57536 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1500 

of the final rule. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, contact 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to 

being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s proposal will 

also be available on the WWW through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

this action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed rules at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas of air pollution control. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

For information regarding other 

administrative requirements for this 

action, please see the direct final rule 

action that is located in the Rules and 

Regulations section of today’s Federal 

Register. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed amendments on 

small entities, a small entity is defined 

as: (1) A small business that is primarily 

engaged in secondary aluminum 

production according to Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards by 

NAICS code (in this case, less than 500 

employees for affected businesses 

classified in NAICS codes 331314, 

Secondary Smelting and Alloying of 

Aluminum, 331521, Aluminum Diecastings, and 331524, Aluminum 

Foundries; less than 750 employees for 

businesses in NAICS codes 331315, 

Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil, and 

331316, Aluminum Extruded Products; 

and less than 1,000 employees for 

businesses in NAICS code 331312, 

Primary Aluminum Production); (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed 

amendments on small entities, I certify 

that this action would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed amendments will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. The proposed amendment in 

today’s action would improve the 

emission standards by correcting a 

definitional error. We continue to be 

interested in the potential impacts of the 

proposed amendments on small entities 

and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 27, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–19714 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 192 

[Docket No. RSPA–1998–4868; Notice 5] 

RIN 2137–AB15 

Gas Gathering Line Definition; 

Alternative Definition for Onshore 

Lines and Proposed Safety Standards 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On September 25, 1991, DOT 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking to revise the definition of 

‘‘gathering line’’ in its gas pipeline 

safety standards. Because the proposal 

proved controversial, final action was 

postponed pending collection of 

additional information. In this 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (SNPRM), PHMSA is 

proposing use of a consensus standard 

to distinguish onshore gathering lines. 

PHMSA’s gas pipeline safety standards 

do not provide an adequate basis for 

distinguishing these pipelines from 

production facilities and transmission 

lines. In addition, PHMSA is proposing 

to establish safety standards for certain 

higher-risk onshore gathering lines, and 

to relax current standards on certain 

low-risk onshore gathering lines. 

(Onshore gathering lines in inlets of the 

Gulf of Mexico are not affected by this 

rulemaking.) Operators would use a new 

risk-based approach to determine which 

of its gathering lines are ‘‘regulated 

onshore gathering lines’’ and what 

safety standards the lines must meet. At 

present, PHMSA’s safety standards do 

not apply to onshore gathering lines in 

rural locations, while onshore gathering 

lines in non-rural locations must meet 

the same requirements as transmission 

lines. This regulatory approach is 

insufficient to assure that conditions on 

gathering lines that pose a greater risk 

to the public and property are 

addressed. And it does not take into 

account the lower risk some other 

gathering lines pose. The intended 

effects of the proposed rules are 

improved identification of gathering 

lines, improved public confidence in 

the safety of gathering lines, and safety 

requirements better tailored to gathering 

line risks. 

DATES: Persons interested in submitting 

written comments on the rules proposed 

in this notice must do so by January 3, 

2006. Late filed comments will be 

considered so far as practicable. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference 

Docket No. RSPA–1998–4868 and may 

be submitted in the following ways: 

• DOT Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

To submit comments on the DOT 

electronic docket site, click ‘‘Comment/ 

Submissions,’’ click ‘‘Continue,’’ fill in 

the requested information, click 

‘‘Continue,’’ enter your comment, then 

click ‘‘Submit.’’

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket 

Management System; Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• E-Gov Web Site: http:// 

www.Regulations.gov. This site allows 

the public to enter comments on any 

Federal Register notice issued by any 

agency. 

Instructions: You should identify the 

docket number, RSPA–1998–4868, at 

the beginning of your comments. If you 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57537 

1As stated in § 192.3: ‘‘Gathering line’’ means a 

pipeline that transports gas from a current 

production facility to a transmission line or main. 

‘‘Transmission line’’ means a pipeline, other than 

a gathering line, that transports gas from a gathering 

line or storage facility to a distribution center or 

storage facility; operates at a hoop stress of 20 

percent or more of SMYS, or transports gas within 

a storage field. ‘‘Distribution line’’ means a pipeline 

other than a gathering or transmission line. 

2See Pub. L. 102–508, section 109; now 49 U.S.C. 

60101(a)(21) and 60101(b). 

submit your comments by mail, you 

should submit two copies. If you wish 

to receive confirmation that PHMSA 

received your comments, you should 

include a self-addressed stamped 

postcard. Internet users may submit 

comments at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and may access all 

comments received by DOT at http:// 

dms.dot.gov by performing a simple 

search for the docket number. Note: All 

comments will be posted without 

changes or edits to http://dms.dot.gov 

including any personal information 

provided. Please see the Privacy Act 

heading under Section V, Regulatory 

Analyses and Notices, of the 

Supplemental Information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

DeWitt Burdeaux by phone at 405–954–

7220 or by e-mail at 

dewitt.burdeaux@dot.gov regarding the 

subject matter of this notice. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Why Is Distinguishing Onshore 

Gathering Lines a Problem? 

Gathering lines are pipelines used to 

collect and transport natural gas from 

the well and related production 

facilities to transmission or distribution 

pipelines, which then transport the gas 

to a gas consumer, such as a residence 

or business. PHMSA safety regulations 

in 49 CFR Part 192 apply to the design, 

construction, operation, and 

maintenance of gathering, transmission, 

and distribution pipelines. However, the 

regulations do not cover production 

facilities or onshore gathering lines in 

locations outside cities, towns, villages, 

or designated residential or commercial 

areas (hereinafter ‘‘rural locations’’) 

(§ 192.1(b)(4)). (Onshore gathering lines 

within Gulf of Mexico inlets have been 

subject to the inspection and burial 

requirements of § 192.612 

(§ 192.1(b)(5)). These lines are not 

affected by this rulemaking.) 

Since Part 192 does not cover 

production facilities, in non-rural 

locations, pipeline operators and 

government inspectors must distinguish 

regulated gathering lines from 

unregulated production facilities. 

Similarly, in rural locations they must 

distinguish unregulated gathering lines 

from regulated transmission and 

distribution lines. Yet, since the Part 

192 regulations were first published (35 

FR 13248; Aug. 19, 1970), operators and 

government inspectors have had 

difficulty making these distinctions. 

The reason is twofold: First, as 

defined in Part 192, a ‘‘gathering line’’

begins at a production facility, but the 

term ‘‘production facility’’ is not 

defined. Operators and government 

inspectors must interpret the term 

‘‘production facility’’ to determine 

whether a downstream pipeline is a 

gathering line. In the absence of a 

definition, their interpretations vary. 

Second, although a ‘‘transmission line 

or main’’ marks the end of gathering 

under the gathering line definition, Part 

192 defines ‘‘transmission line’’ as a 

particular type of pipeline ‘‘other than 

a gathering line’’ and defines ‘‘main’’ as 

a particular type of ‘‘distribution line,’’

which is defined as a pipeline ‘‘other 

than a gathering or transmission line.’’

The circularity of these definitions 

makes it necessary to interpret the term 

‘‘gathering line’’ to determine whether a 

pipeline is a transmission or 

distribution line.1 However, the 

complexity of many gathering systems 

results in varied interpretations of 

‘‘gathering line.’’

B. Has DOT Proposed To Revise Its 

Gathering Line Definition? 

In 1974, the Agency tried to correct 

the problem of distinguishing gathering 

lines by proposing to revise the 

gathering line definition (39 FR 34569; 

Sept. 26, 1974). But because comments 

indicated many terms and phrases in 

the proposal were unclear, it was later 

withdrawn from consideration (43 FR 

42773; Sept. 21, 1978). 

Although the definition problem 

remained, the Agency took no further 

action until 1986, when it asked the 

National Association of Pipeline Safety 

Representatives (NAPSR), a non-profit 

association of State pipeline safety 

officials, to comment on the extent of 

the problem. Responses from NAPSR 

members showed that in the 30 states 

with gathering lines, there were at least 

2,800 gathering operators and 111,000 

miles of gathering lines (as interpreted 

by the States). NAPSR members from 

five States, with about 54 percent of the 

operators of gathering lines and 75 

percent of the mileage, stated they had 

disagreements with operators over 

whether rural pipelines were gathering 

lines or transmission lines. Members 

from three of these States said the 

disagreements were too numerous to 

list. One NAPSR member indicated 

numerous disagreements with two 

major gas gathering and transmission 

pipeline operators regarding the point 

where the gathering line ended. Another 

NAPSR member indicated continuing 

disagreements over the classification of 

various segments of pipeline operated 

by one of the largest gas gathering line 

operators in the United States. 

In 1991, boosted by the NAPSR 

survey, the Agency again proposed to 

revise the gathering line definition 

(Docket No. PS–122; 56 FR 48505; Sept. 

25, 1991). The intent was to define the 

term consistent with prevailing 

practices. However, as with the earlier 

proposal, the response was generally 

unfavorable. Industry commenters 

disputed the significance of the 

problem, and alleged widespread 

reclassification of lines from production 

to gathering and from gathering to 

transmission. The Agency delayed 

further action pending the collection 

and consideration of more information. 

C. What Are the Statutory 

Considerations? 

PHMSA’s authority to issue safety 

standards for gas pipeline transportation 

is found in 49 U.S.C. 60102(a). Gas 

pipeline transportation includes the 

gathering of gas in or affecting interstate 

commerce. Prior to 1992, the pipeline 

safety law (49 U.S.C. Chapter 601) 

limited safety regulation of the onshore 

gathering of gas to gathering lines in 

non-rural locations. In 1992, Congress 

provided DOT specific authority to 

define gas gathering for purposes of 

safety regulation, and to change the 

scope of regulation by defining 

‘‘regulated gathering.’’ 2

The 1992 statutory change expressly 

allows PHMSA to depart from the 

concepts of ‘‘gathering’’ as used under 

the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et 

seq.). This allows focus on the safety 

purposes of the pipeline safety law for 

defining regulated facilities rather than 

on the purposes of the Natural Gas Act. 

The approach to defining and regulating 

gas gathering taken in this SNPRM does 

not rely on concepts of gathering as 

used under the Natural Gas Act. 

