In 1978, USDA codified provisions for an Agency sampling and testing program (hereinafter the “nitrosamine sampling program”) for pumped bacon, consisting of analysis of the product for nitrosamines (43 FR 20992; May 16, 1978; 9 CFR 424.22(b)(1)(i) (previously 9 CFR 318.7(b)(2))). Test results also could be furnished by establishments (43 FR 32136; July 25, 1978). The Agency later provided alternative procedures for controlling the levels of nitrite added to bacon (51 FR 21731; June 16, 1986) and, in doing so, modified sample selection procedures under the nitrosamine sampling program (9 CFR 424.22(b)(1)(ii)(C) (previously 9 CFR 318.7(b)(4))).

FSIS stopped collecting samples of pumped bacon under the nitrosamine sampling program on October 23, 1998, in part because the program identified very few samples of pumped bacon that contained confirmable levels of volatile nitrosamines. For example, FSIS conducted 174 initial screenings for nitrosamines in pumped bacon from 1994 to 1998. Of these, only 9 samples were presumptively positive for nitrosamines. Only one sample was confirmed positive.

The Agency also stopped administering the program in 1998 because the codified testing methods had become antiquated. The formation of nitrosamines in products depends on several factors, including the cooking method. The regulations provide that all testing for nitrosamines be made on pumped bacon fried at 340 °F for 3 minutes on each side (9 CFR 424.22(b)(1)(i)). However, since the regulations were implemented, greater variability in cooking methods for bacon ( e.g., microwave cooking, oven cooking) and greater use of ready-to-eat bacon, meant the codified testing procedures did not necessarily reflect how consumers would actually prepare the product.

Additionally, the nitrosamine sampling program is no longer necessary, given other regulatory requirements control the formation of nitrosamines in pumped bacon. The use of nitrate or nitrite to cure pumped bacon can cause the formation of nitrosamines in the cooked product. As such, FSIS regulations prohibit the use of nitrate in such products and limit the amount of ingoing nitrite to 120 parts per million (9 CFR 424.21 and 9 CFR 424.22). The regulations also require the use of sodium ascorbate or sodium erythorbate in pumped bacon because these substances are curing accelerators and reduce the amount of residual nitrite in the finished product, thus reducing the likelihood of the formation of nitrosamines in the product. Inspectors can verify that establishments meet the requirements for the use of nitrate, nitrite, and curing accelerators without collecting samples for testing. Therefore, the nitrosamine testing program is no longer necessary.

Given FSIS ended its nitrosamines sampling program and can verify that establishments meet the requirements for pumped bacon through other means, the Agency is removing the program's implementing regulations at 9 CFR 424.22(b)(1)(i) and (ii)(C). This final rule is solely an administrative change to Agency procedure or practice related to its obsolete nitrosamine sampling program. It is therefore excluded from the requirement for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). FSIS regulations will continue to require the use of curing accelerators, prohibit the use of nitrate, and limit the use of nitrite in pumped bacon, which is consistent with FSIS' Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point requirements (9 CFR part 417), as well as the conditions set out in 9 CFR 424.21 and 424.22.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not significant as defined by E.O. 12866. E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 14215 amends E.O. 12866 to ensure Presidential supervision and control of the entire executive branch and to require that all executive departments and agencies submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to OIRA before publication in the Federal Register . The Department has developed the final rule consistent with E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14215.

This final rule is considered an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (known as the Congressional Review Act) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), OIRA has designated this final rule as not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), agencies must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency or an appropriate designee certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FSIS has concluded and hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; therefore, an analysis is not included. The final rule is an administrative change that merely updates the meat product inspection regulations to remove obsolete Agency sampling procedures and practices that have not been implemented since 1998. Because the final rule does not impose any new requirements or restrict production, it is not expected to have any adverse economic effect on small or very small establishments.

Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. FSIS has assessed the impact of this final rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not have tribal implications that require consultation under Executive Order 13175.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), FSIS has reviewed the final rule. The Administrator has determined that this rulemaking would not impact information collection, paperwork, or recordkeeping activities.

The Department is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The final rule has no effect on States and local governments; accordingly, FSIS anticipates that this rule will not have implications for federalism. Therefore, under Section 6(b) of the E.O., a federalism summary is not required.

This final rule will not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The rule is an administrative change that merely updates the meat product inspection regulations to remove obsolete Agency sampling procedures and practices that have not been implemented since 1998. Accordingly, this action is appropriately subject to the categorical exclusion from the preparation of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement as authorized under 7 CFR 1b.4 of the USDA regulations.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the State or local Agency that administers the program or contact USDA through the Telecommunications Relay Service at 711 (voice and TTY). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 9410, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS web page located at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register. FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Constituent Update is available on the FSIS web page. Through the web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their accounts.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS is amending 9 CFR Chapter III as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13707). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0190, dated October 10, 2024; corrected October 11, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0190) (also referred to as “the MCAI”). The MCAI states the applicable AFM was providing an incorrect value for maximum cumulative taxi time in freezing fog conditions, which could lead to multiple engine surges in a critical flight phase and possibly result in loss of control of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing AFM to provide the flightcrew with normal procedures to follow under certain conditions, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0190. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0475.

The FAA received one comment from the Air Line Pilots Association, International, who supported the NPRM without change.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0190, which specifies procedures for an AFM amendment to correct the maximum cumulative taxi time in freezing fog conditions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 32 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (type certificate previously held by Bombardier Inc.) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2025 (90 FR 15664). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2024-25, dated June 28, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-25) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states that an in-service event occurred where an EICAS STAB TRIM Caution message was posted. Subsequent repair found prematurely worn teeth on an RBG wheel in the HSTA. Investigation determined that this quality issue affects a limited number of RBG wheels and HSTA serial numbers. Wear of the RBG wheel teeth could cause a failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim system.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require an inspection for part numbers and on-condition replacement of affected RBG wheels, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-25. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-25. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0619.

The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International, and an individual, who both supported the NPRM without change.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2024-25, which specifies procedures for a part number check and, if necessary, replacement of affected RBG wheels in certain HSTAs. Transport Canada AD CF-2025-24 also prohibits the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 460 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any on-condition replacement that would be required based on the results of determining whether the part is an affected part. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this replacement:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Embraer S.A. Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2025 (90 FR 13716). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-08-02, effective August 23, 2024 (ANAC AD 2024-08-02) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil. The MCAI states there is a possibility of a jamming failure of the main door lock sensor.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive main door sensor operational tests, repetitive lubrication of the main door sensor mechanism, and on condition actions, as specified in ANAC AD 2024-08-02. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a false indication of a locked door, even when it is only latched, resulting in a dormant system failure and lack of cockpit indication of the door not locked condition. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an in-flight door opening due to an operational failure.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0476.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

ANAC AD 2024-08-02 specifies procedures for conducting repetitive main door sensor operational tests, repetitive lubrication of the main door sensor mechanism, and applicable on condition actions. (The effective date of ANAC AD 2024-08-02 did not get translated to English. The effective date is August 23, 2024.) On-condition actions include adjusting or replacing the sensor or main door locked sensor support and contacting Embraer for repair instructions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 296 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

This action extends the expiration date of Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 119, title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), 91.1619, from July 25, 2025, to July 25, 2028. SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, prohibits certain flight operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below Flight Level (FL) 320, except to operate transiting overflights of the Kabul FIR (OAKX) on jet routes P500-G500 at altitudes at and above FL300, by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. FAA finds this action necessary to address significant unacceptable safety-of-flight risks to U.S. civil aviation that continue to exist in the Kabul FIR (OAKX). FAA also republishes the approval process and exemption information for this flight prohibition SFAR, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs.

FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the United States and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. Section 106(f) of title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), subtitle I, establishes the FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise this authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.

FAA is promulgating this rule under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701, General requirements. Under that section, FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security.

This regulation is within the scope of FAA's authority because it continues to prohibit the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, from conducting certain flight operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) due to the continuing hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations, as described in the preamble to this final rule.

Section 553(b)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Also, section 553(d) permits agencies, upon a finding of good cause, to issue rules with an effective date less than 30 days from the date of publication. In this instance, FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and the delayed effective date because they would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Providing notice and the opportunity for the public to comment here would be impracticable. FAA's flight prohibitions, and any amendments thereto, need to include appropriate boundaries that reflect the agency's current understanding of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation. This allows FAA to protect the safety of U.S. operators' aircraft and the lives of their passengers and crews without over-restricting or under-restricting U.S. operators' routing options. However, the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in airspace managed by other countries with respect to safety of flight is fluid in circumstances involving fighting, violent extremist and militant activity, or periods of heightened tensions, particularly where weapons capable of targeting or otherwise negatively affecting U.S. civil aviation are or may be present. This fluidity, and the potential for rapid changes in the risks to U.S. civil aviation, significantly limits how far in advance of a new or amended flight prohibition FAA can usefully assess the risk environment. The delay that would be occasioned by providing an opportunity to comment on this action would significantly increase the risk that the resulting final action would not accurately reflect the current risks to U.S. civil aviation associated with the situation and thus would not establish boundaries for the flight prohibition commensurate with those risks.

While FAA sought and responded to public comments, the boundaries of the area in which unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation existed might change due to: evolving military or political circumstances; violent extremist and militant group activity; the introduction, removal, or repositioning of more advanced anti-aircraft weapon systems; or other factors. As a result, if the situation improved while FAA sought and responded to public comments, the rule FAA finalized might be over-restrictive, unnecessarily limiting U.S. operators' routing options and potentially causing them to incur unnecessary additional fuel and operations-related costs, as well as potentially causing passengers to incur unnecessarily some costs attributed to their time. Conversely, if the situation deteriorated while FAA sought and responded to public comments, the rule FAA finalized might be under-restrictive, allowing U.S. civil aviation to continue operating in areas where unacceptable risks to their safety had developed. Such an outcome would endanger the safety of these aircraft, as well as their passengers and crews, exposing them to unacceptable risks of death, injury, and property damage that could occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the Kabul FIR (OAKX).

Alternatively, if FAA made changes to the area in which U.S. civil aviation operations would be prohibited between a notice of proposed rulemaking and a final rule due to changed conditions, the version of the rule the public commented on would no longer reflect FAA's current assessment of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation.

In addition, seeking comment would be contrary to the public interest because some of the rational basis for the rulemaking is based upon classified information and controlled unclassified information. In order to provide comment on a proposal meaningfully, the public would need access to the basis for the agency's decision-making, which FAA cannot provide. Disclosing classified information or controlled unclassified information to seek meaningful comment on the proposal would harm the public interest. Accordingly, FAA meaningfully seeking comment on the proposal is contrary to the public interest.

Therefore, providing notice and the opportunity for comment would be impracticable as it would hinder FAA's ability to maintain appropriate flight prohibitions based on up-to-date risk assessments of the risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace managed by other countries. It also would be contrary to the public interest, as FAA cannot protect classified information and controlled unclassified information and meaningfully seek public comment.

For the same reasons discussed above, the potential safety impacts and the need for prompt action on up-to-date information that is not public would make delaying the effective date impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Accordingly, FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.

On August 30, 2021, FAA issued Notice To Airmen (NOTAM) KICZ A0029/21 to address the then-existing unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at all altitudes, except for transiting overflight operations on jet routes P500-G500. This NOTAM prohibited, with certain limited exceptions, U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at all altitudes by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S, commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and all operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier, due to the risk posed by violent extremist and militant activity, lack of adequate risk mitigation capabilities, and disruption to air traffic services. The NOTAM allowed U.S. civil aviation overflights to transit the Kabul FIR (OAKX) on jet routes P500-G500, as such operations are only in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) very briefly.

Following the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Asia-Pacific Office contacted Afghanistan's civil aviation authority and stood up a contingency coordination team (CCT) composed of Afghanistan and neighboring air navigation service providers, as well as International Air Transport Association (IATA) representation. Afghanistan's civil aviation authority and the CCT worked with neighboring air navigation service providers to establish a contingency plan for the safe resumption of civil overflights in the Kabul FIR (OAKX).

Subsequently, Afghanistan issued a series of NOTAMs delineating overflight procedures and established altitude blocks for specific categories of flight operations across various regions. The overflight procedures rely upon internationally recognized traffic information broadcasts by aircraft (TIBA) procedures, which pilots use in areas around the world where air traffic services are very limited or unavailable to maintain safe separation between aircraft. Consequently, FAA determined that U.S. civil aviation operations throughout the Kabul FIR (OAKX) could resume at altitudes at and above FL320 due to diminished risks to U.S. civil aviation operations at those altitudes. On July 25, 2023, FAA published in the Federal Register a final rule allowing U.S. civil overflights of the Kabul FIR (OAKX) to resume at altitudes at and above FL320. 1 However, as described in more detail in the preamble to the July 2023 final rule, FAA continued to assess the situation in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320 as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation and prohibited U.S. civil aviation operations at those altitudes.

Although FAA did not identify or assess that there existed any increased safety-of-flight risks to transiting U.S. civil aviation overflights operating on jet routes P500-G500 due to violent extremist or militant activity, FAA prohibited operations on those routes at altitudes below FL320 in the July 2023 final rule because the Kabul FIR Air Traffic Management Contingency Plan indicates that, as necessary, FL300 may be reserved for military operations by NOTAM. Consequently, FAA decided to establish a minimum allowed overflight level of FL320 for U.S. civil aviation operations in the entirety of the Kabul FIR (OAKX) to help ensure aircraft separation between any military operations being conducted in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at FL300 and U.S. civil aviation overflights.

Subsequently, FAA received two petitions for exemption from SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, from U.S. air carriers requesting to operate on jet routes P500-G500 at altitudes at and above FL300, instead of at altitudes at and above FL320 as required by SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, due to aircraft performance issues under certain meteorological conditions. 2

Since the publication of the Kabul FIR Air Traffic Management Contingency Plan and continuing since FAA issued the July 2023 final rule, Afghanistan had issued a series of NOTAMs permitting overflight operations between waypoints FIRUZ and MOTMO on jet routes P500-G500 at altitudes between FL300-FL510. FAA was not aware of any safety or security incidents experienced by civil aircraft operating on jet routes P500-G500 in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes at or above FL300 due to military flight operations. In addition, FAA was not aware of any active threats to U.S. civil aviation operations on jet routes P500-G500 in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) from violent extremist and militant activity and was not aware of any reports of security incidents involving violent extremist and militant activity posing safety-of-flight risks to civil aircraft overflights using these jet routes at altitudes at or above FL300 in the Kabul FIR (OAKX). The very limited flight time in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) minimizes both potential exposure to any military operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) that might be operating at FL300 and to potential opportunistic threats from violent extremists. Specifically, the flight distance between waypoints FIRUZ and MOTMO on jet routes P500-G500 is approximately 12 nautical miles, which takes approximately 95 seconds at cruising speeds.

Consequently, FAA determined that U.S. civil aviation overflights of the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes at and above FL300 on jet routes P500-G500 presented a low risk. Therefore, FAA amended SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, to permit U.S. civil aviation to conduct transiting overflights of the Kabul FIR (OAKX) on jet routes P500-G500 at altitudes at and above FL300, subject to the approval of, and in accordance with the conditions established by, the appropriate authorities of Afghanistan. 3

FAA continues to assess the situation in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) as being hazardous for U.S. civil aviation. While the Taliban continues to encourage international air carriers to return to Afghanistan, FAA assesses a number of factors exist that pose safety of flight hazards to civil aviation operations at lower altitudes and while aircraft are on the ground in Afghanistan. These factors include the continued presence and operations of terrorist groups—including the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham, Khorasan Province (ISIS-K) and al-Qa'ida (AQ)—as well as anti-Taliban forces such as the National Resistance Front (NRF) and the Afghanistan Freedom Front (AFF), whose members likely maintain access to small arms, automatic machine guns, anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). These types of weapons could pose a threat to aircraft during low-altitude flight operations, including the arrival and departure phases of flight, as well as to aircraft on the ground at targeted airports and airfields in Afghanistan. Additionally, some of these groups also may have access to legacy man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), which may be capable of reaching a maximum altitude of up to 25,000 feet above ground level.

Further, these groups maintain the ability to conduct attacks in the Afghan capital, as evidenced most recently by an NRF-claimed attack in December 2024 on the Ministry of Interior in Kabul—adjacent to Kabul International Airport (OAKB) and less than 4,500 feet from the end of the runway—and an AFF-claimed attack on Kabul International Airport (OAKB) in mid-October 2024. Several other attacks occurred throughout Kabul in 2024, and as recently as mid-February 2025, underscoring the continued lack of security in the Afghan capital. ISIS-K claimed responsibility for many of these attacks, showing that, despite Taliban pressure, the group—which was responsible for the August 2021 attack on Kabul International Airport (OAKB) that killed 13 U.S. service members and at least 170 civilians—maintains the capability to operate in Afghanistan. As of early 2025, the Taliban has not demonstrated the ability to mitigate the low-altitude civil aviation risks posed by these myriad threat actors.

In addition to the low-altitude threats posed by armed groups operating within Afghanistan, recent cross-border strikes by neighboring states on Afghan territory highlight airspace deconfliction challenges. Pakistan conducted likely uncoordinated airstrikes on multiple locations in eastern Afghanistan in late December 2024, which Taliban representatives claimed killed dozens of Afghan civilians. Pakistani authorities claimed to have targeted Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) hideouts, after TTP claimed responsibility for an attack on a Pakistani border outpost that killed 16 soldiers. While the Taliban later claimed to have conducted retaliatory attacks on targets in Pakistan allegedly responsible for coordinating the airstrikes on Afghanistan, there were no details available regarding how they were conducted or any associated casualties or damage reported in Pakistan. Regardless, continued perceived Taliban support for the TTP will likely drive further unannounced and uncoordinated Pakistani airstrikes on targets in Afghanistan, as well as Taliban responses. The continued risk of these cross-border exchanges—particularly in the airspace along the border between the two countries—presents a deconfliction challenge further complicating airspace management in the Kabul FIR (OAKX).

Therefore, as a result of the significant, continuing, unacceptable risks to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX), FAA extends the expiration date of SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, from July 25, 2025, until July 25, 2028.

Further amendments to SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, might be appropriate if the risk to U.S. civil aviation safety and security changes. In this regard, FAA will continue to monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which persons described in paragraph (a) of this rule might be able to operate safely in the Kabul FIR (OAKX).

FAA also republishes the details concerning the approval and exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble, consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, to enable interested persons to refer to this final rule for comprehensive information about requesting relief from FAA from the provisions of SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619.

In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the Kabul FIR (OAKX). If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines that it has a critical need to engage any person described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo or conduct other operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX), that department, agency, or instrumentality may request FAA to approve persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, to conduct such operations.

The requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality must submit the request for approval to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. 4 FAA will not accept or consider requests for approval from anyone other than the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality. In addition, the senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval must be sufficiently positioned within the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality to demonstrate that the organization's senior leadership supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize aviation safety and security risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) attest to the accuracy of all representations made to FAA in the request for approval, and (2) ensure that any support from the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requesting U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities must submit requests for approval to FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality wishes the operator(s) to commence the proposed operation(s).

The requestor must send the request to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request that FAA notify it electronically as to whether FAA grants the request for approval. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to FAA, the requestor should contact the Washington Operations Center by telephone at (202) 267-3333 or by email at 9-FAA-OverseasFlightProhibitions@faa.gov for submission instructions. The requestor must not submit its letter requesting FAA approval or related supporting documentation to the Washington Operations Center. Rather, the Washington Operations Center will refer the requestor to an appropriate staff member of the Flight Standards Service for further assistance.

A single letter may request approval from FAA for multiple persons described in SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) the requester expects the SFAR to cover on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality seeks FAA approval, and it must describe—

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;

• The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will provide;

• To the extent known, the specific locations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) where the proposed operation(s) will occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land; and

• The method by which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations ( i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases).

The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320, except for transiting overflights on jet routes P500-G500 at altitudes at and above FL300 that are already permitted under this rule. The requestor may identify additional operators to FAA at any time after FAA issues its approval. Neither the operators listed in the original request, nor any operators the requestor subsequently seeks to add to the approval, may commence operations under the approval until FAA issues them an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA), as appropriate, for operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320 or at altitudes below FL300 on jet routes P500-G500, as applicable. The approval conditions discussed below apply to all operators. Requestors should contact the Washington Operations Center by telephone at (202) 267-3203 or by email at 9-FAA-OverseasFlightProhibitions@faa.gov for instructions on how to submit the names of additional operators the requestor wishes to add to an existing approval to FAA. The requestor must not submit the names of additional operators it wishes to add to an existing approval to the Washington Operations Center. Rather, the Washington Operations Center will refer the requestor to an appropriate staff member of the Flight Standards Service for further assistance.

