population areas within
its boundaries. Thus, a gathering line that is not near any dwellings
but is within the city or town boundary is subject to regulation. PHMSA
believes the risk-based approach is the most suitable for applying the
level of Part 192 regulation to address the risk posed by the gathering
line. Regulation of an onshore gathering line would not depend on
subdivision or local government boundaries as it does now, but on the
risk the line poses to the public based on pressure and proximity. This
change would maintain the current level of regulation where justified
by risk. At the same time, it would relax the regulatory burden on less
risky lines.
E. What Safety Regulations Are Being Proposed?
PHMSA is proposing to change how Part 192 applies to onshore
gathering lines. This change is consistent with the statutory directive
on factors to consider in regulating onshore gathering lines. A class
of onshore gathering lines called ``regulated onshore gathering lines''
would be defined in Sec. 192.3 characterized by either of two risk
categories, Type A and Type B. The type would depend on the maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the line (i.e., whether MAOP
results in a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of
[[Page 57543]]
Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS) or less than 20 percent). Under
proposed Sec. 192.9, lines covered by the two categories would be
subject to safety requirements appropriate to each category. Onshore
gathering lines not covered by these categories would not be subject to
Part 192.
The proposal would exclude onshore gathering lines that operate
under vacuum, or at less than atmospheric pressure. Any failure of a
vacuum line would tend to draw air into the pipeline rather than
release natural gas to the atmosphere. PHMSA believes this factor
sufficiently reduces the level of risk so regulation is unnecessary.
Section 192.1(b)(4) would be amended to exclude these vacuum lines from
Part 192.
The proposal also clarifies that gathering lines in inlets of the
Gulf of Mexico are not affected by this rulemaking for onshore
gathering lines. Onshore gathering of gas in these inlets will continue
to be subject only to the inspection and burial requirements in Sec.
192.612, which address the principal risk of these lines. At no point
during our meetings and discussions about regulating onshore gathering
has anyone commented on a need to change these requirements.
1. Risk Categories
The first risk category, Type A, would include the following lines
or line segments that lie in populated areas: metallic lines whose MAOP
results in a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS, and non-
metallic lines whose MAOP is more than 125 psig. The populated areas
would be Class 3 and 4 locations, as defined in Sec. 192.5, and other
areas the operator would determine using either of two methods.
The first method would require determining all potential impact
circles along the line that include five or more dwellings. The circles
would be calculated by using an empirical formula as proposed in Sec.
192.3. These are the same circles that may now be used under Subpart O
for integrity management purposes to predict the range of potential
harm from a transmission line failure.
The second method would require determining areas that extend 220
yards on each side of the centerline of any continuous 1000 feet of
pipeline and that include either 5 or more dwellings per 1000 feet or
25 or more dwellings per mile. However, the density chosen will depend
on which results in more regulated onshore gathering lines. PHMSA has
included the 25 or more dwellings per mile to address industry comment
that this was more consistent with current class location
identification requirements and would not create confusion by having to
shift to another approach. However, because the proposed approach to
regulating onshore gathering is based on the line's risk to the public,
PHMSA has proposed that the density criterion an operator chooses must
capture the most regulated gathering lines. If the density of five or
more dwellings per 1000 feet were used, the area would extend along the
pipeline until the space between dwellings is at least 250 feet. The
220-yard dimension is consistent with the areas used in class location
determinations under Sec. 192.5.
Type A lines in areas within a Class 1 or Class 2 location would
also include additional lengths of line upstream and downstream from
the area. These lengths would serve as a shield against potential harm
to nearby dwellings.
Type B is the second risk category of regulated onshore gathering
lines. Type B lines would include metallic lines whose MAOP produces a
hoop stress of less than 20 percent of SMYS. Also included would be
non-metallic lines whose MAOP is 125 psig or less that are located in
populated areas. The populated areas would be Class 3 and 4 locations,
and other areas that extend 150 feet on each side of the centerline of
any continuous 1000 feet of pipeline and that include 5 or more
dwellings per 1000 feet. Like Type A lines, Type B lines in areas
within Class 1 or Class 2 locations would include additional lengths of
line as a shield against potential harm to nearby dwellings. Type B
does not include lines with MAOP of less than 0 psig because, as
discussed above, PHMSA is proposing to exclude vacuum lines from
regulation.