PHMSA does not intend for anyone to 

rely on its definition of gas gathering to 

decide whether particular lines are 

gathering within the meaning of the 

Natural Gas Act. 

In addition, the 1992 statutory change 

directed DOT to consider the functional 

and operational characteristics of the 

lines in labeling them as gathering, and 

to consider such factors as location, 

length of line from the well site, 

operating pressure, throughput, and the 

composition of the gas in deciding 

which ones to regulate. For example, in 

57538 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

3The order may be viewed at http://ops.dot.gov/ 

regions/easterndoc/cpf13002o.wpd. 

deciding which gathering lines should 

be regulated, PHMSA considers location 

of the line in the vicinity of population 

as more precise than the rural/non-rural 

approach in the pre-1992 law. The use 

of this more precise approach coupled 

with the authority to define and to 

regulate ‘‘regulated gathering’’ lines 

makes it unnecessary to continue use of 

statutory terminology that limits 

regulation of gathering in rural areas 

(‘‘outside the limits of any incorporated 

or unincorporated city, town, or village, 

or any other designated residential or 

commercial area’’). As described more 

fully below, the approach to regulated 

gas gathering in this SNPRM follows the 

statutory direction. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60102(b), a gas 

pipeline safety standard must be 

practicable and designed to meet the 

need for gas pipeline safety and for 

protection of the environment. To 

accomplish this, PHMSA must consider 

a number of factors in issuing a safety 

standard. These factors include the 

relevant available pipeline safety and 

environmental information, the 

appropriateness of the standard for the 

particular type of facility, the 

reasonableness of the standard, 

reasonably identifiable or estimated 

costs and benefits, any comments 

received from the public, and any 

comments and recommendations of the 

Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee (TPSSC). Except as 

explained in the following paragraph 

about public comments on the 1991 

proposal, PHMSA has considered these 

factors in the development of this 

SNPRM and provides its analysis in the 

appropriate paragraphs of the preamble. 

With respect to public comments, 

PHMSA has dramatically altered its 

approach to regulating gathering lines 

from that of the 1991 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) (which was limited 

to a definition of gathering lines 

consistent with that in the Natural Gas 

Act). Thus, comments to the proposal in 

the 1991 NPRM are not addressed in 

detail in this SNPRM. The Agency 

reopened the docket to public 

comments in an electronic public 

discussion forum in 1999 and provided 

several other opportunities for public 

input into the development of this 

SNPRM. These comments have been 

used in the development of this 

SNPRM. If a commenter to the 1991 

proposal believes that this SNPRM does 

not adequately address the concerns 

raised in earlier comments, the 

commenter should raise the concerns 

again. 

Comments and recommendations of 

the TPSSC will be addressed when a 

final action is prepared on this SNPRM. 

D. What Has PHMSA Done To Get More 

Public Comments on Defining and 

Regulating Gathering Lines? 

In 1999, in furtherance of the ongoing 

1991 gathering line proceeding and 

Congress’ action on gathering lines, the 

Agency invited further public comments 

on the definition problem and the need 

to regulate rural gathering lines (Docket 

No. RSPA–1998–4868; 64 FR 12147; 

Mar. 11, 1999). The comments largely 

focused on a comprehensive treatment 

of the definition problem that the 

American Petroleum Institute (API) 

submitted on behalf of a coalition of 23 

trade associations (RSPA–1998–4846–

85). API later published the treatment as 

API Recommended Practice 80, 

‘‘Guidelines for the Definition of 

Onshore Gas Gathering Lines’’ (API RP 

80). API RP 80 defines gas gathering 

lines through a series of definitions, 

descriptions, and diagrams intended to 

represent the varied and complex nature 

of production and gathering in the 

United States. You may purchase a copy 

of API RP 80 from API through its Web 

site (http://www.api.org) or review a 

copy in room 2103 of the Nassif 

Building, 400 7th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC by contacting Jenny 

Donohue at (202) 366–4046 or 

jenny.donohue@dot.gov. 

Although industry commenters spoke 

favorably about the API RP 80 gathering 

line definition, NAPSR objected to the 

use of certain ‘‘furthermost 

downstream’’ endpoints to mark the 

beginning and end of gathering in the 

definition. NAPSR’s concern was that if 

the definition were included in Part 

192, operators would have an incentive 

to establish or move the endpoints 

further downstream to reduce the 

amount of regulated pipeline. 

NAPSR’s concern is plausible because 

gathering begins at the end of 

production, which is not covered by 

Part 192. The amount of gathering 

subject, or potentially subject, to 

regulation becomes less the further 

production extends downstream. A 

similar situation exists at the end of 

gathering, which marks the beginning of 

transmission or distribution under Part 

192. The amount of transmission or 

distribution lines subject to regulation 

becomes less the further gathering lines 

extends downstream. 

The Agency also had doubts about 

adopting the API RP 80 definition, as 

expressed in a letter to API dated 

January 12, 2001 (RSPA–1998–4868–

108). Nevertheless, the Agency did not 

discount the possibility of using API RP 

80 as an alternative to the 1991 

proposed definition. While considering 

its next step, in 2002, the Agency 

published an Advisory Bulletin to 

remind operators it was still regulating 

gathering lines according to court 

precedents and prior interpretations 

(ADB–02–06; 67 FR 64447; October 18, 

2002). 

Then in 2003, the Agency held public 

meetings in Austin, Texas (68 FR 62555; 

November 5, 2003) and Anchorage, 

Alaska (68 FR 67129; December 1, 2003) 

to attract more comments from 

interested persons on the best way to 

define gas gathering lines and what, if 

any, safety regulations may be needed 

for rural gathering lines. At the 

meetings, the Agency gave the history of 

the gas gathering issue and proffered a 

‘‘sliding corridor’’ concept as a possible 

basis for deciding which lines should be 

regulated. This concept originated in a 

consent order the Agency issued to 

Hanley & Bird, Inc., a Pennsylvania gas 

production and gathering operator.3 It 

would require operators to slide an 

imaginary corridor 1000 feet long and 

200 or 440 yards wide, depending on 

pipeline hoop stress, along their 

gathering lines. Wherever the corridor 

contains five or more dwellings, the 

gathering line would be subject to 

pipeline safety regulations, and the 

extent of regulation would vary by 

operating stress level. Transcripts of 

both meetings are in the docket (RSPA–

1998–4868–120 and 122). 

Following the two meetings, to 

promote informed public participation 

in resolving the gathering line issues, 

the Agency published a notice that 

clarified its intentions about defining 

and regulating gathering lines (69 FR 

5305; February 4, 2004). In the notice, 

the Agency clarified its intention to 

adopt definitions of production and 

gathering that would identify the 

beginning of gathering without 

overlapping the jurisdiction of State 

regulations on production. The Agency 

said it was seeking definitions that 

could be applied consistently by both 

regulators and operators. Regarding 

rural gathering lines, the Agency 

explained the need for comments on an 

appropriate approach to identifying 

lines that should be regulated. The 

notice also extended the deadline for 

receipt of written comments to March 4, 

2004. 

In addition to the 1999 Web 

discussion and 2003 public meetings, 

the Agency met several times over the 

last two years with State agency 

officials, industry representatives, and 

others to obtain views on gathering line 

risks and the need for regulations. Notes 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57539 

4 GPA presented the survey at a meeting of the 

Agency’s gas pipeline safety advisory committee on 

February 5, 2004 (RSPA–1998–4470–120). 

of these informal meetings are in the 

docket (RSPA–1998–4868). 

E. What Were the Main Points 

Commenters Made? 

Twenty-three comments were 

submitted following the public meetings 

and clarification notice. A summary of 

significant comments follows. 

1. Definition of Gathering Line 

Three industry commenters expressed 

satisfaction with the current Part 192 

definition and prior Agency 

interpretations. But most commenters 

who addressed the issue, including a 

coalition of trade associations (API, the 

Gas Processors Association (GPA), the 

Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas 

Association, the Texas Oil and Gas 

Association, and the Texas Pipeline 

Association), urged the Agency to adopt 

API RP 80 as the basis for determining 

onshore gas gathering lines. These 

commenters welcomed the flexibility of 

API RP 80, and believed it would result 

in few, if any, reclassifications of 

pipelines from production to gathering 

or gathering to transmission. 

Taking a different view, NAPSR 

opposed the unqualified use of API RP 

80 to identify gas gathering lines. First, 

regarding the beginning of gathering 

under section 2.2(a)(1) of API RP 80, 

NAPSR suggested that production 

operations should be limited to piping 

and equipment used solely in the 

process of extracting natural gas from 

the earth for the first time. This process 

involves removing natural substances 

from the earth, separating out natural 

gas, and preparing the gas for 

transportation. NAPSR stated that under 

its suggested limitation, any piping that 

serves a function besides processing in 

aid of extraction would be part of 

gathering operations rather than 

production operations. Secondly, 

NAPSR suggested limitations on the end 

of gathering under the API RP 80 

definition. These limitations, such as 

restricting the end of gathering to the 

first, rather than furthermost, 

downstream gas processing plant, were 

intended to remove the opportunity to 

manipulate the changeover from 

gathering to transmission. 

In a letter dated September 9, 2004, 

NAPSR suggested ‘‘gathering pipeline’’

and ‘‘production facility’’ be defined as 

follows: 

‘‘Gathering pipeline’’ (a) Means any 

pipeline or part of a connected series of 

pipelines used to transport gas from the 

endpoint of a production facility to the 

first natural gas processing plant. 

(b) In the absence of a natural gas 

processing plant, means any pipeline or 

connected series of pipelines used to: 

1. Transport gas from the endpoint of 

a production facility to the furthermost 

downstream of the following endpoints: 

(A) The outlet of the first downstream 

gathering line gas treatment facility; or 

(B) The first downstream point where 

gas produced in the same production 

field or contiguous production fields is 

commingled; or 

(C) The outlet of the first downstream 

compressor used to facilitate deliveries 

from production operations into a 

pipeline. 

2. Transport gas from a gathering line 

exclusively to points in adjacent 

production operations or gathering 

facility sites for use as fuel, gas lift, or 

gas injection within those operations; 

and 

(c) Does not include a natural gas 

processing plant. 

