[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70056-70069]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 2, 157, and 380

[Docket No. RM12-11-002; Order No. 790-A]

Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and
Siting and Maintenance Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing and clarification.

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

SUMMARY: On rehearing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) reaffirms its basic determinations in Order No. 790 and
modifies and clarifies certain aspects of the Final Rule. Order No. 790
amended the Commission's regulations to clarify that auxiliary
installations added to existing or proposed interstate transmission
facilities under the Commission's regulations must be located within
the authorized right-of-way or site for existing facilities or the
right-of-way or site to be used for facilities proposed in a pending
application for case-specific certificate authority or in a prior
notice filing under the Commission's blanket certificate regulations,
and use only the same temporary work space that was or will be used to
construct the existing or proposed facilities. Order No. 790 also
codified the common industry practice of notifying landowners prior to
coming onto their property to undertake projects, or certain
replacements, or certain maintenance activities.

DATES: This rule is effective January 26, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katherine Liberty, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-6491<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gordon Wagner, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Howard Wheeler, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,

Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shannon Jones, Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                              Paragraph
                                                               numbers

I. Background..............................................            3
II. Discussion.............................................           11
    A. Section 2.55(a) Auxiliary Facilities................           11
        1. Commission's Jurisdiction.......................           12
        2. Section 2.55 Siting and Construction Limitations           26
        3. INGAA's Response to the NOPR....................           40
        4. Compliance With Executive Orders................           43
    B. Landowner Notification..............................           44
        1. Waiver of Five-Day Prior Notice.................           45
        2. Emergency Exemption to Notice Requirement.......           47
        3. Affected Landowners.............................           50
        4. One-Call Obligations............................           53
        5. Burden Resulting From the Landowner Notification           54
         Requirement.......................................
    C. Consistency With the Commission's Regulations.......           61
III. Information Collection Statement......................           63
IV. Environmental Analysis.................................           65
V. Document Availability...................................           66
VI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification..........           69

Final Rule--Order on Rehearing and Clarification

    1. On November 22, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Final Rule in Order No. 790 that amended its
regulations, effective February 3, 2014, to: (1) Clarify that auxiliary
installations added to existing or proposed interstate transmission
facilities under section 2.55 of the Commission's regulations \1\ must
(a) be located within the authorized right-of-way or site for existing
facilities or the right-of-way or site to be used for facilities
proposed in a pending application for case-specific certificate
authority or in a prior notice filing under the Commission's Part 157
blanket certificate regulations, and (b) use only the same temporary
work space that was or will be used to construct existing or proposed
facilities; and (2) codify the common industry practice of notifying
landowners prior to coming onto their property to undertake section
2.55 projects, certain Part 157, Subpart F replacements, or certain
section 380.15 maintenance activities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 2.55 (2014).
    \2\ Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement
Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations, Order No. 790,
78 FR 72794-801 (Dec. 4, 2013), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 (2013)
(cross-referenced at 145 FERC ] 61,154 (2013)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission received two requests for rehearing and
clarification of the Final Rule, one filed by the Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America (INGAA) and the other filed jointly by
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Empire Pipeline, Inc.
(referred to collectively as ``National Fuel''). As discussed below,
this order denies the requests for rehearing and grants and denies the
requests for clarification.

I. Background

    3. Section 7(c)(1)(A) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires a
natural gas company to have certificate authorization for the
``construction or extension of any facilities.'' \3\ To ``avoid the
filing and consideration of unnecessary applications for
certificates,'' \4\ i.e., to save the time and expense that would
otherwise be expended by companies and the Commission in undertaking a
full, formal NGA section 7 certificate proceeding for every
modification to a jurisdictional pipeline system, section 2.55
establishes that for the purposes of section 7(c), ``the word
facilities as used therein shall be interpreted to exclude'' auxiliary
and replacement facilities.\5\ Thus, while an auxiliary or replacement
facility that qualifies for purposes of section 2.55 remains subject to
the Commission's NGA jurisdiction, it does not require an individual,
facility-specific section 7(c) certificate authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 717f(c)(1)(A) (2012).
    \4\ Filing of Applications for Certificates of Public
Convenience and Necessity, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NOPR, 13
FR 6253, at 6254 (October 23, 1948).
    \5\ 18 CFR 2.55 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Facilities that qualify under section 2.55(a) must be ``merely
auxiliary or appurtenant to an authorized or proposed pipeline
transmission system'' and installed ``only for the purpose of obtaining
more efficient or more economical operation of the authorized or
proposed transmission facilities,'' such as ``[v]alves; drips; pig
launchers/receivers; yard and station piping; cathodic protection
equipment; gas cleaning, cooling and dehydration equipment; residual
refining equipment; water pumping, treatment and cooling equipment;
electrical and communication equipment; and buildings.'' \6\ A company
must provide the Commission with at least 30 days prior notice if it
plans to rely on section 2.55 to construct auxiliary facilities in
conjunction with: (1) A project for which case-specific certificate
authority has already been received but which is not yet in service;
(2) a proposed project for which a case-specific certificate
application is pending; or (3) facilities that will be constructed
subject to the prior notice provisions of the Part 157, Subpart F
blanket certificate regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. 2.55(a)(1). But for the inclusion of pig launchers/
receivers in 1999, this list has remained unaltered since section
2.55 was put in place in 1949. Note that if a pipeline company wants
to install any facilities specifically named in section 2.55(a)(1),
but will not be installing them only for the purpose of obtaining
more efficient or more economical operation of existing or proposed
interstate transmission facilities, then the company cannot rely on
section 2.55(a). See Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, 57 FERC ]
61,052 (1991); West Texas Gas, Inc., 62 FERC ] 61,039 (1993); and
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 114 FERC ] 61,061, at n.4
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Section 2.55(b) permits companies to replace facilities that are
or will soon be physically deteriorated or obsolete, so long as doing
so will not result in a reduction or abandonment of service and the
replacement facilities will have a substantially equivalent designed

delivery capacity.\7\ All replacement facilities constructed under
section 2.55(b) must be located within the existing facilities'
previously authorized right-of-way or on the same site as the
facilities being replaced and must be constructed using the same
temporary work spaces used to construct the existing facilities.\8\
Section 2.55(b) replacement projects can go forward without case-
specific or blanket certificate authorization. However, companies must
provide the Commission with 30 days prior notice before undertaking
more expensive replacement projects.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 18 CFR 2.55(b) (2014).
    \8\ Id. 2.55(b)(ii).
    \9\ The requirement that a company give at least 30 days prior
notice to the Commission before commencing a replacement project
applies if the project will exceed the current cost limit for
projects automatically authorized under the Part 157 blanket
certificate regulations. However, unlike the blanket certificate
regulations, section 2.55 places no cost limits on auxiliary
installations or replacement projects that qualify under that
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On April 2, 2012, INGAA filed a petition requesting that the
Commission clarify that installations of auxiliary facilities under
section 2.55(a) are not restricted to the rights-of-way and temporary
work spaces used to construct the existing facilities that will be
augmented by the auxiliary facilities.\10\ INGAA stated that it was
seeking such clarification because Commission staff has stated in
discussions with pipeline representatives and in industry meetings that
companies undertaking section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations to
augment existing facilities that are already in service must stay
within the right-of-way or site for the existing facilities and
restrict construction activities to previously used work spaces. INGAA
disagreed with these constraints, arguing that section 2.55(a)
activities had not been limited in this way in the past, and that
Commission staff's position amounted to rulemaking without the
opportunity for notice and comment, contrary to the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).\11\ Pursuant to section
385.207(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
INGAA requested that the Commission confirm INGAA's view that the
siting and work space constraints stated by staff do not apply to
section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On May 2, 2012, MidAmerican Energy Pipeline Group (which
includes Kern River Gas Transmission Company and Northern Natural
Gas Company) filed a motion to intervene and comments in support of
INGAA's petition.
    \11\ 5 U.S.C. 553 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. On December 20, 2012, the Commission issued a NOPR proposing to
revise section 2.55(a) to clarify that, as with section 2.55(b), all
projects must take place within a company's authorized right-of-way or
facility site and use only previously approved work spaces. In
addition, the NOPR proposed to add a 10-day landowner notification
requirement for section 2.55 auxiliary and replacement facilities and
for section 380.15 maintenance activities.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement
Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations, NOPR, 78 FR 679,
at 683 (Jan. 4, 2013), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,696 (2012) (cross-
referenced at 141 FERC ] 61,228 (2012)). While section 380.15 covers
siting, construction, and maintenance, our existing regulations
already have notification requirements in place applicable to siting
and construction; consequently, the additional prior notice
requirement described in the new section 380.15(c) will apply
exclusively to maintenance activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. On November 22, 2013, the Commission issued the Final Rule to
revise its regulations to clarify that all section 2.55(a) auxiliary
installations added to existing or proposed interstate transmission
facilities must be located within the authorized right-of-way or site
for the existing or proposed facilities and use only the same temporary
work space used to construct the existing or proposed facilities. In
addition, the Final Rule adopted regulations to provide a landowner
with notice at least five days prior to commencing an auxiliary or
replacement project under section 2.55 or a maintenance activity under
section 380.15 that causes a ground disturbance on the landowner's
property.
    9. On December 23, 2013, INGAA and National Fuel each filed a
request for rehearing of the Final Rule's determination that all
auxiliary installations added to existing or proposed interstate
transmission facilities must be located within the authorized right-of-
way or site for the existing or proposed facilities and use only the
same temporary work space used to construct the existing or proposed
facilities.
    10. In regard to the Final Rule's landowner notification
requirements, INGAA and National Fuel request that the Commission
clarify that: (1) The landowner notification requirements may be waived
with the landowner's consent; (2) the provision that enables companies
to waive the landowner notification requirements for ``activities
required to respond to an emergency'' includes activities done for
safety, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) compliance, or
environmental or unplanned maintenance reasons; (3) the landowner
notification requirement does not apply when a pipeline company is
required on short notice to mark its facilities on a landowner's
property because the landowner or a third party will be digging near
the pipeline company's facilities; and (4) the landowner notification
does not apply to landowners whose property is crossed en route to a
proposed ground-disturbing maintenance activity, or to areas located
entirely within the fence line of an existing, above-ground facility
site.

