[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63266-63299]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24240]

Vol. 86

Monday,

No. 217

November 15, 2021

Part III

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

49 CFR Parts 191 and 192

Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of
Reporting Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and
Other Related Amendments; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 217 / Monday, November 15, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 191 and 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023; Amdt. Nos. 191-30; 192-129]
RIN 2137-AF38

Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of
Reporting Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and
Other Related Amendments

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PHMSA is revising the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to
improve the safety of onshore gas gathering pipelines. This final rule
addresses Congressional mandates, Government Accountability Office
recommendations, and public input received as part of the rulemaking
process. The amendments in this final rule extend reporting
requirements to all gas gathering operators and apply a set of minimum
safety requirements to certain gas gathering pipelines with large
diameters and high operating pressures. The rule does not affect
offshore gas gathering pipelines.

DATES: The effective date of this final rule is May 16, 2022. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain material listed in this rule as of April 14, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Technical questions: Steve Nanney, Project Manager, by telephone at
713-272-2855.
    General information: Sayler Palabrica, Transportation Specialist,
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    C. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
    A. Detailed Overview
    B. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    C. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act
of 2011
    D. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Recommendations
    E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    F. Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing
Safety Act of 2020
III. Analysis of NPRM Comments, GPAC Recommendations, and PHMSA
Response
    A. Reporting Requirements--Sec. Sec.  191.1, 192.5, 191.17, and
191.29
    B. Gathering Line Definitions--Sec. Sec.  192.3 and 192.8
    C. Expanded Scope of Gas Gathering Line Regulations--Sec.  192.8
    D. Safety Requirements for Newly Regulated Gas Gathering Lines--
Sec. Sec.  192.9, 192.13, 192.18, 192.452, and 192.619
IV. Section-By-Section Analysis
V. Availability of Standards Incorporated-by-Reference
VI. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Final Rule

    This final rule responds to Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recommendations and a Congressional mandate by extending existing
design, operational and maintenance, and reporting requirements under
the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to onshore natural gas
gathering pipelines (``gathering lines'') in rural areas. Increasingly,
many of these gathering lines have design and operating parameters that
are similar to natural gas transmission lines (``transmission lines''),
which pose an increased risk to public safety and the environment.
PHMSA expects the regulatory amendments in this final rule will reduce
the frequency and consequences of failures of onshore gas gathering
lines and in turn reduce the likelihood of gas-related releases and
incidents. The requirements in the final rule are designed to prevent
and detect threats to pipeline integrity, improve public awareness of
pipeline safety, and improve emergency response to pipeline incidents.
PHMSA expects this final rule, therefore, will (1) improve public
safety; (2) reduce threats to the physical environment (including, but
not limited to, greenhouse gas emissions released during natural gas
gathering line incidents); and (3) promote environmental justice for
minority populations, low-income populations, and other underserved and
disadvantaged communities.
    Gas gathering lines are pipelines used to transport natural gas
from a current production facility to a transmission line or
distribution main lines (``main lines''). Generally, these pipelines
are used to collect unprocessed gas from production facilities for
transport to a gas treatment plant or other facility. From there, the
natural gas is separated from petroleum liquids, water, and other
impurities to prepare the gas for further transportation and sale. In
the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) parts 190 through 199), gas gathering lines are distinct from gas
transmission pipelines which are defined in Sec.  192.3 as pipelines
that: (1) Transport gas from a gathering line or storage facility to a
distribution center, storage facility, or large volume customer that is
not downstream from a distribution center; (2) operate at a hoop stress
of 20 percent or more of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS); \1\
or (3) transport gas within a storage field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ SMYS is defined in Sec.  192.3 and refers to the minimum
force required to deform permanently the material as specified in
the applicable design codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 192.5 divides gas transmission and gathering lines into
class locations based on the number of dwellings near the pipeline.
These range from rural Class 1 to densely populated Class 4 locations.
Class locations are defined in Sec.  192.5. A Class 1 location is an
offshore pipeline or an onshore pipeline that has 10 or fewer buildings
intended for human occupancy within a 1-mile-long class-location unit.
Unlike transmission lines, which are regulated regardless of location,
gathering lines in rural Class 1 locations are exempt from Federal
pipeline safety and reporting regulations in parts 191 and 192.
However, PHMSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 60102(a)(2) to issue
safety regulations for pipeline transportation and pipeline facilities,
including non-rural gathering lines and rural gathering lines
designated by the Secretary as ``regulated gathering lines'' under 49
U.S.C. 60101(a)(21) and (b). Section 60117(b)(2) also authorizes DOT to
require owners and operators of gathering lines, including rural
gathering lines that have not been defined as regulated gathering
lines, to submit information pertinent to its ability to make a
determination as to whether and to what extent to regulate gathering
lines.
    Prior to 2005, U.S. gas production had been stagnant since a peak
in the early 1970s.\2\ The gathering lines that received gas from
conventional wells typically had smaller diameters than gas
transmission lines and operated at lower pressures. All else equal, a
smaller diameter and lower pressure pipeline will release less gas and
energy during an incident compared with a larger diameter pipeline with
a greater operating pressure, such as a major transmission line. As a
result, gathering lines located in Class 1 locations were

thought to pose relatively low risk to the public and the environment;
therefore, gathering lines in Class 1 locations were exempt from
reporting and safety requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety
Regulations. On the other hand, to account for the risks related to
their physical, functional, and operational characteristics,
transmission pipelines have been subject to PHMSA regulations
regardless of their location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), ``Natural
Gas Explained--U.S. natural gas consumption, dry production, and net
imports, 1950-2019,'' https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php (accessed Nov. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of their size, regulated gathering lines are required to
comply with safety reporting requirements and minimum safety standards
in parts 191 and 192. Section 192.8(b) currently provides for two
categories of regulated onshore gathering lines. Type A gathering lines
are located in Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 locations (see Sec.  192.5)
that operate at relatively higher stress levels. Section 192.9(c)
subjects Type A regulated gathering lines to the same requirements as
gas transmission pipelines, with a few exceptions, due to the high
potential consequences of an incident on a high-stress pipeline in a
populated area. Type B gathering lines are lower-stress pipelines in
Class 3, Class 4, and certain Class 2 locations. Section 192.9(d)
subjects Type B to a less comprehensive set of requirements since such
pipelines operate at lower stress levels than transmission pipelines.
As stated above, gathering lines in Class 1 locations are excluded from
the reporting and safety standards contained in parts 191 and 192. In a
2006 final rule, PHMSA determined that the potential consequences of a
release of a smaller-diameter pipeline with a lower maximum allowable
operating pressure (``MAOP''), in a sparsely populated area, would be
minimal.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for
Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards, 71 FR 13289, 13291 (Mar. 15,
2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to new drilling technologies and changing demand factors,
domestic gas production has been surging since approximately 2006.\4\
Besides larger overall production volumes, new drilling technologies
have also greatly increased the volume of gas that can be extracted
from a single production site.\5\ As a result, the volume of gas
transported by gathering lines have also increased significantly. In
order to transport this additional volume, some gas gathering lines are
now constructed with large-diameter pipe and operating pressures
comparable to large, interstate gas transmission pipelines. For
example, the National Association of State Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR) \6\ Resolution 2010-2 AC-2 notes that members
have observed rural gathering lines as large as 30 inches in diameter
with a MAOP as high as 1480 psi.\7\ The potential safety and
environmental consequences of a gas pipeline rupture are proportional
to the pipeline's diameter and operating pressure. Large diameter
gathering lines are still exempt from the requirements in parts 191 and
192 if they are located in Class 1 locations despite their physical and
functional similarities with transmission pipelines and their increased
potential for adverse consequences in the event of incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EIA, ``U.S. Natural Gas Marketed Production,'' https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm. (accessed Nov. 9, 2020).
    \5\ EIA, ``Hydraulically fractured horizontal wells account for
most new oil and natural gas wells,'' https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34732 (Jan. 30, 2018).
    \6\ NAPSR is a nonprofit association of State pipeline safety
officials.
    \7\ Available on the NAPSR website at http://www.napsr.org/resolutions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Large diameter, high-pressure gathering lines are susceptible to
the same types of integrity threats as transmission pipelines,
including corrosion, excavation damage, and construction defects. The
exemption of these pipelines from the safety requirements of the
Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations failed to consider the present
risks that now exist. In addition, PHMSA has lacked detailed
information on the safety of gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations
because such lines have been exempted from requirements to submit
incident and annual reports under part 191. These reports are necessary
for PHMSA to analyze how recent changes in the gas production and
midstream industries affect the functional and operational
characteristics of unregulated gathering lines, and the safety
consequences of those changes. While more comprehensive information is
being collected and analyzed, expanded regulatory measures are needed
to protect the human and natural environment from the consequences of
incidents on large-diameter, high-pressure gathering lines from
preventable causes such as corrosion, excavation damage, and inadequate
design and construction practices.
    On August 25, 2011, PHMSA issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) that, among other things, requested comments with
respect to improving the regulation of gas gathering lines.\8\
Following the ANPRM's publication, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (2011 Pipeline Safety Act, Pub.
L. 112-90) was enacted on January 3, 2012. Section 21 of the 2011
Pipeline Safety Act mandated that DOT review existing regulations for
gathering lines and report to Congress on the sufficiency of existing
Federal and State laws and the need to modify or revoke existing
exemptions from Federal regulation for gathering lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, 76 FR
53086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, in 2012, the GAO issued recommendation GAO-12-388 for
PHMSA to collect data on Federally unregulated hazardous liquid and gas
gathering lines.\9\ In August 2014, GAO issued recommendation 14-667
for PHMSA to ``move forward with rulemaking to address gathering
pipeline safety that addresses the risks of larger-diameter, higher-
pressure gathering pipelines, including subjecting such pipelines to
emergency response planning requirements that currently do not apply to
gathering pipelines.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ GAO, No. 12-388, ``Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and
Sharing Information on Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines
Could Help Enhance Safety'' (Mar. 22, 2012).
    \10\ GAO, No. 14-667, ``Oil and Gas Transportation: Department
of Transportation Is Taking Actions to Address Rail Safety, but
Additional Actions Are Needed to Improve Pipeline Safety'' at 48
(Aug. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 8, 2016, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) responding to comments received on the ANPRM and proposing to
further regulate gas gathering lines to enhance safety.\11\ This final
rule addresses only those portions of the NPRM dealing with gas
gathering lines. Portions of the NPRM dealing with gas transmission
issues have already been implemented in the final rule, ``Pipeline
Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: MAOP Reconfirmation,
Expansion of Assessment Requirements, and Other Related Amendments,''
(``Gas Transmission Final Rule'') published on October 1, 2019.\12\ The
remaining gas transmission issues will be addressed in the future in a
separate rulemaking under the Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 2137-
AF39, titled ``Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines,
Repair Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic
Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering
Pipelines, 81 FR 20722.
    \12\ 84 FR 52180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM discussed the Congressional mandate and GAO
recommendations, as well as the increased risk factors regarding
gathering lines discussed above. In addition, the NPRM explained the
need to clarify the definitions of gas gathering lines in Sec. Sec.
192.3 and 192.8, which rely on American Petroleum Institute (API)
Recommended Practice (RP) 80,

``Guidelines for the Definition of Onshore Gas Gathering Lines,'' first
edition, April 2000. The current definitions are unclear with respect
to each of (1) the point at which a non-jurisdictional production
operation ends and a potentially regulated gas gathering line begins
and (2) the use of the incidental gathering designation, which allows
an operator to designate lines downstream from any gathering function
defined in API RP 80 as a gathering line rather than as a transmission
line.
    A summary of the proposed changes and PHMSA's response to the
comments on the NPRM are provided below in section III of this final
rule.
    On December 28, 2020, the Protecting our Infrastructure of
Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 (2020 PIPES Act, Pub. L.
116-260) was enacted. Section 112(a) directed PHMSA to issue a final
rule in this rulemaking by March 27, 2021.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule

    This final rule addresses reporting and safety requirements for
onshore gas gathering lines; offshore gas gathering lines are beyond
the scope of this rulemaking.\13\ The final rule requires operators of
all onshore gas gathering lines to report incidents and file annual
reports under part 191. The purpose of this expanded reporting
obligation is to gather data about the state of gas gathering
infrastructure and monitor the safety performance of gas gathering
lines that were previously exempt from Federal reporting requirements.
The information in the reports will help determine the need for future
regulatory changes to address the risks to the public, property, and
the environment posed by all types of pipeline systems engaged in the
transportation of gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ References in this final rule to ``gathering'' therefore
refer, unless specified otherwise, to onshore gas gathering
pipelines. Similar to Type A onshore gas gathering lines, offshore
gas gathering lines are already covered by the requirements in part
192 applicable to transmission lines, with some exceptions listed in
Sec.  192.9(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the final rule provides for a new Type C regulated
gathering line \14\ in Sec.  192.8. Type C gathering lines are defined
as gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations that have outer diameters
of 8.625 inches or greater and operate at higher stress levels or
pressures. The safety requirements for Type C lines, referred to as
Type C requirements in the final rule, are specified in revised Sec.
192.9(e) and vary based on the outer diameter of the pipeline and the
potential consequences of a failure. The potential consequences of
incidents are greater on larger-diameter, higher-pressure pipelines and
pipelines that are located near buildings intended for human occupancy.
Type C gathering lines with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches
and certain other Type C gathering lines that could directly affect
homes and other structures are required to comply with (1) existing
requirements for Type B gas gathering lines, and (2) requirements at
Sec.  192.615 that operators develop and implement emergency plans.
Type C gathering lines with smaller diameters or that could not
directly affect homes and other structures have fewer requirements that
are limited to damage prevention, emergency plans, and public
awareness. These requirements address known causes of pipeline failures
including excavation damage, corrosion, and inadequate design and
construction standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This final rule and amended regulatory text use the
formulation ``Type C'' to identify the newly-regulated onshore
gathering lines described in the NPRM as ``Type A, Area 2.''
However, in discussion of the NPRM and comments thereon, this final
rule will use the formulation ``Type A, Area 2'' for the convenience
of the reader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Costs and Benefits

    Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 60102(b) and Executive Order 12866
(``Regulatory Planning and Review''),\15\ PHMSA has prepared an
assessment of the benefits (including safety and environmental
benefits) and costs of the final rule as well as reasonable
alternatives. PHMSA expects benefits of the final rule to consist of
improved safety and avoided environmental harms (including methane
emissions) from reduction of the frequency and consequences of failures
of onshore natural gas gathering lines that could result in releases
and incidents. PHMSA estimates the annualized costs of the rule to be
approximately $13.7 million per year at a 7-percent discount rate. The
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this final rule is available in
the docket. The table below provides a summary of the estimated costs
for the major provisions in this rulemaking and in total (see the RIA
for further detail on these estimates).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 58 FR 51375 (Oct. 4, 1993).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Estimated annualized cost
                 Provision                              (7%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right-of-Way Surveillance.................  $170,087.
Corrosion Control.........................  $2,043,260.
Damage Prevention.........................  $285,011.
Public Awareness..........................  $550,464.
Line Markers..............................  $1,680,870.
Emergency Plan............................  $312,167.
Leakage Surveys...........................  $7,626,075.
Incident reporting........................  $134,556.
Annual reporting..........................  $943,408.
Construction..............................  Negligible.
                                           -----------------------------
  Total...................................  $13,745,898.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Detailed Overview

Introduction
    The Pipeline Safety Regulations divide gas transmission and
gathering lines into classes from Class 1 (rural areas) to Class 4
(densely populated, high-rise areas) that are based on the number of
buildings or dwellings for human occupancy in the area. Class locations
are defined in Sec.  192.5. A Class 1 location is an offshore pipeline
or an onshore pipeline that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for
human occupancy within a 1-mile-long class-location unit. This final
rule addresses only onshore gas gathering lines. Gas gathering lines
located in Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 locations have been subject to
reporting requirements in part 191 and safety requirements in part 192.
Type A lines, which operate at higher pressure, are required to comply
with most safety requirements applicable to transmission pipelines at
part 192, while lower-pressure Type B lines are required to follow
fewer requirements, which are listed in Sec.  192.9(d).
    When PHMSA last issued regulations addressing the safety of gas
gathering lines in 2006,\16\ it exempted gathering lines in Class 1
locations from reporting and safety requirements in parts 191 and 192.
At the time, such pipelines were mostly small-diameter, low-pressure
pipelines located in sparsely populated, traditional oil-producing
regions and were thought to pose relatively low risks to the public.
However, by the time that the 2006 final rule was adopted, innovative
drilling technologies, new hydrocarbon discoveries, and increasing
demand for natural gas were starting to transform the industry. Highly
productive ``unconventional'' drilling techniques have proliferated,
and modern production sites can be several times more productive than
conventional wells. The characteristics of the gathering lines
servicing current wells often have more in common with large interstate
transmission systems than the diffuse network of small gathering lines
that predominated when the current gas

gathering regulatory framework was being developed prior to 2006. These
changes are placing unprecedented demands and increasing safety risks
on the Nation's pipeline system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for
Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards, 71 FR 13289 (Mar. 15, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule requires operators of all onshore gas gathering
lines to prepare and submit annual reports with information about their
gas gathering lines and to submit incident reports under part 191. The
information is necessary to monitor the safety performance of gas
gathering systems and inform the appropriate level of regulatory
oversight. This final rule also adopts new safety requirements for
larger-diameter (i.e., with outer diameters of 8.625 inches or
greater), higher-operating pressure gas gathering lines to mitigate
risks to public safety and pipeline integrity. The need to implement
risk-based protections and build an understanding of the safety of gas
gathering systems is critical since ``unconventional'' production
operations continue to expand, often into regions inexperienced with
oil and gas development--posing new risks to humans and the
environment.
Natural Gas Gathering Infrastructure Overview
    The U.S. natural gas pipeline network is designed to transport
natural gas to and from most locations in the country. Approximately
two-thirds of the lower 48 States depend almost entirely on the
interstate transmission pipeline system for their supplies of natural
gas.\17\ In 49 CFR part 192, pipelines are classified into three broad
groups, based on their function and characteristics: Gathering,
transmission, and distribution systems. Onshore gathering lines, the
sole subject of this final rule, typically transport gas from
production fields to gas transmission pipelines or centralized
processing and storage facilities. From there, gas is typically
transported to large industrial users such as gas-fired power stations
or local distribution companies via transmission pipelines. Finally,
distribution companies deliver gas to homes and businesses, and other
end-users. Together, these systems form an interconnected network that
transports natural gas from the production field to its end users.
PHMSA estimates that there are over 400,000 miles of onshore gas
gathering lines throughout the U.S., the vast majority of which are in
Class 1 locations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), ``Appendix B: Natural
Gas--Quadrennial Energy Review Report: Energy Transmission, Storage,
and Distribution Infrastructure'' p. NG-28 (Apr. 2015).
    \18\ API estimated there were 240,000 miles of unregulated
gathering lines in comments submitted October 23, 2012, available in
the docket. In order to project an estimate of gathering lines in
service today, PHMSA adjusted this estimate based on average rate of
increase in reported mileage of regulated gathering lines from
operators' annual reports since 2012. See the RIA, available in the
docket, for additional information on estimates of gathering miles
affected by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory History
    The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-481) vested
the Secretary with statutory authority to issue regulations to ensure
the safe transportation of natural gas by pipeline but excluded the
regulation of gas gathering lines in rural areas, which were defined in
section 2(3) of the 1968 Act as those locations outside the limits of
any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or other
designated residential or commercial area. Later, Congress modified the
definition of ``transporting gas'' to provide Secretary the authority
to designate non-rural areas in order to make pipelines in those non-
rural areas subject to PHMSA's jurisdiction (49 U.S.C.
60101(a)(21)(B)).
    PHMSA,\19\ through delegation by the Secretary,\20\ and its State
partners enforce requirements for regulated \21\ gas gathering systems
in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations that are authorized under 49
U.S.C. 60101 et seq. DOT issued interim minimum Federal safety standard
regulations for gas pipeline facilities and the transportation of
natural and other gas by pipeline on November 13, 1968,\22\ and
subsequently codified broad-based gas pipeline regulations in 49 CFR
part 192 on August 19, 1970.\23\ The 1970 final rule defined a
``gathering line'' as ``a pipeline that transports gas from a current
production facility to a transmission line or main,'' and subjected all
gathering lines located in non-rural areas (e.g., within the limits of
any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or other
designated residential or commercial area) to all requirements
applicable to transmission pipelines (Sec. Sec.  192.1 and 192.9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ PHMSA's predecessor agencies include the Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA), the Materials Transportation
Bureau (MTB), and the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). For
simplicity, all are referred to as DOT in this section.
    \20\ 49 CFR 1.97.
    \21\ Typically, onshore pipelines involved in the
``transportation of gas,'' see 49 CFR 192.1 and 192.3 for detailed
applicability.
    \22\ Interim Minimum Federal Safety Standards for the
Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline, 33 FR 16500.
    \23\ Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline:
Minimum Federal Safety Standards, 35 FR 13248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This historical approach to defining PHMSA's jurisdiction, however,
has left several key gaps which made it difficult to determine where a
gathering line started and ended. One was that it failed to define
``current production facility,'' and therefore the point where a non-
jurisdictional production facility became a gathering line was not
clear.\24\ Additionally, there was no clear definition of where a
gathering line ended, and a transmission pipeline or distribution main
line began. The DOT has attempted to clarify these gaps several times.
In 1974, DOT proposed to revise the definition of a gas ``gathering
line'' to address this uncertainty as to the beginning and end points
of gas gathering.\25\ However, the proposal was later withdrawn.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline:
Proposed Definition of Gathering Line, 39 FR 34569 (Sept. 26, 1974).
    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline:
Withdrawal of Proposed Definition of Gathering Line, 43 FR 42773
(Sept. 21, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1991, DOT again proposed to revise the definition of a gathering
line following a NAPSR survey of its members noting ongoing
disagreements about the classification of certain segments of gas
pipelines.\27\ However, in response to comments on the proposed rule
and the issuance of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508),
PHMSA delayed final action on that proposal to consider additional
information and the statutory changes. As described earlier, PHMSA was
previously restricted from issuing regulations for rural gathering
lines. Section 109 of The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 expanded DOT's
authority by authorizing the Secretary to define the term ``regulated
gathering line,'' and issue safety regulations for the transportation
of gas through those pipelines despite their location in rural areas
(49 U.S.C. 60101(b)). The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 also directed DOT
to consider functional and operational characteristics in defining
gathering lines (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(1)(B)(i)). For the definition of
the term ``regulated gathering line,'' Congress further directed DOT to
consider such factors as location, length of line from the well site,
operating pressure, throughput, and gas composition in deciding which
gathering lines are functionally gathering yet warrant regulation as
regulated gathering lines (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(2)(A)). This authority
also expressly allowed DOT to depart from the concepts used to define
gathering for the purposes of determining the scope of the Federal
Energy Regulatory

