TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.

191 IBLA 80 Decided September 11, 2017

United States Department of the Interior a Office of Hearings and Appeals a Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203

703-235-3750 703-235-8349 (fax)

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.

2014-266, et al. Decided September 11, 2017

Appeal from orders determining that Outer Continental Shelf pipeline right-of-way grants had expired and ordering that their associated pipelines be decommissioned. 01684, et al.

Affirmed.

1. Rights-of-Way: Oil and Gas Pipelines; Oil and Gas: Pipelines; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: Rights-of-Way

The Secretary is authorized to grant pipeline rights-of-way through the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for transporting oil, natural gas, or other minerals. However, the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of transporter- operated pipelines on the OCS are subject to standards established by the Department of Transportation (DOT), and regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Where FERC grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity to an OCS pipeline under the Natural Gas Act, it can be abandoned only after authorized to do so by FERC, and if it loses its certificate of public convenience and necessity, such a pipeline can no longer be used to transport gas on the OCS.

APPEARANCES: David M. Hunter, Esq. and Tyler J. Rench, Esq., Jones Walker, LLC, New Orleans, , for the appellant; Eric Andreas, Esq., U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

191 IBLA 80 IBLA 2014-266, et al. OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JACKSON

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, (TGP) appeals from a series of expiration notices issued by the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), dated July 9, 17, and 23, and August 13, (Expiration Notices), and from a BSEE order dated October 22, (Final Order). The Expiration Notices deemed each of 12 pipehne right-of-way (ROW) grants to have expired and directed TGP to decommission their associated pipelines.1 The Final Order denied TGP applications to reinstate these expired ROW grants because BSEE found that the purpose for which they were granted had ceased to exist. BSEE also ruled that the requirement in the Expiration Notices to decommission the associated pipelines remained in effect and directed TGP to complete all decommissioning activities by no later than October 20, We consolidated these appeals by Order dated January 27,

SUMMARY

In its Final Order BSEE found that since the pipelines at issue were of no further use to their current owner, their purpose had ceased to exist, which was consistent with findings made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) when it approved their abandonment under the Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The rule at 30 C.F.R § deems a pipeline ROW to have expired if the purpose of the grant ceases to exist or use of its associated pipeline is permanently discontinued. In this case, the record supports BSEE finding that these pipeline ROW grants were of no use to their owner and that their purpose had therefore ceased to cease, which permitted BSEE to deem these OCS pipeline ROW grants to have expired under 43 C.F.R § and then require decommissioning of their associated pipelines under 30 C.F.R. § 250.1010(h).

BACKGROUND

TGP is a natural-gas company primarily engaged in transporting natural gas in interstate commerce under FERC authorizations.2 Its mainline system consists of roughly miles pipelines extending in a northeasterly direction from the Gulf of Mexico, , and Louisiana, through and to

Administrative Record (AR), Tab Final Order, Attachment (table of expired pipeline ROW grants); AR, Tab Expiration Notices. See 15 § 717a(6) (2012) ('"Natural-gas means a person engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce.").

191 81 IBLA 2014-266, et al. , , , Tennessee, , , , , , , Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, with a significant portion located on the OCS off the coast of Louisiana.3

On October 26, 2010, TGP and Kinetica Partners, LLC (Kinetica) entered into a purchase-and-sale agreement (PSA) of numerous pipehnes, including the 12 pipelines and associated ROW grants here at issue.4 They are "DOT pipelines," which were designed, constructed, operated, and maintained under Department of Transportation (DOT) standards had a FERC certificate of public convenience and necessity to transport gas under the NGA.5 TGP and Kinetica requested FERC approval of their PSA, which FERC granted in and denied in part. FERC granted abandonment to gathering facilities it determined were exempt from its jurisdiction. But FERC denied TGP's request to abandon 425 miles of certificated pipelines because their abandonment was not consistent with public convenience or necessity and because Kinetica had not sought a certificate of pubhc convenience and necessity to continue operating them under the