The 150-foot dimension for Type B lines is more than twice the
average length of service lines, or the average distance of
distribution customers from street mains. Since mains generally operate
at a lower stress or pressure than Type A gathering lines, 150 feet
should cover dwellings that could be adversely affected by gathering
lines operating at lower stresses or pressures than Type A lines.
2. Safety Requirements
Section 192.9 would be revised to include requirements for all
gathering lines subject to Part 192. The requirements are based on the
risk the line poses to the public.
Paragraph (b) would state the present Part 192 requirements
applicable to offshore lines. No change is proposed for these
requirements.
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 requirements (Subpart O). Because of
the pressure at which these lines operate, and their proximity to the
public, they are considered higher-risk lines that warrant more safety
requirements. Type A line operators would also be subject to the Part
199 drug and alcohol regulations and the Part 191 reporting
requirements. This is not a change from present practice. Gathering
lines as currently regulated are subject to these requirements.
Proposed requirements for Type B regulated onshore gathering lines
are in paragraph (d). These lines, although located close to the public
and housing, operate at a lower pressure than Type A lines. Because
they pose a lower-risk, they would be subject to fewer safety
regulations. The proposed requirements for Type B lines address the
types of threats posed to these lines. 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 Subpart I requirements.
Carry out a damage prevention program under Sec. 192.614.
Establish a MAOP under Sec. 192.619.
Install and maintain line markers under Sec. 192.707
according to transmission line requirements.
Establish a public education program as required by Sec.
192.616.
Extended compliance deadlines for operation and maintenance
requirements are proposed in paragraph (e). (A proposed change to Sec.
192.13 provides additional time before new lines and replacements must
meet the design and construction requirements.) This paragraph also
proposes compliance time for unregulated onshore gathering lines that
subsequently become regulated because of changes in population, as
discussed under the next subheading.
3. Easing Transition From Unregulated to Regulated
To ease the transition of unregulated lines to regulated status,
PHMSA is proposing that operators have one year after the final rule
takes effect to design, install, construct, initially inspect, and
initially test any new, replaced, relocated, or changed line according
to Part 192 requirements. The proposal is
[[Page 57544]]
in Sec. 192.13 and is similar to compliance times established
previously for other newly-regulated pipelines.
In addition, PHMSA is proposing to revise the MAOP requirements of
Sec. 192.619(a)(3) and (c). This proposal would allow operation of
newly regulated lines and lines subsequently regulated because of an
increase in population at the highest actual operating pressure to
which the line was subjected during the 5 years before the final rule
is published or the line becomes regulated.
Regarding corrosion control, several requirements of Subpart I of
Part 192 apply only to pipelines installed before August 1, 1971. These
requirements were originally intended for pipelines existing when
Subpart I was adopted. However, PHMSA believes they are also
appropriate for regulated onshore gathering lines existing when the
final rule takes effect that were not previously subject to Part 192
(lines in rural locations). Under proposed Sec. 192.452(b), regulated
onshore gathering lines existing on [effective date of final rule] not
previously subject to Part 192 must meet the corrosion control
requirements of Subpart I specifically applicable to pipelines
installed before August 1, 1971, notwithstanding the date the gathering
line was actually installed. Other Subpart I requirements apply only to
pipelines installed after July 31, 1971. These requirements would not
apply to existing lines unless the line substantially meets the
requirements. Existing requirements for converted lines are not
affected by this proposal.
Under proposed Sec. 192.9(e)(3), if a change in class location or
increase in dwelling density turns an onshore gathering line into a
regulated onshore gathering line, the operator would have one year
after the line becomes a regulated onshore gathering line to comply
with applicable Part 192 requirements. This proposal reflects the usual
practice by which operators of unregulated rural gathering lines stay
continuously aware of new housing developments or governmental boundary
changes that turn the lines into regulated lines. Developments are
detected by various means of surveillance, including satellite imagery,
aerial photography, and ground reconnaissance.
