# Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of Reporting Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other Related Amendments > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-24240 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** November 15, 2021 - **Citation:** 86 FR 63266 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 191 and 192 [Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023; Amdt. Nos. 191-30; 192-129] RIN 2137-AF38 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of Reporting Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other Related Amendments AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: PHMSA is revising the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to improve the safety of onshore gas gathering pipelines. This final rule addresses Congressional mandates, Government Accountability Office recommendations, and public input received as part of the rulemaking process. The amendments in this final rule extend reporting requirements to all gas gathering operators and apply a set of minimum safety requirements to certain gas gathering pipelines with large diameters and high operating pressures. The rule does not affect offshore gas gathering pipelines. DATES: The effective date of this final rule is May 16, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule as of April 14, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical questions: Steve Nanney, Project Manager, by telephone at 713-272-2855. General information: Sayler Palabrica, Transportation Specialist, by telephone at 202-366-0559. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action C. Costs and Benefits II. Background A. Detailed Overview B. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking C. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 D. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Recommendations E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking F. Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 III. Analysis of NPRM Comments, GPAC Recommendations, and PHMSA Response A. Reporting Requirements—§§ 191.1, 192.5, 191.17, and 191.29 B. Gathering Line Definitions—§§ 192.3 and 192.8 C. Expanded Scope of Gas Gathering Line Regulations—§ 192.8 D. Safety Requirements for Newly Regulated Gas Gathering Lines—§§ 192.9, 192.13, 192.18, 192.452, and 192.619 IV. Section-By-Section Analysis V. Availability of Standards Incorporated-by-Reference VI. Regulatory Analysis and Notices I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Final Rule This final rule responds to Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations and a Congressional mandate by extending existing design, operational and maintenance, and reporting requirements under the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to onshore natural gas gathering pipelines (“gathering lines”) in rural areas. Increasingly, many of these gathering lines have design and operating parameters that are similar to natural gas transmission lines (“transmission lines”), which pose an increased risk to public safety and the environment. PHMSA expects the regulatory amendments in this final rule will reduce the frequency and consequences of failures of onshore gas gathering lines and in turn reduce the likelihood of gas-related releases and incidents. The requirements in the final rule are designed to prevent and detect threats to pipeline integrity, improve public awareness of pipeline safety, and improve emergency response to pipeline incidents. PHMSA expects this final rule, therefore, will (1) improve public safety; (2) reduce threats to the physical environment (including, but not limited to, greenhouse gas emissions released during natural gas gathering line incidents); and (3) promote environmental justice for minority populations, low-income populations, and other underserved and disadvantaged communities. Gas gathering lines are pipelines used to transport natural gas from a current production facility to a transmission line or distribution main lines (“main lines”). Generally, these pipelines are used to collect unprocessed gas from production facilities for transport to a gas treatment plant or other facility. From there, the natural gas is separated from petroleum liquids, water, and other impurities to prepare the gas for further transportation and sale. In the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 190 through 199), gas gathering lines are distinct from gas transmission pipelines which are defined in § 192.3 as pipelines that: (1) Transport gas from a gathering line or storage facility to a distribution center, storage facility, or large volume customer that is not downstream from a distribution center; (2) operate at a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS); 1 or (3) transport gas within a storage field. 1 SMYS is defined in § 192.3 and refers to the minimum force required to deform permanently the material as specified in the applicable design codes. Section 192.5 divides gas transmission and gathering lines into class locations based on the number of dwellings near the pipeline. These range from rural Class 1 to densely populated Class 4 locations. Class locations are defined in § 192.5. A Class 1 location is an offshore pipeline or an onshore pipeline that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy within a 1-mile-long class-location unit. Unlike transmission lines, which are regulated regardless of location, gathering lines in rural Class 1 locations are exempt from Federal pipeline safety and reporting regulations in parts 191 and 192. However, PHMSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 60102(a)(2) to issue safety regulations for pipeline transportation and pipeline facilities, including non-rural gathering lines and rural gathering lines designated by the Secretary as “regulated gathering lines” under 49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(21) and (b). Section 60117(b)(2) also authorizes DOT to require owners and operators of gathering lines, including rural gathering lines that have not been defined as regulated gathering lines, to submit information pertinent to its ability to make a determination as to whether and to what extent to regulate gathering lines. Prior to 2005, U.S. gas production had been stagnant since a peak in the early 1970s. 2 The gathering lines that received gas from conventional wells typically had smaller diameters than gas transmission lines and operated at lower pressures. All else equal, a smaller diameter and lower pressure pipeline will release less gas and energy during an incident compared with a larger diameter pipeline with a greater operating pressure, such as a major transmission line. As a result, gathering lines located in Class 1 locations were thought to pose relatively low risk to the public and the environment; therefore, gathering lines in Class 1 locations were exempt from reporting and safety requirements in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. On the other hand, to account for the risks related to their physical, functional, and operational characteristics, transmission pipelines have been subject to PHMSA regulations regardless of their location. 2 See U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Natural Gas Explained—U.S. natural gas consumption, dry production, and net imports, 1950-2019,” https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php (accessed Nov. 3, 2020). Regardless of their size, regulated gathering lines are required to comply with safety reporting requirements and minimum safety standards in parts 191 and 192. Section 192.8(b) currently provides for two categories of regulated onshore gathering lines. Type A gathering lines are located in Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 locations (see § 192.5) that operate at relatively higher stress levels. Section 192.9(c) subjects Type A regulated gathering lines to the same requirements as gas transmission pipelines, with a few exceptions, due to the high potential consequences of an incident on a high-stress pipeline in a populated area. Type B gathering lines are lower-stress pipelines in Class 3, Class 4, and certain Class 2 locations. Section 192.9(d) subjects Type B to a less comprehensive set of requirements since such pipelines operate at lower stress levels than transmission pipelines. As stated above, gathering lines in Class 1 locations are excluded from the reporting and safety standards contained in parts 191 and 192. In a 2006 final rule, PHMSA determined that the potential consequences of a release of a smaller-diameter pipeline with a lower maximum allowable operating pressure (“MAOP”), in a sparsely populated area, would be minimal. 3 3 Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards, 71 FR 13289, 13291 (Mar. 15, 2006). Due to new drilling technologies and changing demand factors, domestic gas production has been surging since approximately 2006. 4 Besides larger overall production volumes, new drilling technologies have also greatly increased the volume of gas that can be extracted from a single production site. 5 As a result, the volume of gas transported by gathering lines have also increased significantly. In order to transport this additional volume, some gas gathering lines are now constructed with large-diameter pipe and operating pressures comparable to large, interstate gas transmission pipelines. For example, the National Association of State Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) 6 Resolution 2010-2 AC-2 notes that members have observed rural gathering lines as large as 30 inches in diameter with a MAOP as high as 1480 psi. 7 The potential safety and environmental consequences of a gas pipeline rupture are proportional to the pipeline's diameter and operating pressure. Large diameter gathering lines are still exempt from the requirements in parts 191 and 192 if they are located in Class 1 locations despite their physical and functional similarities with transmission pipelines and their increased potential for adverse consequences in the event of incident. 4 EIA, “U.S. Natural Gas Marketed Production,” https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm. (accessed Nov. 9, 2020). 5 EIA, “Hydraulically fractured horizontal wells account for most new oil and natural gas wells,” https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34732 (Jan. 30, 2018). 6 NAPSR is a nonprofit association of State pipeline safety officials. 7 Available on the NAPSR website at http://www.napsr.org/resolutions.html. Large diameter, high-pressure gathering lines are susceptible to the same types of integrity threats as transmission pipelines, including corrosion, excavation damage, and construction defects. The exemption of these pipelines from the safety requirements of the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations failed to consider the present risks that now exist. In addition, PHMSA has lacked detailed information on the safety of gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations because such lines have been exempted from requirements to submit incident and annual reports under part 191. These reports are necessary for PHMSA to analyze how recent changes in the gas production and midstream industries affect the functional and operational characteristics of unregulated gathering lines, and the safety consequences of those changes. While more comprehensive information is being collected and analyzed, expanded regulatory measures are needed to protect the human and natural environment from the consequences of incidents on large-diameter, high-pressure gathering lines from preventable causes such as corrosion, excavation damage, and inadequate design and construction practices. On August 25, 2011, PHMSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that, among other things, requested comments with respect to improving the regulation of gas gathering lines. 8 Following the ANPRM's publication, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (2011 Pipeline Safety Act, Pub. L. 112-90) was enacted on January 3, 2012. Section 21 of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act mandated that DOT review existing regulations for gathering lines and report to Congress on the sufficiency of existing Federal and State laws and the need to modify or revoke existing exemptions from Federal regulation for gathering lines. 8 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, 76 FR 53086. Subsequently, in 2012, the GAO issued recommendation GAO-12-388 for PHMSA to collect data on Federally unregulated hazardous liquid and gas gathering lines. 9 In August 2014, GAO issued recommendation 14-667 for PHMSA to “move forward with rulemaking to address gathering pipeline safety that addresses the risks of larger-diameter, higher-pressure gathering pipelines, including subjecting such pipelines to emergency response planning requirements that currently do not apply to gathering pipelines.” 10 9 GAO, No. 12-388, “Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety” (Mar. 22, 2012). 10 GAO, No. 14-667, “Oil and Gas Transportation: Department of Transportation Is Taking Actions to Address Rail Safety, but Additional Actions Are Needed to Improve Pipeline Safety” at 48 (Aug. 2014). On April 8, 2016, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) responding to comments received on the ANPRM and proposing to further regulate gas gathering lines to enhance safety. 11 This final rule addresses only those portions of the NPRM dealing with gas gathering lines. Portions of the NPRM dealing with gas transmission issues have already been implemented in the final rule, “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: MAOP Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements, and Other Related Amendments,” (“Gas Transmission Final Rule”) published on October 1, 2019. 12 The remaining gas transmission issues will be addressed in the future in a separate rulemaking under the Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 2137-AF39, titled “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, Repair Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments.” 11 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines, 81 FR 20722. 