If an approval request includes classified information or controlled unclassified information, requestors may contact the Washington Operations Center for instructions on submitting it to FAA. The Washington Operations Center's contact information appears in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of the responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificates, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators also must comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

If FAA approves the request, FAA's Aviation Safety organization will send an approval letter to the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:

(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.

(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to FAA:

(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX); and

(b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX).

(3) Other conditions FAA may specify, including those FAA might impose in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.

The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy FAA issues under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.

If FAA approves the proposed operation(s), FAA will issue an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request and any operators the requestor subsequently adds to the approval, authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s). In addition, as stated in paragraph (3) of this section V.B., FAA notes that it may include additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter in any OpSpec or LOA associated with a particular operator operating under this approval, as necessary in the interests of aviation safety. U.S. Government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities requesting FAA approval on behalf of entities with which they have a contract or subcontract, grant, or cooperative agreement should request a copy of the relevant OpSpec or LOA directly from the entity with which they have any of the foregoing types of arrangements, if desired.

Any operations not conducted under an approval FAA issues through the approval process set forth previously may only occur in accordance with an exemption from SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619. A petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. FAA will consider whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those described in the approval process in the previous section. To determine whether a petition for exemption from the prohibition this SFAR establishes fulfills the standards described in 14 CFR 11.81, FAA consistently finds necessary the following information:

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;

• The service the person(s) covered by the SFAR will provide;

• The specific locations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) where the proposed operation(s) will occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the aircraft will take off and land;

• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations ( i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases); and

• The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize the risks identified in this preamble to the proposed operations to support the relief sought and demonstrate that granting such relief would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.

FAA includes, as a condition of each such exemption it issues, a release and agreement to indemnify, as described previously.

FAA recognizes that, with the support of the U.S. Government, the governments of other countries could plan operations that may be affected by SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619. While FAA will not permit these operations through the approval process, FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and in accordance with the order of preference set forth in paragraph (c) of SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619.

If a petition for exemption includes information that is sensitive for security reasons or proprietary information, requestors may contact the Washington Operations Center for instructions on submitting it to FAA. The Washington Operations Center's contact information is listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule. Requestors must not submit their petitions for exemption or related supporting documentation to the Washington Operations Center. Rather, the Washington Operations Center will refer the requestor to the appropriate staff member of the Flight Standards Service or the Office of Rulemaking for further assistance.

This rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action pursuant to Executive Order 12866. This rule continues to prohibit U.S. civil flights in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320, except for transiting overflights on jet routes P500-G500 which are permitted to be conducted at altitudes at or above FL300, due to the continuing hazards to U.S. civil aviation described in this preamble. The alternative flight routes result in some additional fuel and operations costs to the operators, as well as some costs attributed to passenger time. FAA finds that the incremental costs of extending SFAR No. 119, § 91.1619, are exceeded by the benefits of avoided risks of deaths, injuries, and property damage that could occur if a U.S. operator's aircraft were shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) at altitudes below FL320, except for transiting overflights on jet routes P500-G500, which are permitted to operate at altitudes at and above FL300 while operating in the Kabul FIR (OAKX) on those jet routes.

This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to a national security or homeland security function of the United States. The benefit-cost analysis demonstrates that the regulation is anticipated to improve national or homeland security as its primary direct benefit and OIRA and the promulgating agency agree the regulation qualifies for a `good cause' exception under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law requires an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 after that section or any other law requires publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. FAA concludes good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and not to delay the effective date for this rule. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not require notice and comment in this situation, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 similarly do not require regulatory flexibility analyses.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from risks to their operations in the Kabul FIR (OAKX), a location outside the U.S. Therefore, the rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $183 million in lieu of $100 million.

This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens it imposes on the public. FAA has determined no new requirement for information collection is associated with this final rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, FAA's policy is to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to this regulation. FAA finds this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.

While FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which FAA has issued a flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation. In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which FAA has issued a flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation.

FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132. The agency has determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, this rule will not have federalism implications.

FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211. The agency has determined it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and will not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Executive Order 13609 promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

Except for classified and controlled unclassified information, all documents FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this rulemaking.

Those documents may be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. A copy of this rule will be placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at https://www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found on FAA's Regulations and Policies website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official or the persons listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

We are adopting updated versions of the Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 75 (June 2025) and Version 76 (effective September 15, 2025) and amendments to 17 CFR 232.301, Rule 301 of Regulation S-T. We are adopting Version 76 (effective September 15, 2025) at this time as a courtesy providing filers an approximate 90-day preview of significant EDGAR Next related updates in advance of the September 15, 2025 compliance date. These versions of the updated Filer Manual are incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations as indicated above.

The Filer Manual contains information needed for filers to make submissions on EDGAR. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format. 1 Filers must consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filings when preparing documents for electronic submission.

EDGAR will be updated in EDGAR Release 25.2 to reflect changes related to the Form N-CEN schema and online application, several errata adjustments, and removal of outdated general technical language. The Commission is approving corresponding amendments to Volume II of the Filer Manual to reflect these changes, which will be published as Version 75 of Volume II.

EDGAR will also be updated on September 15, 2025, to fully implement the Commission's EDGAR Next rulemaking, 2 compliance with which is required September 15, 2025. These changes to the Filer Manual will be published as Version 76 of Volume II and effective on the EDGAR Next compliance date, September 15, 2025.

In August 2024, the Commission adopted reporting amendments and provided guidance related to open-end fund liquidity risk management program requirements on Form N-PORT and Form N-CEN. 3 EDGAR will be updated in Release 25.2 to support changes to the schema for Form N-CEN and the online application to permit filers to comply with the following new requirements:

• Addition of new Item C.22 Liquidity Classification Services.

• Addition of new RSSD ID and other identifying number fields throughout the Form. Previously, certain LEI fields on the Form permitted filers to report either an LEI, RSSD ID, or, in some cases, other identifying number in the same field. This release separates LEI, RSSD ID, and other identifying number into different fields.

• The specific items that will be modified are: B.16.a.iv, B.17.c, C.5.b.ii, C.6.c.ii, C.6.c.v.2, C.6.d.ii, C.9.a.iv, C.9.b.iv, C.9.c.iv, C.9.d.iv, C.10.a.iii, C.11.a.ii, C.12.a.ii, C.13.a.ii, C.14.a.ii, C.15.d, C.16.a.iv, C.17.a.iv, D.12.a.iv, D.12.b.iv, D.12.c.iv, D.12.d.iv, D.13.a.iii, D.14.a.ii, E.2.d, F.1.c, F.2.a.ii, and F.4.c.

Moreover, EDGAR will not enforce field length validations for the LEI field at this time to enable filers to continue to upload and submit submissions according to their current process without generating an error message.

Beginning November 17, 2025, however, filers will be expected to report the appropriate identifier in the appropriate field and EDGAR will enforce specific validations for each of these fields when an entry is provided. LEI will require a 20-character alphanumeric response or “N/A.” RSSD ID will require a numerical response of up to 10 digits or “N/A.” Other identifying numbers will be limited to 100 characters, but also will require the filer to provide a description of up to 500 characters. Submissions with entries that do not meet these criteria will not be accepted.

The EDGARLink Online interface will remove inoperable links to the following submission types: N-PX and N-PX/A. Since July 1, 2024, filers have been required to make these submissions in a structured format created by either using the online version available on the EDGAR Filing website, or constructed by filers according to the “EDGAR Form N-PX XML Technical Specification” document. Select references to Form N-PX and its variants will be removed from the Filer Manual, Volume II, Chapter 7 (Preparing and Transmitting EDGARLink Online Submissions).

The location of payment instructions on SEC.gov has changed. Filers may obtain the FEDWIRE Instructions under the “Filing Fee Registrants” section of the “Payment Options” web page on SEC.gov at https://www.sec.gov/about/payment-options. Submission form type N-CR and N-CR/A must be removed from the list of submission form types that may be filed through EDGAR Link Online; that form type should now be filed through the EDGAR Filing website.

To correct a typographical error in Volume II, Chapter 3, Index to Forms and Submission Types, the SBSE Dispute Notice should be revised to read SBS Dispute Notice (removing the “E”).

To correct a typographical error in Volume II, Chapter 6, Interactive Data, Table 6-18, the entry point required for spac-proj should be revised to read spac-despac.

To increase clarity for filers, we are also updating the instructions in Volume II, Chapter 8, Preparing and Transmitting Online Submissions, regarding how to prepare and submit online submissions for Schedule 13D and Schedule 13G to reflect language that currently appears in the online instructions to those schedules.

Certain web page titles were corrected to conform to the recent revisions to the SEC.gov website.

Volume II of the Filer Manual contains several outdated generic references, explaining for example the nature of the internet and other basic issues that were novel in the time period that the Filer Manual was initially adopted. The Commission has completely revised Volume I to streamline it and remove such references. The Commission now seeks to remove such antiquated language from Volume II. For example, we are removing sentences such as: “The SEC accepts electronic submissions through the internet,” “The EDGAR system is comprised of a number of large computers that receive filings submitted by entities,” “Many people have become familiar with HTML since they have used the internet,” and “Browsers have very similar navigation functions. . . .”

On September 27, 2024, the Commission adopted the EDGAR Next rule and form amendments related to EDGAR filer access and account management. 4 As part of the EDGAR Next rulemaking, the Commission approved changes to Volume I of the Filer Manual to be effective March 24, 2025, and indicated that it expected to adopt changes to Volume II of the Filer Manual at a future date. Changes to Volume II were not adopted at that time because it was expected that Volume II would subsequently be amended related to other Commission rulemaking in upcoming quarterly releases.

The Commission is now adopting changes to Volume II in Version 76 to accord with the changes to be made to EDGAR to fully implement the EDGAR Next rulemaking on the compliance date of September 15, 2025. Changes to Volume II of the Filer Manual in Version 76 relate primarily to the changed process for accessing EDGAR adopted in EDGAR Next. As of September 15, 2025, presentation of individual account credentials and completion of multifactor authentication, rather than provision of legacy access codes, will be required to access all EDGAR websites. Version 76 of Volume II of the Filer Manual will be effective September 15, 2025, the compliance date for the EDGAR Next rulemaking.

Along with the adoption of the updated Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations Volume II, Versions 75 and 76. This incorporation by reference is approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

The updated EDGAR Filer Manual is available at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/filerinformation/current-edgar-filer-manual.

Because the Filer Manual and rule amendments relate solely to agency procedures or practice and do not substantially alter the rights and obligations of non-agency parties, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 5 It follows that the amendments do not require analysis under requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act  6 or a report to Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 7

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended, and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual, Volume II, Version 75 and related rule amendments is July 1, 2025. The effective date for the updated Filer Manual, Volume II, Version 76 and related rule amendments is September 15, 2025. In accordance with the APA, 8 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the related system upgrades.

We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under the authority in sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 9 sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15B, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 10 section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 11 and sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. 12

In accordance with the foregoing, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The Commission is extending the compliance date for the requirement to perform a reserve computation for accounts of customers (“customer reserve computation”) and accounts of other broker-dealers (“PAB reserve computation”) daily rather than weekly under paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B)( 1 ) of Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) from December 31, 2025, to June 30, 2026. 1 This daily reserve computation requirement applies to broker-dealers with average total credits equal to or greater than $500 million (“$500 Million Threshold”). The Commission is not extending the compliance dates with respect to the amendments to paragraph (e)(3)(v) of Rule 15c3-3 and the conforming amendments to the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Report (“FOCUS Report”).

On December 20, 2024, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule 15c3-3 (the “broker-dealer customer protection rule”) to require broker-dealers that hold customer cash and securities (“carrying broker-dealers”) and that exceed the $500 Million Threshold to perform their customer and PAB reserve computations and make any required deposits into their reserve bank accounts daily rather than weekly. 2 The daily reserve computation requirement is designed to address the risks associated with situations where a carrying broker-dealer receives large cash inflows on behalf of customers and PAB account holders during the week and days prior to the next required weekly reserve computations and associated deposits into the reserve bank accounts. Such occurrences can lead to circumstances where the net amount of cash owed to customers and PAB account holders  3 is substantially greater than the amounts held in the carrying broker-dealer's customer and PAB reserve bank accounts. 4 By requiring daily rather than weekly reserve computations and deposits, the protections provided by the reserve requirements of Rule 15c3-3 will be applied more quickly to newly deposited cash of customers and PAB account holders and reduce the risk that if a carrying broker-dealer fails financially, it may be unable to promptly return cash and securities to customers and PAB account holders through an orderly self-liquidation. 5

In the Adopting Release, the Commission also amended Rule 15c3-1, 6 the broker-dealer net capital rule, to permit carrying broker-dealers that use the alternative method to compute their minimum net capital  7 and that perform a required daily customer reserve computation to reduce their aggregate debit items by 2% rather than 3% (“2% debit reduction”) when performing a customer reserve computation under Rule 15c3-3. 8 Further, carrying broker-dealers that use the alternative method and are below the $500 Million Threshold may voluntarily perform a daily customer reserve computation under Rule 15c3-3 and, in so doing, apply the 2% debit reduction in lieu of the 3% debit reduction if they notify their designated examining authority (“DEA”) at least 30 days prior to beginning the daily customer reserve computation. 9 Finally, the Commission adopted technical amendments to the FOCUS Report to conform it to the amendments with respect to the lowering of the debit reduction from 3% to 2%. 10

The Commission addressed the compliance dates of the amendments in the Adopting Release. 11 The Commission stated that carrying broker-dealers that exceed the $500 Million Threshold using each of the 12 filed month-end FOCUS Reports from July 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, must perform customer and PAB reserve computations daily beginning no later than December 31, 2025 ( i.e., six months after June 30, 2025). 12 The Commission also stated that on or after the effective date of the final amendments, 13 a carrying broker-dealer may voluntarily perform a daily customer reserve computation and apply the 2% debit reduction, provided it notifies its DEA in writing at least 30 calendar days prior to beginning the daily customer reserve computation that applies the 2% debit reduction. 14 Finally, the Commission stated in the Adopting Release that the compliance date for the amendments to the Form X-17A-5, Part II ( i.e., Part II of the FOCUS Report) is March 1, 2026. 15

Since the Commission adopted the daily customer and PAB reserve computation requirement, industry representatives and carrying broker-dealers have indicated through telephonic meetings with Commission staff and letters that, as carrying broker-dealers work to meet the December 31, 2025, compliance date, some of them believe that additional time to implement the capability to perform a required daily customer and PAB reserve computation is needed. For example, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), on behalf of its broker-dealer members, submitted a letter requesting that the Commission extend the compliance date for the required daily customer and PAB reserve computations established in the Adopting Release by six months from December 31, 2025, to June 30, 2026. 16 In its letter, SIFMA stated that a six-month extension is necessary due to the complexities of scoping out and developing the appropriate policies and procedures, and systems, necessary to successfully automate and implement a daily reserve computation. Regarding the transition to a daily reserve computation requirement, SIFMA also stated that there is no “one size fits all” approach applicable to all carrying broker-dealers, but that it is governed by the individual circumstances of each carrying broker-dealer. SIFMA stated that these complexities, and the need to increase staffing levels to perform a daily customer and PAB reserve computation, demonstrate that a six-month extension would be appropriate and warranted. 17

After considering such requests, the Commission is extending the compliance date for the required daily customer and PAB reserve computations. The Commission agrees with SIFMA that a six-month extension will allow for additional time for carrying broker-dealers that exceed the $500 Million Threshold to develop the policies and procedures to perform a daily customer and PAB reserve computation, and to increase staffing levels as needed. A six-month extension also will facilitate an orderly transition to the new daily customer and PAB reserve computation requirement by providing carrying broker-dealers with additional time to make any necessary operational or systems changes, and to streamline daily computation processes through increased automation. In addition, a six-month extension will provide more time for carrying broker-dealers to test their new daily processes, procedures, and systems for compliance, including by performing various test reserve computations, prior to beginning to perform daily customer and PAB reserve computations under paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 15c3-3.

For these reasons, the Commission is extending the compliance date for carrying broker-dealers subject to the requirement to begin performing daily customer and PAB reserve computations under paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B)( 1 ) of Rule 15c3-3 by six months from December 31, 2025, to June 30, 2026. Under the compliance date extension, carrying broker-dealers must begin calculating their average total credits using the 12 most recently filed month-end FOCUS Reports ending with the FOCUS Report for December 31, 2025. As a result, carrying broker-dealers that exceed the $500 Million Threshold using each of the 12 filed month-end FOCUS Reports from January 31, 2025, through December 31, 2025, (and in doing so become subject to the daily computation requirements) must perform customer and PAB computations daily beginning no later than June 30, 2026. 18

Extending the compliance date also will provide carrying broker-dealers whose average total credits may hover close to the $500 Million Threshold additional time between the date the Commission adopted the amendments in December 2024 and the December 31, 2025, calculation date for average total credits to determine if they will be subject to the requirement to perform a customer and PAB reserve computation daily beginning no later than June 30, 2026, or whether they will manage their customer and PAB credits to remain below the $500 Million Threshold.

Lastly, the extension of the compliance date in this release does not alter the ability of carrying broker-dealers that use the alternative method for net capital to voluntarily elect to perform a daily customer reserve computation and, in so doing, apply the 2% debit reduction rather than the 3% debit reduction if they notify their DEA at least 30 days prior to beginning the daily computation. 19 Finally, the Commission is not altering the March 1, 2026, compliance date with respect to the amendments to Part II of Form X-17A-5. 20

The Commission is mindful of the economic effects, including the costs and benefits, of the compliance date extension. Exchange Act section 3(f) requires the Commission, when it is engaged in rulemaking pursuant to the Exchange Act and is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 21 In addition, Exchange Act section 23(a)(2) requires the Commission, when making rules pursuant to the Exchange Act, to consider among other matters the impact that any such rule would have on competition and not to adopt any rule that would impose a burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. 22

The baseline against which the costs, benefits, and the effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation of the compliance date extension are measured consists of current requirements for carrying broker-dealers under the broker-dealer customer protection rule and the current market structure and regulatory framework. As discussed above, 23 the compliance date for the required daily customer and PAB reserve computations is December 31, 2025. However, industry representatives and carrying broker-dealers have indicated through telephonic meetings with Commission staff and letters, that an extension of the compliance date to implement the capability to perform a required daily customer and PAB reserve computation is needed. 24

The Commission is extending the compliance date for the required daily customer and PAB reserve computations to June 30, 2026. Extending the compliance date by six months will delay the start-up compliance costs of carrying broker-dealers above the $500 Million Threshold and hence provide them with additional time for developing the appropriate policies and procedures, and systems, necessary to successfully automate and implement the daily customer and PAB reserve computation requirement. 25 This extension will also provide carrying broker-dealers additional time to fulfill their staffing needs and train their personnel to facilitate the shift to the daily computation requirement.

The extension of the compliance date from December 31, 2025, to June 30, 2026, will also delay the realization of economic benefits associated with the final rule. In particular, the delayed benefits include the reduced risk of a potential delay in the return of cash and securities to customers and PAB account holders in the event of a failure of an affected carrying broker-dealer. 26

The effect of the extension of the compliance dates on efficiency, competition, or capital formation will be a delay in the impact of the rule on efficiency, competition, and capital formation described in the final rule. Additionally, the extension could mitigate the potential impact on competition by giving smaller carrying broker-dealers the opportunity to develop more cost-effective compliance approaches because they will have more time to implement operational changes and system and internal control upgrades.