TGP and Kinetica entered into an Amended and Restated PSA for the same pipelines and other facilities covered by their original PSA, plus certain other pipelines and facilities, and sought authorization from FERC for TGP to abandon over 1,300 miles of pipehnes.7 Pursuant to their agreement, FERC would determine the jurisdictional status of each pipeline, facility, and other asset: facilities subject to FERC jurisdiction would be abandoned by TGP and acquired by Kinetica Energy Express, LLC (Kinetica Energy), which would be granted a certificate of pubhc convenience and necessity to operate them under the NGA; whereas all non-jurisdictional facilities {e.g., those without certificates of pubhc convenience and necessity) would be abandoned-as-sold by TGP and acquired by Kinetica Midstream

FERC approved the sale of TGP pipehnes to Kinetica by order dated May In doing so, FERC re-examined ah certificated pipehnes, found

See Statement of Reasons (SOR), Exhibit (Ex.) 6 (Declaration of Thomas C. Dender, Vice-President of Operations, , Inc. (TGP's ultimate parent), dated July 20, (Dender Declaration). Id. Id. See TGP, 137 FERC 61,105, 61,536-37, 61,550 (2011); infra note 23. TGP, 143 FERC 61,196, 62,303 (2013). Id. at 62,304. Id. 191 82 IBLA 2014-266, et al. most performed a transportation function under its jurisdiction, approved their abandonment by TGP, and granted a certificate of pubhc convenience and necessity to Kinetica Energy. However, FERC separately addressed unused or underutilized pipehnes, which included the 12 DOT pipelines at issue in this appeal:

Unutilized Facilities

Kinetica Energy states that it has reviewed the facilities to identify facihties that are no longer being used and which it has no plans to use. While there may be some hnes and some inactive meters that have not been flowing gas under Tennessee, Kinetica Energy states that there are no costs associated with these facilities, and that it plans to put them to use in the future. Kinetica Energy intends to account for these facilities FERC Account 105, Gas Plant Held for Future Use. Kinetica Energy requests we include the unutihzed facihties in its certificate.

162. In responses to data requests, Tennessee and Kinetica Energy identified facihties that have been inactive for one year or more. These facilities include 23 pipehne segments that total approximately 88 miles in length, ranging from less than 0.1 mile to almost 20 miles in length and from 3 inches to 24 inches in diameter. Tennessee notes that another approximately 3- mileTong, Line been inactive for more than one year, but that Tennessee is in the process of tying the supply lateral over to mainline Line 523Q-100 so that it will be returned to service. Kinetica Energy asserts it has a reasonable expectation that the unutihzed facihties be used in the future. In support, Kinetica Energy has presented maps showing well statuses in blocks with apphcations for permits to drill, or active chilling and blocks with leases in their primary term, where the block includes or is adjacent to the originating point of a hne that is not currently utilized, stating that blocks with leases in their primary term are likely sites of future well drilling. * 166. With regard to the inactive pipehne and metering facihties, we find Kinetica Energy's statement that it has a reasonable expectation that the facihties will be used is Kinetica Energy has not sufficiently tied any expectation of timely, new production being connected to specific, currently unutilized facilities. Even Kinetica Energy states that it is unaware of any current drilling activity in locations that are currently connected to

191 83 IBLA 2014-266, et al its facilities and that, on average, there is approximately an 18- month interval between the start of "successful" drilling and the connection of production to a pipehne. With the exception of Line 523M-8200 that Tennessee is placing back into service, none of the inactive pipeline and metering be included in Kinetica Energy's certificate granted by this order. * *

168. Our denial here of certificate authority . . . for any of the inactive pipeline . . . should not impose a great burden on Kinetic Energy if it decides nevertheless to acquire such on an uncertificated bases. It wih not need certificate authority to operate these facilities unless and until it desires to place the facilities into jurisdictional use at some future

Because FERC determined any future use of these unutihzed, inactive pipehnes was "speculative," none was included in Kinetica's certificate of public convenience and necessity under the NGA, which meant that for FERC purposes, they were to be abandoned-as-sold by TGP and acquired as nonjurisdictional assets by Kinetica Midstream LLC.