12 84 FR 52180. The NPRM discussed the Congressional mandate and GAO recommendations, as well as the increased risk factors regarding gathering lines discussed above. In addition, the NPRM explained the need to clarify the definitions of gas gathering lines in §§ 192.3 and 192.8, which rely on American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 80, “Guidelines for the Definition of Onshore Gas Gathering Lines,” first edition, April 2000. The current definitions are unclear with respect to each of (1) the point at which a non-jurisdictional production operation ends and a potentially regulated gas gathering line begins and (2) the use of the incidental gathering designation, which allows an operator to designate lines downstream from any gathering function defined in API RP 80 as a gathering line rather than as a transmission line. A summary of the proposed changes and PHMSA's response to the comments on the NPRM are provided below in section III of this final rule. On December 28, 2020, the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 (2020 PIPES Act, Pub. L. 116-260) was enacted. Section 112(a) directed PHMSA to issue a final rule in this rulemaking by March 27, 2021. B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule This final rule addresses reporting and safety requirements for onshore gas gathering lines; offshore gas gathering lines are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 13 The final rule requires operators of all onshore gas gathering lines to report incidents and file annual reports under part 191. The purpose of this expanded reporting obligation is to gather data about the state of gas gathering infrastructure and monitor the safety performance of gas gathering lines that were previously exempt from Federal reporting requirements. The information in the reports will help determine the need for future regulatory changes to address the risks to the public, property, and the environment posed by all types of pipeline systems engaged in the transportation of gas. 13 References in this final rule to “gathering” therefore refer, unless specified otherwise, to onshore gas gathering pipelines. Similar to Type A onshore gas gathering lines, offshore gas gathering lines are already covered by the requirements in part 192 applicable to transmission lines, with some exceptions listed in § 192.9(b). In addition, the final rule provides for a new Type C regulated gathering line 14 in § 192.8. Type C gathering lines are defined as gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations that have outer diameters of 8.625 inches or greater and operate at higher stress levels or pressures. The safety requirements for Type C lines, referred to as Type C requirements in the final rule, are specified in revised § 192.9(e) and vary based on the outer diameter of the pipeline and the potential consequences of a failure. The potential consequences of incidents are greater on larger-diameter, higher-pressure pipelines and pipelines that are located near buildings intended for human occupancy. Type C gathering lines with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches and certain other Type C gathering lines that could directly affect homes and other structures are required to comply with (1) existing requirements for Type B gas gathering lines, and (2) requirements at § 192.615 that operators develop and implement emergency plans. Type C gathering lines with smaller diameters or that could not directly affect homes and other structures have fewer requirements that are limited to damage prevention, emergency plans, and public awareness. These requirements address known causes of pipeline failures including excavation damage, corrosion, and inadequate design and construction standards. 14 This final rule and amended regulatory text use the formulation “Type C” to identify the newly-regulated onshore gathering lines described in the NPRM as “Type A, Area 2.” However, in discussion of the NPRM and comments thereon, this final rule will use the formulation “Type A, Area 2” for the convenience of the reader. C. Costs and Benefits Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 60102(b) and Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), 15 PHMSA has prepared an assessment of the benefits (including safety and environmental benefits) and costs of the final rule as well as reasonable alternatives. PHMSA expects benefits of the final rule to consist of improved safety and avoided environmental harms (including methane emissions) from reduction of the frequency and consequences of failures of onshore natural gas gathering lines that could result in releases and incidents. PHMSA estimates the annualized costs of the rule to be approximately $13.7 million per year at a 7-percent discount rate. The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this final rule is available in the docket. The table below provides a summary of the estimated costs for the major provisions in this rulemaking and in total (see the RIA for further detail on these estimates). 15 58 FR 51375 (Oct. 4, 1993). Provision Estimated annualized cost (7%) Right-of-Way Surveillance $170,087. Corrosion Control $2,043,260. Damage Prevention $285,011. Public Awareness $550,464. Line Markers $1,680,870. Emergency Plan $312,167. Leakage Surveys $7,626,075. Incident reporting $134,556. Annual reporting $943,408. Construction Negligible. Total $13,745,898. II. Background A. Detailed Overview Introduction The Pipeline Safety Regulations divide gas transmission and gathering lines into classes from Class 1 (rural areas) to Class 4 (densely populated, high-rise areas) that are based on the number of buildings or dwellings for human occupancy in the area. Class locations are defined in § 192.5. A Class 1 location is an offshore pipeline or an onshore pipeline that has 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy within a 1-mile-long class-location unit. This final rule addresses only onshore gas gathering lines. Gas gathering lines located in Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 locations have been subject to reporting requirements in part 191 and safety requirements in part 192. Type A lines, which operate at higher pressure, are required to comply with most safety requirements applicable to transmission pipelines at part 192, while lower-pressure Type B lines are required to follow fewer requirements, which are listed in § 192.9(d). When PHMSA last issued regulations addressing the safety of gas gathering lines in 2006, 16 it exempted gathering lines in Class 1 locations from reporting and safety requirements in parts 191 and 192. At the time, such pipelines were mostly small-diameter, low-pressure pipelines located in sparsely populated, traditional oil-producing regions and were thought to pose relatively low risks to the public. However, by the time that the 2006 final rule was adopted, innovative drilling technologies, new hydrocarbon discoveries, and increasing demand for natural gas were starting to transform the industry. Highly productive “unconventional” drilling techniques have proliferated, and modern production sites can be several times more productive than conventional wells. The characteristics of the gathering lines servicing current wells often have more in common with large interstate transmission systems than the diffuse network of small gathering lines that predominated when the current gas gathering regulatory framework was being developed prior to 2006. These changes are placing unprecedented demands and increasing safety risks on the Nation's pipeline system. 16 Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards, 71 FR 13289 (Mar. 15, 2006). The final rule requires operators of all onshore gas gathering lines to prepare and submit annual reports with information about their gas gathering lines and to submit incident reports under part 191. The information is necessary to monitor the safety performance of gas gathering systems and inform the appropriate level of regulatory oversight. This final rule also adopts new safety requirements for larger-diameter ( i.e., with outer diameters of 8.625 inches or greater), higher-operating pressure gas gathering lines to mitigate risks to public safety and pipeline integrity. The need to implement risk-based protections and build an understanding of the safety of gas gathering systems is critical since “unconventional” production operations continue to expand, often into regions inexperienced with oil and gas development—posing new risks to humans and the environment. Natural Gas Gathering Infrastructure Overview The U.S. natural gas pipeline network is designed to transport natural gas to and from most locations in the country. Approximately two-thirds of the lower 48 States depend almost entirely on the interstate transmission pipeline system for their supplies of natural gas. 17 In 49 CFR part 192, pipelines are classified into three broad groups, based on their function and characteristics: Gathering, transmission, and distribution systems. Onshore gathering lines, the sole subject of this final rule, typically transport gas from production fields to gas transmission pipelines or centralized processing and storage facilities. From there, gas is typically transported to large industrial users such as gas-fired power stations or local distribution companies via transmission pipelines. Finally, distribution companies deliver gas to homes and businesses, and other end-users. Together, these systems form an interconnected network that transports natural gas from the production field to its end users. PHMSA estimates that there are over 400,000 miles of onshore gas gathering lines throughout the U.S., the vast majority of which are in Class 1 locations. 18 17 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Appendix B: Natural Gas—Quadrennial Energy Review Report: Energy Transmission, Storage, and Distribution Infrastructure” p. NG-28 (Apr. 2015). 18 API estimated there were 240,000 miles of unregulated gathering lines in comments submitted October 23, 2012, available in the docket. In order to project an estimate of gathering lines in service today, PHMSA adjusted this estimate based on average rate of increase in reported mileage of regulated gathering lines from operators' annual reports since 2012. See the RIA, available in the docket, for additional information on estimates of gathering miles affected by the rule. Regulatory History The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-481) vested the Secretary with statutory authority to issue regulations to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas by pipeline but excluded the regulation of gas gathering lines in rural areas, which were defined in section 2(3) of the 1968 Act as those locations outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or other designated residential or commercial area. Later, Congress modified the definition of “transporting gas” to provide Secretary the authority to designate non-rural areas in order to make pipelines in those non-rural areas subject to PHMSA's jurisdiction (49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(21)(B)). PHMSA, 19 through delegation by the Secretary, 20 and its State partners enforce requirements for regulated 21 gas gathering systems in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations that are authorized under 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. DOT issued interim minimum Federal safety standard regulations for gas pipeline facilities and the transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline on November 13, 1968, 22 and subsequently codified broad-based gas pipeline regulations in 49 CFR part 192 on August 19, 1970. 23 The 1970 final rule defined a “gathering line” as “a pipeline that transports gas from a current production facility to a transmission line or main,” and subjected all gathering lines located in non-rural areas ( e.g., within the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or other designated residential or commercial area) to all requirements applicable to transmission pipelines (§§ 192.1 and 192.9). 19 PHMSA's predecessor agencies include the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), the Materials Transportation Bureau (MTB), and the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). For simplicity, all are referred to as DOT in this section. 20 49 CFR 1.97. 21 Typically, onshore pipelines involved in the “transportation of gas,” see 49 CFR 192.1 and 192.3 for detailed applicability. 22 Interim Minimum Federal Safety Standards for the Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline, 33 FR 16500. 23 Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, 35 FR 13248. This historical approach to defining PHMSA's jurisdiction, however, has left several key gaps which made it difficult to determine where a gathering line started and ended. One was that it failed to define “current production facility,” and therefore the point where a non-jurisdictional production facility became a gathering line was not clear. 24 Additionally, there was no clear definition of where a gathering line ended, and a transmission pipeline or distribution main line began. The DOT has attempted to clarify these gaps several times. In 1974, DOT proposed to revise the definition of a gas “gathering line” to address this uncertainty as to the beginning and end points of gas gathering. 25 However, the proposal was later withdrawn. 26 24 Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Proposed Definition of Gathering Line, 39 FR 34569 (Sept. 26, 1974). 25 Id. 26 Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Withdrawal of Proposed Definition of Gathering Line, 43 FR 42773 (Sept. 21, 1978). In 1991, DOT again proposed to revise the definition of a gathering line following a NAPSR survey of its members noting ongoing disagreements about the classification of certain segments of gas pipelines. 27 However, in response to comments on the proposed rule and the issuance of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508), PHMSA delayed final action on that proposal to consider additional information and the statutory changes. As described earlier, PHMSA was previously restricted from issuing regulations for rural gathering lines. Section 109 of The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 expanded DOT's authority by authorizing the Secretary to define the term “regulated gathering line,” and issue safety regulations for the transportation of gas through those pipelines despite their location in rural areas (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)). The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 also directed DOT to consider functional and operational characteristics in defining gathering lines (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(1)(B)(i)). For the definition of the term “regulated gathering line,” Congress further directed DOT to consider such factors as location, length of line from the well site, operating pressure, throughput, and gas composition in deciding which gathering lines are functionally gathering yet warrant regulation as regulated gathering lines (49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(2)(A)). This authority also expressly allowed DOT to depart from the concepts used to define gathering for the purposes of determining the scope of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) authority under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et seq. ) in order to define gas gathering lines based on functional, rather than rate-setting, considerations. In other words, whether the DOT classifies a pipeline as a transmission line, gathering line, or regulated gathering line has no impact on the pipeline's status with FERC and vice-versa. 