Commission's (FERC) authority under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717
et seq.) in order to define gas gathering lines based on functional,
rather than rate-setting, considerations. In other words, whether the
DOT classifies a pipeline as a transmission line, gathering line, or
regulated gathering line has no impact on the pipeline's status with
FERC and vice-versa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Gas Gathering Line Definition: Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 56 FR 48505 (Sept. 25, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1999, PHMSA renewed the effort to define gathering lines. To
facilitate this project, PHMSA opened a website for public discussion
on the question of how to define gas gathering lines and whether there
was a need to subject rural gathering lines to Federal safety
oversight.\28\ The majority of the comments received focused on the
work that was being done by API to classify gathering lines. That
effort culminated in the publication of the first edition of API RP 80
in April 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Request for Comments: Gas Gathering Line Definition, 64 FR
12147 (Mar. 11, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of API RP 80 is to define gas gathering lines in
onshore areas based on the line's function. It distinguishes a
gathering function from a ``production operation'' that is not engaged
in transportation (see section 2.3 of API RP 80) and defines a number
of points that determine the potential endpoint of the gathering
function (see section 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D) of API RP 80),
such as the inlet to the furthermost downstream gas processing plant or
the furthermost downstream point where gas produced in the same
production field or separate production fields is commingled. API RP 80
defines a gathering line as ``a pipeline, or a connected series of
pipelines, used to transport gas from the furthermost downstream point
in a production operation to the furthermost downstream of one of the
defined endpoints of gathering.'' The document also includes
supplementary definitions, discussion, and diagrams to provide
additional guidance on how operators may apply these definitions to
various types of gathering systems. Section 192.8 includes limitations
on how aspects of API RP 80 must be applied.
    Ever since API RP 80 was first issued, PHMSA has had concerns about
``incidental gathering.'' While section 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D)
describe points where the gathering function can end, paragraph
(a)(1)(E) allows an operator to designate pipeline segments that are
past the furthermost downstream of the other endpoint of gathering up
to the connection to ``another pipeline'' (typically a transmission
line) as a gathering line regardless of the actual function or
operational characteristics of the pipeline itself. This is the
``incidental gathering'' concept discussed in API RP 80 section
<IP_ADDRESS>.6. By definition, these lines extend beyond the end of any
gathering functions. When a major gas processing plant or a compressor
used to raise the pressure for delivery into a transmission line is the
endpoint, the incidental gathering line segment can be
indistinguishable from a transmission line in terms of its function,
diameter, pressure, and gas composition; yet is treated as a gathering
line rather than a transmission line under part 192. Additionally,
there are no limits on how far an incidental gathering line may extend
under the API RP 80 definition. The API RP 80 concept of ``incidental
gathering'' undermines the functional definition of ``gathering'' that
API RP 80 was intended to establish. In fact, API RP 80 creates a
regulatory gap for pipeline segments that bear the least functional and
operational resemblance to gathering lines.
    In 2003, DOT held public meetings in Austin, Texas, and Anchorage,
Alaska, to determine the best way to define the terms ``gas gathering
line'' and ``regulated gathering line'' and what, if any, safety rules
would be needed for rural regulated gathering lines.\29\ At the
meetings, DOT proffered a ``sliding corridor'' concept as a possible
basis for defining which gathering lines should be designated as
regulated gathering lines. This concept was similar to the ``sliding
mile'' used for class location determinations, except that the corridor
would be 1,000 feet long rather than one mile, and the width would vary
depending on the stress level of the segment of pipe. Wherever the
corridor contained five or more dwellings, the gathering line segment
would be subject to a subset of Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations,
the scope of which would increase as the stress level \30\ of the
segment increased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 68 FR 62555 (Nov. 5, 2003) (Austin, TX, meeting) and 68
FR 67129 (Dec. 1, 2003) (Anchorage, AK, meeting). Transcripts for
the meeting are available for download at regulations.gov under
Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-1998-4868.
    \30\ Expressed as the circumferential fore on a pipe (hoop
stress) produced by the MAOP as a percent of the specified minimum
yield strength (SMYS). SMYS is defined in Sec.  192.3 and refers to
the minimum force required to deform permanently the material as
specified in the applicable design codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After these two meetings, DOT published a document that stated that
the definitions of production and gathering should ensure that Federal
regulation of gathering lines does not overlap with State regulations
on production, and should promote consistent application by regulators
and operators.\31\ The document invited comments on an appropriate
approach for identifying rural gas gathering lines that warranted
regulation. After the 2003 public meetings, DOT met several times with
State agency officials, industry representatives, and others to obtain
different views on the risks posed by gas gathering lines and the need
for Federal regulation over the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Gas and Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines: Clarification of
Rulemaking Intentions and Extension of Time for Comments, 69 FR 5305
(Feb. 4, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, DOT published a final rule that established the current
Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations for gas gathering lines in
Sec. Sec.  192.8 and 192.9.\32\ The final rule incorporated by
reference API RP 80, which defines ``onshore gas gathering pipelines.''
The 2006 final rule also replaced the previous ``non-rural'' criteria
for designating regulated gathering lines in Sec.  192.9 with a risk-
based approach to regulating gas gathering lines in Class 2, 3, and 4
locations. In the 2006 final rule, PHMSA chose not to extend any
reporting or safety requirements to gas gathering lines in Class 1
locations. At the time, PHMSA noted that such pipelines were typically
small-diameter, low-pressure lines posing relatively low risks to the
public. The Federal requirements for gas gathering lines have remained
in place, mostly unchanged, since 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for
Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards, 71 FR 13289 (Mar. 15, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supply Changes
    Between 2005 and 2019, marketed production of natural gas increased
from 18.9 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) per year to 36.5 Tcf per year.\33\
While gross gas production from conventional wells has fallen by 53
percent from 16.2 Tcf per year to 7.6 Tcf per year between 2005 and
2019,\34\ overall production has grown due to increased unconventional
shale gas production. EIA began reporting shale gas well withdrawals in
2007. In 2007, unconventional shale gas accounted for about 8 percent
of the total natural gas production in the U.S. Since then, shale gas
production has increased from 1.9 trillion cubic feet per year to 27.8
trillion cubic feet per year in 2019 \35\ and now accounts for

approximately 68 percent of overall gross gas production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ EIA, ``U.S. Natural Gas Marketed Production,'' https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm (accessed Nov. 9, 2020).
    \34\ EIA, ``U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Gas Wells,''
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9011us2a.htm (accessed Nov. 9,
2020).
    \35\ EIA, ``U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas,''
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/ngm_epg0_fgs_nus_mmcfa.htm
(accessed Nov. 9, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This increase in unconventional gas extraction has shifted
production from traditional gas producing regions such as Texas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and the Gulf of Mexico to other areas, such as
Pennsylvania and Ohio. For instance, in 2001, 5,066,015 million cubic
feet (MMcf) of natural gas was withdrawn from the Gulf of Mexico, which
was approximately 21 percent of the Nation's natural gas gross
production. By 2019, withdrawals decreased to 1,033,922 MMcf. During
that same period, Pennsylvania's share of production grew from 130,853
MMcf to 6,896,792 MMcf.\36\ The Department of Energy projects that more
than half of increases in shale gas production through 2050 will occur
in the Appalachian Basin (e.g., the Marcellus and Utica Basins), which
will continue to fuel growth in natural gas production from the 2020
levels of 33.9 t (Tcf) per year to 43.0 Tcf per year in 2050.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EIA, ``Gulf of Mexico--Offshore Natural Gas Withdrawals,''
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1060_r3fmtf_2a.htm (accessed Nov.
9, 2020); EIA, ``Pennsylvania Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals,''
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010pa2a.htm (accessed Nov. 9,
2020).
    \37\ EIA, ``Annual Energy Outlook 2021'' (Feb. 3, 2021), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/production/sub-topic-01.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand Changes
    Increased production of natural gas in the United States has
depressed average prices and volatility.\38\ In 2004, the growth
outlook for natural gas production was weak; the EIA forecasted that
dry gas production would increase by only 1.0 percent annually \39\ and
that production in the lower 48 would be 21.3 Tcf per year by 2025, or
up to 25.1 Tcf per year in the rapid technology scenario.\40\ At the
time, monthly average spot prices at Henry Hub \41\ were high, based on
historic comparison of prices, fluctuating between $4 per million
British thermal units (Btu) and $7 per million Btu. Prices rose above
$11 per million Btu for several months in both 2005 and 2008.\42\ Since
then, after production shifted to onshore unconventional shale
resources and price volatility decreased since 2009, natural gas has
frequently traded between $2 and $4 per million Btu, and the spot price
has not been above $6 per million Btu for any full month.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ DOE, ``Appendix B: Natural Gas--Quadrennial Energy Review
Report: Energy Transmission, Storage, and Distribution
Infrastructure,'' at NG-11 (Apr. 2015), https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f22/QER-ALL%20FINAL_0.pdf.
    \39\ EIA, ``Annual Energy Outlook 2004 With Projections to
2025,'' at 133 (Jan. 2004), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo04/pdf/0383(2004).pdf.
    \40\ Id. at 90.
    \41\ Henry Hub is a Louisiana natural gas distribution hub where
conventional Gulf of Mexico natural gas can be directed to gas
transmission lines running to different parts of the country.
Natural gas bought and sold at the Henry Hub serves as the National
benchmark for U.S. natural gas prices. Id. at NG-29, NG-30.
    \42\ EIA, ``Natural Gas Spot and Futures Prices,'' http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_fut_s1_m.htm, (accessed Nov. 9, 2020).
    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This fall in natural gas prices and volatility was accompanied by
significant demand growth and changes to the geography of gas demand.
Low fuel costs, improved gas turbine technology, operational
advantages, and greenhouse gas concerns have driven a steady growth in
gas-fired electricity generation. According to the Department of
Energy, natural gas surpassed coal as the fuel with the highest share
of net electricity generation in 2016.\44\ Natural gas exports have
also increased. In 2019, the U.S. exported 4.7 Tcf of gas, over six
times the amount that was exported in 2006.\45\ Virtually all the gas
produced and consumed in the U.S. is transported by gas gathering and
transmission pipelines to distribution pipelines or end-users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ EIA, ``Electric Power Annual 2019'' Table 3.1.A (Oct.
2020), https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/ (accessed Nov. 9,
2020).
    \45\ EIA, ``U.S. Natural Gas Exports,'' https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9130us2a.htm (accessed November 9, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consequences for Gas Gathering
    Modern production techniques, higher production volumes, and the
geography of new gas discoveries have had consequences for gas
gathering systems that PHMSA did not contemplate in 2006. Individual
unconventional wells can be several times more productive than
conventional facilities, and multiple wells can be drilled from a
single wellpad, resulting in a large increase in the volume of gas that
can flow from production and gathering lines serving a single site. In
addition, these productivity gains have led to a surge in production
overall, which expands the demands placed on the overall gas gathering
pipeline network. Modern gas gathering lines often bear a closer
resemblance to large interstate transmission lines than the diffuse
network of small, low-pressure lines that previously characterized
gathering lines. An incident on such pipelines can have serious
consequences, even in a Class 1 location.
    Although PHMSA has not collected annual report information on the
mileage or diameter of gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations,
various stakeholders have reported significant growth in large-
diameter, high-pressure gas gathering lines operating outside the scope
of the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. NAPSR noted in the preamble
to its Resolution 2010-2 AC-2 that ``it is not uncommon to find rural
gas gathering pipelines up to 30 inches in diameter and operating at a
MAOP of 1480 psi [pounds per square inch, or approximately 1495 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig)]'' in modern gas gathering systems,\46\
which resembles the operational characteristics of major interstate
transmission pipelines that are subject to part 191 and 192 regardless
of where they are located. Similarly, the GAO noted that 24-inch
diameter unregulated gathering lines were located and constructed in
close proximity to homes in Pennsylvania, and 30 to 36-inch diameter
unregulated gas gathering lines were planned for construction in the
Eagle Ford shale formation in Texas.\47\ In comments to the NPRM, the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission noted that producers in the
State are constructing gas gathering lines as large as 36 inches in
diameter with operating pressures up to 1480 psig.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NAPSR, Resolution 2010-2AC-2 (Sept. 30, 2010), http://nebula.wsimg.com/215b293abe58ff21d6d2ad867ae864a3?AccessKeyId=8C483A6DA79FB79FC7FA&disposition=0&alloworigin=1.
    \47\ GAO, No. 14-667 at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy that can be released in a pipeline explosion or fire is
proportional to a pipeline's throughput capacity. The potential impact
radius formula in Sec.  192.903, which calculates the radius of a
circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have a
significant impact on people or property, increases proportionally with
pressure and exponentially with the diameter of the pipeline. An
incident on any large-diameter, high-pressure natural gas pipeline can
have potentially catastrophic consequences, regardless of whether it is
defined as a transmission or gathering line, and even in sparsely
populated Class 1 locations. For example, one of the deadliest gas
transmission pipeline incidents in U.S. history occurred in a Class 1
location when a 30-inch transmission line operated at 675 psig ruptured
near Carlsbad, New Mexico, on August 19, 2000.\48\ In that incident,
internal