II. Discussion

A. Section 2.55(a) Auxiliary Facilities

    11. The Final Rule revised the Commission's regulations to clarify
that all section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations added to existing or
proposed interstate transmission facilities must be located within the
authorized right-of-way or site for the existing or proposed facilities
and use only the same temporary work space used to construct the
existing or proposed facilities.
1. Commission's Jurisdiction
    12. INGAA persists in its contention that section 2.55(a)
facilities are beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. This is a
fundamental misreading of this regulatory provision's intent and
application.
    13. In 1949, Order No. 148, by ``amendment of general rules and
regulations governing the filing of applications for certificates of
public convenience and necessity under section 7(c),'' \13\ added
section 2.55 to our regulations to permit the construction and
operation of auxiliary, replacement, and delivery point facilities
without the need to obtain individual certificates for such
facilities.\14\ INGAA maintains that ``[i]n Order No. 148, the
Commission distinguished between jurisdictional facilities necessary
for the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce and non-
jurisdictional installations.'' \15\ The Commission did not. What the
Commission did, as explained in the NOPR prior to Order No. 148, was
``to permit natural-gas companies subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commission'' to add a restricted set of facilities to, and replace
parts of, an existing system ``without further authorization from the
Commission . . . to avoid the filing and

consideration of unnecessary applications for certificates.'' \16\
(Emphasis added.) Order No. 148 accomplished this by deeming that
``[f]or the purposes of section 7(c),'' i.e., with respect to the
section of the NGA which requires that natural gas companies obtain
prior certificate authorization to construct or acquire jurisdictional
facilities, ``the word `facilities' as used therein shall be
interpreted to exclude'' auxiliary, replacement, and delivery point
facilities.\17\ In other words, to reduce the burden on the industry
and to aid our own administrative efficiency, the Commission allowed
natural gas companies already holding section 7 certificate
authorization for existing natural gas facilities to make limited
modifications to those facilities without the need to first obtain
separate, additional, case-specific certificate authorization for each
modification. In the Final Rule, we compared section 2.55 to our later
actions to enable companies to act without first submitting an
individual certificate application, stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Filing of Applications for Certificates of Public
Convenience and Necessity, 14 FR 681 (February 16, 1949).
    \14\ Section 2.55(c), which describes new delivery points, was
subsequently removed by Order No. 148-A, 49 FPC 1046 (1973).
Delivery points are now included among the facilities that may be
constructed and operated pursuant to blanket certificate authority.
See 18 CFR 157.211 (2014).
    \15\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 22.
    \16\ 13 FR 6253-54 (October 23, 1948).
    \17\ 14 FR 681.

    Section 2.55 is both a precursor and complement to our Part 157
blanket certificate program. By providing non-case-specific
certificate authorization for limited classes of facilities, the
section 2.55 and blanket certificate regulations permit companies to
satisfy the requirements of section 7(c) without having to apply for
individual case-specific certificates for each and every
modification to their systems.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 16.

    14. Thus, Order No. 148 did not and could not remove jurisdictional
facilities from our jurisdiction, but carved out a class of facilities
in section 2.55 that could be added onto, or could replace, parts of a
larger certificated system without the need for further review because
the auxiliary or replacement facilities will be within the same rights-
of-way and use the same work spaces that were reviewed by the
Commission prior to construction of the existing facilities at that
location. In describing the facilities authorized under section 2.55,
Order No. 148 did not make any jurisdictional distinction among section
2.55(a) auxiliary installations, section 2.55(b) replacements, and
section 2.55(c) delivery points, indicating all section 2.55 facilities
share the same jurisdictional status. INGAA acknowledges that 2.55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
replacement facilities are subject to our jurisdiction, stating:

    The facilities in question, both those being replaced and those
doing the replacing once they are in service, are jurisdictional
under NGA Section 7. The new replacement facilities once in service
assume the certificated position previously occupied by the
facilities being replaced. . . . The new facilities, just like the
facilities that they replaced, are required to provide the
pipeline's previously certificated jurisdictional service. In
addition, as replacements of existing facilities, Section 2.55(b)
projects by definition and by their very nature involve an existing
right of way.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 39.

    15. Section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations, which are limited to
facilities that improve the operation of a jurisdictional system, have
the same jurisdictional status as the undisputedly jurisdictional
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
replacements. As stated in the Final Rule:

    All section 2.55 facilities are integrated into a larger
interstate transmission system and serve no function other than to
enable that system to perform its jurisdictional functions more
efficiently or economically; just as the larger system is
jurisdictional, the component parts of that system, including
auxiliary facilities installed pursuant to section 2.55, are
jurisdictional as well.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 13
(footnote omitted).

Accordingly, the facilities identified in section 2.55 are permitted to
be put in place pursuant to the certificate authorization of the
pipeline system that they modify, and are consequently as
jurisdictional as, and subject to the same constraints imposed upon,
the system that they modify, including siting and workspace
constraints.
    16. INGAA argues that because Order No. 603 amended section 2.55(b)
to explicitly state that replacements must use the same right-of-way
and workspaces as the facilities being replaced, but did not amend
section 2.55(a) to state the same with respect to auxiliary facilities,
the Commission's intent was to impose these restrictions on
replacements alone. INGAA is incorrect in suggesting that it was not
until Order No. 603 that the Commission viewed section 2.55 as limiting
all construction activities under that section to existing, previously
studied and approved rights-of-way. The Commission stated in Order No.
603 that ``[c]urrent Policy requires that replacement facilities must
be placed in the existing ROW''; ``we are not allowing additional ROW
width under Section 2.55''; and ``we will continue to follow Commission
policy and limit the pipeline's use of property to construct facilities
under Section 2.55 to the existing ROW.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Revision of Existing Regulations Under Part 157 and Related
Sections of the commission's Regulations Under the Natural Gas Act,
Order No. 603, 64 FR 26572 at 26575; FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,073 at
30,784-85 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The discussion in Order No. 603 made clear that the Commission
has always viewed all activities under section 2.55 as being limited to
existing rights-of-way and facility sites. The Commission focused on
section 2.55(b) in Order No. 603 because it was aware that some
companies incorrectly viewed that section as providing authorization
for them to undertake replacement projects using new, not previously
studied rights-of-way, and thereby in theory, swap out large portions
of their systems under section 2.55(b) with no limit as to project size
and potential impacts.\22\ At the time, the Commission had no
intimations of companies similarly relying on section 2.55(a) to place
auxiliary installations in greenfield areas. Furthermore, the
Commission still assumed that there was no need for companies to go
outside existing rights-of-way to install section 2.55(a) facilities
that are ``merely auxiliary or appurtenant'' to and ``only for the
purpose'' of enhancing the operation of a pipeline's other authorized
facilities. It has been only relatively recently that Commission
staff's discussions with industry representatives and INGAA's petition
have made it clear that an explicit statement of siting limitations is
also needed in section 2.55(a) to clarify that auxiliary installations
also must stay within previously authorized boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ As discussed in the Final Rule, Order No. 603 was prompted
by a company's inappropriate reliance on section 2.55(b) to abandon
91 miles of pipeline and install new, larger-diameter pipeline,
portions of which were placed outside the right-of-way of the
abandoned pipeline. See Order No. 603, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,073,
at 30,783-84 (1999), and Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,351, at P 17 (2013) (citing Arkla Energy Resources Company, 67
FERC ] 61,173 (1994) (Arkla), order on reh'g, NorAm Gas Transmission
Company, 70 FERC ] 61,030 (1995) (NorAm)). Arkla was in the process
of changing its name to NorAm at the time the Commission issued its
order finding that Arkla's replacement project did not qualify to go
forward under section 2.55(b). Thus, Arkla sought rehearing under
its new name, NorAm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Specifically, over the last several years, concerns about
potential noncompliance with siting restrictions for auxiliary
installations under section 2.55 have been conveyed by industry
representatives and landowners to Commission staff. Although the
concerns presented have not resulted in an enforcement action, staff
has explained the spatial limitations on construction activities under
section

