U.S. Department of Transportation 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

Draft Regulatory Evaluation 

Regulated Natural Gas Gathering Lines 

Docket RSPA-1998–4868 

Regulatory Analysis 

Background 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Office of 

Pipeline Safety (OPS) has statutory authority to issue safety standards for gas pipeline 

transportation (49 U.S.C. 60102(a)). 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. OPS safety regulations in 49 CFR Part 192 apply to the design, construction, 

operation, and maintenance of these pipelines. Currently, 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)). 

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.”1

 The 1992 statutory change also directed OPS 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. 

To fulfill its statutory mandates, OPS is proposing to amend 49 CFR parts 192.1, 192.3, 

192.4, 192.6, 192.7, and 192.9 to (i) revise the title, (ii) add definitions of ‘onshore 

gathering line”, “potential impact circle,” “potential impact radius”, and “regulated 

onshore gathering line,” and (iii) to establish safety standards for regulated onshore 

gathering lines in the accompanying Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(SNPRM). 

Statement of the Problem 

DOT’s gas pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR Part 192) do not presently define gas 

gathering lines, except by comparison to transmission lines. Similarly, the regulations 

define gas transmission lines as pipelines used in the transportation of gas but which are 

 

1

See P. L. No. 102-508, § 109; now 49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(21) and 60101(b).
2

not gathering lines. In addition, the scope of the regulations applies to gathering lines 

that are within the limits of an incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village or in 

any designated residential or commercial area such as a subdivision, business or shopping 

center, or community development. There is not always agreement as to when an area 

meets these criteria. The result is uncertainty regarding the classification of pipelines – 

whether they are transmission lines or gathering lines as well as, if gathering lines, 

whether they are subject to OPS jurisdiction. 

Most states have pipeline safety inspection programs that regulate the safety of intrastate 

pipelines operating in their state, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 192 (and 

additional requirements that the states may impose). This generally includes gathering 

lines. OPS regulates the safety of interstate pipelines, with the assistance of some state 

pipeline safety programs that serve as agents of OPS for that purpose. 

As a result, there are a number of different regulatory agencies that exercise 

responsibility to oversee pipeline safety regulations. Confusion regarding the definition 

of gathering lines can result in inconsistencies in how applicable regulations are enforced 

with respect to those pipelines. The proposed rule aims to eliminate inconsistency by 

providing a consistent definition of regulated gathering lines. 

Congress has also recognized the need to better define gas gathering lines and to clarify 

what regulatory requirements are applicable to those lines. The Pipeline Safety Act of 

1992 required the Secretary of Transportation to incorporate a definition of gathering 

lines into the pipeline safety regulations, to identify which gathering lines should be 

subject to regulation, and to specify the requirements applicable to those pipelines. The 

proposed rule also responds to this statutory mandate. 

The regulations do not now specify safety requirements specifically applicable to 

gathering lines. Instead, they provide that operators of gathering lines subject to the 

regulations must meet requirements specified for transmission pipelines2

. Transmission 

pipelines include pipelines that are large (up to 42 inches in diameter), operate at high 

pressures (which can be above 1000 pounds per square inch, psi), and extend for 

hundreds or thousands of miles, traversing some areas with significant populations. The 

regulations applicable to these pipelines have been established to protect the public from 

the risks that can be posed by such pipelines. 

Gathering lines are different. Most gathering lines are smaller in diameter, some as small 

as 2 inches in diameter. Gathering lines typically operate at much lower pressures. 

Gathering lines also do not extend for thousands of miles. Instead, gathering lines 

typically exist as a network of pipelines, connecting individual wells or production fields, 

covering at most a few hundred miles, often in a limited geographic area, and located, for 

the most part, in very rural areas. Incidents on gathering lines thus would generally 

involve much lower consequences to public safety than would incidents on transmission 

pipelines, and the incident record shows that the consequences of gathering line incidents 

has, indeed, been much less. 

 

2

 49 CFR 192.9 
3

Requiring application of safety regulations established for transmission pipelines to 

gathering lines thus imposes an unnecessary burden on operators of gathering lines. 

Application of a more limited set of safety requirements, focused directly on issues that 

are safety concerns for gathering lines, would result in reduced burden (and costs) with 

increased safety as the risk-based classification system would efficiently target gathering 

lines that pose higher risk to public safety. 

The proposed rule would establish a definition for gathering lines that would be 

applicable to federal and state regulation of these pipelines. It clarifies which gathering 

lines are subject to safety regulation, based on the possibility of public safety 

consequences from an incident. Finally, it establishes a set of safety requirements 

specifically appropriate for those gathering lines subject to safety regulation, the 

implementation of which would be less burdensome to operators. 

Rationale for Regulatory Assessment 

Executive Order 12866 directs all Federal agencies to develop both preliminary and final 

regulatory analyses if their proposed regulations are likely to be “significant regulatory 

actions” that may have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million. The Order 

also requires a determination as to whether a proposed rule could adversely affect the 

economy or a section of the economy in terms of productivity and employment, the 

environment, public health, safety, or State, local or tribal governments. In accordance 

with the regulatory philosophy and principles provided in Sections 1(a) and (b) and 

Section 6(a)(3)(C) of Executive Order 12866, an economic analysis of the proposed 

regulatory changes must be conducted. Furthermore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended, requires Federal agencies to conduct a separate analysis of the 

economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, and the Unfunded Mandates Act 

also requires economic impact analysis. 

In accordance with the above directives, OPS has performed a preliminary evaluation of 

the potential compliance costs of the proposed rule and feasible regulatory options and 

identified those benefits that can be expressed in monetary terms. To the extent possible, 

this is based on the available data and information from a range of sources including 

OPS’s Incident Reporting Database and extensive comments received from the 

stakeholders since 1991. OPS estimates that the impact of implementing the proposed 

rule would not be greater than $100 million annually, nor would the rule adversely affect 

the economy or a section of the economy in terms of productivity and employment, the 

environment, public health, safety, or State, local or tribal governments. OPS has also 

determined, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the 

United States. Additionally, it was determined that the rule would not impose annual 

expenditures of $120.7 million or more on State, local, or tribal governments or the 

private sector (and thus would not require an Unfunded Mandates Act analysis). 

Alternatives Considered
4

OPS considered several alternatives to assure the necessary protection from potential 

incidents on gas gathering lines. These alternatives were: 

1. No action 

2. Imposing all requirements of Part 192 on all gathering lines 

3. Developing a definition for gas gathering lines different from that in an industry 

standard (API RP-80). 

4. Developing a wholly-new set of safety regulations applicable to gathering lines 

5. Adopting the definition of gathering lines provided in RP-80 (with minor 

exceptions), defining regulated gathering lines on the basis of potential 

consequences of incidents, and applying selected current safety requirements to 

those regulated lines. 

1. No action. 

Regulatory analyses typically consider an alternative in which the agency would not take 

any action, because it would maintain the status quo. No new requirements would be 

levied. No costs would be incurred to implement new requirements. No new benefits 

would result. 

As described above, gathering lines now are not defined clearly in the regulations. 