corrosion led to an explosion that killed 12 individuals who had been
camping 675 feet from the rupture site. Following this incident, PHMSA
added Sec.  192.476 requiring operators to incorporate measures to
mitigate internal corrosion threats in the design and construction of
new transmission lines--however, that requirement does not affect
gathering lines that may have a similar risk profile. In another
incident on December 11, 2012, a 20-inch transmission line with a MAOP
of 1000 psig ruptured in Sissonville, West Virginia, due to corrosion
caused when the protective pipe coating was damaged by rocky backfill
during installation. While there were no serious injuries in that
incident, three houses and several hundred feet of road surface were
destroyed, and Interstate 77 was shut down for 19 hours.\49\ The fire
melted a portion of the interstate highway, prompting one local
official to describe the highway as looking ``like lava, just
boiling.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), NTSB/PAR-03/
01, ``Pipeline Incident Report: Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and
Fire Near Carlsbad, New Mexico'' (Feb. 2003), https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR0301.pdf.
    \49\ NTSB, NTSB/PAR-14/01, ``Accident Report: Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation Pipeline Rupture Sissonville, West
Virginia'' (Feb. 2014), https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1401.pdf.
    \50\ Brinks, Travis, ``Remembering the Sissonville Pipeline
Explosion.'' WV Metro News. Dec. 11, 2023, https://wvmetronews.com/2013/12/11/remembering-the-sissonville-pipeline-explosion/ (accessed
June 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although PHMSA has not historically collected incident reports for
gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations, such gathering lines are
subject to incidents of similar magnitude and consequence as gas
transmission pipelines with comparable physical and operating
characteristics. For example, on November 14, 2008, a 20-inch gas
gathering line exploded in Grady County, Oklahoma, which injured two
people, destroyed three homes, and shut down a nearby highway.\51\ On
June 8, 2010, a bulldozer struck a 14-inch gas gathering line in
Darrouzett, Texas, causing an explosion that killed two workers and
injured three others, including one worker who was critically injured
and required medical evacuation by helicopter.\52\ On June 29, 2010,
three men working on a 24-inch gas gathering line in Grady County,
Oklahoma, were injured when it exploded; one worker was airlifted to a
nearby hospital with burns covering half of his body.\53\ On August 1,
2018, a six-inch gas gathering line failed in Midland, Texas, which
caused a nearby 12-inch transmission line to also explode, killing one
worker and injuring seven others.\54\ A few days later, on August 9,
2018, corrosion on a 10-inch gas gathering line resulted in another
explosion in Midland, killing a three-year-old girl and badly burning
three others. Fatal incidents on smaller lines such as the first
Midland, Texas, incident described above and an explosion caused by an
improperly abandoned 2-inch production line connected to a gas well in
Firestone, Colorado,\55\ underscore the need to collect information on
the risks posed by smaller diameter lines. Even non-fatal incidents can
result in significant damage to infrastructure and property, lead to
evacuations, disrupt gas service, or otherwise harm the public,
property, or the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Griswold, Jennifer and Sargent, Brian. ``Natural Gas
Pipeline Explosion Destroys Homes Near Alex.'' The Oklahoman, Nov.
14, 2008, www.oklahoman.com/article/3321932/natural-gas-pipeline-explosion-destroys-homes-near-alex (accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
    \52\ The Associated Press. ``Two Killed in Texas Panhandle Gas
Line Explosion.'' Arkansas Democrat Gazette, June 8, 2010,
www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/jun/08/2-killed-texas-panhandle-gas-line-explosion/ (accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
    \53\ Pittman, Jerry. ``Pipeline Explosion West of Pocasset
Injures Three, One Seriously.'' The Oklahoman, June 29, 2010,
www.oklahoman.com/article/3472182/pipeline-explosion-west-of-pocasset-injures-three-one-seriously, (accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
    \54\ Lee, Mike, and Soraghan, Mike. ``Deadly Pipelines, No
Rules.'' E&E News, Mar. 4, 2019, www.eenews.net/special_reports/EEnews_highlights/stories/1060123021, (accessed Feb. 12, 2021).
    \55\ NTSB, NTSB/PAB-19/02, ``Pipeline Accident Brief Natural Gas
Explosion at Family Residence Firestone, Colorado'' (Oct. 2019),
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAB1902.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These hazards may be further exacerbated by the changing geography
of U.S. gas production, which was noted by the GAO in their March 2012
report, ``Collecting Data and Sharing Information on Federally
Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety.'' Incidents
involving new gas production fields may overwhelm the capabilities of
local first responders in rural areas who may lack experience and the
resources to respond adequately to serious incidents associated with
intensive gas production and processing operations, including high-
pressure pipelines.
Regulatory Gaps
    PHMSA estimates that there are over 400,000 miles of unregulated
onshore gathering lines. For comparison, operators reported 320,000
miles of gas transmission lines in 2019. As demonstrated above, even
though some gathering lines share the same physical, functional, and
operational characteristics and potential adverse consequences from an
incident as transmission lines, they are exempt from reporting
requirements in part 191 and minimum safety standards in part 192.
    The final rule closes this gap by requiring all gas gathering
facilities to submit incident reports and annual reports under part
191. In addition, the final rule adopts minimum safety standards for
larger gas gathering lines that operate at higher pressures to help to
ensure that operators address the critical risks that these previously
unregulated facilities pose to pipeline integrity and public safety
such as corrosion, excavation damage, and inadequate emergency response
planning.

B. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On August 25, 2011, PHMSA published an ANPRM, soliciting public
comments regarding the revision of the Pipeline Safety Regulations
applicable to the safety of both gas gathering and gas transmission
pipelines.\56\ PHMSA requested comments regarding 15 topic areas
covering gathering and transmission lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, 76
FR 53086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific issues related to gas gathering included whether
regulatory exemptions for filing incident, annual, and safety-related
condition reports should be repealed. In addition, PHMSA requested
comment on a proposal to repeal the incorporation by reference of API
RP 80 into the Pipeline Safety Regulations and replace it with a new
definition of gathering lines in part 192 for determining the beginning
and end points of gas gathering lines. Adoption of a new definition
would address defining endpoints for non-jurisdictional gas production
operations and setting limits for the ``incidental gathering'' concept
in API RP 80. PHMSA also requested comment on expanding the definition
of the term ``regulated onshore gas gathering pipelines'' to include a
new category of high-pressure, large diameter gathering lines in Class
1 Locations.
    PHMSA received 103 comments to the ANPRM. Based on these comments,
PHMSA developed proposals for some of those topics in an NPRM published
on April 8, 2016 (NPRM), which is the basis for this final rule.

C. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011

    Section 21 of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act mandated that DOT review
its existing regulations for gas gathering lines and report to Congress
on the sufficiency of existing Federal and State laws to ensure the
safety of gas

gathering lines; the economic impacts, the technical practicability,
and challenges of applying existing Federal regulations to unregulated
gathering lines; and the need to modify or revoke existing exemptions
from Federal regulation for gathering lines, subject to a risk-based
assessment. PHMSA sent the required report to Congress on May 8,
2015.\57\ The report identified issues with the difficulty of
designated gathering lines in complex systems due to missing,
ambiguous, or circular definitions of terms used to determine the start
and end points of gathering lines, and used to describe state-level
regulation of gathering lines. The report also observed that, with few
exceptions, State regulators had not imposed design, construction,
operation, and maintenance requirements for gathering lines beyond
existing Federal requirements for Type A and Type B regulated gathering
lines. The report also notes that most of the States which had
established requirements for gathering lines other than Federally
regulated Type A and Type B gathering lines had not adopted
prescriptive safety standards or performance standards with well-
defined authorized acceptance criteria. The report informs this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ PHMSA, Report to Congress: Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid
Gathering Lines (May 2015), https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/report_to_congress_on_gathering_lines_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Recommendations

    The GAO issued GAO-12-388 in March 2012, which recommended PHMSA
collect data on Federally unregulated hazardous liquid and gas
gathering lines comparable to the data collected from operators of
regulated gathering lines. The GAO suggested that the purpose of such
data collection would be to assess the safety risks posed by
unregulated gathering lines. GAO also noted that States and operators
could use this information to share effective safety practices and
lessons learned. In August 2014, the GAO issued a report, GAO-14-667,
which further recommended that PHMSA initiate a rulemaking to address
gathering line safety that would focus on the risks presented by
larger-diameter, higher-pressure gathering lines, including a
requirement that such pipelines meet emergency planning
requirements.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ On September 29, 2015, GAO prepared a statement, GAO-15-
843T (``Department of Transportation Needs to Complete Regulatory,
Data, and Guidance Efforts'') reiterating the need for PHMSA to
complete its regulatory efforts based on GAO's previous
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On April 8, 2016, PHMSA published the NPRM, which proposed new
pipeline safety requirements and revisions of existing requirements in
16 major topic areas.
    To manage the breadth of the topics raised in the NPRM, PHMSA
separated the topics into three final rules. The first of final rule
addressed the gas transmission mandates in the 2011 Pipeline Safety
Act; a final rule was published in this rulemaking on October 1,
2019.\59\ That final rule addresses comments received concerning the
scope of the proposed gas transmission requirements for existing Type A
and Type B regulated gathering lines. The second final rule is this
one, which addresses only the portions of the NPRM affecting the safety
of gas gathering lines, particularly reporting requirements for all gas
gathering lines and additional requirements for Type C regulated
gathering lines. The remaining gas transmission pipeline concerns are
being considered in a third final rule (under Regulatory Identification
Number 2137-AF39) that is under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: MAOP
Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements, and Other
Related Amendments, 84 FR 52180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the current rulemaking, the NPRM contained
proposals to:
    (1) Extend part 191 requirements for incident reports, annual
reports, and safety-related condition reports to all gas gathering
lines;
    (2) repeal the incorporation by reference of API RP 80 and revise
the regulatory definitions for determining if a pipeline is a gathering
line;
    (3) expand the scope of regulated gathering lines to include a new
category of ``Type A, Area 2'' for gathering lines in Class 1 locations
with a diameter of 8 inches or greater and operating at high pressure;
and
    (4) require newly regulated Type A, Area 2 gathering lines to
comply with the existing requirements in Sec.  192.9 for Type B
gathering lines, plus an additional requirement for establishing
emergency plans per Sec.  192.615.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60115(c), PHMSA shared the proposed standards
on gathering lines with the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC)
after initially considering the comments to the NPRM.\60\ The GPAC met
on June 25-26, 2019, to consider the proposed standards regarding
gathering lines. Subsequently, PHMSA posted the meeting slides that
were used for the GPAC votes as well as the transcript, which
constitute the statutorily required report of the GPAC's
recommendations, including minority views.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, or GPAC,
is an advisory committee, created pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60115, that
advises PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risk assessments, and
safety policies for natural gas pipelines. The GPAC was established
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and
section 60115 of the Federal Pipeline Safety Law (49 U.S.C. 60101 et
seq.). The GPAC consists of 15 members, with membership divided
among Federal and State agencies, the regulated industry, and the
public. The GPAC considers the ``technical feasibility,
reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability'' of each
proposed pipeline safety standard and provide PHMSA with recommended
actions pertaining to those proposals.
    \61\ https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of the four pertinent NPRM proposals, comments received
on these proposals, the GPAC recommendations, and PHMSA's responses to
the comments are provided in section III below.

F. Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act
of 2020

    The 2020 PIPES Act was enacted on December 28, 2020. Section 112(a)
directed PHMSA to issue a final rule in this rulemaking by the March
27, 2021.

III. Summary of the NPRM Comments, and GPAC Recommendations, and PHMSA
Responses

    The comment period for the NPRM ended on July 7, 2016, after being
extended for one month. PHMSA received over 400 comments from groups
representing the regulated pipeline industry; groups representing
public interests, including environmental organizations; State utility
commissions and regulators; members of Congress; individual pipeline
operators; and private citizens. PHMSA received several comments after
the July 7, 2016 deadline. Consistent with Sec. Sec.  5.13(i)(5) and
190.323, PHMSA considered those late-filed comments considering
commenters' interest in the rulemaking and the absence of additional
expense or delay resulting from their consideration.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60115(e), the GPAC met on June 25 and 26,
2019 to consider the topics related to the safety of gas gathering
lines in the NPRM. The GPAC came to consensus decisions and voted on
recommended changes to the NPRM elements that would make those
regulatory amendments more technically feasible, reasonable, cost-
effective, and practicable. These recommendations are documented in

the transcript of the meeting and summarized in the vote slides.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reporting Requirements--Sec. Sec.  191.1, 191.15, 191.17, 191.23,
and 191.29

1. Summary of PHMSA's Proposal
    Existing Sec.  191.1(b)(4)(ii) exempts all onshore gas gathering
lines other than regulated gathering lines (as specified in accordance
with Sec.  192.8) from all reporting requirements of part 191.
    The NPRM proposed to repeal the exemption in Sec.  191.1(b)(4) for
gas gathering lines that are not regulated under Sec.  192.8. However,
the NPRM would continue to exempt previously unregulated gathering
lines from Operator Identification Number (OPID) validation
requirements in Sec.  191.22(b) and National Pipeline Mapping System
(NPMS) requirements in Sec.  191.29. Therefore, all gas gathering
lines, including previously unregulated gathering lines, would be
required to comply with annual and incident reporting requirements in
Sec. Sec.  191.15, 191.17, and 191.25. This proposal was intended to
provide new information on the extent, configuration, and safety
performance of previously unregulated gas gathering lines.
    The proposed rule would have required submission of OPID requests,
incident reports, and safety-related condition requests beginning on
the effective date of a final rule. Annual reports would have been due
on March 15 of the calendar year after the effective date of a final
rule.
2. Summary of Public Comments
    Several citizen and public safety, and environmental groups,
including the Pipeline Safety Trust (PST), the Wisconsin Safe Energy
Alliance, NAPSR, the Coalition to Reroute Nexus, Earthworks, and the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), supported the proposed provisions to
remove the exemption for filing reports by operators of unregulated gas
gathering lines. NAPSR agreed that extending reporting requirements to
``unregulated'' gathering lines would help determine if current
operation and maintenance practices pose a risk to public safety and if
additional requirements are required but suggested that PHMSA consider
limiting certain requirements that could pose an unnecessary burden,
such as detailed leak reporting information in part M of the gas
transmission and gas gathering annual report form (DOT Form PHMSA F
7100.2-1). Some public commenters emphasized that available data on
unregulated facilities could be inaccurate or outdated, particularly in
areas where gas development has grown rapidly. Some of these groups
also encouraged PHMSA to require gas gathering operators to submit
geospatial pipeline location data for the NPMS, citing the usefulness
of NPMS data for determining the need for future regulation.
    Trade associations and pipeline industry entities provided a
variety of responses to the proposed reporting requirements, ranging
from full support, including for NPMS reporting, to total opposition to
all proposed reporting requirements. The Independent Petroleum
Association of America (IPAA) and other commenters representing oil and
gas producers opposed changes to the scope of part 191 and commented
that PHMSA has no statutory authority to apply reporting requirements
to production lines and gathering lines that are not regulated
gathering lines determined pursuant to Sec.  192.8.
    Several trade association and pipeline industry commenters
including API, GPA Midstream (formerly the Gas Processors Association)
and IPAA, expressed concern that the proposed reporting requirements
could have significant cost impacts for operators that were not
commensurate with the risk posed by the majority of those lines.
Industry commenters also commented that it is not feasible to collect
the information necessary to complete the proposed annual report by the
reporting deadline of March 15 as required by Sec.  191.17 on top of
the efforts necessary to identify Type A, Area 2 (or Type C) regulated
gas gathering lines within six months of the effective date the rule
(see section III.C. below).
    Industry commenters were especially concerned about reporting
requirements for pipeline attributes that were related to requirements
that did not apply to unregulated gas gathering lines. For example,
GPA, API, and other industry commenters argued that the reporting of
safety-related conditions (Sec.  191.23), including MAOP exceedances,
would require information on MAOP, corrosion monitoring, and SMYS that
were not otherwise required for previously unregulated gathering lines.
The current forms for submitting gas transmission and gathering
incident reports (F 7100.2) and annual reports (F 7100.2-1) also refer
to regulations or records not required for unregulated gas gathering
operators. These commenters recommended that PHMSA create separate
incident and annual report forms for gathering lines that would collect
information relevant to gas gathering lines that are not subject to
part 192 and eliminate the proposed requirement to report safety-
related conditions.
    GPA Midstream commented that they supported PHMSA's goal of
collecting necessary information on gas gathering lines, but that an
abbreviated annual report form was necessary to avoid unnecessary
costs. GPA Midstream further commented that unregulated gas gathering
lines should be excepted from the OPID validation and change
notification requirements in Sec.  191.22(b) and (c).
3. GPAC Recommendations
    Following discussion in the June 2019 meetings, the GPAC voted 12-0
that the proposed requirement that operators of newly regulated gas
gathering lines file annual and incident reports pursuant to part 191
was technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable,
if the following changes are made:
     Add specificity to location (e.g., latitude and longitude
coordinates) and cause information to the incident report form;
     Make sure all appropriate current annual report data
elements are incorporated in the annual report form for currently
unregulated gathering lines, including decade of installation;
     Address the possibility of unknown data;
     Implement a phase-in period of at least 24 months for
unregulated gathering annual reports; and
     Consider additional comments from members submitted to the
meeting docket (PHMSA-2016-0136), specifically, position papers from
API/GPA Midstream and PST submitted in response to the GPAC meeting
notice, and comments submitted after the GPAC meeting by each of GPA
Midstream and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO.
    The GPAC agreed that the proposed reporting requirements were
needed to support future oversight, but recommended changes on the
details of implementation. PHMSA explained that it intended to create a
new annual report form for gas gathering lines that are not subject to
safety requirements in part 192 (reporting regulated gathering lines)
separate from the existing DOT Form PHMSA 7100.2-1 required for
operators of gas transmission and regulated gas gathering lines. This
form would exclude information that is not relevant or applicable to
operators of pipeline systems that are not required to comply with part
192.

    The GPAC recommended extending the compliance deadline for annual
reports to 24 months after publication in the Federal Register to grant
additional time for operators to identify newly regulated gathering
lines and collect the necessary information. However, the GPAC agreed
that incident reports should begin to be filed on the effective date of
the rule since the data required to submit an incident report should be
readily obtainable when an incident occurs.
4. PHMSA Response
    PHMSA disagrees with comments that it lacks the statutory authority
to require reports from operators of gathering lines other than
currently regulated gathering lines as determined under Sec.  192.8.
Section 60117(b) of Federal Pipeline Safety Law specifically authorizes
the Secretary to ``require owners and operators of gathering lines to
provide the Secretary information pertinent to the Secretary's ability
to make a determination as to whether and to what extent to regulate
gathering lines.'' Congress made no distinction between ``gathering
lines'' and ``regulated gathering lines'' for reporting purposes. This
information-gathering process is precisely what the NPRM proposed--to
gather information on all gathering lines that would enable PHMSA to
make informed judgments about the need for, and scope, of potential
regulation. Congress intended that the Secretary have the authority to
request information from operators of unregulated gathering lines in
order to help determine ``what additional gathering lines should be
regulated.'' \63\ PHMSA seeks to obtain information regarding current
risks to people, property, and the environment due to unregulated rural
gathering lines to determine whether rural gathering lines are
presenting unacceptable risk that would warrant additional regulations.
The information contained in annual and incident reports submitted by
operators under part 191 would reasonably help achieve this objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ S. Rep. 104-334, section 12 (104th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the plain meaning of section 60117, Congress has
articulated its intent for DOT to obtain information about the risks of
rural gathering lines. In 1992, when Congress granted DOT authority to
define gathering lines and regulated gathering lines for purposes of
safety regulations, it recognized that some rural gathering lines might
present unacceptable risks and authorized DOT to regulate lines whose
risk warranted regulation. In its report on H.R. 1489, a bill leading
to the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce instructed DOT to ``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.'' \64\ The
Committee reasoned that ``DOT had been attempting to define gathering
lines for years. Anecdotal evidence indicates that there may be
pipelines that are called gathering lines but that may really be
transmission lines, and that there may be gathering lines that because
of size or other physical characteristics should be regulated.'' \65\
Although Congress did not require DOT to regulate gathering lines, it
expected DOT to obtain the necessary information to determine whether
risks exist to warrant regulation, as further evidenced by the House
report: ``DOT is given a great deal of discretion to implement this
section based on the information it receives as it proceeds. If DOT
finds that none of these lines poses a hazard to people, property, or
the environment, none of them will be regulated.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ H.R. Report No. 102-247(1), at 2653 (102nd Cong., 1st Sess.
(1991)).
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id. Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(2)(A) specifically
requires the Secretary, when defining ``regulated gathering line,''
to consider factors as location, length of line from the well site,
operating pressure, throughput, and the composition of the
transported gas to determine which lines are functionally gathering
and should be regulated because of their physical characteristics.
It reasonably follows, as evident in the Congressional record, that
Congress intended that Secretary could obtain such information from
operators in order to consider such factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule fulfills the Congressional mandate by requiring
operators of all onshore gas gathering lines to file incident and
annual reports under part 191. This includes pipelines that are not
currently designated as Type A or Type B regulated gathering lines nor
newly designated as Type C gathering lines as a result of the final
rule. For clarity, this final rule designates these reporting-regulated
lines as ``Type R'' gathering lines that are subject to reporting under
part 191 but are not designated as regulated gathering lines in part
192. These requirements are necessary to evaluate the safety risks on
gas gathering systems and determine what, if any, additional measures
may be warranted to reduce those risks. As demonstrated above, it is no
longer reasonable to assume rural gas gathering lines pose uniformly
low risk. Information on the changing functional and operational
characteristics of gas gathering lines and their safety performance is
necessary for PHMSA to better understand the consequences of these
changes and to set requirements for gathering lines in the future.
Extension of incident and annual reporting to these additional gas
gathering lines will provide PHMSA information needed for identifying--
and promulgating regulatory requirements or pursuing enforcement
activity--design, manufacture, installation, and operational/
maintenance issues common to particular pipeline characteristics or
operators.
    Congress also understood that the community around gathering lines
can change and authorized DOT to consider these changes when regulating
gathering lines. In its report that accompanied Senate Bill 1166, the
bill that became the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce recognized that the
population in an area can change, and that the statute authorized DOT
to define from time to time what is a non-rural area.\67\ The Committee
emphasized that a ``populated area'' means not only an area with a
large number of people but also areas where pipeline rights-of-way are
near houses, schools, and places of employment.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ H.R. Rep. 90-1390, at 3234 (90th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1968).
    \68\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, PHMSA recognizes that some reporting requirements
applicable to gas transmission and regulated gathering lines may not be
necessary for gas gathering lines that are not currently subject to
part 192. In particular, PHMSA is not requiring operators who are not
required to establish an MAOP under part 192 to comply with
requirements to report MAOP exceedances and other safety-related
condition reports. In addition, in consideration of the comments, PHMSA
is withdrawing the proposed requirement for gas gathering line
operators that are not subject to part 192 to file safety-related
condition reports required by Sec.  191.23. Similarly, the final rule
exempts gas gathering lines that are not subject to part 192 from the
OPID validation and construction notification requirements in Sec.
191.22(b) and (c) because such pipelines are not subject to the
construction requirements in part 192.
    While all gathering lines are now required to submit incident and
annual reports, PHMSA is ensuring that the required data is applicable
and relevant to operators of Type R gathering lines that are not
subject to part 192. In consideration of comments on the NPRM and in
the GPAC recommendations, PHMSA has