2.55(a) in response to inquiries by industry representatives and
landowners and in presentations and conversations at public forums. In
part, it was these statements by staff that motivated INGAA to submit
its petition.
    19. In addressing space limitations on auxiliary installations
under section 2.55(a) in this rulemaking proceeding, we have responded
as we did in Order No. 603 when we became aware that companies were
improperly relying on section 2.55(b) to construct replacement
facilities in new rights-of-way. In this proceeding, we confirmed the
position we expressed in Order No. 603 that construction activities
under section 2.55 are restricted to projects confined to the footprint
of existing facilities or the right-of-way of other facilities proposed
in a case-specific certificate application or under the prior notice
provisions of the blanket certificate regulations, and revised our
regulations to codify this clarification. Again, the fact that we did
not take the opportunity in Order No. 603 to insert explanatory
language in section 2.55(a) shows only that the focus of the
Commission's concern in 1999 was to address the identified issue of
replacement facilities being installed outside existing rights-of-way,
and was not, as INGAA contends, indicative of a deliberate intent by
the Commission to apply spatial limitations to replacement projects but
not to auxiliary projects.
    20. INGAA relies on National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation v. FERC,
468 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (National Fuel) to support its argument.
In National Fuel, the D.C. Circuit remanded back to the Commission a
final rule that extended the Commission's Standards of Conduct
regulations, which already applied to pipeline companies' relationships
with their marketing affiliates, to also apply to a pipeline company's
relationships with their non-marketing affiliates (e.g., affiliated
producers, gatherers, and processors). The court found no record
evidence of a real problem, and explained that if the Commission chose
on remand to rely solely on a theoretical threat, it would need to
explain how the potential danger of improper communications between
pipelines and entities other than their marketing affiliates justified
the regulatory restrictions on their interactions and why the normal
complaint process under NGA section 5 would not suffice.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ National Fuel, 468 F.3d at 845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. Our action here is not analogous to National Fuel, where the
Commission sought to extend regulatory restrictions to new entities
without documentation of abuse. Here, we are not expanding our
regulatory reach based on potential industry activities; instead, we
are simply clarifying the existing bounds of the regulatory authority
provided by section 2.55(a). Further, whereas the section 5 complaint
process can adequately address the economic consequences of unfair
competitive practices after the fact, irreparable and unnecessary
environmental damage can result from companies' relying on section 2.55
of the regulations to construct new facilities in areas that the
Commission has not had an opportunity to environmentally review.
    22. INGAA maintains that Order No. 603 describes auxiliary
facilities as exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction. In support of
its position, INGAA points to CNG Transmission Corp.,\24\ in which the
Commission stated that Order No. 603 ``amends Section 2.55(a) to
specifically identify pig launchers as non-jurisdictional auxiliary
equipment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 87 FERC ] 61,324, at 62,259, n.7, reh'g denied, 89 FERC ]
61,047 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Order No. 603 admittedly refers to auxiliary facilities in a
manner that might be misconstrued as deeming auxiliary facilities to be
nonjurisdictional. However, Order No. 603's discussion of auxiliary
facilities opens with the statement that ``Section 2.55 defines
facilities that are excluded from the requirements of section 7(c) of
the NGA and may, therefore, be constructed without additional
certificate authority.'' \25\ No additional certificate authority is
needed because section 2.55 can be relied upon to construct qualifying
auxiliary and replacement facilities under the umbrella of the
company's certificate authority for the facilities being augmented or
replaced. Thus, the `exemption' provided by section 2.55 is not an
exemption from NGA jurisdiction, but an exemption from the need to
apply for additional case-specific certificate authorization or rely on
blanket authorization under NGA section 7 for qualifying activities.
The Commission's failure to carefully choose its words in contexts
where the jurisdictional status of pig launchers and other auxiliary
facilities was not being challenged does not change the fact that all
of the facilities addressed by section 2.55 are jurisdictional
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Order No. 603, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,073 at 30,781
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. INGAA accepts that replacement facilities ``assume the
certificated position previously occupied by the facilities being
replaced,'' but does not believe auxiliary facilities are subject to
any certificate authority, and consequently characterizes section
2.55(a) and section 2.55(b) as representing ``intrinsically different
concepts.'' \26\ We find no intrinsic difference. The facilities
described under section 2.55 serve to enhance the operation or update
the facilities of an existing system. Section 2.55(a) auxiliary
facilities must serve the purpose of making a system function more
efficiently or economically, and section 2.55(b) replacements serve to
improve reliability and safety. Thus, conceptually, section 2.55
auxiliary facilities and replacement facilities both serve the same
purpose: They constitute relatively modest modifications to a system
that do not alter the physical parameters of or services provided by
the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. INGAA maintains that in stating that section 2.55(a) auxiliary
facilities are jurisdictional, the ``Commission erred by not
considering reasonable alternatives to its chosen policy and by not
giving a reasoned explanation for its rejection of such alternatives.''
\27\ INGAA is correct that when embarking on a new regulatory
initiative, we consider various alternatives before we act, and then
provide a reasoned explanation for our choice of action. Here, however,
in responding to INGAA's petition requesting confirmation of its claim
that auxiliary facilities are nonjurisdictional, we were not faced with
a choice among policy alternatives; instead, we acted to correct a
misunderstanding of the status of section 2.55 facilities by confirming
that all such facilities are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction
under section 7 of the NGA. Thus, our response did not contemplate
potential policy choices, but clarified the existing policy embodied in
section 2.55 that provides for the installation of auxiliary and
replacement facilities described in that section under the certificate
authority that authorized the facilities being enhanced or replaced.
This rulemaking proceeding may have served to remind some companies of
the existing spatial limitations on the placement of auxiliary and
replacement facilities under section 2.55, but has not added any new
additional regulatory restrictions on where facilities may be
constructed under section 2.55.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Id. at 13-14.
    \28\ We have made policy changes to landowner notification
requirements in this proceeding; however, these notification changes
were made after considering alternatives and providing an
explanation for the changes.

