145 FERC ¶ 61,154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 CFR Parts 2, 157, and 380 

[Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001; Order No. 790]

Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, 

and Siting and Maintenance Regulations

(Issued November 22, 2013)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing this 

Final Rule to amend its regulations to (1) clarify that auxiliary installations added to 

existing or proposed interstate transmission facilities under section 2.55(a) of the 

Commission’s regulations must be located within the authorized right-of-way or facility 

site for the existing or proposed facilities and use only the same temporary work space 

that was or will be used to construct the existing or proposed facilities; and (2) codify the 

common industry practice of notifying landowners prior to coming onto their property to 

install auxiliary or replacement facilities under section 2.55; certain replacements under 

Part 157, Subpart F; or conduct maintenance activities under section 380.15.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective [insert date 60 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
- 2 

-

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gordon Wagner

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8947

gordon.wagner@ferc.gov

Katherine Liberty

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6491

katherine.liberty@ferc.gov

Douglas Sipe

Office of Energy Projects

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8837

douglas.sipe@ferc.gov

Howard Wheeler

Office of Energy Projects

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8688

howard.wheeler@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
145 FERC ¶ 61,154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement 

Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations

Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 

RM12-11-001

ORDER NO. 790

FINAL RULE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Numbers

I. Background ...............................................................................................................................2.

A. Request for Clarification of Section 2.55(a) of the Commission’s Regulations...............8.

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) .........................................................................9.

II. Discussion................................................................................................................................12.

A. Section 2.55(a) Auxiliary Facilities....................................................................................12.

1. Commission Jurisdiction.................................................................................................13.

2. Section 2.55 Siting and Construction Limitations..........................................................17.

3. Environmental Issues......................................................................................................40.

4. Compliance with Executive Orders...............................................................................43.

5. Section 2.55 Authorization and Part 157, Subpart F, Blanket Authorization................45.

6. “Grandfathering” Existing Section 2.55(a) Installations................................................49.

7. Burden of Section 2.55’s Right-of-Way Requirement...................................................51.

B. Landowner Notification......................................................................................................54.

1. Jurisdictional Basis and Need for Landowner Notification...........................................58.

2. Exceptions to Landowner Notification Requirements...................................................62.

3. Part 157 Landowner Notification Exemption for Replacement Projects......................64.

4. Requirement that Notification Inform Landowners of the Availability of the 

Commission’s Dispute Resolution Division .....................................................................65.

5. Landowner Notification for Maintenance Activities......................................................68.

6. Burden Resulting from Notification Requirement.........................................................73.

III. Information Collection Statement..........................................................................................80.

IV. Environmental Analysis.........................................................................................................88.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act......................................................................................................89.

VI. Document Availability...........................................................................................................92.

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification ...................................................................95.
145 FERC ¶ 61,154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman;

 Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris,

Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony Clark.

Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement 

Facilities, and Siting and Maintenance Regulations

Docket Nos. RM11-12-000

RM11-12-001

ORDER NO. 790

FINAL RULE

(Issued November 22, 2013)

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing this Final 

Rule to amend its regulations to (1) clarify that auxiliary installations added to existing or 

proposed interstate transmission facilities under section 2.55 of the regulations1 must be 

located within the authorized right-of-way or facility site for the existing or proposed 

facilities and use only the same temporary work space that was or will be used to 

construct the existing or proposed facilities; and (2) codify the common industry practice 

of notifying landowners prior to coming onto their property to install auxiliary or 

replacement facilities under section 2.55; certain replacements under Part 157, Subpart F;

or conduct maintenance activities under section 380.15.

 1 18 CFR 2.55 (2013).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 2 -

I. Background

2. Section 7(c)(1)(A) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires a natural gas company 

to have certificate authorization for the “construction or extension of any facilities.”2

 To 

“avoid the filing and consideration of unnecessary applications for certificates,”3 i.e., to 

save the time and expense that would otherwise be expended by companies and the 

Commission in undertaking a full, formal NGA section 7 certificate proceeding for every 

modification to an authorized system, the Commission added section 2.55 to its 

regulations.4

 Section 2.55 establishes that for the purposes of section 7(c), “the word 

 2 15 U.S.C. 717f(c)(1)(A) (2012).

3 Filing of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NOPR, 13 FR 6253, at 6254 (October 23, 1948). 

4 Section 2.55 went into effect in 1949. The Commission subsequently considered 

expanding section 2.55, but stated that although it “recognizes the desirability of dealing 

with minor installations on a practical basis,” it would not rely on section 2.55 because of 

“doubts that the Natural Gas Act authorizes it to further expand its rule excluding certain 

facilities from the certification requirements” ; instead the Commission “recommended to 

the Congress that it be given such authority” to “permit[] greater flexibility in its 

procedures with respect to rate filings and certification of natural-gas facilities.”

Amending the Commission’s General Rules and Regulations, Order No. 185, 15 FPC 

793, at p. 794 (1956). Such authority was not forthcoming. In an effort to forego issuing 

an individual certificate authorization in advance of every single jurisdictional action, the 

Commission provided for companies to file a single certificate application under 

section 157.6 that “covered in general outline along the lines of a budget estimate the 

proposed routine construction intended to be undertaken by it during the current or 

ensuing fiscal year,” describing the facilities, costs, capacity, purpose, construction 

schedule, customers affected, effects on gas supply, rates, service, etc. Id. The 

Commission added section 2.58 to its regulations for these “budget-type” certificate 

applications, see Gas Purchase Facilities – Budget-Type Certificate Applications, Order 

No. 247, 27 FPC 1119 (1962). These regulations were removed in 1982 when the 

blanket certificate program was instituted, which offered companies a streamlined means 

 (continued...)
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 3 -

facilities as used therein shall be interpreted to exclude” auxiliary and replacement 

facilities.5

 Thus, while an auxiliary or replacement facility that qualifies for purposes of 

section 2.55 remains subject to the Commission’s NGA jurisdiction, it does not require 

an individual, facility-specific section 7(c) certificate authorization.

3. Facilities that qualify under section 2.55(a) must be “merely auxiliary or 

appurtenant to an authorized or proposed pipeline transmission system” and installed 

“only for the purpose of obtaining more efficient or more economical operation of the 

authorized or proposed transmission facilities,” such as “[v]alves; drips; pig 

launchers/receivers; yard and station piping; cathodic protection equipment; gas cleaning, 

cooling and dehydration equipment; residual refining equipment; water pumping, 

 

to obtain certificate authorization for a limited set of routine and well understood 

facilities. Interstate Pipeline Certificates for Routine Transactions, Order No. 234, 

47 FR 24254 (June 4, 1982), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1982-1985 

¶ 30,368 (1982), order on reh’g, Order No. 234-A, 47 FR 38871 (September 3, 1982), 

FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1982-1985 ¶ 30,389 (1982), amended by, 

Sales and Transportation by Interstate Pipelines and Distributors; Expansion of 

Categories of Activities Authorized Under Blanket Certificate, Order No. 319, 48 FR 

34875 (August 1, 1983), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 1982-1985 

¶ 30,479 (1983). The scope of the blanket-eligible facilities has been expanded several 

times since 1982. See, e.g., Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Regulations and 

Clarification Regarding Rates, Order No. 686, 71 FR 63680 (October 31, 2006), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,231 (2006), order on reh’g and clarification, Order No. 686-A, 

72 FR 37431 (July 10, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,249 (2007), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 686-B, 72 FR 54818 (September 27, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,255

(2007).

5 18 CFR 2.55 (2013).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 4 -

treatment and cooling equipment; electrical and communication equipment; and 

buildings.”6

4. Originally, natural gas companies were not required to notify the Commission in 

advance of construction under section 2.55(a). However, in 1999 the Commission 

determined that when companies plan to add auxiliary facilities to a project that has 

already been authorized, but not yet completed, or to a project for which authorization is 

still pending, prior notification to the Commission is needed in order to afford the 

 6 Id. 2.55(a)(1). But for the inclusion of pig launchers/receivers in 1999, this list 

has remained unaltered since section 2.55 was put in place in 1949. Note that if a 

pipeline company wants to install any facilities specifically named in section 2.55(a)(1), 

but will not be installing them only for the purpose of obtaining more efficient or more 

economical operation of existing or proposed interstate transmission facilities, then the

company cannot rely on section 2.55(a). See, e.g., Algonquin Gas Transmission 

Company (Algonquin), 57 FERC ¶ 61,052 (1991), in which the Commission found a 

company’s reliance on section 2.55(a) to install an air stabilization unit was unwarranted 

because the unit was necessary for the company to meet the terms of its service 

agreements and comply with safety requirements, and thus was not only for the purpose 

of obtaining more efficient or more economical operation of its transmission facilities. 

See also West Texas Gas, Inc., 62 FERC ¶ 61,039 (1993), in which the Commission 

found section 2.55(a) did not apply to facilities constructed to interconnect with another 

pipeline because the purpose of the interconnect was to enable the company to gain 

access to cheaper sources of gas, and thus was not only for the purpose of obtaining more 

efficient or more economical operation of its transmission facilities and Natural Gas 

Pipeline Company of America, 114 FERC ¶ 61,061, at n.4 (2006), in which the 

Commission rejected a company’s effort to employ section 2.55(a) to undertake well 

recompletions in a storage reservoir, “because the construction is designed to provide 

incremental storage capacity rather than to maintain the current level of service for 

existing customers,” and consequently required the company to obtain case-specific 

authorization for the recompletions (the company was permitted to rely on section 2.55(a) 

to make other modifications to its storage facility, including adding station piping, header 

and isolation valves with blowdowns, control valves, gas coolers, a transformer, field 

inlet separation facilities, and pigging equipment).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 5 -

Commission the opportunity to assess the auxiliary facilities’ environmental impacts, 

impacts which, when combined with the impacts of the construction and operation of the 

facilities that will be augmented by the auxiliary facilities, could potentially alter the 

Commission’s conclusions regarding the overall environmental impact of the project.

5. As a result, Order No. 6037 revised section 2.55(a)(2) to require that if a 

company plans to rely on section 2.55 to construct auxiliary facilities in conjunction with: 

(1) a project for which case-specific certificate authority has already been received but 

which is not yet in service, (2) a proposed project for which a case-specific certificate 

application is pending, or (3) facilities that will be constructed subject to the prior notice 

provisions of the Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate regulations, then the company 

must provide a description of the auxiliary facilities and their location to the Commission 

at least 30 days in advance of their installation.8

 In the case of auxiliary facilities that 

will be constructed in conjunction with a project for which an application under Part 157, 

Subpart A for case-specific certificate authority is pending, the auxiliary facilities must 

be described in the application’s environmental report, as required by section 380.12 of 

 7 Revisions of Existing Regulations Under Part 157 and Related Sections of the 

Commission’s Regulations Under Natural Gas Act, Order No. 603, 64 FR 26572, 

at 26574 (May 14, 1999), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996 –

December 2000 ¶ 31,073 (1999), order on reh’g, Order No. 603-A, 64 FR 54522 

(October 7, 1999), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996 – December 

2000 ¶ 31,081 (1999), order on reh’g, Order No. 603-B, 65 FR 11,462 (March 3, 2000), 

FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996 – December 2000 ¶ 31,094 

(2000).

8 See 18 CFR 2.55(a)(2)(ii) (2013).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 6 -

the Commission’s regulations, or in a supplemental filing while the application is 

pending.9

 The Commission explained these advance notification requirements are 

necessary in order to afford the Commission time to include the environmental impacts of 

the auxiliary facilities as part of its environmental review of the project.10

6. Section 2.55(b) permits companies to replace facilities that are or will soon be 

physically deteriorated or obsolete, so long as doing so will not result in a reduction or 

abandonment of service and the replacement facilities will have a substantially equivalent 

 9 See 18 CFR 2.55(a)(2)(iii) (2013). In the case of auxiliary facilities to be 

constructed in conjunction with a proposed project for which an application for casespecific certificate authority is pending, section 2.55(a)(2)(iii) requires that the applicant 

describe the auxiliary facilities in the application’s section 380.12 Resource Report 1 –

General Project Description. Section 380.12(c)(1) requires the applicant to describe and 

provide location maps for “all jurisdictional facilities, including all aboveground facilities 

associated with the project (such as: meter stations, pig launchers/receivers, valves), to be 

constructed, modified, abandoned, replaced, or removed, including related construction 

and operational support activities and areas such as maintenance bases, staging areas, 

communications towers, power line, and new access roads (roads to be built or 

modified).” Section 380.12(c)(2) requires that the applicant’s Resource Report 1 identify 

and describe “all nonjurisdictional facilities, including auxiliary facilities, that will be 

built in association with the project, including facilities to be built by other companies.” 

If a company with a pending application for case-specific certificate authority determines 

that it will also need to construct auxiliary facilities, section 2.55(a)(2)(iii) requires that 

the applicant make a supplemental filing describing the auxiliary facilities while the 

application is pending.

10 Revisions to Regulations Governing NGPA Section 311 Construction and the 

Replacement of Facilities, Order No. 544, 57 FR 46,487 (October 9, 1992), FERC Stats. 

& Regs., Regulations Preambles January 1991 – June 1996 ¶ 30,951 (1992), order on 

reh’g, Order No. 544-A, 58 FR 57730 (October 27, 1993), FERC Stats. & Regs., 

Regulations Preambles January 1991 – June 1996 ¶ 30,983 (1993).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 7 -

designed delivery capacity.11 Section 2.55(b) replacement projects can go forward 

without case-specific or blanket certificate authorization. Further, the 30-day prior notice 

requirement in section 2.55(b)(2) for more expensive replacement projects only requires 

notice to the Commission, not landowners.12

7. In Order No. 603 the Commission specified that all replacement facilities must be 

constructed within the previously authorized right-of-way or facility site for the existing 

facilities and use the same temporary work spaces used for construction of the existing 

facilities.13 The Commission reasoned that section 2.55(b) replacements “should only 

involve basic maintenance or repair to relatively minor facilities,” where it has been 

determined that no significant impact to the environment would occur.14 The 

Commission suggested that in situations where a company wants to use land outside 

 11 18 CFR 2.55(b) (2013).

12 The requirement that a company give at least 30 days prior notice to the 

Commission before commencing a replacement project applies if the project will exceed 

the current cost limit for projects automatically authorized under the Part 157 blanket 

certificate regulations. However, unlike the blanket certificate regulations, section 2.55 

places no cost limits on auxiliary installations or replacement projects that qualify under 

that section. 

13 Order No. 603, 64 FR 26572 at 26574-76, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,073 and

18 CFR 2.55(b) (2013).

14 Order No. 603-A, 64 FR 54522 at 54524, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,081.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 8 -

previously authorized areas, it may be able to rely on its blanket certificate authority 

rather than 2.55(b) to undertake the project.15 

A. Request for Clarification of Section 2.55(a) of the Commission’s 

Regulations

8. On April 2, 2012, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) 

requested clarification regarding the installation of auxiliary facilities under section 

2.55(a) of the Commission’s regulations.16 INGAA maintained that Commission staff 

had stated in discussions with pipeline representatives and in industry meetings that 

companies undertaking section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations to augment existing 

facilities that are already in service must stay within the right-of-way or facility site for 

the existing facilities and restrict construction activities to previously used work spaces. 