developed a new annual report form and a new incident report form for
operators of gas gathering lines that are not subject to part 192 with
more limited information that is appropriate for such facilities. For
example, with regard to annual reports, PHMSA has developed an
abbreviated annual report form incorporating information specifically
relevant to gas gathering lines that are not currently regulated under
part 192, including the decade of installation, if known. New forms and
instructions are available in the public docket and will be made
available on PHMSA's website at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/forms/operator-reports-submitted-phmsa-forms-and-instructions.
    The new annual report and incident report forms for Type R
gathering lines address the GPAC's recommendations, including:
     Requiring incident location information that is equivalent
to what is required for regulated gas gathering lines;
     Annual report fields appropriate for identifying and
evaluating public safety and environmental risks that may be associated
with unregulated gas gathering lines, including:
    [cir] Miles by decade of installation,
    [cir] Miles by pipeline diameter,
    [cir] Miles by pipe material and corrosion protection status, and
    [cir] Number of leaks repaired or scheduled for repair.
     On the Type R annual report form, allow reporting of an
unknown decade of installation.
     On the Type R incident report form, allow reporting of an
unknown date of installation and certain fields related to pipeline
material properties and damage prevention investigations.
    In the final rule, operators of previously unregulated gas
gathering lines must begin submitting annual reports beginning with the
first annual report cycle occurring after the endpoints of Type C or
Type R gathering lines have been determined one year after the
publication date of the final rule. As a result, operators of Type R
and Type C gathering lines must submit a 2022 annual report no later
than March 15, 2023. March 15 is the existing deadline for submitting
annual reports for other gas pipeline facilities, consistent reporting
deadlines reduces confusion and administrative burdens on PHMSA and
operators with both Type R and regulated gas pipeline facilities. This
compliance deadline represents a phase-in period well in excess of a
year as measured from the publication date of the final rule.
    This compliance deadline is approximately 6 months shorter than
recommended by the GPAC. However, PHMSA believes that prompt submission
of such reports is necessary for PHMSA's timely evaluation of whether
additional regulatory efforts are needed to manage the safety and
environmental risks associated with Types C and R gathering lines.
PHMSA's limited information on these lines inhibits the robust
understanding of their environmental and public safety risks needed to
determine whether additional requirements are also warranted. The
longer the delay in obtaining that information, the longer before PHMSA
can diagnose and respond to a need for additional public safety and
environmental protections from previously-unregulated gas gathering
lines. PHMSA therefore does not believe an [18 month] compliance
timeline would be overly burdensome on affected operators when
evaluated against those potential safety benefits. The simplified form
for Type R lines includes provisions for ``unknown'' fields to minimize
burdens on gathering line operators to complete. While the Type C form
is more extensive, such lines are also more likely to be more modern
shale gas systems installed within the last 10-15 years. PHMSA expects
the use of electronic recordkeeping and geospatial information systems
is more widespread among such operators compared with traditional
gathering systems and therefore expects that completing Type C annual
reports will not be overly burdensome on affected entities. Finally,
PHMSA notes that the compliance timeline is consistent with the
approach taken in historical expansions of pipeline reporting
requirements. For example, in the final rule titled, ``Pipeline Safety:
Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,'' \69\ PHMSA required affected
operators to submit annual reports the first year after the effective
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 84 FR 52260 (Oct. 1, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons, the final rule does not include provisions for
operators to request a delayed compliance deadline for the annual
report requirement similar to those included in Sec. Sec.  192.8 and
192.9. Additionally, most of the records necessary to prepare an annual
report are also necessary in order to define the endpoints of regulated
gas gathering. Operators should therefore begin collecting the
necessary information immediately in order to ensure they are able to
submit a complete annual report on or before the deadline in the final
rule.

B. Gathering Line Definitions--Sec. Sec.  192.3 and 192.8

1. Summary of PHMSA's Proposal
    PHMSA proposed to revise 49 CFR part 192 to clarify the definition
of gathering lines in order to address confusion regarding how the
endpoints of gathering and production are currently determined. The
existing definition of gathering lines relies on language in API RP 80.
In practice, however, operators and inspectors have had difficulty
consistently applying the definitions that are used to define the start
and endpoints of gathering in API RP 80 given the complexities in the
configuration of gathering line systems in midstream operations. In
addition, Federal and State enforcement of the current requirements has
been hampered by the use of API RP 80, a complex standard that can
produce multiple classifications for the same pipeline system.
Specifically, API RP 80 defines certain processes and equipment that
may constitute a ``production operation'' but does not include defined
endpoints of the production function in section 2.3 like it does for
gathering in section 2.2.
    This issue was raised in comments by NAPSR and others, who
suggested simplifying the definition of a gas gathering line and
setting clear, restrictive limits on where non-jurisdictional
production operation ends and gas gathering begins. NAPSR commented in
response to the ANPRM that State regulators had ``many difficulties in
applying the definitions contained in API RP 80'' and recommended a
simpler definition for the term gathering line. NAPSR recommended
defining the end of production at the wellhead or first metering point
downstream of the well. As described in the regulatory history section,
PHMSA also had concerns with how the ``incidental gathering'' concept
has been used to classify pipelines that perform gas transmission
functions as gathering lines subject to less stringent requirements
intended for small, low-pressure, traditional gathering lines.
    In lieu of relying on API RP 80's definition of gathering line, the
NPRM proposed new stand-alone definitions for ``onshore production
facility/operation'', ``gas processing plant,'' ``gas treatment
facility'', and ``gathering line (onshore)'' to determine the beginning
and endpoints of each gathering line. The proposed definitions were
found in Sec.  192.3 of the NPRM and the application of those
definitions was included in Sec.  192.8. PHMSA proposed to define the
end of onshore production operations as the furthermost downstream
point

where measurement for the purposes of calculating minerals severance
occurs or there is a comingling of the flow stream from two or more
wells.
    The NPRM also would have required operators to request approval
from the Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety in order to extend
gathering beyond the furthermost upstream gas processing plant.
Finally, in order to address PHMSA's concerns with the lack of definite
limits on the application of incidental gathering, PHMSA proposed
limiting the distance that a gathering line could continue beyond a
defined endpoint of gathering to 1 mile, provided that it does not
cross a highway or railroad right of way.
2. Summary of Public Comments
    NAPSR, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PAPUC), PST,
EDF, and a member of the public all expressed support for elimination
of API RP 80, citing the confusion that exists in the present document
for defining the endpoints of gas production and processing facilities
and gas gathering lines. Some of these commenters had concerns or
suggested clarifications about specific issues. For example, NAPSR and
other State pipeline safety officials suggested PHMSA clarify that
authority to approve extending gathering beyond the first downstream
natural gas processing plant (Sec.  192.8(a)(2)) or to use the point of
comingling on fields greater than 50 miles apart (Sec.  192.8(a)(3))
resides with State pipeline safety agencies in addition to the PHMSA
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. The PAPUC commented that
PHMSA should remove the point of gas comingling (the location where gas
from two or more production sites join for further transportation
downstream) from the proposed definition of an onshore production
operation due to concerns that operators could use that concept to
classify relatively large pipelines that are performing a gathering
function as non-jurisdictional production lines.
    API, The American Gas Association (AGA), IPAA, GPA Midstream, the
Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Oklahoma Oil and Gas Association
(OKOGA), the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, and several individual
pipeline operators commented that API RP 80 adequately delineated
production and gathering lines on a functional basis and should not be
eliminated from part 192. Most signaled that they would be open to
collaboration to improve some definitional issues, especially via
changes to API RP 80 through the collaborative API standards-revision
process. To this end, API suggested initiating a revision of API RP 80
instead of using the proposed wording in the NPRM. Other industry
groups and operators, such as the Virginia Oil and Gas Association and
the Plastic Pipe Institute, opposed any modification to the current
definitions and usage of API RP 80; these commenters contended that
changing the start point of gathering would violate PHMSA's statutory
limitation on regulating production lines, that State agencies
adequately regulate intrastate production and gathering lines, or that
PHMSA had not provided sufficient safety evidence to support changes to
the definition of gathering.
    Industry commenters also raised a number of specific concerns
regarding the replacement definitions proposed by PHMSA. The most
substantive comments concerned potentially ambiguous language in
PHMSA's proposed definitions for ``onshore production facility or
onshore production operation'' and ``gathering line (onshore).'' API
opposed the proposed definitions but suggested edits that it claimed
would provide more specificity to the types of processes that could be
considered production functions. API also suggested clarifications on
how points of comingling are treated in the definitions of the
endpoints of gathering and production and make other changes. Other
commenters requested clarification that the proposed definitions of gas
processing plants and gas treatment plants did not apply to facilities
on gas transmission or distribution lines. Many industry commenters
requested a standalone definition of ``farm taps'' to clarify the
regulatory requirements applicable to service lines connected to
production, gathering, and transmission lines.
    Many commenters opposed PHMSA's proposal to limit the use of the
``incidental gathering'' designation to one mile from the furthermost
downstream point of gathering. API proposed a standalone definition of
``incidental gathering'' consistent with the current definition in API
RP 80 and suggested that if PHMSA is concerned about particular lines
abusing the definition of incidental gathering, then it should
designate such incidental gathering lines as regulated gathering lines
rather than generally restrict the use of the incidental gathering
designation in API RP 80. It further suggested that the proposed Type
A, Area 2 (now Type C) requirements could address safety concerns with
large-diameter, high-pressure incidental gathering lines. API further
commented that requiring operators to redesignate previously
unregulated incidental gathering lines as transmission lines would
result in significant costs, especially if the proposed gas
transmission requirements in the NPRM applied to them. GPA Midstream
commented that the ``proposed limitation of one mile is too
restrictive,'' and that reclassifying existing gathering lines as
transmission lines would result in substantial compliance costs that
need to be addressed in the RIA. However, GPA Midstream and the OKOGA
suggested that a 10-mile limit was a reasonable compromise that would
establishes a definite limit on incidental gathering but with enough
flexibility to accommodate different system configurations.
    Industry commenters also contended that the implementation
timeframe for identifying and reclassifying pipelines as regulated
gathering lines (6 months) was too short.
3. GPAC Recommendation
    The GPAC voted 11-0, with one abstention, that the proposed rule
was technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable,
if the proposed new and revised definitions related to gas gathering in
Sec.  192.3 and the proposed changes to Sec.  192.8(a) for determining
beginning and endpoints of gathering were withdrawn. PHMSA noted during
the meeting that it will monitor the outcome of the working group
preparing a second edition of API RP 80 and a new document, API RP
1182, ``Safety Provisions for Large Diameter Rural Gas Gathering
Lines,'' and consider whether those efforts merit potential changes to
the definition of gas gathering lines in a future rulemaking. Although
the GPAC discussion acknowledged PHMSA's concerns regarding the
``incidental gathering'' concept in API RP 80, the GPAC did not discuss
or recommend any particular mileage limitation on that concept.
Likewise, the GPAC did not make any specific recommendations regarding
the terms ``onshore production facility/operation'', ``gas processing
plant'', ``gas treatment facility'', or ``gathering line (onshore)''.
4. PHMSA Response
    PHMSA agrees with the majority of commenters and the GPAC that
definitions of ``gas processing plant,'' ``gas treatment facility,''
and ``gathering line (onshore)'' should be omitted from the final rule.
After the NPRM was published, API established two committees (API RP
1182 and API RP 80) to consider revisions to API RP 80 to address the
same ambiguities in those