27 Gas Gathering Line Definition: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 56 FR 48505 (Sept. 25, 1991). In 1999, PHMSA renewed the effort to define gathering lines. To facilitate this project, PHMSA opened a website for public discussion on the question of how to define gas gathering lines and whether there was a need to subject rural gathering lines to Federal safety oversight. 28 The majority of the comments received focused on the work that was being done by API to classify gathering lines. That effort culminated in the publication of the first edition of API RP 80 in April 2000. 28 Request for Comments: Gas Gathering Line Definition, 64 FR 12147 (Mar. 11, 1999). The purpose of API RP 80 is to define gas gathering lines in onshore areas based on the line's function. It distinguishes a gathering function from a “production operation” that is not engaged in transportation (see section 2.3 of API RP 80) and defines a number of points that determine the potential endpoint of the gathering function (see section 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D) of API RP 80), such as the inlet to the furthermost downstream gas processing plant or the furthermost downstream point where gas produced in the same production field or separate production fields is commingled. API RP 80 defines a gathering line as “a pipeline, or a connected series of pipelines, used to transport gas from the furthermost downstream point in a production operation to the furthermost downstream of one of the defined endpoints of gathering.” The document also includes supplementary definitions, discussion, and diagrams to provide additional guidance on how operators may apply these definitions to various types of gathering systems. Section 192.8 includes limitations on how aspects of API RP 80 must be applied. Ever since API RP 80 was first issued, PHMSA has had concerns about “incidental gathering.” While section 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D) describe points where the gathering function can end, paragraph (a)(1)(E) allows an operator to designate pipeline segments that are past the furthermost downstream of the other endpoint of gathering up to the connection to “another pipeline” (typically a transmission line) as a gathering line regardless of the actual function or operational characteristics of the pipeline itself. This is the “incidental gathering” concept discussed in API RP 80 section 2.2.1.2.6. By definition, these lines extend beyond the end of any gathering functions. When a major gas processing plant or a compressor used to raise the pressure for delivery into a transmission line is the endpoint, the incidental gathering line segment can be indistinguishable from a transmission line in terms of its function, diameter, pressure, and gas composition; yet is treated as a gathering line rather than a transmission line under part 192. Additionally, there are no limits on how far an incidental gathering line may extend under the API RP 80 definition. The API RP 80 concept of “incidental gathering” undermines the functional definition of “gathering” that API RP 80 was intended to establish. In fact, API RP 80 creates a regulatory gap for pipeline segments that bear the least functional and operational resemblance to gathering lines. In 2003, DOT held public meetings in Austin, Texas, and Anchorage, Alaska, to determine the best way to define the terms “gas gathering line” and “regulated gathering line” and what, if any, safety rules would be needed for rural regulated gathering lines. 29 At the meetings, DOT proffered a “sliding corridor” concept as a possible basis for defining which gathering lines should be designated as regulated gathering lines. This concept was similar to the “sliding mile” used for class location determinations, except that the corridor would be 1,000 feet long rather than one mile, and the width would vary depending on the stress level of the segment of pipe. Wherever the corridor contained five or more dwellings, the gathering line segment would be subject to a subset of Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations, the scope of which would increase as the stress level 30 of the segment increased. 29 See 68 FR 62555 (Nov. 5, 2003) (Austin, TX, meeting) and 68 FR 67129 (Dec. 1, 2003) (Anchorage, AK, meeting). Transcripts for the meeting are available for download at regulations.gov under Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-1998-4868. 30 Expressed as the circumferential fore on a pipe (hoop stress) produced by the MAOP as a percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). SMYS is defined in § 192.3 and refers to the minimum force required to deform permanently the material as specified in the applicable design codes. After these two meetings, DOT published a document that stated that the definitions of production and gathering should ensure that Federal regulation of gathering lines does not overlap with State regulations on production, and should promote consistent application by regulators and operators. 31 The document invited comments on an appropriate approach for identifying rural gas gathering lines that warranted regulation. After the 2003 public meetings, DOT met several times with State agency officials, industry representatives, and others to obtain different views on the risks posed by gas gathering lines and the need for Federal regulation over the same. 31 Gas and Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines: Clarification of Rulemaking Intentions and Extension of Time for Comments, 69 FR 5305 (Feb. 4, 2004). In 2006, DOT published a final rule that established the current Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations for gas gathering lines in §§ 192.8 and 192.9. 32 The final rule incorporated by reference API RP 80, which defines “onshore gas gathering pipelines.” The 2006 final rule also replaced the previous “non-rural” criteria for designating regulated gathering lines in § 192.9 with a risk-based approach to regulating gas gathering lines in Class 2, 3, and 4 locations. In the 2006 final rule, PHMSA chose not to extend any reporting or safety requirements to gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations. At the time, PHMSA noted that such pipelines were typically small-diameter, low-pressure lines posing relatively low risks to the public. The Federal requirements for gas gathering lines have remained in place, mostly unchanged, since 2006. 32 Gas Gathering Line Definition; Alternative Definition for Onshore Lines and New Safety Standards, 71 FR 13289 (Mar. 15, 2006). Supply Changes Between 2005 and 2019, marketed production of natural gas increased from 18.9 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) per year to 36.5 Tcf per year. 33 While gross gas production from conventional wells has fallen by 53 percent from 16.2 Tcf per year to 7.6 Tcf per year between 2005 and 2019, 34 overall production has grown due to increased unconventional shale gas production. EIA began reporting shale gas well withdrawals in 2007. In 2007, unconventional shale gas accounted for about 8 percent of the total natural gas production in the U.S. Since then, shale gas production has increased from 1.9 trillion cubic feet per year to 27.8 trillion cubic feet per year in 2019 35 and now accounts for approximately 68 percent of overall gross gas production. 33 EIA, “U.S. Natural Gas Marketed Production,” https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm (accessed Nov. 9, 2020). 34 EIA, “U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Gas Wells,” https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9011us2a.htm (accessed Nov. 9, 2020). 35 EIA, “U.S. Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas,” https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/ngm_epg0_fgs_nus_mmcfa.htm (accessed Nov. 9, 2020). This increase in unconventional gas extraction has shifted production from traditional gas producing regions such as Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and the Gulf of Mexico to other areas, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio. For instance, in 2001, 5,066,015 million cubic feet (MMcf) of natural gas was withdrawn from the Gulf of Mexico, which was approximately 21 percent of the Nation's natural gas gross production. By 2019, withdrawals decreased to 1,033,922 MMcf. During that same period, Pennsylvania's share of production grew from 130,853 MMcf to 6,896,792 MMcf. 36 The Department of Energy projects that more than half of increases in shale gas production through 2050 will occur in the Appalachian Basin ( e.g., the Marcellus and Utica Basins), which will continue to fuel growth in natural gas production from the 2020 levels of 33.9 t (Tcf) per year to 43.0 Tcf per year in 2050. 37 36 EIA, “Gulf of Mexico—Offshore Natural Gas Withdrawals,” https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1060_r3fmtf_2a.htm (accessed Nov. 9, 2020); EIA, “Pennsylvania Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals,” https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010pa2a.htm (accessed Nov. 9, 2020). 37 EIA, “Annual Energy Outlook 2021” (Feb. 3, 2021), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/production/sub-topic-01.php. Demand Changes Increased production of natural gas in the United States has depressed average prices and volatility. 38 In 2004, the growth outlook for natural gas production was weak; the EIA forecasted that dry gas production would increase by only 1.0 percent annually 39 and that production in the lower 48 would be 21.3 Tcf per year by 2025, or up to 25.1 Tcf per year in the rapid technology scenario. 40 At the time, monthly average spot prices at Henry Hub 41 were high, based on historic comparison of prices, fluctuating between $4 per million British thermal units (Btu) and $7 per million Btu. Prices rose above $11 per million Btu for several months in both 2005 and 2008. 42 Since then, after production shifted to onshore unconventional shale resources and price volatility decreased since 2009, natural gas has frequently traded between $2 and $4 per million Btu, and the spot price has not been above $6 per million Btu for any full month. 43 38 DOE, “Appendix B: Natural Gas—Quadrennial Energy Review Report: Energy Transmission, Storage, and Distribution Infrastructure,” at NG-11 (Apr. 2015), https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f22/QER-ALL%20FINAL_0.pdf. 39 EIA, “Annual Energy Outlook 2004 With Projections to 2025,” at 133 (Jan. 2004), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo04/pdf/0383(2004).pdf. 40 Id. at 90. 41 Henry Hub is a Louisiana natural gas distribution hub where conventional Gulf of Mexico natural gas can be directed to gas transmission lines running to different parts of the country. Natural gas bought and sold at the Henry Hub serves as the National benchmark for U.S. natural gas prices. Id. at NG-29, NG-30. 42 EIA, “Natural Gas Spot and Futures Prices,” http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_fut_s1_m.htm, (accessed Nov. 9, 2020). 43 Id. This fall in natural gas prices and volatility was accompanied by significant demand growth and changes to the geography of gas demand. Low fuel costs, improved gas turbine technology, operational advantages, and greenhouse gas concerns have driven a steady growth in gas-fired electricity generation. According to the Department of Energy, natural gas surpassed coal as the fuel with the highest share of net electricity generation in 2016. 44 Natural gas exports have also increased. In 2019, the U.S. exported 4.7 Tcf of gas, over six times the amount that was exported in 2006. 45 Virtually all the gas produced and consumed in the U.S. is transported by gas gathering and transmission pipelines to distribution pipelines or end-users. 44 EIA, “Electric Power Annual 2019” Table 3.1.A (Oct. 2020), https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/ (accessed Nov. 9, 2020). 45 EIA, “U.S. Natural Gas Exports,” https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9130us2a.htm (accessed November 9, 2020). Consequences for Gas Gathering Modern production techniques, higher production volumes, and the geography of new gas discoveries have had consequences for gas gathering systems that PHMSA did not contemplate in 2006. Individual unconventional wells can be several times more productive than conventional facilities, and multiple wells can be drilled from a single wellpad, resulting in a large increase in the volume of gas that can flow from production and gathering lines serving a single site. In addition, these productivity gains have led to a surge in production overall, which expands the demands placed on the overall gas gathering pipeline network. Modern gas gathering lines often bear a closer resemblance to large interstate transmission lines than the diffuse network of small, low-pressure lines that previously characterized gathering lines. An incident on such pipelines can have serious consequences, even in a Class 1 location. Although PHMSA has not collected annual report information on the mileage or diameter of gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations, various stakeholders have reported significant growth in large-diameter, high-pressure gas gathering lines operating outside the scope of the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations. NAPSR noted in the preamble to its Resolution 2010-2 AC-2 that “it is not uncommon to find rural gas gathering pipelines up to 30 inches in diameter and operating at a MAOP of 1480 psi [pounds per square inch, or approximately 1495 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)]” in modern gas gathering systems, 46 which resembles the operational characteristics of major interstate transmission pipelines that are subject to part 191 and 192 regardless of where they are located. Similarly, the GAO noted that 24-inch diameter unregulated gathering lines were located and constructed in close proximity to homes in Pennsylvania, and 30 to 36-inch diameter unregulated gas gathering lines were planned for construction in the Eagle Ford shale formation in Texas. 47 In comments to the NPRM, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission noted that producers in the State are constructing gas gathering lines as large as 36 inches in diameter with operating pressures up to 1480 psig. 46 NAPSR, Resolution 2010-2AC-2 (Sept. 30, 2010), http://nebula.wsimg.com/215b293abe58ff21d6d2ad867ae864a3?AccessKeyId=8C483A6DA79FB79FC7FA&disposition=0&alloworigin=1. 47 GAO, No. 14-667 at 24. The energy that can be released in a pipeline explosion or fire is proportional to a pipeline's throughput capacity. The potential impact radius formula in § 192.903, which calculates the radius of a circle within which the potential failure of a pipeline could have a significant impact on people or property, increases proportionally with pressure and exponentially with the diameter of the pipeline. An incident on any large-diameter, high-pressure natural gas pipeline can have potentially catastrophic consequences, regardless of whether it is defined as a transmission or gathering line, and even in sparsely populated Class 1 locations. For example, one of the deadliest gas transmission pipeline incidents in U.S. history occurred in a Class 1 location when a 30-inch transmission line operated at 675 psig ruptured near Carlsbad, New Mexico, on August 19, 2000. 