IV. An Alternative Approach
Given the decision to shift the focus of regulating gathering based
on risk to population, PHMSA is faced with a fundamental issue--whether
it is necessary or appropriate to define gathering. This leads to two
approaches. The first, as we have described in detail, proposes to
define both gathering (through use of a consensus standard) and
regulated gathering and an alternative that defines only regulated
gathering. Both approaches have merits and disadvantages that are
appropriately explored through the comment process.
The Natural Gas Act accepts gas gathering from the economic
regulatory program administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). FERC has not defined ``gathering''. In 1968,
Congress authorized safety regulation of virtually all pipelines,
including those not regulated by FERC such as intrastate pipelines and
gathering lines. From the beginning, The Agency frequently looked to
decisions under the Natural Gas Act for help in deciding where
gathering ended and transmission began. The Agency continued to
consider the Natural Gas Act decisions in delineating gathering when it
issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket in 1991. At the
time, the Agency noted its concern for inconsistency with FERC
practice. In 1992, Congress explicitly gave DOT permission to define
gathering without regard for FERC practice. Consequently, this SNPRM
proposes to define the scope of safety regulation without regard to
FERC practice.
The approach that appears in the text of this proposal begins with
the traditional base of ``gathering'' and adds the regulation through
defining ``regulated gathering''. The concept of gathering being
proposed is quite complex. Drafting language that incorporates the
concept of what is ``regulated'' within a single definition adds to
this complexity. Separating the concepts into gathering and regulated
gathering will result in a clearer understanding of which lines are
regulated. This approach is consistent with past practice in which we
separated the concepts of gathering and non-rural gathering (i.e.
regulated gathering).
The downside of the approach is the risk that the PHMSA definition
of gathering may be influential in future FERC disputes. The risk
appears minimal. PHMSA does not intend that its definition be relied on
in deciding whether particular lines are gathering within the meaning
of the Natural Gas Act. In deciding cases involving disputes over the
definition of gathering, courts have thus far clearly looked only to
the definition of the cognizant agency. The only case involving the
existing definition for which the Agency had considered FERC practice
limited discussion to the definition and statutory authority without
mention of FERC precedents. Hamman v. Southwestern Gas Pipeline, 721
F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1983). Gathering as used by FERC is limited to the
activities Congress authorized FERC to regulate, which does not include
pipeline safety. See, for example, Sea Robin Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 127
F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 1997). Further, application of the definition
issued for safety purposes in a tax case in which the meaning of
gathering was important was expressly rejected. Saginaw Bay Pipeline v.
United States, 338 F.3d 600 (6th Cir. 2003).
The alternative approach would be to abandon the term ``gathering''
as unnecessary and proceed immediately to ``regulated gathering.'' This
approach has the benefit of consistency with the focus on risk since it
defines only the segments actually regulated. The downside comes with
the impact on other definitions critical to safety regulation. One
factor defining transmission in current regulation is the end of a
gathering line. 49 CFR 192.3. Without a definition of gathering line,
the definition of transmission would have to be reworked to identify a
different beginning point for those transmission lines for which other
factors defining transmission do not apply. This would not be easy to
accomplish.
PHMSA seeks comments on these two alternative approaches. What is
the risk that the first approach, which would define gathering for
safety purposes, would impact the FERC practice in the economic area?
If there would be an impact, would it be negative or positive? With
respect to the second alternative approach, is there a way to avoid
definitional difficulties with defining transmission lines? If so,
PHMSA would welcome specific language. With respect to either approach,
are there other benefits or downsides to either approach that should be
considered?
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Privacy Act. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures. DOT
considers this proposed rulemaking to be a significant regulatory
action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
[[Page 57545]]
(58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993). Therefore, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has received a copy of this proposed rulemaking to review.
This proposed rulemaking is considered significant under DOT regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979).
PHMSA prepared a draft Regulatory Evaluation of the rules proposed
in this SNPRM and a copy is in the docket. The evaluation concludes
that there will be a net cost savings from implementing the proposed
rules. The savings result from reducing the regulatory burden currently
imposed on regulated gas gathering lines by establishing a tiered
approach to safety requirements. PHMSA estimates the total amount of
gas gathering pipeline mileage that will be subject to Part 192 will be
about the same after implementing this proposed rule as it is now.
