[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5305-5307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. RSPA-98-4868 (gas), Notice 4; and RSPA-03-15864 (liquid), 
Notice 2]


Gas and Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Clarification of rulemaking intentions and extension of time 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (RSPA/OPS) recently held 
public meetings in Austin, Texas, and Anchorage, Alaska, to receive 
public comment on the definition of ``gathering line'' and on the 
regulation of certain rural gas and hazardous liquid gathering lines. 
RSPA/OPS also invited the public to submit written comments by January 
17, 2004. RSPA/OPS's pipeline safety advisory committees will discuss 
these gathering line issues at a public meeting on February 3-5, 2004, 
at the Dulles Marriott Hotel, Dulles, Virginia. This notice clarifies 
RSPA/OPS's rulemaking approach to gathering lines regulation and 
explains the type of information RSPA/OPS is seeking. It also extends 
the deadline for written comments.

DATES: The revised deadline for submitting written comments is March 4, 
2004. However, late-filed comments will be considered as far as 
practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments directly to the dockets by 
any of the following methods:
     Mail: Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 20590-0001. 
Anyone wanting confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-
addressed stamped postcard.
     Hand delivery or courier: Room PL-401, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. The Dockets Facility is open from 
10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov, click on 
``Comment/Submissions'' and follow instructions at the site.

All written comments should identify the gas or liquid docket number 
and notice number stated in the heading of this notice.
    Docket access. For copies of this notice or other material in the 
dockets, you may contact the Dockets Facility by phone (202-366-9329) 
or visit the facility at the above street address. For Web access to 
the dockets to read and download filed material, go to http://dms.dot.gov/search. Then type in the last four digits of the gas or 
liquid docket number shown in the heading of this notice, and click on 
``Search.''
    Privacy Act Information. Anyone can search the electronic form of 
all comments filed in any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted for an 
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the April 11, 2000 issue of the 
Federal Register (65 FR 19477) or go to http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DeWitt Burdeaux by phone at 405-954-
7220 or by e-mail at [email protected] regarding the 
subject matter of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Because of disagreements over the meaning of gas ``gathering line'' 
in 49 CFR part 192, RSPA/OPS has twice proposed to redefine the term. 
The first proposal was withdrawn (43 FR 42773; September, 1978), and 
the second (56 FR 48505; September 25, 1991) remains open. In reaction 
to unfavorable comments on these proposals, RSPA/OPS delayed final 
action pending the collection and consideration of further information 
on the gas ``gathering line'' issue. In contrast, RSPA/OPS has had 
little difficulty applying the definition of petroleum ``gathering 
line'' in 49 CFR part 195.
    Following the second proposal to define gas ``gathering line,'' 
Congress directed DOT to define ``gathering line'' for both gas and 
hazardous liquid pipelines, and, ``if appropriate,'' define as 
``regulated gathering line'' those rural gathering lines that, because 
of specific physical characteristics, should be regulated (49 U.S.C. 
60101(b)). In furtherance of the open rulemaking proposal and the 
congressional directives, RSPA/OPS held an internet discussion that 
focused on a definition offered by the Gas Processors Association (GPA) 
(Docket No. RSPA-98-4868; 64 FR 12147; March 11, 1999).
    However, follow-up action stalled because RSPA/OPS and its 
associated state pipeline safety agencies were concerned that physical 
pipeline features referenced in the GPA definition were changeable. As 
a stopgap, while deliberating on a suitable alternative to the 1991 
proposal, RSPA/OPS published an advisory bulletin reminding pipeline 
operators that we would continue to define gas gathering

[[Page 5306]]

based on historical interpretations and court precedents until further 
notice (67 FR 64447; October 18, 2002).

Public Meetings

    In late 2003, RSPA/OPS held public meetings in Austin, Texas, and 
Anchorage, Alaska, to seek additional public comments on how to respond 
to the congressional directives on gathering lines. Notices of the 
meetings were published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2003 (68 
FR 62555) and December 1, 2003 (68 FR 67129). During these meetings, 
RSPA/OPS suggested an approach to determining which segments of rural 
gathering lines should be regulated. The approach, which we used in a 
consent order issued to Hanley & Bird, Inc., a Pennsylvania Gas 
Production and Gathering Operator, is based on a density of five or 
more dwelling units per thousand linear feet of pipeline. The order may 
be viewed at http://ops.dot.gov/regions/easterndoc/cpf13002o.wpd.
    RSPA/OPS suggested this approach to generate public comments on how 
to define ``regulated gathering line,'' not to describe a planned 
course of action. In addition, we hoped the suggestion would result in 
comments on the level of regulation appropriate to the characteristics 
and perceived risk of gathering lines in inhabited areas.
    After the public meetings, we became concerned that the issues 
listed in the meeting notices may have caused confusion about what 
information we are seeking. To promote informed public participation in 
resolving the issues and in the advisory committee meetings, we decided 
to publish this notice to clarify our regulatory intentions.

Extension of Comment Period

    So that interested persons may consider the clarifications, this 
notice extends the time for written comments from January 17, 2004, to 
March 4, 2004. Although we are grateful for the comments we have 
already received and the efforts made to meet the January 17, 2004, 
deadline, we hope the extension will encourage even more comments.

Advisory Committee Meetings

    Another opportunity for the public to comment on defining gas 
``gathering line'' and ``regulated gathering line'' will occur February 
3-5, 2004, at a meeting of RSPA/OPS's pipeline safety advisory 
committees at the Dulles Marriott Hotel, Dulles, Virginia. An 
announcement of the meeting was published in the December 31, 2003, 
issue of the Federal Register (68 FR 75727). The advisory committee 
docket, RSPA-98-4407, is open for comments on all matters before the 
committees, including gathering line issues.

