Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for Onshore Lines and Proposed Safety Standards, 57536-57549 [05-19455]

Agencies

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57536-57549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19455]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: https://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: https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, and may access all comments 
received by DOT at https://dms.dot.gov by performing a simple search for 
the docket number. Note: All comments will be posted without changes or 
edits to https://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 (https://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 https://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 
https://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 establishi