However, requirements applicable to approximately three fourths of the
regulated gathering line mileage, which poses less public safety risk,
will be reduced compared to the requirements now applicable to
regulated lines. This proposal will result in a total cost of $26.54
million over a 20-year period. PHMSA estimates the benefit of reducing
the frequency of gas gathering pipeline incidents that have public
safety consequences will cause a net benefit that is consistent with
the increased regulatory burden. If you have comments about these
conclusions, please provide information to the public docket described
above.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA must consider whether rulemaking actions
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
This SNPRM affects operators of onshore gas gathering lines. It
proposes a definition of ``onshore'' gathering line and a tiered
regulatory structure, under which regulated onshore gathering lines
posing less risk would be subject to only some of the requirements now
applied to all regulated gathering lines. PHMSA estimates the overall
economic effect of rules proposed by this SNPRM will be a net reduction
in costs to operators.
At present, many operators of such pipelines are subject to Federal
safety regulation. The particular portions of their pipeline subject to
regulation may change, in some cases, due to the changes in the
definition, but the economic impact on these operators is expected to
be a net reduction in costs, consistent with the regulatory analysis.
Some operators of gas gathering lines will become subject to safety
regulations for the first time because portions of their pipelines will
meet the criteria in the proposed definition of regulated onshore
gathering line. These companies will experience added costs. The costs
will depend on the risk posed by their pipelines. Approximately 25
companies are expected to come under safety regulation for the first
time.
Based on these estimates, only a small number of companies will
experience increased costs, but we believe this impact is not a
significant economic impact on a ``substantial'' number of small
entities.
PHMSA invites public comment on its estimate of the number of
companies subject to safety regulation for the first time as a result
of this proposed rule. PHMSA also invites public comment on the number
of miles of pipeline subject to safety regulation for the first time as
a result of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13175. PHMSA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking
according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order
13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' Because the proposed rulemaking would not significantly
or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments nor
impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This SNPRM contains information collection
requirements applicable to operators of regulated onshore gas gathering
lines. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), PHMSA will submit a paperwork analysis to OMB for its review.
A copy of the analysis will also be entered in the docket. The SNPRM
would affect information collection that OMB has approved under Control
Numbers 2137-0049 (recordkeeping under 49 CFR part 192) and 2137-0579
(drug and alcohol testing under 49 CFR part 199).
For proposed Type B regulated onshore gathering lines, operators
would have to comply with Part 192 information collection requirements
regarding corrosion control, damage prevention programs, and public
education programs. For proposed Type A regulated onshore gathering
lines, operators would have to comply not only with these requirements
but also with others under various Part 192 rules applicable to gas
transmission lines. All operators of onshore gathering lines proposed
to be regulated would have to comply with the information collection
requirements in 49 CFR Part 199 concerning drug and alcohol testing.
As explained above in Section III of this preamble, gas gathering
lines in non-rural locations are currently subject to PHMSA's safety
regulations. The number of gathering line operators subject to
regulation varies by year as pipelines are brought into and taken out
of service and as changes occur in the boundaries of non-rural
locations. During the period 1999 to 2003, approximately 400 operators
filed annual reports each year under 49 CFR part 191 covering regulated
onshore gathering systems.
At present, all 400 of these operators are required to comply with
part 192 rules applicable to transmission lines, including information
collection requirements. If the SNPRM proposals are adopted as final,
the specific portions of these operators' gathering lines subject to
part 192 regulations may change. Some portions may no longer be
regulated, while others could become Type A or Type B lines. For Type B
lines, the part 192 information collection burden would be
significantly reduced, because Type B lines would be subject to far
fewer part 192 regulations. The net effect on the paperwork burden
faced by these 400 operators is thus expected to be a reduction.
However, the magnitude of this reduction is difficult to estimate,
since PHMSA lacks the data necessary to determine which portions of
their currently regulated gathering lines would remain regulated by
part 192 and which portions that remain regulated would become Type A
or Type B lines.
If the proposed definition of ``regulated onshore gathering line''
is adopted as final, some operators of gas gathering lines in rural
locations could become subject to part 192 regulations for the first
time. PHMSA preliminarily estimates no more than 25 operators will be
newly-subject to part 192 regulations as a result of this proposal.
These operators would be required to comply with part 192 regulations
proposed for Type A and Type B lines and with part 199 drug and alcohol
testing regulations, including associated information collection
requirements.