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

2. Section 2.55 Siting and Construction Limitations
    26. On rehearing, INGAA reiterates its argument that Commission
staff has been aware companies have been relying on section 2.55 to
install auxiliary facilities outside existing rights-of-way in some
instances, and that this claimed awareness on staff's part supports
INGAA's position that our Final Rule's regulatory revisions to clarify
the right-of-way and workplace constraints on auxiliary installations
constitutes a ``change [to] what had been the plain and universal
understanding of that provision for approximately 60 years.'' \29\ In
support, INGAA cites two instances in which Commission staff issued a
letter order that appears to acquiesce to a company's plans to rely on
section 2.55 to install auxiliary facilities outside an established
right-of-way.\30\ INGAA also claims that based on the cited letter
orders issued under delegated authority, members of the Commission's
staff were aware, when the Commission issued Order Nos. 603 and 603-A
in 1999, that pipelines were making auxiliary installations outside
existing rights-of-way and workspaces.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 4.
    \30\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 32.
    \31\ Id. at 11 and 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. In the situation underlying the first staff letter, a company
sought case-specific certificate authorization to add a slug catcher (a
facility to remove liquids from a gas stream) to an existing pipeline
system.\32\ Staff determined no additional certificate authority was
needed because the proposed slug catcher ``is an auxiliary installation
that would increase the efficiency and enhance the flexibility of
operation with no apparent change in the capacity of the existing
Terrebonne System.'' \33\ We reiterate our observation from the Final
Rule that although the application for certificate authorization
indicated that a portion of the proposed slug catcher would be located
outside the existing right-of-way, there is ``no indication that the
location of the new facilities was taken into account in the one-page,
two-paragraph staff letter,'' and staff's failure to recognize that
some of the proposed facilities would be outside of the existing right-
of-way appears to have been ``an oversight that led to a wrong result,
since locating any of the planned new auxiliary facilities outside the
existing right-of-way should have disqualified the project for purposes
of section 2.55(a).'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Trunkline Gas Company, Docket No. CP84-394-000, letter
order signed by the Director of the Commission's Office of Pipeline
Regulation, dated May 25, 1984; FERC eLibrary Accession No.
19840601-0118.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. The second instance concerns staff's response to a proposal to
install cathodic protection equipment. In a December 1997 letter, staff
responded to a company's description of a new project to add cathodic
protection to an existing pipeline by reminding the company that
because part of the project would be in a new right-of-way, the company
could not rely on section 2.55(a), but would have to file a case-
specific section 7 certificate application.\35\ In an April 1998
letter, staff responded to the same company's description of what
appears to be the same project, and finds it may proceed under section
2.55(a).\36\ As discussed in the Final Rule, these letters are not
necessarily in conflict, because the company may have altered its
proposed project in response to the first letter so as to comply with
the right-of-way restriction. If not, then as we stated in the NOPR and
Final Rule, the April 1998 letter did not reflect Commission policy
correctly.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Letter signed by the Director of the Commission's Office of
Pipeline Regulations, dated December 16, 1997; FERC eLibrary
Accession No. 19971223-0120.
    \36\ Letter signed by the Director of the Commission's Office of
Pipeline Regulation, dated April 3, 1998; FERC eLibrary Accession
No. 19980408-0242.
    \37\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,696 at P 11, n.18 and Order
No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. INGAA finds our review of these letter orders to be ``cursory
and unconvincing,'' and insists ``that the existence of these delegated
orders entirely undermines the Commission's foundation for its Final
Rule,'' \38\ which INGAA characterizes as a disingenuous claim that the
Commission has not been aware that companies have been relying on
section 2.55 to install auxiliary facilities outside existing rights-
of-way. This characterization is incorrect and is also inconsistent
with INGAA's stated motive for submitting its petition, which was that
members of the Commission's staff were taking the position in
discussions with industry representatives that section 2.55(a) only
applies to auxiliary facilities installed in existing rights-of-way
using previously approved work spaces.\39\ Further, while INGAA's
petition emphasized that some companies have relied in good faith on
the misunderstanding that section 2.55(a) allows auxiliary facilities
to be installed in new areas, INGAA's petition did not identify and we
are not aware of any specific instances where companies have
disregarded the guidance offered by Commission staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 32. INGAA also claims that
based on the cited letter orders issued under delegated authority,
members of the Commission's staff were aware, when the Commission
issued Order Nos. 603 and 603-A in 1999, that companies were making
auxiliary installations outside existing rights-of-way and
workspaces. Id. at 11 and 43.
    \39\ INGAA's April 2, 2012 Petition at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. In any event, our review of the two cited letter orders was
sufficient to establish that if staff concluded in those situations
that the companies could rely on section 2.55(a) to build auxiliary
facilities outside the existing rights-of-way, then those particular
staff interpretations were in error. While staff makes every effort to
accurately reflect the Commission's practice, procedures, policy, and
regulatory requirements, staff's statements of opinion and regulatory
interpretations, as INGAA and the industry it represents are well
aware, are not binding on the Commission. Further, neither of the two
unpublished letter orders cited by INGAA explicitly articulates a
policy of allowing section 2.55(a) facilities outside an established
project boundary or has any other precedential value, and INGAA
provides no other evidence to support what it claims is the ``plain and
universal understanding of [section 2.55(a)].'' \40\ We are unaware of
any other staff opinions or issuances under delegated authority, much
less any determinations by the Commission itself, that provide support
for INGAA's assertions that our Final Rule announced a sharp departure
from prior Commission policy and imposed, rather than clarified, the
spatial constraints on section 2.55(a) facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. In clarifying the spatial constraint for section 2.55
facilities, we commented in the Final Rule that absent such a
constraint, companies could traverse and disturb unexamined areas.
Specifically, we explained that our goal is to ensure that the
authorization provided by section 2.55 does not inadvertently work to
deprive the Commission of the opportunity to conduct an environmental
review and impose appropriate mitigation measures in any situation
where a company's construction activities may have adverse
environmental impacts. Thus, the regulations provide that even when all
planned auxiliary facilities can be located entirely within an existing
right-of-way, if a company plans to construct the auxiliary facilities
in conjunction with other construction activities proposed in a case-
specific certificate application or under the blanket certificate
regulations' prior notice provisions, the company may not

undertake the section 2.55 construction until the auxiliary facilities
have been identified and considered by the Commission in its
environmental review in the proceeding on the other proposed facilities
and the other facilities have been authorized.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 18 CFR 2.55(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) (2014). See Order No. 790,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. INGAA replies that independent of the Commission's
requirements, companies must comply with environmental laws imposed by
other federal and state authorities, and argues that in the past these
other environmental laws have provided satisfactory environmental
oversight of companies' auxiliary installation projects outside
existing rights-of-way.\42\ INGAA asserts, therefore, that there is no
reason for the Commission to conduct NEPA reviews before companies
undertake auxiliary installations involving construction activities
that will disturb areas not previously studied by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. We have NEPA responsibilities with respect to construction
activities that companies undertake based on Commission-granted
authorization, and we cannot waive these responsibilities solely
because other agencies may have complementary or overlapping NEPA
responsibilities of their own. INGAA objects to what it describes as
the Commission's effort to limit the location of ``auxiliary
installations through arguments based on a different pipeline activity,
the replacement of facilities,'' and asserts that replacement and
auxiliary ``activities are materially different and historically have
been treated differently by the Commission.'' \43\ However, while
section 2.55(b) replacement projects are generally of a larger scale
than section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations and thus are more likely
to involve significant ground disturbance, many activities that can
qualify for construction under section 2.55(a), for example,
installation of pig launchers/receivers and cathodic protection
equipment, can also involve significant ground disturbance, as well as
visual, noise, and other impacts. Thus, if a company will need to use
new right-of-way or other areas that have not been authorized by the
Commission to construct auxiliary facilities, the company cannot
proceed with the construction under section 2.55. Rather, the company
must proceed under the Part 157 blanket certificate regulations or, if
the project will not qualify under the blanket certificate regulations,
then file an application for case-specific certificate authorization.
By way of comparison, whereas section 2.55 does not include
environmental conditions because it does not provide any authorization
for construction activities outside areas that have been or will be
subject to the Commission's environmental review, the blanket
certificate regulations, which do contemplate such activities, include
environmental conditions in section 157.206(b) requiring pipeline
companies to comply, prior to commencing construction, with numerous
environmental laws enforced by other agencies to ensure that sensitive
environmental areas will not be adversely impacted by activities,
including activities under the automatic provisions, that will involve
ground disturbance or changes to operational air and noise
emissions.\44\ Section 2.55(a) does not include such specific
requirements because we did not contemplate that auxiliary facilities
would be located outside of areas that either have been or will be
subject to the Commission's environmental study and any appropriate
environmental mitigation measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id. at 8.
    \44\ Sections 157.206(b)(2)(i)-(xii) require that companies
planning to undertake construction activities under Part 157 blanket
certificate authority obtain, prior to commencing construction, any
necessary permits or approvals from and comply with conditions
imposed by the agencies charged with specific NEPA responsibilities
under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, Archeological and Historic Preservation Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, National Wilderness Act, National Parks and Recreation
Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
and executive orders requiring evaluation of the potential effects
of actions on floodplains and wetlands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Section 2.55 and blanket certificate authority embody two
different types of certificate authorization. The certificate authority
for auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a), which does not
include any specific environmental conditions, derives from either (1)
the certificate for the existing facilities to be augmented, and thus
the auxiliary facilities can only use areas previously authorized by
the Commission for the construction of the existing facilities, or (2)
the certificate authority being sought by the company for other new
facilities, in which case both the new facilities and the planned
auxiliary facilities will be subject to an environmental review by the
Commission. While blanket certificate authority can be relied upon to
obtain new right-of-way and to use previously undisturbed areas, any
blanket certificate construction that would involve ground disturbance
or changes to operational air and noise emissions will be subject, as
discussed above, to section 157.206(b)'s environmental conditions. In
addition, we note that a company's prior notice blanket certificate
activities, even those that will be confined entirely to an existing
right-of-way previously studied and authorized by the Commission, can
be protested by staff based on environmental concerns, thus subjecting
the proposal to additional review.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See, e.g., Northwest Pipeline Corporation, 68 FERC ]
61,336, at 62,345-46 (1994) (Commission staff protested a
construction proposal filed under the prior notice provisions,
withdrawing the protest after its environmental concerns were
addressed); Williams Natural Gas Company, 66 FERC ] 62,114 (1994)
(following staff's protest to Williams' prior notice filing
proposing to abandon 19 miles pipeline by removal, the Commission's
Director of the Office of Pipeline and Producer Regulation
authorized the activity subject to Williams' implementation of
certain mitigation measures and environmental conditions); and
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 64 FERC ] 62,041 (1993)
(Commission staff protested Natural's prior notice filing proposing
to abandon delivery taps, delaying authorization of the abandonment
until Natural received a permit from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency which included conditions addressing the disposal
of material potentially contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. In practice, we have highlighted the difference in section 2.55
and blanket certificate activities by rejecting companies' reliance on
section 2.55(a) to install facilities that do not meet the siting or
function requirements, thereby requiring the companies to rely on
blanket authorization or case-specific certification for such
facilities.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See, e.g., Algonquin Gas Transmission Company, 57 FERC ]
61,052 (1991); West Texas Gas, Inc., 62 FERC ] 61,039 (1993); and
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, 114 FERC ] 61,061 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. In seeking to bolster their position, commenters on the NOPR
posited extreme situations, arguing for example, that since the
Commission included ``buildings'' as an example of a 2.55(a) facility,
and a new corporate headquarters cannot be constructed entirely within
an existing pipeline right-of-way, the Commission could not have
intended 2.55(a) facilities to be confined to existing rights-of-way.
The Commission responded to this in the Final Rule by noting that a
corporate headquarters is not a natural gas facility; thus, such
construction does not require any certificate authorization under the
NGA.\47\ On rehearing, INGAA turns its focus to communication towers,
arguing that since they, like office buildings, may be located remotely
from the pipeline; we should find that they, too,