TGP and Kinetica closed on their Restated and Amended PSA on September 1, They then jointly requested BSEE approval to assign the 12 DOT pipehne ROW grants from TGP to Kinetica. BSEE rejected the request by memoranda dated April 25 and May 2, because BSEE determined that the pipeline ROW grants expired when the pipehnes ceased flowing hydrocarbons.12 BSEE later issued Expiration Notices for each of the ROW grants that concluded, "pursuant to 30 CFR 250.1014, [ROW grant number] is deemed to have expired effective [90 days after the last date of transport] due to the pipeline not being used for the purpose for which the pipehne ROW grant was issued, transporting gas."13 In addition, BSEE directed TGP to "remove the associated pipeline, valves, and taps within one year of grant [expiration]," but

Id. at 62,328-29 (footnotes omitted). See Dender Declaration at 18. See 30 C.F.R. § 250.1018 (Assignment of pipeline right-of-way grants); AR, Items through Dender Declaration at AR, Item B at see also Final Order, Attachment.

84 IBLA 2014-266, et al. advised that TGP could apply to re-establish each ROW grant.14 TGP appealed from the Expiration Notices and applied to re-establish each ROW.15

By letter dated July 23, 2015, following a meeting with BSEE on June 29, Kinetica stated that the pipehnes at issue had not been used for periods ranging from nearly 2 years to more than 17 years, had "NO requests from producers for hydrocarbon transport on any of these twelve pipehnes!,] NO requests from producers for potential tie-ins to any of said pipelines," and "NO Future Utility" to BSEE issued its Final Order on October 22, 2015, which recounted "that Kinetica does not have any future use for any of the subject pipehnes" and "Given the lack of any future utility for the pipelines at issue, the purpose of the grant has ceased to exist pursuant to 30 CFR BSEE also concluded it could not re-establish these ROW grants because "there is no primary purpose that can be stated for grantmg the[m]," ruled that the requirement to decommission these pipelines under the Expiration Notices in effect," and directed TGP to complete all decommissioning work by October 20, TGP appealed from the Final Order and petitioned for a stay, which the Board granted on December 16,

We here decide the merits of this consolidated appeal.

LEGAL CONTEXT

The Secretary is authorized to grant pipeline ROWs through the OCS for transporting oil, natural gas, or other minerals.20 However, the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of transporter- operated pipehnes on the OCS are subject to standards established by

AR, Item B at 1 (citing 43 C.F.R. §§ 250.1010(h), 250.1007). SOR, Exs. 1-5; L-4.

Final Order at 2. Id. See TGP, 189 IBLA 108 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 § 1334(e) see also 30 C.F.R. Part 250 (Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf), Subpart J (Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way).

191 85 IBLA 2014-266, et al. and regulation by Thus, where FERC grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity to an OCS pipeline under the Natural Gas Act, it can be abandoned only after authorized to do so by FERC, and if it loses its certificate of pubhc convenience and necessity, such a pipehne can no longer be used to transport gas on the OCS.23

DISCUSSION

The central question presented is whether BSEE properly deemed these ROW grants to have expired based on the bureau's determination that the