PHMSA' preliminary estimate of the paperwork burden on these
proposed newly-regulated operators is an average of approximately 40
hours per year. Much of this time will involve clerical personnel, but
some involvement by managers and technical personnel will be required.
Using an estimated average hourly rate of $75 results in an estimated
cost, for 25 operators, of $75,000 as a result of this new paperwork
burden.
PHMSA expects this increase in cost for newly-regulated operators
would be more than offset by the reduction in paperwork burden
associated with
[[Page 57546]]
currently regulated gas gathering lines that become either unregulated
or Type B lines, as described above. Thus, the overall paperwork impact
would be a small reduction.
Comments are invited on the above estimates. PHMSA will publish a
separate notice in the Federal Register specifically inviting comments
on the information collection burden of the SNPRM following completion
of the paperwork analysis.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This SNPRM does not impose
unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It
does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private
sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective of the proposed rulemaking.
National Environmental Policy Act. PHMSA has analyzed the proposed
rulemaking for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Because the proposed rulemaking would require
limited physical modification or other work that would disturb pipeline
rights-of-way, PHMSA has preliminarily determined the proposed
rulemaking is unlikely to significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. Much of the pipeline mileage that would be subject to the
proposed rules is already regulated, and no new actions likely to
affect the environment are proposed for currently regulated lines. Also
much of the existing rural mileage that would become regulated under
the proposed rules is already equipped with cathodic protection and
location markers, the two requirements that would involve any
installation/modification work along the pipeline. An environmental
assessment document is available for review in the docket. A final
determination on environmental impact will be made after the end of the
comment period. By requiring operators to participate in damage
prevention programs and follow the applicable requirements for
corrosion control, it may be expected that the number of failures on
gathering lines will be reduced. Since gathering lines often contain
gas streams laden with condensates and natural gas liquids, the reduced
number of failures also means a reduced number of spills of these
liquids.
If you have any comments about the preliminary conclusion, please
submit your comments to the docket as described above.
Executive Order 13132. PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking
according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order
13132 (``Federalism''). In its meetings with state agency officials on
gathering lines, PHMSA discussed Federalism issues. None of the
proposed rules (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the
relationship between the national government and the States, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments; or (3) preempt state law. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not
apply.
Executive Order 13211. The transportation of gas through gathering
systems has a substantial aggregate effect on the nation's available
energy supply. However, after analysis, PHMSA has determined this
proposed rulemaking is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211. It is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this
proposed rulemaking has not been designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action. The Energy Impact Analysis is available for review in the
docket.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend
49 CFR part 192 as follows:
PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. In Sec. 192.1,
a. Revise the section heading,
b. Revise paragraph (b)(4),
c. Remove paragraph (b)(5), and
d. Redesignate paragraph (b)(6) as (b)(5).
The changes read as follows:
Sec. 192.1 What is the scope of this part?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Onshore gathering of gas--
(i) Through a pipeline that operates at less than 0 psi (0 kPa)
gage;
(ii) Through a pipeline that is not a regulated onshore gathering
line; and
(iii) Within inlets of the Gulf of Mexico, except for the
requirements in Sec. 192.612.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 192.3, revise the section heading, and add definitions
of ``onshore gathering line,'' ``potential impact circle,'' ``potential
impact radius,'' and ``regulated onshore gathering line'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 192.3 What definitions apply to this part?
* * * * *
Onshore gathering line means any pipeline or part of a connected
series of pipelines that qualifies as an onshore gathering line under
section 2.2 of API RP 80, with the following limitations:
(1) Under section 2.2(a)(1) of API RP 80, 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.
(2) Under section 2.2(a)(1)(A) of API RP 80, the endpoint may not
extend beyond the first downstream natural gas processing plant, unless
the operator can demonstrate, using sound engineering principles, that
gathering extends to a further downstream plant;
(3) The endpoint under section 2.2(a)(1)(B) of API RP 80 applies
only if no other endpoint identified under section 2.2(a)(1)(A),
(a)(1)(C) or (a)(1)(D) exists;
(4) Under section 2.2(a)(1)(C) of API RP 80, if the endpoint is
determined by the commingling of gas from separate production fields,
the fields may not be more than 50 miles from each other; and
(5) Under section 2.2(a)(1)(D) of API RP 80, the endpoint may not
extend beyond the furthermost downstream compressor used to increase
gathering line pressure for delivery to another pipeline.