Gathering lines are subject to regulatory requirements only when they are in areas that are 

part of incorporated or unincorporated cities, towns or villages or in designated 

residential or commercial areas such as a subdivision, business or shopping center, or 

community development. Lines that meet these criteria are subject to the requirements 

for transmission pipelines. 

This results in an application of requirements that is both ineffective and inefficient. It is 

ineffective in that it fails to provide necessary protection to persons near the pipeline who 

are not in incorporated or designated developed areas. It is ineffective in that it requires 

operators to implement measures, on those portions of gathering pipelines that are 

regulated, which are appropriate to pipelines that pose much greater risk than most 

gathering lines. 

Taking no action would also not be responsive to the Congressional mandate to define 

gathering lines and to establish appropriate requirements. 

For these reasons, the “no action” alternative was not considered further. 

2. Revising the regulations to apply all requirements applicable to transmission pipelines 

to all gathering lines 

Another alternative would be to apply all the requirements now applicable to 

transmission pipelines to all gathering lines, regardless of their location. This would 

obviate the need to define more precisely the point at which gathering ceases and 
5

transmission begins, since the same requirements would be applicable to both pipelines. 

It would also take advantage of over 30 years of experience that have gone into the 

current transmission pipeline regulations, which have allowed refinement of the 

requirements therein so that they more effectively protect public safety. 

Many, perhaps most, gathering lines are located in rural areas with little or no population. 

Many of these lines also are small in diameter, and operate at low pressures. As a result, 

these pipelines pose a much lesser risk than do transmission lines. Imposition of 

transmission line requirements on gathering lines in rural areas is not necessary to assure 

public safety, due to the minimal risk posed by these pipelines. 

Imposing transmission line requirements on all gathering lines would also significantly 

increase the costs of operating those pipelines. This, in turn, would result in a significant 

increase in the cost of gas from the wells served, in order for operators to recover these 

increased costs. Many gas wells currently are “marginal” producers3

. That is, the price of 

gas sold is marginally higher than the cost to operate the well and produce the gas. 

Increases in operating costs could make it unprofitable to operate the well, resulting in 

the well being “shut in,” or production ceasing. 

The significant cost increases that would be associated with imposing all transmission 

pipeline requirements on all gathering lines would be likely to result in a large number of 

wells being shut in. This would reduce natural gas production in the U.S4. As described 

above, there would be minimal safety benefit to taking this option. There would be 

significant negative impact on the energy security of the United States, since production 

of natural gas would decline at a time when demand is increasing. 

For these reasons, the option of imposing all transmission line requirements on all 

gathering lines was not evaluated further. 

3. Develop a definition for regulated gathering lines independent of work done by the 

industry 

The pipeline industry has expended considerable effort to develop a more precise 

definition of gathering lines, resulting in the publication of American Petroleum Institute 

Recommended Practice 80, “Guidelines for the Definition of Onshore Gas Gathering 

Lines” (API RP-80). OPS could embark on a new effort to define gas gathering lines as a 

means of focusing safety regulation. 

Taking such a course of action would require OPS to evaluate the design and function of 

gas gathering systems, including typical systems and those that might use different 

designs due to differing local circumstances. Based upon this evaluation, OPS would 

 

3

 A marginal well is generally defined as a well that produces less than 60,000 cubic feet of gas per day. 

4

 “Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, Marginal Oil and Gas: Fuel for Economic Growth (2003 

Edition)”estimates that approximately 10 percent of all natural gas produced in the United States during 

2002 was from marginal wells. This study was presented at the February 2004 meeting of OPS’s Technical 

Pipeline Safety Standards Advisory Committee. 
6

need to define a functional point at which production, at the well head, is considered to 

give way to “gathering.” Similarly, OPS would need to define a point at which gathering 

ends and transmission (or distribution) begins. This summary describes the work that 

was performed in developing API RP-80. A new effort would ignore this work, and 

would necessarily duplicate much of the effort already invested. 

Performing this work would require a significant investment of federal resources and 

time. In addition, validating the federal action would require significant interaction with 

the pipeline industry. Industry is likely to be uninterested in investing the time required 

to work with OPS on a new definition, since they have already completed work on the 

same subject. Industry comments to OPS in this docket have consistently suggested that 

API RP-80 be used to define gas gathering lines for regulatory purposes. 

Finally, it is unlikely that a new effort would develop a significantly better, or different, 

definition. There are a limited number of ways in which the beginning and ending points 

of gathering can be defined, and the industry effort considered various combinations. 

For these reasons, the alternative of developing a wholly-new definition for gathering 

lines was not evaluated further. 

4. Develop an entirely new set of regulations applicable to gas gathering lines 

Federal safety regulations for natural gas pipelines were established more than 30 years 

ago, and were based upon industry codes and standards that had, themselves, been 

developed over several decades. Numerous refinements have been made since the initial 

set of regulations to reflect experience and to better assure that the regulations protect 

public safety. Transportation by pipeline is safer than any other mode of transportation. 

While incidents do occur, they are unusual events, and incidents with serious 

consequences occur only rarely. Attempting to develop a new set of safety regulations 

would ignore the wealth of experience and development over time that are inherently a 

part of the current regulatory system. 

The threats that can affect gathering lines are the same as those that can affect other 

pipelines. The principal causes of pipeline accidents are corrosion and outside force 

damage, including damage by nearby excavations. These are the same major threats 

faced by gathering lines. There is nothing about the design and operation of gathering 

lines that is so unique as to give rise to new threats or to lead to an expectation that 

practices that have proven effective against threats to transmission pipelines would not be 

effective in protecting gathering lines. 

Finally, as for the alternative of developing a wholly-new definition, significant federal 

resources and time would be expended on developing a new set of safety regulations, 

again with little likelihood that they would be any more effective than current 

requirements. 
7

For these reasons, the alternative of developing a new set of safety regulations applicable 

to gathering lines was not evaluated further. 

5. Adopt the gathering line definition in API RP-80, with minor changes, and apply 

selected current regulations applicable to transmission pipelines as necessary to address 

risks 

The work that has already been performed serves as a reasonable basis for action. The 

industry has invested considerable effort in developing API RP-80 to define gas gathering 

lines, and the results appear reasonable. OPS, and state agencies that also regulate 

pipeline safety, can use this document as a starting point, and can make minor 

modifications, if necessary, to assure appropriate results. 

Similarly, OPS can select from existing regulations applicable to transmission pipelines 

to identify the necessary set of requirements to assure safety of those gathering lines to be 

subject to safety regulation. Selection can be done taking into consideration the relative 

risk posed by gathering lines and transmission pipelines. 

This approach is most likely to result in development of appropriate safety requirements, 

applicable to the pipeline for which they are most appropriate, in the most efficient 

manner. For this reason, this alternative was selected. 

Economic Analysis 

Defining Baseline/Current Regulatory Condition 

Currently, a gathering line is defined in 49 CFR 192.3 as: 

“a pipeline that transports gas from a current production facility to a transmission 

line or main.” 

A transmission line is, in turn, defined as: 

“A pipeline other than a gathering line that....” 

Within the current regulations, therefore, it is unclear where gathering stops and 

transmission begins. It is clear that a pipeline cannot be both. It is not always clear, 

however, which it is. 