48 In that incident, internal corrosion led to an explosion that killed 12 individuals who had been camping 675 feet from the rupture site. Following this incident, PHMSA added § 192.476 requiring operators to incorporate measures to mitigate internal corrosion threats in the design and construction of new transmission lines—however, that requirement does not affect gathering lines that may have a similar risk profile. In another incident on December 11, 2012, a 20-inch transmission line with a MAOP of 1000 psig ruptured in Sissonville, West Virginia, due to corrosion caused when the protective pipe coating was damaged by rocky backfill during installation. While there were no serious injuries in that incident, three houses and several hundred feet of road surface were destroyed, and Interstate 77 was shut down for 19 hours. 49 The fire melted a portion of the interstate highway, prompting one local official to describe the highway as looking “like lava, just boiling.” 50 48 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), NTSB/PAR-03/01, “Pipeline Incident Report: Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Fire Near Carlsbad, New Mexico” (Feb. 2003), https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR0301.pdf. 49 NTSB, NTSB/PAR-14/01, “Accident Report: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation Pipeline Rupture Sissonville, West Virginia” (Feb. 2014), https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1401.pdf. 50 Brinks, Travis, “Remembering the Sissonville Pipeline Explosion.” WV Metro News. Dec. 11, 2023, https://wvmetronews.com/2013/12/11/remembering-the-sissonville-pipeline-explosion/ (accessed June 15, 2021). Although PHMSA has not historically collected incident reports for gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations, such gathering lines are subject to incidents of similar magnitude and consequence as gas transmission pipelines with comparable physical and operating characteristics. For example, on November 14, 2008, a 20-inch gas gathering line exploded in Grady County, Oklahoma, which injured two people, destroyed three homes, and shut down a nearby highway. 51 On June 8, 2010, a bulldozer struck a 14-inch gas gathering line in Darrouzett, Texas, causing an explosion that killed two workers and injured three others, including one worker who was critically injured and required medical evacuation by helicopter. 52 On June 29, 2010, three men working on a 24-inch gas gathering line in Grady County, Oklahoma, were injured when it exploded; one worker was airlifted to a nearby hospital with burns covering half of his body. 53 On August 1, 2018, a six-inch gas gathering line failed in Midland, Texas, which caused a nearby 12-inch transmission line to also explode, killing one worker and injuring seven others. 54 A few days later, on August 9, 2018, corrosion on a 10-inch gas gathering line resulted in another explosion in Midland, killing a three-year-old girl and badly burning three others. Fatal incidents on smaller lines such as the first Midland, Texas, incident described above and an explosion caused by an improperly abandoned 2-inch production line connected to a gas well in Firestone, Colorado, 55 underscore the need to collect information on the risks posed by smaller diameter lines. Even non-fatal incidents can result in significant damage to infrastructure and property, lead to evacuations, disrupt gas service, or otherwise harm the public, property, or the environment. 51 Griswold, Jennifer and Sargent, Brian. “Natural Gas Pipeline Explosion Destroys Homes Near Alex.” The Oklahoman, Nov. 14, 2008, www.oklahoman.com/article/3321932/natural-gas-pipeline-explosion-destroys-homes-near-alex (accessed Feb. 12, 2021). 52 The Associated Press. “Two Killed in Texas Panhandle Gas Line Explosion.” Arkansas Democrat Gazette, June 8, 2010, www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/jun/08/2-killed-texas-panhandle-gas-line-explosion/ (accessed Feb. 12, 2021). 53 Pittman, Jerry. “Pipeline Explosion West of Pocasset Injures Three, One Seriously.” The Oklahoman, June 29, 2010, www.oklahoman.com/article/3472182/pipeline-explosion-west-of-pocasset-injures-three-one-seriously, (accessed Feb. 12, 2021). 54 Lee, Mike, and Soraghan, Mike. “Deadly Pipelines, No Rules.” E&E News, Mar. 4, 2019, www.eenews.net/special_reports/EEnews_highlights/stories/1060123021, (accessed Feb. 12, 2021). 55 NTSB, NTSB/PAB-19/02, “Pipeline Accident Brief Natural Gas Explosion at Family Residence Firestone, Colorado” (Oct. 2019), https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAB1902.pdf. These hazards may be further exacerbated by the changing geography of U.S. gas production, which was noted by the GAO in their March 2012 report, “Collecting Data and Sharing Information on Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety.” Incidents involving new gas production fields may overwhelm the capabilities of local first responders in rural areas who may lack experience and the resources to respond adequately to serious incidents associated with intensive gas production and processing operations, including high-pressure pipelines. Regulatory Gaps PHMSA estimates that there are over 400,000 miles of unregulated onshore gathering lines. For comparison, operators reported 320,000 miles of gas transmission lines in 2019. As demonstrated above, even though some gathering lines share the same physical, functional, and operational characteristics and potential adverse consequences from an incident as transmission lines, they are exempt from reporting requirements in part 191 and minimum safety standards in part 192. The final rule closes this gap by requiring all gas gathering facilities to submit incident reports and annual reports under part 191. In addition, the final rule adopts minimum safety standards for larger gas gathering lines that operate at higher pressures to help to ensure that operators address the critical risks that these previously unregulated facilities pose to pipeline integrity and public safety such as corrosion, excavation damage, and inadequate emergency response planning. B. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On August 25, 2011, PHMSA published an ANPRM, soliciting public comments regarding the revision of the Pipeline Safety Regulations applicable to the safety of both gas gathering and gas transmission pipelines. 56 PHMSA requested comments regarding 15 topic areas covering gathering and transmission lines. 56 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines, 76 FR 53086. The specific issues related to gas gathering included whether regulatory exemptions for filing incident, annual, and safety-related condition reports should be repealed. In addition, PHMSA requested comment on a proposal to repeal the incorporation by reference of API RP 80 into the Pipeline Safety Regulations and replace it with a new definition of gathering lines in part 192 for determining the beginning and end points of gas gathering lines. Adoption of a new definition would address defining endpoints for non-jurisdictional gas production operations and setting limits for the “incidental gathering” concept in API RP 80. PHMSA also requested comment on expanding the definition of the term “regulated onshore gas gathering pipelines” to include a new category of high-pressure, large diameter gathering lines in Class 1 Locations. PHMSA received 103 comments to the ANPRM. Based on these comments, PHMSA developed proposals for some of those topics in an NPRM published on April 8, 2016 (NPRM), which is the basis for this final rule. C. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 Section 21 of the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act mandated that DOT review its existing regulations for gas gathering lines and report to Congress on the sufficiency of existing Federal and State laws to ensure the safety of gas gathering lines; the economic impacts, the technical practicability, and challenges of applying existing Federal regulations to unregulated gathering lines; and the need to modify or revoke existing exemptions from Federal regulation for gathering lines, subject to a risk-based assessment. PHMSA sent the required report to Congress on May 8, 2015. 57 The report identified issues with the difficulty of designated gathering lines in complex systems due to missing, ambiguous, or circular definitions of terms used to determine the start and end points of gathering lines, and used to describe state-level regulation of gathering lines. The report also observed that, with few exceptions, State regulators had not imposed design, construction, operation, and maintenance requirements for gathering lines beyond existing Federal requirements for Type A and Type B regulated gathering lines. The report also notes that most of the States which had established requirements for gathering lines other than Federally regulated Type A and Type B gathering lines had not adopted prescriptive safety standards or performance standards with well-defined authorized acceptance criteria. The report informs this rulemaking. 57 PHMSA, Report to Congress: Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines (May 2015), https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/report_to_congress_on_gathering_lines_0.pdf. D. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Recommendations The GAO issued GAO-12-388 in March 2012, which recommended PHMSA collect data on Federally unregulated hazardous liquid and gas gathering lines comparable to the data collected from operators of regulated gathering lines. The GAO suggested that the purpose of such data collection would be to assess the safety risks posed by unregulated gathering lines. GAO also noted that States and operators could use this information to share effective safety practices and lessons learned. In August 2014, the GAO issued a report, GAO-14-667, which further recommended that PHMSA initiate a rulemaking to address gathering line safety that would focus on the risks presented by larger-diameter, higher-pressure gathering lines, including a requirement that such pipelines meet emergency planning requirements. 58 58 On September 29, 2015, GAO prepared a statement, GAO-15-843T (“Department of Transportation Needs to Complete Regulatory, Data, and Guidance Efforts”) reiterating the need for PHMSA to complete its regulatory efforts based on GAO's previous recommendations. E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On April 8, 2016, PHMSA published the NPRM, which proposed new pipeline safety requirements and revisions of existing requirements in 16 major topic areas. To manage the breadth of the topics raised in the NPRM, PHMSA separated the topics into three final rules. The first of final rule addressed the gas transmission mandates in the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act; a final rule was published in this rulemaking on October 1, 2019. 59 That final rule addresses comments received concerning the scope of the proposed gas transmission requirements for existing Type A and Type B regulated gathering lines. The second final rule is this one, which addresses only the portions of the NPRM affecting the safety of gas gathering lines, particularly reporting requirements for all gas gathering lines and additional requirements for Type C regulated gathering lines. The remaining gas transmission pipeline concerns are being considered in a third final rule (under Regulatory Identification Number 2137-AF39) that is under development. 59 Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: MAOP Reconfirmation, Expansion of Assessment Requirements, and Other Related Amendments, 84 FR 52180. With respect to the current rulemaking, the NPRM contained proposals to: (1) Extend part 191 requirements for incident reports, annual reports, and safety-related condition reports to all gas gathering lines; (2) repeal the incorporation by reference of API RP 80 and revise the regulatory definitions for determining if a pipeline is a gathering line; (3) expand the scope of regulated gathering lines to include a new category of “Type A, Area 2” for gathering lines in Class 1 locations with a diameter of 8 inches or greater and operating at high pressure; and (4) require newly regulated Type A, Area 2 gathering lines to comply with the existing requirements in § 192.9 for Type B gathering lines, plus an additional requirement for establishing emergency plans per § 192.615. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60115(c), PHMSA shared the proposed standards on gathering lines with the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC) after initially considering the comments to the NPRM. 60 The GPAC met on June 25-26, 2019, to consider the proposed standards regarding gathering lines. Subsequently, PHMSA posted the meeting slides that were used for the GPAC votes as well as the transcript, which constitute the statutorily required report of the GPAC's recommendations, including minority views. 61 60 The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, or GPAC, is an advisory committee, created pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60115, that advises PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risk assessments, and safety policies for natural gas pipelines. The GPAC was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and section 60115 of the Federal Pipeline Safety Law (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ). The GPAC consists of 15 members, with membership divided among Federal and State agencies, the regulated industry, and the public. The GPAC considers the “technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability” of each proposed pipeline safety standard and provide PHMSA with recommended actions pertaining to those proposals. 61 https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=143. A summary of the four pertinent NPRM proposals, comments received on these proposals, the GPAC recommendations, and PHMSA's responses to the comments are provided in section III below. F. Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 The 2020 PIPES Act was enacted on December 28, 2020. Section 112(a) directed PHMSA to issue a final rule in this rulemaking by the March 27, 2021. III. Summary of the NPRM Comments, and GPAC Recommendations, and PHMSA Responses The comment period for the NPRM ended on July 7, 2016, after being extended for one month. PHMSA received over 400 comments from groups representing the regulated pipeline industry; groups representing public interests, including environmental organizations; State utility commissions and regulators; members of Congress; individual pipeline operators; and private citizens. PHMSA received several comments after the July 7, 2016 deadline. Consistent with §§ 5.13(i)(5) and 190.323, PHMSA considered those late-filed comments considering commenters' interest in the rulemaking and the absence of additional expense or delay resulting from their consideration. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60115(e), the GPAC met on June 25 and 26, 2019 to consider the topics related to the safety of gas gathering lines in the NPRM. The GPAC came to consensus decisions and voted on recommended changes to the NPRM elements that would make those regulatory amendments more technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable. These recommendations are documented in the transcript of the meeting and summarized in the vote slides. 62 62 See https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=143. A. Reporting Requirements—§§ 191.1, 191.15, 191.17, 191.23, and 191.29 1. Summary of PHMSA's Proposal Existing § 191.1(b)(4)(ii) exempts all onshore gas gathering lines other than regulated gathering lines (as specified in accordance with § 192.8) from all reporting requirements of part 191. The NPRM proposed to repeal the exemption in § 191.1(b)(4) for gas gathering lines that are not regulated under § 192.8. However, the NPRM would continue to exempt previously unregulated gathering lines from Operator Identification Number (OPID) validation requirements in § 191.22(b) and National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) requirements in § 191.29. Therefore, all gas gathering lines, including previously unregulated gathering lines, would be required to comply with annual and incident reporting requirements in §§ 191.15, 191.17, and 191.25. This proposal was intended to provide new information on the extent, configuration, and safety performance of previously unregulated gas gathering lines. The proposed rule would have required submission of OPID requests, incident reports, and safety-related condition requests beginning on the effective date of a final rule. Annual reports would have been due on March 15 of the calendar year after the effective date of a final rule. 2. Summary of Public Comments Several citizen and public safety, and environmental groups, including the Pipeline Safety Trust (PST), the Wisconsin Safe Energy Alliance, NAPSR, the Coalition to Reroute Nexus, Earthworks, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), supported the proposed provisions to remove the exemption for filing reports by operators of unregulated gas gathering lines. NAPSR agreed that extending reporting requirements to “unregulated” gathering lines would help determine if current operation and maintenance practices pose a risk to public safety and if additional requirements are required but suggested that PHMSA consider limiting certain requirements that could pose an unnecessary burden, such as detailed leak reporting information in part M of the gas transmission and gas gathering annual report form (DOT Form PHMSA F 7100.2-1). Some public commenters emphasized that available data on unregulated facilities could be inaccurate or outdated, particularly in areas where gas development has grown rapidly. Some of these groups also encouraged PHMSA to require gas gathering operators to submit geospatial pipeline location data for the NPMS, citing the usefulness of NPMS data for determining the need for future regulation. Trade associations and pipeline industry entities provided a variety of responses to the proposed reporting requirements, ranging from full support, including for NPMS reporting, to total opposition to all proposed reporting requirements. The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and other commenters representing oil and gas producers opposed changes to the scope of part 191 and commented that PHMSA has no statutory authority to apply reporting requirements to production lines and gathering lines that are not regulated gathering lines determined pursuant to § 192.8. Several trade association and pipeline industry commenters including API, GPA Midstream (formerly the Gas Processors Association) and IPAA, expressed concern that the proposed reporting requirements could have significant cost impacts for operators that were not commensurate with the risk posed by the majority of those lines. Industry commenters also commented that it is not feasible to collect the information necessary to complete the proposed annual report by the reporting deadline of March 15 as required by § 191.17 on top of the efforts necessary to identify Type A, Area 2 (or Type C) regulated gas gathering lines within six months of the effective date the rule (see section III.C. below). Industry commenters were especially concerned about reporting requirements for pipeline attributes that were related to requirements that did not apply to unregulated gas gathering lines. For example, GPA, API, and other industry commenters argued that the reporting of safety-related conditions (§ 191.23), including MAOP exceedances, would require information on MAOP, corrosion monitoring, and SMYS that were not otherwise required for previously unregulated gathering lines. The current forms for submitting gas transmission and gathering incident reports (F 7100.2) and annual reports (F 7100.2-1) also refer to regulations or records not required for unregulated gas gathering operators. These commenters recommended that PHMSA create separate incident and annual report forms for gathering lines that would collect information relevant to gas gathering lines that are not subject to part 192 and eliminate the proposed requirement to report safety-related conditions. GPA Midstream commented that they supported PHMSA's goal of collecting necessary information on gas gathering lines, but that an abbreviated annual report form was necessary to avoid unnecessary costs. GPA Midstream further commented that unregulated gas gathering lines should be excepted from the OPID validation and change notification requirements in § 191.22(b) and (c). 3. GPAC Recommendations Following discussion in the June 2019 meetings, the GPAC voted 12-0 that the proposed requirement that operators of newly regulated gas gathering lines file annual and incident reports pursuant to part 191 was technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable, if the following changes are made: • Add specificity to location ( e.g., latitude and longitude coordinates) and cause information to the incident report form; • Make sure all appropriate current annual report data elements are incorporated in the annual report form for currently unregulated gathering lines, including decade of installation; • Address the possibility of unknown data; • Implement a phase-in period of at least 24 months for unregulated gathering annual reports; and • Consider additional comments from members submitted to the meeting docket (PHMSA-2016-0136), specifically, position papers from API/GPA Midstream and PST submitted in response to the GPAC meeting notice, and comments submitted after the GPAC meeting by each of GPA Midstream and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO. The GPAC agreed that the proposed reporting requirements were needed to support future oversight, but recommended changes on the details of implementation. PHMSA explained that it intended to create a new annual report form for gas gathering lines that are not subject to safety requirements in part 192 (reporting regulated gathering lines) separate from the existing DOT Form PHMSA 7100.2-1 required for operators of gas transmission and regulated gas gathering lines. This form would exclude information that is not relevant or applicable to operators of pipeline systems that are not required to comply with part 192. The GPAC recommended extending the compliance deadline for annual reports to 24 months after publication in the Federal Register to grant additional time for operators to identify newly regulated gathering lines and collect the necessary information. However, the GPAC agreed that incident reports should begin to be filed on the effective date of the rule since the data required to submit an incident report should be readily obtainable when an incident occurs. 4. PHMSA Response PHMSA disagrees with comments that it lacks the statutory authority to require reports from operators of gathering lines other than currently regulated gathering lines as determined under § 192.8. Section 60117(b) of Federal Pipeline Safety Law specifically authorizes the Secretary to “require owners and operators of gathering lines to provide the Secretary information pertinent to the Secretary's ability to make a determination as to whether and to what extent to regulate gathering lines.” Congress made no distinction between “gathering lines” and “regulated gathering lines” for reporting purposes. This information-gathering process is precisely what the NPRM proposed—to gather information on all gathering lines that would enable PHMSA to make informed judgments about the need for, and scope, of potential regulation. Congress intended that the Secretary have the authority to request information from operators of unregulated gathering lines in order to help determine “what additional gathering lines should be regulated.” 63 PHMSA seeks to obtain information regarding current risks to people, property, and the environment due to unregulated rural gathering lines to determine whether rural gathering lines are presenting unacceptable risk that would warrant additional regulations. The information contained in annual and incident reports submitted by operators under part 191 would reasonably help achieve this objective. 63 S. Rep. 104-334, section 12 (104th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1996). In addition to the plain meaning of section 60117, Congress has articulated its intent for DOT to obtain information about the risks of rural gathering lines. In 1992, when Congress granted DOT authority to define gathering lines and regulated gathering lines for purposes of safety regulations, it recognized that some rural gathering lines might present unacceptable risks and authorized DOT to regulate lines whose risk warranted regulation. In its report on H.R. 1489, a bill leading to the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce instructed DOT to “find out whether any gathering lines present a risk to people or the environment, and if so, how large a risk and what measures should be taken to mitigate the risk.” 64 The Committee reasoned that “DOT had been attempting to define gathering lines for years. Anecdotal evidence indicates that there may be pipelines that are called gathering lines but that may really be transmission lines, and that there may be gathering lines that because of size or other physical characteristics should be regulated.” 65 Although Congress did not require DOT to regulate gathering lines, it expected DOT to obtain the necessary information to determine whether risks exist to warrant regulation, as further evidenced by the House report: “DOT is given a great deal of discretion to implement this section based on the information it receives as it proceeds. If DOT finds that none of these lines poses a hazard to people, property, or the environment, none of them will be regulated.” 66 64 H.R. Report No. 102-247(1), at 2653 (102nd Cong., 1st Sess. (1991)). 65 Id. 66 Id. Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 60101(b)(2)(A) specifically requires the Secretary, when defining “regulated gathering line,” to consider factors as location, length of line from the well site, operating pressure, throughput, and the composition of the transported gas to determine which lines are functionally gathering and should be regulated because of their physical characteristics. It reasonably follows, as evident in the Congressional record, that Congress intended that Secretary could obtain such information from operators in order to consider such factors. The final rule fulfills the Congressional mandate by requiring operators of all onshore gas gathering lines to file incident and annual reports under part 191. This includes pipelines that are not currently designated as Type A or Type B regulated gathering lines nor newly designated as Type C gathering lines as a result of the final rule. For clarity, this final rule designates these reporting-regulated lines as “Type R” gathering lines that are subject to reporting under part 191 but are not designated as regulated gathering lines in part 192. These requirements are necessary to evaluate the safety risks on gas gathering systems and determine what, if any, additional measures may be warranted to reduce those risks. As demonstrated above, it is no longer reasonable to assume rural gas gathering lines pose uniformly low risk. Information on the changing functional and operational characteristics of gas gathering lines and their safety performance is necessary for PHMSA to better understand the consequences of these changes and to set requirements for gathering lines in the future. Extension of incident and annual reporting to these additional gas gathering lines will provide PHMSA information needed for identifying—and promulgating regulatory requirements or pursuing enforcement activity—design, manufacture, installation, and operational/maintenance issues common to particular pipeline characteristics or operators. Congress also understood that the community around gathering lines can change and authorized DOT to consider these changes when regulating gathering lines. In its report that accompanied Senate Bill 1166, the bill that became the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce recognized that the population in an area can change, and that the statute authorized DOT to define from time to time what is a non-rural area. 67 The Committee emphasized that a “populated area” means not only an area with a large number of people but also areas where pipeline rights-of-way are near houses, schools, and places of employment. 68 67 H.R. Rep. 90-1390, at 3234 (90th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1968). 