* * * * *
Potential impact circle (PIC) is a circle of radius equal to the
potential impact radius (PIR).
Potential impact radius (PIR) means the radius of a circle within
which the potential failure of a pipeline could have significant impact
on people or property. PIR is determined by the following formula:
r = 0.69* (square root of (p*d2))
Where:
r = the radius of a circular area in feet surrounding the point of
failure
p = the maximum allowable operating pressure of the pipeline segment in
psig
d = the nominal diameter of the pipeline in inches
Regulated onshore gathering line means
[[Page 57547]]
(1) Each onshore gathering line (or segment of onshore gathering
line) with a feature described in the second column that lies in an
area described in the third column; and
(2) As applicable, additional lengths of line described in the
fourth column to provide a safety buffer:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type Feature Area Safety buffer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A........................... [squ] Metallic and the 1. A Class 3 or 4 location If the gathering line is in
MAOP produces a hoop (see Sec. 192.5). Area 2, the additional
stress of 20 percent 2. An area within a Class 1 lengths of line extend
or more of SMYS. or Class 2 location that upstream and downstream
[squ] Non-metallic and the operator determines by from the area to a point
the MAOP is more than using either of the where the pipeline is at
125 psi (862 kPa) gage. following methods:. least 220 yards (200 m)
Method 1. A potential impact from the nearest dwelling
circle that includes five in the area.
or more dwellings;.
Method 2. An area that
extends 220 yards (200 m)
on each side of the
centerline of any
continuous 1000 feet (305
m) of pipeline and includes
either 5 or more dwellings
per 1000 feet (305 m), or
25 or more dwellings per
mile (1.6 kilometer),
whichever results in more
regulated onshore gathering
line. If the density of 5
or more dwellings per 1000
feet (305 m) is used, the
area extends along the
pipeline until the space
between dwellings is at
least 250 feet..
B........................... [squ] Metallic and the 1. A Class 3 or 4 location.. If the gathering line is in
MAOP produces a hoop 2. An area within a Class 1 Area 2, the additional
stress of less than 20 or Class 2 location that lengths of line extend
percent of SMYS. extends 150 feet (45.7 m) upstream and downstream
[squ] Non-metallic and on each side of the from the area to a point
the MAOP is 125 psi centerline of any where the line is at least
(862 kPa) gage or less. continuous 1000 feet (305 150 feet (45.7 m) from the
m) of pipeline and includes nearest dwelling in the
5 or more dwellings per area.
1000 feet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 192.7, revise the section heading, and, in the table in
paragraph (c), revise item B. (5) as follows:
Sec. 192.7 What documents are incorporated by reference into this
part?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source and name of referenced material 49 CFR reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
B. American Petroleum Institute (API): ..........................
* * * * * * *
(5) API Recommended Practice 80 ``Guidelines Sec. 192.3
for the Definition of Onshore Gas Gathering
Lines'' (2000).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Revise Sec. 192.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 192.9 What requirements apply to gathering lines?
(a) Requirements. An operator of a gathering line must follow the
safety requirements of this part as prescribed by this section.
(b) Offshore lines. An operator of an offshore gathering line must
comply with requirements of this part applicable to transmission lines,
except the requirements in Sec. 192.150 and in Subpart O of this part.
(c) Type A lines. An operator of a Type A regulated onshore
gathering line must comply with the requirements of this part
applicable to transmission lines, except the requirements in Sec.
192.150 and in Subpart O of this part.
(d) Type B lines. An operator of a Type B regulated onshore
gathering line must comply with the following requirements:
(1) If a line is new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed,
the design, installation, construction, initial inspection, and initial
test must be in accordance with this part.
(2) If the pipeline is metallic, control corrosion according to
Subpart I of this part;
(3) Carry out a damage prevention program under Sec. 192.614;
(4) Establish the MAOP of the line under Sec. 192.619;
(5) Install and maintain line markers according to the requirements
for transmission lines in Sec. 192.707; and
(6) Establish a public education program under Sec. 192.616.