Production facility is not even defined in the current regulations, so there is similar 

uncertainty about where production ends and gathering begins. 
8

There are at least 215,000 miles of onshore gathering line in the U.S. operated by over 

2800 operators.5

 Only a portion of this mileage is now subject to safety regulation. 

The scope of 49 CFR Part 192 applies to all pipelines used in transportation of gas, with 

some exceptions. Among the exceptions are: 

“Onshore gathering of gas outside of the following areas: 

(i) An area within the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or 

village. 

(ii) Any designated residential or commercial area such as a subdivision, business 

or shopping center, or community development.”6

Thus, gathering lines that are located in rural areas, not fitting the descriptions in the 

exception, are not regulated. Regulated gathering lines are sometimes referred to as 

“non-rural” gathering lines. Annual reports filed by 400 gathering system operators in 

2003 reported a total of approximately 15,700 miles of non-rural gathering lines subject 

to OPS jurisdiction (i.e., regulated). 

These non-rural pipelines are treated, for regulatory purposes, as though they were 

transmission lines. 49 CFR 192.9 requires that operators of all gathering lines subject to 

the regulations “must comply with the requirements of this part applicable to 

transmission lines.” These requirements were developed for pipelines that include those 

of large diameter, operating at high pressures, and traversing great distances. They are 

not always appropriate for gathering lines that tend to be smaller, operate at relatively 

lower pressures, and extend only for a few miles. 

Operators of non-rural gathering lines incur costs to comply with safety regulations. 

Based upon informal discussions with industry representatives, OPS estimates these costs 

to be approximately $1,500 per mile per year. The estimated operating cost for 

complying with safety regulations for the 16,000 miles of gathering line now regulated 

are thus $24 million per year. 

Review by the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 

OPS has been discussing this issue for several years, including previous suggestions for 

possible rule changes. These discussions have included review by the Technical Pipeline 

Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC)7

. 

 

5

 Mileage is based on information provided by the Gas Processors Association indicating 179,000 miles of 

unregulated gathering lines plus an allowance of 20,000 miles for gathering lines operated by members of 

the Independent Petroleum Association of America and 16,000 miles currently regulated. 6

 49 CFR 192.1(b)(4) 

7

 The composition and duties of the TPSSC are set forth in 49 USC 60115. OPS consults TPSSC on all its 

gas pipeline rulemaking efforts. 
9

With respect to the focus of this analysis, the TPSSC recommended that OPS conduct a 

cost benefit analysis including involvement of all stakeholders. Of particular concern 

was involvement of operators of gathering lines that have no mileage in incorporated 

areas and that have thus not previously been subject to pipeline safety regulations nor 

been involved in OPS rulemaking activities. 

In response to this recommendation, OPS held discussions with members of the Gas 

Processors Association (GPA) and the Independent Petroleum Association of America 

(IPAA). The latter organization, in particular, includes in its membership independent 

operators of producing gas wells, and the gathering lines associated with those wells. 

These associations represent a significant number of the companies operating gathering 

lines that have not previously been subject to pipeline safety regulations. Both 

associations have provided information related to the potential costs to their members of 

the regulatory changes under consideration in this SNPRM. That information has been 

used in this regulatory analysis, which is responsive to the TPSSC recommendation that 

the costs and benefits of the proposed rule be analyzed. 

The proposed rule would (i) adopt the definition of gathering lines provided in RP-80 

(with minor exceptions), (ii) define regulated gathering lines on the basis of potential 

consequences of incidents, and (iii) apply selected current safety requirements to those 

regulated lines. The proposed rule would provide regulatory relief to gathering line 

operators based on the actual risks related to the transportation of natural gas from 

production wells to locations where natural gas is processed for end use or enters other 

pipelines transporting it to end users. Consistent definition would resolve confusion that 

has existed over where gathering begins (i.e., where “production” at the well ends) and 

where gathering ends (i.e., where pipeline transportation becomes another type of 

regulated activity, either transmission or distribution). The result is intended to be a more 

consistent application of safety requirements, focused where they would do the most 

good. Therefore, this economic analysis is conducted for Alternative 5 only. That 

regulatory alternative would minimize the regulatory burden without sacrificing safety. 

This analysis of benefits and costs takes the following approach. First, the mileage 

impacted by the regulatory change is identified and estimated. Next, the potential costs 

of the rule are examined. Finally, a discussion of the costs versus the benefits is 

presented. It should be noted that, unless otherwise specified, all dollar values in this 

report are given in constant 2003 dollars.8

 

Impacted Mileage 

In this section the total pipeline mileage impacted by the proposed regulatory change is 

estimated. That mileage is located in areas in which defined numbers of people are 

 

8 Where necessary, dollars are converted from nominal values to real 2003 values using the Producer Price 

Index (PPI), Intermediate Materials, Supplies, and Components. The source of the PPI index numbers is 

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Web page. 
10

within specified distances of the pipeline. The distances vary depending on the diameter 

of the pipe and the pressure at which it operates. 

As described above the total amount of gas gathering pipelines in the U.S. is estimated to 

be 215,000 miles. (OPS invites comments on the accuracy of this estimate). Of these, 

approximately 7 percent of the total gathering lines, or 16,000 miles are currently subject 

to safety regulation9

. Under the proposed regulatory change, some mileage currently 

subject to regulation would no longer be regulated. Some mileage now not regulated, 

that which is not “non-rural” under the current regulations but which is located near 

concentrations of people meeting criteria in the proposed rule, would come under the 

regulations. OPS estimates that these changes would result in the total mileage of gas 

gathering lines subject to Part 192 being approximately the same, about 16,000 miles, 

although the particular miles of pipeline to be regulated would vary somewhat. Of these, 

OPS assumes that approximately 4,000 miles would be Type A gathering lines (i.e., 

operating at >20 percent SMYS) and 12,000 miles would be Type B lines (operating at 

lower pressure). These estimates are used throughout this analysis. 

OPS acknowledges that these mileage figures are essentially estimates. Determining the 

actual number of miles of gathering lines that would be regulated as Type A or Type B 

requires the application of the criteria in the proposed rule to each gathering line and its 

local environment. OPS does not have information about the location and environment 

of gathering lines, especially of those not heretofore regulated, that would allow explicit 

determination of whether any portion of any particular gathering line would be regulated. 

Pipeline operators must make these determinations. OPS invites public comment on the 

reasonableness of its estimates. Table 1 illustrates the proposed regulatory changes and 

the estimated mileage of onshore gathering lines based on the current and proposed rule. 

 

9

Annual reports filed by gathering system operators in 2003 reported a total of approximately 15,700 miles 

of non-rural gathering lines subject to OPS jurisdiction. To be conservative, this regulatory evaluation uses 

16,000 for purposes of the cost calculations. 
11

Table 1: Proposed Regulatory Changes 

Regulatory 

Provision 

Current 

Requirements 

Proposed Rule 

Scope 

Part 192.1 

Applies only 

to gathering 

lines in “nonrural” areas 

Applies to “regulated onshore gathering lines” 

Definition 

Part 192.3 

Gathering line 

means a 

pipeline that 

transports gas 

from a current 

production 

facility to a 

transmission 

line or main 

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 certain 

limitations 

Safety Based on Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure 

requirements 

for gathering 

lines 

Part 192.9 

Same as 

transmission 

lines – All 

Part 192 

requirements 

applicable to 

transmission 

lines 

 

Type A – 

All Part 192 

requirements 

applicable to 

transmission 

lines 

Type B – Selected Part 192 requirements 

Impacted 

Miles 

16,000 miles 4,000 miles 12,000 miles 

Compliance Cost Estimates 

The following section estimates different cost components associated with compliance 

with Part 192 requirements. The major one-time and recurrent (annual) costs are 

associated with – (i) population survey, (ii) corrosion control according to Subpart I, (iii) 

installation and maintenance of line markers (section 192.707), (iv) carrying out a 

damage prevention program (section 192.614), (v) implementing a public education 

program (192.616), and (vi) establishing Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure 

(section 192.619). 