The Commission considered reasonable alternatives to the new compliance date, namely a longer extension. The Commission believes, however, that, consistent with SIFMA's request, a six-month extension is what is needed to facilitate the successful implementation of the rule amendments.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to publish notice of a rulemaking in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment. This requirement does not apply, however, if the agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  27

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission, for good cause, finds that notice and solicitation of comment regarding the extension of the compliance date is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 28 This rule does not impose any new substantive regulatory requirements on any person and merely reflects the extension of the compliance date for carrying broker-dealers that become subject to the daily computation requirements. Furthermore, carrying broker-dealers subject to the daily computation requirement must begin preparing well in advance of the compliance date in order to be fully compliant with the daily computation requirement by that date. As a result, many carrying broker-dealers, particularly those with more complex customer and PAB reserve computations, would need to undertake significant operational costs imminently in order to meet the December 31, 2025, compliance date, including making major staffing changes. Providing immediate certainty of an extension is therefore needed to allow carrying broker-dealers to avoid incurring unnecessary burdens and other challenges associated with meeting the initial compliance date. 29

For similar reasons, although the APA generally requires publication of a rule at least 30 days before its effective date, the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 808(2) are satisfied (notwithstanding the requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801), 30 and the Commission finds that there is good cause for this extension to take effect on July 1, 2025.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended, and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated the extension of the compliance date not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Commission extends the compliance date for the requirement to perform a customer and PAB reserve computation daily rather than weekly under paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B)( 1 ) of Rule 15c3-3 by six months, to June 30, 2026.

The Department is removing the regulations at 20 CFR parts 660 through 672, which implement and govern the WIA programs authorized under Title I and under secs. 501-503 of Title V of WIA (Secs. 101-195 and 501-503, Pub. L. 105-220 (codified at 29 U.S.C. 2901-2945).

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) was comprehensive reform legislation that superseded the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 and amended the Wagner-Peyser Act title III program, also administered by the Department. Title I authorized the Workforce Investment System, established governance provisions for State and local levels; set forth the “One-Stop” service delivery system; established the funding mechanism for States and local areas; specified participant eligibility criteria; and authorized a broad array of services for youth, adults, and dislocated workers, certain statewide activities, and a performance accountability system, as well as number of national programs—the Job Corps, Native American programs, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs, Veterans' Workforce Investment programs, Youth Opportunity grants, National Emergency grants, technical assistance efforts, and demonstration, pilot, and other special national projects. Sections 501-503 of Title V authorized State unified plans, definitions of indicators of performance, and incentive grants for exceeding negotiated levels of performance. WIA also included the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (title II), and the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 (title IV) for programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In April 1999, pursuant to Sec. 506(c), Public Law 105-220; 20 U.S.C. 9276(c), the Department issued an Interim Final Rule implementing provisions of titles I, III, and V of WIA. 1 Public comments were received in response to the Interim Final Rule, which were taken into consideration in drafting the final rule. In August 2000, the Department then issued a Final Rule implementing provisions of titles I, III and V of WIA. 2 The final rules implementing titles I and V of WIA were codified at 20 CFR parts 660 through 672.

In 2014, the enactment of WIOA repealed and replaced WIA. 3 WIOA also includes five titles: Workforce Development Activities (title I), which authorized programs primarily administered by ETA, including three state formula grant programs, multiple national programs, and Job Corps. Adult Education and Literacy (title II), which authorized programs administered by ED, including a state formula grant program and National Leadership activities. Title III amended the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, which authorized the Employment Service (ES) and is administered by ETA. Title IV amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which authorized vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities and is administered by ED. Title V included General Provisions for the administration of WIOA. In August 2016, the Department promulgated regulations implementing title I of WIOA and the title III Wagner-Peyser Act amendments. 4 Any remaining active participants in the WIA titles I, III and V programs have been transitioned into similarly-targeted programs under WIOA. 5 All grant funds appropriated under WIA titles I, III and V have been closed out.

I. Background

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires, before an agency promulgates a regulation, a “notice of proposed rule making” to be published in the Federal Register . 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The agency then must “give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation.” 5 U.S.C. 553(c). These strictures, however, do not apply to matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

In 1971, DOL adopted a policy that waived the APA's statutory exemption procedural rulemaking requirements for rules and regulations relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. Responding to Recommendation No. 16 of the Administrative Conference of the U.S., DOL promulgated regulations at Title 29 Part 2 in 1971, waiving the exemption provided for public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts as a reason for not complying with notice and public participation requirements (36 FR 12976.). This rule was subsequently amended by 45 FR 34-01 to clarify that certain activities of the Bureau of Labor Statistics were not covered by the waiver of the exemption. 45

Section 2.7 of Part 2 of Title 29 states: “It is the policy of the Secretary of Labor, that in applying the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the exemption therein for matters relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts shall not be relied upon as a reason for not complying with the notice and public participation requirements thereof except for all information-gathering procedures adopted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

The Secretary has decided to rescind the policy in Section 2.7, and return to the text of the APA. Upon reconsideration, the Secretary has decided that additional public comment and procedures are generally unnecessary for matters relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts. These are matters that the Department has great discretion to deal with, and public notice for these matters is not the best use of agency resources. Agencies and offices of the Department will continue to comply with the APA's notice and comment requirements where required and otherwise have discretion to seek public input through whatever means they determine appropriate. Ossification in the Department is a serious problem, and self-imposed bureaucracy plays a role. The Department has a new policy of acting more nimbly in response to changing circumstances and this rescission will allow just that.

This final rule need not be submitted for public comment, as it a general statement of policy, and a rule of agency organization, procedure, and practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Likewise, this rule is effective immediately because it a statement of policy, and a non-substantive rule. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this final rule constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Agencies are further required, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

This rule rescinds 29 CFR 2.7, a Departmental policy that voluntarily imposed APA notice-and-comment procedures even where such procedures were not legally required. The rescission returns the Department to the default rulemaking requirements of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553), which explicitly exempts certain categories—such as public grants, benefits, and contracts—from notice-and-comment obligations. The action aligns internal procedure with the statutory baseline and eliminates the Department's self-imposed procedural burden.

The principal benefit of the rule is to increase regulatory efficiency and responsiveness by removing unnecessary internal requirements that can slow administrative action. Specifically, this rule:

• Reduces internal ossification and administrative delay by streamlining decision-making for programs relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.

• Conserves staff time and Departmental resources that would otherwise be devoted to preparing, publishing, and responding to public comments where not legally required.

• Enhances agility in responding to evolving programmatic or operational needs in areas where Congress has given the Department broad discretion.

While the benefits are primarily institutional and qualitative in nature and difficult to quantify, they are expected to result in meaningful reductions in transaction costs and time burdens across affected offices.

This rule does not impose new costs on, or the government. To the contrary, it reduces compliance burdens within the Department by eliminating a Department-wide policy requirement that had extended procedural obligations beyond what the APA mandates. There are no anticipated economic costs (the value to the public and regulated entities of the notice-and-comment process is implied by their voluntary submission of comments), although, and the rule does not mandate any actions from external stakeholders. The Department has considered maintaining the current policy or replacing it with a narrower procedural commitment ( e.g., limiting it to certain programs). However, such options would maintain procedural rigidity and potential confusion. The rescission offers a clearer legal and operational baseline. The Department has determined that net benefits are positive, consisting of cost savings, efficiency gains, and improved flexibility, with no material offsetting costs.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule was not required to be proposed for public comment, so no FRFA was warranted.

This rescission imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements governed by the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOL has determined that this rescission would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this rescission under the OMB and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” This rescission is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. The Department has identified fewer than ten actions covered by Section 2.7 that might have been covered by this rescission over the last ten years. Each of the actions received little-to-no public comment. 1 Therefore, soliciting public comments delayed implementation of updated policies and procedures without producing the benefit of significant meaningful public input. Soliciting public comment also diverted Departmental resources away from other, potentially more impactful, projects.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOL will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOL amends part 2 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

The intent of this final rule is to remove unnecessary procedural requirements that are contrary to the Secretary's interest in moving forward quickly with deregulatory actions in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025) and which are not statutorily required. The final rule removes the procedural requirements at 29 CFR 1911.10 and 29 CFR 1912.3 and makes corresponding revisions to other provisions referencing 29 CFR 1911.10, 29 CFR 1912.3, and the Construction Safety Act.

The Construction Safety Act (CSA), 40 U.S.C. 3704 (formerly 40 U.S.C. 333), created the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) to advise the Secretary on standard-setting and other matters. Section 3704(d)(4) provides that ACCSH “shall advise the Secretary (A) in formulating construction safety and health standards and other regulations; and (B) on policy matters arising in carrying out this section.”

OSHA promulgated regulations implementing the CSA, including 29 CFR 1911.10 and 1912.3. However, these regulations include unnecessary requirements which unduly inhibit the Secretary from moving forward expeditiously with her priorities. Other parts of the rescinded provisions are simply duplicative of requirements contained within the CSA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. ), or OSHA's other regulations. For example, 29 CFR 1911.10 contains specific rules of procedure for promulgating, modifying, or revoking construction-related occupational safety or health standards. These rules are in many ways duplicative of the general rulemaking procedures contained in 29 CFR 1911.11, which apply to the promulgation, modification, or revocation of standards applicable to employments other than those in construction work, and OSHA finds that the few requirements that are contained within 29 CFR 1911.10 that vary from those in 29 CFR 1911.11 are unnecessary. Consequently, OSHA is revoking 29 CFR 1911.10, and revising 29 CFR 1911.11 to apply the general rulemaking procedures described therein to the promulgation, modification, or revocation of standards applicable to construction work. Further, OSHA is making minor modifications to three other regulations which reference 29 CFR 1911.10, 29 CFR 1912.3, or the CSA: 29 CFR 1911.15; 29 CFR 1912.8; and 29 CFR 1912.9.

Similarly, 29 CFR 1912.3 imposes additional requirements which are more burdensome than those mandated by the CSA. For example, 29 CFR 1912.3(b) expanded the committee's membership from the nine members required by the CSA to fifteen members. Per section 1912.3(c)(2), OSHA expanded the committee because “[g]reater membership and greater representation serve the public interest and avoid[ ] possible injustice by permitting for the most part the use of one advisory committee . . . in situations where both the [CSA] and [the OSH Act] may be expected to apply to construction activity. . . .” That same provision also indicated that the expanded membership serves the public interest and avoids possible injustice “by affording a greater opportunity for representation on the Advisory Committee within the construction industry.”

However, as to the use of a single committee, this regulation is unnecessary because although the Secretary is only required to consult with ACCSH in formulating standards under the CSA, the Committee's role in advising the Secretary is not limited to standards formulated under the CSA. 40 U.S.C. 3704(a)(2), (d)(4). Specifically, per 40 U.S.C. 3704(d)(4), ACCSH was created to advise the Secretary “in formulating construction safety and health standards and other regulations,” not just those standards formulated under the CSA. ACCSH is also tasked with advising the Secretary on policy matters arising in carrying out the CSA. 40 U.S.C. 3704(d)(4)(B). One such policy matter is the need for consistency between construction standards promulgated pursuant to the CSA and those promulgated pursuant to the OSH Act. Thus, if OSHA wished to consult the committee, ACCSH would have the authority to advise on construction standards promulgated under the OSH Act, as well as those under the CSA.

As to affording a greater opportunity for representation, in the decades since the promulgation of this regulation, OSHA has noted that stakeholders in the construction industry (including stakeholders in all of the membership categories created by 29 CFR 1912.3(b)(1)-(4)) have robustly participated in OSHA rulemakings, not only through serving on ACCSH but also through, among other things, submitting comments on Requests for Information and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and testifying at OSHA's informal rulemaking hearings. Given that, OSHA finds that the nine-member committee contemplated by Congress provides sufficient committee representation to stakeholders in this important industry. Further, OSHA finds that this change is in line with the administration's policy of reducing the size of the American government while increasing accountability to the American people. See E.O. 14217, “Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy” (Feb. 19, 2025).

The other provisions contained in 29 CFR 1912.3, e.g., those establishing membership terms, cover topics that are within the Secretary's discretion and are already covered in the Committee's current charter or can be covered in future revisions of that charter.

This final rule constitutes a rule of agency organization, practice, or procedure. Hence, notice-and-comment procedures are not required. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). These amendments are to take effect immediately. Given the technical and procedural nature of these amendments, and the Secretary's interest in moving quickly to implement E.O. 14192, the agency finds that it is unnecessary to provide 30 days before this rule takes effect and hence has good cause for making the effective date immediate pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The Assistant Secretary is revoking 29 CFR 1911.10 and 29 CFR 1912.3 in their entirety and making corresponding changes to 29 CFR 1911.11 to enable her to implement E.O. 14192 as expeditiously as possible, while still complying with the CSA's consultation requirements. Revoking 29 CFR 1911.10 and 29 CFR 1912.3 is necessary because these regulations unnecessarily limit the Secretary from moving forward expeditiously with her deregulatory agenda.

The Assistant Secretary is revoking 29 CFR 1911.10 in its entirety, which includes revoking general procedures for rulemaking in the construction context, e.g., procedures for notice, comments, and hearings. Previously, 29 CFR 1911.10(e) allowed the Assistant Secretary to follow the procedures in 29 CFR 1911.11 in any event, so the Secretary is revising 29 CFR 1911.11 to make clear that the procedures therein are applicable to the promulgation, modification, or revocation of construction standards in the absence of the procedures previously described in 29 CFR 1911.10.

The Assistant Secretary is also revoking 29 CFR 1912.3 in its entirety. Among other things, this change will decrease the committee's membership from fifteen members to the nine members envisioned by Congress when it promulgated the CSA. Further, the Assistant Secretary is revising three other regulations which reference 29 CFR 1911.10, 29 CFR 1912.3, or the CSA, i.e., 29 CFR 1911.15, 29 CFR 1912.8, and 29 CFR 1912.9.

The PRA defines “collection of information” to mean “the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency, regardless of form or format” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under the PRA, a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and the agency displays a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3507). Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512(a)(1)). The process for OMB approval is found in 5 CFR part 1320.

This final rule imposes no new information collection requirements and thus the PRA does not apply.

OSHA has reviewed this final rule according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 118-5, 321, 137 Stat. 10), and the Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). OSHA has determined that this final rule will have no impact on the quality of the human environment.

OSHA has examined this final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14192. This procedural rule is expected to facilitate deregulatory actions under the Executive Order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The notice and comment rulemaking procedures of section 553 of the APA do not apply “to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Rules that are exempt from APA notice and comment requirements are also exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). See SBA Office of Advocacy, A Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 9; also found at: https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/guide-government-agencies-how-comply-regulatory-flexibility-act. This is a rule of agency organization, procedure, and practice within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553; and, therefore, the rule is exempt from both the notice and comment rulemaking procedures of the APA and the requirements under the RFA.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

OSHA has considered its obligations under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ), and the Executive Orders on Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000)), Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)), and Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045, 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997)). Given that this is a procedural rule that will have no economic impacts, and that the action does not constitute a policy that has federalism or tribal implications, OSHA has determined that no further agency action or analysis is required to comply with these statutes and executive orders.

Amanda Laihow, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this document under the authority granted by Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); sections 1 and 4 of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (41 U.S.C. 35, 38); sections 2 and 4 of the Service Contracts Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351, 353); section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); section 41 of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); section 5(j)(2) of the National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act (20 U.S.C. 954(j)(2)); 5 U.S.C. 553; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393); as applicable.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OSHA is amending parts 1911 and 1912 as follows:

Under WIA, the Department of Labor provided financial assistance to certain recipients for the purpose of establishing programs to meet the job training needs of youth and adults facing serious barriers to employment. Section 188 of WIA contained the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions that prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, political affiliation or belief, and, for beneficiaries only, citizenship status or participation in a WIA-funded program or activity.

WIA provided that final regulations implementing the Act be issued no later than December 31, 1999. On November 12, 1999, the Department issued the implementing regulations at 29 CFR part 37 for the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA. The rule applies to recipients of Federal financial assistance under WIA. The rule imposes general nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements.

WIA was repealed by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA). Section 188 of WIOA contained substantially similar nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements as those contained in WIA. The Department issued regulations implementing WIOA Section 188 at 29 CFR part 38 on December 2, 2016.

The purpose of this action is to rescind the regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA. All funding under WIA, together with the obligation to comply with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirement of WIA Section 188, has expired. The WIA Section 188 regulations have been superseded by those implementing Section 188 of WIOA. The regulations at 29 CFR part 37 govern a program that has not been in operation for a decade and are thus outdated and unnecessary. The Department is therefore undertaking this ministerial action to rescind the regulations as they are obsolete. This technical amendment to the CFR affects no rights or obligations and imposes no costs.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this direct final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

DOL reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This program is no longer operational, so there is no impact on small entities.

This rescission imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOL has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rescission meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

DOL examined this rescission according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rescission does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rescission would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOL has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOL has determined that this rescission would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this rescission under the OMB and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” This rescission is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOL will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

I. Discussion

The Department of Labor (“DOL” or “Department”) is rescinding obsolete regulations governing grants and agreements with universities, hospital, other non-profits, commercial organizations, foreign governments, and international organizations (29 CFR part 95); audit requirements for grants, contracts, and other agreements (29 CFR part 96); uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments (29 CFR part 97) and audit requirements for States, local governments, and non-profit organizations (29 CFR part 99). DOL previously promulgated these regulations to adopt standards in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-110, A-102, and A-133. Specifically, A-110 was adopted by 29 CFR part 95 in 1994 (59 FR 38270); Circular A-102 was adopted by 29 CFR part 97 in 1988 (53 FR 8034); and Circular A-133 was adopted by 29 CFR parts 96 and 99 in 1999 (64 FR 14539). In 2013, OMB published its Guidance for Grants and Agreements (78 FR 78590), which was codified at 2 CFR part 200, also known as the “Uniform Guidance.” That Guidance superseded Circulars A-102, A-110, and A-133, and the regulations at 29 CFR parts 95-97 and 99 were superseded when the Department adopted and gave regulatory effect to the Uniform Guidance on December 19, 2014 (79 FR 76081). See 2 CFR 2900.4.

Therefore, these regulations are at best redundant and at worst confusing to regulated entities that might wonder which set of regulations applies. The Department is undertaking this ministerial action to remove the regulations from the CFR.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this direct final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule was not required to be proposed for public comment, so no FRFA was warranted.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) requires minimizing the paperwork burden on affected entities. This rescission imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The E.O. 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The E.O. 13132 also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOL has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rescission meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

DOL examined this rescission according to UMRA and determined that the rescission does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rescission would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOL has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOL has determined that this rescission would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this rescission under the OMB guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” This rescission is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOL will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a comprehensive Federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established employee benefit plans in private industry. Title I of ERISA protects the interests of participants and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans by, among other things, requiring that those individuals who manage plans (and other fiduciaries) (1) meet certain standards of conduct, derived from the common law of trusts and made applicable (with certain modifications) to all fiduciaries, and (2) comply with certain “prohibited transactions” restrictions described in the statute. Title II of ERISA, which amended the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to parallel many of the Title I provisions, contains standards that must be met by employee retirement benefit plans in order to qualify for favorable tax treatment. Under ERISA as originally enacted, the DOL and the U.S. Treasury Department's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had overlapping responsibility for administration of the parallel provisions of Title I of ERISA and the Code.

Shortly after ERISA's enactment, the DOL published in the Federal Register a number of Interpretive Bulletins to provide a concise and ready reference to its interpretations of ERISA. 1 Interpretive Bulletin 75-2, codified at 29 CFR 2509.75-2, provided the DOL's views on whether a “party in interest”  2 has engaged in a prohibited transaction with an employee benefit plan where the party in interest has engaged in a transaction with an entity in which the plan has invested. 3 However, since publication of Interpretive Bulletin 75-2, the DOL has provided further guidance on prohibited transaction issues in subregulatory guidance. 4 The DOL believes the Interpretive Bulletin no longer serves its intended purpose of providing a concise and ready reference to the DOL's interpretations of ERISA's prohibited transaction restrictions. The DOL therefore is removing this Interpretive Bulletin.

Interpretive Bulletin 75-6, codified at 29 CFR 2509.75-6, related to ERISA section 408(c)(2) and whether a plan could make an advance to a fiduciary to cover expenses to be properly and actually incurred by such person in performing duties with respect to the plan. 5 However, in 1977, the Department issued a final regulation under section 408(c)(2) at 29 CFR 2550.408c-2 that replaced Interpretive Bulletin 75-6. 6 Accordingly, the Department believes that Interpretive Bulletin 75-6 is no longer necessary. There is no reason to permit identical standards for the same conduct to exist in two different parts of the Code of Federal Regulations. Indeed, analyzing both regulations to determine whether they are different or cover different conduct only wastes time and resources that could be more productively employed.