‘‘Production facility’’ means any 

pipeline or equipment or part of a 

connected series of pipelines used 

solely in the process of extracting 

natural gas from the earth for the first 

time. 

2. Need To Regulate Rural Gathering 

Lines 

As to the need to regulate gas 

gathering lines in rural locations, some 

industry commenters contended rural 

gathering lines generally pose a low risk 

to public safety, citing an incident 

survey GPA conducted in December 

2003.4 GPA itself commented that based 

on its survey, onshore gas gathering 

lines do not pose a significant risk that 

warrants extensive new Federal 

regulations. A few industry commenters 

and the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) suggested the Agency should first 

identify and analyze the risks involved 

and then target regulations to specific 

problems. Cook Inlet Keeper, a 

nonprofit organization dedicated to 

protecting Alaska’s Cook Inlet 

Watershed and North Slope Borough, 

the northernmost county of Alaska, 

advocated that the Agency regulate all 

unregulated lines threatening people 

and the environment. Cook Inlet Keeper 

also submitted data on releases from 

unregulated pipelines in Alaska. 

3. Regulatory Approach 

Concerning the appropriate approach 

to regulation, the coalition of trade 

associations suggested a tiered approach 

to regulating onshore gathering lines. 

Under the coalition’s approach, the 

extent of regulation would increase with 

pipeline risk as determined by operating 

parameters and population density. 

Lines posing a lower risk to the public 

would be subject to fewer safety 

standards than they are now. This 

relaxation of current regulatory burden 

on lower-risk lines would help offset the 

added cost of regulating higher-risk 

gathering lines that are not currently 

regulated. ONEOK, Inc., an operator of 

gas gathering lines, suggested a similar 

but more detailed tiered approach. 

The coalition’s approach is 

summarized as follows: 

Tier Gathering line Regulation 

I .......................... All in Class 1 or 2 location ...................... Periodic summary report of incidents; line markers; and one-call damage prevention programs. 

All < 20% SMYS 

All plastic 

II ......................... All ≥ 20% SMYS in rural Class 3 or 4 location.Tier I plus corrosion control and a public awareness program. 

III ........................ All ≥ 20% SMYS in non-rural Class 3 or 

4 location.

Current Part 192 requirements. 

Delta County, Colorado preferred the 

sliding corridor approach the Agency 

had discussed at the public meetings. 

Two industry commenters favored a 

hands-off approach that would leave the 

regulation of rural gathering to State 

agencies that oversee oil and gas 

production. 

57540 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

5As defined in section 2.3 of API RP 80, 

‘‘production operation’’ means piping and 

equipment used for production and preparation for 

transportation or delivery of hydrocarbon gas and/ 

or liquids and includes the following processes: 

(a) Extraction and recovery, lifting, stabilization, 

treatment, separation, production processing, 

storage, and measurement of hydrocarbon gas and/ 

or liquids; and 

(b) Associated production compression, gas lift, 

gas injection, or fuel gas supply. 

4. Impact 

Several commenters were concerned 

about the impact of any new Federal 

regulations on gathering lines in rural 

locations. DOE and the Independent 

Petroleum Association of America were 

particularly concerned that increased 

costs could cause producers to shut-in 

marginally profitable wells. They 

pointed out that since marginal wells 

account for about 10 percent of the 

United States’ gas production, 

additional costs would have the 

potential to reduce the Nation’s supply 

of gas. (A discussion of the energy 

impacts of this proposal is found under 

the Executive Order 13211 heading in 

Section V, Regulatory Analyses and 

Notices, of this document.) 

II. Resolving the Definition Problem 

A. What Alternatives to the 1991 

Proposal Did the Agency Consider? 

In view of the congressional directives 

and the importance of distinguishing 

onshore gas gathering lines, PHMSA 

believes resolving the definition 

problem is essential. However, the 

Agency’s previous attempts in 1974 and 

again in 1991 to resolve the matter by 

formulating a gathering line definition 

were controversial. The controversy was 

no doubt due to the varied and complex 

configurations of gas gathering systems 

throughout the industry. For this reason, 

PHMSA now believes a single definition 

that is wholly consistent with industry 

practices probably cannot be developed. 

This conclusion and the comments 

resulting from the Austin and 

Anchorage meetings have caused the 

Agency to take a closer look at using 

API RP 80. It is a comprehensive 

treatment of gas gathering that was 

developed by experienced personnel 

representing over 20 national, regional, 

and State oil and gas industry 

associations. It covers every aspect of 

the gathering function, from its 

beginning in production operations, 

which are separately defined, to various 

defined endpoints. The attention to 

detail and solid backing by commenters 

led the Agency to believe API RP 80 can 

be used appropriately to distinguish 

gathering lines under Part 192 without 

the controversy attendant to prior 

proposals. 

PHMSA does not intend that persons 

use API RP 80 for non-safety purposes, 

such as to identify gathering under the 

Natural Gas Act. In this regard, readers 

should note API RP 80, by its terms, 

applies only in the context of pipeline 

safety: ‘‘[T]he definitions presented 

herein are not designed to address 

issues—nor are they intended for 

application—in any regulatory context 

other than gas pipeline safety pursuant 

to the Federal Pipeline Safety Act.’’

(Section 2.6.2.4 of API RP 80). 

The Agency considered the following 

ways API RP 80 could serve to 

determine onshore gas gathering under 

Part 192: 

1. Use API RP 80 as Guidance 

Continue to apply the present Part 

192 gathering line definition, but rely on 

API RP 80 as guidance to determine the 

beginning and end of onshore gathering. 

The advantages of this alternative are 

that comments indicate some operators 

would likely support it and rulemaking 

would not be necessary. On the other 

hand, this alternative would probably 

not be sufficient to satisfy the 

congressional directive to define gas 

gathering. And it would provide a shaky 

basis for regulating rural gathering lines. 

In addition, NAPSR’s comments suggest 

many State pipeline safety agencies 

would be unlikely to accept some API 

RP 80 provisions even as guidance. 

2. Adopt API RP 80 as a Definition 

Adopt API RP 80 as the basis for 

determining onshore gas gathering lines. 

This alternative has wide industry 

acceptance, would likely minimize the 

present difficulty of distinguishing 

gathering lines, and, considering its 

wide acceptance, would probably result 

in few pipeline reclassifications. 

However, besides a gathering line 

definition, API RP 80 contains many 

supplemental definitions, descriptions, 

and diagrams. Although these 

supplemental provisions are helpful to 

understand the definition, they could 

prove difficult to apply uniformly and 

probably would lead to further varied 

interpretations. Also, the flexibility of 

API RP 80 that industry applauds, 

NAPSR contends could result in 

equipment being relocated to avoid 

regulations. If that happened, State 

pipeline safety agencies could lose 

control over many miles of pipeline 

they now regulate, and public safety 

could be compromised. 

3. Adopt API RP 80 as a Definition, But 

With Limitations 

Adopt API RP 80 as the basis for 

determining onshore gas gathering lines, 

but limit operators’ ability to establish 

endpoints merely to avoid regulation. 

The main advantage of this alternative 

is it balances industry’s desire to use 

API RP 80 to determine gathering lines 

under Part 192 with NAPSR’s desire for 

more definite endpoints. The 

disadvantage is that limitations could 

make API RP 80 more difficult to apply. 

In addition, proposing any limitation on 

how API RP 80 is applied could renew 

industry claims of line reclassifications. 

B. What Are the Details of the Definition 

PHMSA Is Now Proposing? 

PHMSA wants to define ‘‘onshore 

gathering line’’ in a way that not only 

reasonably matches current 

classifications but also addresses the 

concerns of State pipeline safety 

agencies. PHMSA, therefore, chose the 

third alternative, for it alone takes into 

account NAPSR’s concerns. PHMSA 

believes NAPSR’s concerns deserve 

considerable weight because, under the 

pipeline safety law, onshore gas 

gathering lines are largely intrastate 

pipeline facilities. As such, they are 

under, or eligible for, exclusive 

regulation by certified State pipeline 

safety agencies. When regulated by 

these agencies through adoption and 

enforcement of PHMSA safety 

standards, PHMSA’s role is to oversee 

State agency performance. In other 

words, regulation of an intrastate 

onshore gas gathering line by a certified 

State agency, removes the line from the 

direct regulatory authority of PHMSA. 

PHMSA is proposing to define 

‘‘onshore gathering line’’ as it is defined 

in section 2.2 of API RP 80, but with a 

few limitations on applying the API RP 

80 definition (see the proposed 

amendment to § 192.3 below). The 

proposed limitations, based on NAPSR’s 

comments, and PHMSA’s concerns that 

it raised during the meetings held on 

gathering line regulation, are designed 

to assure gathering line determinations 

do not stray significantly from PHMSA’s 

historic interpretations of gathering or 

do not abuse the ‘‘furthermost 

downstream’’ concept. 

1. Beginning of Gathering 

The beginning of an onshore gathering 

line under section 2.2(a)(1) of API RP 80 

is the furthermost downstream point in 

a production operation.5 PHMSA is 

proposing to restrict this point to piping 

or equipment used solely in the process 

of extracting natural gas from the earth 

for the first time and preparing it for 

transportation or delivery. Under this 

restriction, certain dual use equipment 

that can serve either a production or 

transportation function would be part of 

gathering when not used solely in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57541 

extraction and preparation of gas for 

transportation. For example, drip pots, 

which provide a separation function, are 

used in pipeline transportation to 

maintain the quality of gas delivered to 

customers. When used this way, a drip 

pot would not be part of production 

operations even though as a separator it 

could conceivably be used in the 

extraction and preparation of gas for 

transportation. Also, separation or 

dehydration equipment is often used to 

safeguard the operation of gathering 

compressors. Under the proposed 

limitation, any equipment being used to 

protect a gathering compressor would 

not be part of production operations. 