definitions that the NPRM was intended to address. Both documents have
since published. The final rule does not repeal the use of the existing
definition of gathering line based on API RP 80 (1st edition, 2000) and
Sec.  192.8. PHMSA will consider updating the definitions associated
with defining gathering and production lines in a separate rulemaking
after evaluating the second edition of API RP 80, Definition of Onshore
Gas Gathering Lines and new API RP 1182, Safety Provisions for Large
Diameter Rural Gas Gathering Lines. PHMSA declines to adopt in this
rulemaking API RP 1182 or the 2nd edition of API RP 80 in their
entirety without providing the public an opportunity to review and
comment upon those standards. A few aspects of API RP 1182 have been
adapted in the final rule, these are described in section III.C. of the
preamble of this final rule.
    However, due to safety and enforcement concerns, the final rule
defines limits to ``incidental gathering'' on new, replaced, relocated,
or otherwise changed gathering lines. The final rule changes the NPRM's
proposed one-mile endpoint for the designation ``incidental
gathering,'' but does impose a clear and defined limitation of ten
miles on ``incidental gathering'' for any such pipelines constructed
after the effective date of this rulemaking. Therefore, for gathering
lines installed after the effective date of the rule, the ``connection
to another pipeline'' endpoint in section 2.2(a)(1)(E) of API RP 80 may
not be used if the connection is ten or more miles from the endpoints
of gathering defined in paragraphs (a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D). In
other words, if an ``incidental gathering'' portion of a newly
constructed pipeline would be ten or more miles in length, then the
incidental gathering concept may not be used and the gathering line
terminates at the furthermost downstream endpoint defined in API RP 80
sections 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(d), subject to the limitations in
Sec.  192.8. While PHMSA appreciates the contribution of the API RP 80
committee on these definitional issues, ``incidental gathering''
concept is a significant source of uncertainty and concern that
requires an immediate regulatory remedy to protect public safety. This
limitation in the final rule immediately improves regulatory certainty
regarding each of the endpoints of gathering and prevents potential
abuse of the incidental gathering concept pending PHMSA's consideration
of the second edition of API RP 80 and operational experience gained
from implementation of the definitional changes in this final rule.
    The purpose of API RP 80 was to define clear endpoints to the
gathering and production lines based on their function and purpose and
eliminate the circular definitions in part 192 at the time. While the
definitions for the end of gathering in section 2.2(a)(1)(A) through
(a)(1)(D) of API RP 80 are not perfect, they provide some definite
limits that are reasonably based on the function of the line in
question. However, the incidental gathering concept negates both goals
by allowing gathering to continue past what API itself defines as the
end of gathering functions to the ``connection to another pipeline.''
This reintroduces the circular definitions in the original definition
in Sec.  192.3 that adoption of API RP 80 was intended to clarify. API
RP 80 includes no limits to how far downstream the connection to
another pipeline can be. As a result, PHMSA has observed supposedly
incidental gathering lines that extend for several miles.
    In addition to adding ambiguity to the regulations, unlimited
application of incidental gathering creates a regulatory gap where
long-distance pipelines that are functionally and operationally
indistinguishable from transmission lines are classified as gathering
lines with less stringent safety standards. By definition, an
incidental gathering line is downstream of the last gathering function
described in section 2.2 of API RP 80. Past that point the gas will not
undergo further gathering-related processing or comingling. Incidental
gathering can also include piping downstream of a major gas processing
plant or a compressor used to increase downstream pressure so that the
gas can be delivered to a transmission line (see section <IP_ADDRESS>.4 of
API RP 80); if that is the case, then the incidental gathering line is
being operated at the same (high) pressure as the transmission line to
which it is directly connected. In other words, such lines have
functional and operational characteristics--including potential
consequences--consistent with gas transmission lines, not production or
gathering facilities. While some allowance to connect to nearby
transmission facilities could be appropriate on economic or
practicability grounds, this justification fades the further downstream
it is applied.
    In order to reduce this regulatory gap for gathering lines that are
downstream of the last gathering function, the final rule limits
incidental gathering to no more than 10 miles from the furthermost
downstream endpoint of gathering for new, replaced, relocated, or
otherwise changed pipelines. Specifically, PHMSA no longer allows the
use of the ``connection to another pipeline'' endpoint in paragraph
2.2(a)(1)(E) of API RP 80 if it is 10 or more miles downstream of the
furthermost of the other endpoints defined in paragraphs 2.2(a)(1)(A)
through (a)(1)(D) of API RP 80. An ``incidental gathering'' pipeline
installed after the effective date of the rule that extends beyond 10
miles shall be considered a transmission line, starting from the non-
incidental endpoint of gathering defined in API RP 80. PHMSA currently
uses a similar distance-based limit in Sec.  192.8(a)(3) to set
reasonable parameters for using the point of comingling, an actual gas
gathering function, described in API RP 80 section 2.2(a)(1)(C) as an
endpoint to gathering. While existing gathering lines are not affected
by this change, such pipelines may be designated as Type C regulated
gas gathering and subject to safety requirements, depending on their
diameter, pressure, and operating environment (see sections III.C and
III.D below).
    Applying these limits on incidental gathering solely to only new,
replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed gathering lines and revising
the limit from 1 mile to 10 miles addresses the concerns raised by
comments from operators while establishing a limit to incidental
gathering going forward. Applicability to only new and replaced
pipelines avoids disruption associated with reclassifying previously
unregulated existing gathering lines as transmission lines and reduces
the overall cost of the final rule for existing infrastructure. PHMSA
recognizes that comments from operators broadly opposed the proposed 1-
mile limit, and the GPAC did not recommend revisions to definition,
including incidental gathering. However, as an alternative, a 10-mile
limit was supported in public comments from GPA Midstream and OKOGA,
trade associations for gas gathering line operators, and represents a
reasonable first step towards establishing a firm endpoint to
gathering. PHMSA also notes that a 10-mile limit on the ``incidental
gathering'' concept would also be consistent with previous
interpretation letters issued by PHMSA.\70\ Extending the limit on
incidental gathering to 10 miles provides greater flexibility for
siting processing facilities and associated

pipelines compared with the 1-mile limit in the proposed rule,
addressing concerns raised in comments. PHMSA also notes that during
this rulemaking process, there was support among both gathering line
operators and public commenters to clarify the application of
incidental gathering lines and impose common-sense limitations on the
``incidental gathering'' concept. Finally, as noted in the summary of
comments, GPA Midstream and OKOGA submitted comments open to a 10-mile
limit to incidental gathering rather than 1 mile as proposed in the
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See, e.g., PHMSA, Interpretation Letter No. PI-08-0010,
Letter to State of Colorado Public Utilities Commission (Feb. 20,
2009) (endorsing use of ``incidental gathering'' concept for an 8-
mile line), https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2009/PI-09-0006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the second edition of API RP 80 includes a 20-mile
limitation to incidental gathering, PHMSA does not believe that newly
constructed ``incidental gathering'' lines should be permitted to
extend that far from a gathering facility. As explained in the NPRM,
PHMSA has for more than a decade expressed concerns that the
``incidental gathering'' concept has been used to allow pipelines with
certain characteristics (operating pressures, capacity, etc.)--and,
consequently, risks to the public and the environment--resembling gas
transmission lines to avoid part 192 regulatory requirements governing
those lines. PHMSA does not, therefore, understand the 20-mile limit
contemplated by API RP 80 to be as effective in capturing the safety
and environmental benefits in comparison to what a more demanding
mileage limitation would realize.
    Further, PHMSA's discussion with various stakeholders revealed that
there are very few incidental gathering lines that extend beyond 10
miles from the gathering facility; PHMSA is not aware of any, proposed
new pipeline construction projects that would be classified as
incidental gathering and extend 10 miles from the end of the gathering
facility. The 10-mile limitation on incidental gathering, therefore,
provides regulatory certainty to stakeholders, recognizes uncertainty
regarding the cost impacts that could arise if incidental gathering is
limited to 1 mile and on existing gas gathering lines, as proposed, and
ensures that the regulatory gap that currently exists with regard to
API RP 80's absence of a limitation on incidental gathering is closed
for all newly constructed lines. PHMSA acknowledges that a regulatory
gap remains for existing incidental gathering lines and new and
replaced incidental gathering lines 10 miles or shorter. However, both
new and existing incidental gathering lines with the highest potential
safety hazards are either covered by existing safety standards for Type
A and Type B regulated gas gathering lines in Class 2, Class 3, and
Class 4 locations, or the new safety standards for Type C regulated gas
gathering lines in Class 1 locations established by this final rule.
These requirements are described in sections III.C and III.D. of the
preamble to this final rule. PHMSA will reconsider the issue of
definitions, including the endpoint of production and treatment of
incidental gathering lines, in a separate rulemaking in order to ensure
stakeholders are able to comprehensively comment on newly proposed
definitions and the second edition of API RP 80. Infrastructure and
incident data collected as a result of this rulemaking, inspection
data, and the public comment process will help inform future limits to
incidental gathering.

C. Expanded Scope of Gas Gathering Line Regulations--Sec.  192.8

1. Summary of PHMSA's Proposal
    In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to create a new category of Type A
regulated gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations that had a nominal
diameter of 8 inches (actual outside diameter of 8.625 inches) or
greater. This new category of regulated gathering lines was identified
in the table of the proposed Sec.  192.8 as ``Type A, Area 2'' (in the
final rule it is referred to as Type C), lines. PHMSA proposed to
define Type A, Area 2 regulated gathering lines as gathering lines
located in Class 1 locations that meet the existing Type A features in
the table in Sec.  192.9(b) (i.e., metallic with an MAOP that produces
a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS, or non-metallic with an
MAOP greater than 125 psig) that have a nominal pipe size of 8 inches
or greater.
    This change was intended to improve the safety of larger-diameter,
higher-stress gathering lines that were previously exempt from Federal
safety regulations at part 192. In the NPRM, these newly designated
Type A, Area 2 (Type C) regulated gathering lines would have to comply
with a basic set of requirements as set forth in Sec.  192.9. The
specific requirements for newly regulated gas gathering lines are
discussed in section III.D of this document.
2. Summary of Public Comment
    API, the Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan PSC), the
Texas Pipeline Association (TPA), and Atmos Energy Corporation (Atmos)
recommended that more data should be collected before determining the
appropriate scope of additional regulations. The PAPUC supported the
extension of regulatory oversight to gathering lines in Class 1
locations, based on its experience with growing natural gas production
in Pennsylvania, noting that gathering lines are being constructed with
diameters equal to or larger than typical transmission lines and are
being operated at much higher pressures than was typical in the past.
NAPSR supported the proposed scope of the new gathering line
requirements but also commented that its members believe all gathering
lines should be required to comply with part 192, regardless of class
location. Some environmental and safety groups also expressed support
for the extension of regulations to gas gathering lines in Class 1
locations in order to reduce the risks of incidents, greenhouse gas
emissions and other air pollution. For example, EDF supported
requirements for the design, installation, construction, initial
inspection and testing, corrosion control, damage prevention and
leakage surveys in order to reduce methane emissions.
    The North Dakota Petroleum Council, the Marcellus Shale Coalition,
the AGA, the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI), Spectra Energy Partners,
API, GPA Midstream, the Northeast Gas Association, and some individuals
submitted comments noting issues and uncertainty with the regulatory
impact assessment. For example, GPA Midstream commented that the
benefits analysis included information for offshore and Class 2
incidents that are not applicable to the proposed scope of this final
rule and that the cost analysis underestimated the time and cost to
identify newly regulated gathering lines in a short amount of time and
comply with the new requirements, especially MAOP determination and
public awareness. Many operators and industry groups expressed
disagreement with applying regulations to all Class 1 gas gathering
lines with outer diameters of 8.625 inches or greater, arguing that
gathering lines on the smaller end of that category do not represent
the large-diameter, high-pressure gathering lines referenced in the
preamble of the NPRM and public discussions. API commented that if
PHMSA does proceed with defining a new category of regulated gathering
lines, gathering lines with outer diameter greater than 16 inches have
the potential to pose a higher risk and should be the criteria for
determining regulated gathering, rather than 8 inches. API further
suggested that targeting lines with outer diameters greater than 16
inches would be more in the spirit of the risk-based philosophy of
other parts of the code, such as integrity management. This suggestion
was