(i) Population survey 

Operators of gathering pipeline systems would first need to determine what parts of their 

system meet the definition as regulated gathering lines. This would require knowledge of 
12

the distribution of population along the pipeline in terms of buildings intended for human 

occupancy, and buildings and outside areas in which more than 20 people gather. Much 

of this information is already available to transmission pipeline operators and to operators 

of gathering pipelines that are currently subject to transmission regulations, as a result of 

long-standing requirements to determine the class location for transmission pipelines 

based on the population density near the line. For gathering lines that are not currently 

regulated (e.g., rural lines) surveys of the pipeline would need to be done to determine the 

local population. 

The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) estimates that it would cost 

its members approximately $500 per mile to do the initial surveys. This includes 

surveillance and photographing the line from aircraft, and field verification of the 

purpose and occupancy of some buildings. IPAA further estimates that it would cost 

approximately $100 per mile for “annual” surveys to determine if changes in land use 

have resulted in new portions of the pipeline becoming regulated gathering lines. 

Surveys to identify changes would not necessarily be performed annually. Most 

gathering lines are located in rural areas where changes in land use occur rarely and 

gradually. Surveys for these lines may only be required every few years. Areas where 

significant changes are occurring might need to be surveyed more frequently than 

annually. Operators would likely know of areas near their pipelines undergoing 

significant change as a result of their routine operating and maintenance activities on the 

pipeline. For purposes of this analysis, OPS assumes that periodic surveys will occur 

approximately annually. 

Currently, operators of onshore gathering lines have to survey and re-survey the lines to 

determine whether any area met the areas defined in section 192.1(b)(2) as population 

shifts occur over time. This analysis assumes that currently all 16,000 miles of gathering 

lines under OPS jurisdiction have incurred the costs of an initial survey and are subject to 

recurring surveys. 

The SNPRM proposes to define regulated onshore gathering lines based on risk 

categories defined by maximum allowable operating pressure of the line and the Class 

locations (section 192.5) or other criteria for population near the pipelines (proposed 

change to section 192.3). Pipeline operators of gathering lines would need to survey their 

lines to determine the information necessary to apply the new criteria. Population survey 

costs would not be incurred for the entire 199,000 miles of currently non-regulated 

gathering pipeline in the U.S. Much of this pipeline lies in very rural areas where 

specific surveys would not be necessary to determine if the local population density 

exceeds the criteria in the definition. OPS estimates that an initial survey would need to 

be conducted for 25 percent of the total non-jurisdictional pipeline mileage, or 49,750 

miles. The cost to perform those initial surveys is thus estimated to be $24.87 million. 

As described above, not all areas would require re-surveys on an annual basis, since the 

changes in land use within a year in a given area may be known to be small, and some 

areas might require re-surveys more frequently. In addition, a lesser amount of mileage 

would need to be re-surveyed, since these surveys would focus on changes in land use 
13

that cause new portions of the pipeline to become regulated. The re-surveys do not need 

to address those portions of the pipeline that are already classified as regulated gathering. 

OPS estimates that the annual cost of re-surveys would be $100 per mile, consistent with 

the IPAA estimate discussed above. OPS conservatively estimates that surveys will need 

to be conducted for 15% of currently non-jurisdictional pipeline mileage, or 29,850 

miles. The annual costs for these surveys are thus estimated to be $2.985 million. 

(ii) Corrosion control according to Subpart I 

Currently, gathering lines subject to regulation must meet the same safety requirements 

as transmission pipelines and thus are required to comply with external corrosion control 

as required by Subpart I. Providing cathodic protection (CP) is the most costly of these 

requirements. Installing such protection involves placing sacrificial anodes near the 

pipeline and installing rectifiers to impress a current on the pipe and test points at which 

the current differential between pipe and soil can be measured. The excavations 

necessary to install anodes and test points are the driving factors in the cost to install such 

systems. Anodes must be installed at much closer spacing (e.g., every 30 to 50 feet) to 

protect bare pipe than to protect coated pipe (e.g., 350 to 500 feet). Similarly, more test 

points are required per mile for bare pipe. The cost to install a test point or anode is 

approximately $30010, but the cost per mile varies as the mix between bare and coated 

pipe changes. On average, IPAA has estimated that the cost to install new cathodic 

protection on the systems of several of its members that participated in a pilot effort to 

estimate costs is approximately $14,615 per mile. Operators with CP systems also incur 

annual costs, for test point monitoring and for remedial actions where monitoring 

indicates the system is not performing as intended. IPAA estimates these costs, again for 

the mix of bare and coated pipe in surveyed member piping systems, at $382 per mile. 

Currently, all 16,000 miles of gathering lines subject to regulation incur this cost of 

compliance. The annual or recurring cost to comply with this provision is $6.112 million 

per year. These are the existing compliance cost of this provision currently borne by the 

estimated 16,000 miles of gathering lines under OPS jurisdiction. 

OPS believes that a large portion of the mileage that would be reclassified as Type A 

gathering lines is already cathodically protected. This is clearly the case for all currentlyregulated gathering lines that would become Type A lines under the proposed rule, since 

those lines are already required to comply with all requirements applicable to 

transmission lines. OPS believes that the vast majority of currently unregulated mileage 

that may potentially be classified as Type A is also already protected. 

Type A regulated gathering lines are, by definition, higher-pressure lines. They are, thus, 

lines in which the operator has a significant economic investment, and a corresponding 

interest in asset protection. Protecting these lines from corrosion, a leading cause of 

pipeline failures, is an important economic consideration for operators. Installing 

cathodic protection when a pipeline is originally installed involves a very small 

incremental cost, especially compared to the retrofit cost estimated by IPAA. This 

 

10 Estimate by Independent Petroleum Association of America 
14

analysis conservatively assumes that the operators of 90 percent of Type A lines would 

already have installed cathodic protection for asset protection purposes and would not 

incur costs to install such protection as a result of this rule. The total Type A mileage on 

which new cathodic protection must be installed would therefore be only 400 miles, at a 

cost of $5.85 million. The annual recurrent cost of complying with this regulatory 

provision for the newly-protected Type A gathering lines is $382 per mile or a total of 

$1.53 million per year. 

OPS estimates that 12,000 miles of Type B gathering pipeline would be covered under 

the proposed rule. OPS assumes that 80 percent of this pipeline would be metallic pipe 

requiring CP, and, as described above, that 60 percent of this pipe would already be 

protected. The total costs for installing CP systems on the Type B gathering lines not 

already protected is thus estimated to be $56.12 million. Again, the annual recurrent cost 

of complying with this regulatory provision is $382 per mile or a total of $4.58 million 

per year for about 12,000 miles of Type B lines. 