2. End of Gathering 

Under the API RP 80 definition of 

onshore gathering line, gathering ends at 

the furthermost downstream of five 

possible endpoints. The first possible 

endpoint is the inlet of the furthermost 

downstream natural gas processing 

plant, other than a natural gas 

processing plant located on a 

transmission line (section 2.2(a)(1)(A) of 

API RP 80). PHMSA is proposing this 

endpoint may not be a natural gas 

processing plant located further 

downstream than the first downstream 

natural gas processing plant unless the 

operator can demonstrate, based on 

sound engineering reasons, that 

gathering should be extended beyond 

that first plant. DOT interpretations and 

State agency enforcement actions have 

recognized the first downstream natural 

gas processing plant as the customary 

end of gathering. The proposed 

limitation is based on this practice, but 

it would allow operators the flexibility 

of ending gathering to a further 

downstream processing plant essential 

to gathering. 

The second possible endpoint under 

section 2.2(a)(1)(B) of API RP 80 would 

apply only if no other endpoint under 

2.2(a)(1) (A), (C), (D) or (E) exists. This 

endpoint is the outlet of the furthermost 

downstream gathering line gas treatment 

facility. 

The third possible endpoint is the 

furthermost downstream point where 

gas produced in the same production 

field or separate production fields is 

commingled (section 2.2(a)(1)(C) of API 

RP 80). This endpoint recognizes a 

gathering line may receive gas from 

several production fields. However, 

PHMSA is concerned that since the 

endpoint does not restrict the distance 

between separate production fields, a 

gathering line could continue endlessly, 

causing reclassification of pipelines 

from transmission to gathering. NAPSR 

suggested commingling should be 

limited to adjacent fields. PHMSA 

believes ‘‘adjacent’’ is very restrictive. 

To set some limit, PHMSA is proposing 

the separate production fields from 

which gas is commingled must be 

within 50 miles of each other. PHMSA 

is interested in receiving comments on 

whether a maximum distance between 

production fields from which gas is 

commingled should be specified. 

One limitation is proposed on the 

fourth possible endpoint. This endpoint 

is the outlet of the furthermost 

downstream compressor station used to 

lower gathering line operating pressure 

or to facilitate deliveries into the 

pipeline from production operations or 

to increase gathering line pressure for 

delivery to another pipeline (section 

2.2(a)(1)(D) of API RP 80). Gathering 

systems may contain many compressor 

units. (In gathering systems, 

compressors are smaller, self contained 

units, rather than the larger multiple 

unit facilities referred to as compressor 

stations.) In many cases, these 

compressor units lower the pressure on 

the upstream (suction) side to allow gas 

to flow from the wells. PHMSA believes 

these to be necessary to the gathering 

process. Also, whether they are located 

downstream of a processing plant or, 

stand alone, in the absence of a 

processing plant, many compressors 

serve to boost the pressure from the 

gathering line into either transmission 

or distribution pipelines. PHMSA is 

proposing to limit the endpoint to the 

outlet of a compressor used to deliver 

gas to another pipeline. In this case, 

PHMSA considers the gas to have been 

‘‘gathered’’ and prepared for 

transportation. This is consistent with 

the Agency’s past interpretation and 

enforcement policy. 

The fifth possible endpoint is the 

connection to another pipeline 

downstream of the furthermost 

downstream endpoint under sections 

2.2(a)(1)(A) through (D) of API RP 80, or 

in the absence of such endpoint, the 

furthermost downstream production 

operation (section 2.2(a)(1)(E) of API RP 

80). This endpoint applies to connecting 

lines called ‘‘incidental gathering’’

under section 2.2.1.2.6 of API RP 80. An 

example of a connecting line is a 

pipeline that runs from the outlet of a 

natural gas processing plant to a 

transmission line. 

III. Regulation of Onshore Gas 

Gathering Lines 

A. How Are Onshore Gas Gathering 

Lines Currently Regulated? 

1. Non-Rural Lines 

In non-rural locations, the gathering 

of gas by pipeline has been subject to 

Part 192 since these safety standards 

were published in 1970. Gathering lines 

in non-rural locations must meet the 

same safety standards for design, 

construction, operation, and 

maintenance as gas transmission lines, 

except § 192.150, standards for passage 

of smart pigs, and Subpart O of Part 192, 

integrity management (see § 192.9). 

In addition, the drug and alcohol 

testing regulations in 49 CFR part 199 

apply to onshore gas gathering lines in 

non-rural locations because these lines 

are regulated by Part 192. These 

regulations require operators to test 

personnel for use of prohibited drugs 

and misuse of alcohol. Persons subject 

to testing are those who perform a Part 

192 regulated operation, maintenance, 

or emergency-response function on a 

regulated pipeline. 

As required by 49 CFR part 191, 

operators of onshore gathering lines in 

non-rural locations also must submit 

reports to PHMSA. Operators must 

submit telephonic and follow-up 

written reports of incidents involving a 

death, hospitalization, or property 

damage of $50,000 or more. Other 

requirements include safety-related 

condition reports and annual reports 

about pipe inventory and leaks repaired. 

2. Rural Lines 

As discussed above, Part 192 does not 

apply to the onshore gathering of gas in 

rural locations. Rural gathering lines are 

also excluded from Part 191 reporting 

requirements and Part 199 drug and 

alcohol regulations. 

Until 1992, rural gathering lines were 

excluded by statute from pipeline safety 

regulation (although in 1990 Congress 

granted limited authority over gathering 

lines in Gulf of Mexico inlets (see Pub. 

L. 101–599)). In 1992, an amendment to 

the pipeline safety law gave DOT 

authority to regulate the safety of rural 

lines where warranted by risk. 

B. Are Safety Regulations Needed for 

Onshore Rural Gathering Lines? 

In 1992, Congress recognized some 

rural gathering lines that were exempt 

from DOT’s regulatory authority may 

present risks that warrant safety 

regulation. Congress authorized DOT to 

define a class of ‘‘regulated gathering 

lines’’ that warrant safety regulation 

based on information about risk. In its 

report on H.R. 1489, a bill that led to the 

1992 change in the law, the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

said ‘‘DOT should find out whether any 

gathering lines present a risk to people 

or the environment, and if so how large 

a risk and what measures should be 

taken to mitigate the risk.’’ (H.R. Report 

No. 102–247—Part 1, 102d Cong., 1st 

Session., 23 (1991)). 

57542 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

6 In 2002 the Texas Railroad Commission 

conducted a study to determine the risk of 

unregulated production and rural gathering lines in 

Texas. Most of the study’s data came from small 

operators with less than 10 miles of pipeline. 

However, the information received did not provide 

a sufficient basis for a conclusion. 

Because the reporting requirements 

under Part 191 covered only non-rural 

gathering lines, The Agency lacked 

information about whether the risks of 

rural lines warranted regulation. The 

Agency sought input from the public on 

the need to regulate these lines. As 

discussed above, in 1999, the Agency 

opened a Web discussion on gathering 

lines and in 2003 held public meetings 

in Austin and Anchorage, with 

opportunity to submit written 

comments until March 4, 2004. 

Although most participants in the Web 

discussion and the meetings addressed 

the definition problem, the public 

meetings also drew a few comments on 

the need for regulation. Gas Processors 

Association (GPA), a trade association 

representing gatherers and processors, 

submitted the most enlightening 

information about gathering line risks 

obtained from a survey of its members.6

The survey asked 40 operators of rural 

gas gathering lines about gathering line 

incidents that impacted the public 

during a 5-year period (1999–2003). The 

survey showed that over this period 58 

incidents occurred on 171,768 miles of 

pipeline, or on about 96 percent of GPA 

members’ gathering lines. The incidents 

resulted in three injuries and one death 

as well as evacuations, minor property 

damage ($5,000–$25,000), and major 

property damage (over $25,000). 

Corrosion caused most of the incidents, 

followed by third-party excavation, 

which produced the most severe 

consequences (including the death and 

two of the injuries). No other cause 

occurred more than twice. 

GPA compared these results to 

transmission incidents reported to the 

Agency under Part 191 over the same 5- 

year period. The comparison showed 

transmission lines impacted the public 

from three to six times more often, even 

though the Part 191 reporting threshold 

for property damage was $50,000 rather 

than $5,000. GPA attributed the lower 

impact of rural gathering lines to 

operators’ safety practices and to 

operating conditions that generally 

involved sparsely-populated areas, low 

pressures, and small pipe sizes. 

Although the survey results showed 

the lines GPA surveyed presented a 

lower risk to the public, the impacts to 

the public and property were not 

insignificant. Many people living or 

working near those lines suffered 

adverse consequences during the survey 

period. Moreover, the potential for 

future harm is apparent, because the 

survey confirmed the leading threats to 

Agency-regulated pipelines, corrosion 

and excavation damage, are also the 

leading threats to rural gathering lines. 

Furthermore, not all rural gathering 

lines present a low risk. Some rural 

lines are near pockets of increased 

population or operate at high pressures. 

In fact, high-pressure gathering lines in 

populated areas can present the same 

risk as regulated transmission lines. 

In consideration of the known and 

foreseeable risks presented by rural 

gathering lines, PHMSA believes it is no 

longer appropriate to maintain the 

present total exemption of rural lines. 

But in changing the present exemption, 

PHMSA is adhering to the congressional 

directives by focusing on lines that 

expose the public to significant risk, 

such as where a release of gas could 

have a serious consequence. 

PHMSA intends, through a separate 

rulemaking, to propose changes to the 

Part 191 reporting requirements to track 

the proposed changes in this 

rulemaking. Thus, in the Part 191 

rulemaking, all regulated onshore 

gathering lines would be subject to Part 

191 reporting requirements. This will 

give PHMSA more information about 

the risks of onshore gathering lines in 

rural locations. 

C. What Is the Proper Approach to 

Regulating Onshore Gathering Lines? 

PHMSA believes that for some 

onshore gathering lines, the potential for 

harm to the public is too low to warrant 

pipeline safety regulation. These lines 

may be characterized as generally small 

lines operating at low pressures in 

remote areas. For other lines, PHMSA 

agrees with commenters that as risk 

increases by operating pressure and 

proximity to people, so should the level 

of regulation. Under this approach, the 

highest risk lines would have the most 

regulation. This approach is consistent 

with the statutory directive on 

determining which gathering lines 

should be regulated gathering lines. 