are exempt from Commission jurisdiction. We do not agree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 22 and
n.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. A communication tower constructed by an interstate pipeline
company for the purpose of supporting equipment used to monitor (and
possibly control) the pipeline system's operation is a natural gas
facility subject to our jurisdiction under the NGA. If the tower (or a
building, or any facility or equipment which serves exclusively to make
a pipeline's operations more efficient or economical) can be installed
within an existing (or proposed) authorized area, the company can
proceed under section 2.55(a). However, if it will be located outside
an authorized area, then that facility must be constructed under either
blanket or case-specific certificate authority. Although some of the
types of facilities named in section 2.55(a) have evolved significantly
since 1949, the function of the named facilities remains the same: They
are incidental additions to an interstate transmission system,
dependent upon and integrated into that larger system. Further, section
2.55(a) describes qualifying facilities as ``[i]nstallations . . .
which are merely auxiliary or appurtenant to an authorized or proposed
transmission pipeline system,'' indicating that section 2.55(a) is only
intended to apply to facilities that will be attached to or adjacent to
the components of the system they support. When a company is able to
construct facilities meeting this description in an area that has been
or will be reviewed for environmental purposes by the Commission, then
the company may proceed with such construction under section 2.55(a).
However, it may be the case in many instances that a company will want
or need to locate some of the auxiliary facilities specifically listed
in section 2.55(a)--in particular, communication, pig launching/
receiving, and cathodic protection equipment--in locations requiring
the use of additional rights-of-way, larger easements, or temporary
work spaces that have not been included previously in an environmental
review performed by the Commission. In those situations, the companies
will need to proceed under an alternative form of authorization (i.e.,
under a blanket or case-specific certificate).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Our discussion here should provide adequate clarification
for INGAA, which professes to be puzzled by our statement in the
Final Rule that although ``types of facilities are specifically
listed in section 2.55(a) [this] does not mean that companies can
necessarily rely in all instances on section 2.55(a) to install
them.'' Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. National Fuel asks whether ``improvements such as buildings,
roads, and parking lots for central offices, field and other offices,
warehouses, [and] equipment yards'' can qualify under section
2.55(a).\49\ We clarify they can, provided they meet section 2.55's
location and function requirements. We note the Final Rule revised the
section 157.202 definition of ``eligible facility'' to specify that
auxiliary installations that will not qualify under section 2.55(a)
because they will not satisfy that section's location or work space
constraints may qualify for authorization under a company's blanket
certificate. Companies will need to seek case-specific authorization
for auxiliary facilities that are also not eligible for blanket
authorization (e.g., facilities that would exceed the cost limits
specified in section 157.208(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ National Fuel's Request for Rehearing at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Finally, we note that because section 2.55 facilities are
constructed and operated under the certificate authorization for the
facilities that they augment or replace, prior authorization under NGA
section 7(b) is necessary before a pipeline company can abandon
auxiliary and replacement facilities constructed under section 2.55.
INGAA complains that we neglected to address the ``burden of seeking
such abandonment authority.'' \50\ The requirement for prior
authorization under section 7(b) to abandon certificated facilities is
statutory and cannot be waived by the Commission. Further, while
section 157.202(b)(3) of the blanket certificate regulations states
that for purposes of those regulations ```Facility' does not include
the items described in section 2.55,'' we explained in the Final Rule
that section 157.202(b)(3) only prevents companies from relying on
their Part 157 blanket certificates to undertake activities, i.e., the
construction and operation of qualifying auxiliary and replacement
facilities, that qualify under section 2.55.\51\ We clarify here that
section 157.202(b)(3) of the blanket certificate regulations does not
preclude a pipeline company from relying on its Part 157 blanket
certificate and the abandonment authority provided by section 157.216
to abandon facilities constructed under section 2.55, provided the
abandonment activity will meet the applicable environmental conditions
and cost limits (i.e., the facilities to be abandoned could be
constructed under the blanket certificate regulations' current cost
limits, regardless of what the original construction costs may have
been). We expect that activities to abandon most auxiliary facilities
and many replacement facilities constructed under section 2.55 can
satisfy these conditions, and thus enable companies to go forward with
abandonments under section 157.216 of the blanket certificate
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 51.
    \51\ See Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. INGAA's Response to the NOPR
    40. INGAA objects to our treating its January 22, 2013 submission
in response to the NOPR as a comment on the NOPR rather than as a
request for rehearing of the underlying rejection of INGAA's position
regarding the scope of authority provided by section 2.55(a).
    41. As described in the Final Rule and above, the NOPR was issued
in response to INGAA's petition requesting that we ``affirm'' that
installations of auxiliary facilities under section 2.55(a) are not
restricted to the rights-of-way and temporary work spaces used to
construct the existing facilities that will be augmented by the
auxiliary facilities. We declined to do so, explaining in the NOPR that
the Commission has never viewed section 2.55(a) as providing any
authorization for pipeline companies to construct auxiliary facilities
outside areas subject to environmental review and authorization by the
Commission. On January 22, 2013, INGAA file a pleading styled ``Request
for Rehearing.'' However, while the Commission's Office of the
Secretary issued a tolling order (Order Granting Rehearing for Further
Consideration) on February 20, 2013, such an order is not dispositive
of the procedural posture of the underlying pleading (i.e., issuance of
a tolling order in response to a submission styled as a request for
rehearing does not constitute a finding by the Commission that
rehearing indeed lies on the issues raised in the filing).
    42. In this instance, as noted in the Final Rule, the Commission
ultimately determined to treat the January 22, 2013 pleading as
comments on the NOPR, explaining that the NOPR's clarification of the
existing scope of the authority bestowed by section 2.55(a) did not
``effect any change [in our regulations]; rather, it articulated
existing, long-standing constraints and obligations with respect to
auxiliary installations. Because the NOPR does not constitute an
instant Final Rule [as alleged by INGAA], we find no cause to consider
requests for rehearing in response to the