As described above, 16,000 miles of regulated gathering pipeline are currently subject to 

requirements including the need for annual CP monitoring. Under the proposed rule, an 

equivalent amount of pipeline mileage will be subject to these requirements (although, as 

described above, the particular miles subject to requirements may change). Since the 

total mileage subject to these requirements is estimated to be the same, there are no new 

net costs for annual CP monitoring. 

(iii) Installation and maintenance of line markers (section 192.707) 

Line markers involve initial costs and annual maintenance costs. Initially, markers must 

be installed. The cost to do so is about $50 per marker. For regulated pipelines, markers 

must be installed at each crossing of a public road and railroad and wherever necessary to 

identify the location of the line to reduce the possibility of damage or interference11. 

IPAA estimates that approximately 10 markers are needed per mile of pipeline, for a cost 

of $500 per mile. The line must be surveyed on an ongoing basis to verify the condition 

of the markers, and some portion of the markers are likely to be damaged or faded and 

require replacement. IPAA estimates that it costs $80 per mile each year to survey the 

pipeline and that 10 percent of the markers (i.e., one per mile) require replacement 

annually, for an annual cost of $130 per mile. Therefore, operators of 16,000 gathering 

lines that are currently under OPS jurisdiction incur an annual cost of $2.08 million per 

year. 

Damage by excavation is one of the two major causes of pipeline accidents. Operators of 

these pipelines therefore have an economic interest in marking their pipelines to protect 

them from damage, and OPS presumes that many unregulated pipelines are marked. OPS 

believes that most pipeline markers used for this purpose would comply with the 

proposed rule, since the marking requirements in the regulations have become a common 

standard. OPS estimates that new line markers would be required for as much as 10 

percent of the mileage that will become regulated gathering pipeline under the proposed 

 

11 49 CFR 192.907(a) 
15

rule, or a maximum of 1,600 miles. The initial costs to install these markers is thus 

estimated to be $0.8 million. Recurrent costs to monitor and replace markers for this 

mileage would be $0.208 million. 

As was the case for annual CP monitoring described above, however, the total mileage of 

gathering pipeline subject to the need for annual maintenance of markers under the 

proposed rule would be the same as that currently subject to such requirements. There 

are thus no net new costs for the annual monitoring and replacement of line markers. 

 

(iv) Damage prevention program (section 192.614) 

Implementing a damage prevention program involves membership in a one-call program. 

Most states require all pipeline operators, including operators of gathering lines not 

subject to Part 192, to belong to one-call programs. Operators involved in one-call 

programs must respond to calls reporting the intent of others to excavate near their 

pipelines by either screening the calls (i.e., determine that the excavation is not 

sufficiently close to the pipeline to be of concern) or marking their lines. The costs of 

such a program thus depend on the number of calls (or “tickets”) that an operator 

experiences each year. IPAA estimates that its members address 20 tickets per mile each 

year, at a cost of $1 per ticket. IPAA estimates the cost to screen and locate pipeline at 

$10 per ticket. (This cost is relatively low because screening can often be performed 

from available records without the need for a more costly site visit). IPAA therefore 

estimates that the total cost per mile for implementing a damage prevention program is 

$220 per year. Therefore, estimated existing costs of damage prevention program borne 

currently by the gathering line operators is $3.52 million per year. 

Only Colorado and Kansas, representing a total of about 700 miles of gathering pipeline, 

have no requirement for one-call programs. Oklahoma requirements do not apply to all 

gathering line operators. There are 3,270 miles of gathering line in Oklahoma, meaning 

that 3,970 miles nationally are potentially not now required to belong to one-call 

programs. Not all of that mileage would be subject to the proposed rule, however. OPS 

estimates that the percentage of mileage in these states that would be subject to the new 

rule is the same as the estimated national percentages. As described above, OPS 

estimates that 16,000 of 215,000 miles of gathering line nationally would be regulated as 

Type B gathering lines, or about 7.4 percent. Applying this percentage to the mileage in 

Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma results in an estimate of 294 miles of pipeline not 

previously subject to one-call requirements that would become so under this proposed 

rule. The total cost to implement these programs over the 294 miles that would be newly 

covered under this rule is thus $64,680 per year. The operating cost for complying with 

this provision would be $0.88 million for Type A lines and $2.6 million for Type B lines 

(which includes 294 miles of newly covered lines and costs associated with them). 

Here, again, the total number of miles subject to these requirements under the proposed 

rule is estimated to be the same as that under current regulations. There are thus no net 

new costs for implementing damage prevention programs. 
16

(v) Public education program (section 192.616) 

In informal conversations with IPAA, that group estimated that a public education 

program would cost each of its members $5,000 annually. This would imply that the 

costs are the same regardless of how much mileage a company operates. OPS agrees that 

there are some fixed costs associated with such a program, but also considers that costs 

will vary with the number of miles involved. More mileage will lead to additional needs 

to identify and meet with local government officials, excavators, etc. OPS has no 

specific data concerning what the per-mile costs would be. 

For purposes of this analysis, and based on informal discussions with operators, OPS 

assumes that total annual costs to comply with regulations for Type B gathering lines will 

be $1,000 per mile, or about 2/3 the cost for operators of Type A gathering lines to 

comply with all regulations applicable to transmission pipelines. Considering the costs 

for individual requirements estimated above, this means that the estimate for public 

education programs is $168 per mile per year. The total cost to implement public 

education programs on the estimated 16,000 miles of gathering lines is thus $2.69 

Million. 

Again, though, since the total gathering pipeline mileage subject to these requirements 

will be the same under the proposed rule as currently, there are no net new costs for 

public education programs. 

(vi) Maximum allowable operating pressure (section 192.619). 

Establishing MAOP does not require any physical work along the pipeline. Instead, this 

involves a review of pipeline records to identify the pressures to which the pipeline was 

tested and/or at which it has operated. These costs are incurred for major portions of 

each pipeline system rather than on a per-mile basis. For many pipelines, no new costs 

would be required, since an MAOP would already have been determined. In any event 

the total costs for this administrative requirement would be negligible, if any. 