In deciding what regulations to apply 

according to risk, PHMSA favors the 

tiered models suggested by the coalition 

(three tiers) and Oneok (four tiers). Tiers 

are a reasonable way to pair safety 

regulations with lines that pose different 

levels of risk. However, in view of the 

need for practicality in both compliance 

and enforcement, PHMSA has fashioned 

a simpler model that has only two tiers. 

This approach is discussed in more 

detail below. 

D. Should the Current Approach to 

Regulating Non-Rural Onshore 

Gathering Lines Be Changed? 

At present, Part 192 regulates nonrural gathering lines and transmission 

lines alike (except that requirements for 

passage of internal inspection devices in 

§ 192.150 and integrity management 

programs in Subpart O apply only to 

transmission lines). The problem with 

this approach is that, while individual 

lines may differ, the data indicates 

gathering and transmission lines do not 

pose the same overall level of risk to the 

public. Transmission line incidents 

have had a greater impact on the public 

than gathering line incidents. The safety 

data also indicates that because of the 

lesser risk some gathering lines pose to 

the public, these lesser-risk lines should 

not be subject to all regulations 

intended for transmission lines. 

Applying regulations intended for all 

transmission lines is probably not 

appropriate for all gathering lines. 

Although the data does not explain the 

difference in impact, PHMSA believes a 

significant factor is that many non-rural 

gathering lines operate at low pressures 

away from highly populated areas. 

Another problem with the current 

approach is that a city or town may 

extend its boundaries to incorporate low 

population areas within its boundaries. 

Thus, a gathering line that is not near 

any dwellings but is within the city or 

town boundary is subject to regulation. 

PHMSA believes the risk-based 

approach is the most suitable for 

applying the level of Part 192 regulation 

to address the risk posed by the 

gathering line. Regulation of an onshore 

gathering line would not depend on 

subdivision or local government 

boundaries as it does now, but on the 

risk the line poses to the public based 

on pressure and proximity. This change 

would maintain the current level of 

regulation where justified by risk. At the 

same time, it would relax the regulatory 

burden on less risky lines. 

E. What Safety Regulations Are Being 

Proposed? 

PHMSA is proposing to change how 

Part 192 applies to onshore gathering 

lines. This change is consistent with the 

statutory directive on factors to consider 

in regulating onshore gathering lines. A 

class of onshore gathering lines called 

‘‘regulated onshore gathering lines’’

would be defined in § 192.3 

characterized by either of two risk 

categories, Type A and Type B. The type 

would depend on the maximum 

allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 

the line (i.e., whether MAOP results in 

a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57543 

Specified Minimum Yield Strength 

(SMYS) or less than 20 percent). Under 

proposed § 192.9, lines covered by the 

two categories would be subject to 

safety requirements appropriate to each 

category. Onshore gathering lines not 

covered by these categories would not 

be subject to Part 192. 

The proposal would exclude onshore 

gathering lines that operate under 

vacuum, or at less than atmospheric 

pressure. Any failure of a vacuum line 

would tend to draw air into the pipeline 

rather than release natural gas to the 

atmosphere. PHMSA believes this factor 

sufficiently reduces the level of risk so 

regulation is unnecessary. Section 

192.1(b)(4) would be amended to 

exclude these vacuum lines from Part 

192. 

The proposal also clarifies that 

gathering lines in inlets of the Gulf of 

Mexico are not affected by this 

rulemaking for onshore gathering lines. 

Onshore gathering of gas in these inlets 

will continue to be subject only to the 

inspection and burial requirements in 

§ 192.612, which address the principal 

risk of these lines. At no point during 

our meetings and discussions about 

regulating onshore gathering has anyone 

commented on a need to change these 

requirements. 

1. Risk Categories 

The first risk category, Type A, would 

include the following lines or line 

segments that lie in populated areas: 

metallic lines whose MAOP results in a 

hoop stress of 20 percent or more of 

SMYS, and non-metallic lines whose 

MAOP is more than 125 psig. The 

populated areas would be Class 3 and 4 

locations, as defined in § 192.5, and 

other areas the operator would 

determine using either of two methods. 

The first method would require 

determining all potential impact circles 

along the line that include five or more 

dwellings. The circles would be 

calculated by using an empirical 

formula as proposed in § 192.3. These 

are the same circles that may now be 

used under Subpart O for integrity 

management purposes to predict the 

range of potential harm from a 

transmission line failure. 

The second method would require 

determining areas that extend 220 yards 

on each side of the centerline of any 

continuous 1000 feet of pipeline and 

that include either 5 or more dwellings 

per 1000 feet or 25 or more dwellings 

per mile. However, the density chosen 

will depend on which results in more 

regulated onshore gathering lines. 

PHMSA has included the 25 or more 

dwellings per mile to address industry 

comment that this was more consistent 

with current class location 

identification requirements and would 

not create confusion by having to shift 

to another approach. However, because 

the proposed approach to regulating 

onshore gathering is based on the line’s 

risk to the public, PHMSA has proposed 

that the density criterion an operator 

chooses must capture the most regulated 

gathering lines. If the density of five or 

more dwellings per 1000 feet were used, 

the area would extend along the 

pipeline until the space between 

dwellings is at least 250 feet. The 220- 

yard dimension is consistent with the 

areas used in class location 

determinations under § 192.5. 

Type A lines in areas within a Class 

1 or Class 2 location would also include 

additional lengths of line upstream and 

downstream from the area. These 

lengths would serve as a shield against 

potential harm to nearby dwellings. 

Type B is the second risk category of 

regulated onshore gathering lines. Type 

B lines would include metallic lines 

whose MAOP produces a hoop stress of 

less than 20 percent of SMYS. Also 

included would be non-metallic lines 

whose MAOP is 125 psig or less that are 

located in populated areas. The 

populated areas would be Class 3 and 4 

locations, and other areas that extend 

150 feet on each side of the centerline 

of any continuous 1000 feet of pipeline 

and that include 5 or more dwellings 

per 1000 feet. Like Type A lines, Type 

B lines in areas within Class 1 or Class 

2 locations would include additional 

lengths of line as a shield against 

potential harm to nearby dwellings. 

Type B does not include lines with 

MAOP of less than 0 psig because, as 

discussed above, PHMSA is proposing 

to exclude vacuum lines from 

regulation. 

The 150-foot dimension for Type B 

lines is more than twice the average 

length of service lines, or the average 

distance of distribution customers from 

street mains. Since mains generally 

operate at a lower stress or pressure 

than Type A gathering lines, 150 feet 

should cover dwellings that could be 

adversely affected by gathering lines 

operating at lower stresses or pressures 

than Type A lines. 

2. Safety Requirements 

Section 192.9 would be revised to 

include requirements for all gathering 

lines subject to Part 192. The 

requirements are based on the risk the 

line poses to the public. 

Paragraph (b) would state the present 

Part 192 requirements applicable to 

offshore lines. No change is proposed 

for these requirements. 

Under paragraph (c), Type A 

regulated onshore gathering lines would 

have to meet Part 192 requirements 

applicable to transmission lines, except 

requirements concerning the passage of 

smart pigs (§ 192.150) and integrity 

management requirements (Subpart O). 

Because of the pressure at which these 

lines operate, and their proximity to the 

public, they are considered higher-risk 

lines that warrant more safety 

requirements. Type A line operators 

would also be subject to the Part 199 

drug and alcohol regulations and the 

Part 191 reporting requirements. This is 

not a change from present practice. 

Gathering lines as currently regulated 

are subject to these requirements. 

Proposed requirements for Type B 

regulated onshore gathering lines are in 

paragraph (d). These lines, although 

located close to the public and housing, 

operate at a lower pressure than Type A 

lines. Because they pose a lower-risk, 

they would be subject to fewer safety 

regulations. The proposed requirements 

for Type B lines address the types of 

threats posed to these lines. First, new 

lines and existing lines replaced, 

relocated, or otherwise changed would 

have to be designed, installed, 

constructed, initially inspected, and 

initially tested according to Part 192 

requirements. Second, operators of Type 

B lines would have to: 

• Control corrosion according to 

Subpart I requirements. 

• Carry out a damage prevention 

program under § 192.614. 

• Establish a MAOP under § 192.619. 

• Install and maintain line markers 

under § 192.707 according to 

transmission line requirements. 

• Establish a public education 

program as required by § 192.616. 

Extended compliance deadlines for 

operation and maintenance 

requirements are proposed in paragraph 

(e). (A proposed change to § 192.13 

provides additional time before new 

lines and replacements must meet the 

design and construction requirements.) 

This paragraph also proposes 

compliance time for unregulated 

onshore gathering lines that 

subsequently become regulated because 

of changes in population, as discussed 

under the next subheading. 

3. Easing Transition From Unregulated 

to Regulated 

To ease the transition of unregulated 

lines to regulated status, PHMSA is 

proposing that operators have one year 

after the final rule takes effect to design, 

install, construct, initially inspect, and 

initially test any new, replaced, 

relocated, or changed line according to 

Part 192 requirements. The proposal is 

57544 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

in § 192.13 and is similar to compliance 

times established previously for other 

newly-regulated pipelines. 

In addition, PHMSA is proposing to 

revise the MAOP requirements of 

§ 192.619(a)(3) and (c). This proposal 

would allow operation of newly 

regulated lines and lines subsequently 

regulated because of an increase in 

population at the highest actual 

operating pressure to which the line was 

subjected during the 5 years before the 

final rule is published or the line 

becomes regulated. 

Regarding corrosion control, several 

requirements of Subpart I of Part 192 

apply only to pipelines installed before 

August 1, 1971. These requirements 

were originally intended for pipelines 

existing when Subpart I was adopted. 

However, PHMSA believes they are also 

appropriate for regulated onshore 

gathering lines existing when the final 

rule takes effect that were not 

previously subject to Part 192 (lines in 

rural locations). Under proposed 

§ 192.452(b), regulated onshore 

gathering lines existing on [effective 

date of final rule] not previously subject 

to Part 192 must meet the corrosion 

control requirements of Subpart I 

specifically applicable to pipelines 

installed before August 1, 1971, 

notwithstanding the date the gathering 

line was actually installed. Other 

Subpart I requirements apply only to 

pipelines installed after July 31, 1971. 