INGAA disagreed with these constraints, arguing that section 2.55(a) activities had not 

been limited in this way in the past, and that Commission staff’s position amounted to 

rulemaking without the opportunity for notice and comment, contrary to the requirements 

of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).17 Pursuant to section 385.207(a)(4) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, INGAA requested that the Commission 

 15 Order No. 603, 64 FR 26572 at 26580, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,073.

16 On May 2, 2012, MidAmerican Energy Pipeline Group (which includes Kern 

River Gas Transmission Company and Northern Natural Gas Company) filed a motion to 

intervene and comments in support of INGAA’s petition.

17 5 U.S.C. 553 (2012).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 9 -

confirm INGAA’s view that the right-of-way and work space constraints stated by staff 

do not apply to section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations. 

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)

9. On December 20, 2012, the Commission issued a NOPR proposing to revise its 

regulations to clarify that, as with replacement projects under section 2.55(b), all 

auxiliary installation projects must take place within a company’s authorized right-ofway or facility site and use only previously approved work spaces. In addition, the 

NOPR proposed to add a 10-day landowner notification requirement for section 2.55

auxiliary and replacement facilities and for section 380.15 maintenance activities.18 

Timely comments on the NOPR were submitted by INGAA;19 Golden Triangle Storage, 

Inc. (Golden Triangle); MidAmerican Energy Pipeline Group (MidAmerican Energy); 

 18 Revisions to Auxiliary Installations, Replacement Facilities, and Siting and 

Maintenance Regulations, NOPR, 78 FR 679, 683 (January 4, 2013), FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 32,696 (2012) (cross-referenced at 141 FERC ¶ 61,228 (2012)). While section 

380.15 covers siting, construction, and maintenance, our existing regulations already 

have notification requirements in place applicable to siting and construction; 

consequently, the additional prior notice requirement described in the new section 

380.15(c) will apply exclusively to maintenance activities. 

19 On January 22, 2013, INGAA made a filing styled as a request for rehearing of 

the NOPR, and on March 5, 2013, it filed comments on the NOPR. INGAA argues the 

NOPR functioned as a Final Rule by giving immediate effect to a change in the 

regulations without providing affected entities notice and an opportunity to comment. 

We do not believe the NOPR’s clarification concerning section 2.55(a) effected any 

change; rather, it articulated existing, long-standing constraints and obligations with 

respect to auxiliary installations. Because the NOPR does not constitute an instant Final 

Rule, we find no cause to consider requests for rehearing of the NOPR. Nevertheless, we 

will accept INGAA’s request for rehearing and treat it as comments in response to the 

NOPR. Thus, regardless of the distinction between INGAA’s and the Commission’s 

 (continued...)
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 10 -

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star); National Fuel Supply 

Corporation and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (National Fuel); and WBI Energy Transmission, 

Inc. (WBI Energy). Golden Triangle, MidAmerican Energy, Southern Star, and WBI 

Energy support INGAA’s comments.

10. The commentors object to the Commission’s position that auxiliary installations to 

enhance existing facilities must be located within the previously authorized areas for the 

existing facilities, arguing the Commission has not heretofore imposed such a limitation 

on the siting or construction of auxiliary facilities. 

11. The commentors also oppose the NOPR’s proposed new requirement that 

companies give prior notice to affected landowners before commencing construction of 

auxiliary or replacement facilities under section 2.55 of the regulations or maintenance 

activities under section 380.15 of the regulations. Although the commentors do not 

dispute the Commission’s position in the NOPR that it is appropriate to give landowners 

prior notice to the extent practicable in order to minimize inconvenience to landowners, 

the commentors contend the proposed notice procedures described in the NOPR (1) are 

unnecessary, noting that some companies already comply with the spirit of this 

stipulation, and (2) are impractical, particularly with respect to urgent or unanticipated 

maintenance activities.

 

characterization of the NOPR, the concerns INGAA raises in both of its submissions will 

be addressed herein. We will identify INGAA’s self-styled request for rehearing as 

January 2013 Comments and its subsequent submission as March 2013 Comments.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 11 -

II. Discussion

A. Section 2.55(a) Auxiliary Facilities

12. In this Final Rule, the Commission revises its regulations, as proposed in the 

NOPR, to clarify that all section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations added to existing or 

proposed interstate transmission facilities must be located within the authorized right-ofway or facility site for the existing or proposed facilities and use only the same temporary 

work space that was or will be used to construct the existing or proposed facilities.

1. Commission Jurisdiction

13. INGAA argues that section 2.55(a) can be distinguished from section 2.55(b) on 

the grounds that auxiliary facilities are not needed to provide certificated services, and 

therefore are not jurisdictional, while replacement facilities are essential to provide 

certificated services, and therefore are jurisdictional. We disagree. Although section 

2.55 states that “for purposes of section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, as amended, the 

word facilities as used therein shall be interpreted to exclude” auxiliary and replacement 

facilities,20 the Commission’s choice of wording in drafting this section cannot change 

the fact that section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities and section 2.55(b) replacement facilities 

nevertheless are jurisdictional facilities for purposes of section 7 of the NGA. It went 

without saying in 1949, and has largely gone without saying since, that all section 2.55 

facilities are subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. This is obvious with respect to 

 20 Hence the title of section 2.55, Definition of terms used in section 7(c), and the 

placement of section 2.55 in Part 2, General Policy and Interpretations.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 12 -

replacements, since the new facilities step into the shoes of the aging facilities they 

replicate, and so assume the replaced facilities’ jurisdictional status. Section 2.55(a) 

auxiliary installations are also jurisdictional, comprising that category of facilities that 

enable companies to operate existing or proposed jurisdictional facilities more efficiently 

or economically. All section 2.55 facilities are integrated into a larger interstate 

transmission system and serve no function other than to enable that system to perform its 

jurisdictional functions more efficiently or economically; just as the larger system is 

jurisdictional, the component parts of that system, including auxiliary facilities installed 

pursuant to section 2.55, are jurisdictional as well.21

14. INGAA states that the NGA mandates that any jurisdictional facility must be 

certificated. We concur. As we have stated: “Section 2.55 of the Commission’s 

regulations serves, in effect, as standing authorization for pipelines to perform periodic 

maintenance and routine replacement” in order to “permit pipelines to undertake limited 

construction projects without waiting for NGA section 7(c) case specific certificate 

 21 If facilities are installed in reliance on section 2.55, but do not meet the criteria 

of this section, then they are jurisdictional facilities installed without the requisite 

Commission certificate authorization. For example, in Algonquin, after finding facilities 

installed under color of section 2.55(a) did not qualify under that section, we directed the 

company to show cause “why it did not violate and is not violating section 7(c) of the 

Natural Gas Act by constructing and operating [facilities] without obtaining a certificate 

from the Commission.” 57 FERC ¶ 61,052, at 61,205-06. The company subsequently 

obtained case-specific certificate authorization for the facilities at issue in Boston Gas 

Company, 70 FERC ¶ 61,122, Ordering Paragraph (F) (1995).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 13 -

authorization.”22 In other words, section 2.55 grants automatic certificate authorization 

for a limited class of facilities.

15. To qualify under section 2.55(a), facilities must serve “only for the purpose of 

obtaining more efficient operation or more economical operation of the authorized or 

proposed transmission facilities” (emphasis added).23 Therefore, we have always 

assumed that section 2.55(a) would necessarily be confined to projects small enough and 

inconsequential enough that their environmental and economic impacts would not merit 

the close scrutiny provided by (and time and expense consumed by) case-specific NGA 

section 7 review.24 Auxiliary facilities installed in reliance on section 2.55(a) will be 

added either to existing interstate transmission facilities that were subject to 

environmental review prior to construction or to a proposed project, in which case the 

 22 Emergency Reconstruction of Interstate Natural Gas Facilities Under the 

Natural Gas Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 68 FR 4120 (January 28, 2003), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,567, at 34,679-80 (2003). In the interest of administrative and 

industrial efficiency, we have dismissed requests for case-specific section 7 certificate 

authorization for facilities that qualified for this “standing authorization” provided by 

section 2.55. For example, in Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, 68 FERC 

¶ 61,156, at 61,743 (1994), we dismissed a request for case-specific section 7 certificate 

authorization to install a pigging and a methanol injection system after finding that the 

proposed facilities would serve only for the purpose of obtaining more efficient or more 

economical operation of an authorized transmission system, and thus qualified as 

auxiliary facilities that could and should be installed under section 2.55(a).

23 Supra n.6.

24 The sentiment in Order No. 603-A, 64 FR 54522 at 54524, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,081, that replacements “should only involve basic maintenance or repair to relatively 

minor facilities where the Commission has determined that no significant impact to the 

environment will occur” is applicable as well to auxiliary installations.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 14 -

applicant must identify in its certificate application the auxiliary facilities it plans to 

install in conjunction with the project, so that the auxiliary facilities will be included in 

the review of the project’s environmental impacts.25 In the case of section 2.55(b) 

replacement facilities, an environmental review was performed prior to construction of 

the existing facilities to be replaced,26 and the replacement facilities must be in the same 

right-of-way and be substantially equivalent in design capacity to the existing facilities.27

 25 As discussed above, if a company plans to rely on section 2.55(a) to install 

auxiliary facilities in conjunction with a project under its Part 157 blanket construction 

certificate that it is subject to prior notice, the company must give the Commission notice 

of the type and planned location of auxiliary facilities at least 30 days prior to installation. 

See 18 CFR 2.55(a)(2)(ii) (2013).

26 In the case of existing facilities constructed pursuant to blanket certificate 

authority, the facilities’ construction was subject to the blanket program’s section 

157.206(b) environmental compliance provisions.

27 For example, if a natural gas company wants to replace a deteriorated section of 

12-inch-diameter pipe with 24-inch-diameter pipe, it generally cannot rely on 

section 2.55(b) to undertake such work, as the use of larger pipe could require larger 

equipment and greater ground disturbance and thus raise environmental issues that were 

not considered when the12-inch-diameter pipeline was authorized. In addition, while the 

replacement of deteriorated facilities is necessary to maintain existing service levels, 

section 2.55 does not provide the opportunity for a company’s customers to raise issues 

regarding the replacement project’s cost. Thus, limiting replacement activities under 

section 2.55(b) to the construction of facilities that will be substantially equivalent in 

design capacity to the existing facilities is appropriate. If a company believes that there is 

a need for the replacement facilities to have significantly greater capacity, it can 

undertake the replacement project under its Part 157, Subpart F blanket construction 

certificate program, subject to the regulations’ cost limits and environmental conditions. 

If the replacement project will exceed the blanket certificate cost limits or the company 

cannot satisfy the blanket certificate regulations’ environmental conditions, the company 

can file an application for case-specific certificate authority and initiate a proceeding in 

which its customers and other parties can raise any concerns. Note that as discussed in 

the NOPR, to account for subsequent modifications having been made to original 

 (continued...)
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 15 -

16. Since the wording of section 2.55 of the regulations cannot work to exclude 

auxiliary and replacement facilities from the scope of our jurisdiction under NGA section 

7, section 2.55 effectively provides not an NGA-exemption, but a type of “blanket” 

certificate authority, so that a company does not need to seek additional, specific 

certificate authority to add minor auxiliary facilities to its previously certificated facilities 

or to replace its previously certificated facilities. Section 2.55 provides pre-granted or 

automatic certificate authorization to a specific, limited set of facilities, and does so to 

avoid triggering an unnecessary level of review for certain minor modifications to an 

existing or pending interstate transmission system. Section 2.55 is both a precursor and 

complement to our Part 157 blanket certificate program. By providing non-case specific 

certificate authorization for limited classes of facilities, the section 2.55 and blanket 

certificate regulations permit companies to satisfy the requirements of section 7(c) 

without having to apply for individual case-specific certificates for each and every 

modification to their systems.

2. Section 2.55 Siting and Construction Limitations

17. In 1994, we first had cause to clarify the parameters of section 2.55, in response to 

a request to increase operating pressures and make other changes to a pipeline system in 

 

facilities – in particular blanket certificate projects that in adding to or altering original 

facilities establish new permanent right-of-way and new temporary work space – we will 

revise the section 2.55(b)(1)(ii) requirement that replacements must be confined to areas 

authorized for the “original facility” to allow for replacements within areas authorized for 

the “existing facility.” 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 16 -

Arkla Energy Resources Company (Arkla).28 In reviewing the existing facilities, it came 

to light that Arkla had undertaken several years before, in reliance on section 2.55(b), to 

replace 91 miles of old 18-inch-diameter pipe on a segment of its system by abandoning 

it in place and installing new 20-inch-diameter pipe along a parallel path, which had 

required widening the existing right-of-way along portions of the route by an additional 

25 feet. We acknowledged that (1) section 2.55(b) did not “specify whether replacement 

facilities must be constructed in the existing right-of-way,” and that (2) there was no case 

law that “directly addressed this issue.”29 However, we explained that construction 

outside the right-of-way that was studied and authorized for the existing facilities 

potentially could have environmental impacts that had not been included in our 

environmental review of the facilities being replaced.30 Thus, we clarified that:

[S]ection 2.55(b) means that replacement facilities must be 

constructed within the existing right-of-way. The reason is 

simple. The authority to replace a facility and to establish a 

right-of-way should be limited by the terms and locations 

delineated in the original construction certificate. Thus, a 

certificate holder that later establishes a new right-of-way for 

purposes of replacement engages in an unauthorized activity 

 28 67 FERC ¶ 61,173 (1994), order on reh’g, NorAm Gas Transmission Company,

70 FERC ¶ 61,030 (1995) (Arkla/NorAm). Arkla was in the process of changing its name 

to NorAm at the time the Commission issued its order finding that Arkla’s replacement 

project did not qualify to go forward under section 2.55(b). Thus, Arkla sought rehearing 

under its new name.

29 67 FERC ¶ 61,173 at 61,516.

30 Id.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 17 -

which is outside the parameters of the original certificate 

order.31 

18. We subsequently codified this Arkla/NorAm clarification in Order No. 603 by 

amending section 2.55(b) to add the phrase “will be located in the same right-of-way or 

on the same site as the facilities being replaced, and will be constructed using the 

temporary work space used to construct the original facility.”32 In this rulemaking 

 31 Id. As we noted in Arkla/NorAm, at the time replacement activities limited to 

the existing right-of-way were categorically excluded by section 380.4(24) based on the 

assumption that impacts on the environment will be insignificant if construction activities 

to replace facilities are limited to work within a pipeline’s existing compressor station 

yard or right-of-way. Following Arkla/NorAm, we concluded that even if construction 

activities will be confined to the existing right-of-way, there may be the need for further 

environmental review if a replacement project involves the construction of extensive 

facilities, or there have been changes in land use over time in the vicinity of the existing 

facilities (for example, the existing facilities may have been constructed in an area that 

was rural in nature at the time but is now densely populated), or the pipeline company’s 

replacement project may be associated with the construction of other, non-jurisdictional 

facilities that could also have environmental impacts. We rectified the situation in Order 

No. 544, explaining that because we have “a responsibility under NEPA to review 

replacement activities that pose potentially serious, adverse environmental impact ... we 

need to be informed of such activities before they occur.” Order No. 544, 57 FR 46487, 

at 46491 (October 9, 1992); FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,951, at 30,686-87 (1992). Thus, 

while most replacement projects involve minor facilities and no potential for significant 

environmental impacts, we amended section 2.55(b) to require that companies notify us 

at least 30 days prior to commencing replacement projects so that there is time for staff to 

assess whether the project needs to be delayed in order to conduct further environmental 

review.