(e) Compliance deadlines. An operator of a regulated onshore
gathering line must comply with the following deadlines, as applicable.
(1) An operator of a new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed
line must be in compliance with the applicable requirements of this
section by the date the line goes into service, except as proved in
Sec. 192.13.
(2) If a regulated onshore gathering line that exists on [date
final rule takes effect] was not previously subject to this part, an
operator has until the date stated in the second column to comply with
the applicable requirement for the line listed in the first column:
[[Page 57548]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Compliance deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control corrosion according to Subpart [2 years after date final rule
I requirements. takes effect].
Carry out a damage prevention program [6 months after date final rule
under Sec. 192.614. takes effect].
Establish MAOP under Sec. 192.619.... [6 months after date final rule
takes effect].
Install and maintain line markers under [1 year after date final rule
Sec. 192.707. takes effect].
Establish a public education program [1 year after date final rule
under Sec. 192.616. takes effect].
Other provisions of this part as [2 years after the final rule
required by paragraph (c) of this is published].
section for Type A lines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) If, after [date final rule takes effect], a change in class
location or increase in dwelling density causes an onshore gathering
line to be a regulated onshore gathering line, the operator has 1 year
after the line becomes a regulated onshore gathering line to comply
with this section.
6. In Sec. 192.13,
a. Revise the section heading, and
b. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 192.13 What general requirements apply to pipelines regulated
under this part?
(a) No person may operate a segment of pipeline listed in the first
column that is readied for service after the date in the second column,
unless:
(1) The pipeline has been designed, installed, constructed,
initially inspected, and initially tested in accordance with this part;
or
(2) The pipeline qualifies for use under this part in accordance
with Sec. 192.14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore gathering line................ July 31, 1977.
Regulated onshore gathering line to [1 year after the final rule is
which this part did not apply until published.]
[date final rule takes effect].
All other pipelines.................... March 12, 1971.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) No person may operate a segment of pipeline listed in the first
column that is replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed after the date
in the second column, unless the replacement, relocation or change has
been made in accordance with this part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore gathering line................ July 31, 1977.
Regulated onshore gathering line to [1 year after the final rule is
which this part did not apply until published.]
[date final rule takes effect].
All other pipelines.................... November 12, 1970.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 192.452,
a. Revise the section heading,
b. Designate the existing text as paragraph (a),
c. Add ``Converted pipelines.'' as the heading of newly designated
paragraph (a), and
d. Add a new paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 192.452 How does this subpart apply to converted pipelines and
regulated onshore gathering lines?
(a) Converted pipelines. * * *
(b) Regulated onshore gathering lines. For any regulated onshore
gathering line existing on [effective date of final rule] and not
previously subject to this part:
(1) The requirements of this subpart specifically applicable to
pipelines installed before August 1, 1971, apply notwithstanding the
date the gathering line was actually installed; and
(2) The requirements of this subpart specifically applicable to
pipelines installed after July 31, 1971, apply only if the pipeline
substantially meets those requirements.
8. In Sec. 192.619, revise the section heading and paragraphs
(a)(3) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 192.619 What is the maximum allowable operating pressure for
steel or plastic pipelines?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) The highest actual operating pressure to which the segment was
subjected during the 5 years preceding the applicable date in the
second column, unless the segment was tested in accordance with
paragraph (a)(2) of this section after the applicable date in the third
column or the segment was uprated in accordance with subpart K of this
part:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Pressure date Test date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onshore gathering lines that First day of month 5 years
first became subject to this before month final preceding date
part (other than Sec. rule is published, or in second
192.612) after (day before date line becomes a column.
final rule takes effect). regulated onshore
gathering line under
this part, whichever
is later.
Offshore gathering lines...... July 1, 1976.......... July 1, 1971.
All other pipelines........... July 1, 1970.......... July 1, 1965.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding the other requirements of this section and
subject to the requirements of Sec. 192.611, an operator may operate a
segment of
[[Page 57549]]
pipeline found to be in satisfactory condition, considering its
operating and maintenance history, at the highest actual operating
pressure to which the segment was subjected during the 5 years
preceding the applicable date in the second column of the table in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 23, 2005.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-19455 Filed 9-28-05; 8:51 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P