These requirements would not apply to 

existing lines unless the line 

substantially meets the requirements. 

Existing requirements for converted 

lines are not affected by this proposal. 

Under proposed § 192.9(e)(3), if a 

change in class location or increase in 

dwelling density turns an onshore 

gathering line into a regulated onshore 

gathering line, the operator would have 

one year after the line becomes a 

regulated onshore gathering line to 

comply with applicable Part 192 

requirements. This proposal reflects the 

usual practice by which operators of 

unregulated rural gathering lines stay 

continuously aware of new housing 

developments or governmental 

boundary changes that turn the lines 

into regulated lines. Developments are 

detected by various means of 

surveillance, including satellite 

imagery, aerial photography, and 

ground reconnaissance. 

IV. An Alternative Approach 

Given the decision to shift the focus 

of regulating gathering based on risk to 

population, PHMSA is faced with a 

fundamental issue—whether it is 

necessary or appropriate to define 

gathering. This leads to two approaches. 

The first, as we have described in detail, 

proposes to define both gathering 

(through use of a consensus standard) 

and regulated gathering and an 

alternative that defines only regulated 

gathering. Both approaches have merits 

and disadvantages that are appropriately 

explored through the comment process. 

The Natural Gas Act accepts gas 

gathering from the economic regulatory 

program administered by the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

FERC has not defined ‘‘gathering’’. In 

1968, Congress authorized safety 

regulation of virtually all pipelines, 

including those not regulated by FERC 

such as intrastate pipelines and 

gathering lines. From the beginning, The 

Agency frequently looked to decisions 

under the Natural Gas Act for help in 

deciding where gathering ended and 

transmission began. The Agency 

continued to consider the Natural Gas 

Act decisions in delineating gathering 

when it issued the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in this docket in 1991. At 

the time, the Agency noted its concern 

for inconsistency with FERC practice. In 

1992, Congress explicitly gave DOT 

permission to define gathering without 

regard for FERC practice. Consequently, 

this SNPRM proposes to define the 

scope of safety regulation without 

regard to FERC practice. 

The approach that appears in the text 

of this proposal begins with the 

traditional base of ‘‘gathering’’ and adds 

the regulation through defining 

‘‘regulated gathering’’. The concept of 

gathering being proposed is quite 

complex. Drafting language that 

incorporates the concept of what is 

‘‘regulated’’ within a single definition 

adds to this complexity. Separating the 

concepts into gathering and regulated 

gathering will result in a clearer 

understanding of which lines are 

regulated. This approach is consistent 

with past practice in which we 

separated the concepts of gathering and 

non-rural gathering (i.e. regulated 

gathering). 

The downside of the approach is the 

risk that the PHMSA definition of 

gathering may be influential in future 

FERC disputes. The risk appears 

minimal. PHMSA does not intend that 

its definition be relied on in deciding 

whether particular lines are gathering 

within the meaning of the Natural Gas 

Act. In deciding cases involving 

disputes over the definition of 

gathering, courts have thus far clearly 

looked only to the definition of the 

cognizant agency. The only case 

involving the existing definition for 

which the Agency had considered FERC 

practice limited discussion to the 

definition and statutory authority 

without mention of FERC precedents. 

Hamman v. Southwestern Gas Pipeline, 

721 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1983). Gathering 

as used by FERC is limited to the 

activities Congress authorized FERC to 

regulate, which does not include 

pipeline safety. See, for example, Sea 

Robin Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 127 F.3d 

365, 368 (5th Cir. 1997). Further, 

application of the definition issued for 

safety purposes in a tax case in which 

the meaning of gathering was important 

was expressly rejected. Saginaw Bay 

Pipeline v. United States, 338 F.3d 600 

(6th Cir. 2003). 

The alternative approach would be to 

abandon the term ‘‘gathering’’ as 

unnecessary and proceed immediately 

to ‘‘regulated gathering.’’ This approach 

has the benefit of consistency with the 

focus on risk since it defines only the 

segments actually regulated. The 

downside comes with the impact on 

other definitions critical to safety 

regulation. One factor defining 

transmission in current regulation is the 

end of a gathering line. 49 CFR 192.3. 

Without a definition of gathering line, 

the definition of transmission would 

have to be reworked to identify a 

different beginning point for those 

transmission lines for which other 

factors defining transmission do not 

apply. This would not be easy to 

accomplish. 

PHMSA seeks comments on these two 

alternative approaches. What is the risk 

that the first approach, which would 

define gathering for safety purposes, 

would impact the FERC practice in the 

economic area? If there would be an 

impact, would it be negative or positive? 

With respect to the second alternative 

approach, is there a way to avoid 

definitional difficulties with defining 

transmission lines? If so, PHMSA would 

welcome specific language. With respect 

to either approach, are there other 

benefits or downsides to either 

approach that should be considered? 

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Privacy Act. Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Policies and Procedures. DOT considers 

this proposed rulemaking to be a 

significant regulatory action under 

Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57545 

(58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993). Therefore, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has received a copy of this 

proposed rulemaking to review. This 

proposed rulemaking is considered 

significant under DOT regulatory 

policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: 

February 26, 1979). 

PHMSA prepared a draft Regulatory 

Evaluation of the rules proposed in this 

SNPRM and a copy is in the docket. The 

evaluation concludes that there will be 

a net cost savings from implementing 

the proposed rules. The savings result 

from reducing the regulatory burden 

currently imposed on regulated gas 

gathering lines by establishing a tiered 

approach to safety requirements. 

PHMSA estimates the total amount of 

gas gathering pipeline mileage that will 

be subject to Part 192 will be about the 

same after implementing this proposed 

rule as it is now. However, requirements 

applicable to approximately three 

fourths of the regulated gathering line 

mileage, which poses less public safety 

risk, will be reduced compared to the 

requirements now applicable to 

regulated lines. This proposal will result 

in a total cost of $26.54 million over a 

20-year period. PHMSA estimates the 

benefit of reducing the frequency of gas 

gathering pipeline incidents that have 

public safety consequences will cause a 

net benefit that is consistent with the 

increased regulatory burden. If you have 

comments about these conclusions, 

please provide information to the public 

docket described above. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.), PHMSA must consider whether 

rulemaking actions would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This SNPRM affects operators of 

onshore gas gathering lines. It proposes 

a definition of ‘‘onshore’’ gathering line 

and a tiered regulatory structure, under 

which regulated onshore gathering lines 

posing less risk would be subject to only 

some of the requirements now applied 

to all regulated gathering lines. PHMSA 

estimates the overall economic effect of 

rules proposed by this SNPRM will be 

a net reduction in costs to operators. 

At present, many operators of such 

pipelines are subject to Federal safety 

regulation. The particular portions of 

their pipeline subject to regulation may 

change, in some cases, due to the 

changes in the definition, but the 

economic impact on these operators is 

expected to be a net reduction in costs, 

consistent with the regulatory analysis. 

Some operators of gas gathering lines 

will become subject to safety regulations 

for the first time because portions of 

their pipelines will meet the criteria in 

the proposed definition of regulated 

onshore gathering line. These 

companies will experience added costs. 

The costs will depend on the risk posed 

by their pipelines. Approximately 25 

companies are expected to come under 

safety regulation for the first time. 

Based on these estimates, only a small 

number of companies will experience 

increased costs, but we believe this 

impact is not a significant economic 

impact on a ‘‘substantial’’ number of 

small entities. 

PHMSA invites public comment on 

its estimate of the number of companies 

subject to safety regulation for the first 

time as a result of this proposed rule. 

PHMSA also invites public comment on 

the number of miles of pipeline subject 

to safety regulation for the first time as 

a result of this proposed rule. 

Executive Order 13175. PHMSA has 

analyzed this proposed rulemaking 

according to the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13175, 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments.’’ Because 

the proposed rulemaking would not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments nor impose substantial 

direct compliance costs, the funding 

and consultation requirements of 

Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

SNPRM contains information collection 

requirements applicable to operators of 

regulated onshore gas gathering lines. 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), PHMSA will submit a 

paperwork analysis to OMB for its 

review. A copy of the analysis will also 

be entered in the docket. The SNPRM 

would affect information collection that 

OMB has approved under Control 

Numbers 2137–0049 (recordkeeping 

under 49 CFR part 192) and 2137–0579 

(drug and alcohol testing under 49 CFR 

part 199). 

For proposed Type B regulated 

onshore gathering lines, operators 

would have to comply with Part 192 

information collection requirements 

regarding corrosion control, damage 

prevention programs, and public 

education programs. For proposed Type 

A regulated onshore gathering lines, 

operators would have to comply not 

only with these requirements but also 

with others under various Part 192 rules 

applicable to gas transmission lines. All 

operators of onshore gathering lines 

proposed to be regulated would have to 

comply with the information collection 

requirements in 49 CFR Part 199 

concerning drug and alcohol testing. 

As explained above in Section III of 

this preamble, gas gathering lines in 

non-rural locations are currently subject 

to PHMSA’s safety regulations. The 

number of gathering line operators 

subject to regulation varies by year as 

pipelines are brought into and taken out 

of service and as changes occur in the 

boundaries of non-rural locations. 

During the period 1999 to 2003, 

approximately 400 operators filed 

annual reports each year under 49 CFR 

part 191 covering regulated onshore 

gathering systems. 

At present, all 400 of these operators 

are required to comply with part 192 

rules applicable to transmission lines, 

including information collection 

requirements. If the SNPRM proposals 

are adopted as final, the specific 

portions of these operators’ gathering 

lines subject to part 192 regulations may 

change. Some portions may no longer be 

regulated, while others could become 

Type A or Type B lines. For Type B 

lines, the part 192 information 

collection burden would be significantly 

reduced, because Type B lines would be 

subject to far fewer part 192 regulations. 

The net effect on the paperwork burden 

faced by these 400 operators is thus 

expected to be a reduction. However, 

the magnitude of this reduction is 

difficult to estimate, since PHMSA lacks 

the data necessary to determine which 

portions of their currently regulated 

gathering lines would remain regulated 

by part 192 and which portions that 

remain regulated would become Type A 

or Type B lines. 