68 See id. However, PHMSA recognizes that some reporting requirements applicable to gas transmission and regulated gathering lines may not be necessary for gas gathering lines that are not currently subject to part 192. In particular, PHMSA is not requiring operators who are not required to establish an MAOP under part 192 to comply with requirements to report MAOP exceedances and other safety-related condition reports. In addition, in consideration of the comments, PHMSA is withdrawing the proposed requirement for gas gathering line operators that are not subject to part 192 to file safety-related condition reports required by § 191.23. Similarly, the final rule exempts gas gathering lines that are not subject to part 192 from the OPID validation and construction notification requirements in § 191.22(b) and (c) because such pipelines are not subject to the construction requirements in part 192. While all gathering lines are now required to submit incident and annual reports, PHMSA is ensuring that the required data is applicable and relevant to operators of Type R gathering lines that are not subject to part 192. In consideration of comments on the NPRM and in the GPAC recommendations, PHMSA has developed a new annual report form and a new incident report form for operators of gas gathering lines that are not subject to part 192 with more limited information that is appropriate for such facilities. For example, with regard to annual reports, PHMSA has developed an abbreviated annual report form incorporating information specifically relevant to gas gathering lines that are not currently regulated under part 192, including the decade of installation, if known. New forms and instructions are available in the public docket and will be made available on PHMSA's website at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/forms/operator-reports-submitted-phmsa-forms-and-instructions. The new annual report and incident report forms for Type R gathering lines address the GPAC's recommendations, including: • Requiring incident location information that is equivalent to what is required for regulated gas gathering lines; • Annual report fields appropriate for identifying and evaluating public safety and environmental risks that may be associated with unregulated gas gathering lines, including: ○ Miles by decade of installation, ○ Miles by pipeline diameter, ○ Miles by pipe material and corrosion protection status, and ○ Number of leaks repaired or scheduled for repair. • On the Type R annual report form, allow reporting of an unknown decade of installation. • On the Type R incident report form, allow reporting of an unknown date of installation and certain fields related to pipeline material properties and damage prevention investigations. In the final rule, operators of previously unregulated gas gathering lines must begin submitting annual reports beginning with the first annual report cycle occurring after the endpoints of Type C or Type R gathering lines have been determined one year after the publication date of the final rule. As a result, operators of Type R and Type C gathering lines must submit a 2022 annual report no later than March 15, 2023. March 15 is the existing deadline for submitting annual reports for other gas pipeline facilities, consistent reporting deadlines reduces confusion and administrative burdens on PHMSA and operators with both Type R and regulated gas pipeline facilities. This compliance deadline represents a phase-in period well in excess of a year as measured from the publication date of the final rule. This compliance deadline is approximately 6 months shorter than recommended by the GPAC. However, PHMSA believes that prompt submission of such reports is necessary for PHMSA's timely evaluation of whether additional regulatory efforts are needed to manage the safety and environmental risks associated with Types C and R gathering lines. PHMSA's limited information on these lines inhibits the robust understanding of their environmental and public safety risks needed to determine whether additional requirements are also warranted. The longer the delay in obtaining that information, the longer before PHMSA can diagnose and respond to a need for additional public safety and environmental protections from previously-unregulated gas gathering lines. PHMSA therefore does not believe an [18 month] compliance timeline would be overly burdensome on affected operators when evaluated against those potential safety benefits. The simplified form for Type R lines includes provisions for “unknown” fields to minimize burdens on gathering line operators to complete. While the Type C form is more extensive, such lines are also more likely to be more modern shale gas systems installed within the last 10-15 years. PHMSA expects the use of electronic recordkeeping and geospatial information systems is more widespread among such operators compared with traditional gathering systems and therefore expects that completing Type C annual reports will not be overly burdensome on affected entities. Finally, PHMSA notes that the compliance timeline is consistent with the approach taken in historical expansions of pipeline reporting requirements. For example, in the final rule titled, “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,” 69 PHMSA required affected operators to submit annual reports the first year after the effective date. 69 84 FR 52260 (Oct. 1, 2019). For similar reasons, the final rule does not include provisions for operators to request a delayed compliance deadline for the annual report requirement similar to those included in §§ 192.8 and 192.9. Additionally, most of the records necessary to prepare an annual report are also necessary in order to define the endpoints of regulated gas gathering. Operators should therefore begin collecting the necessary information immediately in order to ensure they are able to submit a complete annual report on or before the deadline in the final rule. B. Gathering Line Definitions—§§ 192.3 and 192.8 1. Summary of PHMSA's Proposal PHMSA proposed to revise 49 CFR part 192 to clarify the definition of gathering lines in order to address confusion regarding how the endpoints of gathering and production are currently determined. The existing definition of gathering lines relies on language in API RP 80. In practice, however, operators and inspectors have had difficulty consistently applying the definitions that are used to define the start and endpoints of gathering in API RP 80 given the complexities in the configuration of gathering line systems in midstream operations. In addition, Federal and State enforcement of the current requirements has been hampered by the use of API RP 80, a complex standard that can produce multiple classifications for the same pipeline system. Specifically, API RP 80 defines certain processes and equipment that may constitute a “production operation” but does not include defined endpoints of the production function in section 2.3 like it does for gathering in section 2.2. This issue was raised in comments by NAPSR and others, who suggested simplifying the definition of a gas gathering line and setting clear, restrictive limits on where non-jurisdictional production operation ends and gas gathering begins. NAPSR commented in response to the ANPRM that State regulators had “many difficulties in applying the definitions contained in API RP 80” and recommended a simpler definition for the term gathering line. NAPSR recommended defining the end of production at the wellhead or first metering point downstream of the well. As described in the regulatory history section, PHMSA also had concerns with how the “incidental gathering” concept has been used to classify pipelines that perform gas transmission functions as gathering lines subject to less stringent requirements intended for small, low-pressure, traditional gathering lines. In lieu of relying on API RP 80's definition of gathering line, the NPRM proposed new stand-alone definitions for “onshore production facility/operation”, “gas processing plant,” “gas treatment facility”, and “gathering line (onshore)” to determine the beginning and endpoints of each gathering line. The proposed definitions were found in § 192.3 of the NPRM and the application of those definitions was included in § 192.8. PHMSA proposed to define the end of onshore production operations as the furthermost downstream point where measurement for the purposes of calculating minerals severance occurs or there is a comingling of the flow stream from two or more wells. The NPRM also would have required operators to request approval from the Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety in order to extend gathering beyond the furthermost upstream gas processing plant. Finally, in order to address PHMSA's concerns with the lack of definite limits on the application of incidental gathering, PHMSA proposed limiting the distance that a gathering line could continue beyond a defined endpoint of gathering to 1 mile, provided that it does not cross a highway or railroad right of way. 2. Summary of Public Comments NAPSR, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PAPUC), PST, EDF, and a member of the public all expressed support for elimination of API RP 80, citing the confusion that exists in the present document for defining the endpoints of gas production and processing facilities and gas gathering lines. Some of these commenters had concerns or suggested clarifications about specific issues. For example, NAPSR and other State pipeline safety officials suggested PHMSA clarify that authority to approve extending gathering beyond the first downstream natural gas processing plant (§ 192.8(a)(2)) or to use the point of comingling on fields greater than 50 miles apart (§ 192.8(a)(3)) resides with State pipeline safety agencies in addition to the PHMSA Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. The PAPUC commented that PHMSA should remove the point of gas comingling (the location where gas from two or more production sites join for further transportation downstream) from the proposed definition of an onshore production operation due to concerns that operators could use that concept to classify relatively large pipelines that are performing a gathering function as non-jurisdictional production lines. API, The American Gas Association (AGA), IPAA, GPA Midstream, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Oklahoma Oil and Gas Association (OKOGA), the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, and several individual pipeline operators commented that API RP 80 adequately delineated production and gathering lines on a functional basis and should not be eliminated from part 192. Most signaled that they would be open to collaboration to improve some definitional issues, especially via changes to API RP 80 through the collaborative API standards-revision process. To this end, API suggested initiating a revision of API RP 80 instead of using the proposed wording in the NPRM. Other industry groups and operators, such as the Virginia Oil and Gas Association and the Plastic Pipe Institute, opposed any modification to the current definitions and usage of API RP 80; these commenters contended that changing the start point of gathering would violate PHMSA's statutory limitation on regulating production lines, that State agencies adequately regulate intrastate production and gathering lines, or that PHMSA had not provided sufficient safety evidence to support changes to the definition of gathering. Industry commenters also raised a number of specific concerns regarding the replacement definitions proposed by PHMSA. The most substantive comments concerned potentially ambiguous language in PHMSA's proposed definitions for “onshore production facility or onshore production operation” and “gathering line (onshore).” API opposed the proposed definitions but suggested edits that it claimed would provide more specificity to the types of processes that could be considered production functions. API also suggested clarifications on how points of comingling are treated in the definitions of the endpoints of gathering and production and make other changes. Other commenters requested clarification that the proposed definitions of gas processing plants and gas treatment plants did not apply to facilities on gas transmission or distribution lines. Many industry commenters requested a standalone definition of “farm taps” to clarify the regulatory requirements applicable to service lines connected to production, gathering, and transmission lines. Many commenters opposed PHMSA's proposal to limit the use of the “incidental gathering” designation to one mile from the furthermost downstream point of gathering. API proposed a standalone definition of “incidental gathering” consistent with the current definition in API RP 80 and suggested that if PHMSA is concerned about particular lines abusing the definition of incidental gathering, then it should designate such incidental gathering lines as regulated gathering lines rather than generally restrict the use of the incidental gathering designation in API RP 80. It further suggested that the proposed Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) requirements could address safety concerns with large-diameter, high-pressure incidental gathering lines. API further commented that requiring operators to redesignate previously unregulated incidental gathering lines as transmission lines would result in significant costs, especially if the proposed gas transmission requirements in the NPRM applied to them. GPA Midstream commented that the “proposed limitation of one mile is too restrictive,” and that reclassifying existing gathering lines as transmission lines would result in substantial compliance costs that need to be addressed in the RIA. However, GPA Midstream and the OKOGA suggested that a 10-mile limit was a reasonable compromise that would establishes a definite limit on incidental gathering but with enough flexibility to accommodate different system configurations. Industry commenters also contended that the implementation timeframe for identifying and reclassifying pipelines as regulated gathering lines (6 months) was too short. 3. GPAC Recommendation The GPAC voted 11-0, with one abstention, that the proposed rule was technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable, if the proposed new and revised definitions related to gas gathering in § 192.3 and the proposed changes to § 192.8(a) for determining beginning and endpoints of gathering were withdrawn. PHMSA noted during the meeting that it will monitor the outcome of the working group preparing a second edition of API RP 80 and a new document, API RP 1182, “Safety Provisions for Large Diameter Rural Gas Gathering Lines,” and consider whether those efforts merit potential changes to the definition of gas gathering lines in a future rulemaking. Although the GPAC discussion acknowledged PHMSA's concerns regarding the “incidental gathering” concept in API RP 80, the GPAC did not discuss or recommend any particular mileage limitation on that concept. Likewise, the GPAC did not make any specific recommendations regarding the terms “onshore production facility/operation”, “gas processing plant”, “gas treatment facility”, or “gathering line (onshore)”. 