43 § 1334(e) (2012); 30 C.F.R. § 250.1009 ("In addition to applicable requirements of 250.1000 through 250.1008 and other regulations of this part, regulations of the Department of Transportation [and FERC], when a pipeline qualifies as a right-of-way pipehne, the pipehne shall not be installed until a right-of-way has been requested and granted in accordance with this subpart [OCS Pipelines and Pipehne Right-of-Way]"); 65 Fed. Reg. 46092, 46093 (July 27, 2000); 62 Fed. Reg. 7037 (Feb. 14, 1997). 43 U.S.C. § 1334(e) (2012); 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) (2012) (Certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct, operate, or acquire pipehnes and other facihties subject to FERC jurisdiction); Jupiter Energy Corp. v. FERC, 482 F.3d 293 (5th Cir. 2007); Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 331 F.3d 1011 Cir. 2003); TGP v. FERC, 972 F.2d 376 Cir. 1992); see also 43 U.S.C. § 1334(e) ("[OCS pipeline ROWs may be granted by the Secretary] upon the express condition that oil or gas pipehnes shall transport or purchase without discrimination, oil or natural gas produced from submerged lands or [OCS] lands in the vicinity of the pipehnes in such proportionate amounts as [FERC], in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, may, after a full hearing with due notice thereof to the interested parties, determine to be reasonable, taking into account, among other things, conservation and the prevention of waste."); 30 C.F.R. § See 15 U.S.C. § § 717f(b) (2012), Abandonment of facihties or services; approval of Commission, 717f(c)(l) (2012) ("No natural-gas company . . . shall engage in the transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of [FERC] . . . unless there is in force with respect to such natural-gas company a certificate of pubhc convenience and necessity issued by [FERC] authorizing such acts or operations."); United Gas Pipeline Co. v. McCombs, 442 U.S. 529, 536 (1979) ("Not only does the [NGA] require companies to obtain the 'approval of the Commission . . . after due hearing,' but it also prohibits abandonment absent specific findings by the Commission. The language of § 7 (b) simply does not admit of any exception to the statutory procedure.").

191 86 IBLA 2014-266, et al. purpose of the grants had ceased to exist. The rule at 30 C.F.R. § 250.1014 states:

Any right-of-way granted under the provisions of this subpart remains in effect so long as the associated pipehne is properly maintained and used for the purpose for which the grant was made, unless otherwise expressly stated in the grant. Temporary cessation or suspension of pipehne operations shall not cause the grant to expire. However, if the purpose of the grant ceases to exist or use of the associated pipeline is permanently discontinued for any reason, the grant shall be deemed to have expired.

The Board will affirm a BSEE decision if it has "a rational basis [that is] stated in the decision" and supported by the facts of In challenging such a decision, the burden is on the appellant to show BSEE committed an error of law or, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it made a material error in its factual analysis or that its decision is not supported by a record showing it gave due consideration to ah relevant factors and acted on the basis of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.25 An appellant's burden is not met by mere expressions of disagreement with BSEE's analysis and conclusions.26

I. The Expiration Notices and Final Order Each States a Rational Basis That Is Supported by the Record.

In the Expiration Notices and Final Order, BSEE deemed each of these ROW grants to have expired but for different reasons. The Expiration Notices did so "due to the pipeline not being used for the purpose for which the pipeline ROW grant was issued, transporting gas and condensate."27 BSEE found (and the record shows) that their pipelines had not transported gas for extended

Energy Agent Corp., 189 IBLA 164, 167 (2017); see Roy G. Barton, 188 IBLA 331, 334 (2016); Yates Petroleum Corp., 188 IBLA 321, 328 (2016); Stanley Energy, Inc., 179 IBLA 8, 13 Rocky Mountain Helium, LLC, 148 317, 319 (1999). Hawkwood Energy Agent Corp., 189 IBLA at 167-68; Roy G. 188 IBLA at 335; Stanley Energy, Inc., 179 IBLA at 13. Hawkwood Energy Agent Corp., 189 IBLA at 168. AR, Item B at 1.

87 IBLA 2014-266, et al. periods of time without an approved suspension of pipehne operations.28 Since the failure to use a pipelme for an extended period of time logically supports an inference that its use was "permanently discontinued" under 30 C.F.R. § we find the Expiration Notices state a rational basis that is supported in the record.

In its Final Order, BSEE also deemed these ROW grants to have expired, but rather than do so based on lack of use, it did so because the purpose for which they were granted had ceased to exist under 30 C.F.R. § In addition to non-use for extended periods of time, the record shows that Kinetica, the current owner of these pipelines, had no future use for them, which supports BSEE's finding their purpose "has ceased to exist."29 We find the Final Order also states a rational basis that is supported in the record.

Accordingly, we reject TGP's claims that the Expiration Notices and Final Order lack any basis in and that neither states a rational basis that is supported by the

II. Appellant Has Not Shown Any Error in the Final Order.

TGP separately appealed from the Expiration Notices and Final Order, but BSEE effectively modified its Expiration Notices and rendered them moot when it issued the Final Order. Rather than rely on non-use as the basis for deeming these ROW grants to have expired as in the Expiration Notices, the Final Order found their purpose had "ceased to exist" and deemed the ROW grants to have "expired as BSEE had earlier determined [in its Expiration Notices]."31 Thus, if the Final Order properly found the purpose of these ROW grants had ceased to exist, there is no relief we could grant because they would have expired by rule under 30 C.F.R. § Nor would there then be any need to resolve either of Appellant's claims that involve only the Expiration Notices.32

See Answer at 8 ("BSEE has long interpreted [30 C.F.R. § 250.1014] to mean that a grant expires when BSEE has knowledge that a ROW pipehne has not been used to transport hydrocarbons for more than 90 days has not received and approved a pipeline ROW grant modification requesting a temporary cessation of operations."). Final Order at 2.

Final Order at 2. TGP claimed the Expiration Notices were based on an Advisory Letter that does not apply to DOT pipehnes or is an unlawful legislative rule. See SOR

191 88 IBLA 2014-266, et al.

We will therefore begin by considering the Final Order and whether TGP carried its burden to show an error of law, a material error in BSEE's factual analysis, or that it did not give due consideration to all relevant factors or act on the basis of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made when it determined that the purpose of these ROW grants had ceased to exist.

A. BSEE Properly Deemed These ROW Grants Expired Because Their Purpose Had Ceased to Exist.

The Final Order recounted Kinetica's June representations that it had no use for the pipelines to conclude that the purpose of these ROW grants "ceased to exist under 30 CFR and that they "expired as BSEE had earlier determined."33 In appealing from that decision and rationale, TGP claims BSEE erred in relying on Kinetica's representations. It contends Kinetica simply had a case of "buyer's remorse" and that Kinetica's representations are "entirely irrelevant to determining whether the purpose of the Contested ROWs had ceased to exist" when it began filing assignment requests with TGP also claims Kinetica's representations contradict its "prior representations to FERC regarding its plans to use facihties previously underutilized by TGP," its reasons for entering into the Amended and Restated PSA, and willingness to accept "all attendant future abandonment liability" for these pipelines when it applied for their assignment in April However, we find the facts show otherwise.

It is undisputed that each of the "right-of-way pipelines" in the ROW grants at issue were "DOT pipelines," designed, constructed, operated, and maintained under DOT rules, and that each had been granted certificates of public convenience and necessity under the NGA.36 However, each lost its at 17-23. It claimed the Expiration Notices specified illegal or improper effective dates for each expired ROW grant. See id. at 25-27. Final Order at 2; see id. ("Kinetica does not have any future utility for any of the pipelines [at issue]."). SOR at 15, 16; id. at 12-16, 24-25. Id. at 15, 16. See Dender Declaration at 4; 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.1001 and right- of-way pipelines defined), 250.1009(a) (DOT pipelines regulated by FERC "shall not be installed until a right-of-way has been requested and granted in accordance with rules for OCS pipelines]."); 49 C.F.R. Part 192 (Minimum Federal Safety Standards); see, e.g., SOR Ex. (ROW applications dated

191 89 IBLA 2014-266, et al. when FERC approved their abandonment by TGP and denied Kinetica's request that they be included in a certificate of pubhc convenience and necessity on May As explained by FERC:

Kinetica Energy's statement that it has a reasonable expectation that the facilities will be used is speculative. Kinetica Energy has not sufficiently tied any expectation of timely, new production being connected to specific, currently unutilized facilities. [Thus,] none of the inactive pipeline and metering will be included in Kinetica Energy's certificate [of public need and convenience] granted by this

We find no material difference between the conclusion reached by FERC and the determination here made by BSEE as they were both based on Kinetica's lack of a demonstrated need or use for these pipelines. FERC denied them a certificate of public convenience and necessity because their future use by Kinetica was speculative; BSEE deemed their ROW grants had expired because their purpose had ceased to exist. We find no inconsistency by Kinetica or error in BSEE relying on Kinetica's representations to find that the purpose of these ROWs had ceased to exist.

TGP asserts "Kinetica, a sophisticated market participant, requested and committed to accept assignment of the DOT Pipehnes, together with attendant future abandonment liabilities therefor," with "full knowledge of the historical and then-current flow levels of the DOT Pipehnes."39 The fact that Kinetica agreed to include the DOT pipelines the Restated and Amended PSA, be responsible for them, and accept assignment of their ROW grants does not

May 1973); SOR Ex. 20 (ROW decision dated May 24, 1979); SOR Ex. (ROW application dated Jan. 27, 1981). See TGP, 143 FERC at 62,328-29. Id. at see id at 62,328 ("While there may be some lines . . . that have not been flowing gas under Tennessee, Kinetica Energy states that there are no costs associated with these facihties, and that it plans to them to use in the future [and] requests we include the unutilized facihties its certificate [of public convenience and necessity]."), 62,329 ("Kinetica Energy asserts it has a reasonable expectation that the unutihzed facihties will be used in the future."). SOR at 13; see id. at 12 ("As an informed buyer knowledgeable about the pipelme industry generally and the Gulf of Mexico specifically, Kinetica agreed to purchase many facihties, including the DOT Pipelines, that were underutilized by TGP.").

191 90 IBLA 2014-266, et al. demonstrate that Kinetica was then using or would hkely use them in the future to transport gas on the OCS.

The record shows the stated and intended purpose of these ROW grants was to transport gas on the OCS in DOT pipelines regulated by FERC under the NGA. We reject TGP's claim that the pipelines' purpose was not to transport hydrocarbons, but to maintain them to DOT standards.40 Nor are we persuaded that their purpose was "to provide infrastructure for future transportation needs."41 We do not doubt an abandoned pipeline is infrastructure that could have a future use, but it is not for DOT, or TGP to determine what is needed or may be needed to meet future pipeline needs. Rather, such is the mandate to and province of FERC under the FERC fulfilled its responsibility when it considered this issue, determined these pipelines were no longer needed, and therefore denied their inclusion in Kinetica's certificate of public convenience and necessity.

Once the pipelines at issue lost their certificates on May they could no longer transport gas on the OCS under the NGA, which was the very purpose for which they were granted pipehne ROWs. The record supports BSEE finding "the purpose of the[se] grant[s] has ceased to exist" and then them to have expired under 30 C.F.R. § Moreover, TGP has not carried its burden to show an error of law, a material error of fact, a failure to give due consideration to all relevant factors, or that BSEE failed to act on the basis of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made when it found the purpose of these ROW grants had ceased to exist and then deemed them to have expired. We therefore affirm the Final Order.

B. BSEE Properly Required the Decommissioning of These Pipelines Under 30 C.F.R. § 250.1010(h).

See id. at 14 ("[E]ven if the DOT Pipelines are not presently transporting hydrocarbons, properly maintaining them serves their purpose."). Id.', see id. 14-15 ("[W]hen a DOT pipehne stops transporting fluids for a time, immediate ROW expiration is not justified because DOT pipelines continue to serve the purpose of providing infrastructure for future projects. Thus, keeping properly maintained DOT pipelines in place save the industry from having to continually decommission pipelines and then re-build new ones along the same routes, which serves to reduce waste, increase safety, and facilitate the balanced, orderly development of resources on the OCS."). See CRS Report 44432, Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas and Crude Federal and State Regulatory Authority (Mar. 28, Final Order at 2. 191 91 IBLA 2014-266, et al. The rule at 30 C.F.R. § 250.1010(h) states:

Upon relinquishment, forfeiture, or cancellation of a right-of- way grant, the right-of-way holder shall remove all platforms, structures, comes over valves, pipelines, taps, and valves along the right-of-way. All of these improvements shall be removed by the holder within 1 year of the effective date of the relinquishment, forfeiture, or cancellation unless this requirement is waived in writing by the Regional Supervisor. All such improvements not removed within the time provided herein shall become the property of the but that shall not relieve the holder of liability for the cost of their removal or for restoration of the site. Furthermore, the holder is responsible for accidents or damages which might occur as a result of failure to timely remove improvements and equipment and restore a site. An application for relinquishment of a right-of-way grant shall be filed in accordance with § of this part.

TGP claims that even if BSEE properly deemed these ROW grants to have expired, it could not order TGP to decommission these pipelines under this rule because it applies only to "rehnquished, forfeited, or cancelled" pipelme ROWs.44 It claims relinquishment requires "affirmative" action by the operator to surrender the ROW grant, which it denies has occurred, forfeiture requires "a specific finding in a judicial proceeding" under 43 U.S.C. § 1334(e), which has yet to be filed, and that cancellation is possible only after a statutory hearing under 43 U.S.C. § 1334(a)(2), which has yet to be convened.45 But we are not persuaded and do not beheve BSEE lacks the authority to require pipehne decommissioning within one year of its deeming these pipehne ROW grants to have expired.

The rule at 30 C.F.R. § 250.1700(a) defines Decommissioning the . . . pipeline right-of-way to a condition that meets the requirements of regulations of BSEE and other agencies that have jurisdiction over decommissioning activities."46 The rule at 30 C.F.R. § 250.1703(e) requires a pipehne operator to "[c]lear the seafloor of ah obstructions created by your . . . operations" when its pipeline operations cease, and the rule at 30 C.F.R. § 250.1725(a) states: "You must remove all . . . facilities within 1 year after the . . . pipeline right-of-way terminates, unless you receive approval to maintain the

28. Id. See also 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.1750-250.1754 (Pipeline Decommissioning).

191 IBLA 92 IBLA 2014-266, et al. structure to conduct other activities." This later rule is especially relevant here because it uses a non-technical verb, "terminate," which logically includes expired, as well as relinquished, forfeited, and cancelled.47

The rule at 30 C.F.R. § 250.1010(h) is similar to and consistent with the above-cited authorities. While it mentions "relinquishment, forfeiture, or cancellation," we do not believe this listing is exclusive but, instead, that it simply -provides some examples of when a ROW grant ceases to exist. A pipeline ROW will cease to exist on the effective date of its relinquishment, forfeiture, or cancellation, just as surely as it will cease to exist on the date it expires or is deemed to have expired.

We therefore conclude that the one-year deadline for removing "all platforms, structures, domes over valves, pipes, taps, and valves along the right- of-way" under 30 C.F.R. § and to complete decommissioning under 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.1750-250.1752 applies not just to relinquished, forfeited, and cancelled ROW grants, but to all grants that terminate, including those that expire or are deemed to have expired under 30 C.F.R. §

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Final Order, including its ruling that requires "TGP to decommission each of the pipehnes in accordance with 30 CFR §§ 250.101(h) and 250.1750,"48 and dismiss TGP's separate challenges to the Expiration Notices as moot because their resolution has been overtaken by events and subsumed within our rationale for affirming the Final Order.

See Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th defined as "To put an end to end"); see also Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. {terminate defined as "To put an end to make to cease; to end"). 2015 Order 2.

191 93 IBLA et

Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior,49 we affirm the BSEE Order dated October 22, 2015.

I concur:

43 C.F.R. § 4.1. 191 94