Interpretive Bulletin 75-10, codified at 29 CFR 2509.75-10, addressed ambiguity arising from the joint jurisdiction of the Department and IRS with respect to parallel provisions in title I of ERISA and the Code. Interpretive Bulletin 75-10 cross referenced specific guidance documents issued by the IRS on the application of the qualification requirements of the Code, as added or amended by ERISA, and requirements of the provisions of parts 2 and 3 of Title I of ERISA paralleling such qualification requirements. It stated that plans complying with the IRS guidance documents would be considered by the Department as satisfying the requirements of the parallel provisions of Title I of ERISA. 7 A few years later, the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 generally resolved issues related to joint interpretive jurisdiction of the parallel provisions by, with certain exceptions, assigning responsibility to one or the other agency. 8 The DOL therefore believes Interpretive Bulletin 75-10 is no longer necessary.

For the reasons mentioned above, the DOL believes the interpretive bulletins are no longer needed, and if left on the books, add potential confusion and unnecessary complexity. Removing obsolete regulations eliminates the burden on the public of having to determine whether they need to comply with the regulations.

This direct final rule removes these obsolete interpretive bulletins prospectively as of the effective date and has no effect on their legal effectiveness prior to that date. Members of the public are invited to provide comments on the DOL's reasoning and decision to remove the obsolete interpretive bulletins from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this direct final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

DOL reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates obsolete regulations and the burden associated with imposing the obligation to determine obsolescence on the public. Therefore, DOL has concluded that the impacts of the rescission would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted. DOL will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

This rescission imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOL has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rescission meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

DOL examined this rescission according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rescission does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rescission would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOL has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOL has determined that this rescission would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this rescission under the OMB and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” This rescission is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOL will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends part 2509 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

This DFR is being taken pursuant to Executive Order 14192, titled Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation. 1

Individual account retirement plans such as 401(k) plans typically provide benefit distributions in the form of a lump sum payment. However, under certain circumstances, these plans are required to provide payments in the form of an annuity, and some plan sponsors offer an annuity as a matter of voluntary plan design. 2 For individual account retirement plans covered by title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that offer an annuity, the selection of annuity provider is a fiduciary act governed by the standards in ERISA section 404. 3 ERISA section 404(a)(1)(B) requires fiduciaries to discharge their duties with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the prevailing circumstances that a reasonable person acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims.

In the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Congress directed the Department to clarify that the selection of an annuity contract as an optional form of distribution from an individual account retirement plan is not subject to the safest available annuity standard under Interpretive Bulletin 95-1 but is subject to all otherwise applicable fiduciary standards. 4 The Department responded in 2008 by issuing a regulatory safe harbor for the selection of annuity providers for the purpose of benefit distributions from individual account retirement plans, codified at 29 CFR 2550.404a-4. 5 The safe harbor made clear that it did not establish minimum requirements or the exclusive means for satisfying the responsibilities.

More recently, in the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act), Congress made several amendments to ERISA related to lifetime income options. 6 SECURE Act section 204 added a statutory safe harbor in a new paragraph (e) of ERISA section 404 for fiduciaries selecting an annuity provider for an individual account retirement plan.

This DFR removes the regulatory safe harbor (29 CFR 2550.404a-4) because the statutory safe harbor in ERISA section 404(e) provides a more streamlined, less costly safe harbor than the regulation, but with the same level of safe harbor relief. Unlike the regulatory safe harbor, the statutory safe harbor streamlines compliance by allowing the plan fiduciary to rely on a written representation of the annuity provider's compliance with applicable state insurance law regarding the financial capability of the insurer. 7 This provision both streamlines the safe harbor  8 and offers a level of certainty not available under the regulatory safe harbor. Moreover, removing the regulatory safe harbor also eliminates situations in which a plan fiduciary might waste time and resources in analyzing and comparing the pros and cons of the two safe harbors to determine which safe harbor is best. Finally, allowing the regulatory safe harbor to remain in the Code of Federal Regulations presents a risk that an unwary fiduciary may inadvertently rely on it instead of seeking out the more streamlined, less costly, and more certain safe harbor in the statute. Put differently, the continued appearance in the CFR could mislead interested parties into believing that no other safe harbor exists or that there are benefits to using the regulatory safe harbor rather than the statutory safe harbor. The regulatory safe harbor is removed prospectively as of the effective date and has no effect on its legal effectiveness prior to that date. 9 The Department welcomes comments on the conclusions in this DFR.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this direct final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Department reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates a duplicative safe harbor in favor of one that is less burdensome and that offers greater certainty. Therefore, the Department has concluded that the impacts of the rescission would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted. The Department will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

This rescission imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

The Department has examined this rescission and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. The Department has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rescission meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

The Department examined this rescission according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rescission does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rescission would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), the Department has determined that this rescission would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). The Department has reviewed this rescission under the OMB and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

The Department has examined this rescission and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” This rescission is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, the Department will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 29 CFR part 2550 as follows:

Under section 401(b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), if an insurance company issues a “guaranteed benefit policy” to a plan, the assets of the plan are deemed to include the policy, but do not, solely by reason of the issuance of the policy, include any of the assets of the insurance company. On December 13, 1993, the Supreme Court held in Harris Trust   2 that a contract qualifies as a guaranteed benefit policy only to the extent it allocates investment risk to the insurer. Therefore, under the Supreme Court's decision, an insurer's general account includes plan assets to the extent it contains funds which are attributable to any nonguaranteed components of contracts with employee benefit plans.

In response to the Supreme Court decision in Harris Trust, Congress amended ERISA section 401 by adding new subsection 401(c). Among other things, this new subsection required the Department to issue regulations that provide guidance for the purpose of determining which assets held by an insurer (other than plan assets held in its separate accounts) constitute assets of the plan. The subsection also required the Department to issue regulations providing guidance with respect to the application of Title I of ERISA to the general account assets of insurers. The statute specifies that the regulations will only apply to general account policies issued by an insurer on or before December 31, 1998.

The regulations were finalized on January 5, 2000. The regulations provide that, generally, when a plan has acquired a “Transition Policy,” the plan's assets include the Transition Policy, but do not include any of the underlying assets of the insurer's general account, if the insurer satisfies certain requirements. The regulation defines “Transition Policy” as, among other things, a policy or contract of insurance (other than a guaranteed benefit policy) issued by an insurer to, or on behalf of, an employee benefit plan on or before December 31, 1998, and which is supported by the assets of the insurer's general account.

Because the regulation is limited to Transition Policies issued on or before December 31, 1998, it is not likely that any Transition Policies remain in effect. The Department is therefore removing this regulation from the Code of Federal Regulations, as it no longer serves any useful purpose, and allowing the regulation to remain on the books only wastes time and resources that could be more productively employed.

The rule removes the regulation prospectively as of the effective date and has no effect on its legal effectiveness prior to that date. Members of the public are invited to provide comments on whether any Transition Policies remain in effect, and on the Department's reasoning and decision to remove the regulation from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this direct final rule does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this direct final rule was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

DOL reviewed this rescission under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule eliminates an obsolete regulation and the burden associated with imposing the obligation to determine obsolescence on the public. Therefore, DOL has concluded that the impacts of the rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an FRFA is not warranted. DOL will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

This rule imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOL has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this rescission meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them.

DOL examined this rescission according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rescission does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rescission would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOL has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOL has determined that this rescission would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). DOL has reviewed this rescission under the OMB and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

DOL has examined this rescission and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.” This rescission is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOL will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EBSA amends 29 CFR part 2550 as set forth below:

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

On February 6, 2025, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14203, “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court” (90 FR 9369, February 12, 2025).

In E.O. 14203, the President found that the International Criminal Court (ICC), as established by the Rome Statute, has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and Israel, which sets a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. The President therefore determined that any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute protected persons, as defined in section 8(d) of E.O. 14203, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

OFAC is issuing the International Criminal Court-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 528 (the “Regulations”), to implement E.O. 14203, pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 14203. A copy of E.O. 14203 appears in appendix A to this part.

OFAC is incorporating six general licenses (GLs), which were issued pursuant to E.O. 14203 and previously only available on OFAC's website, into the Regulations. ICC-Related GLs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were issued on OFAC's website on June 5, 2025 and will be removed from the website upon publication of this rule. These GLs are being incorporated into the Regulations as follows: GL 2, authorizing the provision of certain legal services, is being added to the Regulations at § 528.506; GL 3, authorizing payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States, is being added at § 528.507; GL 4, authorizing emergency medical services, is being added at § 528.508; GL 5, authorizing entries in certain accounts for normal service charges, is being added at § 528.505; GL 6, authorizing transactions related to the provision of agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, replacement parts and components, or software updates for personal, non-commercial use, is being added at § 528.510; and GL 7, authorizing official business of the United States government, is being added at § 528.509.

The Regulations are being published in abbreviated form at this time for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part 528 with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive guidance and definitions, GLs, and other regulatory provisions. The appendix to the Regulations will be removed when OFAC supplements this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of E.O. 14192 of January 31, 2025, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) and E.O. 14219 of February 19, 2025, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative” (90 FR 10583, February 25, 2025) are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

Section 5 of E.O. 14294 of May 9, 2025, “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” (90 FR 20367, May 14, 2025) directs that all future notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) and final rules published in the Federal Register , the violation of which may constitute criminal regulatory offenses, should include a statement identifying that the rule or proposed rule is a criminal regulatory offense and the authorizing statute. E.O. 14294 directs agencies to draft this statement in consultation with the Department of Justice.

E.O. 14294 further directs that the regulatory text of all NPRMs and final rules with criminal consequences published in the Federal Register after May 9, 2025 should explicitly state a mens rea requirement for each element of a criminal regulatory offense, accompanied by citations to the relevant provisions of the authorizing statute.

Willful violations of the regulations set forth in this final rule may be subject to criminal penalties pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1705 and regulations promulgated thereunder. The statutory authority for criminal liability requires a mens rea of willfulness as an element pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1705(c). In drafting this statement, OFAC has consulted with the Department of Justice.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments are posted as soon as possible after they have been received. Follow the search instructions on that website to view public comments. DAF will not post public comments that make threats to individuals or institutions or suggest that the commenter will take actions to harm an individual. DAF will post acceptable substantive comments from multiple unique commenters.

Plain Language Summary: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a plain language summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov/.

Title 32 CFR part 989 provides guidance for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA and was drafted to supplement the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. See 32 CFR 989.1(b). The DAF regulation is applicable to all DAF activities and organizations. However, the CEQ's regulations have been repealed, effective April 11, 2025. See Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations, (90 FR 10610; Feb. 25, 2025). This action was necessitated by and is consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14154, Unleashing American Energy (90 FR 8353; January 20, 2025), in which President Trump rescinded President Carter's E.O. 11991, Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (42 FR 26967; May 24, 1977), which was the basis CEQ had invoked for its authority to make rules to begin with. DAF's regulations, which were a “supplement[] . . . to be used in conjunction with” those CEQ regulations, thus stand in obvious need of fundamental revision. President Trump in E.O. 14154 further directed agencies to revise their NEPA implementing procedures, consistent with the E.O., including its direction to CEQ to rescind its regulations.

In addition, Congress recently amended NEPA in significant part, in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), Public Law 118-5, signed on June 3, 2023, in which Congress added substantial detail and direction in Title I of NEPA, including in particular on procedural issues that CEQ and individual acting agencies had previously addressed in their own procedures. The DAF recognized the need to update its regulations in light of these significant legislative changes. Since the DAF's regulations were originally designed as a supplement to CEQ's NEPA regulations, the DAF had been awaiting CEQ action before revising its regulations, consistent with CEQ direction. See 40 CFR 1507.3(b) (2024); see also 86 FR 34154 (June 29, 2021). However, with CEQ's regulations now rescinded, and with the DAF's NEPA implementing procedures still unmodified more than two years after this significant legislative overhaul, it is exigent that the DAF move quickly to conform its procedures to the statute as amended.

Finally, the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025 issued a landmark decision, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 145 S. Ct. 1497 (2025), in which it decried the “transform[ation]” of NEPA from its roots as “a modest procedural requirement,” into a significant “substantive roadblock” that “paralyze[s]” “agency decisionmaking.” Id. at 1507, 1513 (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that part of that problem had been caused by decisions of lower courts, which it rejected, issuing a “course correction” mandating that courts give “substantial deference” to reasonable agency conclusions underlying their NEPA processes. Id. at 1513-14. But the Court also acknowledged, and through its course correction sought to address, the effect on “litigation-averse agencies” which, in light of judicial “micromanage[ment],” had been “tak[ing] ever more time and . . . prepar[ing] ever longer EISs for future projects.” Id. at 1513. The DAF is therefore issuing this Interim Final Rule (IFR) to align its actions with the Supreme Court's decision and streamline its process of ensuring reasonable NEPA decisions. This revision has thus been called for, authorized, and directed by all three branches of government at the highest possible levels.

DoD has elected to respond to these instructions by promulgating Department-wide NEPA procedures, Department of Defense National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, which will guide DAF's NEPA process henceforth. The Supreme Court could not have been clearer in Seven County that NEPA is a procedural statute. See 145 S.Ct. at 1507 (“NEPA is a purely procedural statute.”); id. at 1510 (“NEPA is purely procedural. . . . NEPA `does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process' for an agency's environmental review of a project;”); id. at 1511 (NEPA is a purely procedural statute” ); id. at 1513 (NEPA is properly understood as “a modest procedural requirement”); id. at 1514 (“NEPA's status as a purely procedural statute”); see also id. at 1507 (“Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock.”). Mindful of this, DOD has decided that the flexibility to respond to new developments in this fast-evolving area of law, afforded by using non-codified procedures, outweighs the public-transparency virtues of codifying its regulations going forward. Notably, DoD can—and will—ensure that accessibility to the public by posting these procedures online, retaining the transparency virtues. By contrast, not codifying its procedures will enable it to rapidly update these procedures in response to future court decisions (such as Seven County ), Presidential directives, or the needs of the services. The use of non-codified procedures is, moreover, consistent with the approach that several other Federal agencies have used for decades.

DoD has, correspondingly, directed all military departments to repeal their respective NEPA implementing regulations by June 30, 2025, per a May 21, 2025, memorandum. Thus, with this action, the DAF rescinds its NEPA implementing regulations at 32 CFR part 989. The DAF is furthermore taking this action because the CEQ NEPA regulations, which the DAF regulations supplemented, were repealed effective April 11, 2025. The DAF is rescinding its NEPA regulations to avoid confusion from maintaining a regulation that was drafted to supplement a regulation that has now been revoked. The DAF intends to continue to rely on categorical exclusions previously published in appendix B of 32 CFR part 989 or adopted by public notice in the Federal Register ( e.g., 89 FR 92911), all of which have now been incorporated into the Appendix to Department of Defense National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures.

DAF acknowledges that third parties may claim to have reliance interests in DAF's existing NEPA procedures. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has just explained, NEPA “is a purely procedural statute” that “imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1507. Any asserted reliance interests grounded in substantive environmental concerns are not in accord with the best meaning of the law and are entitled to “no . . . weight.” Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1914 (2020).

Because reliance interests are inherently backward-looking, it is unclear how any party could assert reliance interests in prospective procedures. To the extent such interests exist, DAF concludes that they are “outweigh[ed]” by “other interests and policy concerns.” Id. Namely, the complex web of regulations that preexisted the 2023 amendments to NEPA and the new Procedures repeatedly “led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation,” which in turn has meant that “[f]ewer projects make it to the finish line,” or even “to the starting line.” Seven County, 145 S. Ct. at 1513-14. This has increased the cost of projects dramatically, “both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project,” resulting in systemic harms to America's infrastructure and economy. Id. at 1514. Correspondingly, the wholesale revision and simplification of this regime, effectuated by the DoD's new NEPA procedures, is necessary to ensure efficient and predictable reviews, with significant upsides for the economy and for projects of all sorts. This set of policy considerations drastically outweighs any claimed reliance interests in the preexisting procedures.

DAF has taken this action as part of DoD's broader approach to revising its implementation of NEPA, in which DoD and its components have revised their NEPA implementing procedures to conform to the 2023 statutory amendments, to respond to President Trump's direction in E.O. 14154 to, “[c]onsistent with applicable law, prioritize efficiency and certainty over any other objectives, including those of activist groups, that do not align with the policy goals set forth in section 2 of [that] order or that could otherwise add delays and ambiguity to the permitting process,” and to address the pathologies of the NEPA process and NEPA litigation as identified by the Supreme Court. Where DoD and its components have retained an aspect of their preexisting NEPA implementing procedures, it is because that aspect is compatible with these guiding principles; where DoD and its components have revised or removed an aspect, it is because that aspect is not so compatible.

DAF is repealing its prior procedures and practices for implementing NEPA, a “purely procedural statute” which “simply prescribes the necessary process for an agency's environmental review of a project—a review that is, even in its most rigorous form, “only one input into an agency's decision and does not itself require any particular substantive outcome.” Seven County, 145 S.Ct. at 1507, 1511 (internal quotation omitted). “NEPA imposes no substantive constraints on the agency's ultimate decision to build, fund, or approve a proposed project,” and “is relevant only to the question of whether an agency's final decision”— i.e., that decision to authorize, fund, or otherwise carry out a particular proposed project or activity—“was reasonably explained.” Id. at 1511. As such, notice and comment procedures are not required because this revision falls within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exception for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). DAF's existing regulations do not dictate what outcomes such consideration must produce, nor do they impose binding legal obligations on private citizens. Rather, they prescribe how DAF will conduct its NEPA reviews: detailing the structure of environmental impact statements, specifying submission requirements, and directing the timing of public comment periods. These are procedural provisions, not ones that impose substantive environmental obligations or restrictions. DAF recognized as much, indeed, even when codifying them: DAF was explicit that was “issuing its NEPA Guidelines as regulations that will be published in the Code of Federal Regulations” to “ensure that its NEPA procedures are more accessible to the public,” and not because the agency had changed its mind that the procedures were just that, procedural. 57 FR 15122; 55 FR 46444. Indeed, both emphasized that “[t]he rule amends and codifies already existing policies and procedures for compliance with NEPA,” and contained no substantive changes that would impose obligations on private citizens. 57 FR 15144; 55 FR 46448. Thus, because procedural rules do not require notice and comment, they do not require notice and comment to be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). 1

Moreover, even if (and to the extent that) DAF's regulations were not procedural rules, they may be characterized as interpretative rules or general statements of policy under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). An interpretative rule provides an interpretation of a statute, rather than making discretionary policy choices that establish enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. The definitions in Appendix A of DAF's procedures, for instance, may be classified as such. General statements of policy provide notice of an agency's intentions as to how it will enforce statutory requirements, again without creating enforceable rights or obligations for regulated parties under delegated congressional authority. The prefatory sections DAF's procedures, for instance, may be classified as general statements of policy. Both of these types of agency action are expressly exempted from notice and comment by statute, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), and do not require notice and comment for removal.

Accordingly, although DAF is voluntarily providing notice and an opportunity to comment on this interim final rule, the agency has determined that notice-and-comment procedures are not required. The fact that DAF previously undertook notice-and-comment rulemaking in promulgating these regulations is immaterial: As the Supreme Court has held, where notice-and-comment procedures are not required, prior use of them in promulgating a rule does not bind the agency to use such procedures in repealing it. Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 101 (2015).

Moreover, DAF also finds that, to the extent that prior notice and solicitation of public comment would otherwise be required or this action could not immediately take effect, the need to expeditiously replace its existing rules satisfies the “good cause” exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d). The APA authorizes agencies to issue regulations without notice and public comment when an agency finds, for good cause, that notice and comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and to make the rule effective immediately for good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). As discussed in Section I, above, DAF's prior rules were promulgated to supplement the CEQ's NEPA regulations. Following the rescission of CEQ's regulations, DAF's current rules are left hanging in air, supplementing a NEPA regime that no longer exists. DAF, thus far and as a temporary, emergency measure, has been continuing to operate under its prior procedures as if the CEQ NEPA regime still existed. This is not, however, tenable in the long term. As soon as proper procedures are available—which they now are, in the form of DoD's Department-wide procedures—this makeshift regime needs to be rescinded immediately. Because of this need for speed and certainty, notice-and-comment is, to the extent it was required at all, impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

For the same reasons stated in the present section, above, DAF finds that “good cause” exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date that would otherwise be required. This IFR will accordingly be effective immediately.

As explained above, notice and comment is not required prior to issuing this rule because DAF's NEPA procedures were procedural and because, even if comment were required under the APA, good cause exists to forego it. Nevertheless, DAF has elected voluntarily to solicit comment on this action, in an abundance of caution and for reasons of good government. DAF is soliciting comment on this interim final rule, and may make further revisions to this action, if DAF's review of any comments submitted suggests that further revisions are warranted. Commenters have 30 days from the date of publication of this interim final rule to submit comments.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distribution of impacts; and equity. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has determined that this rulemaking is “significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 was issued on January 31, 2025, and requires that “any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” This rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.