repeated by GPA Midstream, the North Dakota, Petroleum Council, and
others.
    A number of commenters representing the pipeline industry expressed
concerns with the deadlines to identify newly regulated gathering lines
and then comply with the proposed regulations. For example, Rice
Energy, Dominion East Ohio, API, and GPA Midstream commented that the
implementation timeframe for identifying proposed Type A, Area 2 (now
Type C) regulated gathering lines was too short. Industry commenters
were especially concerned about the deadline to establish an MAOP,
especially if the MAOP verification requirements proposed for gas
transmission lines in the NPRM also applied to gathering lines. One
commenter suggested an economic criterion to allow an exemption for
operators of economically marginal, low stress gathering lines.
    Some commenters expressed the view that the proposed Type A, Area 2
(now Type C) classification for newly regulated gas gathering lines
could be confusing. Specifically, commenters found that designating
newly regulated gas gathering lines as Type A, Area 2 (now Type C), and
then requiring those pipelines to follow requirements similar to Type B
rather than existing Type A requirements was cumbersome and risked
conflating distinct regulatory requirements. A few commenters suggested
a Type C designation rather than the proposed Type A, Area 2 (now Type
C) designation. The GPAC recommended PHMSA address these concerns in
the final rule.
3. GPAC Recommendation
    GPAC voted 11-1 that the scope of newly regulated gas gathering
lines in proposed Sec.  192.8(b) and (c) is technically feasible,
reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if PHMSA considered the
following:
     Establishing an initial framework for regulating Class 1
gathering lines that could be built upon in light of future information
and experience;
     Setting a minimum set of requirements for gathering lines
8.625 inches in outside diameter and greater (considering, for example:
Damage prevention; line markers; public awareness; leak surveys and
repairs; design, installation, construction, and initial inspection and
testing for new lines; and emergency plans). Give due consideration to
the GPAC discussion on the costs and benefits of performing leakage
surveys;
     Consider applying a PIR concept and additional
requirements to provide safety and environmental protection for larger-
diameter gathering lines (e.g., greater than 12.75 inch outside
diameter); and
     Ensuring that composite pipe \71\ was adequately addressed
to minimize the impact on its continued use. Note that this is
discussed in section III.D below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ A composite pipe is made of a combination of either steel
or plastic with a reinforcing material designed to maintain its
circumferential and longitudinal strength. A common configuration
consists of steel or fiber reinforcement layered between a polymer
inside liner and outer shell. No composite materials are currently
authorized for use in part 192 or part 195, but may be used through
a special permit (see Sec.  190.341).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. PHMSA Response
    In response to public comments and the recommendations of the GPAC,
PHMSA has changed the proposed ``Type A, Area 2'' designation for newly
regulated gas gathering lines to ``Type C'' lines. PHMSA originally
proposed use of the term ``Type A, Area 2'' (now Type C) because the
newly regulated gas gathering lines have features similar to existing
Type A pipelines in the table in Sec.  192.8, except that they are
located in Class 1 locations. However, PHMSA agrees that creating the
category ``Type C'' may be less confusing. While adopting the new
designation of Type C regulated gas gathering lines introduces some
repetition in the table in Sec.  192.8, PHMSA believes it will make
clearer that the three categories represent different levels of risk
that warrant corresponding levels of regulation and will reduce
unnecessary confusion among operators and inspectors in the future.
    The final rule continues to define Type C regulated gas gathering
lines as gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations that are 8.625 inches
or greater in diameter and are: (1) Metallic, with an MAOP producing a
hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS; (2) metallic, with an MAOP
greater than 125 psig if the hoop stress is unknown; or (3) non-
metallic, with an MAOP greater than 125 psig. However, PHMSA recognizes
that not all gathering lines that meet these criteria pose the same
level of risk. Therefore, the final rule provides that the requirements
that Type C gathering lines must comply with will vary, based on the
scale of risk associated with the particular characteristics of the
pipeline. The applicability of each of the requirements that
potentially applies to Type C lines is described in section III.D below
and the section-by-section analysis. Gathering lines smaller than 8.625
inches in outside diameter or operating below the pressure or stress
level criteria described above will remain unregulated under part 192
and are subject only to incident and annual reporting in part 191 (see
section III.A below).
    As described in the background section (II.A) above, modern
gathering systems require larger, higher-pressure lines to meet the new
supply and demand pressures than had been common when the existing
requirements were put into place. This is not a theoretical problem:
Failures on unregulated gas gathering lines have resulted in serious
incidents, some with fatal consequences (see the discussion in section
II.A above).
    PHMSA appreciates the need to exercise caution in exercising its
statutory authority to regulate gathering lines that have not been
previously covered by parts 191 and 192 without clear, detailed safety
data. This is why a new category of gathering lines is being created
for reporting purposes only that are only subject to the incident and
annual reporting requirements described in section III.A of this
document. These are designated as ``Type R'' gathering lines in Sec.
192.8. These lines are not regulated gathering lines under in part 192
but are subject to incident and annual reporting requirements in part
191.
    However, there is ample basis upon which to add the targeted
requirements in this final rule for Type C gathering lines that mirror
the requirements already in place for existing, lower-stress Type B
lines. These measures are an appropriate initial step to ensure basic
safeguards to the public, property, and the environment while
additional data is collected and analyzed. Additionally, withdrawing
the proposed regulations in the NPRM for previously unregulated gas
gathering lines in its entirety would be inconsistent with public
safety and would not be responsive to GAO recommendation GAO-14-667 or
the Congressional mandate in the 2020 PIPES Act. Therefore, PHMSA is
adding the definition of Type C regulated gas gathering lines as
proposed in the NPRM.
    However, the new regulatory requirements are tailored to the
potential hazards the newly regulated gathering lines may pose. This is
described in more detail in section III.D below. PHMSA determined that
certain programs, such as damage prevention, are foundational to
pipeline safety and public trust and therefore should be required for
all Type C gas gathering lines as originally proposed in the NPRM.
However, other requirements apply only to Type C lines with an outside
diameter greater than 16 inches, and Type C lines with an outside

diameter larger than 12.75 inches that are located near homes and other
structures. The largest-diameter gas gathering lines and those that can
directly impact local communities are required to comply with all of
the requirements for newly regulated Type C (Type A, Area 2) gathering
lines proposed in the NPRM. The proposed deadline to determine
endpoints of newly regulated gathering lines remains unchanged in the
final rule--6 months after the effective date. Operators must therefore
identify the endpoints of newly regulated Type C lines on or before
November 16, 2022. While the GPAC recommended a 2-year compliance
deadline for identifying the endpoints of Type C gathering lines, such
a delay is not necessary given that PHMSA understands that many Type C
lines are of more recent vintage and therefore would generally have
more robust records to facilitate determination of endpoints than older
gathering lines. A prolonged identification period would also delay the
important safety (section III.D. infra) and reporting (section III.A.4.
supra) standards in the final rule. The Type C determination in Sec.
192.8(c)(2) requires, at a minimum, knowledge only of the location,
diameter, and pressure of the pipeline. Most Type C gathering lines are
relatively modern shale gas systems and these basic records should be
readily accessible.
    PHMSA acknowledges that this deadline may be challenging for some
operators of certain older, smaller-diameter, systems. The final rule
therefore includes procedures for an operator to request an alternative
compliance deadline with a notification in accordance with Sec.
192.18. This is intended to mirror existing Sec.  192.9(e)(2), which
gives the PHMSA Administrator discretion to allow a later deadline if
justified in a particular case. An operator must submit a written
request to PHMSA in accordance with Sec.  192.18 no later than 90 days
prior to the standard compliance deadline. The request must include, at
a minimum, a description of the facilities that require a delayed
compliance date, the justification for an alternative compliance
deadline, and the proposed alternative compliance deadline. An operator
may proceed with their proposed compliance deadline if they receive a
no-objection letter from PHMSA or if PHMSA does not reply within 90
days. If delayed identification impacts an operator's ability to comply
with the requirements in Sec.  192.9, they must submit a separate
notification to request delayed compliance under that section.
    The combination of changes discussed in this section and in section
III.D below provides a reasonable and cost-effective initial approach
to address the risks associated with previously unregulated gas
gathering lines. PHMSA will monitor the safety performance of both
newly regulated gas gathering and unregulated gas gathering lines and
evaluate the need for further regulatory action in the future.

D. Safety Requirements for Newly Regulated Gas Gathering Lines--
Sec. Sec.  192.9, 192.13, 192.18, 192.452, and 192.619

1. Summary of PHMSA's Proposal
    PHMSA proposed in the NPRM to apply part 192 safety requirements to
the newly-established Type A, Area 2 lines (referred to as Type C lines
in the final rule). These requirements, collectively referred to as
Type C requirements in this final rule, are:
     Sec.  192.9(d)(1)--Implement design, installation,
construction, initial inspection, and initial testing requirements for
new/replaced/relocated/changed lines in accordance with the
requirements in part 192 for transmission lines.
     Sec.  192.9(d)(2)--Adopt corrosion control measures for
metallic pipe in accordance with part 192, subpart I, requirements for
transmission lines.
     Sec.  192.9(d)(3)--Adopt damage prevention measures in
accordance with Sec.  192.614.
     Sec.  192.9(d)(4)--Develop public awareness programs in
accordance with Sec.  192.616.
     Sec.  192.9(d)(5)--Establish MAOP in accordance with Sec.
192.619.
     Sec.  192.9(d)(6)--Install and maintain line markers in
accordance with the requirements for transmission lines in Sec.
192.707.
     Sec.  192.9(d)(7)--Conduct leakage surveys in accordance
with Sec.  192.706, using leak- detection equipment and promptly repair
hazardous leaks that are discovered, in accordance with Sec.
192.703(c).
     Sec.  192.9(d)(8)--Develop and implement procedures for
emergency plans in accordance with Sec.  192.615.
    These requirements are the same as those that currently apply to
Type B regulated gas gathering lines, except for the new emergency
plans requirements. PHMSA also proposed conforming changes to
Sec. Sec.  192.13, 192.452, and 192.619.
2. Summary of Public Comment
    Citizen and environmental groups expressed support for the proposed
requirements for newly regulated gas gathering lines or suggested
additional requirements. Several citizen groups suggested that gas
gathering lines that function similarly to transmission lines should be
regulated like transmission lines in part 192. Similarly, the Public
Service Commission of West Virginia commented that the proposed
requirements for Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) lines, which mirror the
requirements for low-pressure, low-stress Type B gathering lines, are
not adequate or sufficient to ensure the safety of large, high-pressure
gas gathering lines and instead recommended that such pipelines follow
existing Type A, Area 1 requirements (i.e. most gas transmission line