Specific Requests for Comment

    The public meeting notices called attention to seven gathering line 
issues we believe are important. They are repeated below, along with 
additional clarification. We hope this will provide the public with the 
information needed to comment on the important gathering lines issues.
    (1) The point where gas production ends and gas gathering begins.
    Clarification. RSPA/OPS wants to adopt definitions of gas gathering 
line and gas production that together will serve to identify the 
beginning of a gas gathering line. We recognize that some state oil and 
gas commissions regulate gas production facilities for safety and 
operational purposes. RSPA/OPS does not wish to create any regulatory 
overlap, but seeks to develop a definition that leaves no gaps between 
oil and gas commission oversight and oversight by RSPA/OPS or its state 
partners. The end of production should be a fixed asset, one that is 
easy to identify and not easy to change.
    (2) The point where gas gathering ends and gas transmission or 
distribution begins.
    Clarification. We are seeking to develop a definition of gas 
gathering line that clearly identifies the endpoint of the line. The 
definition should be broad enough to apply to widely varying gathering 
system configurations, yet be simple enough to allow consistent 
application by regulators and pipeline operators.
    (3) In defining ``regulated gathering line,'' whether we should 
consider factors besides those specified by Congress. For example, 
should we consider population density (by census or house count), or, 
for hazardous liquid lines, potential for environmental damage.
    Clarification. Congress specified factors that must be considered 
in defining ``regulated gathering line,'' or in deciding which rural 
gathering lines should be regulated. These factors are ``location, 
length of line from the well site, operating pressure, throughput, and 
composition of the gas or hazardous liquid.'' We are seeking comment on 
which, if any, additional factors should be considered. For example, we 
believe a high concentration of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is an 
important factor, and would like comments on ways to provide public 
safety in case of H2S releases from gathering lines. RSPA/
OPS is considering several alternatives for the definition of gas 
gathering. The first is the Hanley & Bird approach described above. We 
are seeking comments on whether dwelling density would be an 
appropriate way to define regulated segments, and, if so, what the 
density should be in relation to pipeline length. We are also seeking 
comment on whether a corridor approach, such as the class location 
approach in Sec. 192.5, would be appropriate, and, if so, whether the 
corridor width should differ according to pipe hoop stress, such as 20% 
or 30% of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). We are considering 
the type of location that could be impacted by a release of gas at 
points along a pipeline. We would like comments on how to calculate the 
risk zone of a gas gathering line, or impact area of a release, such as 
Part 192 requires for gas transmission lines in high consequence areas.
    (4) Whether Part 195 should apply to rural gathering lines that 
operate at more than 20 percent of SMYS, or that could adversely affect 
an ``unusually sensitive area'' as defined in Sec. 195.6?

(Note: certain crude oil gathering lines are, by law, exempt from 
safety regulation.)

    Clarification. Should ``regulated gathering line'' include rural 
petroleum gathering lines that operate at more than 20 percent of SMYS, 
or that could adversely affect an ``unusually sensitive area'' as 
defined in Sec. 195.6? If so, should Part 195 apply in its entirety to 
these lines?
    (5) If you recommend safety regulations for rural gas or hazardous 
liquid gathering lines, to which rural lines would the regulations 
apply and why, approximately how many miles would be covered by the 
regulations, and what would be the estimated cost per mile of complying 
with the regulations?
    Clarification. If you support regulation of rural gathering lines, 
we are interested in your justification for regulation, or why you 
think they need safety regulation. If you want to regulate only some 
rural gathering lines, we would like to know your rationale for 
deciding which rural gathering lines RSPA/OPS should regulate.
    (6) The approximate mileage of rural gathering lines not now 
covered by Part 195.
    Clarification. Not required.
    (7) Whether safety regulations for gas or hazardous liquid rural 
gathering lines operating at low stress (e.g., 20 percent or less of 
SMYS) or a specified pressure for plastic lines should be fewer and 
possibly less stringent than regulations for other rural gathering 
lines?
    Clarification. We are considering a tiered approach to regulation 
in which

[[Page 5307]]

increasing portions of Part 192 or Part 195 would apply to pipelines 
depending on their risk to the public or the environment. If you think 
this would be a reasonable approach, we would like comments on which 
regulations should apply to different risk levels. If you think hoop 
stress should define risk, we would like comment on which regulations 
should apply according to different stress levels. For plastic pipe, we 
are interested in views on what the risk levels should be and how the 
regulations should vary and, if pressure were to define risk, what the 
pressure should be.

Other Considerations

    Non-rural gathering lines. Under Parts 192 and 195, onshore 
gathering lines are considered rural--and unregulated--if they lie 
outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, 
village, or any other designated residential or commercial area, such 
as a subdivision, a business or shopping center, or community 
development. Conversely, some gathering lines or portions of lines that 
are inside these limits--and now regulated--are similar to rural lines 
in that they are not in, or close to, inhabited areas. Should the risk-
based approach to regulating rural gathering lines also apply to the 
regulation of non-rural gathering lines? If so, assuming population 
density was the risk-based approach, what reduction in currently 
regulated mileage might result from particular density levels? What 
would be the associated savings in cost of compliance?
    Compliance time. In the public meetings, we discussed time lines 
for compliance. What would be the appropriate time for operators to 
achieve compliance? We have also considered establishing milestones for 
achieving compliance, including early compliance dates for easily 
implemented regulations, coupled with longer times for more complex 
regulations requiring greater capital expenditures. Does this appear to 
be an appropriate path and, if so, what should these times be and which 
categories of regulations should fall into which time frames?

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.53.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2004.
James K. O'Steen,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 04-2310 Filed 2-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P