OIRA has determined that this rulemaking does not meet the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act). This action, in any event, is not a “rule” at all under 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, this rule is not major under the Congressional Review Act.

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Secretary of the Air Force certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Also, the rule repeals DAF NEPA implementing regulations for the EIAP at 32 CFR part 989, which outline procedures for environmental impact analysis for all DAF activities and programs. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a).

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or Tribal Governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, which exceeds the threshold. Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the Secretary of the Air Force has determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment.

Executive Order 13175 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on one or more Indian Tribes, preempts Tribal law, or effects the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. This rule will not have a substantial effect on Indian Tribal Governments.

An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

Improvement of regulations is a continuous focus for DOT and MARAD. For that reason, DOT/MARAD regularly and deliberately review their rules in accordance with DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (Oct. 4, 1993), and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That process is summarized in Appendix D of DOT's semi-annual regulatory agenda. In addition, E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (Feb. 19, 2025) directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations to reduce unnecessary costs, clear barriers to emerging technology, and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.

MARAD has identified changes that will improve its regulations governing agency agreements and appointment of agents. This final rule will revise the regulations to ensure that they are current, modern, and the least burdensome to the public.

MARAD proposes to revise the authority citations for accuracy.

MARAD proposes to make minor, non-substantive edits to this section for clarity.

MARAD proposes adding definitions of general agency agreement and ship manager contract for clarity.

MARAD proposes to update MARAD contact information and made minor, non-substantive edits to this section for clarity.

MARAD proposes to make minor, non-substantive edits to this section for clarity.

MARAD proposes to make minor, non-substantive edits to this section for clarity.

MARAD proposes to make minor, non-substantive edits to this section for clarity.

MARAD proposes to make minor, non-substantive edits to this section for clarity.

MARAD proposes this section for the sake of clarity.

MARAD is issuing this final rule without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the APA, general notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

The intent of this action is to provide simple, clerical updates needed to correct numerous citations in accordance with the codification of Title 46 of the United States Code; improve accessibility by modernizing text, update agency contact information, and remove obsolete references. For these reasons, MARAD has determined that there is good cause to waive prior notice and comment because clerical non substantive updates will not benefit from public input.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B and, therefore it was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. It is also not considered a major rule for purposes of Congressional review under Public Law 104-121. This rule is limited to updating the citations, addresses, and modernizing text.

E.O. 14192 requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by OMB (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025), defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

MARAD analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) and has determined that it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rulemaking has no substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, MARAD did not consult with State and local officials because it was not necessary.

MARAD does not believe that this rulemaking will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of this Executive Order do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires MARAD to assess whether this rulemaking would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and to minimize any adverse impact. This rule is limited to updating the citations, addresses, and modernizing text. MARAD certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108- 447, div. H, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268) requires the Department of Transportation and certain other federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment of each proposed rule that will affect the privacy of individuals.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to evaluate whether an agency action would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $206 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year, and if so, to take steps to minimize these unfunded mandates. This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $206 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. MARAD will seek approval from OMB for the paperwork collections included in this rulemaking. MARAD will publish a separate Federal Register notice notifying the public of OMB's approval and displaying the OMB control number.

An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

Improvement of regulations is a continuous focus for DOT and MARAD. For that reason, DOT/MARAD regularly and deliberately review their rules in accordance with DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (Oct. 4, 1993), and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That process is summarized in Appendix D of DOT's semi-annual regulatory agenda. In addition, E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (Feb. 19, 2025) directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations to reduce unnecessary costs, clear barriers to emerging technology, and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.

As explained above, the high degree of specificity and procedural detail contained in 46 CFR parts 317, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 332, 335, 336, 337, 338, and 339 are better addressed through the terms of MARAD service agreements that are negotiated on a case-by-case basis, and the application of modern federal acquisition policies and procedures that are covered in the FAR. Removing such procedures from the regulations ensures that administrative methods are kept current with modern commercial business practices and more easily aligned with the contracted services. Accordingly, for the reasons provided, MARAD regulations at 46 CFR parts 317, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 332, 335, 336, 337, 338, and 339 are now being rescinded.

MARAD is issuing this rule without prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the APA, general notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

The intent of this action is to remove unnecessary and obsolete MARAD procedures which have been superseded by FAR policies and procedures. For these reasons, MARAD has determined that there is good cause to waive prior notice and comment because rescinding obsolete and unhelpful agency agreement regulations would not benefit from public input.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B and, therefore it was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. It is also not considered a major rule for purposes of Congressional review under Public Law 104-121. This rule is limited to removing obsolete regulations and will result in de minimis cost savings.

E.O. 14192 requires that for “each new [E.O. 14192 regulatory action] issued, at least ten prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Implementation guidance for E.O. 14192, issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (Memorandum M-25-20, March 26, 2025), defines an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action as “an action that has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.” This rule will have total costs less than zero, and therefore is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.

MARAD analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) and has determined that it has no substantial effect on the States, on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, MARAD did not consult with State and local officials on this rulemaking and did not prepare a federalism summary impact statement.

MARAD does not believe that this rulemaking will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments when analyzed under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). Therefore, the funding and consultation requirements of this Executive Order do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires MARAD to assess whether this rulemaking would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and to minimize any adverse impact. The regulations have been rendered obsolete and are therefore not used. Accordingly, the rescission of the regulations will impose no impact. MARAD certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 522(a)(5) of the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, div. H, 118 Stat. 2809 at 3268) requires the Department of Transportation and certain other federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment of each proposed rule that will affect the privacy of individuals.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to evaluate whether an agency action would result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $206 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year, and if so, to take steps to minimize these unfunded mandates. This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will not result in costs of $206 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. Therefore, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This rulemaking includes no new collection of information.

An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: www.federalregister.gov.

Improvement of regulations is a continuous focus for DOT and MARAD. For that reason, DOT/MARAD regularly and deliberately review their rules in accordance with DOT Order 2100.6B, Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (Oct. 4, 1993), and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That process is summarized in Appendix D of DOT's semi-annual regulatory agenda. In addition, E.O. 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (Feb. 6, 2025), and E.O. 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative (Feb. 19, 2025) directed agencies to further scrutinize their regulations to reduce unnecessary costs, clear barriers to emerging technology, and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. Accordingly, MARAD has identified its priority and allocation rules, its port utilization regulations, the standard form of service agreements for ports, and the standard form of marine terminal contracts, for deletion.

The Defense Production Act of 1950 (Defense Production Act) (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq. ) was enacted during the Korean War to ensure the availability of resources to meet national security needs. The Defense Production Act expedites and expands the supply of critical resources from the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense. While Defense Production Act provisions initially focused on Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition needs, several significant changes to the Defense Production Act's definition of national defense have been added over time to expand the definition from military, energy, and space activities, to include emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. ) and the protection and restoration of critical infrastructure.

Section 101(a) of title I of the Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2071) authorizes the President to require performance under contracts or orders necessary for the national defense to take priority over performance under other contracts and orders, and to make allocations as necessary to promote the national defense. E.O. 13603, National Defense Resources Preparedness (Mar. 16, 2012), delegates the President's authority under section 101 of the Defense Production Act to the heads of several departments and agencies. The President has delegated this authority to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with respect to all forms of civil transportation. 1

The Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 (50 U.S.C. Chapter 55, Pub. L. 111-67, September 30, 2009) required each federal agency with delegated authority under section 101 of the Defense Production Act to issue rules establishing standards and procedures by which the priorities and allocations authority is used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Further, Congress directed that, to the extent practicable, the federal agencies should work together to develop a consistent and unified federal priorities and allocations system.

To meet this mandate, DOT worked in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, DoD, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security to develop common provisions that can be used by each Department in its own regulation. The six regulations to be promulgated by each Department with delegated Defense Production Act title I authority comprise the Federal Priority and Allocation System (FPAS) rules.

On October 1, 2012, DOT published a final rule clarifying the priority and allocation authorities exercised by the Secretary and establishing the administrative procedures by which the Secretary exercises this authority. The rule complied with the requirement in the Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2009 (50 U.S.C. Chapter 55, Pub. L. 111-67) to issue final rules establishing standards and procedures by which the priority and allocation authority is used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and nonemergency conditions, and as part of a multi-agency effort forming the FPAS. As a result of DOT adding Part 33 to Title 49 of the CFR, titled Transportation Priorities and Allocation System (TPAS), all DOT Operating Modes rely on TPAS in place of their individual regulations pertaining to priorities and allocation. Accordingly, MARAD regulations at 46 CFR parts 340, 345, 346, and 347, superseded by Part 33, are obsolete and are now being deleted. The corresponding TPAS regulations for each of those parts is provided in Table 1.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, in WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-10, FCC 25-34, adopted on June 26, 2025, and released on June 26, 2025. The full text of this document is available online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-streamline-broadband-data-collection.

To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) or to request reasonable accommodations ( e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.

The rulemaking required under the Broadband DATA Act is exempt from review by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. As a result, the Report and Order will not be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA.

The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

In this Order, the Commission takes steps to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on broadband internet access service providers while ensuring that the Commission continues to receive accurate, granular data on broadband internet access service availability and quality of service as part of the Broadband Data Collection (BDC). Accurate BDC data enables the Commission, other federal agencies, state, local, and Tribal governments, and other interested stakeholders to carefully target resources to the locations where broadband services are needed most.

The Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act) requires fixed broadband service providers to report broadband availability on a location-by-location basis and mobile wireless broadband service providers to report their coverage areas using standardized propagation modeling parameters. Consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's requirement that submissions include a certification from a corporate officer of the provider that the data are true and correct, the Commission requires providers to have a corporate officer and either a corporate engineering officer or certified professional engineer (PE) certify their filings.

Today, the Commission takes an important step to alleviate the regulatory burden that a professional engineer certify a provider's BDC biannual filings. Specifically, in response to concerns about the unavailability of professional engineers and the unnecessary costs and other burdens the requirement places on filers, this Fifth Report and Order eliminates the professional engineer certification requirement and replaces it with a requirement that biannual filings be certified by a qualified engineer (as defined herein).

The Broadband DATA Act requires internet service providers to “include in each [BDC] submission a certification from a corporate officer of the provider that the officer has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct.” In addition to the corporate officer certification, and in an effort to adopt appropriate measures to ensure that providers engage in sufficient analysis of their data and submit accurate information to the BDC, the Commission also adopted a requirement that providers submit certifications to the accuracy of their biannual submissions by a certified professional engineer or a corporate engineering officer. For purposes of this requirement, a “certified professional engineer” is an engineer possessing a professional license by virtue of completing or passing multiple educational and testing requirements so as to earn a license from a state licensure board.

For every BDC biannual filing period to date, WCB, OEA, and WTB have waived the professional engineering certification requirement. In May 2022, before the first BDC filing window opened, the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling or Limited Waiver, requesting that the Commission clarify that a BDC filing may be certified by either a professional engineer or an otherwise-qualified engineer who does not hold a professional license. In its Petition, CCA noted that “[t]he [Radio Frequency (RF)] engineering community is characterized by a scarcity of licensed [professional engineers (PEs)]” because “[s]tate professional licensing boards issue PE licenses based on the fulfillment of state-specific education, examination, and experience requirements [and] states have generally not required PE licensure for RF engineers.” CCA continued that “[t]he experience and expertise developed by RF engineers through their work provides comprehensive skills relevant to broadband deployment [and] . . . provides skills comparable to, and perhaps more relevant than, general licensure through the PE . . . exam process.”

Subsequently, WCB, OEA, and WTB issued a Declaratory Ruling and Limited Waiver granting CCA's request for the first three filing cycles of the BDC. In the Declaratory Ruling, the Bureaus and Office clarified that when a fixed or mobile provider submits a certification from a corporate engineering officer, such corporate engineering officer does not need to be a certified professional engineer. In the Limited Waiver, the Bureaus and Office waived the requirement that a fixed or mobile provider submit a certification from a “certified professional engineer,” allowing instead the submission of a certification completed by an otherwise-qualified engineer. WCB, OEA, and WTB found that “the lack of certified professional engineers specializing in RF engineering and broadband network design constitutes `special circumstances' that warrant a deviation from the general rule that certified professional engineers must certify the accuracy of providers' biannual BDC broadband data submissions.” The Limited Waiver specified that an otherwise-qualified engineer must meet certain minimum qualifications in lieu of state professional engineering licensure in order to certify a BDC filing:

• A bachelor's or postgraduate degree in electrical engineering, electronic technology, or another similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or

• Specialized training relevant to broadband network engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least ten years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design, and/or performance.

In August 2023, CCA and USTelecom-The Broadband Association sought an extension of the Limited Waiver, arguing that circumstances had not changed for the industry in the year since the 2022 BDC PE Order was issued. In November 2023, WCB, OEA, and WTB granted the request and extended the Limited Waiver for another three filing cycles ( i.e., data as of December 31, 2023, June 30, 2024, and December 31, 2024), subject to certain conditions. The conditions outlined in the extension are that “any provider availing itself of this waiver must: (1) have its BDC submissions certified by an engineering professional with the qualifications specified in the [2022 BDC PE Order]; (2) preserve, for the applicable `as-of' filing date(s), certain categories of underlying network information for each submission filed under the waiver; and (3) upon request, expeditiously provide this network information to the Commission.”

In July 2024, the Commission sought comment on whether it should eliminate the professional engineering certification requirement and proposed that all providers be required to retain their infrastructure data in support of their biannual submissions upon request as part of the Commission's efforts to validate availability data. The Commission proposed to permanently eliminate the requirement under § 1.7004(d) that an engineering certification, to the extent not submitted by a corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by a certified professional engineer. Under its proposal, the Commission would amend the rule to state that all providers must submit a certification to the accuracy of their submissions by a “qualified engineer,” consistent with the engineering qualifications that WCB, OEA, and WTB adopted in the 2022 BDC PE Order and the PE Waiver Extension Order. Additionally, the Commission proposed to further modify the rule to clarify that a certifying engineer does not necessarily need to be a full-time employee of the broadband service provider but instead could be an independent contractor or third-party consultant. The Commission noted that, in light of the other mechanisms available to the Commission, such as system validations and the existing corporate officer certification, a certification by a certified professional engineer was not necessary to ensure the submission of high-quality data as part of the BDC.

The Commission adopts the proposal to amend § 1.7004(d) to eliminate the requirement that an engineering certification, to the extent not submitted by a corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by a certified professional engineer and instead require certification by a “qualified engineer” as outlined in the waiver orders issued by the Bureaus and Office. Specifically, the Commission will allow an engineer to certify BDC biannual data filings if the engineer is: (i) a corporate officer possessing a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in engineering and who has direct knowledge of and responsibility for the carrier's network design and construction; (ii) an engineer possessing a bachelor's or post-graduate degree in electrical engineering, electronic engineering, or another similar technical discipline, and at least seven years of relevant experience in broadband network design and/or performance; or (iii) an employee or agent with specialized training relevant to broadband network engineering and design, deployment, and/or performance, and at least 10 years of relevant experience in broadband network engineering, design, and/or performance. The Commission continues to believe that it is necessary to retain an engineering certification requirement because the Broadband DATA Act requires the Commission to collect accurate broadband data. As the Commission previously noted, providers should be engaging in the analysis required to confirm that their data are accurate, so certifying that this analysis has been conducted should not unduly burden providers.

The Commission finds that the qualified engineer standard outlined above, in combination with the Commission's verification and audit authority and challenges from the public, provides the Commission with the necessary tools to ensure that BDC data are accurate and timely. The standard the Commission adopts ensures that a capable and qualified engineer will review and certify the accuracy of a provider's submission and that filers have engaged in the analysis necessary to meet Congress's objective of developing more accurate data, consistent with the Commission's reasons for adopting the engineering certification in the Third Report and Order. To that end, the Commission agrees with the Bureaus and Office's rationale for adopting the specific qualifications in the 2022 BDC PE Order, and find that the degree requirements for corporate engineering officers and certifying engineers described in (i) and (ii) above, along with the years of experience required for the certifying engineers described in (ii) and (iii) above and the requirement that the certifying engineer “has direct knowledge of, or responsibility for, the generation of the provider's Broadband Data Collection filing” creates a rigorous certification standard that achieves the same goals as the professional engineering certification requirement. The Commission agrees with commenters that this standard has been tested under the prior two waiver orders, and note the record in this proceeding and the two waivers supports our view that otherwise qualified engineers are highly expert and that their review and certification of BDC filings has been no less stringent than under the professional engineering certification requirement because otherwise-qualified engineers are required to have a high level of technical expertise, practical experience, and intimate knowledge of providers' networks. The amended standard provides relief for some providers from the burden of having a professional engineer certify filings, without sacrificing high-quality expert review and certification of BDC filings or the accuracy of submitted data.

As discussed in the 2022 BDC PE Order, the minimum qualifications the Commission adopts create a more efficient process while ensuring that qualified engineers review BDC submissions, which will help providers to submit their filings on a timely basis because they will not need to identify and retain a certified professional engineer to analyze their biannual filings. In 2022 BDC PE Waiver Order, the Bureaus and Office examined the reported burdens associated with the professional engineering certification requirement and found that special circumstances existed to warrant a limited waiver of § 1.7004(d) based on the insufficient number of available certified professional engineers with relevant expertise, and again in the PE Waiver Extension Order found that “[t]he . . . lack of PEs to certify BDC filings threatens to undermine the goal of collecting and developing accurate broadband availability data.” Industry commenters in this proceeding overwhelmingly note that there continues to be a shortage of certified professional engineers with expertise in RF engineering and broadband network design, and NRECA and WISPA particularly emphasize the significant challenges that small ISPs face in meeting any certified professional engineering requirement. The Commission finds the reported burdens associated with the professional engineering certification requirement—namely the reported ongoing shortage of professional engineers with relevant experience in the fields of RF engineering and broadband network design—to be compelling. The standard the Commission adopts both promotes efficiency and furthers the goals of the BDC by offering providers who may experience difficulty finding a professional engineer to certify their filings the flexibility to certify using a different, yet still highly trained and experienced, engineer.

While some commenters support retaining the professional engineering certification requirement, the Commission does not find these arguments persuasive. ACE—Association of Communication Engineers (ACE) claims that there is not, in fact, a shortage of professional engineers. However, neither ACE nor any other commenter provides evidence that there are sufficient professional engineers who also have the relevant experience in the fields of RF engineering and broadband network design available to review and certify the over 2,500 BDC filings that are submitted every six months from thousands of distinct providers. As discussed, the waiver standard the Commission adopts today ensures that a highly trained and experienced engineer will continue to certify providers' BDC filings. Given this fact, and in light of the conflicting evidence in the record suggesting that there continues to be a professional engineer shortage, the Commission finds that the need to increase efficiency and reduce unnecessary burdens in the BDC processes outweighs the need for an engineer to hold a professional license in order to certify BDC filings. Some commenters are also concerned that without the professional engineering certification requirement, there will not be sufficient accountability for providers filing data, or that the data would be less accurate because it would lack review by a professional engineer. The Commission is not persuaded by these arguments because the Commission has always, and will continue to, require certification by a corporate officer (as mandated by the Broadband DATA Act) as well as a qualified engineer. The qualifications outlined above for the engineering certification require expertise and experience with broadband network design and information that is relevant to the BDC, and the certification requirements, when taken together, go above and beyond to ensure both accountability and accuracy for BDC submissions.

Some commenters suggest that if a professional engineering certification is unduly burdensome for an individual provider, it should file a waiver request as a remedy, rather than modifying the rule for all providers. However, reviewing and granting individual waiver requests for potentially hundreds of providers for each BDC biannual filing period would be administratively burdensome both for the Commission and the industry. Furthermore, relying on individual waivers would cause regulatory uncertainty and inconsistencies amongst data filed by different providers that could cause confusion to users of the National Broadband Map. The Commission finds that clarity and consistency amongst provider-reported data is an important consideration that warrants implementing clear and consistent certification requirements to the extent possible. Therefore, the Commission permanently eliminates the professional engineering certification requirement.