As indicated earlier, based upon informal discussions with industry representatives, OPS 

estimates that operating costs to comply with the safety requirements for gathering lines 

(which is same as the transmission lines and would be for the proposed Type A lines) is 

approximately $1,500 per mile per year. This includes operating costs for re-survey, 

corrosion control, line marker maintenance, damage prevention programs as indicated 

above (items (i) – (iv)). The operating cost also includes costs associated with a number 

of provisions for transmission lines, such as patrolling (section 192.705), leakage surveys 

(section 192.706), record keeping (section 192.709) etc. Therefore, the estimated 

operating costs of the 16,000 miles of gathering line currently regulated is $24 Million 

per year. OPS estimates that the 4,000 miles of Type A gathering lines would incur that 

same operating cost per mile, i.e., $1,500 per mile to meet the safety requirements that 
17

are currently applicable to gathering lines as well as transmission lines. Therefore, the 

compliance costs for Type A lines would be $6.0 million per year. As discussed above, 

OPS estimates that the compliance costs for Type B lines would be approximately $832 

per year (items (i) – (iv)). Table 2 summarizes the current costs of compliance and the 

estimated cost of SNPRM. 
18

Table 2: Estimated Additional Costs due to the SNPRM 

Unit Cost per mile Existing 

Operating 

costs ($ in 

Million) 

Additional costs due to 

SNPRM 

($ in Million) 

Cost 

Component 

Capital 

Costs 

Operating 

(recurrent) 

Costs 

Total Capital Costs Operating 

Costs 

Population 

Survey 

$500 $100 $3.2* $24.87 $2.985 

Corrosion 

Control 

$14,615 $382 $6.11 $61.97 $0 

Line 

Markers 

$500 $130 $2.08 $0.8 $0 

Damage 

Prevention 

NA $220 $3.52 NA $0 

Public 

Education 

NA $168 $2.69 NA $0 

Total $17.60 $86.84 $2.985 

*

The need to perform population surveys for comparison with the definition of regulated gathering line is new with this 

SNPRM. The existing costs are represented by an estimate of the surveys required to identify class locations per 49 

CFR 192.609, assumed to cost the same amount (per mile) to perform. The new definition would require similar 

surveys, but would refine the data to a finer level of detail. 

As illustrated above, there would be a one-time cost $86.84 million, the majority of 

which is due to the need to install cathodic protection for any lines that currently are not 

subject to OPS jurisdiction. There would also be an increased annual operating cost of 

$2.985 million, resulting from the need to conduct annual population surveys to 

determine if population changes have resulted in new pipeline mileage meeting the 

criteria to become regulated. 

However, the SNPRM would also reduce the operating cost burdens for Type B gas 

gathering lines, since these pipelines would not be subject to all of the requirements 

applicable to transmission (or Type A gathering) pipelines. Based on informal 

discussions with industry, OPS estimates for purposes of this analysis that total annual 

costs to comply with regulations for Type B gathering lines will be $1,000 per mile, or 

about 2/3 the cost for operators of Type A gathering lines to comply with all regulations 

applicable to transmission pipelines12. The annual operating cost saving under the 

SNPRM is thus estimated as $6 million per year.13 When combined with the new cost for 

 

12 This includes the costs for the individual requirements described in (i) – (iv) above plus an estimate of 

$268 per mile per year for the annual costs associated with a public education program ((v) above). 13 Cost savings = (operating costs for currently-regulated gathering pipelines) – (operating costs for Type 

A gathering pipelines) – (operating costs for Type B pipelines) = ($1,500*16,000) – ($1,500*4,000) + 

($1000*12,000) = $6,000,000/year 
19

annual population surveys ($2.985 million), the net change in annual costs is a savings of 

$3.015 million. 

Therefore, this SNPRM would result in a total cost of $26.54 million over 20-year 

period14 or an average cost of $1.327 million per year over the analyzed period. In 

accordance with the OMB directives, the net present value of the net costs is estimated to 

be $39.455 million over 20-years at a discount rate of 3 percent and $49.218 million at a 

discount rate of 7 percent. 

Table 3 illustrates the total compliance costs of the SNPRM over time (costs in 

Millions) 

First-year 

Capital cost 

Recurrent 

cost 

Total Firstyear Total over 

20-year 

(nominal) 

Net 

present 

value over 

20-year 

(3% 

discount 

rate) 

Net present 

value over 

20-year (7% 

discount 

rate) 

(in million $) 

$86.84 $(3.015) $83.825 $26.54 $39.455 49.218 

Average annual cost over 20-years (nominal) $1.327 

Estimated Benefits

As discussed above, the SNPRM would define gathering lines that are subject to safety 

regulation, based on the possibility of public safety consequences from an incident. The 

proposed rule establishes a set of safety requirements specifically appropriate for those 

gathering lines subject to safety regulation, the implementation of which would be less 

burdensome to operators (after an initial capital investment for some newly-regulated 

lines). 

Currently, OPS does not have data to indicate the total number of incidents that have 

occurred on gas gathering lines. This is because most gathering lines are not regulated, 

and thus do not report incidents to OPS. Information provided by the industry indicates 

that the frequency of occurrence for incidents is low and OPS has no information to the 

contrary. 

The Gas Processors Association (GPA) conducted a survey of its members (plus 2 nonmember companies) concerning incidents that occurred during the period 1999 to 2003. 

The survey covered more than 171,000 miles of non-regulated gathering lines. The 

survey used a threshold for defining an incident that is more restrictive than that used for 

incidents on regulated pipelines that must be reported to OPS. OPS criteria require an 

 

14 Total savings = initial costs – combined annual cost savings = $86.84 million – 20($3.015 million) = 

$26.54 million 
20

incident report if there is a fatality, an injury requiring in-patient hospitalization, or 

property damage exceeding $50,000. The GPA survey counted as incidents all events 

that involved a fatality, an injury, an evacuation, or property damage in excess of $5,000. 

The GPA survey identified a total of 58 incidents on non-regulated gas gathering lines 

during the five-year period addressed. These incidents involved a total of one fatality, 

three injuries, 7 incidents with property damage exceeding $25,000, 19 incidents with 

property damage between $5,000 and $25,000, and 28 incidents involving an evacuation. 

During this same period, 20 incidents occurring on regulated gathering lines were 

reported to OPS. None of these incidents involved fatalities, two involved injuries (one 

incident involving two individuals). While OPS has no specific data to compare to the 

GPA survey results, the number of incidents reported by that survey is thus reasonably 

consistent with OPS gathering line incident data, especially considering the fact that 

gathering lines in the most populated areas tend to be regulated. The total number of 

incidents on gathering lines during the 5-year period considered is thus 78. The average 

rate of occurrence is 0.073 incidents per 1,000 miles per year. This compares to an 

incident rate for transmission pipelines over the same period of 0.27 per 1000 miles per 

year15, even though the reporting threshold for transmission incidents is considerably 

higher than that used in the GPA survey. 

The same GPA survey identified the predominant causes of the gathering line incidents to 

be corrosion (30) and third-party damage (15). These same causes resulted in most of the 

incidents reported to OPS (9 and 5 respectively). (No other cause resulted in more than 2 

incidents over the five-year period, except for 3 incidents reported to OPS attributed to 

“other”). Third-party damage accounted for the more significant incidents, including the 

fatality and three of the five injuries. Protecting against these threats, therefore, would 

provide the greatest benefit. The proposed requirements do just that. 

As described above, the proposed rule would focus protection on those portions of 

gathering pipelines where concentrations of people exist, and where the more significant 

consequences thus could occur. The data available is not sufficient to determine which of 

these historical incidents, if any, occurred on mileage that would be regulated under the 

proposed rule. It is reasonable to assume, however, that most of them occurred on these 

sections, since they involved consequences to people, or to buildings intended to house 

people. For purposes of this analysis, OPS assumes that incidents would continue to 

happen at this rate, absent new requirements, and that all of them would happen on 

mileage that would be regulated under the proposed rule. 