32 Order No. 603, 64 FR 26572 (May 14, 1999), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,073

(1999). INGAA asserts the NOPR in this proceeding erroneously stated that the 

Commission did not address section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities in Order No. 603 when it 

revised section 2.55(b) to limit replacement projects to the originally authorized rights-ofway and work spaces for the existing facilities. While, as noted above, Order No. 603 did 

indeed address section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities, specifically adding the notification 

requirements of section 2.55(a)(2), Order No. 603 did not address the right-of-way 

 (continued...)
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 18 -

proceeding, we are clarifying that this same right-of-way/work space limitation is equally 

applicable to auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a). Rather than provide 

clarification in a case-specific proceeding, as the Commission did in Arkla/NorAm, and 

then revise the regulation in a subsequent rulemaking proceeding, here we conflate 

clarification-to-codification for section 2.55(a) into this single proceeding.

19. As in Arkla/NorAm, construction outside the right-of-way could have 

environmental impacts that were not included in our environmental review of the existing

facilities. In such circumstances, we could not fulfill our NEPA responsibilities if we 

were to allow companies to continue acquiring additional rights-of-way and work spaces 

 

requirements relating to the installation of auxiliary facilities because the Commission 

assumed that there would be no need for gas companies to go outside previously 

authorized or proposed rights-of-way and work spaces in order in order install minor 

facilities that, as specified in section 2.55(a), are “merely auxiliary or appurtenant” to and

“only for the purpose of obtaining more efficient or more economical operation of the 

authorized or proposed transmission facilities.” We explained in the NOPR in this 

proceeding that Order No. 603, as it pertained to spatial limitations on the construction of 

facilities, dealt specifically with replacement facilities, and therefore only discussed the 

rationale for requiring section 2.55(b) replacement facilities to be located within an 

existing right-of-way. We also explained that no party raised any issue in the Order 

No. 603 rulemaking proceeding regarding spatial limitations on the installation of 

auxiliary facilities under section 2.55(a), and therefore we saw no need in Order No. 603 

to discuss whether the construction and location of auxiliary installations to enhance 

existing facilities must fall within the same footprint as the existing facilities. NOPR, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,696 at P 15. The NOPR also pointed out that nothing in Order 

No. 603 evinced an intent to permit auxiliary facilities or auxiliary installation activities 

outside of authorized rights-of-way and work spaces. Id. Thus, although we accept that 

the NOPR could have provided a more precise summary of Order No. 603, we reject 

INGAA’s claim that the NOPR misrepresented Order No. 603, particularly since the 

NOPR describes concerns discussed in Order No. 603 with respect to auxiliary facilities, 

and recites the resulting revisions made to section 2.55(a). Id. P 4. 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 19 -

to install auxiliary facilities under color of section 2.55(a) in areas not included in the 

environmental reviews for existing and proposed transmission facilities. We must ensure 

that environmental reviews are performed and appropriate mitigation measures identified, 

and this NEPA obligation extends to additional areas landowners may cede to gas 

companies for jurisdictional activities or facilities. While the environmental review 

conducted by the Commission in a certificate proceeding encompasses a corridor wider 

than the right-of-way and temporary work spaces eventually authorized, land usage and 

other circumstances can change over time, particularly in areas in which no jurisdictional 

facilities are located, and the Commission’s findings based on its environmental review 

in a past certificate proceeding may no longer be valid for the entire corridor originally 

studied. This makes it reasonable and necessary to confine all auxiliary facilities and 

construction activities under section 2.55 to Commission-authorized rights-of-way and 

work spaces.

20. INGAA states that “[t]he Commission has not been confronted with issues 

resulting from auxiliary installations outside an existing right-of-way similar to the issues 

that arose in Arkla/NorAm from replacement facilities.”33 We acknowledge that we are 

not aware of any section 2.55(a) auxiliary activities outside the authorized right-of-way 

approaching the scale of the section 2.55(b) replacement activities outside the right-of-

 33 INGAA’s January 2013 Comments at p. 15.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 20 -

way that came to light during the Arkla/NorAm proceeding.34 Nevertheless, the issues 

raised for sections 2.55(a) and (b) activities are the same.35 We covered these issues in 

the NOPR, identifying our principle concern as the absence of any review of the 

environmental impacts of activities outside of authorized areas.

21. INGAA emphasizes that “cathodic protection equipment,” “electrical and 

communication equipment,” “pig launcher/receivers,” and “buildings” are listed 

specifically in section 2.55 as examples of auxiliary installations, and contends these 

types of facilities typically extend beyond a pipeline’s right-of-way and/or require 

additional work space to install.36 We do not find these examples sufficient to preclude 

 34 Arkla had made numerous egressions from the existing right-of-way and 

acquired significant additional land rights without the Commission’s knowledge in order 

to widen the existing right-of-way by 25 feet along significant portions of the 91 miles of 

pipeline that was replaced. Arkla had needed the wider right-of-way in order to use 

larger-diameter replacement pipe that it laid alongside the old pipe that was abandoned in 

place.

35 See Arkla 67 FERC ¶ 61,173 at 61,517-18.

36 See INGAA’s January 2013 Comments at p. 31. In several instances, 

commentors describe contemporary cathodic protection components as often being 

located outside an established right-of-way. However, in 1949 when “cathodic protection 

equipment” was included in section 2.55(a), cathodic protection commonly was provided 

by passive systems that rely on the electrical potential between the pipeline and anode. 

Such systems require close spacing between the pipeline and anode, and therefore would 

likely be placed within the right-of-way. Thus, the inclusion of cathodic protection 

equipment in the list of auxiliary facilities that may qualify for purposes of section 

2.55(a) reflected the fact that, at least in some instances, additional right-of-way or work 

space is not needed to install such equipment. The 1949 inclusion of “cathodic protection 

equipment” in section 2.55(a) did not anticipate the impressed current systems commonly 

used today, which require that anodes be placed some distance (e.g., 100 meters) from the 

pipeline, far beyond the typical width of right-of-way needed or authorized for laying 

 (continued...)
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 21 -

our action here. While we understand that the installation of any particular one of the 

types of facilities named in section 2.55(a)(1) may require additional right-of-way or 

work space, if this is the case, then that particular facility could not be installed pursuant 

to section 2.55(a). There are any number of cathodic protection equipment, electrical and 

communication equipment, pig launcher/receivers, and buildings that have been and can 

be added without straying beyond the confines of previously authorized areas, and such 

facilities can be installed pursuant to section 2.55(a). As discussed below, section 2.55(a) 

will continue to reduce the burden that would be imposed if every natural gas facility 

required case-specific certificate authorization. Our decision to revise our regulations to 

explicitly confine section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities to Commission-authorized rights-ofway and work spaces is necessary to clarify industry misinterpretations and to meet our 

obligations under NEPA, as discussed above, which cannot be fulfilled if we allow 

companies to construct auxiliary facilities in areas outside of existing rights-of-way. 

Further, while less convenient, most auxiliary installation projects that do not qualify 

under section 2.55(a) because additional right-of-way or work space is needed can be 

undertaken by companies by relying on their Part 157 blanket construction certificates, 

subject to those regulations’ environmental and cost conditions. If a company cannot 

satisfy the blanket certificate regulations’ environmental and cost conditions, it can file 

 

pipe in the ground. Nonetheless, we note that impressed current systems which use deep 

well anode beds, can be set entirely within the typical width of a right-of-way and can 

qualify under section 2.55(a).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 22 -

an application to initiate a proceeding for case-specific certificate authority, during which 

the Commission will conduct an environmental review and identify any appropriate 

mitigation measures.

37

22. Commenters raised specific examples. INGAA, Southern Star, and National Fuel 

observe that the list of auxiliary installations includes “buildings,” and contend that 

generally it is not feasible to construct buildings within the previously authorized rightof-way containing existing pipeline facilities. They assert that the inclusion of 

“buildings” in section 2.55(a) therefore is at odds with the NOPR’s position that 

section 2.55(a) has never authorized the construction of auxiliary facilities on newly 

acquired right-of-way. Obviously, as Southern Star points out, a gas company is not 

going to be able to locate a large new headquarters building for hundreds of personnel 

within an existing right-of-way authorized for a pipeline.38 However, we do not agree 

that the inclusion of “buildings” in section 2.55(a) implicitly validates companies’ 

reliance on section 2.55(a) to construct even small buildings such as a tool shed on newly 

 37 For example, a company that needs a larger right-of-way and more work space 

for pig launching equipment will not be able to install the equipment under its Part 157 

blanket certificate if in the course of performing required surveys an endangered species 

is identified. In that case, the company may still be able to go forward with the project if 

it files an application for case-specific certificate authority, depending on the results of 

the Commission’s environmental review, including the required formal consultation with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and whether adequate mitigation measures to protect 

the endangered species can be fashioned. 

38 Southern Star’s Comments at p. 4.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 23 -

acquired right-of-way.

39 While section 2.55(a) can be relied upon to construct housing 

for compression, communication, electrical and other equipment and facilities needed to 

operate pipeline systems, section 2.55(a) can only be relied upon when such structures 

can be located within existing or proposed rights-of-way or facilities’ site. Just as 

section 2.55(a) cannot be relied upon to install auxiliary facilities if a company will need 

to use a temporary work space that was not studied during a prior environmental review 

by the Commission, section 2.55(a) also is not intended for auxiliary installations where a 

gas company’s plans include other types of land use described by INGAA and National 

Fuel, such as construction of a new access road or the temporary use of previously 

undisturbed land to store pipe, equipment, or machinery. While the commentors point 

out that a company generally does not need certificate authority to acquire the land rights 

to construct an access road or to store equipment and machinery, this makes no difference 

in whether a project qualifies under section 2.55(a). 

23. Our goal is to ensure that the authorization provided by section 2.55 does not 

inadvertently work to deprive the Commission of the opportunity to conduct an 

environmental review and impose appropriate mitigation measures in any situation where 

a natural gas company’s construction activities may have adverse environmental impacts. 

Thus, even when all planned auxiliary facilities can be located entirely within an existing 

or proposed right-of-way, a project does not qualify under section 2.55(a) if construction 

 39 We note that a new corporate headquarters building is not a “natural gas 

facility” which requires certification under the NGA. 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 24 -

of the auxiliary facilities will be undertaken in conjunction with other activities, such as 

building an access road or clearing and leveling nearby areas to store materials or 

equipment, that will occur outside the existing or proposed right-of-way and use areas 

that have not been environmentally reviewed in connection with the past or pending 

construction of other jurisdictional facilities. If a pipeline company plans to disturb any 

area in the process of constructing auxiliary facilities that was not or will not be subject to 

environmental review, the company must undertake the auxiliary installation under the 

Part 157 blanket certificate regulations or file an application for case-specific certificate 

authority so that the Commission has an opportunity to conduct an environmental study 

to consider related activities in the vicinity of the auxiliary installation activities, such as 

construction of an access road or use of land to store materials or machinery. 

24. INGAA also comments on section 2.55(a)’s specification of “electrical and 

communication equipment,” a category that has expanded enormously since 1949. 

INGAA states that a communications tower qualifies as “electrical and communication 

equipment” and “typically involves erecting a 40-foot-tall, three-leg tower with 

associated microwave parabolic dish antennas, ... may include a self-contained 

communications building and backup generation,” and requires “a 40-foot by 60-foot 

area that typically would not fit within a pipeline’s existing right-of-way.” 40 While we 

recognize it is unlikely the entire footprint of such a communication tower can fit within 

 40 INGAA’s January 2013 Comments at p. 31.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 25 -

the confines of an existing authorized right-of-way or facility site, as noted above, we 

find that this example is as an exception to section 2.55(a) and not characteristic of all 

electric and communication equipment, some of which can be installed within an existing 

right-of-way. As stated above, we cannot fulfill our NEPA responsibilities if we allow 

section 2.55(a) projects to use right-of-way and work space areas that have not been 

reviewed for environmental purposes. We have explained that if a structure is needed to 

ensure a company’s compliance with current regulations (e.g., safety, security, or 

reliability standards), but does not meet section 2.55 right-of-way/work space 

requirements, then the company must obtain blanket or case-specific certificate 

authorization for the project.

25. Moreover, the fact that these types of facilities are specifically listed in section 

2.55(a) does not mean that companies can necessarily rely in all instances on section 

2.55(a) to install them.

26. As discussed herein, when companies plan to construct auxiliary facilities in 

conjunction with projects for which they need to file applications under Part 157, Subpart 

A for case-specific certificate authority, section 2.55(a)(2)(iii) requires the companies to 

describe in the case-specific certificate proceedings any auxiliary facilities that they plan 

to install under section 2.55(a) and provide location maps.41 Thus, in a case-specific 

certificate proceeding, a company needs to include in the proposed right-of-way and 

 41 See n.9. 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 26 -

temporary work spaces for which it seeks certificate authorization any additional areas it 

will need to install the planned auxiliary facilities, notwithstanding that it intends to rely 

on section 2.55(a) for its authorization to construct the auxiliary facilities. 

27. In addition, if a company has already requested or received a case-specific 

certificate, or is constructing under its Part 157 blanket certificate subject to those 

regulations’ prior notice provisions, and decides prior to placing those facilities in service 

that it also wants to install auxiliary facilities, then section 2.55(a)(2)(ii) requires that the 

company give the Commission at least 30 days advance notice so that staff has time to 

consider any additional environmental impacts associated with the auxiliary facilities.42 

The fact that section 2.55(a)(2)(ii) literally requires advance notice only if the auxiliary 

facilities are to be added to facilities that are not yet in service does not mean that 

companies can escape environmental review when they want to add auxiliary facilities to 

facilities that are already in service. The installation of auxiliary facilities within 

previously-established rights-of-way and work spaces will be within the scope of a 

completed environmental review and conform to the mitigation measures resulting from 

that review, whereas the installation of auxiliary facilities outside of established rights-ofway or work spaces can impose unstudied (and thus unmitigated) environmental impacts, 

which is why section 2.55(a) and (b) activities must be restricted to rights-of-way, facility 

sites, and work spaces that have been reviewed and approved. 

 42 See 18 CFR 2.55(a)(2)(ii) (2103). The advance notification must include a 

description of the auxiliary facilities and their planned location.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 27 -

28. The commentors stress that in Arkla/NorAm and Order No. 603, the Commission 

focused its attention on section 2.55(b) and infer from this that the right-of-way/work 

space limitation that was explicitly applied to replacement facilities is implicitly 

inapplicable to auxiliary installations. This inference is incorrect. It was companies’ 

overly expansive reading of section 2.55(b), first noted and addressed in Arkla/NorAm, 

which prompted the Commission to revise section 2.55(b) in Order No. 603 to limit 

companies’ replacement project activities under that section to the use of existing rightsof-way and previously disturbed temporary work spaces. We were not aware, at that 

time, of companies also relying on section 2.55(a) to go outside previously authorized 

areas, in that case in order to add auxiliary facilities to existing facilities. Thus, when we 

issued Order No. 603, we had no reason to lay out our expectations regarding locational 

requirements as they pertained to auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a), even 

though we were clarifying those requirements with respect to replacement projects under 

section 2.55(b).43 

 43 As WBI Energy observes: “Section 2.55(b) projects can involve replacing 

dozens or even hundreds of miles of pipeline and transmission service related facilities. 

Section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations, on the other hand, are much smaller projects with 

limited scope such as pig launchers, valves and cathodic protection equipment.” WBI 

Energy’s Comments at p. 5. As we have observed: “Auxiliary installations and taps 

generally involve minor facilities; however, replacement of facilities may involve the 

removal and replacement of extensive mainline facilities.” Interim Revisions to 

Regulations Governing Construction to Facilities Pursuant to NGPA Section 311 and 

Replacement of Facilities, Order No. 525, 55 FR 33011 at 33013, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 30,895 at 31,812 (1990).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 28 -

29. However, over the last several years, we began to receive anecdotal indications 

that the industry might be applying an unwarrantedly expansive interpretation to 

section 2.55(a).44 In response, Commission staff – in conferences, meetings, and other 

public and private settings – sought to remind the industry that auxiliary installations, like 

replacement projects, must not stray outside of authorized rights-of-way and work spaces. 

While INGAA states that Commission staff’s consistent and insistent stance in this matter 

prompted its petition requesting that the Commission disavow staff’s statements, 

INGAA’s request for clarification also serves to highlight how the industry is improperly 

interpreting section 2.55(a) to undertake construction of facilities that do not qualify 

under that section because they involve siting the facilities and/or engaging in 

construction activities outside of authorized areas.

30. When Arkla/NorAm clarified that section 2.55(b) was restricted to replacements 

within the originally authorized right-of-way for the facilities being replaced, companies 

complained the Commission was upending long-held industry expectations and imposing 

an impractical constraint. Comments on the NOPR in this proceeding regarding auxiliary 

projects under section 2.55(a) recycle the objections presented on rehearing in 

Arkla/NorAm, namely: “the Commission failed to articulate the reason for its change in 

policy”; “the Commission’s rationale underpinning” its “clarification is inadequate and 

 44 Commission staff received questions from the industry inquiring whether it was 

appropriate to install certain facilities (including, but not limited to, cathodic protection 

equipment, pig launchers, communications equipment) outside of the company’s 

authorized right-of-way using section 2.55 authority.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 29 -

inconsistent with the history and purpose of section 2.55(b)”; the “clarification is unduly 

burdensome because it deprives pipelines of needed flexibility when repairing mainline 

facilities” and “that less burdensome alternatives are available”; “clarification constituted 

an arbitrary and capricious action because it will create significant and unjustifiable 

regulatory burdens”; and the right-of-way specification constituted a “rulemaking which 

failed to satisfy the notice and comment procedures of section 533 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act.”45 

31. The discussion, rationale, and result in the 1995 Arkla/NorAm rehearing could 

serve as our response to the comments on the NOPR. The Commission’s orders in 

Arkla/NorAm “aimed at removing any possible confusion within the industry concerning 

section 2.55”46 by responding to the “mistaken belief ”47 that section 2.55 permitted 

companies to replace obsolete facilities with new facilities outside rights-of-ways that 

were authorized for the facilities being replaced or to engage in any construction 

activities outside the existing right-of-way and previously disturbed work spaces. The 

clarification provided by the NOPR in this proceeding was aimed at the same mistaken 

belief on the part of some industry members with respect to section 2.55(a). Just as the 

 45 Arkla/NorAm, 70 FERC ¶ 61,030 at 61,099. Later, when the Commission 

proposed to revise the text of section 2.55(b) to incorporate the Arkla/NorAm

clarification, comments emphasized the impracticality of corralling replacement 

construction activities within the originally authorized rights-of-way and workspaces.

46 Id., at 61,100. 

47 Id.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 30 -

Commission explained in Arkla/NorAm that, despite arguments to the contrary, it had 

“not changed its interpretation of what replacement facilities qualify” and can be installed 

under section 2.55(b),48 the clarification in the NOPR in this proceeding did not reflect a 

change in the Commission’s interpretation of what auxiliary facilities can be installed 

under section 2.55(a). Thus, we could have issued an instant Final Rule to codify our 

clarification of section 2.55(a) without providing notice and opportunity, just as the 

Commission has modified section 2.55 several times in the past without notice and 

comment when such actions were interpretive in nature.49 

32. Until relatively recently, the Commission had always assumed that companies 

understood when they relied on section 2.55(a) to add auxiliary facilities to facilities 

already in service, the new auxiliary facilities must be attached or immediately adjacent 

to the existing facilities and within the right-of-way authorized for the existing facilities 

and no additional right-of-way or work space could be acquired or used in order to add 

 48 Id. 61,099-100.

49 In Arkla/NorAm, the Commission noted previous amendments to section 2.55 

that were treated as matters of interpretation, and as such implemented absent notice or 

hearing. Arkla/NorAm, 70 FERC ¶ 61,030 at 61,100 and n.10, citing Order No. 220, 

23 FPC 499 (1960) (including delivery taps as qualifying facilities for purposes of section 

2.55); Order No. 241, 27 FPC 33 (1962) (revising the description of qualifying 

replacements for purposes of section 2.55); and Order No. 148-A, 49 FPC 1046, 1047 

(1973) (excluding delivery points). Arkla/NorAm also cited, at n.11, American Mining 

Congress v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 995 F.2d 1106, 1112 (D.C. Cir. 1993), which 

describes traits of interpretive rules, to show these modifications to section 2.55 

constituted interpretations that, consistent with the APA, did not require notice or 

hearing.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 31 -

the auxiliary facilities to the existing facilities.50 As we did in Arkla/NorAm for 

section 2.55(b), we apply “a common-sense reading” to section 2.55(a) and reach the 

same conclusions as we did with respect to our prior clarification of section 2.55(b), so 

that those auxiliary and replacement activities that qualify for purposes of section 2.55, 

and therefore require no additional certificate authority, are “delineated by the parameters 

of the certificate”51 authorizing the transmission facilities that will be made more 

efficient or economic by adding auxiliary facilities under section 2.55(a) or be replaced 

under section 2.55(b).52 

33. Similarly under this common sense reading of section 2.55, we conclude that “to 

the extent that facilities are built outside the scope of the certificate, such facilities are 

unauthorized.”53 Thus, if auxiliary facilities are to be added to existing or proposed 

interstate transmission facilities, the auxiliary facilities will qualify for purposes of 

section 2.55(a) only if they will be located within the same right-of-way as the 

 50 See, e.g., Order No. 603-A, 64 FR 54522 at 54523, FERC Stats. & Regs.

¶ 31,081: “Traditionally, Section 2.55 limited the installation of auxiliary facilities to 

facilities installed on an existing transmission system.” This holds for all section 2.55 

facilities (including delivery points and taps during the period when they were covered 

under section 2.55), which have always been additions to or replacements of portions of a 

larger existing system, and as such have always been integrated into or substituted in 

place of jurisdictional facilities. 

51 70 FERC ¶ 61,030 at 61,100.

52 Id. 

53 Id. 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 32 -

transmission facilities54 and construction activities will be limited to the temporary 

workspaces authorized for construction of the transmission facilities and conform to the 

conditions of the certificate authorizing construction of the transmission facilities (e.g., 

all required mitigation measures, such as erosion control or revegetation protocols, that 

applied to the case-specific certificate or Part 157 blanket certificate authority under 

which the transmission facilities were constructed).55

34. INGAA continues to argue that two Commission staff letters – one from 1984 and 

another from 1998 – support INGAA’s position that current Commission staff has been 

implementing a change in Commission policy by telling companies that they cannot rely 

on section 2.55(a) to construct auxiliary facilities if they need additional right-of-way or 

 54 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 68 FR 4120, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,567 at 

34,679. See also Emergency Reconstruction of Interstate Natural Gas Facilities Under 

the Natural Gas Act, Order No. 633, 68 FR 31596, at 31598-99 (May 28, 2003); FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,144, at 30,399 (2003).

55 The bounds of a section 2.55 facility’s authorization reflect the certificate 

conditions of the transmission system it modifies. For example, in Order No. 603-A, 64 

FR 54522, FERC Stats. & Regs ¶ 31,081, at 30,921-22, the Commission was asked to

permit section 2.55(b) projects to use “Commission-approved rights-of-way unrelated to 

the construction of facilities being replaced” on the grounds that “any existing right-ofway that has already been disturbed for pipeline construction, has been reviewed” for 

environmental impacts. The Commission rejected this request, reasoning that “the 

existing right-of-way that was used to construct the original facilities should be 

sufficient,” since replacements “should only involve basic maintenance or repair to 

relatively minor facilities where the Commission has determined that no significant 

impact to the environment will occur.” The Commission noted that in most instances gas 

companies would be able to “use their blanket certificate authority to perform projects 

involving more extensive work that would need additional workspace, including the use 

of other unrelated rights-of-way,” since the blanket procedures “would allow for the 

required additional environmental scrutiny.”
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 33 -

previously undisturbed areas as work space. As discussed in the NOPR, INGAA 

describes the April 1998 letter signed by Commission staff as accepting a proposed 

section 2.55(a) installation of cathodic protection equipment outside the right-of-way for 

the existing pipeline facilities.56 We note that in December 1997, Commission staff had 

issued a letter addressing what appears to be the same proposed cathodic protection 

project. In this earlier letter, staff recited the requisite section 2.55 criterion “that, 

consistent with the Commission’s previous determinations regarding 18 CFR § 2.55(b), 

facilities constructed under section 2.55(a) must be placed within the permanent right-ofway.”57 Staff explained in the December 1997 letter that because a portion of the project 

would be located “in a new right-of-way ... in agricultural soil which was not previously 

disturbed by the pipeline construction,”58 the project could not be installed under 

section 2.55(a); consequently, staff directed the company to “file an application under 

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for authorization.”59

 56 Letter signed by the Director of the Commission’s Office of Pipeline 

Regulation, dated April 3, 1998; FERC eLibrary Accession No. 19980408-0242.

57 Letter signed by the Director of the Commission’s Office of Pipeline 

Regulations, dated December 16, 1997, p. 1 (citing Arkla/NorAm and Columbia Gas 

Transmission Corporation, 68 FERC ¶ 61,173 (1994), FERC eLibrary Accession 

No. 19971223-0120).

58 Id.

59 Id.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 34 -

35. Neither the April 1998 follow-up letter cited by INGAA accepting the cathodic 

protection installation under section 2.55(a) nor anything else in the record states where 

the new facilities ultimately were located. INGAA assumes that the new equipment was 

installed in new right-of-way, since the December 1997 letter describes the ground beds 

as being outside the right-of-way. We believe it is as likely that after receiving staff’s 

1997 letter, the company determined that it could locate the ground beds within the same 

right-of-way containing the existing pipeline facilities, in which case staff’s December 

1997 letter and April 1998 letter are consistent and correct; otherwise, as we 

acknowledged in the NOPR, the April 1998 letter did not reflect Commission policy 

correctly.60 

36. The 1984 Commission staff letter identified by INGAA stated that proposed 

facilities to remove liquid condensate and free water could qualify as an auxiliary 

installation for purposes of section 2.55(a) as they would increase the efficiency and 

enhance the flexibility of the existing interstate pipeline system without altering the 

capacity of the system.61 INGAA emphasizes that staff’s letter reached this 

determination, notwithstanding that the letter’s description of the project indicated that 

some of the proposed facilities would be located outside the existing right-of-way. We 

 60 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,696 at P 11, n. 18 (cross-referenced at 

141 FERC ¶ 61,228). 

61 Trunkline Gas Company, Docket No. CP84-394-000, letter order signed by the 

Director of the Commission’s Office of Pipeline Regulation, dated May 25, 1984.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 35 -

find no indication that the location of the new facilities was taken into account in the onepage, two-paragraph staff letter which focuses exclusively on whether the new facilities 

would function, as the regulation requires, “only for the purpose of obtaining more 

efficient or more economical operation.” The order’s failure to recognize the site of 

some the of proposed facilities as outside of the existing right-of-way appears to have 

been be an oversight that led to a wrong result, since locating any of the planned new 

auxiliary facilities outside the existing right-of-should have disqualified the project for 

purposes of section 2.55(a). 

37. At most, INGAA has identified two instances where Commission policy may not 

have been applied correctly. Further, both examples cited by INGAA were staff letters; 

neither was a Commission order. INGAA cannot plausibly argue that these two 

questionable examples must be accepted as representing a clear statement of Commission 

policy, particularly when INGAA acknowledges it filed its request for clarification 

expressly because “[t]he Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission . . . has 

taken the position in informal conferences with pipelines and in industry meetings that 

Section 2.55(a) of the Commission’s regulations only applies to auxiliary installations in 

existing rights-of-way and where the original work space is used,”62 and because it 

strongly disagrees with “Commission Staff’s position ... that the same right-of-way and 

work space requirements made expressly applicable to the replacement of facilities under 

 62 INGAA’s April 2, 2012 Request for Clarification at p. 1, Docket No. RM12-11-

000 (footnote omitted).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 36 -

Section 2.55(b) of the Commission’s regulations are implied requirements of 

Section 2.55(a).”63 In any event, regardless of whether some companies have thought 

they had some reasonable basis for expecting that construction activities to add auxiliary 

facilities to existing facilities can extend outside the previously authorized areas for the 

existing facilities,64 we cannot fulfill our NEPA responsibilities if we allow companies to 

continue acquiring additional rights-of-way and work spaces to install auxiliary facilities 

under color of section 2.55(a) in areas not included in the environmental reviews for 

existing and proposed transmission facilities. We must ensure that environmental 

reviews are performed and appropriate mitigation measures identified, and this NEPA 

obligation extends to additional areas landowners may cede to gas companies for 

jurisdictional activities or facilities. 