NOPR.'' \52\ The Commission's procedural choice to issue a NOPR in
response to INGAA's petition and to treat its January 22, 2013
submission as comments rather than as a rehearing request did not
deprive INGAA of any due process. Issuance of the NOPR provided INGAA
the opportunity to present arguments that the Commission should amend
section 2.55(a) to expand the scope of construction that can be done
under that section. We also considered and responded to the concerns
and arguments presented in INGAA's January 22, 2013 filing in the Final
Rule. Further, our issuance of the NOPR provided the notice and comment
forum which INGAA urged was required before more rigorous enforcement
of the section 2.55(a) locational restrictions. As explained in the
Final Rule, we do not intend to look back in order to determine whether
installation of auxiliary facilities prior to the effective date of the
Final Rule conform to section 2.55(a) siting limitations or pursue any
enforcement action with respect to any installations prior to the
effective date of the Final Rule that do not conform to section 2.55(a)
siting limitations, unless it comes to our attention that remedial
environmental measures need to be taken.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at n.19.
    \53\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Compliance With Executive Orders
    43. INGAA repeats its claim that our action is inconsistent with
Executive Orders directing agencies to avoid unduly burdensome
regulations.\54\ The impetus behind and function of section 2.55 is to
reduce regulatory burdens by providing a means for companies to install
facilities without the need to obtain blanket or case-specific
certificate authorization and our clarification of its operation
imposes no new burden. We acknowledged that some additional burden will
be associated with new landowner notification requirements adopted by
the Final Rule, but we found that the anticipated benefits justify this
new regulation. Further, as discussed below, in response to comments on
the landowner notification requirement adopted by the Final Rule, we
significantly reduce the number of instances in which companies will be
required to contact landowners before entering upon their properties.
These revisions will substantially reduce the burden associated with
providing prior notification. Finally, as previously observed, the
Commission has directed staff to perform an internal assessment of the
effectiveness of our regulations, as we are continually seeking to
streamline our regulations in order to foster competitive markets,
facilitate enhanced competition, and avoid imposing undue burdens on
regulated entities or unnecessary costs on those entities or their
customers.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 41.
    \55\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Landowner Notification

    44. The Final Rule adopted regulations requiring companies to
notify landowners prior to initiating auxiliary and replacement
projects or maintenance activities to give landowners adequate notice
(to the extent practicable) of a company entering onto their property
in order to avoid potential conflict between landowners and gas
companies. Specifically, the Final Rule added a new section 2.55(c) and
revised existing section 380.15(c) to require a natural gas company to
make a good faith effort to notify landowners at least five days in
advance of commencing an auxiliary or replacement project or of any
maintenance that will cause ground disturbance. The notice must
include: (1) A brief description of the activity to be conducted or
facilities to be added or replaced and the expected effects on
landowners; (2) the name and phone number of a company representative
who is knowledgeable about the project; and (3) a description of the
Commission's Dispute Resolution Division Helpline and its phone number,
as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the Commission's regulations.
1. Waiver of Five-Day Prior Notice
    45. INGAA requests we clarify that so long as a company provides
landowners with at least five days advance notice, landowners can waive
all or part of the post-notice waiting period. INGAA states that
allowance for the waiver would be similar to the landowner notice
waiver provision under the blanket certificate regulations, which
allows a company that has given a landowner notice of a project to
proceed before the end of the required post-notice waiting period,
provided the landowner gives written approval to do so.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 15 (citing 18 CFR
157.203(d)(1) (2014)). Section 157.203 of the Commission's
regulations requires companies to give landowners notice at least 45
days prior to commencing construction under its automatic blanket
certificate authority. A landowner may waive the 45-day prior notice
requirement in writing so long as notice has been provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. We agree that landowners, once notified, should be allowed to
waive any portion of the post-notice waiting period by giving written
approval. Accordingly, we will modify sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) to
permit landowners to waive the post-notice waiting period.
2. Emergency Exemption to Notice Requirement
    47. The Final Rule provided that ``[f]or activities required to
respond to an emergency, the five-day prior notice period does not
apply'' under sections 2.55 and 380.15,\57\ reasoning that companies
should not hesitate to undertake immediate action in an emergency
situation. However, that any events that do not necessitate immediate
access to system facilities would still be subject to a minimum five-
day prior notice.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 63.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. INGAA and National Fuel request that we clarify the scope of
the emergency exemption provided by sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) by
revising those sections to be consistent with the language in section
157.203(d)(3) of the blanket certificate regulations.\59\ Specifically,
section 157.203(d)(3) states that the requirement for prior
notification to landowners does not apply when a company needs to
initiate construction activities under section 2.55 or maintenance
activities under section 380.15 done for safety, DOT compliance, or
environmental or unplanned maintenance reasons that are not foreseen
and that require immediate attention by the company.\60\ We will revise
sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) as requested. However, the exemption
from the requirement for prior notice to landowners is only intended to
apply in unforeseen situations where a company needs to take immediate
action to correct a sudden incompatibility with DOT safety requirements
or to avoid imminent danger or harm to life, property, or the
environment. Therefore, while many routine and scheduled activities are
safety-related or necessary to maintain or come into compliance with
DOT regulations, such routine, foreseeable, or scheduled activities are
not emergencies, and are not exempt from the requirement for prior
notice to landowners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 16 and National Fuel's
Request for Rehearing at 3.
    \60\ 18 CFR 157.203(d)(3) (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. National Fuel asserts that if an emergency activity is exempt
from the prior landowner notification requirements under section
2.55(c) or

section 380.15(c), there should be no need for a pipeline to rely on
and comply with the provisions of Part 284, Subpart I, of the
Commission's regulations.\61\ We agree and clarify that when companies
seek to act under section 2.55 or section 380.15(c), and need to act
promptly to respond to an emergency, and are thus unable to provide
landowners with at least five days advance notice, then the emergency
nature of the action functions as a waiver of the prior notice
requirement. Thus, provided that with the exception of prior notice, an
emergency response action meets all other section 2.55 or section
380.15(c) requirements, a company may proceed under section 2.55 or
section 380.15(c). However, any emergency response action that would
not qualify under section 2.55 or section 380.15(c) (e.g., construction
which would take place outside previously approved areas), would
require a company to proceed under other emergency authority, such as
Part 284, Subpart I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ National Fuel's Request for Rehearing at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Affected Landowners
    50. The Final Rule stated that prior notification be provided to
``affected landowners,'' described in sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c),
as property owners that will be ``directly affected (i.e., crossed or
used), by the proposed activity, including all rights-of-way, facility
sites (including compressor stations, well sites, and all above-ground
facilities), access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary
work space.'' \62\ INGAA and National Fuel request that the Commission
clarify that ``affected landowners'' only include landowners that will
be subject to ground disturbance on their properties, and not
landowners whose property is merely crossed and not otherwise
disturbed.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 56.
    \63\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 16-17 and National Fuel's
Request for Rehearing at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. As proposed in the NOPR, section 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) would
have required a company to give prior notification to all landowners
whose property would be used or crossed. As proposed in the NOPR,
sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) also would have required a company to
give prior notification to owners of abutting properties and the owners
of residences within 50 feet.\64\ However, in response to comments on
the NOPR, the Final Rule revised sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) to
state that companies are only required to give prior notification to
the owners of those properties that are crossed or used when companies
perform ground-disturbing activities.\65\ In response to INGAA's and
National Fuel's comments, we find it is appropriate to further revise
sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) to specify that companies must provide
prior notice only to the owner of property used for a ground-disturbing
activity, and not to landowners whose property is crossed en route to
the site of that activity.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,696 at P 30.
    \65\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 56.
    \66\ We note that this clarification does not exempt companies
from complying with the terms of any existing easement agreements or
any applicable state or local laws governing the use of or access to
property not within a company's rights-of-way or facility sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. INGAA and National Fuel also request that the Commission
clarify that the five-day prior notice requirement does not apply when
the ground-disturbing activity will occur entirely within the fence
line of an existing above-ground facility site.\67\ In situations where
a company's facilities are located inside a fenced area on property
that the company does not own but to which it has easement rights, we
agree that a requirement of prior notice to the landowner is not
necessary if all ground disturbance will be confined to within the
fenced area, and we will revise sections 2.55(c)(1) and 380.15(c)(1)
accordingly. When any ground disturbance caused by a company's
activities to install or replace equipment under section 2.55 or by
equipment associated with maintenance activities under section 380.15
is confined inside the company's fenced-in easement areas, e.g., a
compressor station or site used for pigging equipment, the activities
do not present the same potentially hazardous situations or
inconvenience to a landowner as ground-disturbing activities in an
unfenced area, e.g., the replacement of pipe under the landowner's
driveway. However, even when companies' ground-disturbing activities
will be within their fenced-in easement areas, as a matter of courtesy,
we encourage companies to give prior notice to landowners to the extent
practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. One-Call Obligations
    53. INGAA requests we clarify that the requirement for prior notice
to landowners adopted by the Final Rule for activities under sections
2.55 and 380.15 does not apply to ``One Call'' obligations.\68\ INGAA
states that such programs require companies to mark their facilities
within 48 to 72 hours of receiving notification that a landowner or
third party will be digging near natural gas facilities to prevent
damage. Therefore, INGAA argues that a company cannot wait five days to
comply with its ``One Call'' obligations.\69\ We agree that the ``One
Call'' obligations do not fall under the Final Rule's landowner
notification requirements. This is because merely marking the location
of buried natural gas facilities (typically with flags or spray paint)
does not involve a ground disturbance. However, in the event a
company's response to a ``One Call'' request results in ground-
disturbing activity to locate, relocate, or isolate any of its
facilities,\70\ then the exemption provided in the prior notice
provisions for emergency activities would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ The ``One Call'' program is a service used by public
utilities and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipeline and
cable television) to provide pre-construction information to
contractors or other maintenance workers on the location of
underground pipes, cables, and culverts. Similar utility-marking
programs go by different names in different regions.
    \69\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 17.
    \70\ National Fuel notes that ``to determine and mark the
precise location of its facilities . . . may require some
excavation.'' National Fuel's Request for Rehearing at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Burden Resulting From the Landowner Notification Requirement
    54. INGAA claims that we have not met our obligation to estimate
the burden of the Final Rule's notification requirement in a way that
is not arbitrary or capricious, and then weigh the benefit of the rule
against that burden.\71\ In this regard, National Fuel states that our
use of an estimate based solely on the number of section 2.55(a)
auxiliary installation activities performed each year (which, it points
out, are construction activities) to derive a reasonable estimate of
the number of ground-disturbing activities under section 2.55 and
section 380.15 that would require landowner notification, is arbitrary
and too low.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 17-18.
    \72\ National Fuel's Request for Rehearing at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. To estimate the burden of the Final Rule's section 2.55 and
section 380.15 landowner notification requirements, Commission staff
surveyed nine jurisdictional companies, and based on that sample,
estimated that all 165 jurisdictional companies perform approximately
7,605 auxiliary installation projects each year under section 2.55(a),
including activities that do not involve ground disturbance.\73\ While
we recognize that the number of maintenance activities undertaken by a
company may far exceed the number of its auxiliary installations, we
believe

ground-disturbing activities for maintenance purposes under section
380.15, like ground-disturbing activities to install auxiliary
facilities under section 2.55(a) and replace facilities under section
2.55(b), are significantly fewer in number than the activities under
those sections that do not involve ground disturbance. We also believe
that ground-disturbing activities, including ground-disturbing
maintenance, generally take advance planning.\74\ Further, companies
have long been subject to the requirement to give landowners notice of
certain planned activities, and therefore presumably already have the
information, personnel, and other resources necessary to enable them to
satisfy those other, long-standing landowner notification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 77 and
n.115.
    \74\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,696 at P 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. In view of these considerations, we believe our estimate in the
Final Rule of the total number of all companies' annual auxiliary
installations under section 2.55(a) that involve ground disturbance was
reasonable, and that it also was reasonable to multiply that number by
two to estimate the total annual number of activities--including all
auxiliary installations under sections 2.55(a), replacement projects
under section 2.55(b), and maintenance activities under section
380.15--that will involve ground disturbance and will therefore require
prior notice to landowners. Further, we believe the reasonableness of
our burden estimate in the Final Rule is also supported by the
clarification in this order that ground-disturbing activities are
exempt from the prior notice requirement in emergency situations and in
situations where all ground disturbances will be confined entirely to
areas within the fence line of an existing above-ground facility site.
    57. National Fuel states that every year it performs ``thousands''
of ground-disturbing maintenance activities that will now require
landowner notification.\75\ National Fuel fears that activities such as
maintaining existing access roads and existing erosion control
structures will require it to satisfy unduly burdensome landowner
notification requirements.\76\ We recognize that some activities to
maintain existing access roads (e.g., scraping to remove old asphalt
and resurfacing) or existing erosion control structures (e.g., pushing
back soil or rocks that were intended to prevent erosion) may not
involve a significant amount of ground disturbance. However, such
activities require the use of bulldozers, backhoes, dump trucks and
other equipment that can present safety hazards and cause inconvenience
to landowners. Therefore, we will not exempt ground-disturbing
activities under section 380.15 to maintain existing facilities from
the landowner notification requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ National Fuel's Request for Rehearing at 6.
    \76\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. While INGAA and National Fuel insist that we have
underestimated the burden that the landowner notification will cause
the industry, this assertion assumes that most jurisdictional companies
were not already notifying landowners when work is to be performed on
their property, whether such notification is required or not.
    59. Section 157.6(d)(1) of the regulations requires applicants for
case-specific certificate authority for construction projects to notify
all landowners that will be affected by the project. Section 157.203(d)
of the blanket certificate regulations requires that companies give
landowners notice of all projects subject to those regulations' prior
notice provisions. Thus, companies likely have a database of landowners
dating from the time many of their facilities were originally put in
service. As discussed in the Final Rule, we believe most companies
maintain and update these databases because, regardless of their size,
they need to know (to enhance, replace, and maintain their facilities
and to respond to emergencies) precisely where their rights-of-way lie,
how to get to their facilities, and how to contact the owners of the
properties on which their facilities are located.\77\ As also discussed
in the Final Rule, companies need to periodically update landowner
information to be able to comply with DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) biennial reporting
requirement.\78\ Therefore, to identify the landowners to notify,
companies will not be starting from scratch, but instead should be able
to rely on the landowner records previously compiled to satisfy the
Commission's and PHMSA's notification requirements. Since PHMSA's
notification requirement is ongoing, a company's efforts to update
portions of its landowner database as needed to meet the section 2.55
and section 380.15 notice provisions can be expected to result in a
corresponding reduction in the company's efforts necessary to comply
with PHMSA's notification requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See Order No. 790, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,351 at P 79.
    \78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. Further, comments on the NOPR call attention to some companies'
ongoing community relations programs, which like the required PHMSA
report, serve to inform landowners of their plans for construction and
maintenance activities in coming months.\79\ While these notifications
generally do not include specific details regarding the work that may
take place on a landowner's property and only provide an approximate
time period for when the work will be done, companies nevertheless have
to identify landowners to send out these notifications. Companies
should be able to use landowner lists developed in connection with
community relations programs and in conjunction with compliance with
PHMSA requirements as a basis for meeting the prior notice requirements
of sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c). In our burden estimate, we did not
attempt to account for lists that companies may have on hand to send
information to landowners as part of community relations or PHMSA
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See, e.g., Golden Triangle Storage, Inc.'s March 5, 2013
Comments on the NOPR at 4; INGAA's March 5, 2013 Comments on the
NOPR at 13-14; MidAmerican Energy Pipeline Group's March 5, 2013
Comments on the NOPR at 4; National Fuel's March 5, 2013 Comments on
the NOPR at 4; Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.'s March 5,
2013 Comments on the NOPR at 6-7; and WBI Energy Transmission Inc.'s
March 5, 2013 Comments on the NOPR at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Consistency With the Commission's Regulations