Extrapolating the five years of data, including the GPA survey results and incidents 

reported to OPS, to a 20-year analysis period thus indicates that a total of four fatalities, 

 

15 Transmission incident rate based on incidents reported to OPS from 1999-2003 (401) and average 

onshore transmission mileage during that same period (approx. 292,500 miles). All data available at 

http://ops.dpt.gov/stats.htm. 
21

twenty serious injuries, and $6,140,00016 in property damage may occur, absent 

regulatory change. The proposed rule would focus safety attention on those areas where 

consequential incidents are most likely to occur. They are thus expected to reduce the 

number of such incidents. Their effectiveness in reducing incidents cannot now be 

estimated with certainty. They are unlikely to eliminate the occurrence of consequential 

incidents. Assuming that such incidents would be eliminated, however, provides an 

estimate of the maximum possible benefit that could be realized by implementing the 

proposed rule – it establishes the order of magnitude of the benefit. If the number of 

incidents on non-regulated gathering lines has been underestimated in the GPA survey, 

the effect would be to increase the benefits estimated for the proposed rule. Even if the 

proposed rule avoids just one fatality per year over 20-years, it would generate a net 

benefit that is approximately consistent with the increased regulatory burden ($46.1 

Million net present value at 3 percent and $32.8 Million at 7 percent discount rate).17

OPS cannot say with certainty that implementing this proposed rule will avoid an 

additional fatality per year, but it is possible. The effect of the SNPRM will be to impose 

regulatory requirements on pipeline not currently regulated but where people are in close 

proximity and could be killed or injured by an accident. The SNPRM would remove 

from regulatory jurisdiction pipeline currently regulated but where there are no people in 

proximity who could be impacted. The net result is expected to be regulation of 

approximately the same amount of gathering line mileage, but with an improved focus 

likely to reduce the consequences of future accidents. 

Additional benefits would result from this rule that are difficult to quantify, but which 

OPS believes to be significant. Foremost among these is improved public confidence. 

Public confidence in pipeline safety has been shaken by major incidents in recent years 

(none of which occurred on gathering lines). These incidents have generated concerns 

among public interest groups, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the 

Congress, and have prompted OPS to issue several new regulations. The public is 

concerned about the possibility of pipeline incidents that could cause them harm. Under 

current rules, portions of gathering lines that are not in incorporated areas but which are 

near concentrations of people, and where an incident could cause them harm, are not 

subject to pipeline safety regulations, while other portions of gathering lines, within 

incorporated area boundaries, are subject to regulations but cannot reasonably be foreseen 

to pose a risk to humans. This situation is not conducive to assuring the American public 

that safety regulations are being focused in a manner that provides them the maximum 

benefit. OPS believes it is very important that this situation be changed, so that the public 

living, working, and congregating near pipelines can have increased confidence that their 

safety is being assured. 

 

16 This value is estimated by assuming an average consequence of $15,000 for the 19 incidents in the GPA 

survey with consequences between $5,000 and $25,000 and property damage of $50,000 for the 7 more 

severe incidents in the GPA results and the 18 incidents reported to OPS that did not involve an injury. 17 With respect to deaths and serious injuries, the following assumptions are made: 

• A life is valued at $3.1 million 

• A serious injury is valued at $517,150 

These valuations are standard assumptions currently used in Office of Pipeline Safety and DOT benefit/cost 

analyses and inflation adjusted using GDP price deflator for 2003 $. 
22

Finally, operators of regulated gathering lines would be required to submit an annual 

summary of events occurring on those lines.18 This would provide better data for OPS to 

use in making future decisions about the need to change regulatory practices related to 

those lines. 

OPS is proposing to define the regulated gathering lines to meet its statutory mandate. 

The proposed rule would provide regulatory relief to gas gathering line operators based 

on the actual risks related to the transportation of natural gas from production wells to 

locations where natural gas is processed for end use or enters other pipelines transporting 

it to end users. Consistent definition would resolve confusion that has existed over 

gathering lines definition as well as identify “regulated” gathering lines. The result is 

intended to be a more consistent application of safety requirements, focused where they 

would do the most good. 

 

18 This requirement is to be proposed by separate rulemaking. 
23

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review 

regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a 

rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

Need for the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: OPS’ 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 with specific authority to define gas gathering for purposes of safety 

regulation, and to change the scope of regulation by defining “regulated gathering.”19 

The 1992 statutory change also directed OPS 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. 

Description of Actions: To fulfill its statutory mandates, OPS is proposing to amend 49 

CFR parts 192.1, 192.3, 192.4, 192.6, 192.7, and 192.9 to (i) revise the title, (ii) add 

definitions of ‘onshore gathering line”, “potential impact circle,” “potential impact 

radius”, and “regulated onshore gathering line,” and (iii) to establish safety standards for 

regulated onshore gathering line in the accompanying Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (SNPRM). 

Identification of potentially affected small entities: This proposed rule would affect 

operators of gas gathering pipelines. The proposed rule refines the definition of which 

gas gathering pipeline is subject to regulation and establishes a tiered regulatory structure 

under which regulated gas gathering lines posing less risk would be subject to only some 

of the requirements now applied to all regulated gathering lines. 

Currently there are 400 natural gas gathering pipeline operators under OPS regulation. r. 

These pipeline operators are covered by North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) 486210.20 In accordance with size standards published by the Small Business 

Administration, a business with $6 million or less in annual revenue is considered a small 

entity in this NAICS code.21 The largest 50 firms in NAICS 486210, have combined 

 

19See Pub. L. No. 102-508, § 109; now 49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(21) and 60101(b). 20 The Economic Census does not differentiate between gathering line operators, transmission operators, or 

natural gas distribution system operators. Additionally not all operators have pipeline systems under OPS 

jurisdiction. Also, the definition of firms used in the Economic Census may be different from operators 

used in operational context used by OPS. 

21 See http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable.pdf. 
24

total revenues of approximately $20 billion (99.2% of the revenue of the NAICS) and 

operate 1588 establishments (93.4% of the establishments covered by the NAICS).22 

PHMSA believes that some operators of gas gathering pipelines that are not now subject 

to safety regulation will become so because portions of their pipeline will meet the 

criteria in the new definition for regulated gas gathering lines. These companies may 

experience added costs. The costs would depend on the risk posed by their pipelines. No 

more than 25 companies are expected by OPS to come under safety regulation for the 

first time as a result of the proposed regulatory changes. 

OPS does not have any information on the new operators that will come under safety 

regulation for the first time. Any small entities that are affected are expected to be 

operators of small diameter, low pressure (Type B) lines that will be subject to a very 

minimal set of regulations and only for the short sections of pipeline located in close 

proximity to concentrations of population. 

PHMSA has limited information on the number of small operators that might be 

impacted by the proposed regulatory change. Consequently, the following assumptions 

are used in this initial regulatory flexibility analysis: 

• 50% of the gas gathering line operators currently under OPS safety regulation are 

small entities 

• 100% of the gas gathering line operators that would come under OPS safety 

regulation as a result of the proposed regulatory change are small entities. 