38. INGAA and WBI Energy point to the Commission’s document titled Guidance on 

Repairs to Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines Pursuant to FERC Regulations (Guidance 

Document), which states that “all replacement facilities must be constructed within the 

same right-of-way, compressor station, or other aboveground facility site as the facility 

 63 Id. 

64 INGAA declares that “[f]or over six decades, the interstate pipeline industry has 

considered auxiliary installations beyond the right-of-way to be acceptable.” INGAA’s 

January 2013 Comments at p. 36. Echoing objections raised in Arkla/NorAm and Order 

No. 603, INGAA adds that our clarification “represents a sea change in how the industry 

will address such installations, thereby raising costs, limiting efficiencies, and threatening 

expedited enhancement of pipeline integrity by making such installations more difficult 

to effectuate.” Id. at 39.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 37 -

being replaced,” but does not make a similar statement about auxiliary installations.65 

INGAA maintains this omission “reinforces the decisions” made by Commission staff in 

the above-discussed 1997 and 1984 letters. 

39. We do not share this assessment. The Guidance Document’s summation of 

section 2.55, while highlighting the need for replacements to stay within authorized 

boundaries, does not include any discussion that would indicate auxiliary installations are 

intended to be exempt from this same constraint. The Guidance Document on repairs 

reflects the Commission’s experience with section 2.55 projects, which is that the scale 

and impacts of section 2.55(b) replacement projects (e.g., Arkla/NorAm) can far exceed 

those of section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations. This is, as explained above, why we saw a 

need to spell out the right-of-way/work space restriction for replacements, and why –

until recently – we had not recognized that there apparently is a need to do the same for 

auxiliary facilities. 

3. Environmental Issues

40. INGAA contends the NOPR was incorrect in suggesting that all certificated gas 

facilities have undergone an environmental review prior to being constructed, because an 

environmental review was not a part of the Commission’s certificate proceedings until 

after NEPA’s promulgation in 1969. We acknowledge that NEPA altered the 

methodology employed by the Commission to evaluate the environmental impacts of a 

 65 See http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/gen-info/guidance.pdf, at p. 3 (2005). 

(An updated Guidance Document was issued in August 2013).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 38 -

proposed project. For example, since NEPA, the Commission’s orders granting 

applications for construction authorization generally have included a separate section 

addressing the potential environmental impacts of an applicant’s proposed reasonable 

alternatives.66 However, the Commission has long recognized that determining whether 

proposed facilities are required by the public convenience and necessity requires that 

environmental consequences be taken into account (albeit in a far less methodical and 

thorough manner), and, when warranted, that constraints be imposed on projects’ 

location, construction, and operation. For example, while prior to NEPA the Commission 

did not require an applicant to search historical county and state records to identify old 

burial sites no longer clearly marked as we do today, the Commission would not have 

permitted an applicant to lay a pipeline across a visible cemetery and any approval for a 

pipeline to cross any isolated graves would have been conditioned on their appropriate 

relocation. 

41. As the Commission observed in 1990 in adopting the advance notification 

requirement for more extensive replacement projects under section 2.55(b),67 when that 

section was promulgated in 1949 “there were fewer pipeline construction projects and the 

 66 See Commission Regulations Implementing NEPA, 18 CFR pt. 380 (2013).

67 As discussed above, the 30-day advance notification requirement applies to a 

replacement project under section 2.55(b) if project costs will exceed the Part 157 blanket 

certificate regulations’ current cost limits for projects that qualify under the those 

regulations’ automatic provision. 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 39 -

majority of those projects involved relatively short lengths of small diameter pipeline.” 68 

The Commission explained that the advance notification requirement was needed because 

over the years “an integrated and sophisticated national pipeline gridwork has 

developed”; and “[w]hereas replacement of facilities when § 2.55 was adopted could be 

assumed to involve minor projects, today, replacement of facilities could involve 

hundreds of miles of large diameter pipeline.”69 The same reasoning holds for auxiliary 

installations, given the increase in the number, scale, and potential impacts of section 

2.55 activities. 

42. While our NOPR in this proceeding clarified that section 2.55(a) has always been 

limited to installations in authorized areas that have been or will be subject to 

environmental review, the NOPR also served to provide an opportunity for parties to 

convince us that this limitation is not necessary. Not only do INGAA’s comments not 

 68 Interim Revisions to Regulations Governing Construction of Facilities Pursuant 

to NGPA Section 311 and Replacement of Facilities, Order No. 525-A, 53 FERC 

¶ 61,140, at 61,467 (1990). 

69 Id. The Commission also explained in Order No. 525-A that the advance 

notification requirement was needed for more extensive replacement projects under 

section 2.55(b) because changes could have occurred since an existing facility was put in 

place (e.g., the character of a region shifting from rural to residential), stating that:

[J]ust because an area was disturbed when the pipeline was 

originally installed does not mean that replacing the old pipe 

with a new pipe will not potentially raise new environmental 

concerns. Such an action must be assessed in light of current 

land use, regulations, and concerns about erosion, sediment 

control, impact on streams and soil, threatened and 

endangered species and potential PCB contamination.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 40 -

change our view, they serve to reinforce our belief that section 2.55 activities need to be 

confined to areas included within the existing right-of-way and previously-used 

construction workspace by pointing out that section 2.55 can be relied upon to replace or 

add auxiliary facilities to transmission systems that were authorized prior to NEPA when 

the Commission’s environmental review would have been less rigorous and might not 

have identified project impacts that would come to light with today’s greater scrutiny. 

4. Compliance with Executive Orders

43. The commentors claim the NOPR fails to follow Executive Orders directing 

agencies to weigh the burden and benefit of regulations.70 They point out that 

section 2.55 was intended to avoid the burden of companies’ having to obtain casespecific certificate authorization for certain routine activities, and argue the purportedly 

new right-of-way/work space constraint will preclude some installations of auxiliary 

 70 Commenters cite Executive Order No. 13,563, Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011) (directing executive agencies and 

requesting that independent regulatory agencies such as the Commission ensure, inter 

alia, that their regulations have benefits justifying their costs and impose the least burden 

possible); Executive Order No. 13,579, Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies, 76 FR 41587 (July 14, 2011) (requesting that executive agencies, including 

independent regulatory agencies such as the Commission, retrospectively analyze their 

regulations and that regulations found to be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed); and Executive 

Order No. 13,211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 

Supply, Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) (requiring agencies other than 

independent regulatory agencies such as the Commission to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects describing the effects of certain significant energy actions on energy 

supply, distribution, or use).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 41 -

facilities under section 2.55(a), and so compel companies to instead submit more 

individual certificate applications.

44. We concur with the commentors’ characterization of section 2.55: it was put in 

place to, and continues to, reduce the burden that the industry (and Commission) would 

otherwise bear if every minor modification to a natural gas facility required case-specific 

certificate authorization. Further, while the Commission, as an independent agency, is 

not subject to the requirements of the cited Presidential documents, the Commission has 

directed staff to perform an internal assessment of the effectiveness of our regulations 

and is continually seeking to streamline the regulations in order to foster competitive 

markets, facilitate enhanced competition, and avoid imposing undue burdens on regulated 

entities or unnecessary costs on those entities or their customers.71 However, the NOPR, 

by more fully describing the types of activities that currently come within the bounds of 

2.55(a), does not trigger any need for assessment of burdens and benefits, because the 

NOPR’s clarification regarding the scope of section 2.55(a) does not alter any aspect of 

the status quo. Where the NOPR’s proposed new regulations would impose an additional 

burden (e.g., the landowner notification requirements discussed below), then in accord 

with applicable Executive Orders, we explain the benefit we anticipate these new 

regulations will provide and quantify the burden we anticipate compliance will impose.

 71 See, e.g., Storage Reporting Requirements of Interstate and Intrastate Natural 

Gas Companies, Order No. 757, 77 FR 4220 (January 27, 2012), FERC Stats. & Regs.

¶ 31,327, at PP 12-13 (2012). 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 42 -

5. Section 2.55 Authorization and Part 157, Subpart F, Blanket 

Authorization

45. Under our Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate regulations, as under our 

section 2.55 regulations, a gas company can construct and operate a limited class of 

facilities without the need to obtain separate certificate authorizations for each individual 

facility. INGAA, MidAmerican Energy, and National Fuel point to section 157.202(b)(3) 

of our blanket certificate regulations, which in designating the types of facilities that may 

qualify for blanket authorization, states: “‘Facility’ does not include the items described 

in section 2.55.”72 MidAmerican Energy is apprehensive this could be interpreted to 

mean that if an auxiliary facility does not qualify under section 2.55(a) because it does 

not meet the right-of-way/work space constraints, then it also could not qualify as an 

eligible facility under the blanket regulations because of the section 157.202(b)(3) 

limitation, thereby leaving a company with the “only option” of filing an application for 

case-specific certificate authorization.73

46. The Commission responded to a similar concern in 1999 in the Order No. 603 

proceeding that codified the Arkla/NorAm clarification regarding replacement projects 

under section 2.55(b) by amending that section to add the phrase “will be located in the 

same right-of-way or on the same site as the facilities being replaced, and will be 

 72 18 CFR 157.202(b)(3) (2013).

73 MidAmerican Energy’s Comments at p. 11.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 43 -

constructed using the temporary work space used to construct the original facility.”74 

The Commission explained that section 157.202(b)(3) only prevents companies from 

relying on their Part 157 blanket certificates to construct facilities if the facilities qualify 

under section 2.55. As clarified by Order No. 603’s revision to section 2.55(b), 

replacement projects are disqualified under that section only if they will use additional 

right-of-way or work space than was used in constructing the facilities being replaced or 

will result in an incidental increase in capacity. Thus, section 157.202(b)(3) prevents 

companies from relying on their Part 157 certificates for replacement projects that will 

not use additional right-of-way or work space and therefore qualify under section 2.55.75

47. Both section 2.55 and the blanket certificate program are intended to provide a 

streamlined authorization process to avoid the comparatively greater time, cost, and effort 

that accompany a case-specific section 7 certificate application.76 To this end, we expect 

companies seeking to install, maintain, replace, repair, or upgrade facilities to look first to 

section 2.55, and only if an activity is beyond the scope of that section then to turn to 

blanket certificate authority, and only if an activity would exceed blanket authority, then 

to file for case-specific section 7 authorization.

 74 Order No. 603, 64 FR 26572, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,073.

75 Order No. 603, 64 FR 26572 at 26580, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,073.

76 While section 2.55 covers a more limited range of facilities than the blanket 

program, it offers lighter-handed regulatory oversight than the blanket program.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 44 -

48. INGAA and National Fuel note we modified section 157.202(b)(2)(i) to specify 

that replacements which do not meet section 2.55(b) requirements may be eligible for 

blanket authorization77 and request we do the same for auxiliary installations. We will do 

so (although we believe this does not change the way the regulations currently function) 

to ensure clarity and consistency in the application of the regulations. 78 Accordingly, to 

explicitly (and redundantly) specify that auxiliary installations which do not meet 

section 2.55(a) requirements may be eligible for blanket authorization, we will add the 

following sentence at the end of section 157.202(b)(2)(i): “Eligible facility includes 

auxiliary installations and observation wells which do not qualify under § 2.55(a) of this 

 77 Order No. 603 revised 157.202(b)(2)(i) to specify that eligible facilities include 

“replacements that do not qualify under section 2.55(b) of this chapter because they will 

have an impact on mainline capacity.” Order No. 603, 64 FR 26572 at 26579-80, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,073.

78 We note that in instances where a pipeline company needs to rely on its Part 

157 certificate to construct auxiliary or replacement facilities because they do not satisfy 

the location or work space limitations of section 2.55, the Part 157 blanket certificate 

regulations impose no limitations on the placement of the facilities. While the 

Commission has indicated previously that it is contemplated that replacement facilities 

constructed under blanket authority would usually be located adjacent to, if not within, an 

existing right-of-way, sections 157.202(b)(2)(i) and 157.210 permit the construction of 

non-main line facilities and main line facilities, respectively, without restriction on their 

location. For example, a company can rely on its Part 157 blanket certificate to replace 

the capacity of a segment of obsolete pipeline with new pipeline that may need to be 

located at considerable distance from the old pipeline in order to avoid a housing 

development constructed since the old pipeline was installed or to install auxiliary 

facilities such as anodes offset from the existing right-of-way to provide cathodic 

protection.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 45 -

chapter because they will not satisfy the location or work space requirements of 

§ 2.55(a).” 79

6. “Grandfathering” Existing Section 2.55(a) Installations

49. For the reasons discussed above, we believe modifying section 2.55(a) to codify 

right-of-way and work space constraints does no more than restate existing Commission 

policy and practice. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that although these constraints have 

been clear to the Commission, they may have been subject to misinterpretation by the 

industry.

50. The commentors declare companies have relied on section 2.55(a) to install 

facilities that are not in compliance with right-of-way and work space requirements. As 

explained above, any such installations are NGA-jurisdictional facilities constructed and 

operated without NGA authority. However, given that section 2.55(a) did not previously 

 79 In 1999, the Commission proposed adding the following sentence at the end of 

section 157.202(b)(2)(i): “Eligible facility includes observation wells.” Landowner 

Notification, Expanded Categorical Exclusions, and Other Environmental Filing 

Requirements, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 64 FR 27717 (May 21, 1999), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,540 (1999). Ultimately, the Commission elected not to include the 

sentence based on its conclusion at the time that observation wells could be constructed 

under section 2.55(a). Landowner Notification, Expanded Categorical Exclusions, and 

Other Environmental Filing Requirements, 64 FR 57374 (October 25, 1999), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,082, at 30,959 (1999). Commentors in this proceeding have pointed 

out that many observation wells, rather than being drilled to monitor operations at an 

existing gas storage facility, are drilled in order to determine whether a planned new 

storage facility is feasible, in which case a company may not have any existing right-ofway and would not be able to meet section 2.55(a) requirements. In view of this, we will 

include observation wells in revised section 157.202(b)(2)(i) to ensure that if such wells 

are not able to meet section 2.55(a) siting restrictions, they will then be eligible to be 

considered for authorization under the blanket certificate program.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 46 -

include an explicit description of the inherent right-of-way/work space constraint, and in 

view of commentors’ claims of companies’ good faith reliance on section 2.55(a) to 

install facilities which violate this constraint, we will not require the companies to obtain 

a blanket or case-specific certificate authorization for thefacilities purportedly installed 

pursuant to section 2.55(a) prior to the effective date of this rule, provided such facilities 

comply with all other applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations. That said, 

if we become aware of facilities installed relying on section 2.55(a) that do not meet the 

constraints of that section which are the cause of any significant adverse environmental 

impact, we may then require that such facilities obtain blanket or case-specific certificate 

authorization. 

7. Burden of Section 2.55’s Right-of-Way Requirement

51. INGAA argues that we erred by not including the “additional time and burden” of 

blanket or case-specific section 7 procedures that will now be necessary for facilities that 

cannot meet section 2.55(a) siting requirements.80 This objection presumes the 

section 2.55(a) right-of-way/work space constraint constitutes a new burden imposed by 

this rule. As previously discussed, this not the case, because section 2.55 activities have 

always been restricted to an authorized right-of-way or facility site and prescribed work 

spaces. Activities that exceed these limits are not covered under section 2.55, and thus no 

additional time and burden is being imposed – they remain subject to the same time and 

 80 INGAA’s March 2013 Comments at p. 5.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 47 -

burden that they were before. Consequently, we do not include activities that did not and 

will not qualify under section 2.55(a) in our estimate of the additional time and burden 

imposed by this rule. 

52. INGAA asserts the “NOPR would convert all auxiliary installations outside of

existing rights of way and historical work spaces into Natural Gas Act jurisdictional 

facility construction that would require certificate authorization and formal agency 

consultation.”81 We concur, but as noted, we will not compel companies to seek blanket 

or case-specific authorization for facilities installed in erroneous reliance on section 

2.55(a) unless we find reason to suspect such facilities are a cause of significant adverse 

environmental impact. Where facilities already in place present no such issues, we find 

no reason to subject them to further review. 

53. In any event, the NOPR and this Final Rule do no more than clarify the source of 

our authority over certain types of facilities. Therefore, we reject INGAA’s claim that we 

include an estimate of the burden on companies of filing certificate applications and 

consulting with environmental agencies for facilities allegedly ‘converted’ to blanket or 

case-specific status.

B. Landowner Notification

54. This Final Rule adopts regulations to provide for advance landowner notification 

for auxiliary and replacement projects under section 2.55 and for maintenance activities 

 81 INGAA’s March 2013 Comments at p. 22.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 48 -

under section 380.15. As previously discussed, we consider it appropriate to give 

landowners prior notice to the extent practicable before intruding onto their property as a 

courtesy and to avoid potential conflict between landowners and gas companies. 

Commentors do not dispute the virtues of informing landowners of company activities, 

but insist the notice procedures described in the NOPR are impractical.

55. In response to commentors’ concerns, we will revise the proposed notification 

obligations to (1) specify the types of maintenance activities that merit individual notice; 

(2) limit notice to landowners whose property is crossed or used for section 2.55 and 

section 380.15 activities; and (3) reduce the prior notice period from 10 days to five days. 

These modifications should significantly diminish the burden of complying with the new 

requirements for prior notice to landowners. 

56. Instead of mandating notice to landowners for all section 380.15 maintenance 

activities, as proposed in the NOPR, we will only require prior notice of those more 

substantial activities that will result in ground disturbance. In addition, we are reducing 

the scope of notification proposed in the NOPR, which would have required that notice 

be provided not only to directly affected landowners, but also to adjacent landowners and 

to landowners with a residence within 50 feet of a proposed work area.82 Commentors 

 82 The NOPR defined “affected landowners” for purposes of companies’ activities

under sections 2.55 and 380.15 as “owners of property interests, as noted in the most 

recent tax notice, whose property (1) is directly affected (i.e., crossed or used) by the 

proposed activity, including all rights-of-way, facility sites, access roads, pipe and 

contractor yards, and temporary work space; or (2) abuts either side of an existing rightof-way or facility site, or abuts the edge or a proposed right-of-way or facility site which 

 (continued...)
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 49 -

assert this is overly broad and request that we remove abutting landowners and 

landowners with a residence within 50 feet of the proposed work area from the definition 

of “affected landowners.” Although the NOPR would have required the same scope of 

notice that companies are required to provide for projects under the Part 157 blanket 

certificate regulations, the commentors have convinced us that more limited landowner 

notification requirements are appropriate for companies’ activities under section 2.55 and 

380.15, since such projects are likely to be smaller, take a shorter period of time to 

accomplish, and be less disruptive than blanket certificate projects. 

57. Finally, while the NOPR stipulated a 10-day prior notice, we accept commentors’ 

claim that some activities, particularly unanticipated maintenance, are not scheduled far 

enough in advance to allow for a 10-day prior notice.83 In view of this, we will only 

require that landowners receive notice five days in advance of initiating certain activity 

under section 2.55 or 380.15, which we anticipate will still allow time for landowners and 

a company to discuss any concerns landowners may have regarding companies’ planned 

activities. 

 

runs along a property line in the area in which the facilities would be constructed, or 

contains a residence within 50 feet of the proposed construction work area.” 78 FR at 

683, NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,696 at P 30 (corss-referenced at 141 FERC 

¶ 61,228).

83 Additionally, commentors state that the 10-day prior notice period prevents 

companies from adjusting maintenance schedules due to weather, equipment availability, 

permitting processes, etc.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 50 -

1. Jurisdictional Basis and Need for Landowner Notification

58. INGAA asserts that the Commission has no jurisdictional basis to impose 

landowner notification requirements for companies’ installations of auxiliary facilities 

and replacement projects under section 2.55 or their maintenance activities under 

section 380.15;84 therefore, INGAA argues that the NOPR’s proposed landowner 

notification requirements for these activities should not be adopted. However, if the 

Final Rule does adopt landowner notification requirements, INGAA asks the 

Commission to explain what circumstances changed since the promulgation of Order 

No. 60985 to merit mandatory prior notification to landowners before a company 

commences construction under section 2.55 or maintenance under section 380.15. 

 84 INGAA’s March 2013 Comments at p. 7. INGAA cites to Californians for 

Renewable Energy, Inc., 133 FERC ¶ 61,194, at P 26 (2010), to support its statement that 

“[t]hus far, the Commission properly has refrained from exercising jurisdiction over 

easement or right-of-way agreements, and has appropriately deferred the formal 

resolution of disputes in such matters to the courts.” We agree that formal resolution of 

disputes over the terms of easements and right-of-way agreements belong in the courts 

and we are not claiming jurisdiction over these matters by imposing landowner 

notification requirements for Commission-authorized activities.

85 Order No. 609, 64 FR 57374 (October 25, 1999), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,082 

(1999). 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 51 -

59. INGAA points out86 that in Order No. 609 the Commission determined that there 

was no need for landowner notification because section 2.55(b) replacements occur 

within an “existing right-of-way and subject to an existing easement agreement, which 

dictates the pipeline’s right to obtain access to maintain the facilities.”87 However, Order 

No. 609 also stated that “prudence would dictate that the pipeline should give the 

landowner as much advance warning as possible to avoid misunderstandings and illwill.”88 

60. Our proposal in the NOPR in this proceeding to adopt landowner notification 

requirements for companies’ activities under section 2.55 and section 380.15 was 

prompted by landowners’ expressions of concern to Commission staff during phone 

inquiries, scoping meetings, and in other forums due to companies’ personnel appearing 

unannounced on or near their property. The types of concerns expressed by landowners 

arise from construction and maintenance crews arriving unexpectedly to engage in 

activities that disrupt, or could disrupt, landowners use of their property, or damage their 

property as a result of replacing facilities; re-grading or replacing access roads; lowering 

 86 INGAA’s March 2013 Comments at pp. 6-7. INGAA also notes that “[a] 

pipeline must own the property or have an easement to perform maintenance, and the 

same is true for a pipeline to install, modify, replace, improve, alter, operate, maintain, 

access, inspect, patrol, protect, abandon, etc. auxiliary installations and replacement 

facilities.” Id. at p. 12.

87 Order No. 609, 64 FR 57374 at 57382, FERC Stats. & Regs ¶ 31,082.

88 Id.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 52 -

pipelines; performing anomaly digs; or preventing and controlling erosion. We view 

providing prior notice, which some companies avow is routine practice, as the least 

burdensome and most practical way to ensure courtesy and preclude conflicts with 

landowners. Whenever a company conducts an activity subject to our jurisdiction and 

under authority provided by our regulations,89 we have a right and responsibility to 

impose appropriate and reasonable conditions on that activity.90 Our responsibility 

includes ensuring that, to the extent practicable, landowners are informed in advance 

 89 In addition, section 157.14(a)(9)(iv) of the Commission’s regulations requires 

an applicant for NGA section 7 certificate authority to certify that it will “maintain the 

facilities for which a certificate is requested in accordance with Federal safety standards.”

18 CFR 157.14(a)(9)(iv) (2013). Likewise, NGA section 7(h) gives the certificate holder 

eminent domain authority to acquire rights necessary to “construct, operate, and maintain 

a pipe line.” 15 U.S.C. 717f(h) (2012). See Brian Hamilton, 141 FERC ¶ 61,229, at PP 

24-25 (2012) (Hamilton). Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction over maintenance 

activities, and has the authority to require landowner notice as a condition of a company’s 

jurisdictional maintenance activities.

90 Contrary to National Fuel’s assertion (see National Fuel’s Comments at p. 2), 

the Commission is not restricted to requiring landowner notification only for companies’ 

activities under their Part 157 blanket and case-specific certificates. As discussed supra 

PP 13-16 auxiliary and replacement facilities are NGA-jurisdictional facilities that can be 

constructed only with the requisite section 7 certificate authority, which the Commission 

provided when it adopted section 2.55 as a precursor to the Part 157 blanket certificate 

construction program. Further, the authorization to perform maintenance on gas facilities 

comes from the certificate authority under which the facilities were or will be constructed 

– whether it be self-implementing section 2.55 certificate authority, Part 157 blanket 

certificate authority, or case-specific certificate authority. As the Commission explained 

in Hamilton, 141 FERC ¶ 61,229, at P 24, “[i]t does not necessarily follow, however, that 

[a natural gas company] has no responsibilities merely because the activity neither falls 

within the replacement of facilities under section 2.55(b) nor under the blanket 

construction provisions. When the Commission authorizes a natural gas company to 

construct and operate pipeline facilities, the authority must necessarily include authority 

to maintain the pipeline.” 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 53 -

when they may be inconvenienced or the use of their property may be disrupted by 

companies’ jurisdictional activities to construct auxiliary and replacement facilities under 

section 2.55 authority or conduct maintenance activities subject to section 380.15. 

Landowners deserve an opportunity to express concerns, and we want the opportunity to 

act on those concerns if necessary. 91

61. Commentors assert that easement agreements are the proper method for 

landowners to establish any requirements for prior notice of company activities on private 

property,92 and note that many of these agreements specify that no notice is required for 

maintenance activities. While we recognize that some landowners agree to forego prior 

notice, we nevertheless believe it is prudent for gas companies to provide such notice. 

Landowners may misunderstand the terms of an easement agreement or a subsequent 

owner may not be aware that the land is subject to an easement. Therefore, regardless of 

whether an easement agreement gives a company a right enforceable under state property 

 91 National Fuel argues that the NOPR relied on NEPA as a basis for requiring 

landowner notification for maintenance activities. National Fuel’s Comments at p. 3. It 

did not. The rationale for requiring notification is our belief that landowners should be 

informed in advance of any activity that will take place on their property as a 

consequence of our granting a company an NGA section 7(c) certificate. The 

jurisdictional basis for this requirement is as a condition to the certificate, which we 

impose to ensure company actions are consistent with the public interest. The NOPR, 

however, did rely on NEPA as a basis for restricting companies’ activities to areas 

subject to an environmental review, and as a result thereof, authorized for a particular 

use.

92 See INGAA’s March 2013 Comments at pp. 6 and 12, Southern Star’s 

Comments at p. 6, Golden Triangle’s Comments at p. 4, WBI Energy’s Comments at 

p. 7, and National Fuel’s Comments at pp. 2-3.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 54 -

law to enter on property without notice, we believe it is appropriate and reasonable for 

our regulations to require that to the extent practicable companies provide landowners 

with prior notice before commencing certain activities under section 2.55 or section 

380.15.

2. Exceptions to Landowner Notification Requirements

62. Commentors state that if the landowner notification proposals are adopted, the 

Final Rule should waive landowner notification to provide “for immediate access to 

emergency gas leaks, acts of God, investigations related to gas pressure or flow or 

SCADA signals, or to respond to One Call notifications on an emergency or routine 

basis.”93

63. Our regulations provide for a company to take immediate action in an emergency, 

as we pointed out in response to a similar concern regarding the imposition of a 30-day 

prior notice:

[This] rule does not override other Commission regulations which 

permit interstate pipelines to take prompt corrective actions to 

address conditions that constitute a safety hazard. Subpart I of Part 

284 of the Commission's regulations exempts emergency situations 

from the provisions of section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and permits a 

pipeline to take immediate action to alleviate an emergency situation 

subject to a subsequent 48-hour reporting requirement. Section 

284.262(a)(1)(iii) of Subpart I defines emergency as “Any situation 

in which . . . immediate action is required or is reasonably 

 93 INGAA’s March 2013 Comments at p. 9 and National Fuel’s Comments at p. 5.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 55 -

anticipated to be required for the protection of life or health or for 

maintenance of physical property.”94

Notwithstanding the foregoing, to assure there will be no hesitation by gas companies if 

immediate action is called for, we will specify in sections 2.55 and 380.15 that: “For an 

activity required to respond to an emergency, the five-day prior notice period does not 

apply.” Note that events that do not necessitate immediate access to system facilities 

would not trigger our section 284 emergency provisions, and therefore would still be 

subject to a five-day prior notice. 

3. Part 157 Landowner Notification Exemption for Replacement Projects

64. Companies are required to provide landowner notice prior to initiating projects 

under the Part 157 blanket certificate regulations.95 However, section 157.203(d)(3)(i) of 

the regulations provides a notice exemption for replacement projects that would have 

been done under section 2.55(b), but for the fact that the replacement projects are not of 

the same capacity.96 To provide consistency with new the section 2.55 landowner 

 94 Interim Revisions to Regulations Governing Construction of Facilities Pursuant 

to NGPA Section 311 and Replacement of Facilities, 52 FERC ¶ 61,252, at 61,877 

(1990). See also section 157.203(d)(3)(i), which states that “no landowner notice is 

required” for any blanket program “replacement done for safety, DOT compliance, 

environmental, or unplanned maintenance reasons that are not foreseen and that require 

immediate attention by the certificate holder.” 

95 18 CFR 157.203(d)(1) (2013).

96 18 CFR 157.203(d)(3)(i) (2013). To qualify under section 2.55(b) a 

replacement project must have a substantially equivalent designed delivery capacity as 

the original facility. 18 CFR 2.55(b)(1)(ii) (2013).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 56 -

notification requirements established in this Final Rule, we will amend 

section 157.203(d)(3)(i) to provide that replacement projects that would have been done 

under section 2.55(b), but for the fact that the project alters the designed delivery capacity 

of the original facility, remains exempt from the landowner notification requirements of 

Part 157, as long as the project does not involve ground disturbance. Because the revised 

section 2.55(b) notice requirements require landowner notice for a ground disturbing 

replacement project that substitutes in a new same-size facility, it would be inconsistent 

to retain the landowner notice exemption in section 157.203(d)(3)(i) for a ground 

disturbing replacement project that alters the capacity of the original facility.

4. Requirement that Notification Inform Landowners of the Availability 

of the Commission’s Dispute Resolution Division 

65. WBI Energy states that any landowner notification requirements should not 

include a requirement that companies provide landowners with contact information or 

include a description of the Commission’s Dispute Resolution Division (DRD) Helpline. 