    61. INGAA requests that the Commission revise certain regulations
to ensure regulatory consistency as a result of the Final Rule. INGAA
notes that section 157.206(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations for
blanket certificate projects includes a general reference to section
380.15 \80\ and proposes this be revised to specifically refer to
sections 380.15(a) and (b). We agree and will revise section
157.206(b)(1) accordingly. This order and the Final Rule reduced the
number of landowners to which the NOPR would have required that
companies give prior notice for purposes of section 2.55 and section
380.15 activities by modifying the definition of ``affected
landowners.'' ``Affected landowners'' now excludes owners of properties
that will need to be crossed but not otherwise disturbed, as well as
owners of abutting properties and owners of properties that contain
residences within 50 feet of planned work areas where no ground-
disturbing work will occur; in contrast the blanket certificate
regulations' landowner notification

requirement relies on the definition of affected landowners in section
157.6(d)(2) of the regulations, which includes these additional
property owners. Further, section 157.203(d)(1) requires at least 45
days prior notice to landowners for automatic blanket projects,\81\
while the new landowner notification requirement for section 2.55 and
section 380.15 activities requires a minimum of only five days prior
notice.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 19-20.
    \81\ The requirement in section 157.203(d)(1) for at least 45
days prior notice is separate from the requirement in section
157.205(d)(2) that projects exceeding the automatic cost limit be
publically noticed by the Commission at least 60 days in advance,
with the project sponsor to notify affected landowners the earlier
of (1) three days from when the Commission assigns a docket number
to the proposed project or (2) when the project sponsor initiates
easement negotiations for the proposed project.
    \82\ As previously discussed, whereas section 2.55 and section
380.15 of the regulations do not include any specific environmental
conditions because activities under those sections are limited to
areas subject to environment review by the Commission, an activity
cannot go forward under the blanket certificate regulations unless
the company has satisfied all of the specific environmental
conditions set forth in section 157.206 of the blanket certificate
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. INGAA also notes that the Final Rule replaced the NOPR's
proposed term ``original'' in section 2.55(b)(1)(ii) with the term
``existing'' but did not make similar changes to Appendix A of Part 2.
For consistency, INGAA requests that the Commission replace the term
``original'' with ``existing'' in Appendix A of Part 2.\83\ We agree
and will revise Appendix A of Part 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ INGAA's Request for Rehearing at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    63. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) \84\ requires each federal
agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten
or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability.\85\
The OMB's regulations implementing the PRA require approval of certain
information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (2012).
    \85\ OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i) (2014) require
that ``[a]ny recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement
contained in a rule of general applicability is deemed to involve
ten or more persons.''
    \86\ 5 CFR 1320 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. The Commission submitted the Final Rule's information
collection statement for landowner notification requirements under
sections 2.55, 157.203(d)(3)(i), and 380.15 of the regulations to OMB
for its review and approval, and OMB granted approval under OMB Control
No. 1902-0128. While this rule clarifies certain aspects of the
existing information collection requirements for landowner
notification, it does not add to these requirements. Accordingly, a
copy of this Final Rule will be sent to OMB for informational purposes
only.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    65. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\87\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\88\ Generally, the regulatory actions taken in this
rulemaking proceeding fall within the categorical exclusions in the
Commission's regulations for actions that are clarifying, corrective,
or procedural and for information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination.\89\ Accordingly, an environmental review is not
necessary and has not been prepared in connection with this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (December 17, 1987), FERC
Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \88\ 18 CFR 380.4 (2014).
    \89\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(1) and (5) (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Document Availability

    66. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    67. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    68. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    69. These regulations are effective January 26, 2015. The
Commission has determined that this rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 157

    Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

18 CFR Part 380

    Environmental impact statements, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 2,
157, and 380, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

PART 2--GENERAL POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16
U.S.C. 792-828c, 2601-2645, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.

0
2. Amend Sec.  2.55 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  2.55  Definition of terms used in section 7(c).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1)(i) No activity described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section that involves ground disturbance is authorized unless a company
makes a good faith effort to notify in writing each affected landowner,
as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving the
tax notice, whose property will be used and subject to ground
disturbance as a result of the proposed activity, at least five days
prior to commencing any activity under this section. A landowner may
waive the five-day prior notice requirement in writing, so long as the
notice has been provided. No landowner notice under this section is
required:

    (A) If all ground disturbance will be confined entirely to areas
within the fence line of an existing above-ground site of facilities
operated by the company; or
    (B) For activities done for safety, DOT compliance, or
environmental or unplanned maintenance reasons that are not foreseen
and that require immediate attention by the company.
    (ii) The notification shall include at least:
    (A) A brief description of the facilities to be constructed or
replaced and the effect the activity may have on the landowner's
property;
    (B) The name and phone number of a company representative who is
knowledgeable about the project; and
    (C) A description of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Division
Helpline, which an affected person may contact to seek an informal
resolution of a dispute as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the
Commission's regulations and the Dispute Resolution Division Helpline
number.
    (2) ``Affected landowners'' include owners of interests, as noted
in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving tax notice, in
properties (including properties subject to rights-of-way and easements
for facility sites, compressor stations, well sites, and all above-
ground facilities, and access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and
temporary work space) that will be directly affected by (i.e., used)
and subject to ground disturbance as a result of activity under this
section.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise appendix A to part 2 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 2--Guidance for Determining the Acceptable
Construction Area for Auxiliary and Replacement Facilities

    These guidelines shall be followed to determine what area may be
used to construct the auxiliary or replacement facility.
Specifically, they address what areas, in addition to the permanent
right-of-way, may be used.
    An auxiliary or replacement facility must be within the existing
right-of-way or facility site as specified by Sec.  2.55(a)(1) or
Sec.  2.55(b)(1)(ii). Construction activities for the auxiliary or
replacement facility can extend outside the current permanent right-
of-way if they are within the temporary and permanent right-of-way
and associated work spaces authorized for the construction of the
existing installation.
    If documentation is not available on the location and width of
the temporary and permanent rights-of-way and associated work spaces
that were used to construct the existing facility, the company may
use the following guidance for the auxiliary installation or
replacement, provided the appropriate easements have been obtained:
    a. Construction should be limited to no more than a 75-foot-wide
right-of-way including the existing permanent right-of-way for large
diameter pipeline (pipe greater than 12 inches in diameter) to carry
out routine construction. Pipeline 12 inches in diameter and smaller
should use no more than a 50-foot-wide right-of-way.
    b. The temporary right-of-way (working side) should be on the
same side that was used in constructing the existing pipeline.
    c. A reasonable amount of additional temporary work space on
both sides of roads and interstate highways, railroads, and
significant stream crossings and in side-slope areas is allowed. The
size should be dependent upon site-specific conditions. Typical work
spaces are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Typical extra area (width/
                   Item                                length)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two lane road (bored).....................  25-50 by 100 feet.
Four lane road (bored)....................  50 by 100 feet.
Major river (wet cut).....................  100 by 200 feet.
Intermediate stream (wet cut).............  50 by 100 feet.
Single railroad track.....................  25-50 by 100 feet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. The auxiliary or replacement facility must be located within
the permanent right-of-way or, in the case of nonlinear facilities,
the cleared building site. In the case of pipelines this is assumed
to be 50 feet wide and centered over the pipeline unless otherwise
legally specified.
    However, use of the above guidelines for work space size is
constrained by the physical evidence in the area. Areas obviously
not cleared during the existing construction, as evidenced by stands
of mature trees, structures, or other features that exceed the age
of the facility being replaced, should not be used for construction
of the auxiliary or replacement facility.
    If these guidelines cannot be met, the company should consult
with the Commission's staff to determine if the exemption afforded
by Sec.  2.55 may be used. If the exemption may not be used,
construction authorization must be obtained pursuant to another
regulation under the Natural Gas Act.

PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT

0
4. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717z.

0
5. Amend Sec.  157.206 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  157.206  Standard Conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The certificate holder shall adopt the requirements set forth
in Sec.  380.15(a) and (b) of this chapter for all activities
authorized by the blanket certificate and shall issue the relevant
portions thereof to construction personnel, with instructions to use
them.
* * * * *

PART 380--REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT

0
6. The authority citation for part 380 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352; E.O. 12009, 3 CFR
1978 Comp., p. 142.

0
7. Amend Sec.  380.15 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  380.15  Siting and maintenance requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1)(i) No activity described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section that involves ground disturbance is authorized unless a company
makes a good faith effort to notify in writing each affected landowner,
as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving the
tax notice, whose property will be used and subject to ground
disturbance as a result of the proposed activity, at least five days
prior to commencing any activity under this section. A landowner may
waive the five-day prior notice requirement in writing, so long as the
notice has been provided. No landowner notice under this section is
required:
    (A) If all ground disturbance will be confined entirely to areas
within the fence line of an existing above-ground site of facilities
operated by the company; or
    (B) For activities done for safety, DOT compliance, or
environmental or unplanned maintenance reasons that are not foreseen
and that require immediate attention by the company.
    (ii) The notification shall include at least:
    (A) A brief description of the facilities to be constructed or
replaced and the effect the activity may have on the landowner's
property;
    (B) The name and phone number of a company representative who is
knowledgeable about the project; and
    (C) A description of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Division
Helpline, which an affected person may contact to seek an informal
resolution of a dispute as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the
Commission's regulations and the Dispute Resolution Division Helpline
number.

    (2) ``Affected landowners'' include owners of interests, as noted
in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving tax notice, in
properties (including properties subject to rights-of-way and easements
for facility sites, compressor stations, well sites, and all above-
ground facilities, and access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and
temporary work space) that will be directly affected by (i.e., used)
and subject to ground disturbance as a result of activity under this
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-27907 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P