• Each impacted operator will have 40 miles of gas gathering pipeline that is 

subject to OPS safety regulation23

• Some currently regulated gas gathering lines would no longer be subject to OPS 

safety regulation under the proposed regulatory change 

• All regulated gas gathering lines are currently doing everything required by the 

proposed regulatory change and therefore would incur no additional costs as a 

result of the proposed change 

• 25% of the gas gathering pipeline mileage that is currently subject to OPS safety 

regulation will be classed as Type A pipeline under the proposed regulatory 

changes, and 75% of the mileage will be classed as Type B 

• 100% of the gas gathering pipeline mileage that will come under OPS safety 

regulation as a result of the proposed regulatory change will be classed as Type B 

Based on these assumptions, an estimated 200 gas gathering line operators currently 

under OPS safety regulation are assumed to be small entities subject to the proposed 

regulatory change. Because they are currently doing everything required by the proposed 

 

22 U.S. Census Bureau, “Pipeline Transportation: 2002,” 2002 Economic Census, Transportation and 

Warehousing, Industry Series, available on the web at http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec0248i02t.pdf. 23 The 400 gas gathering operators have an estimated 16,000 miles of gas gathering pipeline that is 

currently subject to OPS safety regulation. On average, each of the 400 has approximately 40 miles of gas 

gathering lines subject to OPS safety jurisdiction. 
25

regulatory change, the cost impact of that change on these 200 operators would be 

minimal. 

Some pipeline of the 200 small operators may no longer be subject to those regulations 

under the proposed regulatory change. Additionally, some pipeline of the 200 small 

operators that is currently subject to OPS safety regulations may be classified as Type B 

pipeline under the proposed regulatory change, and, consequently, be required to comply 

with only selected Part 192 requirements. Those changes are expected by OPS to result 

in lowered per mile compliance costs for at least some of the 200 small operators. 

The proposed regulatory changes would impose new costs on certain operators that are 

small entities. In addition to the estimated 200 small operators currently under OPS 

safety jurisdiction, at most 25 small gas gathering line operators would be brought under 

OPS safety regulation as a result of the proposed regulatory change. These 25 operators 

might incur new costs as a result of their compliance with the proposed change. The 

focus of the remainder of this part of the regulatory flexibility analysis will be on these 25 

small operators. 

The costs that might be incurred by the 25 operators are those associated with 

requirements relating to 

• Performing population surveys 

• Complying with corrosion control according to Subpart I 

• Installing and maintaining line markers 

• Implementing damage prevention programs 

• Establishing public education programs 

OPS estimates that, in the worst case, a new operator might incur a one-time cost of 

$15,835 per mile24 with an annual operating cost of $1,000 per mile thereafter. Each of 

the 25 new operators would, therefore, in the worst case, incur a one-time cost of 

$633,400 ( = $15,835 x 40 miles per operator) and an annually recurring cost of $40,000 

( = $1000 x 40 miles per operator). Some new operators, including operators that are 

small entities, may already be performing various of the activities that the new 

regulations require. As a consequence, their costs would be lower than this. In total, in 

the worst case, the 25 operators, as a group, would incur $15,835,000 ( = $633,400 x 25 

operators) in one-time costs and $1,000,000 ( = $40,000 x 25 operators) in annually 

recurring costs. 

Only operators with gas gathering lines in Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma might incur 

costs associated with mandated damage prevention actions. Operators in all other states, 

including entities that are small operators, are already incurring those costs, which are 

estimated to be $220 per mile per year. Consequently, small entities with no lines in 

 

24 The one-time cost per mile includes costs of population survey, cathodic protection, installation of line 

markers, and damage prevention. 
26

Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma would, in the worst case, incur a one-time cost of 

$633,400 and an annual recurring cost of $31,200 ( = $780 x 40 miles per operator). 

For most of the requirements impacting operators with pipeline newly subject to OPS 

regulation (population surveys, installation and maintenance of line markers, corrosion 

control, and public education), OPS does not have the information needed to detail the 

costs that would be incurred by each of the small entities. For instance, OPS does not 

know how many unregulated gas gathering operators that are small entities might need to 

perform population surveys. Consequently, OPS invites public comment on the impact 

of any or all anticipated costs on small entities. 

Furthermore, OPS invites public comment on its estimate of the number of small entities 

that will be impacted by this proposed rule, the pipeline mileage operated by those small 

entities that will be impacted, and to the assumptions used to derive those estimates. 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements: Recordkeeping is incidental to the principal 

purpose of this proposed regulation. Operators will need to maintain documents 

verifying their compliance with applicable safety regulations. Those documents will be 

subject to review during PHMSA/OPS (or State) inspections. 

Many operators of gathering lines are currently subject to Part 192 and will not be subject 

to any new recordkeeping requirements as a result of this proposed rule. In fact, their 

regulatory burden may be lessened, if their gathering lines pose relatively lower risks 

(defined as Type B under the proposed rule) and certain requirements now applicable to 

those pipelines become inapplicable. 

OPS expects that some operators of gathering lines not now subject to Part 192 may be 

become subject to the regulations under the proposed rule. Those operators would be 

responsible for new recordkeeping needed to demonstrate compliance with applicable 

pipeline safety regulations. 

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. As mentioned previously, OPS preliminarily estimates that 

no more than 25 operators will be newly-subject to Part 192 regulations as a result of this 

proposal. Those 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.

Based on OPS’ current estimate of the paperwork burden on natural gas operators (2137-

0049), the annual burden hours to comply with record keeping requirements are 

approximately 41.5 hours per year per operator. This would apply to both small entities 

and those that are not small. Much of this time would involve clerical personnel, but 

some involvement by managers and technical personnel would be required. The total 

addition to the annual burden hours for this SNPRM is 1,037.5 hours (= 41.5 hours x 25 

operators). 
27

Based on the industry-specific occupational and wage estimates provided by the U.S. 

Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage of an 

engineering manager for NAICS 486200 (Pipeline transportation of natural gas) is 

estimated as $48.49.25 Using an estimated fringe benefit of about 35 percent, each of the 

25 new gas gathering operators would incur an additional annual recordkeeping cost of 

$2,716.65 ( = $48.49 x 1.35 x 41.5 hours). The total cost recordkeeping cost for all 25 

operators would be $67,916 ( = $2,716.65 x 25) annually. OPS expects that this increase 

in hours and cost for newly-regulated operators would be more than offset by the 

reduction in paperwork burden associated with currently regulated gas gathering lines 

that become either unregulated or Type B lines, as described above. 

Related Federal rules and regulations: With respect to the safety of the transportation of 

natural gas there are no related rules or regulations issued by other department or 

agencies of the Federal Government. 

Alternate proposals for small businesses: The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies 

to establish exceptions and differing compliance standards for small businesses, where it 

is possible to do so and still meet the objectives of applicable regulatory statutes. In the 

case of a Congressionally-mandated definition for natural gas pipelines, it is not possible 

to establish exceptions or differing standards and still accomplish the objectives of 

Congress. 

Conclusion: PHMSA does not have sufficient information at this time to conclude how 

many small entities will be impacted by the proposed regulatory change or whether that 

proposed change will have an adverse economic impact on those small entities to which it 

applies. PHMSA invites public comment on the assumptions and estimates appearing in 

this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

 

25 Occupational Employment Statistics, November 2003. http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_486200.htm

BLS uses NAICS 486200 while Economic Census and SBA use NAICS 486210 for pipeline operators.