WBI Energy asserts disputes concerning easements and right-of-ways for existing 

facilities are properly adjudicated in state courts, and not by the Commission. WBI 

Energy further argues that including information regarding the DRD in the notice likely 

would cause landowners to incorrectly believe that the Commission is the appropriate 

venue for resolving property disputes.97

 97 WBI Energy’s Comments at pp. 8-9.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 57 -

66. We recognize that the DRD Helpline is not the appropriate venue for determining 

the respective rights of companies and landowners under state property law or for 

renegotiating the terms of easement agreements. However, there are instances in which it 

is appropriate and/or potentially helpful for landowners to contact Commission staff to 

seek informal resolution of a dispute. For example, while a court would be the 

appropriate forum to adjudicate a dispute regarding whether an easement agreement gives 

a natural gas company the right to allow another company to lay a fiber optic cable in the 

pipeline right-of-way, or to determine the amount of monetary damages caused to a 

landowner’s property by a company’s negligence during construction activities, it is 

appropriate for a landowner to contact the Commission if the landowner believes that a 

company’s planned activities might not comply with the provisions of section 2.55 (e.g., 

may not be confined to the existing right-of-way) or section 380.15 and for the 

Commission’s staff to contact the company regarding the matter. It also is appropriate 

for a landowner to seek the Commission’s assistance in obtaining a company’s voluntary 

agreement to reasonable accommodation requested by the landowner (e.g., to reschedule 

backhoe digging planned by the company for the same day as a back-yard wedding 

reception). In this regard, we emphasize that section 380.15(b), Landowner 

consideration, states that “[t]he desires of landowners should be taken into account in the 

planning, locating, clearing, and maintenance of rights-of-way and the construction of 

facilities on their property.” 

67. While only a court can determine the respective rights of a company and 

landowner under the terms of an easement agreement, the terms of an easement in no way 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 58 -

diminish the Commission’s NGA authority over companies’ activities to construct or 

maintain jurisdictional facilities. Thus, we are adopting our proposal to require that 

companies include the DRD Helpline number to facilitate landowners being able to 

contact and seek assistance from Commission staff. We encourage companies to 

describe the DRD Helpline as a way for landowners to inform the Commission of 

concerns regarding a company’s planned activities. We anticipate companies, in 

providing the DRD Helpline number, will be able to explain this without implying, as 

WBI Energy worries, that a company is acting unlawfully.98 

5. Landowner Notification for Maintenance Activities

68. Commentors state that the Commission’s proposed prior notice requirements for 

maintenance activities may be unnecessary in view of existing U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) regulations. DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) requires pipelines to develop a continuing public education 

program,

99 which follows guidance provided by the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) 

 98 Id. In Order No. 609, in response to similar apprehensions regarding a 

requirement for companies to include information in landowner notices on how to contact 

the Commission’s Enforcement Hotline, we stated we did not believe “that including a 

reference to the Enforcement Hotline implies the company is doing something unlawful,” 

and added that we expected companies “will be able to present it as merely being a means 

to contact the Commission, which is in fact what it is.” 64 FR 57374, 57384.

99 See 49 CFR 192.616 (2013).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 59 -

Recommended Practice 1162.100 API’s Recommended Practice 1162 requires that 

“[w]hen planning pipeline maintenance-related construction activities,” gas companies 

“should communicate to the audience affected by the specific activity in a timely manner 

appropriate to the nature and extent of activity,”101 and must also notify landowners in 

writing biennially of all “planned major maintenance/construction activity.”102 

69. We accept that the PHMSA requirements will be sufficient to alert landowners to 

many maintenance activities. We will therefore modify the prior notice requirement for 

section 380.15 maintenance activities proposed in the NOPR in this proceeding by 

limiting notice to maintenance activities that will cause ground disturbance.103 Given the 

potential disruption and impact level of maintenance activities that will cause ground 

disturbance, we find such activities merit separate written notice to affected landowners. 

70. While some of these activities will be included in the PHMSA-mandated biennial 

report distributed to landowners, we have no assurance that all such activities will be. 

 100 See

http://mycommittees.api.org/standards/pipeline/1162%20Links/1162nonprintable.pdf.

101 See

http://mycommittees.api.org/standards/pipeline/1162%20Links/1162nonprintable.pdf,

sections 4.10 and C.10.

102 Id. See Table 2-1, Summary of Public Awareness Communications for 

Hazardous Liquids and Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Operators.

103 However, if in the future, we receive objections indicating that landowners are 

not adequately informed of particular maintenance activities, we may consider applying a 

separate prior notice requirement specific to such activities.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 60 -

Further, while the PHMSA report of planned major maintenance can provide a broad 

overview of a company’s future operations, because the company only issues this report 

every other year, it does not give landowners a sufficiently precise description of when a 

particular activity will commence and conclude. We believe that if landowners have 

notice five days before a ground disturbing project begins, this will enable companies and 

landowners time to confer, coordinate, and avoid simultaneously undertaking 

incompatible actions. Finally, we note that PHMSA is focused on the safe operation of 

existing facilities, whereas the Commission purview of the public interest covers a 

broader set of concerns. Thus, while PHMSA may find no cause to take into account a 

company’s activity that inconveniences a landowner but does not compromise the safe 

operation of gas facilities, the Commission may find such an activity to be within the 

scope of its authority to ensure the activity is consistent with the public convenience and 

necessity. 

71. MidAmerican Energy and Golden Triangle request that the Commission provide a 

definition of maintenance under section 380.15 of the regulations.104 Golden Triangle 

states that any time its personnel enter the right-of-way for periodic routine activities 

(e.g., pipe-to-soil readings, leak patrols, surveillance patrols, meter station inspections, 

 104 MidAmerican Energy’s Comments at p. 5 and Golden Triangle’s Comments at 

p. 9.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 61 -

and walking the pipeline right-of-way), a landowner will construe that entrance as a 

maintenance activity.105

72. We see no need to craft a definition describing all maintenance activities, although 

we can say that we do not share Golden Triangle’s apparent view that an intrusion by 

company personnel onto a landowner’s property for monitoring purposes is not 

“maintenance” so long as the monitoring does not lead to any additional activity during 

the same intrusion. We consider all of the activities identified by Golden Triangle to be 

maintenance. However, as stated above, we are scaling back the NOPR’s proposal so 

that prior notice to landowners will only be required for ground disturbing maintenance 

activities. Thus, while we believe Golden Triangle’s examples are maintenance 

activities, as long as these minor activities do not cause ground disturbance, they will not 

trigger any Commission requirement for advance notice to landowners.

6. Burden Resulting from Notification Requirement

73. Commentors argue that the NOPR did not fully analyze the expense and burden 

associated with requiring landowner notification for auxiliary, replacement, and 

maintenance activities.106 INGAA stresses that maintenance alone entails hundreds of 

thousands of property visits per year, and that to track these activities company personnel 

would have to write descriptions of each activity, visit the site to determine if new 

 105 Golden Triangle’s Comments at pp. 9-10.

106 INGAA’s March 2013 Comments at pp. 21-25, Southern Star’s Comments at 

p. 5-6, and National Fuel’s Comments at p. 2.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 62 -

residences were installed since the last patrol, hire a land agent to identify all affected and 

abutting landowners, and craft and mail formal letters.107

74. Golden Triangle asserts that the expense of complying with the proposed 

landowner notification requirements will have a significant impact on small entities. 108 

Golden Triangle states that compliance with the landowner notification requirements will 

include increased costs to hire either a contractor or full-time employee, to create a 

database or purchase specialty software, and to mail out letters to all of its right-of-way 

easement holders.

109

75. WBI Energy and National Fuel argue that the Commission underestimated the 

amount of time it will take companies to prepare the notices.110 WBI Energy and 

INGAA state that the NOPR’s estimate that there will be three times as many 

maintenance projects as section 2.55 projects is a gross underestimation.111 National Fuel 

insists that the NOPR’s estimate that the entire industry will spend 39,000 hours to satisfy 

 107 INGAA’s March 2013 Comments at p. 10.

108 Golden Triangle claims it is a small entity, which the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) Office of Size Standards defines a natural gas company

transporting natural gas as small if its annual receipts are less than $25.5 million. See

13 CFR § 121.201 (2013), Subsector 486 and SBA’s Table of Small Business Size 

Standards, effective March 26, 2012, available at: 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.

109 Golden Triangle’s Comments at pp. 7-8.

110 WBI Energy’s Comments at p. 11 and National Fuel’s Comments at p. 4.

111 WBI Energy’s Comments at p. 11.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 63 -

the notification requirement is low. National Fuel predicts that it will be required to 

spend approximately six hours to prepare and deliver notices to all affected landowners 

for each maintenance activity.112 Golden Triangle asserts it will spend at least 16 hours 

on 250 letters for mowing or noxious weed control, in addition to the eight hours it 

estimates will be required to research, update, and prepare separate letters for abutting 

landowners.113 In addition, MidAmerican Energy states that the landowner notification 

requirement will impose varying burdens on individual pipelines based on the activity 

undertaken. For example, it estimates that farm tap installation and maintenance will 

require 5,400 letters per year; check, operate, and lubricate maintenance will require 

30,000 letters per year; and leak detection surveys will require 7,700 letters per year. 114

76. We acknowledge that given the wide range of maintenance activities described by 

commentors, we may have underestimated the burden of providing prior notice to 

landowners that would have resulted from the NOPR’s proposal to require that 

companies notify landowners, including abutting landowners, prior to commencing any 

activities under section 2.55 or section 380.15. However, as discussed above, we are 

limiting the requirement for prior notice to activities that will involve ground disturbance. 

 112 National Fuel’s Comments at pp. 4-5.

113 Golden Triangle’s Comments at p. 9.

114 For maintenance activities on their systems, WBI Energy estimated it would 

have to send 19,500 letters, Northern Natural estimated 45,000 letters, and National Fuel 

estimated 220,000 letters.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 64 -

In addition, we are eliminating the proposed requirement that companies give prior notice 

to abutting landowners and to landowners with a residence within 50 feet of a proposed 

work area.

77. We believe these modifications to the NOPR’s proposed notice requirements will 

alleviate the concerns for the majority of the activities cited by commentors. As a result, 

we will use a multiplier of two times the number of all regulated companies’ estimated 

annual auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a)115 as a reasonable estimate of the total 

annual number of auxiliary installations, replacement projects, and maintenance activities 

that will require prior notice to landowners because the activities will result in ground 

disturbance. We acknowledge that basing the estimated total number of activities 

requiring prior notice on regulated companies’ estimates of the number of section 2.55(a) 

auxiliary installations undertaken annually is not going to yield the same number as 

basing our estimate on on-site surveys or other verifiable data; nevertheless, we believe 

our estimate is reasonable and is as accurate an estimate as can be readily established for 

purposes of calculating the anticipated burden. 

78. As discussed herein, we are also responding to companies’ concerns that it is often 

impractical to notify landowners at least 10 days prior to the start of any section 2.55 or 

section 380.15 activity, as the NOPR’s proposal would have required. By requiring that 

notice be received five days and not 10 days prior to undertaking any activity, and 

 115 Based on a survey of nine jurisdictional companies, we estimate that 

approximately 7,605 auxiliary installation projects occur each year. 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 65 -

limiting notice to only ground disturbing rather than all section 2.55 and section 380.15 

activities, we believe companies will be subject to the minimal inconvenience necessary 

to ensure that landowners receive adequate advance notice of activities on their property

that could adversely affect them.

79. Further, while Golden Triangle indicates that compliance with the landowner 

notification requirements may require companies to create a database or purchase 

specialty software, we do not believe it is unreasonable or burdensome if the new notice 

requirements necessitate that some companies update their databases. All gas companies 

(regardless of size) need to know, both to enhance, replace, and maintain their facilities 

and to be able to respond to emergencies, precisely where their rights-of-way lie, how to 

get to their facilities, and how to contact the owners of the properties their facilities sit 

upon.

116 The new notice requirements require companies to do little more than access 

this existing information and update it as needed.117 Preparation of a notice using 

 116 Companies should already have such information on file, given that gas 

facilities generally were constructed under case-specific certificates obtained in 

proceedings in which the companies were required to give affected landowners notice in 

accordance with section 157.6(d), or were constructed under the blanket certificate 

regulations which require in section 157.203(d) that companies give landowners notice of 

all projects subject to those regulations’ prior notice provisions. In addition, companies 

need to periodically update such information to be able to comply with the PHMSA 

biennial reporting requirement. Further, since some of the major maintenance projects 

included in the PHMSA report will also qualify for prior notice under our new 

regulations, companies should be able to use the same project description to satisfy both 

PHMSA and Commission requirements. 

117 Golden Triangle argues that it does not have a database of its easement holders. 

Golden Triangle’s Comments at pp. 7-8. We expect gas companies to have documented 

 (continued...)
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 66 -

information a company already needs to have on hand should not be burdensome or delay 

the commencement or progress of activities under section 2.55 or section 380.15.

III. Information Collection Statement

80. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)118 requires each federal agency to seek and 

obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before undertaking a 

collection of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general 

applicability.119 The OMB’s regulations implementing the PRA require approval of 

certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.120 Upon approval 

of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an 

expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not 

be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of 

information displays a valid OMB control number.

 

the metes and bounds, terms of, and parties to all existing easements. While we 

recognize that this is not a static data set, we expect companies to conduct systematic 

reviews to keep this information current. We note Golden Triangle acknowledges, as 

discussed above, that its personnel need to enter its rights-of-way for periodic routine

activities including pipe-to-soil readings, leak patrols, surveillance patrols, meter station 

inspections, and walking the pipeline right-of-way. Golden Triangle’s Comments at 

pp. 9-10. If Golden Triangle does not have a database that identifies the precise location 

of and owners of the properties on which it has its rights-of-way, it should.

118 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 (2012).

119 OMB’s regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i) (2013) require that “[a]ny 

recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained in a rule of general 

applicability is deemed to involve ten or more persons.”

120 5 CFR 1320 (2013).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 67 -

81. The Commission is submitting the revised reporting requirements to OMB for its 

review and approval. The only entities affected by this rule would be natural gas 

companies under the Commission’s jurisdiction. The information collection 

requirements in this Final Rule are identified as follows.

82. FERC-577, “Gas Pipeline Certificates: Environmental Impact Statements,” 

identifies the Commission’s information collections relating to the requirements set forth 

in NEPA and Parts 2, 157, 284, and 380 of the Commission’s regulations. Applicants 

have to conduct appropriate studies which are necessary to determine the impact of the 

construction and operation of proposed jurisdictional facilities on human and natural 

resources, and the measures which may be necessary to protect the values of the affected 

area. These information collection requirements are mandatory.

83. Because this Final Rule adds a landowner notification requirement for certain 

activities undertaken pursuant to sections 2.55, 157, and 380.15 of our regulations, the 

overall burden on the industry will increase. However, because natural gas companies 

subject to our jurisdiction must already notify landowners in conjunction with NGA 

sections 3 projects and 7 case-specific applications and when conducting activities under 

Part 157 of our regulations, no new technology will be needed and no start-up costs will 

be incurred. Further, even without the new notification requirement, it is standard 

practice for some companies to inform landowners prior to coming onto their property, 

both as a courtesy and to avoid potential conflicts in landowner and company activities. 

Thus, the notification is expected to be consistent with current industry practices for some 

companies, and consequently to impose little additional burden on those companies. 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 68 -

84. We are making some minor modifications to the numbers used to derive our 

estimate. Because, as revised by this Final Rule, the prior notice requirement will only 

apply to those activities that require ground disturbance (and not to all section 2.55 and 

section 380.15 activities, as was proposed in the NOPR) and will only require notice to 

landowners whose property will be crossed or used (and not to abutting landowners and 

landowners with a residence within 50 feet of the proposed work area, as the NOPR 

would have required), we believe the revised estimated burden can no longer be 

characterized as underestimated. The vast majority of activities that commentors 

identified (principally maintenance, such as mowing, noxious weed control, and

equipment inspection and lubrication) will not be subject to our revised notification 

requirements. As a result, we are decreasing our estimate of the burden to notify 

landowners for maintenance activities, as described above in section 6: Burden Resulting 

from Notification Requirement.

121 In the NOPR, Commission staff requested a small 

representative sample of nine regulated natural gas companies to estimate the number of 

section 2.55(a) activities conducted each year. One company provided a response too 

late to be included in the NOPR estimate. Factoring in this company’s data results in 

only a trivial change to the burden estimate in this Final Rule.

85. We are also including the burden associated with the change to section 

157.203(d)(3) which was not included in the NOPR estimates. As discussed above, to 

 121 Supra PP 73-79.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 69 -

ensure that the landowner notification requirements in sections 2.55(b) 

and 157.203(d)(3)(i) are equivalent, we are revising section 157.203(d)(3)(i) to require 

notice for ground disturbing replacement projects that would have qualified under 

section 2.55 but for the fact that replacement facilities are not of the same capacity and 

because of that fact are installed under the blanket certificate provisions. As a 

conservative estimate of the number of such capacity altering replacement projects, we 

assume that the same number of replacements take place under the Part 157, Subpart F, 

blanket regulations as under section 2.55(b). This is reflected in the table below. We 

estimate the additional paperwork burden that this Final Rule would impose in the table 

below.

Regulation 

Section for New 

Landowner 

Notification 

Requirements

Annual 

Number of 

Respondents

(A)

Annual 

Number of 

Filings Per 

Respondent122

(B)

Number of 

Hours per 

Filing

(C)

Total Annual 

Hours

(A)x(B)x(C)

18 CFR § 2.55(a) 165 46 2 15,180

18 CFR § 2.55(b) 165 3 2 990

18 CFR § 

157.203(d)(3) 165 3 2 990

18 CFR § 380.15 165 92 2 30,360

Total Annual Burden Hours 47,520

 122 This column reflects a rounded estimate for each jurisdictional natural gas 

company, averaged over all of the existing 165 such companies.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 70 -

86. Given that some companies currently voluntarily comply with the new notification 

requirements, we believe that the actual industry-wide increase in burden is likely to be 

less than what we have estimated here.

Information Collection Costs: The Commission projects the average cost for all 

respondents to be as follows:123

• $2,898,720 per year for all regulated entities;

• $17,568 per year for each regulated entity.

Title: FERC-577.

Action: Revision.

OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0128.

Respondents: Natural gas pipeline companies.

Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

Necessity of Information: The requirement to notify landowners is necessary for the 

Commission to carry out its NGA responsibilities and meet the Commission’s objectives 

of addressing landowner concerns fairly. The information provided to landowners is 

intended to accommodate, to the extent possible, any concerns they may have regarding a 

 123 The cost figures are derived by multiplying the total hours to prepare a 

response by an hourly wage estimate of $61 (based on average civil engineer wages and 

benefit information obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data at 

http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_221200.htm#17-0000 and 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 71 -

natural gas company’s planning, locating, clearing, right-of-way maintenance, and 

facility construction or replacement activities on their property.

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the revisions and has determined that 

they are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission’s need for efficient 

information collection, communication, and management within the energy industry. 

The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, 

objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information collection 

requirements.

87. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 

Washington, DC 20426 (Attention: Information Clearance Officer, Office of the 

Executive Director), by phone 202-502-8663, or by e-mail to DataClearance@ferc.gov. 

Comments on the requirements may also be sent to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503

[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security 

reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Please reference OMB Control No. 1902-0128, FERC-577, and Docket No. RM12-11 in 

your submission. 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 72 -

IV. Environmental Analysis

88. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect 

on the human environment.124 The Commission has categorically excluded certain 

actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 

environment.125 Generally, the actions proposed to be taken here fall within the 

categorical exclusions in the Commission’s regulations that are clarifying, corrective, or 

procedural and for information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.126 Accordingly, 

an environmental review is not necessary and has not been prepared in connection with 

this rulemaking .

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

89. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)127 generally requires a description 

and analysis of agency rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that 

accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBA Office of Size 

 124 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (December 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations 

Preambles 1986-1990 ¶ 30,783 (1987).

125 18 CFR 380.4 (2013).

126 18 CFR 380.4(a)(1) and (5) (2013).

127 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (2012).
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 73 -

Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.128 The SBA has 

established a size standard for natural gas pipeline companies transporting natural gas, 

stating that a firm is small if its annual receipts are less than $25.5 million. 129

90. Golden Triangle disagrees with the Commission’s statement that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

We respond to Golden Triangle in Section B.5 above. We modify the small business 

impact below based on the revised estimates used in the information collection section 

above.

91. The new regulations impose requirements only on natural gas companies subject 

to the Commission’s jurisdiction, the majority of which are not small businesses. Most 

companies regulated by the Commission do not fall within the RFA’s definition of a 

small entity. Approximately 165 companies – nearly all of them large entities – would be 

potential respondents subject to data collection FERC-577 reporting requirements. For 

the year 2011 (the most recent year for which information is available), only 

15 companies not affiliated with larger companies had annual revenues of less than 

$25.5 million. Moreover, the reporting requirements should have no meaningful 

economic impact on companies – be they large or small – subject to the Commission’s 

 128 13 CFR 121.101 (2013).

129 13 CFR 121.201, Subsector 486 (2013); see SBA’s Table of Small Business 

Size Standards, effective March 26, 2012, available at: 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 74 -

regulatory jurisdiction. The Commission estimates that the revised cost per small entity 

is $17,568 per year. The Commission does not consider the estimated impact per entity 

to be significant. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission 

certifies that this Final Rule should not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.

VI. Document Availability

92. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the 

Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business 

hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington DC 20426.

93. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on 

eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft 

Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in 

eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field.

94. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC’s website during normal 

business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-

8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 75 -

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

95. These regulations are effective [insert date 60 days from publication in Federal 

Register]. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator 

of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major 

rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996. This rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, Government 

Accountability Office, and the Small Business Administration.

List of subjects 

18 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and procedure, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

187 CFR Part 157

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

requirements.

18 CFR Part 380

Environmental impact statements, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

By the Commission.

( S E A L )

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 76 -

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Parts 2, 157, and 380, 

Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 2 – GENERAL POLICY AND INTERPRETATIONS

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

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717-717z, 3301-3432; 16 U.S.C. 792-828c, 

2601-2645, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352.

2. Amend § 2.55 by inserting the following sentence after the last sentence in 

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

(a) Auxiliary Installations. 

(1) * * *

The auxiliary installations must be located within the existing or proposed 

certificated permanent right-of-way or authorized facility site and must be constructed 

using the temporary work space used to construct the existing or proposed facility (see 

Appendix A to this Part 2 for guidelines on what is considered to be the appropriate work 

area in this context). 

* * * * *

3. Amend § 2.55 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

(b) Replacement of facilities.
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 77 -

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(ii) The replacement facilities will have a substantially equivalent designed 

delivery capacity, will be located in the same right-of-way or on the same site as the 

facilities being replaced, and will be constructed using the temporary work space used to 

construct the existing facility (see Appendix A to this Part 2 for guidelines on what is 

considered to be the appropriate work area in this context);

* * * * *

4. Amend § 2.55 to add paragraph (c) to read as follows:

(c) Landowner Notification. 

(1) No activity described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section that involves 

ground disturbance is authorized unless a company makes a good faith effort to notify in 

writing each affected landowner, as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as 

receiving the tax notice, whose property will be crossed or used as a result of the 

proposed activity, at least five days prior to commencing any activity under this section. 

For an activity required to respond to an emergency, the five-day prior notice period does 

not apply. The notification shall include at least: (i) a brief description of the facilities to 

be constructed or replaced and the effect the activity may have on the landowner's 

property; (ii) the name and phone number of a company representative who is 

knowledgeable about the project; and (iii) a description of the Commission’s Dispute 

Resolution Division Helpline, which an affected person may contact to seek an informal 

resolution of a dispute as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the Commission’s regulations 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 78 -

and the Dispute Resolution Division Helpline number.

(2) “Affected landowners” include owners of property interests, as noted in the 

most recent county/city tax records as receiving tax notice, whose property is directly 

affected (i.e. crossed or used) by the proposed activity, including all rights-of-way, 

facility sites (including compressor stations, well sites, and all above-ground facilities), 

access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary work space.

5. Amend Appendix A to Part 2 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 2--Guidance for Determining the Acceptable Construction Area 

for Auxiliary and Replacement Facilities

These guidelines shall be followed to determine what area may be used to 

construct the auxiliary or replacement facility. Specifically, they address what areas, in 

addition to the permanent right-of-way, may be used.

An auxiliary or replacement facility must be within the existing right-of-way or 

facility site as specified by § 2.55(a)(1) or § 2.55(b)(1)(ii). Construction activities for the 

auxiliary or replacement facility can extend outside the current permanent right-of-way if 

they are within the temporary and permanent right-of-way and associated work spaces 

used in the original installation.

If documentation is not available on the location and width of the temporary and 

permanent rights-of-way and associated work spaces that were used to construct the 

original facility, the company may use the following guidance for the auxiliary 

installation or replacement, provided the appropriate easements have been obtained:

a. Construction should be limited to no more than a 75–foot–wide right-of-way 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 79 -

including the existing permanent right-of-way for large diameter pipeline (pipe greater 

than 12 inches in diameter) to carry out routine construction. Pipeline 12 inches in 

diameter and smaller should use no more than a 50–foot–wide right-of-way.

b. The temporary right-of-way (working side) should be on the same side that was 

used in constructing the original pipeline.

c. A reasonable amount of additional temporary work space on both sides of roads 

and interstate highways, railroads, and significant stream crossings and in side-slope 

areas is allowed. The size should be dependent upon site-specific conditions. Typical 

work spaces are:

Item Typical extra area (width/length)

Two lane road (bored) 25-50 by 100 feet.

Four lane road (bored) 50 by 100 feet.

Major river (wet cut) 100 by 200 feet.

Intermediate stream (wet cut) 50 by 100 feet.

Single railroad track 25-50 by 100 feet.

d. The auxiliary or replacement facility must be located within the permanent 

right-of-way or, in the case of nonlinear facilities, the cleared building site. In the case of 

pipelines this is assumed to be 50 feet wide and centered over the pipeline unless 

otherwise legally specified.

However, use of the above guidelines for work space size is constrained by the 

physical evidence in the area. Areas obviously not cleared during the original 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 80 -

construction, as evidenced by stands of mature trees, structures, or other features that 

exceed the age of the facility being replaced, should not be used for construction of the 

auxiliary or replacement facility.

If these guidelines cannot be met, the company should consult with the 

Commission's staff to determine if the exemption afforded by § 2.55 may be used. If the 

exemption may not be used, construction authorization must be obtained pursuant to 

another regulation under the Natural Gas Act.

PART 157 – APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC 

CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PREMITTING AND 

APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS 

ACT

1. The authority citation for Part 157 continues to read as follows:

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

2. Amend § 157.202 by revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:

§ 157.202 Definitions.

* * * * *

(b) Subpart F definitions. For purposes of this subpart: 

* * * 

(2)(i) Eligible facility means, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this 

section, any facility subject to the Natural Gas Act jurisdiction of the Commission that is 

necessary to provide service within existing certificated levels. Eligible facility also 

includes any gas supply facility or any facility, including receipt points, needed by the 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 81 -

certificate holder to receive gas into its system for further transport or storage, and 

interconnecting facilities between transporters that transport natural gas under part 284 of 

this chapter. Further, eligible facility includes main line, lateral, and compressor 

replacements that do not qualify under § 2.55(b) of this chapter because they will result in 

an incidental increase in the capacity of main line facilities, or because they will not 

satisfy the location or work space requirements of § 2.55(b). Replacements must be done 

for sound engineering purposes. Replacements for the primary purpose of creating 

additional main line capacity are not eligible facilities; however, replacements and the 

modification of facilities to rearrange gas flows or increase compression for the primary 

purpose of restoring service in an emergency due to sudden unforeseen damage to main 

line facilities are eligible facilities. Eligible facility also includes auxiliary installations 

and observation wells which do not qualify under § 2.55(a) of this chapter because they 

will not satisfy the location or work space requirements of § 2.55(a).

3. Amend § 157.203 by revising paragraph (d)(3)(i) to read as follows:

§ 157.203 Blanket certification.

* * * * *

(d) Landowner Notification. 

* * * 

(3) Exceptions.

(i) No landowner notice is required for replacements which would have been done 

under § 2.55 of this chapter but for the fact that the replacement facilities are not of the 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 82 -

same capacity as long as they meet the location requirements of § 2.55(b)(1)(ii) of this 

chapter and do not cause any ground disturbance; or any replacement done for safety, 

DOT compliance, environmental, or unplanned maintenance reasons that are not foreseen 

and that require immediate attention by the certificate holder.

* * * * *

PART 380 – REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

1. The authority citation for Part 380 continues to read as follows:

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

2. Redesignate § 380.15 paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (d), (e), (f), 

and (g).

3. Amend § 380.15 to add paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 380.15 Siting and maintenance requirements.

* * * * *

(c) Landowner Notification. 

(1) No maintenance activity that involves ground disturbance is authorized unless 

a company makes a good faith effort to notify in writing each affected landowner, as 

noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving the tax notice, whose 

property will be crossed or used as a result of the proposed activity, at least five days 

prior to commencing any activity under this section. For an activity required to respond 

to an emergency, the five-day prior notice period does not apply. The notification shall 
Docket Nos. RM12-11-000 and RM12-11-001 - 83 -

include at least: (i) a brief description of the activity and the effect the activity may have 

on the landowner's property; (ii) the name and phone number of a company 

representative who is knowledgeable about the project; and (iii) a description of the 

Commission’s Dispute Resolution Division Helpline, which an affected person may 

contact to seek an informal resolution of a dispute as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the 

Commission’s regulations and the Dispute Resolution Division Helpline number.

(2) “Affected landowners” include owners of property interests, as noted in the 

most recent county/city tax records as receiving tax notice, whose property is directly 

affected (i.e. crossed or used) by the proposed activity, including all rights-of-way, 

facility sites (including compressor stations, well sites, and all above-ground facilities), 

access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary work space.