[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 4, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23660-23663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10090]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, and 199
[Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0050]
RIN 2137-AF73
Pipeline Safety: Mandatory Regulatory Reviews To Unleash American
Energy and Improve Government Efficiency
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on whether to repeal or amend
any requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations to eliminate undue
burdens on the identification, development, and use of domestic energy
resources and to improve government efficiency.
DATES: Comments on this ANPRM must be submitted by August 4, 2025.
PHMSA will consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
using any of the following ways:
E-Gov Web: https://www.regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by
any agency. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590-0001 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0050 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://
[[Page 23661]]
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
There is a privacy statement published on https://www.regulations.gov.
Privacy Act Statement: 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 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 the 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 the
following: Alyssa Imam, Transportation Specialist by telephone at 202-
738-3850, or by email at [email protected]. Hard copies may be sent
to 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. 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 https://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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alyssa Imam, Transportation
Specialist, by telephone at 202-738-3850 or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on whether to repeal or amend
any requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR; 49 CFR parts
190 through 199)--as well as any letters of interpretation, guidance
documents, or other materials implementing those regulations--to
eliminate undue burdens on the identification, development, and use of
domestic energy resources and to improve government efficiency.\1\
PHMSA also solicits stakeholder feedback on whether to amend the PSR to
require PHMSA conduct periodic, mandatory regulatory reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PHMSA has recently solicited stakeholder feedback on
potential improvements and updates of certain PSR, as well as
estimating the costs and benefits of any potential changes. See
PHMSA, ``Pipeline Safety: Amendments to Liquefied Natural Gas
Facilities,'' 90 FR 18949 (May 5, 2025); and PHMSA, ``Pipeline
Safety: Repair Criteria for Hazardous Liquid and Gas Transmission
Pipelines,'' 90 FR 21715 (May 21, 2025). PHMSA encourages
stakeholders to submit comments to both the docket for this ANPRM as
well as the dockets for those ANPRMs as pertinent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
PHMSA's pipeline safety program plays an essential role in the
energy supply chain, ensuring the safe, reliable, and affordable
transportation of energy products to millions of ordinary Americans.
The PSR apply to more than 3.3 million miles of pipelines that are used
to transport natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum products, carbon
dioxide, and other gases and hazardous liquids to end users. The PSR
also ensure the safety of nearly 400 underground natural gas storage
(UNGS) facilities and 177 liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities--from
peak shaving facilities operated by local distribution companies to
large-scale export terminals supplying natural gas to U.S. allies and
trading partners around the world.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See generally PHMSA, ``Pipeline Miles and Facilities
2010+,'' https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/analytics/saw.dll?Portalpages&PortalPath=%2Fshared%2FPDM%20Public%20website%2F_portal%2FPublic%20Reports&Page=Infrastructure (last accessed Apr.
29, 2025) (compiling data from annual reports submitted to PHMSA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 3,000 operators of transportation-related pipelines, UNGS
facilities, and LNG facilities are responsible for complying with the
PSR, each of whom must invest scarce resources to satisfy PHMSA's
design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and reporting
requirements. The costs of these investments are passed along to other
entities in the energy supply chain (including downstream shippers and
pipeline systems, oil and gas companies, and electric and gas
utilities), to the industrial manufacturing and commercial goods
sectors, and, ultimately, to the American consumer. PHMSA has an
obligation to ensure that the burdens imposed by its regulations on all
potential stakeholders are necessary for the PSR to serve the public
interest.
Conducting periodic, retrospective reviews of the PSR is one way to
achieve that objective. Presidents of both political parties dating to
the 1970s have called on Federal agencies to conduct broad reviews of
existing regulations by Executive order (E.O.),\3\ and scholars and
other experts in administrative law have long touted the benefits of
conducting retrospective regulatory reviews.\4\ The Department of
Transportation (DOT) requires review of regulations on a 10-year review
cycle, as specified by 11(d) of DOT Order 2011.6B, ``Policies and
Procedures for Rulemakings.'' \5\ DOT previously issued plans and
regulations requiring retrospective review \6\ and solicited
stakeholder input to inform those reviews on multiple occasions--and is
currently taking recommendations on the DOT-wide opportunities for
modification or repeal of regulations to reduce compliance burdens.\7\
Congress requires periodic regulatory reviews on a limited scale;
section 610 of the
[[Page 23662]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires PHMSA and
other agencies to conduct post-issuance review of agency rules that
impose a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities'' such as small business and local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See E.O. 12044, ``Improving Government Regulation,'' 43 FR
12661 (Mar. 24, 1978); E.O. 12291, ``Federal Regulation,'' 46 FR
13193 (Feb. 19, 1981); E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993); E.O. 13563 ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).