Consistent with the Commission's proposal in the Fourth Further Notice, the Commission further modifies the rule to clarify that a certifying engineer does not necessarily need to be a full-time employee of the broadband service provider, but instead could be an independent contractor or third-party consultant. ACE—Association of Communications Engineers comments that if the Commission does not require a PE to certify BDC filings, then “the one certifying the [National Broadband Map] must be an employee/officer of the company” because it would provide a legal tie to the service provider. The Commission notes that each BDC filing must still include “a certification signed by a corporate officer of the provider that the officer has examined the information contained in the submission and that, to the best of the officer's actual knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact contained in the submission are true and correct.” The Commission also maintains the requirement that the certifying engineer “has direct knowledge of, or responsibility for, the generation of the provider's Broadband Data Collection filing.” The Commission finds that both of these requirements ensure a legal nexus between the service provider and those certifying the filings. By clarifying that broadband service providers may utilize the resources of consulting engineers, the Commission ensures that smaller providers who may not have in-house engineering expertise are able to comply with the engineering certification requirements of the BDC.

In their comments on the Fourth Further Notice, T-Mobile and CTIA argue that elimination of the professional engineering certification requirement should not be used as a justification for a new data-retention requirement. The Commission agrees. However, the Commission reminds providers that it will continue to use the other tools at its disposal to ensure the accuracy of BDC data. This includes its ongoing efforts to verify and audit BDC data, which may involve requesting from providers, where warranted, supporting infrastructure and/or on-the-ground test data from a filer as part of those efforts.

The Commission finds that its amendment to § 1.7004(d) relieves a restriction ( i.e., it eliminates the professional engineer certification requirement), and therefore the amended rule will be effective upon publication of this Order in the Federal Register , rather than being made effective 30 days after publication. As an independent basis for this effective date, the Commission finds there is “good cause” to make the rules adopted in this Order effective upon publication in the Federal Register in order to provide the maximum amount of notice of this rule change to providers preparing to submit BDC data during the upcoming filing window. Providing a 30-day period after Federal Register publication before this Order becomes effective as normally required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) would not allow sufficient time for providers to be made aware of the rule change before the opening of the next BDC filing window for data as of June 30, 2025, which typically opens on July 1, or the next business day thereafter. Providing earlier notice of the elimination of the professional engineer certification requirement would mitigate the risk of providers taking on the unnecessary costs and other burdens this rule change will relieve as they prepare for the next BDC filing window.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Fourth Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in July 2024. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Fourth Notice, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission targeted changes to further its objective of significantly reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on broadband internet access service providers, thereby providing relief to small entities that typically lack both the capital and human resources needed to comply without great difficulty. The rules adopted in this proceeding provide changes designed to improve the processes for filers and further ensure that the Commission continues to receive high-quality data through our data collection efforts. In addition, the Commission is implementing changes focused on addressing its long-standing objective of working towards closing the digital divide by improving the processes for filers, some of whom consist of small entities. To achieve these objectives, the Fifth Report and Order removes the requirement that a provider of broadband internet access service submit that their biannual Broadband Data Collection (BDC) data has been certified by a certified professional engineer (PE), replacing it with a requirement that the data be certified by a qualified engineer. This change therefore eases compliance burdens.

No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities. However, commenters have previously expressed there remains an insufficient supply of certified PEs, and that few companies can afford to employ a PE. As a result, the Commission expects the Fifth Report and Order's adoption of the qualified engineer standard will have a positive impact on small entities, as their compliance with that standard will be easier and, given their limited resources, more cost-effective.

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as under the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.” A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses.

Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

The broadband internet access service provider industry has changed since the definition was introduced in 2007. The data cited below may therefore include entities that no longer provide broadband internet access service and may exclude entities that now provide such service. To ensure that this FRFA describes the universe of small entities that our action might affect, the Commission discusses in turn several different types of entities that might be providing broadband internet access service. The Commission notes that, although the Commission has no specific information on the number of small entities that provide broadband internet access service over unlicensed spectrum, the Commission included these entities in our Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Wired Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wired ISPs). Providers of wired broadband internet access service include various types of providers except dial-up internet access providers. Wireline service that terminates at an end user location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction is classified as a broadband connection under the Commission's rules. Wired broadband internet services fall in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.

Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access services as of June 30, 2019, nationwide there were approximately 2,747 providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction using various wireline technologies. The Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for providers of these services; therefore, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of providers that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. However, in light of the general data on fixed technology service providers in the Commission's 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, the Commission believes that the majority of wireline internet access service providers can be considered small entities.

Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). internet access service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections ( e.g., dial-up ISPs) as well as VoIP service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections fall in the industry classification of All Other Telecommunications. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, under the SBA size standard a majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small entities.

Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include several types of competitive local exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry can be considered small entities.

Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The closest applicable industry with a SBA small business size standard is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA small business size standard classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 20 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that all 20 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, all of these providers can be considered small entities.

Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

The broadband internet access service provider category covered by these new rules may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of regulated wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband internet access service, the actions may have an impact on those small businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.

The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to Part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in the designated entities section in Part 27 of the Commission's rules for the specific WCS frequency bands.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

1670-1675 MHz Services. These wireless communications services can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of November 2021, there were three active licenses in this service. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 1670-1675 MHz Services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For licenses in the 1670-1675 MHz service band, a “small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. The 1670-1675 MHz service band auction's winning bidder did not claim small business status.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard

Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 331 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 255 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these licenses, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. Special Mobile Radio (SMR) licenses allow licensees to provide land mobile communications services (other than radiolocation services) in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz spectrum bands on a commercial basis including but not limited to services used for voice and data communications, paging, and facsimile services, to individuals, Federal Government entities, and other entities licensed under Part 90 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 95 providers that reported they were of SMR (dispatch) providers. Of this number, the Commission estimates that all 95 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, these 119 SMR licensees can be considered small entities.

Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were 3,924 active SMR licenses. However, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing SMR services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard. Nevertheless, for purposes of this analysis the Commission estimates that the majority of SMR licensees can be considered small entities using the SBA's small business size standard.

Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all five auctioned licenses.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status won five of the twelve available licenses.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band encompasses spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz frequency bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service is a wireless service in which licensees are authorized to offer and provide radio telecommunications service for hire to subscribers in aircraft. A licensee may provide any type of air-ground service ( i.e., voice telephony, broadband internet, data, etc.) to aircraft of any type, and serve any or all aviation markets (commercial, government, and general). A licensee must provide service to aircraft and may not provide ancillary land mobile or fixed services in the 800 MHz air-ground spectrum.

The closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

Based on Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately four licensees with 110 active licenses in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For purposes of auctions, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. In the auction of Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band, neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services therefore, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)—(1,710-1,755 MHz and 2,110-2,155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1,915-1,920 MHz, 1,995-2,000 MHz, 2,020-2,025 MHz and 2,175-2,180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2,155-2,175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2,000-2,020 MHz and 2,180-2,200 MHz (AWS-4)). Spectrum is made available and licensed in these bands for the provision of various wireless communications services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small businesses won licenses.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

3,650-3,700 MHz band. Wireless broadband service licensing in the 3,650-3,700 MHz band provides for nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in the 3,650 MHz band ( i.e., 3,650-3,700 MHz). Licensees are permitted to provide services on a non-common carrier and/or on a common carrier basis. Wireless broadband services in the 3,650-3,700 MHz band fall in the Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) industry with an SBA small business size standard that classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

The Commission has not developed a small business size standard applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band licensees. Based on the licenses that have been granted, however, the Commission estimates that the majority of licensees in this service are small internet Access Service Providers (ISPs). As of November 2021, Commission data shows that there were 902 active licenses in the 3,650-3,700 MHz band. However, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Fixed Microwave Services. Fixed microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS), Millimeter Wave Service (70/80/90 GHz), Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), 24 GHz Service, Multiple Address Systems (MAS), and Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), where in some bands licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.

The Commission's small business size standards with respect to fixed microwave services involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in fixed microwave services. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in fixed microwave services frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in Part 101 of the Commission's rules for the specific fixed microwave services frequency bands.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS often supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive alternative to wired cable and other multichannel video programming distributors. Wireless cable programming to subscribers resembles cable television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave channels.

In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS services, the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS licenses, two bidders claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming the very small business status won three licenses and two bidders claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. One of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS license auction has an active licenses as of December 2021.

The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.

All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services ( e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

Because section 706 of the Act requires us to monitor the deployment of broadband using any technology, the Commission anticipates that some broadband service providers may not provide telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.

Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature ( e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts less than $47 million as small. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated in this industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that a majority of firms in this industry are small.

Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission has developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639 have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are small.

Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a “small cable operator,” which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system operators are small under this size standard. The Commission notes, however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors. The U.S. Census Bureau defines the utilities sector industry as comprised of “establishments, primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one or more of the following activities: (1) operate generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; and (3) operate distribution systems that convey electric power received from the generation facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.” This industry group is categorized based on fuel source and includes Hydroelectric Power Generation, Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation, Nuclear Electric Power Generation, Solar Electric Power Generation, Wind Electric Power Generation, Geothermal Electric Power Generation, Biomass Electric Power Generation, Other Electric Power Generation, Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control and Electric Power Distribution.

The SBA has established a small business size standard for each of these groups based on the number of employees which ranges from having fewer than 250 employees to having fewer than 1,000 employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 indicate that for the Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution industry there were 1,693 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 1,552 firms had less than 250 employees. Based on this data and the associated SBA size standards, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small entities.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

The Commission believes the adopted rules will provide regulatory relief to small entities by reducing their overall compliance costs. The Fifth Report and Order eliminates the requirement under § 1.7004(d) that an engineering certification, to the extent not submitted by a corporate engineering officer, must be submitted by a licensed PE. Instead, the Commission amends § 1.7004(d) to require that providers submit certifications by a “qualified engineer,” as defined by the engineering qualifications the Broadband Data Task Force (BDTF) adopted in previous orders. This certifying engineer does not need to be a full time employee, but is required to have direct knowledge and familiarity with the BDC filing.

The Commission's decision to adopt rules eliminating the professional engineering certification requirement reflects our belief that the potential costs and burdens of the licensed PE requirement outweigh its potential benefits. At this time, although there is not available data on the record to quantify the cost of compliance with the requirements in the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission believes the modifications to the BDC rules eliminate a burden on providers and will maintain the Commission's ability to create accurate broadband coverage maps.

The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

The Commission's actions in the Fifth Report and Order take steps to minimize, where practicable, significant economic impact on small entities and have also considered significant alternatives in reaching its conclusions in the adopted rules. For example, the adopted rules eliminate the previously required licensed professional engineering certification and instead require certification by a “qualified engineer,” as defined in previous BDC orders, which will save some small entities from having to pay a professional engineer to certify their filings. The Commission considered proposals to utilize waiver requests to address economic burdens associated with compliance; however, the process of reviewing and granting a great number of individual requests would in fact cause greater administrative burdens for the Commission and for small and other entities in the industry.

In addition, the Fifth Report and Order also clarifies that broadband service providers may utilize the resources of consulting engineers, thereby ensuring that that smaller providers who may not have in-house engineering expertise are able to comply with the engineering certification requirements of the BDC. Alternatively, the Commission considered the impact of requiring the consulting engineer be a full-time employee of the broadband service provider, and the Commission determined the benefits of our proposed approach would provide a substantial benefit to small entities.

The Commission will send a copy of the Fifth Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Fifth Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA and will publish a copy of the Fifth Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) in the Federal Register .

It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1-4, 201, 254, 301, 303, 332, and 801-806 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 254, 301, 303, 332, and 641-646, this Fifth Report and Order is adopted.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

I. General Discussion

PHMSA's administrative procedures for enforcement and regulation are codified at 49 CFR part 190. Part 190 contains numerous filing and compliance deadlines but says nothing about what happens when those deadlines fall on a weekend or a Federal holiday. That omission has real-world financial consequences for operators and other interested persons; they may incur additional costs by accelerating workstreams or incurring overtime personnel costs to satisfy a deadline early that would otherwise fall on a weekend or Federal holiday.

To avoid that result, PHMSA is amending the definition of “day” at § 190.3 to specify that a filing deadline scheduled to fall on a weekend or Federal holiday will be deferred until the following business day. PHMSA notes that this rule of regulatory construction will only apply to part 190 filing requirements and not to other filing or regulatory compliance deadlines elsewhere in the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs, 49 CFR parts 190-199).

PHMSA finds that adjusting the part 190 filing deadlines is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on the public safety but will provide operators and other interested parties with additional certainty and generate cost savings.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0106 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brianna Wilson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at brianna.wilson@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment because it is a rule of agency procedure that provides interested parties with additional flexibility and certainty in meeting their part 190 filing requirements. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not been designated as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens for pipeline facility operators and other external stakeholders with no adverse impact on safety. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule will be a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; (90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor does this rulemaking implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy,” (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of greater flexibility in responding to filing deadlines set forth in part 190. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will not adversely affect national pipeline transportation capacity or pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas and in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

PHMSA finds that this direct final rule is a rule of agency procedure that will not impose a substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”; 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)). E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”)  9 obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Polices and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendment merely adopts a rule of agency procedure providing pipeline operators and other interested persons (including Tribal communities and Indian Tribal governments) greater flexibility in satisfying PSR filing and regulatory deadlines; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 190 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is extending the deadline for submitting annual reports for gas pipelines required by PHMSA in 49 CFR part 191. Unlike ad-hoc reports for incidents, accidents, and safety-related conditions that are driven by the occurrence of certain consequential events, annual reports consist of summary information of mileage and performance indicators for the previous calendar year. While this information is useful to PHMSA, operators, and the general public, it is not urgent like notifications to the National Response Center or reports of incidents and accidents.

The March 15 deadline for submitting annual reports in part 191 was established in 1984 (87 FR 18956 (May 3, 1984)). At that time, the annual report form for gas distribution lines was two pages long and the annual report form for gas transmission and regulated gas gathering lines was a single page (87 FR 18956 (May 3, 1984)). The information collected on annual report forms has expanded significantly in the ensuing decades to support the implementation of new regulatory programs, including damage prevention program requirements, gas transmission and gas distribution integrity management program requirements in subparts O and P, and the adoption of entirely new categories of regulated gas gathering lines and regulated underground natural gas storage facilities (UNGSF).

Currently, the gas distribution annual report form is 4 pages long, the annual report form for gas transmission and regulated gas gathering is 22 pages long, and the UNGSF annual report form is 3 pages long. Though important, the amount of information that operators must collect and report for the entire preceding calendar year is far more significant than in 1984, and operators must complete that task in a very short (three-month) period of time. In contrast, PHMSA provides hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline operators with a much longer (six-month) period of time to submit the comparable annual report form under 49 CFR 195.49.

Recently submitted public comments have identified the deadline for submitting annual reports under part 191 as imposing an unnecessary regulatory burden that increases compliance costs (90 FR 14593, Docket No. DOT-OST-2025-0026). The current 3-month deadline for submitting annual reports requires operators to pay employees overtime or engage additional contract support that has no impact on addressing pipeline safety or protecting the environment (Docket No. DOT-OST-2025-0026-0897). To the extent that these efforts draw limited resources away from operator efforts to comply with substantive, safety-enhancing requirements, the existing annual report timelines may be detrimental to public safety. These burdens and safety impacts are compounded for operators that manage multiple types of facilities jurisdictional to PHMSA.

For these reasons, PHMSA is extending the deadline for submitting gas pipeline annual reports in part 191 from March 15 to June 15. This new deadline aligns with the comparable requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines in § 195.49. While this change does not affect the scope or total burden of preparing and submitting annual reports, PHMSA expects extending the compliance timeline will result in cost savings from reducing the need to rely on contractors or overtime to meet current three-month filing window. The reporting requirements that are extended to June 15 are listed in the table below.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0108 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. There is a privacy statement published on https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 United State Code (U.S.C.) 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sayler Palabrica, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at sayler.palabrica@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation as set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. Upon evaluation, and for the reasons explained above, PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the procedural and analytical requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B. In so doing, PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule will result in significant cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators by reducing costs from overtime or contractor support needed to meet excessively strict regulatory deadlines. PHMSA expects those cost savings will also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This final rule will be a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; (90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor does this rulemaking implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy,” (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators cost savings associated with preparing annual reports. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act unless the agency head certifies that the proposed rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”; 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Polices and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create nor rescind any existing information collections; however, this rulemaking provides for a 30-day comment period. After the effective date of the final rule, PHMSA will request amendment of the pertinent information collections consistent with Paperwork Reduction Act requirements and implementing guidance.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal Government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 191, as follows:

I. General Discussion

Through this DFR, PHMSA is clarifying the property damage thresholds that apply in determining whether a release is a reportable incident pursuant to 49 CFR 191.9 or 191.15 or reportable accident pursuant to 49 CFR 195.50(e). PHMSA is also adopting for hazardous liquid pipeline accident reporting under part 195 the inflation adjustment methodology that was previously adopted for reporting gas pipeline incidents in § 191.3 and appendix A to part 191.

Specifically, PHMSA is revising the definition of “incident” (at § 191.3) for gas pipelines and “accident” for hazardous liquid pipelines (at § 195.50(e)) to clarify that the costs associated with obtaining permits and removing or replacing infrastructure undamaged by an event ( e.g., pavement needed for access and repair activity) do not need to be considered when calculating estimated property damage. This amendment responds to the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives Resolution 2021-01, “A Resolution Seeking a Modification of PHMSA's Instructions for Incident Reporting for Gas Distribution, Gas Transmission, and Gas Gathering Systems,” concerning how to classify overall secondary damage beyond the primary damage from a potential gas pipeline incident. Operators would still report these costs as incident consequences on the applicable incident and accident report forms; however, they should not be included in the calculation of property damage for determining whether a release is reportable as an incident or accident.

On May 18, 2023, PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that addressed, among other things, the change to the property damage criterion in part 191 being adopted in this direct final rule (88 FR 31890 (May 18, 2023)). PHMSA received approximately 43,000 public comments and nearly two weeks of advisory committee deliberation on that proceeding; however, this specific provision was subject to no controversy. While that proposal did not address hazardous liquid pipeline facilities, PHMSA anticipates that the change is even less consequential for hazardous liquid pipelines, which have a more stringent volumetric criterion for reporting accidents and are less likely to be located under pavement or other infrastructure compared with gas distribution lines.

Along with this change, PHMSA is adjusting the property damage threshold for reporting accidents on hazardous liquid pipelines in § 195.50(e) to account for inflation. The current $50,000 threshold has not been adjusted since 1994, and the regulation does not incorporate a mechanism for annual inflation adjustments going forward. PHMSA is adopting the same methodology previously applied to gas pipeline incident reporting in § 191.1 and Appendix A to part 191. In 2020, PHMSA proposed in separate proposed rulemakings to adjust the property damage criterion for reporting gas pipeline incidents (85 FR 35240 (Jun. 9, 2020)) and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents (85 FR 21140 (Apr. 4, 2020)) from $50,000 to account for inflation, to reduce reporting burdens from inconsequential releases, and to ensure that reporting requirements remain consistent going forward in real ( i.e., inflation-adjusted) terms. In 2021, PHMSA issued a final rule incorporating a one-time catch-up for historical inflation and adopting a mechanism for making periodic inflationary adjustments to the property damage threshold in accordance with appendix A to part 191 (86 FR 2210 (Jan. 11, 2021)). Since then, PHMSA has published updates to the property damage criterion for reporting gas pipeline incidents on the agency web page each year. However, the parallel liquid pipeline regulatory reform proposed rule was not finalized, resulting in inconsistent reporting requirements across PHMSA's jurisdiction. This direct final rule corrects this discrepancy, resulting in the benefits described above and in preamble to the 2021 final rule, while also ensuring consistency across gas and hazardous liquid pipeline reporting requirements.

Consistent with the current property damage criterion posted on PHMSA's incident reporting web page at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/incident-reporting, the property damage criterion for calendar year 2025 is $149,700. In future versions of the inflation adjustment memo, PHMSA will refer to both gas incidents and hazardous liquid accidents. Also consistent with gas requirements, PHMSA clarifies that the cost of lost product is not included in the property damage calculation for reporting hazardous liquid pipeline accidents. The volume of lost product is addressed separately in § 195.50(b) and the price of a given volume of crude oil, petroleum products, and other hazardous liquids and carbon dioxide can be highly variable.