4. PHMSA Response PHMSA agrees with the majority of commenters and the GPAC that definitions of “gas processing plant,” “gas treatment facility,” and “gathering line (onshore)” should be omitted from the final rule. After the NPRM was published, API established two committees (API RP 1182 and API RP 80) to consider revisions to API RP 80 to address the same ambiguities in those definitions that the NPRM was intended to address. Both documents have since published. The final rule does not repeal the use of the existing definition of gathering line based on API RP 80 (1st edition, 2000) and § 192.8. PHMSA will consider updating the definitions associated with defining gathering and production lines in a separate rulemaking after evaluating the second edition of API RP 80, Definition of Onshore Gas Gathering Lines and new API RP 1182, Safety Provisions for Large Diameter Rural Gas Gathering Lines. PHMSA declines to adopt in this rulemaking API RP 1182 or the 2nd edition of API RP 80 in their entirety without providing the public an opportunity to review and comment upon those standards. A few aspects of API RP 1182 have been adapted in the final rule, these are described in section III.C. of the preamble of this final rule. However, due to safety and enforcement concerns, the final rule defines limits to “incidental gathering” on new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed gathering lines. The final rule changes the NPRM's proposed one-mile endpoint for the designation “incidental gathering,” but does impose a clear and defined limitation of ten miles on “incidental gathering” for any such pipelines constructed after the effective date of this rulemaking. Therefore, for gathering lines installed after the effective date of the rule, the “connection to another pipeline” endpoint in section 2.2(a)(1)(E) of API RP 80 may not be used if the connection is ten or more miles from the endpoints of gathering defined in paragraphs (a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D). In other words, if an “incidental gathering” portion of a newly constructed pipeline would be ten or more miles in length, then the incidental gathering concept may not be used and the gathering line terminates at the furthermost downstream endpoint defined in API RP 80 sections 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(d), subject to the limitations in § 192.8. While PHMSA appreciates the contribution of the API RP 80 committee on these definitional issues, “incidental gathering” concept is a significant source of uncertainty and concern that requires an immediate regulatory remedy to protect public safety. This limitation in the final rule immediately improves regulatory certainty regarding each of the endpoints of gathering and prevents potential abuse of the incidental gathering concept pending PHMSA's consideration of the second edition of API RP 80 and operational experience gained from implementation of the definitional changes in this final rule. The purpose of API RP 80 was to define clear endpoints to the gathering and production lines based on their function and purpose and eliminate the circular definitions in part 192 at the time. While the definitions for the end of gathering in section 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D) of API RP 80 are not perfect, they provide some definite limits that are reasonably based on the function of the line in question. However, the incidental gathering concept negates both goals by allowing gathering to continue past what API itself defines as the end of gathering functions to the “connection to another pipeline.” This reintroduces the circular definitions in the original definition in § 192.3 that adoption of API RP 80 was intended to clarify. API RP 80 includes no limits to how far downstream the connection to another pipeline can be. As a result, PHMSA has observed supposedly incidental gathering lines that extend for several miles. In addition to adding ambiguity to the regulations, unlimited application of incidental gathering creates a regulatory gap where long-distance pipelines that are functionally and operationally indistinguishable from transmission lines are classified as gathering lines with less stringent safety standards. By definition, an incidental gathering line is downstream of the last gathering function described in section 2.2 of API RP 80. Past that point the gas will not undergo further gathering-related processing or comingling. Incidental gathering can also include piping downstream of a major gas processing plant or a compressor used to increase downstream pressure so that the gas can be delivered to a transmission line (see section 2.2.1.2.4 of API RP 80); if that is the case, then the incidental gathering line is being operated at the same (high) pressure as the transmission line to which it is directly connected. In other words, such lines have functional and operational characteristics—including potential consequences—consistent with gas transmission lines, not production or gathering facilities. While some allowance to connect to nearby transmission facilities could be appropriate on economic or practicability grounds, this justification fades the further downstream it is applied. In order to reduce this regulatory gap for gathering lines that are downstream of the last gathering function, the final rule limits incidental gathering to no more than 10 miles from the furthermost downstream endpoint of gathering for new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed pipelines. Specifically, PHMSA no longer allows the use of the “connection to another pipeline” endpoint in paragraph 2.2(a)(1)(E) of API RP 80 if it is 10 or more miles downstream of the furthermost of the other endpoints defined in paragraphs 2.2(a)(1)(A) through (a)(1)(D) of API RP 80. An “incidental gathering” pipeline installed after the effective date of the rule that extends beyond 10 miles shall be considered a transmission line, starting from the non-incidental endpoint of gathering defined in API RP 80. PHMSA currently uses a similar distance-based limit in § 192.8(a)(3) to set reasonable parameters for using the point of comingling, an actual gas gathering function, described in API RP 80 section 2.2(a)(1)(C) as an endpoint to gathering. While existing gathering lines are not affected by this change, such pipelines may be designated as Type C regulated gas gathering and subject to safety requirements, depending on their diameter, pressure, and operating environment (see sections III.C and III.D below). Applying these limits on incidental gathering solely to only new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed gathering lines and revising the limit from 1 mile to 10 miles addresses the concerns raised by comments from operators while establishing a limit to incidental gathering going forward. Applicability to only new and replaced pipelines avoids disruption associated with reclassifying previously unregulated existing gathering lines as transmission lines and reduces the overall cost of the final rule for existing infrastructure. PHMSA recognizes that comments from operators broadly opposed the proposed 1-mile limit, and the GPAC did not recommend revisions to definition, including incidental gathering. However, as an alternative, a 10-mile limit was supported in public comments from GPA Midstream and OKOGA, trade associations for gas gathering line operators, and represents a reasonable first step towards establishing a firm endpoint to gathering. PHMSA also notes that a 10-mile limit on the “incidental gathering” concept would also be consistent with previous interpretation letters issued by PHMSA. 70 Extending the limit on incidental gathering to 10 miles provides greater flexibility for siting processing facilities and associated pipelines compared with the 1-mile limit in the proposed rule, addressing concerns raised in comments. PHMSA also notes that during this rulemaking process, there was support among both gathering line operators and public commenters to clarify the application of incidental gathering lines and impose common-sense limitations on the “incidental gathering” concept. Finally, as noted in the summary of comments, GPA Midstream and OKOGA submitted comments open to a 10-mile limit to incidental gathering rather than 1 mile as proposed in the NPRM. 70 See, e.g., PHMSA, Interpretation Letter No. PI-08-0010, Letter to State of Colorado Public Utilities Commission (Feb. 20, 2009) (endorsing use of “incidental gathering” concept for an 8-mile line), https://cms7.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/legacy/interpretations/Interpretation%20Files/Pipeline/2009/PI-09-0006.pdf. Although the second edition of API RP 80 includes a 20-mile limitation to incidental gathering, PHMSA does not believe that newly constructed “incidental gathering” lines should be permitted to extend that far from a gathering facility. As explained in the NPRM, PHMSA has for more than a decade expressed concerns that the “incidental gathering” concept has been used to allow pipelines with certain characteristics (operating pressures, capacity, etc.)—and, consequently, risks to the public and the environment—resembling gas transmission lines to avoid part 192 regulatory requirements governing those lines. PHMSA does not, therefore, understand the 20-mile limit contemplated by API RP 80 to be as effective in capturing the safety and environmental benefits in comparison to what a more demanding mileage limitation would realize. Further, PHMSA's discussion with various stakeholders revealed that there are very few incidental gathering lines that extend beyond 10 miles from the gathering facility; PHMSA is not aware of any, proposed new pipeline construction projects that would be classified as incidental gathering and extend 10 miles from the end of the gathering facility. The 10-mile limitation on incidental gathering, therefore, provides regulatory certainty to stakeholders, recognizes uncertainty regarding the cost impacts that could arise if incidental gathering is limited to 1 mile and on existing gas gathering lines, as proposed, and ensures that the regulatory gap that currently exists with regard to API RP 80's absence of a limitation on incidental gathering is closed for all newly constructed lines. PHMSA acknowledges that a regulatory gap remains for existing incidental gathering lines and new and replaced incidental gathering lines 10 miles or shorter. However, both new and existing incidental gathering lines with the highest potential safety hazards are either covered by existing safety standards for Type A and Type B regulated gas gathering lines in Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 locations, or the new safety standards for Type C regulated gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations established by this final rule. These requirements are described in sections III.C and III.D. of the preamble to this final rule. PHMSA will reconsider the issue of definitions, including the endpoint of production and treatment of incidental gathering lines, in a separate rulemaking in order to ensure stakeholders are able to comprehensively comment on newly proposed definitions and the second edition of API RP 80. Infrastructure and incident data collected as a result of this rulemaking, inspection data, and the public comment process will help inform future limits to incidental gathering. C. Expanded Scope of Gas Gathering Line Regulations—§ 192.8 1. Summary of PHMSA's Proposal In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to create a new category of Type A regulated gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations that had a nominal diameter of 8 inches (actual outside diameter of 8.625 inches) or greater. This new category of regulated gathering lines was identified in the table of the proposed § 192.8 as “Type A, Area 2” (in the final rule it is referred to as Type C), lines. PHMSA proposed to define Type A, Area 2 regulated gathering lines as gathering lines located in Class 1 locations that meet the existing Type A features in the table in § 192.9(b) ( i.e., metallic with an MAOP that produces a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS, or non-metallic with an MAOP greater than 125 psig) that have a nominal pipe size of 8 inches or greater. This change was intended to improve the safety of larger-diameter, higher-stress gathering lines that were previously exempt from Federal safety regulations at part 192. In the NPRM, these newly designated Type A, Area 2 (Type C) regulated gathering lines would have to comply with a basic set of requirements as set forth in § 192.9. The specific requirements for newly regulated gas gathering lines are discussed in section III.D of this document. 2. Summary of Public Comment API, the Michigan Public Service Commission (Michigan PSC), the Texas Pipeline Association (TPA), and Atmos Energy Corporation (Atmos) recommended that more data should be collected before determining the appropriate scope of additional regulations. The PAPUC supported the extension of regulatory oversight to gathering lines in Class 1 locations, based on its experience with growing natural gas production in Pennsylvania, noting that gathering lines are being constructed with diameters equal to or larger than typical transmission lines and are being operated at much higher pressures than was typical in the past. NAPSR supported the proposed scope of the new gathering line requirements but also commented that its members believe all gathering lines should be required to comply with part 192, regardless of class location. Some environmental and safety groups also expressed support for the extension of regulations to gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations in order to reduce the risks of incidents, greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution. For example, EDF supported requirements for the design, installation, construction, initial inspection and testing, corrosion control, damage prevention and leakage surveys in order to reduce methane emissions. The North Dakota Petroleum Council, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the AGA, the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI), Spectra Energy Partners, API, GPA Midstream, the Northeast Gas Association, and some individuals submitted comments noting issues and uncertainty with the regulatory impact assessment. For example, GPA Midstream commented that the benefits analysis included information for offshore and Class 2 incidents that are not applicable to the proposed scope of this final rule and that the cost analysis underestimated the time and cost to identify newly regulated gathering lines in a short amount of time and comply with the new requirements, especially MAOP determination and public awareness. Many operators and industry groups expressed disagreement with applying regulations to all Class 1 gas gathering lines with outer diameters of 8.625 inches or greater, arguing that gathering lines on the smaller end of that category do not represent the large-diameter, high-pressure gathering lines referenced in the preamble of the NPRM and public discussions. API commented that if PHMSA does proceed with defining a new category of regulated gathering lines, gathering lines with outer diameter greater than 16 inches have the potential to pose a higher risk and should be the criteria for determining regulated gathering, rather than 8 inches. API further suggested that targeting lines with outer diameters greater than 16 inches would be more in the spirit of the risk-based philosophy of other parts of the code, such as integrity management. This suggestion was repeated by GPA Midstream, the North Dakota, Petroleum Council, and others. A number of commenters representing the pipeline industry expressed concerns with the deadlines to identify newly regulated gathering lines and then comply with the