\4\ See, e.g., Lori S. Bennear and Jonathan B. Wiener,
``Periodic Review of Agency Regulation'' (June 7, 2021) (report to
the Admin. Conf. of the United States).
\5\ DOT Order 2100.6B, ``Policies and Procedures for
Rulemakings'' (Mar. 10, 2025), available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-03/Rulemaking%20Order%202100.6B%20Signed%203.10.2025.pdf.
\6\ DOT-Office of the Secretary, ``Plan for Implementation of
Executive Order 13563'' (Aug. 2, 2011); DOT-Office of the Secretary,
``Administrative Rulemaking, Guidance, and Enforcement Procedures,''
84 FR 71714 (Dec. 27, 2019), previously codified in 49 CFR part 5,
repealed by DOT-Office of the Secretary, ``Administrative
Rulemaking, Guidance and Enforcement Procedures,'' 86 FR 17292
(April 2, 2021).
\7\ DOT--Office of the Secretary, ``Notification of Regulatory
Review,'' 82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017); DOT-Office of the Secretary,
``Ensuring Lawful Regulation: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' 90 FR 14593 (Apr. 3, 2025). Congress has also
passed legislation providing for periodic regulatory reviews on a
limited scale; for example, section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires post-issuance review
of agency rules imposing a significant impact on a ``substantial
number of small entities'' such as small business and local
governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a new focus for PHMSA, which has conducted broad
retrospective regulatory reviews in the past.\8\ However, PHMSA expects
that further improvements to its regulations can be made to reduce
burdens. The PSR contain requirements that have been in effect for
decades without undergoing a comprehensive cost-benefit review.\9\
Indeed, Congress did not even require DOT to perform a cost-benefit
analysis to support the addition of new safety standards to the PSR
until enactment of the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act
of 1996, Public Law 104-304, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60102(b)(5). The
Federal courts have also raised serious questions about the rigor of
cost-benefit analyses used to support some provisions in recent
rulemakings addressing pipeline safety; \10\ commenters have echoed
those concerns in subsequent rulemaking proceedings.\11\ Though the
costs of many--and perhaps most--of the provisions in the PSR are
justified by their benefits, conducting periodic, and comprehensive,
regulatory reviews ensures that any compliance burdens remain justified
in light of the evolution of technology, operator practices, and
PHMSA's regulatory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., DOT, ``Plan for Implementation of E.O. 13564:
Retrospective Review and Analysis of Existing Rules'' (Aug. 2011);
PHMSA, ``Pipeline Safety: Gas Pipeline Regulatory Reform,'' 86 FR
2210 (Jan. 11, 2021).
\9\ Hazardous Materials Regulations Board, ``Transportation of
Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline; Minimum Safety Standards,'' 35 FR
13248 (Aug. 19, 1970) (establishing parts 190 and 192 regulations);
Hazardous Materials Regulations Board, ``Requirements for Design,
Construction, Operation, and Maintenance,'' 34 FR 15473 (Oct. 4,
1969) (establishing part 195 regulations); Research and Special
Projects Administration, ``Liquefied Natural Gas facilities; New
Federal Standards,'' 45 FR 9184 (Feb. 11, 1980).
\10\ See GPA Midstream Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 67 F.4th
1188 (D.C. Cir. 2023); INGAA v. PHMSA, 114 F.4th 744, 756 (D.C. Cir.
2024).
\11\ See INGAA, Initial Comments on Gas Pipeline Leak Detection
and Repair NPRM'' at 2 (Aug. 16, 2023) (referencing PHMSA, ``Final
Rule--Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Repair
Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection,
Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments,'' 87 FR 52224
(Aug. 24, 2022) (2137-AF39)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like his predecessors, President Trump has issued a series of E.O.s
directing PHMSA and other Federal agencies to take a hard look at their
existing regulations, particularly with respect to those that impose
burdens on the energy sector.\12\ E.O. 14154, ``Unleashing American
Energy,'' mandates at section 3 that ``the heads of all agencies shall
review all existing regulations . . . to identify those agency actions
that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use
of domestic energy resources . . . .'' Similarly, section 1 of E.O.
14156, ``Declaring a National Energy Emergency,'' promotes the
integrity and expansion of U.S. energy infrastructure to ensure a
``reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our
Nation's manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense
industries and to sustain the basics of modern life and military
preparedness.'' Lastly, E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' acknowledges at section 1 that the cumulative burden
placed on ``[U.S.] economic growth and ability to build and innovate,
and hampers [U.S.] global competitiveness'' and therefore calls on
agencies to identify opportunities to alleviate unnecessary regulatory
compliance burdens imposed on industry and the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,''
90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025); E.O. 14152, ``Unleashing American
Energy,'' 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14156, ``Declaring a
National Energy Emergency,'' 90 FR 8433 (Jan. 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To serve the public interest and satisfy the requirements in
President Trump's recent directives, PHMSA is soliciting stakeholder
feedback on, among other things: (1) identification of regulatory
provisions within those parts of the PSR listed in section III below--
including any implementing guidance including interpretations of those
regulations--that could impose an undue burden on identification,
development, and use of domestic energy resources, or that are examples
of government inefficiency insofar as they impose outsized compliance
burdens for comparatively small safety benefits or limit technological
innovation; (2) the nature and magnitude of those burdens, including
identification of the regulated entities--i.e., the specific categories
of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities--burdened, as well as
the compliance costs and implementation challenges experienced by those
entities; (3) potential amendments including rescission to those
regulatory provisions; (4) the incremental compliance costs and
benefits (including benefits pertaining to avoided compliance costs,
safety harms, and environmental harms) anticipated from those
amendments; and (5) the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-
effectiveness, and practicability of those potential amendments. PHMSA
may also consider adopting a procedural requirement mandating periodic
regulatory reviews (e.g., on a 5- or 3-year cycle) of the provisions in
the PSR. PHMSA may hold a public meeting soon to supplement or to
clarify the materials received in response to this ANPRM.
With respect to incremental cost and benefit information, PHMSA is
seeking per-unit, aggregate, and programmatic (both one-time
implementing and recurring) data. Explanation of the bases or
methodologies employed in generating cost and benefit data, including
data sources and calculations, is valuable so that PHMSA can explain
the support for any estimates it is able to provide that accompany a
proposed rule, and other commenters may weigh in on the validity and
accuracy of the data. Please also identify the baseline (e.g., a
particular edition of a consensus industry standard; widespread
voluntary operator practice; or documentation of sample surveys and
other operator level data or information) from which those incremental
costs and benefits arise. When estimates are approximate or uncertain,
consider using a range or specifying the distribution in other ways.
When responding to a specific question below please note the topic
letter and question number in your comment. PHMSA will review and
evaluate all comments received, as well as late-filed comments to the
extent practicable.
Topics Under Consideration
Procedural Regulations and Actions
1. Should PHMSA consider incorporating within its PSR an explicit
requirement to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews at specified
intervals to eliminate undue burdens and improve government efficiency?
Please identify any specific regulatory language would be appropriate
for that purpose. What interval would be appropriate? How should PHMSA
provide opportunities for stakeholder engagement in those reviews?
2. Can PHMSA eliminate undue burdens or improve government
efficiency by taking any actions with respect to its oversight of State
authorities or involvement with other Federal agencies? Please identify
specific actions that PHMSA should consider for this purpose.
3. What number of small businesses, small organizations, or small
government jurisdictions, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 6010 et seq.) and its implementing regulations, operate
different categories
[[Page 23663]]
of PHMSA-jurisdictional gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide
pipeline facilities? Please provide information about the nature and
types of activities of small businesses and other small entities
operating in midstream gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide
pipeline sectors. Are there any existing PSR requirements that
disproportionately impact small businesses or other small entities in
the sector? Are there alternative regulatory approaches the agency
should consider that would achieve its regulatory objectives while
minimizing any significant economic impact on small businesses or other
small entities?
4. Do PHMSA's regulations, implementing guidance, or practices
governing special permits (49 CFR 190.341) impose an undue burden on
affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific amendments to
regulations, guidance, or protocols meriting consideration, as well as
the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those actions.
5. Do PHMSA's compliance practices with respect to the National
Environmental Policy Act place an undue burden on affected
stakeholders? Are there any categorical exclusions that PHMSA should
adopt? If so, please identify the activities that should be considered
for a categorical exclusion, as well as the technical, safety, and
environmental bases for adding those categorical exclusions. Are there
any categorical exclusions employed by other Federal agencies that
PHMSA should adopt pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4336c?
6. Do annual user fees (49 U.S.C. 60301 et seq.) and charges (e.g.,
cost recovery pipeline facility design and construction reviews
pursuant to 49 CFR part 190, subpart E) imposed by PHMSA place an undue
burden on affected stakeholders? If so, please identify specific fees,
the regulated entities adversely affected by those fees, and any
alternative fee structures meriting consideration.
7. Are there any interpretations (Sec. 190.11), approvals (Sec.
190.9), or special permits (Sec. 190.341) that should be incorporated
into the PSR to eliminate undue burdens or improve government
efficiency? Should PHMSA adopt a procedure in the PSR to facilitate the
incorporation of similar actions in the future?
Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190 and 191 Through 199)
1. What provisions of the PSR either impose an undue burden on
identification, development, and use of domestic energy resources, or
are examples of government inefficiency, insofar as they impose
outsized compliance burdens for comparatively small safety benefits or
limit technological innovation? Are there any PSR provisions that are
unnecessary because their safety benefits that are adequately addressed
by other PSR requirements?
2. Do any of the terms defined in the PSR impose an undue burden on
affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory
amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
3. Are there any requirements in the PSR that impose undue burdens
on owners and operators of gathering lines? Please identify any
specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as
the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those
recommended amendments.
4. Do the reporting and notification requirements (e.g., part 191,
Sec. 193.2011, and part 195, subpart B) in the PSR impose an undue
burden on affected stakeholders? Are any of those reporting
requirements inefficient because of their limited safety value compared
to their associated costs? Please identify any specific regulatory
amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
5. Are there any consensus industry standards or recommended
practices (or updated editions thereof) that should be incorporated by
reference into the PSR to eliminate undue burdens or improve government
efficiency? Please identify the pertinent standards and recommended
practices that PHMSA should consider incorporating by reference, the
specific provisions of the PSR that should be used for that purpose,
and the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those
recommended amendments.
6. Are there any material, design, testing, construction, or
corrosion control requirements in parts 192 (subparts B through I), 193
(subparts C through E), and 195 (subparts C through E and H) of the
Pipeline Safety Regulation that impose an undue burden on affected
stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that
PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic
reasons (include a description and number of the affected pipeline
facilities) supporting those recommended amendments.
7. Are there any operating and maintenance requirements in parts
192 (subparts L through M), 193 (subparts F through G), and 195
(subpart F) of the PSR that impose an undue burden on affected
stakeholders? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that
PHMSA should consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic
reasons (include a description and number of the affected pipeline
facilities) supporting those recommended amendments.
8. Are there any personnel qualification and training requirements
in parts 192 (subpart N), 193 (subpart H), and 195 (subpart G) of the
PSR that impose undue burdens on affected stakeholders? Please identify
any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well
as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a description
and number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting those
recommended amendments.
9. Do any of the integrity management requirements in part 192
(subparts O and P) or 195 (Sec. Sec. 195.450 through 452) impose an
undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please identify any specific
regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider, as well as the
technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a description and
number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting those
recommended amendments.
10. Do any of the siting requirements for LNG facilities in 49 CFR
part 193, subpart B, impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders?
Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should
consider, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons
(include a description and number of the affected pipeline facilities)
supporting those recommended amendments.
11. Do any of the drug and alcohol testing requirements in part 199
(which incorporates by reference Departmental requirements at 49 CFR
part 40) impose an undue burden on affected stakeholders? Please
identify any specific regulatory amendments that PHMSA should consider,
as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons (include a
description and number of the affected pipeline facilities) supporting
those recommended amendments.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 2025, under the authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Benjamin D. Kochman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-10090 Filed 6-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P