Finally, this direct final rule updates the property damage threshold for gas pipeline reporting in § 191.3 to $149,700 consistent with the value currently posted on PHMSA's website for calendar year 2025. Since this reflects the current definition, this amendment is editorial and intended only to ensure consistency across gas and hazardous liquid pipeline incident and accident reporting.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0109 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sayler Palabrica, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at sayler.palabrica@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. Upon evaluation, and for the reasons explained above, PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule is unlikely to elicit adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the procedural and analytical requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B. In so doing, PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule will result in cost savings by reducing unnecessary reporting burdens for incidents and accidents with relatively low actual consequences. PHMSA identified 57 hazardous liquid pipeline accidents reported between 2010 and 2024 involving total property damage between $50,000 and $149,700 that did not result in a fire, the release of five gallons or more, death, or injury. This averages to 3.5 incidents per year that would not require reporting to PHMSA under the final rule, resulting in cost savings for affected entities. According to OMB Control Number 2137-0047, the estimated burden for collecting this information is approximately 12 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, gathering data, and completing and reviewing the submission. Based on this estimate, PHMSA projects an annual reduction of 42 burden hours under the direct final rule. PHMSA expects those cost savings will also lead to reduced costs for the public, as pipeline operators typically pass a portion of their compliance costs on to consumers. Although PHMSA acknowledges a reduction in the number of reported accidents in the abstract could be said to reduce the quantity of information informing PHMSA regulatory oversight activity. However, PHMSA understands that impact would be de minimis as the accidents in question would (by definition) involve minimal public safety and property damage consequences; some of those events that were formerly reported as accidents may also remain subject to safety-related condition reporting pursuant to § 195.55. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule will be a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; (90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor does this rulemaking implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy,” (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators cost savings associated with preparing incident and accident reports. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas and petroleum products in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; and OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act unless the agency head certifies that the proposed rule in the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”; 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore certifies it will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Polices and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests.

PHMSA will submit an information collection revision request to OMB for approval based on the requirements in this proposed rule. The information collection is contained in the pipeline safety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190 through 199. The following information is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. The information collection burdens for the following information collections are estimated to be revised as follows:

1. Title: Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Record keeping and Accident Reporting.

OMB Control Number: 2137-0047.

Current Expiration Date: 04/30/2026.

Abstract: This information collection covers general recordkeeping and the collection of information from hazardous liquid pipeline operators for accident reports. PHMSA estimates that due to the revised monetary damage threshold for reporting accidents operators will submit 3 fewer hazardous liquid accident reports per year. Therefore, PHMSA expects to eliminate 3 responses and 36 hours to this information collection per year as a result of the provisions in the rule.

Affected Public: All hazardous liquid pipeline operators.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

Total Annual Responses: 1,643 (1,646−3).

Total Annual Burden Hours: 53,741 (53,777−36).

Frequency of Collection: On Occasion.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal Government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR parts 191 and 195 as follows:

PHMSA is clarifying that certain recently adopted recordkeeping requirements in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 192.517(a) do not apply retroactively to pressure testing predating Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR, 49 CFR parts 190-199) when determining whether an operator is required to reconfirm the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of a gas transmission line under 49 CFR 192.624(a)(1) (84 FR 52180 (Oct. 1, 2019), 85 FR 40132 (Jul. 6, 2020)). PHMSA wrongly suggested the contrary in an October 2022 letter of interpretation that PHMSA recently withdrew for further consideration (PI-22-0014 (Oct. 5, 2022). PHMSA is now confirming that its earlier interpretation provided an erroneous reading of the applicable regulations in its letter of interpretation. To provide owners and operators of gas transmission lines with regulatory certainty, and to correct its earlier error, PHMSA is clarifying the language in § 192.624(a)(1) to address its applicability to testing conducted prior to the adoption of the PSRs in the early 1970s (35 FR 13248 (Aug. 19, 1970).

PHMSA's October 2022 letter of interpretation omitted consideration of statutory and regulatory prohibitions on application of subsequently adopted requirements to historical pressure testing. Both PHMSA's statutory non-retroactivity provision at 49 U.S.C. 60104(b) and the regulatory provision at § 192.13(a) delineating the general applicability of part 192 make clear that subsequently adopted initial testing standards do not apply to gas pipeline facilities in existence prior the adoption of the PSRs. The recordkeeping requirements in § 192.517 are part of the initial testing standards for gas pipeline facilities in subpart J of part 192. As such, those requirements cannot be applied retroactively to pressure tests conducted prior to the original adoption of the part 192 regulations without violating the retroactivity prohibition in 49 U.S.C. 60104(b) and limitations in § 192.13(a).

Nothing in the text of § 192.624(a)(1), which was introduced in the 2019 Final Rule, overrides these longstanding and well-established legal principles. Section 192.624(a)(1) simply states, in relevant part, that MAOP reconfirmation is required if “[r]ecords necessary to establish the MAOP in accordance with § 192.619(a)(2), including records required by § 192.517(a), are not traceable, verifiable, and complete[.]” Section 192.619(a)(2), the regulation referenced in § 192.624(a)(1), makes clear that operators can use tests conducted prior to the original adoption of the part 192 regulations to establish MAOP, see Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2)(ii). As previously discussed, the recordkeeping requirements in subpart J did not exist when operators conducted those tests.

Retroactive application of the recordkeeping requirements in § 192.517(a) to testing conducted prior to the adoption of part 192 was not required to establish the MAOP of a gas transmission line under § 192.619(a)(2) prior to the October 2022 letter of interpretation, nor does an operator need to have such records to satisfy the “traceable, verifiable, and complete” standard in § 192.624(a)(1). Indeed, the contrary determination taken in the October 2022 letter violated the non-retroactivity provision in 49 U.S.C. 60104(b) and the general limitation on the applicability of part 192 in § 192.13(a), and would impose significant costs on the gas transmission line industry by invalidating all pre-part 192 pressure tests not satisfying subsequently adopted recordkeeping requirements in 49 CFR 192.517(a).

For these reasons, PHMSA is amending § 192.624(a)(1) to clarify that for pressure tests performed prior to the adoption of the PSR on August 19, 1970, an operator is not expected to have each of the specific information listed in § 192.517(a) for those testing records to be considered traceable, verifiable, and complete. PHMSA intends to provide additional guidance in addressing the records needed to satisfy the traceable, verifiable, and complete standard for historical, pre-PSR pressure testing in the near future.

This technical correction is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this final rule without prior notice and comment because such notice and comment are unnecessary. The amendment to § 192.624(a)(1) merely clarifies within that provision the application of the statutory retroactivity prohibition at 49 U.S.C. 60102(b) and the general limitation on the applicability of part 192 at § 192.13(a). Making that clarification is consistent with PHMSA's enabling statute and implementing regulations and will reduce compliance burdens for affected entities (which are burdens generally passed on to the public in the form of higher costs) in a manner that promotes the public interest.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This technical correction is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the procedural and analytical requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B. In so doing, PHMSA has determined that this technical correction will result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators by clarifying the applicability of the MAOP reconfirmation requirements in § 192.624(a)(1) to pressure tests conducted prior to the adoption of part 192. PHMSA expects those cost savings will also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs.

This final rule will be a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor does this rule implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this technical correction is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The technical correction will clarify the applicability of the MAOP reconfirmation requirements in § 192.624(a)(1) to pressure tests conducted prior to the adoption of part 192. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this technical correction will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this technical correction is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this technical correction is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use, as further discussed in the RIA; OIRA has therefore not designated this technical correction as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this technical correction in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693 (May 22, 2009)). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the technical correction may operate to preempt some State requirements, it would not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this technical correction is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a technical correction subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the proposed rule in the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”; 64 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This technical correction was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and that the potential impacts of the rulemaking on small entities has been properly considered. PHMSA expects that this final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore certifies the technical correction will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This technical correction does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this technical correction in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking—which corrects an erroneous interpretation of its regulations—will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this technical correction according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Polices and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the technical correction and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this technical correction will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the technical correction and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the technical correction and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety standards (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version of the industry standard ASTM F2600, Standard Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyamide-11 Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide-11 Pipe and Tubing. This standard was reapproved in 2023.

This standard presents the current materials, workmanship, and testing performance requirements for PA11 electrofusion fittings that are designed for use with outside-diameter-controlled PA11 pipe. Reference to the 2023 version of the standard will replace the existing reference within Section I of appendix B to 49 CFR 192 to ASTM F2600-09, “Standard Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyamide-11 Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide-11 Pipe and Tubing,” April 1, 2009.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the specification and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within part 192 to an intermediate (2018) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2018 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties[.]”

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. ASTM International (ASTM) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The ASTM standards incorporated in this direct final rule are available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/products-services/reading-room.html.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0133 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brianna Wilson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at brianna.wilson@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In fact, updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of these standards within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standard. Those cost savings may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standard to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas and in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24694). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version of the industry standard ASTM A578/A578M, Standard Specification for Straight-Beam Ultrasonic Examination of Rolled Steel Plates for Special Applications. This standard was reapproved in 2023 from the 2017 version.

A578/A578M presents the current state of knowledge and technology applicable to the detection of internal discontinuities via straight-beam, pulse-echo, ultrasonic examination of rolled carbon and alloy steel plates that are greater than 3/8ths of an inch thick. The standard also addresses the qualifications required for inspectors of such plates. Reference to the 2017 version will replace the existing reference within 49 CFR 192.112(c) to ASTM A578/A578M-96, “Standard Specification for Straight-Beam Ultrasonic Examination of Plain and Clad Steel Plates for Special Applications,” reapproved January 1, 2001.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the specification and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within part 192 to an intermediate (2017) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2017 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties[.]”

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. ASTM International (ASTM) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The ASTM standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/products-services/reading-room.html.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0127 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brianna Wilson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at brianna.wilson@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In fact, updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of these standards within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standard. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standard to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas and in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page.

This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version industry standard ASTM F2145, “Standard Specification for Polyamide 11 (PA 11) and Polyamide 12 (PA12) Mechanical Fittings for Use on Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide 11 and Polyamide 12 Pipe and Tubing” to the 2023 version.

This specification describes requirements and test methods for the qualification of Polyamide 11 (PA 11) bodied mechanical fittings for use with outside diameter controlled PA 11 pipe, and nominal 2 pipe size (IPS) and smaller. In addition, it specifies general requirements of the material from which these fittings are made. Reference to the 2023 version of the standard will replace existing references within 49 CFR part 192 to ASTM F2145-13, “Standard Specification for Polyamide 11 (PA 11) and Polyamide 12 (PA12) Mechanical Fittings for Use on Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide 11 and Polyamide 12 Pipe and Tubing,” issued May 1, 2013.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating this standard, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the specification and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within part 192 to an intermediate (2018) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2018 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties[.]”

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. ASTM International (ASTM) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The ASTM standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0125 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alyssa Imam, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at alyssa.imam@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. Updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—as part of their routine business practices. Incorporating the updated standards into the PSRs will help avoid the added costs of complying with multiple versions of the same standard. These savings are expected to reduce overall compliance costs, which pipeline operators often pass on to consumers The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025).)

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standards to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the referenced specification is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page.

This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version of the industry standard ASTM F2817, Standard Specification for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Gas Pressure Pipe and Fittings for Maintenance or Repair to the 2023 version.

This standard presents existing industry requirements for PVC pipe, tubing, and fittings that are used to maintain or repair existing PVC gas piping. References to the 2023 version of the standard will replace the existing reference within 49 CFR 192 to ASTM F2817-10, “Standard Specification for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Gas Pressure Pipe and Fittings For Maintenance or Repair,” February 1, 2010.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the specification and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within Part 192 to an intermediate (2019) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2019 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties[.]”

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. ASTM International (ASTM) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The ASTM standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/products-services/reading-room.html.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0128 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brianna Wilson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at brianna.wilson@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. Updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—part of their routine business practices. Incorporating the updated version of these standards into the PSRs will help avoid the added costs of complying with multiple versions of the same standard. These savings are expected to reduce overall compliance costs, which pipeline operators often pass on to consumers. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standard to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas and in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

I. General Discussion

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety standards (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version of the industry standard NFPA 70, “National Electrical Code (NEC)” to the 2023 edition.

NFPA 70 provides requirements for safe electrical design, installation, and inspection to protect people and property from electrical hazards. References to the 2023 edition of the standard will replace existing references within 49 CFR 192.163(e) and 192.189(c) to NFPA 70, “National Electrical Code (NEC),” 2017 edition, effective August 24, 2016.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the standard and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties[.]”

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. NFPA agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The NFPA standards incorporated in this direct final rule are available from the following website: https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/ All-Codes-and-Standards/List-of-Codes-and-Standards.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at the following website: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0130 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. There is a privacy statement published on https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brianna Wilson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at brianna.wilson@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)) as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not been designated as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In fact, updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of this standard within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standard. Those cost savings may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standard to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas and in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693) E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Polices and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety standards (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version of the industry standard PPI TR-4, PPI HSB Listing of Hydrostatic Design Basis (HDB), Hydrostatic Design Stress (HDS), Strength Design Basis (SDS), Pressure Design Basis (PDB) and Minimum Required Strength (MRS) Ratings For Thermoplastic Piping Materials or Pipe to the 2024 edition.

This technical report (TR) details thermoplastic piping materials with a PPI-recommended HDB, SDB, PDB, or MRS rating for thermoplastic piping materials or pipe. This information was established in accordance with PPI TR-3: Policies and Procedures for Developing Hydrostatic Design Basis (HDB), Hydrostatic Design Stresses (HDS), Pressure Design Basis (PDB), Strength Design Basis (SDB), Minimum Required Strength (MRS) Ratings, and Categorized Required Strength (CRS) for Thermoplastic Piping Materials or Pipe. Reference to the 2024 edition of the standard will replace the existing reference within 49 CFR 192.121(b)(4) to PPI TR-4/2011, “PPI Listing of Hydrostatic Design Basis (HDB), Hydrostatic Design Stress (HDS), Strength Design Basis (SDB), Pressure Design Basis (PDB) and Minimum Required Strength (MRS) Ratings For Thermoplastic Piping Materials or Pipe,” March 2011. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within part 192 to an intermediate (2021) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2021 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the specification and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within part 192 to an intermediate (2021) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2021 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties” (79 FR 66267).

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The PPI standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.plasticpipe.org/PPI-Home/ALL-PPI-PUB/Technical-Reports.aspx.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0132 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brianna Wilson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at brianna.wilson@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR § 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In fact, updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of these standards within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standard. Those cost savings may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)) PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standard to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

I. General Discussion

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version of the industry standard ASTM F2945, “Standard Specification for Polyamide 11 Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings” to the 2023 version.

This standard presents requirements and test methods for the characterization of PA11 pipe, tubing, and fittings that will be used on fuel gas pipelines. The PSRs currently incorporate the 2012 edition of this standard. Reference to the 2023 version of the standard will replace the existing reference within Item I, Appendix B to 49 CFR part 192 to ASTM F2945-12a, “Standard Specification for Polyamide 11 Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings,” Nov. 27, 2012.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating this standard, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the specification and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within part 192 to an intermediate (2018) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2018 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties” (79 FR 66267).

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. ASTM International (ASTM) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The ASTM standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0134 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alyssa Imam, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at alyssa.imam@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In fact, updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of these standards within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standard. Those cost savings may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standards to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference updates to a pair of voluntary, consensus industry technical standards already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs; 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced editions of each of American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1170, “Design and Operation of Solution-mined Salt Caverns Used for Natural Gas Storage” and API RP 1171, “Functional Integrity of Natural Gas Storage in Depleted Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Aquifer Reservoirs.”

This RP provides the functional recommendations for salt cavern facilities used for natural gas storage service and covers facility geomechanical assessments, cavern well design and drilling, risk management, solution mining techniques and operations, including monitoring and maintenance practices, site security and safety, procedures, training, and abandonment. This RP includes the cavern well system (wellhead, wellbore, and cavern) from the emergency shutdown (ESD) valve down to the cavern and facilities having significant impact to safety and integrity of the cavern system. This RP does not apply to caverns used for the storage of liquid or liquefied petroleum products, brine production, or waste disposal; hydrogen, or compressed air, nor to caverns which are mechanically mined, or depleted hydrocarbon or aquifer underground gas storage systems. Reference to the second edition of API RP 1170 will replace existing references within §§ 192.7 and 192.12 to API Recommended Practice 1170, “Design and Operation of Solution-mined Salt Caverns Used for Natural Gas Storage,” First edition, July 2015.

This RP outlines storage well, reservoir, and fluid management for functional integrity in design, construction, operation, monitoring, maintenance, and documentation practices. This standard applies to natural gas storage in depleted natural gas and oil reservoirs as well as aquifer reservoirs. Reference to the second edition of API RP 1171 will replace existing references within §§ 192.7 and 192.12 to API Recommended Practice 1171, “Functional Integrity of Natural Gas Storage in Depleted Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Aquifer Reservoirs, First edition, September 2015.

These updated standards will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated editions of API RPs 1170 and 1171 and determined that those updated standards will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties” (79 FR 66267).

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. API agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The API standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://publications.api.org/Default.aspx.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0120 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alyssa Imam, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at alyssa.imam@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993),), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. Updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standards that are the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of these standards within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standards. Those cost savings may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standards to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”); 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and that the potential impacts of the rulemaking on small entities has been properly considered. PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192. Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version of the industry standard ASTM F2767, “Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyamide-12 Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide-12 Pipe and Tubing for Gas Distribution” to the 2023 version.

This standard presents the current state of knowledge and technology applicable to PA12 electrofusion fittings for use with outside-diameter-controlled PA12 pipe, as covered by ASTM F2785. The standard also includes requirements for materials, workmanship, and testing performance. Reference to the 2023 version of the standard will replace existing references within 49 CFR part 192 to ASTM F2767-12, “Specification for Electrofusion Type Polyamide-12 Fittings for Outside Diameter Controlled Polyamide-12 Pipe and Tubing for Gas Distribution,” issued Oct. 15, 2012.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating this standard, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the specification and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within part 192 to an intermediate (2018) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2018 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties[.]”

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. ASTM International (ASTM) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The ASTM standard incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.astm.org/standards-and-solutions/standards-and-publications/reading-room.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0126 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alyssa Imam, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at alyssa.imam@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In fact, updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of these standards within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standard. Those cost savings may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standards to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page.

This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”) 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”) 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

This final rule updates the edition of an industry standard that is incorporated by reference into certain specific regulations in 49 CFR part 192. PHMSA previously declined to update a handful of those references due to litigation challenging the underlying regulatory provisions. The recent resolution of that litigation now allows PHMSA to update the standard referenced in those regulations.

On April 29, 2024, PHMSA published a final rule, titled “Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory References to Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Amendments” (Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule). 1 The Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule amended the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR, 49 CFR parts 190-199) at 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 to incorporate by reference all or parts of more than 20 new or updated industry standards.

One of the industry standards that the Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule incorporated by reference was the 2018 edition of ASME B31.8S, “Supplement to B31.8 on Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines” (2018 ASME B31.8S). 2 Although PHMSA had previously asked for public comment on whether to incorporate the 2018 ASME B31.8S throughout the PSRs—and the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC) had endorsed that proposal during an October 2021 public meeting, 49 U.S.C. 60115—PHMSA did not do so in the Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule. Instead, PHMSA only updated some of the PSR references to the 2018 ASME B31.8S because of a then-pending legal challenge to another final rule, titled “Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Repair Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments” (2022 final rule). 3

Specifically, as PHMSA explained in the preamble to the Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule, the challenge to the 2022 final rule involved amendments to certain specific regulations—namely, §§ 192.714 and 192.933—that referenced the 2004 edition of ASME B31.8S. 4 Citing the uncertainty created as a result of the litigation, PHMSA declined to incorporate the 2018 ASME B31.8S into §§ 192.714 and 192.933 in the Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule. 5 PHMSA explained that it would consider such an update in a future rulemaking action.