proposed regulations. For example, Rice Energy, Dominion East Ohio, API, and GPA Midstream commented that the implementation timeframe for identifying proposed Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) regulated gathering lines was too short. Industry commenters were especially concerned about the deadline to establish an MAOP, especially if the MAOP verification requirements proposed for gas transmission lines in the NPRM also applied to gathering lines. One commenter suggested an economic criterion to allow an exemption for operators of economically marginal, low stress gathering lines. Some commenters expressed the view that the proposed Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) classification for newly regulated gas gathering lines could be confusing. Specifically, commenters found that designating newly regulated gas gathering lines as Type A, Area 2 (now Type C), and then requiring those pipelines to follow requirements similar to Type B rather than existing Type A requirements was cumbersome and risked conflating distinct regulatory requirements. A few commenters suggested a Type C designation rather than the proposed Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) designation. The GPAC recommended PHMSA address these concerns in the final rule. 3. GPAC Recommendation GPAC voted 11-1 that the scope of newly regulated gas gathering lines in proposed § 192.8(b) and (c) is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable if PHMSA considered the following: • Establishing an initial framework for regulating Class 1 gathering lines that could be built upon in light of future information and experience; • Setting a minimum set of requirements for gathering lines 8.625 inches in outside diameter and greater (considering, for example: Damage prevention; line markers; public awareness; leak surveys and repairs; design, installation, construction, and initial inspection and testing for new lines; and emergency plans). Give due consideration to the GPAC discussion on the costs and benefits of performing leakage surveys; • Consider applying a PIR concept and additional requirements to provide safety and environmental protection for larger- diameter gathering lines ( e.g., greater than 12.75 inch outside diameter); and • Ensuring that composite pipe 71 was adequately addressed to minimize the impact on its continued use. Note that this is discussed in section III.D below. 71 A composite pipe is made of a combination of either steel or plastic with a reinforcing material designed to maintain its circumferential and longitudinal strength. A common configuration consists of steel or fiber reinforcement layered between a polymer inside liner and outer shell. No composite materials are currently authorized for use in part 192 or part 195, but may be used through a special permit ( see § 190.341). 4. PHMSA Response In response to public comments and the recommendations of the GPAC, PHMSA has changed the proposed “Type A, Area 2” designation for newly regulated gas gathering lines to “Type C” lines. PHMSA originally proposed use of the term “Type A, Area 2” (now Type C) because the newly regulated gas gathering lines have features similar to existing Type A pipelines in the table in § 192.8, except that they are located in Class 1 locations. However, PHMSA agrees that creating the category “Type C” may be less confusing. While adopting the new designation of Type C regulated gas gathering lines introduces some repetition in the table in § 192.8, PHMSA believes it will make clearer that the three categories represent different levels of risk that warrant corresponding levels of regulation and will reduce unnecessary confusion among operators and inspectors in the future. The final rule continues to define Type C regulated gas gathering lines as gas gathering lines in Class 1 locations that are 8.625 inches or greater in diameter and are: (1) Metallic, with an MAOP producing a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS; (2) metallic, with an MAOP greater than 125 psig if the hoop stress is unknown; or (3) non-metallic, with an MAOP greater than 125 psig. However, PHMSA recognizes that not all gathering lines that meet these criteria pose the same level of risk. Therefore, the final rule provides that the requirements that Type C gathering lines must comply with will vary, based on the scale of risk associated with the particular characteristics of the pipeline. The applicability of each of the requirements that potentially applies to Type C lines is described in section III.D below and the section-by-section analysis. Gathering lines smaller than 8.625 inches in outside diameter or operating below the pressure or stress level criteria described above will remain unregulated under part 192 and are subject only to incident and annual reporting in part 191 (see section III.A below). As described in the background section (II.A) above, modern gathering systems require larger, higher-pressure lines to meet the new supply and demand pressures than had been common when the existing requirements were put into place. This is not a theoretical problem: Failures on unregulated gas gathering lines have resulted in serious incidents, some with fatal consequences (see the discussion in section II.A above). PHMSA appreciates the need to exercise caution in exercising its statutory authority to regulate gathering lines that have not been previously covered by parts 191 and 192 without clear, detailed safety data. This is why a new category of gathering lines is being created for reporting purposes only that are only subject to the incident and annual reporting requirements described in section III.A of this document. These are designated as “Type R” gathering lines in § 192.8. These lines are not regulated gathering lines under in part 192 but are subject to incident and annual reporting requirements in part 191. However, there is ample basis upon which to add the targeted requirements in this final rule for Type C gathering lines that mirror the requirements already in place for existing, lower-stress Type B lines. These measures are an appropriate initial step to ensure basic safeguards to the public, property, and the environment while additional data is collected and analyzed. Additionally, withdrawing the proposed regulations in the NPRM for previously unregulated gas gathering lines in its entirety would be inconsistent with public safety and would not be responsive to GAO recommendation GAO-14-667 or the Congressional mandate in the 2020 PIPES Act. Therefore, PHMSA is adding the definition of Type C regulated gas gathering lines as proposed in the NPRM. However, the new regulatory requirements are tailored to the potential hazards the newly regulated gathering lines may pose. This is described in more detail in section III.D below. PHMSA determined that certain programs, such as damage prevention, are foundational to pipeline safety and public trust and therefore should be required for all Type C gas gathering lines as originally proposed in the NPRM. However, other requirements apply only to Type C lines with an outside diameter greater than 16 inches, and Type C lines with an outside diameter larger than 12.75 inches that are located near homes and other structures. The largest-diameter gas gathering lines and those that can directly impact local communities are required to comply with all of the requirements for newly regulated Type C (Type A, Area 2) gathering lines proposed in the NPRM. The proposed deadline to determine endpoints of newly regulated gathering lines remains unchanged in the final rule—6 months after the effective date. Operators must therefore identify the endpoints of newly regulated Type C lines on or before November 16, 2022. While the GPAC recommended a 2-year compliance deadline for identifying the endpoints of Type C gathering lines, such a delay is not necessary given that PHMSA understands that many Type C lines are of more recent vintage and therefore would generally have more robust records to facilitate determination of endpoints than older gathering lines. A prolonged identification period would also delay the important safety (section III.D. infra ) and reporting (section III.A.4. supra ) standards in the final rule. The Type C determination in § 192.8(c)(2) requires, at a minimum, knowledge only of the location, diameter, and pressure of the pipeline. Most Type C gathering lines are relatively modern shale gas systems and these basic records should be readily accessible. PHMSA acknowledges that this deadline may be challenging for some operators of certain older, smaller-diameter, systems. The final rule therefore includes procedures for an operator to request an alternative compliance deadline with a notification in accordance with § 192.18. This is intended to mirror existing § 192.9(e)(2), which gives the PHMSA Administrator discretion to allow a later deadline if justified in a particular case. An operator must submit a written request to PHMSA in accordance with § 192.18 no later than 90 days prior to the standard compliance deadline. The request must include, at a minimum, a description of the facilities that require a delayed compliance date, the justification for an alternative compliance deadline, and the proposed alternative compliance deadline. An operator may proceed with their proposed compliance deadline if they receive a no-objection letter from PHMSA or if PHMSA does not reply within 90 days. If delayed identification impacts an operator's ability to comply with the requirements in § 192.9, they must submit a separate notification to request delayed compliance under that section. The combination of changes discussed in this section and in section III.D below provides a reasonable and cost-effective initial approach to address the risks associated with previously unregulated gas gathering lines. PHMSA will monitor the safety performance of both newly regulated gas gathering and unregulated gas gathering lines and evaluate the need for further regulatory action in the future. D. Safety Requirements for Newly Regulated Gas Gathering Lines—§§ 192.9, 192.13, 192.18, 192.452, and 192.619 1. Summary of PHMSA's Proposal PHMSA proposed in the NPRM to apply part 192 safety requirements to the newly-established Type A, Area 2 lines (referred to as Type C lines in the final rule). These requirements, collectively referred to as Type C requirements in this final rule, are: • § 192.9(d)(1)—Implement design, installation, construction, initial inspection, and initial testing requirements for new/replaced/relocated/changed lines in accordance with the requirements in part 192 for transmission lines. • § 192.9(d)(2)—Adopt corrosion control measures for metallic pipe in accordance with part 192, subpart I, requirements for transmission lines. • § 192.9(d)(3)—Adopt damage prevention measures in accordance with § 192.614. • § 192.9(d)(4)—Develop public awareness programs in accordance with § 192.616. • § 192.9(d)(5)—Establish MAOP in accordance with § 192.619. • § 192.9(d)(6)—Install and maintain line markers in accordance with the requirements for transmission lines in § 192.707. • § 192.9(d)(7)—Conduct leakage surveys in accordance with § 192.706, using leak- detection equipment and promptly repair hazardous leaks that are discovered, in accordance with § 192.703(c). • § 192.9(d)(8)—Develop and implement procedures for emergency plans in accordance with § 192.615. These requirements are the same as those that currently apply to Type B regulated gas gathering lines, except for the new emergency plans requirements. PHMSA also proposed conforming changes to §§ 192.13, 192.452, and 192.619. 2. Summary of Public Comment Citizen and environmental groups expressed support for the proposed requirements for newly regulated gas gathering lines or suggested additional requirements. Several citizen groups suggested that gas gathering lines that function similarly to transmission lines should be regulated like transmission lines in part 192. Similarly, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia commented that the proposed requirements for Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) lines, which mirror the requirements for low-pressure, low-stress Type B gathering lines, are not adequate or sufficient to ensure the safety of large, high-pressure gas gathering lines and instead recommended that such pipelines follow existing Type A, Area 1 requirements ( i.e. most gas transmission line requirements) that apply to other regulated gathering lines that operate with higher stress levels and pressures. GPA Midstream and Kinder Morgan commented that Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) lines should not have to conduct leakage surveys with leak detection equipment, as currently required for Type B gathering lines in § 192.9(d)(7), since leaks and ruptures on higher-stress Type A lines are easier to detect without specialized equipment. API and TPA proposed that the emergency-planning requirements in § 192.9(d)(8) be revised to reference the existing requirements for other types of pipelines in § 192.615. They also recommended exempting operators of Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) regulated gathering lines from the requirement to have written procedures to respond to each of the emergency situations listed in § 192.615(a)(3), presumably for cost concerns. API, GPA Midstream, and Northeast Gas Association commented that the compliance cost estimates used in the RIA for Type A, Area 2 (now Type C) regulated gathering lines were underestimated and contained erroneous assumptions. For example, GPA Midstream raised concerns about the costs of program evaluation requirements under public awareness. Industry commenters were especially concerned about the applicability of the proposed gas transmission requirements in the NPRM such as the MAOP reconfirmation, including the cost to establish MAOP and confirm the material properties of gathering lines that were not previously required to have an MAOP or keep such records. PHMSA notes that these provisions were finalized by the Gas Transmission Final Rule and apply only to gas transmission lines. A number of commenters articulated concerns about how the proposed regulations would affect the use of non-metallic materials in previously unregulated gathering systems. Commenters representing gathering line operators and non-metallic pipe manufacturers urged PHMSA to consider the impact of the rule on gathering lines made of composite materials and polyethylene pipe manufactured to standards other than ASTM D2513. A composite pipe is made of a combination of either steel or plastic with a reinforcing material designed to maintain its circumferential and longitudinal strength. A common configuration consists of steel or fiber reinforcement layered between a polymer inside liner and outer shell. No composite materials are currently authorized for use in part 192 or part 195 but may be used thr [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-24240. Public record. Not legal advice.