If the proposed definition of 

‘‘regulated onshore gathering line’’ is 

adopted as final, some operators of gas 

gathering lines in rural locations could 

become subject to part 192 regulations 

for the first time. PHMSA preliminarily 

estimates no more than 25 operators 

will be newly-subject to part 192 

regulations as a result of this proposal. 

These operators would be required to 

comply with part 192 regulations 

proposed for Type A and Type B lines 

and with part 199 drug and alcohol 

testing regulations, including associated 

information collection requirements. 

PHMSA’ preliminary estimate of the 

paperwork burden on these proposed 

newly-regulated operators is an average 

of approximately 40 hours per year. 

Much of this time will involve clerical 

personnel, but some involvement by 

managers and technical personnel will 

be required. Using an estimated average 

hourly rate of $75 results in an 

estimated cost, for 25 operators, of 

$75,000 as a result of this new 

paperwork burden. 

PHMSA expects this increase in cost 

for newly-regulated operators would be 

more than offset by the reduction in 

paperwork burden associated with 

57546 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

currently regulated gas gathering lines 

that become either unregulated or Type 

B lines, as described above. Thus, the 

overall paperwork impact would be a 

small reduction. 

Comments are invited on the above 

estimates. PHMSA will publish a 

separate notice in the Federal Register 

specifically inviting comments on the 

information collection burden of the 

SNPRM following completion of the 

paperwork analysis. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. This SNPRM does not impose 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. It does not result in costs of $100 

million or more to either State, local, or 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, and is the least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objective of the proposed 

rulemaking. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

PHMSA has analyzed the proposed 

rulemaking for purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.). Because the proposed 

rulemaking would require limited 

physical modification or other work that 

would disturb pipeline rights-of-way, 

PHMSA has preliminarily determined 

the proposed rulemaking is unlikely to 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment. Much of the 

pipeline mileage that would be subject 

to the proposed rules is already 

regulated, and no new actions likely to 

affect the environment are proposed for 

currently regulated lines. Also much of 

the existing rural mileage that would 

become regulated under the proposed 

rules is already equipped with cathodic 

protection and location markers, the two 

requirements that would involve any 

installation/modification work along the 

pipeline. An environmental assessment 

document is available for review in the 

docket. A final determination on 

environmental impact will be made 

after the end of the comment period. By 

requiring operators to participate in 

damage prevention programs and follow 

the applicable requirements for 

corrosion control, it may be expected 

that the number of failures on gathering 

lines will be reduced. Since gathering 

lines often contain gas streams laden 

with condensates and natural gas 

liquids, the reduced number of failures 

also means a reduced number of spills 

of these liquids. 

If you have any comments about the 

preliminary conclusion, please submit 

your comments to the docket as 

described above. 

Executive Order 13132. PHMSA has 

analyzed the proposed rulemaking 

according to the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13132 

(‘‘Federalism’’). In its meetings with 

state agency officials on gathering lines, 

PHMSA discussed Federalism issues. 

None of the proposed rules (1) has 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government; (2) impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

State and local governments; or (3) 

preempt state law. Therefore, the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

Executive Order 13211. The 

transportation of gas through gathering 

systems has a substantial aggregate 

effect on the nation’s available energy 

supply. However, after analysis, 

PHMSA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ under Executive Order 13211. It 

is not a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Further, this proposed 

rulemaking has not been designated by 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. The Energy 

Impact Analysis is available for review 

in the docket. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192 

Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend 

49 CFR part 192 as follows: 

PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF 

NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY 

PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL 

SAFETY STANDARDS 

1. The authority citation for part 192 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 

60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, and 60118; and 

49 CFR 1.53. 

2. In § 192.1, 

a. Revise the section heading, 

b. Revise paragraph (b)(4), 

c. Remove paragraph (b)(5), and 

d. Redesignate paragraph (b)(6) as 

(b)(5). 

The changes read as follows: 

§ 192.1 What is the scope of this part? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Onshore gathering of gas—

(i) Through a pipeline that operates at 

less than 0 psi (0 kPa) gage; 

(ii) Through a pipeline that is not a 

regulated onshore gathering line; and 

(iii) Within inlets of the Gulf of 

Mexico, except for the requirements in 

§ 192.612. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 192.3, revise the section 

heading, and add definitions of 

‘‘onshore gathering line,’’ ‘‘potential 

impact circle,’’ ‘‘potential impact 

radius,’’ and ‘‘regulated onshore 

gathering line’’ to read as follows: 

§ 192.3 What definitions apply to this part? 

* * * * * 

Onshore gathering line means any 

pipeline or part of a connected series of 

pipelines that qualifies as an onshore 

gathering line under section 2.2 of API 

RP 80, with the following limitations: 

(1) Under section 2.2(a)(1) of API RP 

80, the beginning of a gathering line 

may not be further downstream than 

piping or equipment used solely in the 

process of extracting natural gas from 

the earth for the first time and preparing 

it for transportation or delivery. 

(2) Under section 2.2(a)(1)(A) of API 

RP 80, the endpoint may not extend 

beyond the first downstream natural gas 

processing plant, unless the operator 

can demonstrate, using sound 

engineering principles, that gathering 

extends to a further downstream plant; 

(3) The endpoint under section 

2.2(a)(1)(B) of API RP 80 applies only if 

no other endpoint identified under 

section 2.2(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C) or (a)(1)(D) 

exists; 

(4) Under section 2.2(a)(1)(C) of API 

RP 80, if the endpoint is determined by 

the commingling of gas from separate 

production fields, the fields may not be 

more than 50 miles from each other; and 

(5) Under section 2.2(a)(1)(D) of API 

RP 80, the endpoint may not extend 

beyond the furthermost downstream 

compressor used to increase gathering 

line pressure for delivery to another 

pipeline. 

* * * * * 

Potential impact circle (PIC) is a circle 

of radius equal to the potential impact 

radius (PIR). 

Potential impact radius (PIR) means 

the radius of a circle within which the 

potential failure of a pipeline could 

have significant impact on people or 

property. PIR is determined by the 

following formula: 

r = 0.69* (square root of (p*d2)) 

Where: 

r = the radius of a circular area in feet 

surrounding the point of failure 

p = the maximum allowable operating 

pressure of the pipeline segment in 

psig 

d = the nominal diameter of the pipeline 

in inches 

Regulated onshore gathering line 

means 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57547 

(1) Each onshore gathering line (or 

segment of onshore gathering line) with 

a feature described in the second 

column that lies in an area described in 

the third column; and 

(2) As applicable, additional lengths 

of line described in the fourth column 

to provide a safety buffer: 

Type Feature Area Safety buffer 

A ......................... b Metallic and the 

MAOP produces a 

hoop stress of 20 

percent or more of 

SMYS.

b Non-metallic and the 

MAOP is more than 

125 psi (862 kPa) 

gage.

1. A Class 3 or 4 location (see § 192.5) ............

2. An area within a Class 1 or Class 2 location 

that the operator determines by using either 

of the following methods:.

Method 1. A potential impact circle that includes 

five or more dwellings;.

Method 2. An area that extends 220 yards (200 

m) on each side of the centerline of any continuous 1000 feet (305 m) of pipeline and includes either 5 or more dwellings per 1000 

feet (305 m), or 25 or more dwellings per 

mile (1.6 kilometer), whichever results in 

more regulated onshore gathering line. If the 

density of 5 or more dwellings per 1000 feet 

(305 m) is used, the area extends along the 

pipeline until the space between dwellings is 

at least 250 feet..

If the gathering line is in Area 2, the additional 

lengths of line extend upstream and downstream from the area to a point where the 

pipeline is at least 220 yards (200 m) from 

the nearest dwelling in the area. 

B ......................... b Metallic and the 

MAOP produces a 

hoop stress of less 

than 20 percent of 

SMYS.

b Non-metallic and the 

MAOP is 125 psi 

(862 kPa) gage or 

less.

1. A Class 3 or 4 location ...................................

2. An area within a Class 1 or Class 2 location 

that extends 150 feet (45.7 m) on each side 

of the centerline of any continuous 1000 feet 

(305 m) of pipeline and includes 5 or more 

dwellings per 1000 feet.

If the gathering line is in Area 2, the additional 

lengths of line extend upstream and downstream from the area to a point where the 

line is at least 150 feet (45.7 m) from the 

nearest dwelling in the area. 

* * * * * 

4. In § 192.7, revise the section 

heading, and, in the table in paragraph 

(c), revise item B. (5) as follows: 

§ 192.7 What documents are incorporated 

by reference into this part? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Source and name of referenced material 49 CFR 

reference 

* * * * * * * 

B. American Petroleum Institute (API): 

* * * * * * * 

(5) API Recommended Practice 80 ‘‘Guidelines for the Definition of Onshore Gas Gathering Lines’’ (2000) ........................................ § 192.3 

* * * * * * * 

5. Revise § 192.9 to read as follows: 

§ 192.9 What requirements apply to 

gathering lines? 

(a) Requirements. An operator of a 

gathering line must follow the safety 

requirements of this part as prescribed 

by this section. 

(b) Offshore lines. An operator of an 

offshore gathering line must comply 

with requirements of this part 

applicable to transmission lines, except 

the requirements in § 192.150 and in 

Subpart O of this part. 

(c) Type A lines. An operator of a 

Type A regulated onshore gathering line 

must comply with the requirements of 

this part applicable to transmission 

lines, except the requirements in 

§ 192.150 and in Subpart O of this part. 

(d) Type B lines. An operator of a 

Type B regulated onshore gathering line 

must comply with the following 

requirements: 

(1) If a line is new, replaced, 

relocated, or otherwise changed, the 

design, installation, construction, initial 

inspection, and initial test must be in 

accordance with this part. 

(2) If the pipeline is metallic, control 

corrosion according to Subpart I of this 

part; 

(3) Carry out a damage prevention 

program under § 192.614; 

(4) Establish the MAOP of the line 

under § 192.619; 

(5) Install and maintain line markers 

according to the requirements for 

transmission lines in § 192.707; and 

(6) Establish a public education 

program under § 192.616. 

(e) Compliance deadlines. An 

operator of a regulated onshore 

gathering line must comply with the 

following deadlines, as applicable. 

(1) An operator of a new, replaced, 

relocated, or otherwise changed line 

must be in compliance with the 

applicable requirements of this section 

by the date the line goes into service, 

except as proved in § 192.13. 

(2) If a regulated onshore gathering 

line that exists on [date final rule takes 

effect] was not previously subject to this 

part, an operator has until the date 

stated in the second column to comply 

with the applicable requirement for the 

line listed in the first column: 

57548 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Requirement Compliance deadline 

Control corrosion according to Subpart I requirements ........................... [2 years after date final rule takes effect]. 

Carry out a damage prevention program under § 192.614 ...................... [6 months after date final rule takes effect]. 

Establish MAOP under § 192.619 ............................................................ [6 months after date final rule takes effect]. 

Install and maintain line markers under § 192.707 .................................. [1 year after date final rule takes effect]. 

Establish a public education program under § 192.616 ........................... [1 year after date final rule takes effect]. 

Other provisions of this part as required by paragraph (c) of this section for Type A lines.[2 years after the final rule is published]. 

(3) If, after [date final rule takes 

effect], a change in class location or 

increase in dwelling density causes an 

onshore gathering line to be a regulated 

onshore gathering line, the operator has 

1 year after the line becomes a regulated 

onshore gathering line to comply with 

this section. 

6. In § 192.13, 

a. Revise the section heading, and 

b. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b), to 

read as follows: 

§ 192.13 What general requirements apply 

to pipelines regulated under this part? 

(a) No person may operate a segment 

of pipeline listed in the first column 

that is readied for service after the date 

in the second column, unless: 

(1) The pipeline has been designed, 

installed, constructed, initially 

inspected, and initially tested in 

accordance with this part; or 

(2) The pipeline qualifies for use 

under this part in accordance with 

§ 192.14. 

Pipeline Date 

Offshore gathering line ............................................................................. July 31, 1977. 

Regulated onshore gathering line to which this part did not apply until 

[date final rule takes effect].

[1 year after the final rule is published.] 

All other pipelines ..................................................................................... March 12, 1971. 

(b) No person may operate a segment 

of pipeline listed in the first column 

that is replaced, relocated, or otherwise 

changed after the date in the second 

column, unless the replacement, 

relocation or change has been made in 

accordance with this part. 

Pipeline Date 

Offshore gathering line ............................................................................. July 31, 1977. 

Regulated onshore gathering line to which this part did not apply until 

[date final rule takes effect].

[1 year after the final rule is published.] 

All other pipelines ..................................................................................... November 12, 1970. 

* * * * * 

7. In § 192.452, 

a. Revise the section heading, 

b. Designate the existing text as 

paragraph (a), 

c. Add ‘‘Converted pipelines.’’ as the 

heading of newly designated paragraph 

(a), and 

d. Add a new paragraph (b), to read 

as follows: 

§ 192.452 How does this subpart apply to 

converted pipelines and regulated onshore 

gathering lines? 

(a) Converted pipelines. * * * 

(b) Regulated onshore gathering lines. 

For any regulated onshore gathering line 

existing on [effective date of final rule] 

and not previously subject to this part: 

(1) The requirements of this subpart 

specifically applicable to pipelines 

installed before August 1, 1971, apply 

notwithstanding the date the gathering 

line was actually installed; and 

(2) The requirements of this subpart 

specifically applicable to pipelines 

installed after July 31, 1971, apply only 

if the pipeline substantially meets those 

requirements. 

8. In § 192.619, revise the section 

heading and paragraphs (a)(3) and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 192.619 What is the maximum allowable 

operating pressure for steel or plastic 

pipelines? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) The highest actual operating 

pressure to which the segment was 

subjected during the 5 years preceding 

the applicable date in the second 

column, unless the segment was tested 

in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section after the applicable date in 

the third column or the segment was 

uprated in accordance with subpart K of 

this part: 

Pipeline Pressure date Test date 

Onshore gathering lines that first became subject to this 

part (other than § 192.612) after (day before final rule 

takes effect).

First day of month before month final rule is published, 

or date line becomes a regulated onshore gathering 

line under this part, whichever is later.

5 years preceding date in 

second column. 

Offshore gathering lines ................................................... July 1, 1976 ..................................................................... July 1, 1971. 

All other pipelines ............................................................. July 1, 1970 ..................................................................... July 1, 1965. 

* * * * * (c) Notwithstanding the other 

requirements of this section and subject 

to the requirements of § 192.611, an 

operator may operate a segment of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57549 

1 Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12347. 

2 Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12347–1. 

3We note that the comments in the docket also 

address another petition involving a request from 

AM General Corporation to permit vehicles with a 

GVWR of more than 4,536 kg and with an overall 

length that is less than 508 centimeters to have the 

option of being equipped with a passenger-side 

convex mirror instead of the required passengerside mirror of unit magnification. 

pipeline found to be in satisfactory 

condition, considering its operating and 

maintenance history, at the highest 

actual operating pressure to which the 

segment was subjected during the 5 

years preceding the applicable date in 

the second column of the table in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

23, 2005. 

Stacey L. Gerard, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 05–19455 Filed 9–28–05; 8:51 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2002–12347] 

RIN 2127–AI52 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Rearview Mirrors 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for 

rulemaking submitted by Ms. Barbara 

Sanford, NHTSA published a Request 

for Comments (RFC) in the Federal 

Register on January 22, 2003 that 

included several questions regarding 

convex mirrors on commercial trucks. 

The Sanford petition asked the agency 

to amend our Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) for rearview 

mirrors to require that all commercial 

trucks traveling on interstate highways 

have convex mirrors affixed to their 

front right and left fenders in order to 

provide drivers of these vehicles an 

increased field-of-view during lane 

change maneuvers, which the petitioner 

stated is necessary to eliminate a blind 

spot caused by the elevated position of 

commercial truck drivers relative to 

passenger cars. Prior to receiving the 

Sanford petition, the agency had 

decided to conduct research on heavy 

truck mirror systems, including fendermounted mirrors. For reasons discussed 

in this document, the agency is 

withdrawing the RFC and is terminating 

this rulemaking, because additional 

research is necessary to assess the 

potential safety benefits of convex 

mirrors in this application. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues: Mr. David M. Hines, 

Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, 

Telephone number: (202) 493–0245, 

FAX number: (202) 366–7002. For legal 

issues: Mr. Eric Stas, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, Telephone number: (202) 366–

2992, FAX number: (202) 366–3820. 

You may send mail to either of these 

officials at NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

S.W., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, 

does not require, nor restrict, the use of 

convex mirrors on heavy trucks such as 

the ones identified in the Sanford 

petition.1 Instead, multipurpose 

passenger vehicles and trucks with a 

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 

more than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) are 

required to have outside mirrors of unit 

magnification with stable supports on 

both sides of the vehicle; these mirrors 

must be located to provide the driver a 

view to the rear along both sides of the 

vehicle and be adjustable in both the 

horizontal and vertical directions. 

Regarding the use of convex mirrors on 

heavy trucks in the fleet, the agency 

previously noted that they are being 

used extensively by the heavy trucking 

industry, and that informal surveys by 

NHTSA staff suggested that 

approximately two-thirds of large trucks 

(excluding cab over designs) were 

equipped with convex mirrors on only 

the right front fender and approximately 

half were equipped with convex mirrors 

on both front fenders. 

As noted above, NHTSA published a 

RFC on January 22, 2003 regarding 

convex mirrors on commercial trucks 

(68 FR 2993).2 The agency received 24 

comments in response to our published 

RFC from automobile and automobile 

equipment manufacturers, trade 

associations, public interest groups, and 

individuals. These comments may be 

viewed at: http://dms.dot.gov/search/ 

searchFormSimple.cfm (Docket No. 

12347).3 Several of the comments 

provided insight on convex mirrors 

generally. However, none of the 

responses included data demonstrating 

safety benefits associated with requiring 

convex mirrors on the front right and 

left fenders of commercial trucks. 

The agency has contracted with 

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 

(VTTI) to conduct research on heavy 

truck mirror systems. The agency 

identified the objective of the study as 

assessing side and rearward visibility of 

heavy trucks, documenting current 

mirror design and aiming, developing a 

method to evaluate mirror fields of 

view, and recommending enhanced 

mirror design and aiming. Results of 

that research will be posted on our Web 

site (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov) when it 

is completed. 

II. Reason for Termination 

After careful consideration, NHTSA 

has decided to withdraw this 

rulemaking. The agency believes further 

research on front fender-mounted 

convex mirrors is needed in order to 

draw appropriate conclusions as to the 

efficacy of these devices, and we are 

currently in the process of conducting 

such research. If this research indicates 

a need for future rulemaking, the agency 

will act accordingly. 

The agency arrived at this decision to 

terminate after reviewing the comments 

received and identifying the need for 

additional research data upon which to 

propose any rulemaking. While no 

reference to available data regarding 

demonstrated safety benefits of front 

fender-mounted convex mirrors was 

submitted, some responses did address 

the prevalence and cost of these mirrors 

on heavy trucks. 

For example, Mr. Roger Brock, an 

individual, referred to an informal 

interstate survey of tractor-trailer 

combinations involving 336 units that 

found approximately 64% of the subject 

trucks had a front fender-mounted 

convex mirror on at least one side and 

approximately 46% had them on both 

sides. The Truck Manufacturers 

Association (TMA) responded that sales 

data from six manufacturers from the 

prior 2–3 years demonstrated a range 

from 7% to 72%, varying by 

manufacturer, of trucks sold were 

equipped with hood/fender-mounted 

convex mirrors. TMA also estimated the 

list prices for such mirrors to vary from 

$65 to $225 per mirror. The American 

Trucking Associations agreed that a 

significant portion of commercial motor 

vehicles currently use fender-mounted 

mirrors but stated that some 

configurations of trucks or truck tractors 

will not permit the use of such mirrors 

due to those vehicles’ specialized 

applications. 

In light of the absence of available 

safety data, the currently high rate of 

voluntary installation of convex mirrors 

on commercial trucks, and our as-yet 

incomplete research program, the 

agency has decided to withdraw this 

rulemaking. Nevertheless, the agency