On May 29, 2024, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), the American Public Gas Association (APGA), the American Gas Association (AGA), the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association (LEPA), and the American Petroleum Institute (API) (collectively, the Petitioners) submitted a Petition for Reconsideration of the Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule. 6 The Petitioners asked PHMSA to reconsider its decision not to incorporate the 2018 ASME B31.8S by reference into §§ 192.714(d)(1), 192.933(d)(1), and 192.933(d)(2)(iv), which they argued was not supported by the record, created a regulatory conflict at § 192.714(d)(1), and limited the ability of gas pipeline operators to use certain technologies. The Petitioners also filed a parallel motion to stay the effective date of the Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule. 7

On June 20, 2024, PHMSA issued a Notice of Limited Enforcement Discretion (Notice) in response to the Petitioner's stay motion. The Notice advised regulated entities that PHMSA would not take any action to enforce the provisions in Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule until January 1, 2025. 8 On December 18, 2024, shortly before that enforcement discretion expired, the 2022 final rule litigation ended, effectively resolving the uncertainty surrounding the regulatory status of §§ 192.714(d) and 192.933(d)(1) and (d)(2)(iv). 9

Now that the 2022 final rule litigation is complete, PHMSA is amending §§ 192.714(d) and 192.933(d)(1) and (d)(2)(iv) to incorporate the 2018 ASME B31.8S, which was previously approved by the Director of the Federal Register for incorporation by reference in those sections. PHMSA is also making conforming amendments to § 192.7. PHMSA notes that these amendments are supported by the record and consistent with the GPAC's recommendations in the Periodic Standards Update 1 Final Rule. This document also responds to the Petitioners' May 29, 2024, Petition for Reconsideration.

This final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation delegated to the PHMSA Administrator under 49 CFR 1.97. Among the statutory authorities vested in the Secretary under the Federal Pipeline Safety Statutes (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ), section 60102(l) authorizes, to the extent appropriate and practicable, the Secretary to update incorporated, voluntary, consensus industry technical standards that were adopted as part of the PSRs to protect public safety and the environment.

PHMSA finds it has good cause to make these amendments without notice and comment pursuant to section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ). Section 553(b)(B) of the APA provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. This final rule contains editorial and technical amendments, including revision to or codification of regulatory language not adopted in the Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule due to then-pending litigation, consistent with statements in the administrative record. The technical amendments align the regulatory text with the October 2021 GPAC discussions, the GPAC's recommendation, and public comments received on the proposed rule. 10 Furthermore, the technical and editorial amendments herein ensure consistency within, and intended effect of the Periodic Standards Update 1 Rule. These amendments will also help alleviate potential confusion created by incorporating by reference in the PSR two different editions of the same voluntary, industry standard. Because these amendments are the product of an extensive administrative record with numerous opportunities for public comment, including through written comments and the GPAC, PHMSA finds that additional comment on the amendments herein are unnecessary.

The immediate effective date of the amendments contained in this document is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA. Section 553(d)(3) provides that a rule should take effect “not less than 30 days” after publication in the Federal Register , except for when good cause is found by the agency and published within the rule, thus allowing for earlier effectiveness. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). “[T]he purpose of the thirty-day waiting period is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes effect.” Omnipoint Corp. v. F.C.C., 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996). PHMSA finds that good cause under section 553(d)(3) of the APA supports making the revisions effective upon publication in the Federal Register because the editorial and technical amendments at §§ 192.7(c)(6), 192.714(d)(1), 192.933(d)(1), and 192.933(d)(2)(iv) are consistent with statements in the administrative record, GPAC discussions and recommendations, and advance public interest.

This document has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures and is considered not significant under each of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”)  11 and DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”). Therefore, this document has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). PHMSA finds that the editorial and technical amendments herein, in all respects are consistent with the Final Rule, impose no incremental compliance costs nor adversely affect safety. These amendments are merely updates to the edition of ASME B31.8S incorporated by reference in the PSR that could not be updated at issuance of the Final Rule due to then-pending 2022 final rule litigation. These amendments also are consistent with the intent of the Periodic Standards Update 1 Final Rule as discussed within comments on the proposed rule, the GPAC meeting, and the supporting administrative record.

This final rule will be a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”). 12 PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor does this rule implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.”  13

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires agencies to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency head certifies that a rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish exceptions and differing compliance standards for small businesses, where possible to do so and still meet the objectives of applicable regulatory statutes. E.O. 13272 (“Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”)  14 requires agencies to establish procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and to “thoroughly review draft rules to assess and take appropriate account of the potential impact” of the rules on small businesses, governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. The DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page.

As explained in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) discussion in the Final Rule, PHMSA found that the Final Rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, PHMSA expects that these amendments—like the amendments in the Final Rule—will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the technical amendments herein will impose no new incremental compliance costs, PHMSA understands its analysis in the Final Rule regarding compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act remains unchanged.

In addition, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply when the agency finds good cause under the APA to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. 15 Because PHMSA has “good cause” under the APA to forego comment on the corrections herein, no Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is required.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), no individual is required to respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control number. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA must provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests.

The technical amendments in this document impose no new or revised information collection requirements beyond those discussed in the Final Rule. The changes being made in this document will require no change to the current reporting requirements.

PHMSA analyzed the technical amendments in this document under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) and determined that the amendments herein do not impose enforceable duties of $100 million or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year, on State, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector. Because the amendments herein will impose no new incremental compliance costs, the analysis in that UMRA discussion for the Final Rule remains unchanged.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. PHMSA has determined that the amendments in this document have no effect on its earlier NEPA analysis, as the amendments merely update incorporated by reference standards for particular provisions that were subject to then-pending litigation that has now concluded.

PHMSA analyzed the amendments in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”). 16 The amendments herein are consistent with the Periodic Standards Update 1 Final Rule, and does not have any substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government beyond what was accounted for in the Final Rule. This document does not contain any provision that imposes any substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, nor any new provision that preempts State law. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”)  17 requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Under E.O. 13211, a “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register ) that promulgates, or is expected to lead to the promulgation of, a final rule that (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of foreign supplies); or (2) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action. These editorial and technical corrections in this document are not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211, as they are not a significant regulatory action, and they are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or use of energy. These amendments are also not likely to impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources pursuant to E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”). 18 Similarly, these amendments are not likely to inhibit the identification, leasing, siting, production, transportation, refining, and generation of domestic energy resources pursuant to E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”). 19

This document was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175(“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”)  20 and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A require DOT Operating Administrations to assure meaningful and timely input from Native American tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities, or the relationship and distribution of power between the Federal Government and Native American tribes. Because the amendments herein do not have Tribal implications or impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply.

Under E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”), 21 agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The amendments herein do not impact international trade.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., specification of materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The Final Rule adopted more than 20 new or updated voluntary, consensus industry technical standards. The amendments herein do not change the Periodic Standards Update 1 Final Rule's analysis.

The technical amendments herein focus on specific provisions. Therefore, PHMSA finds that each correction in this rule is severable and able to function independently from the others. Further, these provisions are severable from the Periodic Standards Update 1 Final Rule. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of the amendments in this rule, the remaining provisions should stand, thus allowing their continued effect.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) part 192). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced version of the industry standard PPI TR-3, Policies and Procedures for Developing Hydrostatic Design Basis (HDB), Hydrostatic Design Stresses (HDS), Pressure Design Basis (PDB), Strength Design Basis (SDB), Minimum Required Strength (MRS) Ratings, and Categorized Required Strength (CRS) for Thermoplastic Piping Materials or Pipe, to the 2024 edition.

This report presents the policies and procedures that PPI's Hydrostatic Stress Board (HSB) used to develop long-term, strength-rating recommendations for commercial thermoplastic piping materials or pipe. The recommendations are published in PPI Technical Report 4 (TR-4): PPI HSB Listing of Hydrostatic Design Basis (HDB), Hydrostatic Design Stress (HDS), Strength Design Basis (SDB), Pressure Design Basis (PDB) and Minimum Required Strength (MRS) Ratings For Thermoplastic Piping Materials or Pipe. Reference to the 2024 edition of the standard will replace the existing reference within 49 CFR 192.121(a) to PPI TR-3/2012, “Policies and Procedures for Developing Hydrostatic Design Basis (HDB), Hydrostatic Design Stresses (HDS), Pressure Design Basis (PDB), Strength Design Basis (SDB), Minimum Required Strength (MRS) Ratings, and Categorized Required Strength (CRS) for Thermoplastic Piping Materials or Pipe,” issued in November 2012.

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directing Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated version of the specification and concluded that it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. Indeed, PHMSA had in 2022 proposed to update references within part 192 to an intermediate (2021) edition of this standard after preliminarily finding the revisions in that edition enhanced pipeline safety (87 FR 57213, 52723 (Aug. 19, 2022)); PHMSA's evaluation of the handful of changes introduced in the standard since 2021 yield a similar conclusion regarding their safety impact. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties[.]”

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR part 192.

The PPI standards incorporated in this final rule are available from the following website: https://www.plasticpipe.org/PPI-Home/ALL-PPI-PUB/Technical-Reports.aspx.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0131 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brianna Wilson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at brianna.wilson@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)) as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In fact, updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of this standard within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standard. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standard to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”)  9 obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. 10 This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR part 192 as follows:

Through this DFR, PHMSA is incorporating by reference an update to a voluntary, consensus industry technical standard already incorporated by reference within the pipeline safety regulations (PSRs, 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) parts 192 and 195). Specifically, PHMSA is updating the referenced edition of industry standard American Petroleum Institute (API) Specification 6D, Specification for Valves to the 25th edition (issued in November 1, 2021) of that specification.

This standard prescribes requirements for the design, manufacturing, materials, welding, quality control, assembly, testing, marking, documentation, and process controls of axial, ball, check, gate, and plug valves for application in the natural gas industry. References to the 25th edition of the standard will replace existing references in §§ 192.145(a) and 195.116(d) to API Specification Spec 6D, “Specification for Pipeline and Piping Valves,” 24th edition, August 2014, including Errata 1 through 10 (October 2014 through July 2021), Addendum 1 (March 2015), and Addendum 2 (June 2016).

This updated standard will maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (15 United States Code (U.S.C.) 272 (note)) directs Federal agencies to “use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standard bodies instead of government-developed technical standards,” “when practical and consistent with applicable laws.” Consistent with that mandate, PHMSA incorporates more than 80 industry standards by reference into the PSRs; however, many standards become outdated over time as new editions become available. By updating these standards, PHMSA ensures better alignment of the PSRs with the latest innovations in operational and management practices, materials, testing, and technological advancements; enhances compliance by avoiding conflict between different versions of the same industry standards; and facilitates safety-focused allocation of resources by pipeline operators. PHMSA technical experts have also evaluated the changes in the updated edition of the standard and concluded it will either maintain or enhance the protection of public safety. PHMSA further concludes that the direct final rule's updated standard is technically feasible, reasonable, cost-effective, and practicable because of its respective anticipated commercial and public safety benefits; and because the benefits better support PHMSA's safety priorities compared to alternatives, thereby justifying any associated compliance costs.

Pursuant to section 24 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L. 112-90, 49 U.S.C. 60102(p), as amended), “the Secretary may not issue a regulation pursuant to this chapter that incorporates any documents or portions thereof unless the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public, free of charge.” On November 7, 2014, the Office of the Federal Register issued a final rule that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require every Federal agency to “[d]iscuss, in the preamble of the proposed rule, the ways that the materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably available to interested parties or how it worked to make those materials reasonably available to interested parties” (79 FR 66267).

PHMSA consequently has negotiated agreements to make viewable copies of the standards available to the public at no cost. American Petroleum Institute (API) agreed to the public access requirements of the statutory mandate discussed above. The organization's mailing address and website is listed in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195.

The API standard incorporated in this direct final rule is available from the following website: https://publications.api.org/IBR-Documents-Under-Consideration.aspx.

Additional information regarding standards availability can be found at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/standards-incorporated-reference.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0119 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brianna Wilson, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at brianna.wilson@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that this direct final rule—which updates an industry standard already incorporated by reference in the PSRs—is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”); 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not been designated as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule may result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators. In fact, updates to consensus industry standards are generally accepted and followed on a voluntary basis throughout most of the pipeline industry. PHMSA understands that most pipeline operators already purchase and voluntarily apply industry standards—including the updated standard that is the subject of this rulemaking—within their ordinary business practices. Incorporation of the updated version of these standards within the PSRs will help ensure that the industry is not forced to incur the additional cost of complying with different versions of the same standard. Those cost savings may also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule is a deregulatory action pursuant to E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”; 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 25, 2025)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the direct final rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor do the proposals herein implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators the benefit of using the updated standard to maintain or improve public safety, prevent regulatory confusion, and reduce compliance burdens on stakeholders. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA unless the agency head certifies that the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA expects no affected operators will face significant costs because the reference is freely available, most operators are already in compliance, and compliance cost differences between standards are expected to be negligible. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page.

This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve a regulatory burden and therefore PHMSA certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either state, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Policies and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

For the reasons set forth above, PHMSA amends 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 as follows:

PHMSA requires operators to perform periodic patrols of gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline rights-of-way (ROW). Section 192.705 requires operators to patrol gas transmission pipelines between one and four times each calendar year, depending on the class location of the pipeline and whether the pipeline is located at a highway or railroad crossing. Similarly, § 195.412 requires hazardous liquid pipeline operators inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline ROW at least 26 times each year. Both sections specify that patrols or inspections may include walking, driving, flying, or other appropriate means of traversing the ROW. During these inspections, an operator patrols the ROW to identify indications of leaks or threats to pipeline integrity, such as construction, excavation activity, and earth movement. While these are primarily visual inspections, PHMSA is aware of operators who integrate additional sensing technologies, such as thermal imaging or light detection and ranging sensors to identify leaks, earth movement, the condition of water crossings, and other safety risks, in conducting ROW patrols.

PHMSA has clarified in interpretation letters that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS, commonly known as drones) and satellite surveillance may satisfy patrol requirements, so long as they provide current information and imaging quality comparable to traditional aerial patrols (PI-19-0005 (Aug. 1, 2019), PI-21-0006 (Jul. 13, 2021)). However, PHMSA has never clarified this explicitly in the regulation, resulting in regulatory uncertainty that discourages the adoption of cost-effective, advanced technologies. In response to a DOT request for information on deregulation (90 FR 14593 (Apr. 3, 2025)), the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association (LEPA) recommended PHMSA “state clearly in regulation (not just interpretive guidance) that drone and satellite technology is eligible for inspecting ROWs” (Docket No. DOT-OST-2025-0026-0874 (May 5, 2025)).

To provide operators with additional regulatory certainty and encourage the use of cost-effective, advanced technologies, this rule revises §§ 192.705 and 195.412 to authorize explicitly UAS, satellite surveillance, and other technologies suitable for observing current surface conditions in conducting ROW patrols. This amendment will reduce potential barriers to the use of these technologies, resulting in potential cost savings and safety and environmental benefits. UAS and satellite surveys are often less expensive than ground-based surveys or surveys conducted with traditional fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft. A UAS or satellite patrol is also less likely to create risks to operator personnel, particularly when compared with patrols conducted using traditional ground-based or aerial technologies. Finally, satellite and UAS patrols are also likely to have lower local air quality and noise impacts when compared with traditional methods as UAS are lower in mass than traditional aircraft and often use battery-electric propulsion.

PHMSA notes that while UAS are authorized for compliance with pipeline ROW patrol requirements under §§ 192.705 and 195.412, nothing in this rule affects other regulatory obligations regarding the commercial operation of UAS in the National Airspace System.

Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0118 at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.

Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sayler Palabrica, Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at sayler.palabrica@dot.gov. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review the documents in person at the street address listed above.

This direct final rule is published under the authority of the Secretary of Transportation set forth in the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. ) and delegated to the PHMSA Administrator pursuant to 49 CFR 1.97. PHMSA has determined that the clarification included in this direct final rule is unlikely to elicit significant adverse comment. See 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(6)(A); 49 CFR 190.339.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B (“Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking”), requires agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” DOT Order 2100.6B specifies that regulations should generally “not be issued unless their benefits are expected to exceed their costs.” In arriving at those conclusions, E.O. 12866 requires that agencies should consider “both quantifiable measures . . . and qualitative measures of costs and benefits that are difficult to quantify” and “maximize net benefits . . . unless a statute requires another regulatory approach.” E.O. 12866 also requires that “agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.” DOT Order 2100.6B directs that PHMSA and other Operating Administrations must generally choose the “least costly regulatory alternative that achieves the relevant objectives” unless required by law or compelling safety need.

E.O. 12866 and DOT Order 2100.6B also require that PHMSA submit “significant regulatory actions” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This direct final rule is a not significant regulatory action pursuant to E.O. 12866; it also has not designated this rule as a “major rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

PHMSA has complied with the procedural and analytical requirements in E.O. 12866 as implemented by DOT Order 2100.6B and determined that this direct final rule will result in cost savings by reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty for pipeline facility operators by explicitly stating that certain cost-effective technologies are permitted. PHMSA expects those cost savings will also result in reduced costs for the public to whom pipeline operators generally transfer a portion of their compliance costs. The cost savings of this rulemaking could not be quantified.

This direct final rule will be a deregulatory action pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”; 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)). PHMSA estimates that the total costs of the rule on the regulated community will be less than zero. Nor does this rulemaking implicate any of the factors identified in section 2(a) of E.O. 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative”) indicative that a regulation is “unlawful . . . [or] that undermine[s] the national interest.” (90 FR 10583 (Feb. 25, 2025)).

The President has declared in E.O. 14156 (“Declaring a National Energy Emergency”; (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) a national emergency to address America's inadequate energy development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity. Similarly, E.O. 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy,” (90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025)) asserts a Federal policy to unleash American energy by ensuing access to abundant supplies of reliable, affordable energy from (inter alia) the removal of “undue burden[s]” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources such as PHMSA-jurisdictional gasses and hazardous liquids. PHMSA finds this direct final rule is consistent with each of E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14154. The direct final rule will give affected pipeline operators regulatory certainty that cost-effective advanced technologies such as UAS and satellites are approved compliance methods. PHMSA therefore expects the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule will in turn increase national pipeline transportation capacity and improve pipeline operators' ability to provide abundant, reliable, affordable natural gas and petroleum products in response to residential, commercial, and industrial demand.

However, this direct final rule is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”; (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), which requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action.” Because this direct final rule is not a significant action under E.O. 12866, it will not have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use; OIRA has therefore not designated this direct final rule as a significant energy action.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 (“Federalism”; 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)) and the Presidential Memorandum (“Preemption”) published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). E.O. 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

While the direct final rule may operate to preempt some State requirements, it will not impose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Section 60104(c) of Federal Pipeline Safety Laws prohibits certain State safety regulation of interstate pipelines. Under Federal Pipeline Safety Laws, States that have submitted a current certification under section 60105(a) can augment Federal pipeline safety requirements for intrastate pipelines regulated by PHMSA but may not approve safety requirements less stringent than those required by Federal law. A State may also regulate an intrastate pipeline facility that PHMSA does not regulate. The preemptive effect of the regulatory amendments in this direct final rule is limited to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the Federal Pipeline Safety Laws. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of E.O. 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to conduct a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a direct final rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act unless the agency head certifies that the proposed rule in the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. E.O. 13272 (“Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking”; 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002)) obliges agencies to establish procedures promoting compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. DOT posts its implementing guidance on a dedicated web page. This direct final rule was developed in accordance with E.O. 13272 and DOT implementing guidance to ensure compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. PHMSA expects that this direct final rule will relieve regulatory burdens and therefore certifies the direct final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. For any proposed or direct final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively assesses the costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.

This direct final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under UMRA because it does not result in costs of $100 million or more (in 1996 dollars) per year for either State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) requires that Federal agencies assess and consider the impact of major Federal actions on the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule in accordance with NEPA and issues this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), as it has determined that the rulemaking will not adversely affect safety and therefore will not significantly affect the quality of the human and natural environment.

PHMSA analyzed this direct final rule according to the principles and criteria in E.O. 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and DOT Order 5301.1A (“Department of Transportation Tribal Consultation Polices and Procedures”). E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input from Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities by imposing “substantial direct compliance costs” or “substantial direct effects” on such communities or the relationship or distribution of power between the Federal Government and Tribes.

PHMSA assessed the impact of the direct final rule and determined that it will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities or Indian Tribal governments. The rulemaking's regulatory amendments have a broad, national scope; therefore, this direct final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect Tribal communities, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate Tribal action. For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1A do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies with an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This rulemaking will not create, amend, or rescind any existing information collections.

E.O. 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”; 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012)) requires agencies consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA engages with international standards setting bodies to protect the safety of the American public. PHMSA has assessed the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade.

E.O. 14028 (“Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity”; 86 FR 26633 (May 17, 2021)) directed the Federal Government to improve its efforts to identify, deter, and respond to “persistent and increasingly sophisticated malicious cyber campaigns.” PHMSA has considered the effects of the direct final rule and has determined that its regulatory amendments will not materially affect the cybersecurity risk profile for pipeline facilities.

In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 as follows: